Fuji NEVER Cry [DMC Tier 1 Downgrades Yet Again]

[marosuke]

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

So it's not infinite, cool. This helps quite a bit, actually.

 

[Sevil Natas]

So it's not infinite, cool. This helps quite a bit, actually.

first of all. kamiya doesnt even have rights to the series anymore. he only directed DMC 1. the DMC 3 manga wasnt even written by him. so whatever he says about how he writes his cosmology right now doesnt apply to anything.
secondly. i thought it was agreed that kamiya's twitter still isnt usable for anything vs related

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

first of all. kamiya doesnt even have rights to the series anymore. he only directed DMC 1. the DMC 3 manga wasnt even written by him. so whatever he says about how he writes his cosmology right now doesnt apply to anything.
secondly. i thought it was agreed that kamiya's twitter still isnt usable for anything vs related

I mean idc in the long run, because so far 0 proof has been given that the HW is infinite. So you still need to prove that, since it seems like Elizhaa's final vote is ultimately reliant on whether or not the HW is infinite.

 

[Tanin_iver]

since it seems like Elizhaa's final vote is ultimately reliant on whether or not the HW is infinite.

I never said it was infinite. I said that support for its initial state could be infinite given logical implication; given the the quote on the universe where made on its original states, it seems to suggest even when DW and HW were one, DW, given infinite darkness to ray of light of HW, were still larger than HW which can support Low

Ultimately, it is up vote; if my view on HW being infinite, at least initially, is largely agree on, I would say it is low 1-C.

Elizhaa's stance is actually that HW is infinite initially and also when the Human world was fusing with the demon world from Argosax, it seemed an infinite space-time was created [From past thread, The World Energy is capable to warp the space-time in a Universal scale,can create time paradoxes,can affect not only the present, but also the past and future and is capable to warp the entire of the universe”]; I guess it suggests the human world could have been at least infinite regarding the ray of light quote which can support Low 1-C.
Her Low 1-C vote is based on that. So she is still voting for Low 1-C.

However, spatial size is irrelevant as I have already explained in this post.

Other staff have already agreed to Low 1-C at the very least from the Demon World being infinite Darkness to Human World being merely a ray of Light.

Ovens: But given the demon world sees the human world as nothing but a line of light, it should be qualitatively superior enough to be Low 1-C at the very least.

The reason for the dimensions being legitimate is because it is a fully sized realm that dwarfs human world in scope prior to applying a dimensional number to it.

Maverick: In fairness, the current system states that far larger cosmological structures that encompass lower realms and contain them as an infinitesimal portion of itself meet the criteria for qualitative superiority (or in shorter terms, a cosmology where the 4-D universe or multiverse is a very small part of a 5-D thing), which many recent Tier 1 upgrades seem to be based on.

Heck, the standards have no such requirements for infinite spatial sized Low 2-C structures that needs to be trivialized instead of finite sized. If there was a difference between infinite spatial sized Low 2-C structure and a finite spatial sized Low 2-C structure, then Low 2-C structures and feats won't be equal to each other.

Characters or objects that can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence (Or "levels of infinity", as referred below) which trivialize everything below them into insignificance, normally by perceiving them as akin to fictional constructs or something infinitesimal.”

Characters or objects that can universally affect, create and/or destroy spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)”

One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

Note that timelines, per default, are assumed to be infinitely long i.e. it’s assumed that there is no end to time.

It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length

As we can see from above, the standards do not in any way differentiate between Low 2-C structures of different spatial sizes.
The scenario for DMC is basically as straightforward and consistent with the standards as it can get. We have a Low 2-C structure (Human World) which is a infinitesimal subset (Ray of Light compared to Endless Darkness) of the Demon World which would make it a Low 1-C structure.

Considering the entire premise of the CRT is based on the assumption that only spatially infinite sized Low 2-C structures that are trivialized as infinitesimal subsets of larger spaces should qualify for Low 1-C and disregarding the current standards, this thread should be closed.

A new thread can be made to change the standards and then this thread can be reopened to apply the changes after the standards for Tier 1 has changed.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Considering the entire premise of the CRT is based on the assumption that only spatially infinite sized Low 2-C structures that are trivialized as infinitesimal subsets of larger spaces should qualify for Low 1-C and disregarding the current standards, this thread should be closed.

