- 10,748
- 6,478
T-This is derailing, derailing is against the rules, I'll close this thread as a responsible admin if you keep this up
-
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.
Er-gen verse, 1-A downgrade discussion.
- Thread starter Ricsi-viragosi
- Start date
- Status
- 1,874
- 462
C-complain about witch and saikou in that case. I just corrected you.
- 32,327
- 20,219
i dare you to not do itAndytrenom said:
- 1,874
- 462
Wait, you want him to do it?Matthew Schroeder said:
In that case everything stays the same though.
- 638
- 64
So, apart from the beauty of love that we get to see...
Matt's arguments seem unconvincing. Or mostly countered by Nep or Richard.
>"He wasn't talking about spatial dimensions, but about Vast Expanse size"
>"No he wasn't, that's a completely different argument. This chapter didn't even have the expanse in it"
>"Your own quotes contradict you"
>"Ah, really, didn't notice. Could you please quote and bold them please? Might have read it wrong."
Legends say richard hasn't got the quote to this day.
>"It was talking about alternate dimensions, not spatial ones"
>"No. He was confined to that one universe as far as perceiving and absorbing the essence, and the part "each of different sizes" is impossible because there are universes of equal size."
>"It makes no mathematical sense for something to reach 4-D like that"
>"Ascension, period, doesn't make sense as far as math goes, you can't make a finite thing into something that transcends infinity"
>"There is no proof of tier 1"
>"You are told that adding a thread makes a two dimensional "thing" (It's not an object and I don't get how to call a span of lower/higher dimension "space"... I just called it correctly, didn't I?) three dimensional, and he has infinite threads that he can add, then... Plus, each thread is of a different size could perfectly fit each being the essence of a lower or higher dimension, thus each appearing "larger or smaller"."
So for what it matters, I agree with 1-B. I ain't see no 1-A tough. Essence and dao might fit the description of a true platonic concept, but I'm pretty sure that without High 1-B concepts it still falls under false platonic (which is weird because Essence here has absolutely no laws, limiters or concepts above or equal to it and fits the definition of 1-A but whatever.)
Matt's arguments seem unconvincing. Or mostly countered by Nep or Richard.
>"He wasn't talking about spatial dimensions, but about Vast Expanse size"
>"No he wasn't, that's a completely different argument. This chapter didn't even have the expanse in it"
>"Your own quotes contradict you"
>"Ah, really, didn't notice. Could you please quote and bold them please? Might have read it wrong."
>"It was talking about alternate dimensions, not spatial ones"
>"No. He was confined to that one universe as far as perceiving and absorbing the essence, and the part "each of different sizes" is impossible because there are universes of equal size."
>"It makes no mathematical sense for something to reach 4-D like that"
>"Ascension, period, doesn't make sense as far as math goes, you can't make a finite thing into something that transcends infinity"
>"There is no proof of tier 1"
>"You are told that adding a thread makes a two dimensional "thing" (It's not an object and I don't get how to call a span of lower/higher dimension "space"... I just called it correctly, didn't I?) three dimensional, and he has infinite threads that he can add, then... Plus, each thread is of a different size could perfectly fit each being the essence of a lower or higher dimension, thus each appearing "larger or smaller"."
So for what it matters, I agree with 1-B. I ain't see no 1-A tough. Essence and dao might fit the description of a true platonic concept, but I'm pretty sure that without High 1-B concepts it still falls under false platonic (which is weird because Essence here has absolutely no laws, limiters or concepts above or equal to it and fits the definition of 1-A but whatever.)
- 74
- 6
These two quotes don't prove that space has more than three dimensions, even though I see them getting tossed around. The "other aspects" of space could be something else that's not higher dimensions.
"At that time, he had only needed to understand the initial aspects regarding length, height, breadth, and size. With that, he had been able to create the Eighth Hex."
"On the other hand, what Meng Hao was contemplating was beyond that. He was contemplating the very Essence of space!"
"At that time, he had only needed to understand the initial aspects regarding length, height, breadth, and size. With that, he had been able to create the Eighth Hex."
"On the other hand, what Meng Hao was contemplating was beyond that. He was contemplating the very Essence of space!"
