Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay.LordGriffin has commented on some DOOM threads before. Definitely not Ovens since he's taking a break.
I don't think we can make a consensus till Ultima talks out his stuff with Firestorm, since that's the main point of contention right now. I'd suggest waiting till Ultima talks with Firestorm, because I don't see this thread going anywhere productive till that happens & there's no need to rush it.
Sure. Apologies for my absence on this thread (And other ones, for the matter)Would you be willing to help out here please?
Not something you can quantify in a grammatical sense, yes, but they can still refer to things that themselves are quantifiable. For example, "infinite in size" is a sentence that involves an uncountable noun, but it nevertheless refers to a property of a thing that is quantifiable (Its size). Same thing would apply here.I simply pointed out that uncountable nouns are "not something you can quantify." (At least without an additional countable part such as "pounds" or "pieces" which are NOT used here) In this situation specifically, the only definition that can possibly meet this criterion is "dimension" as in the concept of dimensions. The idea that "dimension" in this quote refers to measurements contradicts this criterion (measurements are countable and can be quantified).
The line wouldn't actually be larger that the square, since the amount of room it'd take up in a plane would ultimately be just 0, same for a square in a 3-D space, and a cube in a 4-D space, and so on. That analogy is pretty bad on multiple levels and doesn't even seem to apply here, regardless, since we seem to be talking about a void that encompasses reality.It's a bit paradoxical. If you mean Space B being larger as in its dimensionality then that's one thing, but lower dimensional things can be larger around higher dimensional things, just not cover them whole. You can draw a big line across a smaller 2-D square, put a 3-D cube in the middle of & through a larger 2-D space, and so on. If the thing that makes Space B special in a verse is that "beings live in it" or "it's a notable place known about", then so what?
I mean, yeah. Infinite 4-D objects = Infinite 4-D space being taken up, and therefore infinite hypervolume. It is a fact.If you don't say "Object A has infinite 4-D volume" as a fact, but a conclusion you make based on what it is (A multiverse)
What?then it should be easier to visualize how Space B is 4-D, and Object A's limits are where the multiverse ends rather than where the 4-D space ends.
Why would we assume this?Outside this context, higher dimensional spaces can exist w/o the spaces outside them being higher. Remove here the fact that Space B is larger and if Object A exist in a self-contained way, bigger in the inside than how it is outside then the space outside it can be of a lower dimensionality.
I believe this part is metaphorical, but you're otherwise fine.It's said that True Vega can hold a 2-A system in his arms.
The same thing would not apply here. "Measurements" are countable and quantifiable in both whatever sense you are talking about AND in the grammatical sense though (Ex: one measurement, a measurement, some measurements, two measurements), so "dimension" meaning "measurements" still contradicts the way the word is used since "dimension" is being used as a word that is unquantifiable in the grammatical sense. The fact still stands that in the quote, "dimension" must refer to the concept of spatial dimensions since there is nothing else it can mean.Not something you can quantify in a grammatical sense, yes, but they can still refer to things that themselves are quantifiable. For example, "infinite in size" is a sentence that involves an uncountable noun, but it nevertheless refers to a property of a thing that is quantifiable (Its size). Same thing would apply here.
The meaning is wider than that, argue how something is x tier by presenting another example of something having been already agreed to be x tier and claim that those are our standards counts. I meant the comment before my own, your approach to examples isn't the same.Referring to previous similar cases as precedent isn't whataboutism. It's a common practice on the site and in actual court rooms.
'Whataboutism' involves accusing others of offenses as a way of deflecting attention from one's own deeds. That's not what I'm doing. I'm verifying the consistency of the tiering system application.
I too got little info on that void. From the point of view of the line, it would be larger if the line is all the measure of size it knows. From the 2-D point of view of 2-D space, it would just see a small 2-D square rather the 3-D cube it is. And so on.The line wouldn't actually be larger that the square, since the amount of room it'd take up in a plane would ultimately be just 0, same for a square in a 3-D space, and a cube in a 4-D space, and so on. That analogy is pretty bad on multiple levels and doesn't even seem to apply here, regardless, since we seem to be talking about a void that encompasses reality.