A new thread can be made to change the standards and then this thread can be reopened to apply the changes after the standards for Tier 1 has changed.

Oh shut up, it's 2 agreements to 1 disagreement. Don't go pushing for closure when the votes are in my favor. It's 4 am so I'll get to the rest of your post later.

 

[Georredannea15]

Oh shut up, it's 2 agreements to 1 disagreement. Don't go pushing for closure when the votes are in my favor. It's 4 am so I'll get to the rest of your post later.

There was no need for this. You can be calmer. No need to tension

 

[Tanin_iver]

Oh shut up, it's 2 agreements to 1 disagreement.

What the hell are you even talking about, you have been reprimanded for vote manipulation.

Don't go pushing for closure when the votes are in my favor.

What? Only two staff have explicitly voted in this thread. DDM voting for Neutral and Elizhaa for Low 1-C.
Qawsedf has himself stated that he would wait for more responses as he's not familiar with DMC. That is in no way a vote in your favour.

It's 4 am so I'll get to the rest of your post later.

You said the same here and still haven't responded.
Instead you chose to lie and misrepresent it as you had no counter response and use that as justification for Antvasima's vote.

There is really nothing to the debate beyond me pointing out how our tiering system, as well as multiple statements from DT and Ultima, say that merely being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't low 1-C (this is the only evidence supporting low 1-C, by the way). The opposition claims this isn't true. It is a senseless back and forth, so I recommend that any staff here simply read the OP and give their opinion on that.

Also the comment above is just another round of DMC supporters shaking their heads and going "nuh uh" so I'd be better off ignoring it, actually. It's a circle of "Being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't enough, you need QS --> Because this space is infinitely larger than low 2-C, it must have QS --> repeat ad infinitum".

However, what we are arguing is an infinite sized object (Low 2-C HW) is an infinitesimal subset of DW, they are not equal in size one is explicitly bigger than another, so a higher level/cardinal of infinity, hence Low 1-C.

What DT basically did was show mathematically infinitely bigger as multiplying by infinity, which obviously would be the same level of infinity. He also elaborated that for achieving higher tiers we definitely need QS. Infinitely big only works as supportive statement.
So, in short what he means is that simply being stated to be bigger (even infinitely so mathematically speaking) will still be the same level of infinity or same size and hence not QS.

But in the case of DMC tho, it isn't the same as being infinitely big, instead, the DW is so much bigger than another infinite 4D sized object(the HW), such that the object is infinitesimal(a ray of light compared to endless darkness) to it, which suggests a higher level of infinity, not the same level of infinity, or they would have been the same size. This specific size comparison is the reason it has QS which makes all the difference. Hence, the DW will have to be Low 1-C, otherwise it will be straight up Low 2-C which would be the same size as HW, which we are explicitly told is not the case.

This isn't the case for DMC since the difference between the DW and HW is so massive that DW trivializes the HW as an infinitesimal structure. The difference between them is a higher level/cardinal of infinity.
And as we all already know, the Human World is a Low 2-C structure, so the next jump will be Low 1-C for the Demon World. If the difference in size was countably infinite and not QS, the DW and HW will be the exact same size as each other, but we know this isn't the case as the HW is an infinitesimal structure to DW.

As you can see above we are in no way arguing that infinitely bigger than Low 2-C is Low 1-C. Instead we are arguing that a bigger structure trivializing the Low 2-C structure as an infinitesimal subset is Low 1-C. Both are different things. And I have also tackled DT, Ultima and Gilver's comments which u conveniently ignored.

Anyways, if u have any arguments besides trivializing infinite spatial size for Low 2-C structures for Low 1-C, then its fine to keep it open for now.
Otherwise it should be closed as u are disregarding already accepted standards for this CRT, and this will lead to non-uniform indexing of verses and u should change the standards first. This can be opened later after u have changed the standards.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Is this "the report part 3" in the making?

