-
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.
Im seeing some people say that the presence is TOAA or one of those questionably omnipotents, but is this true?
- Thread starter Hiyami
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the presence
- Status
- 4,175
- 1,427
Not really. He is limited by the Over-Monitor who is in turn limited by The Writer who is the true Tier 0 of DC and is equal with TOAA.
- 1,096
- 94
The presence is just a infinitismal aspect of the over-monitor. And the one who forms the DC verse is "the writer", wierd name for a boundless btw.
@Julian "TOAA is not equal", or anything. It's just because that being truly omnipotent means power scaling is completly meaningless, thus that's where one can stop comparing.
@Julian "TOAA is not equal", or anything. It's just because that being truly omnipotent means power scaling is completly meaningless, thus that's where one can stop comparing.
- 4,175
- 1,427
I meant equal as in both are the actual Questionable Omnipotents in their fictional settings.ProspectX said:
- 4,175
- 1,427
Problem is that The Presence is stated to be limited by thw Over-Monitor which is the canvas in which The Writer created everything. Unfortunately being a limited aspect of a Tier 0 is not going to cut it.Hiyami said:
- 2,650
- 467
I know it's already been answered, but omnipotence also doesn't really mean much. One can be technically logically omnipotent at High 1-B, since an in-finite amount of dimensions means that one has already transcended logical paraconsistency to some degree. The same then could be applied to 1-A. High 1-A and 0 are merely a hierarchy thing, and if Overvoid and Writer weren't a thing, Presence probably could be 0, or at least a High 1-A (since it's assumed that he was killed and that Elaine Belloc took his place)
- 1,096
- 94
.....?
The boundless, tier 0, the true omnipotents have nothing to do with the tiering system. Since those things are meaningless to them, including infinite-dimensional beings or high outerversal/metaphysical beings, any powerscaling in entirety. Tier 0is just there for one to get the main point, since it's not even a "thing" or "level"one even can hope to reach. The real tiering system extends from 11-C to High 1-A, and after that comes the undefinable, which not even metaphysical beings can hope to grasp.
The boundless themself, are beyond meaningness on any trascendent level, since the term hiearchy has some meaning in itself. So High 1-B is definitly a hierachy thing, not the other way around my friend. But the presence is well within the tiering system, since he is still definable. Although of course only barely, it's some mortal trying to depict someone already far beyond dualism, the overall point is the important matter...at least. A dimensionally layered being can say that Outerversal beings are omnipotent, of course. Since they are so overwhelming that they appear to be like that, but not really.
Ayeu....the presence is not a candidate. You either are supreme, or you are a part of the tiering system.
The boundless, tier 0, the true omnipotents have nothing to do with the tiering system. Since those things are meaningless to them, including infinite-dimensional beings or high outerversal/metaphysical beings, any powerscaling in entirety. Tier 0is just there for one to get the main point, since it's not even a "thing" or "level"one even can hope to reach. The real tiering system extends from 11-C to High 1-A, and after that comes the undefinable, which not even metaphysical beings can hope to grasp.
The boundless themself, are beyond meaningness on any trascendent level, since the term hiearchy has some meaning in itself. So High 1-B is definitly a hierachy thing, not the other way around my friend. But the presence is well within the tiering system, since he is still definable. Although of course only barely, it's some mortal trying to depict someone already far beyond dualism, the overall point is the important matter...at least. A dimensionally layered being can say that Outerversal beings are omnipotent, of course. Since they are so overwhelming that they appear to be like that, but not really.
Ayeu....the presence is not a candidate. You either are supreme, or you are a part of the tiering system.
- 32,327
- 20,215
If Overvoid and Writer weren't a thing, the Presence and Elaine would probably be High 1-A.
- 2,650
- 467
>The real tiering system
Objectively false.
The only thing that usually prevents a High 1-A from being a 0 is hierarchy.
The word "true omnipotent" means nothing to our tiering system. Such a thing is nebulous at best even in the context of the real world and cannot be proven in fiction. Tier 0 is more logically (and I know I've said this before, and the bureaucrats have agreed with me) boundlessness in regards to a system beyond dimensions. Gauging anything in the system off of "omnipotence," is just as useless as gauging things off of the terms of an "omniverse". A High 1-A usually is entirely boundless toward other tier 1-A's (who can embody/possess a number of metaphysical attributes) but is only limited by a small caveat, which is overwhelmingly the presence of a stronger being on the proverbial, "totem pole". (Such as Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth, for example) Tier 0 is not "undefinable," or "absurd," as attributes, even meta-fictional or nebulous ones, can be applied to them. It is simply a way to denote that such a character is boundless in respect to their fictional world's laws and systems. If they were truly, "unknowable," they could not even tangibly exist in the fiction in the first place.
