• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Dragon Ball: Finite Universe

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is correct.

The observable universe in Real Life doesn't have a center in the sense of "Geographical location in space". The center is the starting point in time.

AKA the Big Bang.
 
All those translation monstrosity is getting out of hand, I'll be neutral on this
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
That is correct.

The observable universe in Real Life doesn't have a center in the sense of "Geographical location in space". The center is the starting point in time.

AKA the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
the big bang has no such thing, it is an expansion, there no place in the universe it occured, since all was inside until it grew and expanded, and it is still expanding
 
I don't get how calling something poetic automatically invalidates what it says. Poetic=/=not literal and poetry often talks pretty literally with the difference to regular speech being a more provoking and aesthetic way of wording something, it doesn't mean what it's saying is meant to be an outright non literal hyperbole.
Infinitely expanding and galaxy illuminations ten of thousands of light years... Hundreds of millions of light years
Click to expand...
Does a statement that uses phrases like light years and assigns it specific numerical values in the same sentence really sound like it's supposed to be somethng non literal?
 
SSJGeminiJJ said:
I don't get how calling something poetic automatically invalidates what it says. Poetic=/=not literal and poetry often talks pretty literally with the difference to regular speech being a more provoking and aesthetic way of wording something, it doesn't mean what it's saying is meant to be an outright non literal hyperbole.

Does a statement that uses phrases like light years and assigns it specific numerical values in the same sentence really sound like it's supposed to be somethng non literal?
Click to expand...
i mean, the argument in the op is about the meaning and way that the word itself is used in japanes language
 
Herms' poetic statement is not only about the "Infinitely expanding and galaxy illuminations", but also to the "An infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives", as they are literally in the same section (Cover Art of Daizenshuu's 4 Universe Chapter).

The statement about an "infinite space" is pretty much what sums it up being not literal and supporting the other one being poetic, were it literally says that the universe is constituted by "Hundreds of millions of light years" and it's infinitely expanding (not actually infinite in size).
 
I'm honestly sick of attempted U-turns at this point, but I don't really care too much. Executor N0 has made it perfectly clear that the translations are valid, but whether or not they're "Hyperbolic" is up for debate. Even if it was Finite, I still think the universe should be much larger than our observable universe based on the old parameters we accepted. But once again, I still don't really care one way or the other beyond that. But leaning towards keeping them the way they are.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm honestly sick of attempted U-turns at this point, but I don't really care too much. Executor N0 has made it perfectly clear that the translations are valid, but whether or not they're "Hyperbolic" is up for debate. Even if it was Finite, I still think the universe should be much larger than our observable universe based on the old parameters we accepted. But once again, I still don't really care one way or the other beyond that. But leaning towards keeping them the way they are.
Click to expand...
Disagree FRA
 
Oh Boy!
This thread finally happened

I knew High 3-A Broly wasn't gonna last long

Currently I am leaning towards agreeing
I never understood why the GT statement was even used as evidence as it was obvious hyperbole

However I would like to hear some (Intelligent) opposition first before I make my decision
I also think we should double check the translations
Nostredam said:
I disagree with LuffyRuffy46307 disagreement. Takao Koyama is no reliable source in power scaling topics, as he contradicts himself several times due to be a "victim" of what I call a "desperate fan", which is when someone goes on social platforms to ask creators if their character is X or Y strong (like when Koyama was asked if Dragon Ball has an "infinite hierarchy of transcendent layers").