 

[Sevil Natas]

I mean idc in the long run, because so far 0 proof has been given that the HW is infinite. So you still need to prove that, since it seems like Elizhaa's final vote is ultimately reliant on whether or not the HW is infinite.

just dont go around using kamiya's twitter posts for stuff related to scaling. as the rule against that was never changed IIRC

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I didn't even realise Fuji paraphrased and misrepresented @Tanin_iver post to Ant.

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
I'll be blunt, it's not your job to pass verdict, conclusions or interpretations of the opposition's arguements to authority.

They should be able to judge both sides arguements fairly and without any misinformation.
Has Ant voted and his vote has been counted on literally that instance alone?
I am asking because I haven't kept much track of thread.

 

[Fixxed]

Basically the low 1C in here is come from, the DW that see the HW as some ray of light or some small portion, and it infinitely bigger compare to HW

So if we combine the two proof, it mean the HW is just infinitesimall portion of the DW

Is i'm right???

 

[Theglassman12]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara stop with the aggressive remarks Fuji. You can refute their points without being needlessly rude.

 

[KLOL506]

just dont go around using kamiya's twitter posts for stuff related to scaling. as the rule against that was never changed IIRC

Pardon, but what relevance does Kamiya even have anymore? We removed him long ago, didn't we?

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Pardon, but what relevance does Kamiya even have anymore? We removed him long ago, didn't we?

It's because he is used as supporting evidence for the mundus fart thing (although we should remove him like I told you before) and something like demons not aging I think?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

What the hell are you even talking about, you have been reprimanded for vote manipulation.

Which has been resolved, and if you'd bothered to actually do a little reading, you'd realize that Elizhaa's vote is now counted in the disagree section.

What? Only two staff have explicitly voted in this thread. DDM voting for Neutral and Elizhaa for Low 1-C.
Qawsedf has himself stated that he would wait for more responses as he's not familiar with DMC. That is in no way a vote in your favour.

Saying the revision looks fine is a vote. Same goes for Ant when I recapped everything to him.

Anyways, if u have any arguments besides trivializing infinite spatial size for Low 2-C structures for Low 1-C, then its fine to keep it open for now.
Otherwise it should be closed as u are disregarding already accepted standards for this CRT, and this will lead to non-uniform indexing of verses and u should change the standards first. This can be opened later after u have changed the standards.

Absolutely fucking not. I've explained many, many times how you keep misrepresenting the standards and how the evidence presented is not enough, and evidently I may have somewhat of a point seeing as the votes are in my favor (even if you insist on disregarding them). Pushing for thread closure at this point is insane.

 

[KLOL506]

Which has been resolved, and if you'd bothered to actually do a little reading, you'd realize that Elizhaa's vote is now counted in the disagree section.

Fuji, you do realize it got resolved with you getting a freakin' warning, right? Don't overstep your boundaries more than you already have.

Saying the revision looks fine is a vote. Same goes for Ant when I recapped everything to him.

That's not for you to decide, that's up to the staff themselves to concretely say as such on this thread.

For the last time, do not put words in their mouth.

Absolutely fucking not.

Fuji, I've had enough. Either calm down for a second or STFU. Your behavior is not helping your case one bit.

I've explained many, many times how you keep misrepresenting the standards and how the evidence presented is not enough, and evidently I may have somewhat of a point seeing as the votes are in my favor (even if you insist on disregarding them). Pushing for thread closure at this point is insane.

Doubling down on this shit again? So be it. You dug your own grave. I'm sending this to the RVT.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Bump

Should this thread maybe be put on hold until the other tier 1 revisions are done, or at least close to a conclusion? They seem pretty relevant to the topic at hand here. If not, then can we maybe finally get around to providing evidence that the HW is infinite?

 

[CloverDragon03]

The thread's about being larger than a 2-A structure, which I don't think applies to DMC unless I'm mistaken

 

[KLOL506]

The thread's about being larger than a 2-A structure, which I don't think applies to DMC unless I'm mistaken

Pretty much. Different case scenario here, since here we're discussing Qualitative superiority which is what you'll need here anyway.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

The thread's about being larger than a 2-A structure, which I don't think applies to DMC unless I'm mistaken

Not quite? There's a proposed chart of what would and would not be low 1-C, which includes the following:

So yes, I think it's pretty relevant here since this is almost exactly what we've been debating for 3 pages.