Also, what @Matt said.
Objectively false.
The only thing that usually prevents a High 1-A from being a 0 is hierarchy.
The word "true omnipotent" means nothing to our tiering system. Such a thing is nebulous at best even in the context of the real world and cannot be proven in fiction. Tier 0 is more logically (and I know I've said this before, and the bureaucrats have agreed with me) boundlessness in regards to a system beyond dimensions. Gauging anything in the system off of "omnipotence," is just as useless as gauging things off of the terms of an "omniverse". A High 1-A usually is entirely boundless toward other tier 1-A's (who can embody/possess a number of metaphysical attributes) but is only limited by a small caveat, which is overwhelmingly the presence of a stronger being on the proverbial, "totem pole". (Such as Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth, for example) Tier 0 is not "undefinable," or "absurd," as attributes, even meta-fictional or nebulous ones, can be applied to them. It is simply a way to denote that such a character is boundless in respect to their fictional world's laws and systems. If they were truly, "unknowable," they could not even tangibly exist in the fiction in the first place.
Also, what @Matt said.
- 1,096
- 94
>Tier 0....is more logically.
You do realize that it's not applicable to meaningness?At best the author can explain it in a manner that the audience can get it into the main point. Of course it cannot be proved by using text and letters, why would a mortal be able to describe something better than not even the top tiers of outerversal can? The only importance lies in the symbolism, nothing else. Remember that the authors are nothing more than observers.
You do realize that it's not applicable to meaningness?At best the author can explain it in a manner that the audience can get it into the main point. Of course it cannot be proved by using text and letters, why would a mortal be able to describe something better than not even the top tiers of outerversal can? The only importance lies in the symbolism, nothing else. Remember that the authors are nothing more than observers.
- 2,650
- 467
>not applicable
Except it is, or it wouldn't even be something able to be categorized.
>relating fiction to real world
Except they don't relate to one another. An idea we create cannot surpass our own understanding. (You might say, what about ideas created to distinctly accomplish that purpose, to which I say, we can still comprehend their existence in some meaningful way; everything else is simply fluff. More aptly put: we cannot write about something we cannot envision.)
>authors are nothing more than observers
That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly not relevant to the categorization of what defines a "tier 0". It's also one that under MY opinion, I would deem as false.
Except it is, or it wouldn't even be something able to be categorized.
>relating fiction to real world
Except they don't relate to one another. An idea we create cannot surpass our own understanding. (You might say, what about ideas created to distinctly accomplish that purpose, to which I say, we can still comprehend their existence in some meaningful way; everything else is simply fluff. More aptly put: we cannot write about something we cannot envision.)
>authors are nothing more than observers
That's an opinion, not a fact, and certainly not relevant to the categorization of what defines a "tier 0". It's also one that under MY opinion, I would deem as false.
- 1,096
- 94
Yet after all that you didnt hearken to my context, a category doesnt need to be a category. It can just be there for people to understand the general idea of it.
The actual definition of a tier 0, is that there is no definiton. I talked to ant about this, for example TOAA can be talking to Peter Parker, but he can be outside everywhere and nowhere "doing" something entierly else that not even the author is aware of. The boundless do not relate to contradictions of the real world. And i wouldnt say that you create something, more like showing a symbolism sort of something, of course other worlds do not relate to this one. The presence for example is already beyond dualism, you can describe him as a god and the basic role he may have in DC comics. Though neither the author or you know his true purpose, since that's beyond the author's "window".
The actual definition of a tier 0, is that there is no definiton. I talked to ant about this, for example TOAA can be talking to Peter Parker, but he can be outside everywhere and nowhere "doing" something entierly else that not even the author is aware of. The boundless do not relate to contradictions of the real world. And i wouldnt say that you create something, more like showing a symbolism sort of something, of course other worlds do not relate to this one. The presence for example is already beyond dualism, you can describe him as a god and the basic role he may have in DC comics. Though neither the author or you know his true purpose, since that's beyond the author's "window".
- 2,650
- 467
I talked to Ant about the same thing, and I know what I'm talking about right now. The capabilities of a "boundless," being within the context of fiction do not seep into the real world, and certainly do not breach paraconsistency, nor are they "absurd," unknowables like Ein in Kabbalah, who words cannot even be used to describe (and can, however nebulously, interact with our real world.)