I proposed infinite 4-D objects being next to some other 4-D structure bigger, but not qualitatively bigger. The former objects may be confirmed to be 4-D, but that doesn't necessarily mean that where they end there is no more 4-D space. Those infinite objects may be called a "multiverse" in-universe, or by fans for practicality's sake (Since multiverse-like structures aren't always called multiverses), but that's not synonymous to their ends being the end of 4-D things.I mean, yeah. Infinite 4-D objects = Infinite 4-D space being taken up, and therefore infinite hypervolume. It is a fact.
What?
If there is anti-evidence that they are higher dimensional spaces. It's common for fiction to make universes, timelines, multiverses and so on spheres or equivalent things that are bigger in the inside to how they look in a confirmed way rather than some inapplicable visual, or adjust characters & things' dimensions when going into higher & lower dimensional spaces.Why would we assume this?
I suppose they haven't yet, but I also tried messaging Ultima about this and he hasn't replied to my message yet.So have you reached agreements about anything here yet?
That is unfortunate.I suppose they haven't yet, but I also tried messaging Ultima about this and he hasn't replied to my message yet.
Living in a realm that is X tier doesn't exactly mean you scale to it, though. Davoth would still need some evidence that he can affect the void in some way that'd net Low 1-C AP.Book of the Seraphs and Story of Hell
It is written by the Seraphs that when the void first appeared, Davoth alone swept across it. New realities bloomed where he lingered. Jekkad was the first sprung forth from him. Here, the Father experimented until he created Urdak.
Davoth lived in the primordial plane larger than the multiple 2-A structures he created.
The scan on the profile only has (what I assume is) a developer confirming thet Hell is an extension of Davoth, which doesn't exactly do much to suggest that it's literally infinitesimal to him, or something like that, just that it is a part of him, and when it comes to infinity, a part is not necessarily larger than the whole.Davoth created Hell to be a small part of his being, and Hell is infinite in length, width, height, and time.
I assume this is referring to this?:It's said that True Vega can hold a 2-A system in his arms.
Foreseeing that Davoth's rule would ultimately grow to threaten all creation, and that Davoth would someday rise to challenge the Father himself, the creator of all things sealed Jekkad off from the myriad dimensions enfolded in his arms.
I'll respond to said message in a bit, by the by.I suppose they haven't yet, but I also tried messaging Ultima about this and he hasn't replied to my message yet.
To clarify, you are agreeing that Davoth is larger than Hell since Hell is the smaller infinity "part" of him?The scan on the profile only has (what I assume is) a developer confirming thet Hell is an extension of Davoth, which doesn't exactly do much to suggest that it's literally infinitesimal to him, or something like that, just that it is a part of him, and when it comes to infinity, a part is not necessarily larger than the whole.
The statement is meant to be used in conjunction with the others.Living in a realm that is X tier doesn't exactly mean you scale to it, though. Davoth would still need some evidence that he can affect the void in some way that'd net Low 1-C AP.
I assume this is referring to this?:
Foreseeing that Davoth's rule would ultimately grow to threaten all creation, and that Davoth would someday rise to challenge the Father himself, the creator of all things sealed Jekkad off from the myriad dimensions enfolded in his arms.
If so, on its own that sounds pretty vague, and not necessarily literal, especially given singular realities like Urdak are described as "blooming around" the Creator (Which in this case would in truth be Davoth here, if the profile is anything to go by, yes?)
"I don't like it and I find it dumb so it must stupid and wank! 1!1!!!!1"And you believe it's stupid because...?
No worry, it is just that we reached 3 pages of discussion, any derailment is unneccessarySorry. I'll clear up the previous off-topic and empty posts.
Let's wait for him to reply since he had some questions prior.Okay. If Ultima also agrees now, we seem to have an overweight on the agree side here.