 

[Georredannea15]

Not quite? There's a proposed chart of what would and would not be low 1-C, which includes the following:

So yes, I think it's pretty relevant here since this is almost exactly what we've been debating for 3 pages.

DT stated that none of the situations here will not be Low 1-C, all of them will still be tier 2. And some staffs agreed with DT. (unless of course the verse explains 5th volume and the 5th axis is of infinite or universal size)

We are still waiting but this is the case

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

DT is not the sole decider of the tiering system.
Furthermore, you left out the context of what he said regarding depictions

Well, depends on whether you can use the universes as measuring sticks for distances in the depiction or not.
Usually, you can not, because they are depicted as floating bubbles or lines or whatever which don't really depict proper size, and in that case I would say no to all of them. If you can use them in a way to measure the size of the 5D space to prove it's significantly large, then you could get somewhere. But... yeah, depicting 5D space in a way that conserves size is just pretty hard.

And i ask you please do not quote DT in that same thread again and again as the person is already in the thread participating and let him speak for himself

 

[Georredannea15]

DT is not the sole decider of the tiering system.
Furthermore, you left out the context of what he said regarding depictions

And i ask you please do not quote DT in that same thread again and again as the person is already in the thread participating and let him speak for himself

Yeah, I didn't say anything different.

If one proves that the 5th axis is significantly large or infinite, i.e. that the 5-dimensional volume is infinite, it is already Low 1-C.

What DT denied was all the cases in the table in the OP, he said they would not be Low 1-C, what you quoted is different from the cases in the table

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Take this discussion elsewhere.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Again, let's not discuss that chart until there's some sort of consensus on it. I just wanted to mention that it'd be relevant to this thread once resolved.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I agree that it will be relevant seeing how the discussion also now tackles low 2-C spaces in relation to low 1-C
and as far as I can see in this thread DMC goes with that logic
so its fine to postpone the thread imo

 

[chosen]

I agree

 

[Eseseso]

bump

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

We're still waiting on that other tier 1 thread, although the way it's going looks pretty bad for DMC. Should I just copy/paste the arguments from there when I get the chance?

 

[Eseseso]

We're still waiting on that other tier 1 thread, although the way it's going looks pretty bad for DMC. Should I just copy/paste the arguments from there when I get the chance?

Probably.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Per DT's own words, merely being infinite relative to 3D/4D isn't enough for low 1-C, since it could mean that the space in question is only countably times infinite (which I've been saying the entire damn thread). Qaws explains that differences measured in infinity don't really qualify, given the difference between 3-A and high 3-A are still within the same "layer". The current draft for the new rule mentions that being infinitely larger than 2-A wouldn't be good enough for low 1-C; You can pretty easily assume that this would apply to low 2-C as well, given that it's smaller than 2-A. Some lines of note if you don't feel like reading:

"If "bigger" means having more 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size."

"To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A only meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even an infinite number of them can't reach."

So no, being infinitely bigger than low 2-C (or even infinitely bigger than something that's infinitely bigger than low 2-C) still isn't good enough for low 1-C.

 

[Eseseso]

Per DT's own words, merely being infinite relative to 3D/4D isn't enough for low 1-C, since it could mean that the space in question is only countably times infinite (which I've been saying the entire damn thread). Qaws explains that differences measured in infinity don't really qualify, given the difference between 3-A and high 3-A are still within the same "layer". The current draft for the new rule mentions that being infinitely larger than 2-A wouldn't be good enough for low 1-C; You can pretty easily assume that this would apply to low 2-C as well, given that it's smaller than 2-A. Some lines of note if you don't feel like reading:

"If "bigger" means having more 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size."

"To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A only meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even an infinite number of them can't reach."

So no, being infinitely bigger than low 2-C (or even infinitely bigger than something that's infinitely bigger than low 2-C) still isn't good enough for low 1-C.

Makes sense to me.

Also, KH may be next on the chopping block, gonna get nerfed to 5-D.

