• 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.

Honkai: Star Rail Discussion Thread

is everything in the cosmology page outdated? what parts arent?
Ofc not all of it is outdated i cant remember what is or isnt but stuff like mwi info 2 souls metaphysics R>F dimensionality and the soq properties (NOT THE ******* ETHER ANCHOR POINT SLOP) and imaginary tree stuff (as long as it isnt some 12D bs) is still useable
 
herta's path didnt swap either. nor element. also, in hi3 there arent paths why would they call it swap path
Well they label herta and THE herta as different characters

I didnt even know hi3 has SPs because theres no path i thought they were just battle suits
 
Maybe it had something to do with it being energy i rmb something similar being brought up as an issue in a marvel cm thread though im not an expert on every qualification for the hax i just know how it works 💔
 
Maybe it had something to do with it being energy i rmb something similar being brought up as an issue in a marvel cm thread though im not an expert on every qualification for the hax i just know how it works 💔
the cosmology page does state that its the source of all concepts. and energy does stem from the tree as far as i know. so why wouldnt it be
 
i thought that term originated from hi3? otherwise why tf would hsr-ers call sps sps if the first sp, herta, didnt sp
in HI3 no one call different Battle suits as SP as we simply use acronym for it like all Herrsher is Ho-something while other like Bright Knight: Excelsis become BKE (or even BKEK for the meme) especially when later on there is SP type Battle Suit (specifically A-rank Battle Suits) like DJ and SA, some we just call them base on personal preference like Fischl or PV, Eden or GD, ETC as some only have 1 Battle suit so call them by name won't just cause mega confusion
 
btw that was before the end of ampho right? cuz why is one of the justifications that irontomb can kill nous when he coronated and couldnt do it anyway
It’s a point that’s not really worth much. But it just shows that the way particulars are affected in this particular way is not vis-à-vis the “concept” being affected.

Because the way ‘intellection’ is destroyed here is by Irontomb personally sending viruses to organic beings, rather than destroying the concept itself and then that being the cause of the particulars ceasing existence.

The importance of this rises in relation to arguments people would make about “well, all knowledge was destroyed when Nous was destroyed! So obviously they’re dependent on Nous for existence!” When that just ignores the context at hand
 
Also a point here could be that even if physically the entire universe was destroyed the concepts and paths still stood without the objects they govern existing no?
 
What does that have to do with being a universal
Like i said in the rezero thread, this site does a terrible job at explaining the difference in the usage of the word “universal”

For cm to be applicable to imaginary energy we’d first have to prove that imaginary ENERGY is the same as the imaginary concept and then prove that the imaginary concept is universal to its part of reality it governs (hopefully i worded that right)
 
Like i said in the rezero thread, this site does a terrible job at explaining the difference in the usage of the word “universal”

For cm to be applicable to imaginary energy we’d first have to prove that imaginary ENERGY is the same as the imaginary concept and then prove that the imaginary concept is universal to its part of reality it governs (hopefully i worded that right)
You’d also have to prove the Imaginary Concept actually exists as well… and that that functions as a universal.
 
Watch us scale to SWLv999 at the end of the 4.X, only to lose to middle schoolers in the next patch before facing Zephyro, who yaps about "This will be a depressing story like none that has come before." then he becomes playable as a waifu
 
Watch us scale to SWLv999 at the end of the 4.X, only to lose to middle schoolers in the next patch before facing Zephyro, who yaps about "This will be a depressing story like none that has come before." then he becomes playable as a waifu
Then he reveals himself as negawelt
 
Like i said in the rezero thread, this site does a terrible job at explaining the difference in the usage of the word “universal”

For cm to be applicable to imaginary energy we’d first have to prove that imaginary ENERGY is the same as the imaginary concept and then prove that the imaginary concept is universal to its part of reality it governs (hopefully i worded that right)
Is that not like not difficult at all to do?
 
Is that not like not difficult at all to do?
Well like nova said we’d have to prove the imaginary concept even exists and then prove ie = ic which considering how paths are just condensed philosophy and energy systems based on concepts (i.e participating within it not governing) we can assume that IE functions the same
 
also in theory doesn't every universe have universals if things in it exist in first place?
No. Not at all. Universals were first adopted in regards to Platonism as a real abstracta for a genera of things. I.e a real object existing transcendentally (like the Form of Animals) and immanently in what it grounds (the particular animals like horses, cats etc.)

Aristotle then went to deny the existence of such objects, by claiming that genera only exist immanently (in that they are revealed by their particulars) but not transcendentally (so there is no actual real object in which they participate in).

To affirm what you claim is then to essentially say every philosophy is an off-shoot of Platonism which is ridiculous.
 
No. Not at all. Universals were first adopted in regards to Platonism as a real abstracta for a genera of things. I.e a real object existing transcendentally (like the Form of Animals) and immanently in what it grounds (the particular animals like horses, cats etc.)

Aristotle then went to deny the existence of such objects, by claiming that genera only exist immanently (in that they are revealed by their particulars) but not transcendentally (so there is no actual real object in which they participate in).

To affirm what you claim is then to essentially say every philosophy is an off-shoot of Platonism which is ridiculous.
ive written essays on both of them ik what they represent... okay so to have cm1 u need to prove that this system is part of the cosmology i guess?
 
Back
Top