The Presence does not surpass our real world or our understanding. Neither does any other character on this Wiki. When describing things "beyond us," we use symbolism to fill in the blanks. But that's all it is, our own musings about things which we have arbitrarily set limits for. But we create the context of fiction. Both in the emergent tangible medium, and the emergent feelings and thoughts we experience in reference to said work.
"Other worlds,"
I hope you're not implying fictional worlds exist as real as our world. That's certainly unprovable and cites you with a burden of proof.
"I wouldn't say you create something,"
I would. You produce something tangible with the medium of your thoughts, which others extrapolate on based on their own interpretation. This is akin to telling a painter that they didn't truly paint their pictures, because the symbolism of their piece supposedly, "transcends," their work, although that's an interpretation more than a valid truth.
The Presence does not surpass our real world or our understanding. Neither does any other character on this Wiki. When describing things "beyond us," we use symbolism to fill in the blanks. But that's all it is, our own musings about things which we have arbitrarily set limits for. But we create the context of fiction. Both in the emergent tangible medium, and the emergent feelings and thoughts we experience in reference to said work.
"Other worlds,"
I hope you're not implying fictional worlds exist as real as our world. That's certainly unprovable and cites you with a burden of proof.
"I wouldn't say you create something,"
I would. You produce something tangible with the medium of your thoughts, which others extrapolate on based on their own interpretation. This is akin to telling a painter that they didn't truly paint their pictures, because the symbolism of their piece supposedly, "transcends," their work, although that's an interpretation more than a valid truth.
- 1,096
- 94
@Aeyu
What proof do you have that you're not "fictious"? What proof do i have that i am truth, not viewed as false from someone else? A unlimited amount of truth and false can equal to other unlimited amount of false and truths, all those are still meaningless infront of a true boundless.
Also you just answered your intrepration of things, symbolism is the very consensus when trying to describe these metaworlds. It's like the term "magic", magic often is used when one is ignorant from the truth of the total technicalities of some ability or existence that isnt fully explained, or when you want to hide the truth from someone.
Like how is the author gonna explain the existence of Beatrice ? He can through the multi-dimensional theory, since he is three dimensional. But can he explain in "10th dimensional mathematics"? No, since he isnt 10th dimensional. The entire/full picture can only be concived for a higher dimensional being on beatrice level.
What proof do you have that you're not "fictious"? What proof do i have that i am truth, not viewed as false from someone else? A unlimited amount of truth and false can equal to other unlimited amount of false and truths, all those are still meaningless infront of a true boundless.
Also you just answered your intrepration of things, symbolism is the very consensus when trying to describe these metaworlds. It's like the term "magic", magic often is used when one is ignorant from the truth of the total technicalities of some ability or existence that isnt fully explained, or when you want to hide the truth from someone.
Like how is the author gonna explain the existence of Beatrice ? He can through the multi-dimensional theory, since he is three dimensional. But can he explain in "10th dimensional mathematics"? No, since he isnt 10th dimensional. The entire/full picture can only be concived for a higher dimensional being on beatrice level.
- 2,650
- 467
>What proof do you have that you're not fictitious
Because we could tangibly interact with each other in real life. Your argument is beginning to devolve into semantics.
"All of those are meaningless infront of a true boundless"
They're not boundless outside of the context of their fictional world's laws, and the rating only pertains to them being at the top of a hierarchy relating to characters beyond dimensions. Or else even Zen'o would be tier 0.
"Symbolism is the consensus"
Except they're extrapolations we form in our own head based off of an abstract reasoning of a "story". They don't pertain to real life and are certainly not in the realm of absurdity. They can be assigned definitions, even if those definitions are "meta," or "pata," they are still nonetheless definitions.
"How is the author gonna explain the existence of Beatrice"
By any attributes they decide to give said character. Said character cannot logically overcome their creator just because of arbitrary definitions and limits assigned to them by their creator. This is why concepts like "omni-creator," are obtuse. It doesn't take a "10 dimensional being" to conceive of the existence of a character made by a real-life 3 dimensional being. I can say a character has a billion jillion dimensions but if they look like a human then they are limited by their definition. Ostensibly, if we apply the REAL WORLD to the fictional one, the size of each character, including Azathoth, TOAA, Creator, etc, would all be 0. Nil. They do not affect or have dominance over our world. Period. No character in fiction can logically be called "omnipotent," except in the context of that world's laws and context, and even the the definition is nebulous, as it cannot be "confirmed".