Not only that, but Koyama himself said that Broly cannot destroy the supposedly infinite-sized universe, which means that people who uses him as a source to high-balling Dragon Ball are shooting on their own feet, since he belives that Broly is below High 3-A:
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be the best thing to use to discredit High 3-A Broly as he explicitly say "The Macrocosm" which is 2-C

Which we already don't scale Broly to


Also for everyone complaining about Nostredam saying that them traveling to another quadrant makes them infinite and saying he's wrong

He's actually VERY right

We currently accept each Quadrant as 1/4th of infinity which is also infinite in size

Therefore travelling to another quadrant means traversing a distance equal to (If your at the very edge of the quadrant) 1/4th of infinity which once again is Infinite

So they would be travelling and infinite distance to get to another quadrant no matter where they resided at in the quadrant

Therefore infinite speed would have to be applied to spaceships as well as everyone relative to them which I believe makes a shit ton of characters infinite speed when they are very VERY clearly not
 
I agree with this ofcourse.
There is also a statement from DB Super : Episode 83
There are only 28 habitable planets left in entirety of universe 7 which itself rejects the notion of infinite universe.
 
Aachintya31 said:
There is also a statement from DB Super : Episode 83
There are only 28 habitable planets left in entirety of universe 7 which itself rejects the notion of infinite universe.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The amount of life in a universe has no barring on it's size.

As for the OP, if the misinterpretation of the scans are valid then I agree. However, I don't completely agree with the poetic argument.
 
Last edited:
Aachintya31 said:
I agree with this ofcourse.
There is also a statement from DB Super : Episode 83
There are only 28 habitable planets left in entirety of universe 7 which itself rejects the notion of infinite universe.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't, thats just the planets with life, that point doesn't debunk infinite universe at all
 
Firestorm808 said:
@Nostredam

To clarify, is the purpose of this thread to determine whether or not the Guide / Toei cosmology stuff should apply to the DBS/Chou continuity?
Click to expand...
Hey since most of the arguments rely on the interpretation/meaning of the scans can you get Executor to translate the scans in the op
Shmeatywerbenmanjenson said:
Oh Boy!
This thread finally happened

I knew High 3-A Broly wasn't gonna last long

Currently I am leaning towards agreeing
I never understood why the GT statement was even used as evidence as it was obvious hyperbole

However I would like to hear some (Intelligent) opposition first before I make my decision
I also think we should double check the translations

This wouldn't be the best thing to use to discredit High 3-A Broly as he explicitly say "The Macrocosm" which is 2-C

Which we already don't scale Broly to


Also for everyone complaining about Nostredam saying that them traveling to another quadrant makes them infinite and saying he's wrong

He's actually VERY right

We currently accept each Quadrant as 1/4th of infinity which is also infinite in size

Therefore travelling to another quadrant means traversing a distance equal to (If your at the very edge of the quadrant) 1/4th of infinity which once again is Infinite

So they would be travelling and infinite distance to get to another quadrant no matter where they resided at in the quadrant

Therefore infinite speed would have to be applied to spaceships as well as everyone relative to them which I believe makes a shit ton of characters infinite speed when they are very VERY clearly not
Click to expand...
No. the totality of the galaxies would be Infinite quadrants are merely cardinal directions and the distance between celestial objects can be finite in an infinite space also the sea analogy was used just because you’re heading off to space which has infinite galaxies doesn’t mean you’re exploring all infinite galaxies just because you’re heading off to the sea doesn’t mean you’re exploring the entire sea
 
Were there ever any infinitely expanding statements on the actual translations? I have only seen straight up infinite statements and infinitely expansive, gonna wait for valid translations, cause this OP relies heavily on the "flowery language" type arguments
 
It’s a poetic description of space as “infinitely extending darkness and the illumination of the galaxies”, “tens of thousand of light years...hundreds of millions of light years...” - Todd Blankenship/Herms. Todd himself says this is a poetic description, it seems like hes stating his opinion because the guy above him asked if it HAD to be taken literal. That doesn't mean it has to be poetic, especially when it uses the actual kanji "無限" which literally means infinite. Just because he says it is poetic shouldn't decide cosmology, when it doesn't even say infinitely expanding.
 
I also do not seems to agree with poetic arguement, Universe is either finite or Infinite, we cannot know what it is w/o direct Statements. And it has direct Statements. There is no mistranslations either, I also asked few knowledgeable members off site and came to know that fiction can show edge of Infinite to be a thing but the edge itself would be at Infinite distance away from the any point within the structure (It's a fiction after all).
 
