• 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.
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?
And that poetic phrase isn't even in the remake of these databooks as the OP said, so it's pretty questionable.
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.
 
Simply providing a page link is not enough to convince me, but if you could link a reconstructed panel that supports your main argument, it would be more helpful.
 
Simply providing a page link is not enough to convince me, but if you could link a reconstructed panel that supports your main argument, it would be more helpful.
That's up to the OP, not me. I'm just saying that there are other arguments for eliminating these statements besides the "Poetic" thing. As I said, I'm neutral, I just want to make sure people don't forget those details.

Lol I almost forgot that this didn’t even make it into the chozenshu
Like this user above who didn't notice either.
 
So let me understand we are assuming that
Dragon ball doesn’t have High 3-A
Based on

Poetic Language Assumptions that don‘t remain consistent with each description

Broly‘s feat of infinity/4 = not infinity?

and old daizenshuu scans that don’t make it into the Chozen

We also we need solid proof of hyperbole which we don’t have.
 
How is it up to the OP if it is the other person's argument? I am confused.
What do you mean someone else's argument? What I quoted was an argument the OP used. He dismissed the statement for two reasons as I understand it, because he thought it was "poetic" and because he didn't make it into the Chozenshu which appears to be a remake of these databooks. I just quoted what he said in the OP, as people don't seem to have talked about that argument.
 
He dismissed the statement for two reasons as I understand it, because he thought it was "poetic"
His opinion was not aligned with the notion of poetics. However, it is worth noting that the author of the sentence in question explicitly described it as poetic, indicating a significant divergence of perspective.
 
Can someone please summarize the purpose of this discussion?

Is this in regards to the previously mentioned Toei cosmology merge?
 
His opinion was not aligned with the notion of poetics. However, it is worth noting that the author of the sentence in question explicitly described it as poetic, indicating a significant divergence of perspective.
I don't understand anything you are saying. I'm not the OP, and I put a "think" and "from what I understand" because the OP isn't here right now to answer and I won't answer for him because I don't know what he thinks.

I just gave my general opinion above and said that people are forgetting the other argument the OP made for this "poetic" statement, which is that it didn't make the Chozenshu.
 
Can someone please summarize the purpose of this discussion?

Is this in regards to the previously mentioned Toei cosmology merge?
The summary is fairly in the OP, if you are asking for an opposition one:
For the disagreement side, I suggest instead of 5 people responding to individual points from the OP, you guys organize yourselves and make a single relevant post with everything.

No one really provided one, yet.
 
So let me understand we are assuming that
Dragon ball doesn’t have High 3-A
Based on

Poetic Language Assumptions that don‘t remain consistent with each description

Broly‘s feat of infinity/4 = not infinity?

and old daizenshuu scans that don’t make it into the Chozen

We also we need solid proof of hyperbole which we don’t have.
Can someone please summarize the purpose of this discussion?

Is this in regards to the previously mentioned Toei cosmology merge?
Pretty much the OP
 
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.
In question about the bad translation, we already have a very accurate translation, nothing has been translated wrong, in fact the @Executor_N0 helped with that, Op is using the context which is a hyperbole just because someone from twitter mentioned, basically the argument here is nothing with nothing and in order to say that the translations are incorrect, the same counter arguments were inserted in the update topic for the universe infinity, we've had these same debates before.
 
Not really. A sector in totality might be considered infinite but it doesn't mean the distance between everything has to be infinite. Plus isn't it just in another galaxy?
Wasn't Broly upgraded to High 3-A because he destroyed a sector of the universe, which is still considered Infinite?
 
So let me understand we are assuming that
Dragon ball doesn’t have High 3-A
Based on

Poetic Language Assumptions that don‘t remain consistent with each description

Broly‘s feat of infinity/4 = not infinity?

and old daizenshuu scans that don’t make it into the Chozen

We also we need solid proof of hyperbole which we don’t have.
Exactly that, according to him there was a story retold, and in the same databook it mentions that galaxies are infinite, we have several quotes stating that they are infinite, not just the space, as well as quotes of having an infinite extension.
 
Wasn't Broly upgraded to High 3-A because he destroyed a sector of the universe, which is still considered Infinite?
No, it was updated because it had several quotes that he could destroy the universe, Op is confused about that, when it came time to update to High 3-A, people left the same thing when I I updated it to 3-B and it was totally different.
 
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.
We've had this debate before,there are not only 28 planets in the universe, but rather a number of people with intelligence. Zamasu mentions that there are millions of planets scattered across the universe. Zamasu mentions that there are also numerous planets. On the official website of DB mentions that Moro ate countless worlds, Moro is quoted for the second time stating that he ate countless planets

Please don't disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, that's wrong.
 
Can someone please summarize the purpose of this discussion?