Again, even in the context of fiction, if said characters were truly in the realm of "absurdity," they could not be defined by any definitions in that fictional world. Meaning that no "character," at such a level could even exist in the first place, symbolism or no symbolism.
Because we could tangibly interact with each other in real life. Your argument is beginning to devolve into semantics.
"All of those are meaningless infront of a true boundless"
They're not boundless outside of the context of their fictional world's laws, and the rating only pertains to them being at the top of a hierarchy relating to characters beyond dimensions. Or else even Zen'o would be tier 0.
"Symbolism is the consensus"
Except they're extrapolations we form in our own head based off of an abstract reasoning of a "story". They don't pertain to real life and are certainly not in the realm of absurdity. They can be assigned definitions, even if those definitions are "meta," or "pata," they are still nonetheless definitions.
"How is the author gonna explain the existence of Beatrice"
By any attributes they decide to give said character. Said character cannot logically overcome their creator just because of arbitrary definitions and limits assigned to them by their creator. This is why concepts like "omni-creator," are obtuse. It doesn't take a "10 dimensional being" to conceive of the existence of a character made by a real-life 3 dimensional being. I can say a character has a billion jillion dimensions but if they look like a human then they are limited by their definition. Ostensibly, if we apply the REAL WORLD to the fictional one, the size of each character, including Azathoth, TOAA, Creator, etc, would all be 0. Nil. They do not affect or have dominance over our world. Period. No character in fiction can logically be called "omnipotent," except in the context of that world's laws and context, and even the the definition is nebulous, as it cannot be "confirmed".
Again, even in the context of fiction, if said characters were truly in the realm of "absurdity," they could not be defined by any definitions in that fictional world. Meaning that no "character," at such a level could even exist in the first place, symbolism or no symbolism.
- 1,096
- 94
@Aeyu
Why do things make the same mistake yet over again?
First of all, lets begin with your last point. 1. >"Meaning that no being at such a level could even exist in the first place."
Obviously, it's just that you dont take the definiton to the actual sense. They dont exist, but they do in their reality, entierly not related to our reality. They are a by-product created by their boundless.
2. > They're not boundless outside of the context of their fictional world's laws, and the rating only pertains to them being at the top of a hierarchy relating to characters beyond dimensions. Or else even Zen'o would be tier 0.
Dont you get it? The symbolism and intrepration of the author is the importance, why would you ever possibly know what a (boundless,that lacks definition) is doing, one may see a boundless having a discussion with someone, but he is not doing anything that's definable by meaningful principles, That's the overral principle, also Zeno is not tier 0. Please dont bring up such lowly argument, he's not stated to be anything such. Neither omnipresent, or omnipotent, or omniscient. A boundless have no use for powerscaling.
3. > Ostensibly, if we apply the REAL WORLD to the fictional one, the size of each character, including Azathoth, TOAA, Creator, etc, would all be 0. Nil. They do not affect or have dominance over our world. Period. No character in fiction can logically be called "omnipotent," except in the context of that world's laws and context, and even the the definition is nebulous, as it cannot be "confirmed".
"They do not affect or have dominance over this reality", why are you guys so incoherent? Do you actually think that they need to prove dominace and effect on this reality? Their reality is entierly seperate, and why would a boundless need to "affect" this reality at all? Hmph, a boundless can be erasing one from existence and make you unaware of it's actually happening, but that is not so. Since a boundless doesnt need to. It itself is everything it needs, it doesnt lack neither nothing or everything. It's already both. Boundlessly beyond self-definitiveness and meaningness.
4. > By any attributes they decide to give said character. Said character cannot logically overcome their creator just because of arbitrary definitions and limits assigned to them by their creator. This is why concepts like "omni-creator," are obtuse. As is your argument right now. It doesn't take a "10 dimensional being" to conceive of the existence of a character made by a real-life 3 dimensional being.
Doesnt seem much yet that you're intention is to grasp my consensus, the "overrall picture" that beatrice herself exists is and can be concived by a three-dimensional. But the true picture however, the full-picture of her existence can only be grasped by a 10th dimensional. Since that what the symbolism implies, a higher dimensional being infinitly superior. The importance lies in which you know that she exists, and by using the multi-dimensional formula one can explain it a bit better.
Why do things make the same mistake yet over again?
First of all, lets begin with your last point. 1. >"Meaning that no being at such a level could even exist in the first place."
Obviously, it's just that you dont take the definiton to the actual sense. They dont exist, but they do in their reality, entierly not related to our reality. They are a by-product created by their boundless.