From my understanding of the OP’s arguments, it’s less the statements are flowery and more they are inherently non-literal due to the definition of the language used.

it doesn’t seem as semantically viable as to argue about it compared to the same sentences written in English, based on the websites linked in the OP, it’s more like an inherent trait of the words used that it is indeed non-literal, otherwise the term mugen would have been used instead.

I suppose a close comparison would be to argue “countless” is supposed to be a non-poetic stand in for the term infinite, but to my knowledge I don’t think English has a word that’s definition is “infinite but not actually infinite literally”.

so the way I see it, it’s not a matter as to if the translations are correct but the words used has no English stand in, but the meaning is given to us in that the kanji does tell us it’s non-literal.

the closest piece of seemingly valid evidence is blatantly contradictory to the portrayal of universes in DBS in both manga and anime.

i don’t find the counter arguments to the OP to be compelling.
 
TiltedFN said:
It’s a poetic description of space as “infinitely extending darkness and the illumination of the galaxies”, “tens of thousand of light years...hundreds of millions of light years...” - Todd Blankenship/Herms. Todd himself says this is a poetic description, it seems like hes stating his opinion because the guy above him asked if it HAD to be taken literal. That doesn't mean it has to be poetic, especially when it uses the actual kanji "無限" which literally means infinite. Just because he says it is poetic shouldn't decide cosmology, when it doesn't even say infinitely expanding.
Click to expand...
"it uses the kanji infinite, therefore that makes it literal" is not how it works. What matters is the context.
 
TheGunsFinalWrath said:
"it uses the kanji infinite, therefore that makes it literal" is not how it works. What matters is the context.
Click to expand...
i agree with you on that, but i never said just because it uses the kanji says infinite, it is, you quoted me on something i never even said. And read the whole argument, i was using the kanji infinite as supporting evidence. Like how it aligns with infinite galaxies, and it doesn't have to be poetic just because todd said so, and how i haven't actually seen any infinitely expanding statements, only straight up infinite.
 
Nostredam said:
Idk why there are people thinking that the thread suggests that the translations are not valid. They are. Only the context of some words are misinterpreted.
Click to expand...
A lot of it. As far as I remember I never saw the OP saying that the translations were wrong, and only that they were misinterpreted. I don't know why people are talking about it so much.

In addition, in only two statements does he say that it is hyperbole or flowery language. And one of them, which is from Dainzeshuu 4, in addition to the OP explaining that it is "poetic", he also said that this statement was not even included in the Remake.
Also, it's worth noting that the canocity of said cover art is heavily dubious, as this page section of Daizenshuu 4 was considered so irrelevant that it wasn't even included in Chozenshu, which is the remake of Daizenshuu and, as people may know, it's reviewed by Akira Toriyama himself.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, the counter-arguments are based a lot on the translation side which the OP never said was wrong and a counter-argument was Koyama's statements, which from what I've seen, are not reliable.

I'm going to stay neutral because I don't want to participate too much in these crazy Dragon Ball CRTs, so I'm just letting you know what I think about the arguments and counterarguments.
 
Not to mention the OP is only using examples of it being used figuratively and acting like it just cant be used literally, when you click on the definitions it shows the same thing if you were to search up "endless" "seemingly having no limit". But also gives synonyms for similar words that can also be used in that context like infinite.
 
TiltedFN said:
Not to mention the OP is only using examples of it being used figuratively and acting like it just cant be used literally, when you click on the definitions it shows the same thing if you were to search up "endless" "seemingly having no limit". But also gives synonyms for similar words that can also be used in that context like infinite.
Click to expand...
That its true, for what i see neither Weblio, Collins or Linguee do directly conferm or stated that the term Hateshinai its strictly used for figuratively speeches and nothing else, when in most cases it is described as just as another synonyms for 無限/infinite.