Is this in regards to the previously mentioned Toei cosmology merge?
Drawing from the infinite universe for cosmology, all because it's a hyperbole and taking things from another person's opinion that poetry, basically we had this debate in the infinite universe, it was agreed that this is not hyperbole or poetry, as guides are not used like that, Op is suggesting the translation is wrong, @Executor_N0 mentioned that the translations are correct, but the way the person interprets the translation and uses it as a hyperbole is wrong, he said this when talking about the translation.
 
Having finite number of planets in an infinite universe is itself dubious. This itself rejects the notion of infinite universe since the arguments of infinite universes come from secondary canons while primary canon limits the amount celestial bodies to a finite number.
Also countless doesn't mean infinite.
 
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
.
 
Having finite number of planets in an infinite universe is itself dubious. This itself rejects the notion of infinite universe since the arguments of infinite universes come from secondary canons while primary canon limits the amount celestial bodies to a finite number.
Also countless doesn't mean infinite.
I never said that countless planets are infinite, read my comment well, bro, having a finite number of planets does not refute the size of the Universe, since it is because of the infinite galaxies, Limitless galaxies, and infinite space, infinite darkness, and be quoted an infinite extent. I don't know why you are mentioning something about intelligent life on planets, when every time it is mentioned it is immediately refuted.

In short: you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
 
Having finite number of planets in an infinite universe is itself dubious. This itself rejects the notion of infinite universe since the arguments of infinite universes come from secondary canons while primary canon limits the amount celestial bodies to a finite number.
Also countless doesn't mean infinite.
FINITE AMOUNT OF PLANETS THAT CONTAIN LIFE. This does not debunk an infinite universe.
 
Anyone wanna send a detailed rebuttal to his OP and let staff handle?
 
I'll reply to some comments that I felt the necessity to.

Shmeatywerbenmanjenson

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
Actually, if you read carefully, Koyama says "infinite size of the macrocosm". He's not talking about destroying the totality of the Macrocosm directly (set of finite space-time continuums/2-C), but the infinite size of its structure (High 3-A). Of course, I myself disagree with 2-C Macrocosm, but I wanted to clarify that.

Also, I'm not using Koyama do discredit High 3-A Broly; I'm using that one quote to show that people should stop using him as a source to w--- Dragon Ball as he belives that Broly can't destroy a High 3-A structure. Overall Koyama is still not reliable for power scaling purposes.

Firestorm808

To clarify, is the purpose of this thread to determine whether or not the Guide / Toei cosmology stuff should apply to the Main Manga/DBS/Chou continuity?
No. The purpose of this thread is to explain how almost all the quotes of the universe being infinite are wrong. You can see that I've put Guides, GT, Super Anime and Super Manga on the thread despite incongruences of each continuity.

TiltedFN

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
I put them on the OP. About the second part in bold, I can only assume that you didn't understand most of the arguments in general.

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.
Herms is the very translator of the Daizenshuu 4 and a reliable source about translations regarding Dragon Ball. It's not merely his opinion, is an objective answer were he says it is poetic, as is what the text give him to interpret.

Also, it indeed say infinitely expanding; not on the right middle of the Cover Art were it freatures Frieza, but in the left middle freaturing Grand Elder Guru:


Overall that section is simply a poetic description of space as it being infinitely expanding (stretching to galaxies and millions of light years). I agree that if we take the "infinite space" part separately, it would be valid to argue for an infinite universe, but that would require to:

1. Ignore the full context on Guru's part.
2. Ignore the page being not canon.
3. Ignore the Inconsistencies section on post #1.

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.
It can't be used literally, really. The fact that the definition means "endless" is not important when you see the context of the word, and even in Linguee there is a full wall-text of examples and none of them are literal. However, I'll reply that in detail now:

Stefano4444

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.
Hateshinai being a synonyms for other words that mean infinite is not a valid reasoning, considering that it simply refers to the etimology of them as they use the same word (infinite/endless/etc) but in different situations.

For Weblio, the 1st and 2nd section also refer to something seemingly endless: "a tediously long conversation", "continuing forever or indefinitely"... All of them are figurative terms.

For Collins, it is the exact opposite of what you're saying. The application of that word is in figurative sentences like:

If you describe something as eternal, you mean that it seems to last forever, often because you think it is boring or annoying.

If you describe something as interminable, you are emphasizing that it continues for a very long time and indicating that you wish it was shorter or would stop.

...an interminable meeting.

For Linguee is even more explicit, it's just a matter of reading all the examples given to realize that none of them are literal.

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.

While is true that Mugen can be used to both something seemingly endless and literally endless, Hateshinai can only be used to the seemingly one. All of the three dictionaries explain that. If the word is not used anywhere in literal wording, you can't just say that "its not just limited to exaggerated descriptions" without proof.

I think you misunderstood the quote, someone heading off to something doesn't mean that someone had already travel across it.
You can't head off to "infinite galaxies" in the first place, unless we assume Bulma's spaceship has Infinite Speed.