2. > They're not boundless outside of the context of their fictional world's laws, and the rating only pertains to them being at the top of a hierarchy relating to characters beyond dimensions. Or else even Zen'o would be tier 0.
Dont you get it? The symbolism and intrepration of the author is the importance, why would you ever possibly know what a (boundless,that lacks definition) is doing, one may see a boundless having a discussion with someone, but he is not doing anything that's definable by meaningful principles, That's the overral principle, also Zeno is not tier 0. Please dont bring up such lowly argument, he's not stated to be anything such. Neither omnipresent, or omnipotent, or omniscient. A boundless have no use for powerscaling.
3. > Ostensibly, if we apply the REAL WORLD to the fictional one, the size of each character, including Azathoth, TOAA, Creator, etc, would all be 0. Nil. They do not affect or have dominance over our world. Period. No character in fiction can logically be called "omnipotent," except in the context of that world's laws and context, and even the the definition is nebulous, as it cannot be "confirmed".
"They do not affect or have dominance over this reality", why are you guys so incoherent? Do you actually think that they need to prove dominace and effect on this reality? Their reality is entierly seperate, and why would a boundless need to "affect" this reality at all? Hmph, a boundless can be erasing one from existence and make you unaware of it's actually happening, but that is not so. Since a boundless doesnt need to. It itself is everything it needs, it doesnt lack neither nothing or everything. It's already both. Boundlessly beyond self-definitiveness and meaningness.
4. > By any attributes they decide to give said character. Said character cannot logically overcome their creator just because of arbitrary definitions and limits assigned to them by their creator. This is why concepts like "omni-creator," are obtuse. As is your argument right now. It doesn't take a "10 dimensional being" to conceive of the existence of a character made by a real-life 3 dimensional being.
Doesnt seem much yet that you're intention is to grasp my consensus, the "overrall picture" that beatrice herself exists is and can be concived by a three-dimensional. But the true picture however, the full-picture of her existence can only be grasped by a 10th dimensional. Since that what the symbolism implies, a higher dimensional being infinitly superior. The importance lies in which you know that she exists, and by using the multi-dimensional formula one can explain it a bit better.
- 2,650
- 467
1. Their boundlessness doesn't exist except in the context of the story. You are objectively wrong, and every admin and bureaucrat on this site would back me up on this.
2. You obviously didn't get what I meant with the Zen'o thing. Furthermore, they are not "beyond necessity," just because you or anyone else thinks so. Regardless, they only exist as a concept within the fiction, regardless of whether or not the author chooses to try and say otherwise. You cannot say 2+2 = 5 and have it be a truthful statement. The same applies here. Just because an author intends for something to be intepreted a certain way in a story does not give them jurisdiction outside of that story. Period. You will never be affected physically or in any way by The One Above All. Why? Because they don't exist outside of their own story except as possibly a societal egregore. They are limited by the context of their own reality, regardless of whatever an author says or intends.\
3. You're going around in circles and deflecting the argument, rather arrogantly I might add.
4. There is no fuller picture than the one in reality. Symbols and words cannot be proven to exist above this reality. And even if they do in some way we can't understand, they certainly wouldn't be relatable to concepts we in our three-dimensionally limited experience create and can comprehend. Within tiering, yes, she is 10 dimensional and requires that within her fiction. But when it comes to reality, these characters are not beyond classification, or else they wouldn't be on the wiki. That's why omnipotence is not accepted here. It brings forth far too many philosophical considerations and the crux of this issue is that regardless of what an author intends, within our Tiering System, we cannot, and do not account for the inscrutable or unfalsifiable. Under those terms, tier 0 is the absolute limit of that. A "meta," hierarchy thing. This is why there can be only one and not two, and why more than one creates High 1-A's. Can you create absurd situations in fiction? Sure, within the context of how we can describe such a thing artistically. The idea that Platonic Forms might exist outside of our reach is even a plausible notion. But do these things apply to this current tiering system, or our "boundless," characters? No, they do not.