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #169
Except the quote where he states there are countless dimensions and proceeds to make a 2D into a 3D with one of those countless dimension?
"It could be something that's not higher dimension" was an argument I argued against in the very first comment, and at this point Occam's Razor just says that when the text states countless dimensions, and the same text shows a proper spatial dimension, then it is indeed talking about countless dimensions.
You are still the one that would need to prove that the author's interpretation of dimensions doesn't fit our ratings for higher dimensions (prove that they are alternate realities, prove that they don't come with a comparative superiority to lower dimensions, etc.) because the text is pretty in the face about how it works.
"It could be something that's not higher dimension" was an argument I argued against in the very first comment, and at this point Occam's Razor just says that when the text states countless dimensions, and the same text shows a proper spatial dimension, then it is indeed talking about countless dimensions.
You are still the one that would need to prove that the author's interpretation of dimensions doesn't fit our ratings for higher dimensions (prove that they are alternate realities, prove that they don't come with a comparative superiority to lower dimensions, etc.) because the text is pretty in the face about how it works.
- 32,327
- 20,219
Yeah Glory is right.
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #171
You know Matt, you should just leave, your opinion means about nothing now that you don't even bother to acknowledge responses.
Yeah, I said it. You are never agreeing to this, so I have no reason to try and act in a way that gets you not to dig your heels any deeper, not that you could.
You lied about having a qoute, one that I used no-less, that contradicts this (or are so much of a stubborn ass that you won't even bring it forward). You obviously came in not even knowing what is properly going on in that context, with all the nonsense about cast expanse, a alternate universes, spatial dimensions not being a thing period.
Then you back pedaled a d admitted that it was spatial stuff up to 3D, but not after that because... math. When asked to further the point and to explain beyond "that's mathematically impossible", you stayed silent.
But then a guy comes in, completely ignores a statement abount countless dimensions (and since we already established that those aren't universes what the hell are they according to you?) and implies that the only reasoning for 1-B is our three dimensions being a small part of space as a whole (which is a train of logic I countered in the first comment) and you just say "yup day's right" while ignoring all of my atempts to try and understand your position and asking nicely over and over to explain them.
Seriously, what is your argument at this point. You backpedaled on everything at some point in here.
Yeah, I said it. You are never agreeing to this, so I have no reason to try and act in a way that gets you not to dig your heels any deeper, not that you could.
You lied about having a qoute, one that I used no-less, that contradicts this (or are so much of a stubborn ass that you won't even bring it forward). You obviously came in not even knowing what is properly going on in that context, with all the nonsense about cast expanse, a alternate universes, spatial dimensions not being a thing period.
Then you back pedaled a d admitted that it was spatial stuff up to 3D, but not after that because... math. When asked to further the point and to explain beyond "that's mathematically impossible", you stayed silent.
But then a guy comes in, completely ignores a statement abount countless dimensions (and since we already established that those aren't universes what the hell are they according to you?) and implies that the only reasoning for 1-B is our three dimensions being a small part of space as a whole (which is a train of logic I countered in the first comment) and you just say "yup day's right" while ignoring all of my atempts to try and understand your position and asking nicely over and over to explain them.
Seriously, what is your argument at this point. You backpedaled on everything at some point in here.
- 74
- 6
@Ricsi-viragosi OK, your post (from earlier in the thread) convinced me.
"Meng Hao saw countless dimensions of space, all of them different sizes. Some were blurry, others were clear. They transformed into countless threads."
Now, if you understand that a single thread made a circle into a sphere, and you understand that there are "countless" threads that are created by countless dimensions, which put together make up space and it's expressions, than you understand that the dimensions here refer to spatial ones, not alternate universes.
"Meng Hao saw countless dimensions of space, all of them different sizes. Some were blurry, others were clear. They transformed into countless threads."
Now, if you understand that a single thread made a circle into a sphere, and you understand that there are "countless" threads that are created by countless dimensions, which put together make up space and it's expressions, than you understand that the dimensions here refer to spatial ones, not alternate universes.
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #173
Thanks. Sorry for being somewhat hostile sounding, it's 1 AM and I've been having some insomnia lately.