 

[Fixxed]

Per DT's own words, merely being infinite relative to 3D/4D isn't enough for low 1-C, since it could mean that the space in question is only countably times infinite (which I've been saying the entire damn thread). Qaws explains that differences measured in infinity don't really qualify, given the difference between 3-A and high 3-A are still within the same "layer". The current draft for the new rule mentions that being infinitely larger than 2-A wouldn't be good enough for low 1-C; You can pretty easily assume that this would apply to low 2-C as well, given that it's smaller than 2-A. Some lines of note if you don't feel like reading:

"If "bigger" means having more 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size."

"To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A only meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even an infinite number of them can't reach."

So no, being infinitely bigger than low 2-C (or even infinitely bigger than something that's infinitely bigger than low 2-C) still isn't good enough for low 1-C.

No, dont take DT and qaw statement too simple like that

DT talking about visual depiction in that, you can read his next comment. He literally say because of many verse depicted the universes as bubble or line, we cannot measure the size of the space that contain them

And qaw literally just explain about bigger than something is not same as embedding something

The draft also explain about bigger than 2A in term of sheer size. The draft also say multiversal structure is already 5D but insignificant, unless the space is like what DT say, unless it infinity in size

Soo... no, that thread is not over yet. We dont know the conclusion

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

DT talking about visual depiction in that, you can read his next comment. He literally say because of many verse depicted the universes as bubble or line, we cannot measure the size of the space that contain them

Literally the entire premise of tier 1 DMC is the HW being a line compared to the DW.

The draft also explain about bigger than 2A in term of sheer size. The draft also say multiversal structure is already 5D but insignificant, unless the space is like what DT say, unless it infinity in size

And is there confirmation that the DW has an infinitely large 5th axis?

And qaw literally just explain about bigger than something is not same as embedding something

Okay? Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

Soo... no, that thread is not over yet. We dont know the conclusion

We do know the conclusion, and it's yet again "being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't low 1-C". Which is already stated by the tiering system. Multiple times.

 

[Eseseso]

Wait, is this the scan that is used for making the Demon World 5-D?

Devil May Cry - Cosmology Explanation Page

Currently, we accept the feat of Pluto (Demon King who preceded Mundus) splitting the original universe into two separate ones, as per this explanation page. The demon world and human world are noted to be two separate universal space times. We already accept both being separate universes. For...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Because it doesn't seem that the human world is being portrayed as infinitely smaller than the demon world at all in that scan.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Wait, is this the scan that is used for making the Demon World 5-D?

Devil May Cry - Cosmology Explanation Page

Currently, we accept the feat of Pluto (Demon King who preceded Mundus) splitting the original universe into two separate ones, as per this explanation page. The demon world and human world are noted to be two separate universal space times. We already accept both being separate universes. For...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Because it doesn't seem that the human world is being portrayed as infinitely smaller than the demon world at all in that scan.

Yes, this is the singular scan holding all these arguments together. Everything else is supporting evidence at best (and it's not particularly good evidence, either).

 

[Eseseso]

Yes, this is the singular scan holding all these arguments together. Everything else is supporting evidence at best (and it's not particularly good evidence, either).

The very context of the image implies that the human world is not infinitely inferior to the demon world.

"Split in two"

"Even in such a world" (implies that the human world is notable enough to at least be compared to the demon world"

"Both worlds coexist"

NOTHING suggests infinite inferiority of the human world compared to the demon world!

Dear lord, put me down as heartily agreeing with the downgrades!

 

[Fixxed]

Literally the entire premise of tier 1 DMC is the HW being a line compared to the DW.

Bruh.. DT talking about "visual depicted", not in literal meaning

And is there confirmation that the DW has an infinitely large 5th axis?

If DW contain 2 timelines or more, it already a insignificant 5D space, and it can be significant if it infinite in size and can be tiered

Okay? Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

DW literally contain or embedding the HW in it

We do know the conclusion, and it's yet again "being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't low 1-C". Which is already stated by the tiering system. Multiple times

The thread is not end yet. And where even the conclusion of "being infinitely larger than low 2C isn't low 1C"???

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I cant keep doing this shit man, there are like 50 posts in this thread where I quote the EXACT standards that say being infinitely greater than a tier 2 structure isn't tier 1. If you refuse to acknowledge that even after multiple staff reaffirm it, then please don't participate here, thanks.