Reiner

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
If there's no (valid) statement(s) about it being infinite, then it's finite. That's how it works. And no, there are no "direct statements" barring Herms' translation of Chozenshu 4. I will again say that the thread does not suggest that the quotes are mistranslated, only misinterpreted.

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).

That logic does not fit here at all. I even explained that in post #4. If people will rely on the argument of "infinity can have edge in fiction" while the context of the scene/chapter (Bulma's radar scanning the Universe 7) have nothing to support that notion, then this will be simply turn in a lack of burden of proof and pretty much people throwing excuses around, instead of directly refuting the central point.

ImmortalDread

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.
While Hateshinai is linked to eternal, it is more accurate to assume that, in those two scans, it is endless. After all, they were translated in this wiki with that word:

"This World" shows an endless expanse, you will find that the DB world holds a worldview with a tremendous scale beyond human understanding.

An endless space that envelops all celestial bodies that exist in this world.

That means that the context is seemingly endless, that is, coherent with the sentences. At best, this can be used to prove that the universe is "big" (vaguely, though), but not infinite.

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.

Sorry, but I don't see how a "infinitely expanding universe" acts as a supporting evidence for a High 3-A ranting.

Simply providing a page link is not enough to convince me

Here, you are talking about the part that I mention the Cover Art of D4 not being in Chozenshu, right? In that case, I don't need to show scans for that. I can't show a scan of something that does not exist.

If someone thinks that the Cover Art is canon because it is considered relevant enough to appear again in Chozenshu, then that someone simply has to show a scan of it being in Chozenshu. That's it.

Conclusions​


Overall, there's no actual argument in the thread so far that rebuts the entire OP. I'm not gonna reply every user who disagree (without them backing up), as it would be unnecessary.
 
I was not really trying argue against the premise as I already agreed with it.

It simply my thoughts. As for your last comment, you can simply show that something does not exist by simply proving if the chapter, the place, the time that is being there, don't exist.

I did not read the remade one, and you linked vaguely an article page talking about it. I can't check if it is true or not.
 
I was not really trying argue against the premise as I already agreed with it.

It simply my thoughts. As for your last comment, you can simply show that something does not exist by simply proving if the chapter, the place, the time that is being there, don't exist.

I did not read the remade one, and you linked vaguely an article page talking about it. I can't check if it is true or not.
I know that you agree, I was just pointing some parts, like the "eternal" word not fitting in the context. The link that I put is simply an explanation of what the Chozenshu is (a remake of Daizenshuu).
 
If there's no (valid) statement(s) about it being infinite, then it's finite. That's how it works. And no, there are no "direct statements" barring Herms' translation of Chozenshu 4. I will again say that the thread does not suggest that the quotes are mistranslated, only misinterpreted.
Seems fine then. I agree.
 
Anyway, I disagree with saying that such quotes about the Universe being infinite is hyperbole or any poetry, first that Akira toriyama never uses hyperbole and poetry to describe the size of the Universe, it's always legitimate his quotes, he quotes that himself, if it was a hyperbole it would not be repeated several times throughout the series, I even understand that some people think that DB works with hyperboles, but that is totally wrong, Akira toriyama even mentions that he does not waste his time with useless things, if something related to his Universe, then it is indeed true, I leave you with the quotes from the creator.


Toriyama: Anyway, I don't waste a lot of time chatting about useless things. As a rule, you can understand content to some extent only with images, and words are nothing more than a supplement to them. I had it drilled into me by my first editor I guess you could say…. If you're going to go out and say something, then do something that further strengthens the characterization, is what I mean.
 
Anyway, I disagree with saying that such quotes about the Universe being infinite is hyperbole or any poetry, first that Akira toriyama never uses hyperbole and poetry to describe the size of the Universe, it's always legitimate his quotes, he quotes that himself, if it was a hyperbole it would not be repeated several times throughout the series, I even understand that some people think that DB works with hyperboles, but that is totally wrong, Akira toriyama even mentions that he does not waste his time with useless things, if something related to his Universe, then it is indeed true, I leave you with the quotes from the creator.


Toriyama: Anyway, I don't waste a lot of time chatting about useless things. As a rule, you can understand content to some extent only with images, and words are nothing more than a supplement to them. I had it drilled into me by my first editor I guess you could say…. If you're going to go out and say something, then do something that further strengthens the characterization, is what I mean.
The argument is about the meaning of the words used themselves in the japanese laungage, poetry has little to do with most of the OP's points, also akira was talking about characterizarion there, as he clarifies in the end, also he is talking about his way pf writing the manga, not the guides, that phrase means nothing to this thread
 
1234.JPG
1234.JPG


These are some good poetic usage of the word "infinite" in DB.
Literally useless because anyone with a brain knows Piccolo didn't have Infinite power. Comparing one person's use of the word to describe their power to the use regarding the universe is different when the statements are coming from a different source instead of someone as arrogant as Piccolo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top