- 32,327
- 20,219
Telling me to just shut up and leave is extremely rude Ricsi and I ask you that you stop it.
- 32,327
- 20,219
And I haven't backpadalled at all. I still stand by my original few posts.
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #176
I haven't told you to shut up. I asked you as nicely as I could several times the opposite. I told you to shut up if you won't bother arguing, as that's just either uneeded white noise or derailment.
But if you stand with your original arguments then: "I don't need to give proof for something that is stated in the very quote itself"
Please quote and bold what you were referring to. This is my ninth time asking.
But if you stand with your original arguments then: "I don't need to give proof for something that is stated in the very quote itself"
Please quote and bold what you were referring to. This is my ninth time asking.
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #177
And again, what are those wonderful countless dimensions.
They are not alternate universes, they are not a sí gle universe they are in (obviously), so what do you think they are?
They are not alternate universes, they are not a sí gle universe they are in (obviously), so what do you think they are?
- 32,327
- 20,219
They are just ways to refer to parallel dimensions / universes. That you find this so difficulty to understand in context is a tragedy I must simply lament but it is obvious.Ricsi-viragosi said:
My sole requirement for someone to partake in this debate is to read my opening statements which many appear to not have done. At all. In fact the downgrade was coming through until people intensifies the screeching.
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #179
Matt. I ask you a simple thing. Quote and bold the part that proves your point.Ricsi-viragosi said:
Because countless dimension being put on the same pedastal as width, height and depth, and then adding one of those dimension to a circle making it a cylinder don't make sense.
You also ignore that each of those dimensions is different in size, which is wrong for parallel universes, of which there are infinite equal ones.
Or the fact that he couldn't access the multiverse at all.
And in what world is "Circle+Universe=A Sphere" anyways?
- 10,748
- 6,478
Reading through this quote and putting faith in Ricsi's answers regarding my questions, I definitely think the statements about dimensions pertain to the spatial axes kind of dimensions as opposed to alternate reality kind of dimension
Also going over two of Matt's comments in the beginning of the previous thread,
Also going over two of Matt's comments in the beginning of the previous thread,
- Highest reality being described as so big that vast expanse is just a seed in it
- The scan which supposedly proves spatial dimensions
- Made of worlds and realms
- Filled with possibilities
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #181
Matt... Matt.Matthew Schroeder said:
I asked you now ten times to qoute those reasonings, and I hope you understand what it looks like when you refuse to give your reasonings again, right?
I repeated my reasonings, so the least you could do would be doing the same.
- 1,874
- 462
I am just gonna be bold and claim Matt is talking about one of those two:
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3118655#2
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3118655#6
However, if thats the case, he actually has been argueing no points what so ever, since we covered all of them. None of those comments hold any real worth either, since its nothing but headcannon. "He was talking about how big stuff is". Ok, mhm, why do you think so? ...no explanation given what so ever, just saying "Duh, ofc thats what it means!" This is why we ask you, why you think so. You however just ignore that and say that you already said that, which is blatantly false!
I couldnt find anything past that, that could still be considered "Opening comment" and isnt talking about Dao and scaling to religion.
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3118655#2
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3118655#6
However, if thats the case, he actually has been argueing no points what so ever, since we covered all of them. None of those comments hold any real worth either, since its nothing but headcannon. "He was talking about how big stuff is". Ok, mhm, why do you think so? ...no explanation given what so ever, just saying "Duh, ofc thats what it means!" This is why we ask you, why you think so. You however just ignore that and say that you already said that, which is blatantly false!
I couldnt find anything past that, that could still be considered "Opening comment" and isnt talking about Dao and scaling to religion.
- 1,874
- 462
"In fact the downgrade was coming through until people intensifies the screeching."
That sounds like a sore loser in my book. Its not about downgradeing or not, but about who is right. If you try to force a downgrade to a verse, that doesnt deverve it, ofc we'll start "screeching". We already went over ALL of the points you made in that opening statement and debunked them. By now most people and even mods agree with us, because we gave the better arguments/ our perspective just makes more sence.
And to quote ShadowWarrior1999: As a wise man once said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
So yes Matt, pls stopp refering to your opening statement. By now it holds no worth what so ever, since none of those points have any reasoning, make sence in the context or they just have been flat out debunked/disproven!