2. You obviously didn't get what I meant with the Zen'o thing. Furthermore, they are not "beyond necessity," just because you or anyone else thinks so. Regardless, they only exist as a concept within the fiction, regardless of whether or not the author chooses to try and say otherwise. You cannot say 2+2 = 5 and have it be a truthful statement. The same applies here. Just because an author intends for something to be intepreted a certain way in a story does not give them jurisdiction outside of that story. Period. You will never be affected physically or in any way by The One Above All. Why? Because they don't exist outside of their own story except as possibly a societal egregore. They are limited by the context of their own reality, regardless of whatever an author says or intends.\
3. You're going around in circles and deflecting the argument, rather arrogantly I might add.
4. There is no fuller picture than the one in reality. Symbols and words cannot be proven to exist above this reality. And even if they do in some way we can't understand, they certainly wouldn't be relatable to concepts we in our three-dimensionally limited experience create and can comprehend. Within tiering, yes, she is 10 dimensional and requires that within her fiction. But when it comes to reality, these characters are not beyond classification, or else they wouldn't be on the wiki. That's why omnipotence is not accepted here. It brings forth far too many philosophical considerations and the crux of this issue is that regardless of what an author intends, within our Tiering System, we cannot, and do not account for the inscrutable or unfalsifiable. Under those terms, tier 0 is the absolute limit of that. A "meta," hierarchy thing. This is why there can be only one and not two, and why more than one creates High 1-A's. Can you create absurd situations in fiction? Sure, within the context of how we can describe such a thing artistically. The idea that Platonic Forms might exist outside of our reach is even a plausible notion. But do these things apply to this current tiering system, or our "boundless," characters? No, they do not.
- 1,096
- 94
@Aeyu
No my friend, i think you are avoiding the topic. I been by every other way and repeatedly occuring the term which is "symbolism".
1. Their boundlessness doesn't exist except in the context of the story. You are objectively wrong, and every admin and bureaucrat on this site would back me up on this.
Funny you just proclaimed the precise same thing i said, i however explicitly said that they dont need to prove themself. Since a boundless is exactly, said to be unbound by the definitvness and all meaning. Omnipotent. They are the meaning in their world and are beyond it aswell. I ask you yet again this question, "why?" Why would a boundless ever...ever intefere with something that's a by-product. Even if there was a implied meaning in the story, however it would still be just inferred symbolism. Because why would a mortal be conceiving something already beyond meaningness itself, or concive it better than the metaphysical. The most, the most the author ever can describe for the boundless/supreme being is that it is supreme, which is the included symbolism.
2. There is no fuller picture than the one in reality. Symbols and words cannot be proven to exist above this reality. And even if they do in some way we can't understand, they certainly wouldn't be relatable to concepts we in our three-dimensionally limited experience create and can comprehend. Within tiering, yes, she is 10 dimensional and requires that within her fiction. But when it comes to reality, these characters are not beyond classification, or else they wouldn't be on the wiki.
Come on now, have i not consented you with the picture? The author describes beatrice, she is 10th dimensional. He knows that she exists in this world, as do you, however he includes symbolism like the multi-dimensional formula for the audience so they know that her appearence is also simplifed. "Magic", a unobserved or unexplained truth to a certain extent. You can indeed understand that she is 10 dimensional, however you must not apply to 10th dimensional mathematics since the overall story of umineko is presented visually as 3th dimensional. But the full technicalities of what a 10th dimensional being is, can only be explained through being a 10th dimensional. Or even higher dimensional. Symbolism is use for one to get the overall point of the world, to understand the full technicalities you have to be at least equal to their being. And reside in that world.
It is not beyond classificatio, the importance is that you see the overall picture and the symbolism. And thus the tiering system was justified, you see that 21th dimensional are infinitely superior to 20th dimensional, and the explination how if a being is more than countably infinitly number of times superior to an infinity dimensional it's still only high 1-B. You as three-dimensional dont need to know how these beings truly are or work, their existence that is, the understanding of the symbolism may be more important for you.
Now what lies after power scaling? Omnipotence. It's not a level or definiton in itself. If you see that picture then all things come to pass.
No my friend, i think you are avoiding the topic. I been by every other way and repeatedly occuring the term which is "symbolism".
1. Their boundlessness doesn't exist except in the context of the story. You are objectively wrong, and every admin and bureaucrat on this site would back me up on this.
Funny you just proclaimed the precise same thing i said, i however explicitly said that they dont need to prove themself. Since a boundless is exactly, said to be unbound by the definitvness and all meaning. Omnipotent. They are the meaning in their world and are beyond it aswell. I ask you yet again this question, "why?" Why would a boundless ever...ever intefere with something that's a by-product. Even if there was a implied meaning in the story, however it would still be just inferred symbolism. Because why would a mortal be conceiving something already beyond meaningness itself, or concive it better than the metaphysical. The most, the most the author ever can describe for the boundless/supreme being is that it is supreme, which is the included symbolism.