Weblio: Only the 3rd section in the semantic section that term its used as example to describe things that are seemingly endless, but the others previous sections does show that the terms its usable in other situations.

Collins: None in the descriptions directly conferm/stated the term Hateshinai its strictly meant to metaphores and not literal descriptions, only that it can be used to describe something as infinite.

Linguee: Same with Collins.

All of this seen give me the impression that the OP its just playing with semantics.

What should matter here its the context which the statements/quotes come from if we want to determinate their validity, instead of focus to just a single word.
 
Last edited:
dddddd.png


I also decide to use Weblio to see what it say for 無限/mugen and it does show in the last section of of semantic that the term can describe something that its also seemingly (meaning its not necessarely true) endless, so it not correct to say that 無限 its strictly meant for literal descriptions, just like how 果てしない its not just limited to exaggerated descriptions.
 
Nostredam said:
If we take literally that there are infinite/boundless galaxies, then we should also take literally that Bulma's spaceship can get through an infinite number of galaxies, which is simply wrong basing off the entire premisse of the next episode (Episode 3):
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood the quote, someone heading off to something doesn't mean that someone had already travel across it.
 
Last edited:
In the beginning, you presented two primary statements that were used to justify a “high 3-A” rating for the universe. However, the use of the word “eternal” in these statements is ambiguous and dependent on context. Replacing the original adjectives with “eternal” would result in a sentence that lacks coherence.

Regarding the secondary statements used to support the rating, you make a valid point that they are not sufficient on their own to justify a high 3-A rating, but rather serve as supporting evidence. It is unclear which of the four statements came first, and factual sources would be appreciated.

You also agree that a particular statement, which the author on Twitter described as poetic and not intended for cosmological purposes, should not be used as evidence. While the “most ignored” evidence may be the most accurate, you are still hesitant to accept it as evidence.

Lastly, you acknowledge the inconsistency in the argument for a high 3-A rating and express agreement with the thread's premise. You have been bothered by the justification of infinite speed with the statement “well, the universe is infinite!” and appreciate the opportunity to discuss and clarify these inconsistencies.

In general, I concur with the underlying proposition.
 
Stefano4444 said:
That its true, for what i see neither Weblio, Collins or Linguee do directly conferm or stated that the term Hateshinai its strictly used for figuratively speeches and nothing else, when in most cases it is described as just as another synonyms for 無限/infinite.

Weblio: Only the 3rd section in the semantic section that term its used as example to describe things that are seemingly endless, but the others previous sections does show that the terms its usable in other situations.

Collins: None in the descriptions directly conferm/stated the term Hateshinai its strictly meant to metaphores and not literal descriptions, only that it can be used to describe something as infinite.

Linguee: Same with Collins.

All of this seen give me the impression that the OP its just playing with semantics.

What should matter here its the context which the statements/quotes come from if we want to determinate their validity, instead of focus to just a single word.
Click to expand...
this is exactly why this argument implodes on its own head there’s nothing solid to support poetic language or exaggeration.
 
AwkguyDB said:
this is exactly why this argument implodes on its own head there’s nothing solid to support poetic language or exaggeration.
Click to expand...
Is it not compelling evidence that the language is a poetic depiction, given that the author of the verse, who crafted the sentences and possessed intimate knowledge of the narrative, referred to it as such?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Attack Potency Upgrade
Replies
37
Views
2K
William_Joee
William_Joee
LuffyRuffy46307
  • Locked
Dragon Ball Cosmology Canon
5 6 7
Replies
262
Views
13K
Damage3245
Damage3245
  • Locked
Simple Addition for Rimuru
Replies
4
Views
2K
Excellence616
Excellence616
Lightning_XXI
  • Locked
DMC and Omnipresence revision
2 3
Replies
114
Views
8K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
William_Joee
Doraemon Nothingness Version
2
Replies
77
Views
2K
William_Joee
William_Joee
Back
Top