So yes, unless there is some hidden comment, that ACTUALLY debunks all of our points and shows why your points should be taken as the word of god, you might just want to leave, since it is like Ricsi said. Its derailing and annoying. But pls, show us all wrong! Show us that you have good points! But PLS, for the love of god, SHOW THEM TO US, rather than just claiming that they exist, since to us, your arguments are about as fictional, as a 1-A rating is to you!
Sorry for the rant, I guess... but damn that felt good XD
That sounds like a sore loser in my book. Its not about downgradeing or not, but about who is right. If you try to force a downgrade to a verse, that doesnt deverve it, ofc we'll start "screeching". We already went over ALL of the points you made in that opening statement and debunked them. By now most people and even mods agree with us, because we gave the better arguments/ our perspective just makes more sence.
And to quote ShadowWarrior1999: As a wise man once said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
So yes Matt, pls stopp refering to your opening statement. By now it holds no worth what so ever, since none of those points have any reasoning, make sence in the context or they just have been flat out debunked/disproven!
So yes, unless there is some hidden comment, that ACTUALLY debunks all of our points and shows why your points should be taken as the word of god, you might just want to leave, since it is like Ricsi said. Its derailing and annoying. But pls, show us all wrong! Show us that you have good points! But PLS, for the love of god, SHOW THEM TO US, rather than just claiming that they exist, since to us, your arguments are about as fictional, as a 1-A rating is to you!
Sorry for the rant, I guess... but damn that felt good XD
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Wasn't Higher Spatial dimensions already covered in Wang Lin's cave? That cave at the very least 6 higher dimensions. And that was a cave for God's sake.
- 1,874
- 462
Immortalgodd said:
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Wang Lin's cave?
- 3,072
- 674
Do you have quotes for that?
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Let me read it again.
- 1,154
- 659
That could be possibly consider a Higher Dimension, since it's like the "Mountais&Sea realm -> Vast Expanse", here we have "WL's cave -> Immortal Astral". So it's possible, but as I stopped at 1640 to stockpile I'm sorry to not being able to answer more thoroughly. I guess we'd need a bit more detail on that, and really even without that, the thread stuff already covers everything imoImmortalgodd said:
.Deleted member 2530
Guest
Also in short the guy doesn't think its 1A because its not like western literature?
- 1,874
- 462
He claims xianxia are ALWAYS just talking about how big sh*t is, even when it literally said "Spatial dimension" many times. For some reason he is the "expert" on the verse and knows exactly what the author meant, while we all have reading comprehension issues lolImmortalgodd said:
- 26,116
- 3,649
- Thread starter
- #193
I don't think that ever came up. He doesn't think that it being scalable to the actual religion is a thing, which is true, and he thought that it's a cliche of the verse that everything is real big, so higher dimension was just a buzz word, which is less true.
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Chinese Novels use language like that to show us the vast fantasy world. If you need staright forward description like of Marvel's to raye them then. Masadaverse would not be 1A would it?
- 1,874
- 462
IIRC he is actually a supporter of masadaverse, so he should know all that TwTImmortalgodd said:
Deleted member 2530
Guest
Masadaverse uses flowery language to describe it.
- 19,746
- 16,118
Apparently even if that means ignoring the whole eastern foundation of the novel, we don't equalize religion to the novel.
I mean, we don't equalize the religion between real world stuff and fiction. It applies to comics/Western literature as much as it does Eastern stuff. If we did then every vaguely Christian God analogy would cause theological debates about Tier 2 or Tier 1 ratings and anything based on Hinduism would have a bunch of 1-As.
If the verse in question doesn't have the supporting evidence in-universe then it just doesn't.
I mean, we don't equalize the religion between real world stuff and fiction. It applies to comics/Western literature as much as it does Eastern stuff. If we did then every vaguely Christian God analogy would cause theological debates about Tier 2 or Tier 1 ratings and anything based on Hinduism would have a bunch of 1-As.
If the verse in question doesn't have the supporting evidence in-universe then it just doesn't.
Deleted member 2530
Guest
actually why don't we have Hindu mythology here? I mean we have the Egyptians, the greeks and the norse.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