2. There is no fuller picture than the one in reality. Symbols and words cannot be proven to exist above this reality. And even if they do in some way we can't understand, they certainly wouldn't be relatable to concepts we in our three-dimensionally limited experience create and can comprehend. Within tiering, yes, she is 10 dimensional and requires that within her fiction. But when it comes to reality, these characters are not beyond classification, or else they wouldn't be on the wiki.
Come on now, have i not consented you with the picture? The author describes beatrice, she is 10th dimensional. He knows that she exists in this world, as do you, however he includes symbolism like the multi-dimensional formula for the audience so they know that her appearence is also simplifed. "Magic", a unobserved or unexplained truth to a certain extent. You can indeed understand that she is 10 dimensional, however you must not apply to 10th dimensional mathematics since the overall story of umineko is presented visually as 3th dimensional. But the full technicalities of what a 10th dimensional being is, can only be explained through being a 10th dimensional. Or even higher dimensional. Symbolism is use for one to get the overall point of the world, to understand the full technicalities you have to be at least equal to their being. And reside in that world.
It is not beyond classificatio, the importance is that you see the overall picture and the symbolism. And thus the tiering system was justified, you see that 21th dimensional are infinitely superior to 20th dimensional, and the explination how if a being is more than countably infinitly number of times superior to an infinity dimensional it's still only high 1-B. You as three-dimensional dont need to know how these beings truly are or work, their existence that is, the understanding of the symbolism may be more important for you.
Now what lies after power scaling? Omnipotence. It's not a level or definiton in itself. If you see that picture then all things come to pass.
- 2,650
- 467
@Prospect
Please don't quote large blocks of text. The admins will get angry at that.
They are not beyond their own reality. They cannot be, as the context of what constitutes fiction and what does not makes this necessitative.
Furthermore, their "reality," is not applicable to our own. "Beatrice," does not exist in any way that's feasible to me or you. I could say, "She's dead," and, if I had jurisdiction over that story (ownership rights) Guess what? She's dead. It doesn't matter what her parameters are.
Omnipotence does not truly, logically exist within the context of a fictional reality, and as I have stated several times already, means nothing in our tiering system, just like an "Omniverse". Tier 0 simply is not equivalent to omnipotence. This has been explained numerous times before, and is why the most they can be called within a fictional setting is "questionable".
Please don't quote large blocks of text. The admins will get angry at that.
They are not beyond their own reality. They cannot be, as the context of what constitutes fiction and what does not makes this necessitative.
Furthermore, their "reality," is not applicable to our own. "Beatrice," does not exist in any way that's feasible to me or you. I could say, "She's dead," and, if I had jurisdiction over that story (ownership rights) Guess what? She's dead. It doesn't matter what her parameters are.
Omnipotence does not truly, logically exist within the context of a fictional reality, and as I have stated several times already, means nothing in our tiering system, just like an "Omniverse". Tier 0 simply is not equivalent to omnipotence. This has been explained numerous times before, and is why the most they can be called within a fictional setting is "questionable".
- 1,096
- 94
@Aeyu
You are contradicting how the wikia is describing tier 0. I do hate to quote large texts aswell, though that makes it visually easier for myself.
So, let bring up this "beyond" reality symbolism. The application of that basically says that you are boundlesly above everything, including meaning and logicism. Limitless, if you may prefer. Now, you are correct. "Omnipotence does not truly, logically exist". Of course not, since it is beyond logic and metaphysical logicism already. You cannot hope to concive a boundless even through every possible or impossible traditional way, not even the top tiers of outerversal are evident to.
And let us say that you are the author of umineko, which is obviously not a truth. Now the author says that beatrice has died, though you need to specificy a reason to and how. Since her being is still proficiently still within the tiering system, that is how worlds are. What you implied wasnt logicism which i seen many of you been mentioning, man is bound to state reasons. Or nothing happens.
Also beatrice does indeed do not exist at all, not relatively that is. Her being is non-existing to this world. Like a 1 to 0, but she doesnt commit to any of the parameters of this world. She's entierly seperate as with the Umineko reality.
You are contradicting how the wikia is describing tier 0. I do hate to quote large texts aswell, though that makes it visually easier for myself.
So, let bring up this "beyond" reality symbolism. The application of that basically says that you are boundlesly above everything, including meaning and logicism. Limitless, if you may prefer. Now, you are correct. "Omnipotence does not truly, logically exist". Of course not, since it is beyond logic and metaphysical logicism already. You cannot hope to concive a boundless even through every possible or impossible traditional way, not even the top tiers of outerversal are evident to.
And let us say that you are the author of umineko, which is obviously not a truth. Now the author says that beatrice has died, though you need to specificy a reason to and how. Since her being is still proficiently still within the tiering system, that is how worlds are. What you implied wasnt logicism which i seen many of you been mentioning, man is bound to state reasons. Or nothing happens.
Also beatrice does indeed do not exist at all, not relatively that is. Her being is non-existing to this world. Like a 1 to 0, but she doesnt commit to any of the parameters of this world. She's entierly seperate as with the Umineko reality.
- 2,650
- 467
@Prospect
It doesn't matter. Admins will still get angry.
I am not contradicting it. I suggest you read the Omnipotence and Reality-Fiction Interaction pages and then get back to me.
It's beyond everything else in its verse. That doesn't make it omnipotent, even in the context of fiction.
Me being the author has nothing to do with what I was saying. You don't need to specify a reason as the creator of a work. You are not bound, as the author/creator of a work, by a fictional world's systems or rules.
0 is still within the Tiering System's confines, regardless.
Separate, but inferior.
It doesn't matter. Admins will still get angry.
I am not contradicting it. I suggest you read the Omnipotence and Reality-Fiction Interaction pages and then get back to me.
It's beyond everything else in its verse. That doesn't make it omnipotent, even in the context of fiction.
Me being the author has nothing to do with what I was saying. You don't need to specify a reason as the creator of a work. You are not bound, as the author/creator of a work, by a fictional world's systems or rules.
0 is still within the Tiering System's confines, regardless.
Separate, but inferior.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@Prospect
Please do not quote large walls of text. It clutters the thread. A simple "@(Username)" will suffice.
Please do not quote large walls of text. It clutters the thread. A simple "@(Username)" will suffice.
- 1,096
- 94
I'm not quite sure what you meant by that last part, but i just ignore it for now.
Now, why would you not be bound? I dont wanna induce this to as a bad thing, If you are supposdly "configurating" the setting of this reality, its your duty to describe why beatrice has moved from 1 to 0. Or from 0 to 1. Or else who are you trying to explain the symbolism to?
Also yet again, from what you just said, you think that omnipotence is something definable at all. The boundless are by symbolism explained to be the supreme above the concept of supreme, They are the truth of that reality, and above it aswell. It means that if you ever tried to put two boundless in a conflict, what happens is that you have no way to know. Since their power is not actual "power", they are above that concept and meaning.
No problem assaltwafe, i guess i have to create a separete document.
Now, why would you not be bound? I dont wanna induce this to as a bad thing, If you are supposdly "configurating" the setting of this reality, its your duty to describe why beatrice has moved from 1 to 0. Or from 0 to 1. Or else who are you trying to explain the symbolism to?
Also yet again, from what you just said, you think that omnipotence is something definable at all. The boundless are by symbolism explained to be the supreme above the concept of supreme, They are the truth of that reality, and above it aswell. It means that if you ever tried to put two boundless in a conflict, what happens is that you have no way to know. Since their power is not actual "power", they are above that concept and meaning.
No problem assaltwafe, i guess i have to create a separete document.
- 8,438
- 3,292
You can either just create a new post and start it with @, or reply to a comment and delete everything in the quote box. That way it is still directed a reply number but doesn't have to huge wall of repeated text.
- 2,650
- 467
I'm saying that you literally don't have to. The substance of the narrative might suffer, but that's not related to what I'm saying.
I'm not saying you're "moving," them to anything. You could delete them from existence entirely with just a thought. This is all related to boundlessness in a fictional setting only pertaining to the fictional setting, and even then not being directly equatable with "omnipotence".
Omnipotence is definable. It's a word that can be broken into many different arguments and definitions which can all be related to one another. Not that it matters, since "omnipotence," is unprovable anyway. You can't have two "boundless," in a conflict. Only one can exist in a setting, all others are beneath it. Like, Tier 0 is tier 0 because no one else can be tier 0. That's the crux of their existence. It is, has been, and always be defined as a hierarchy thing in our tiering system.
I'm not saying you're "moving," them to anything. You could delete them from existence entirely with just a thought. This is all related to boundlessness in a fictional setting only pertaining to the fictional setting, and even then not being directly equatable with "omnipotence".
Omnipotence is definable. It's a word that can be broken into many different arguments and definitions which can all be related to one another. Not that it matters, since "omnipotence," is unprovable anyway. You can't have two "boundless," in a conflict. Only one can exist in a setting, all others are beneath it. Like, Tier 0 is tier 0 because no one else can be tier 0. That's the crux of their existence. It is, has been, and always be defined as a hierarchy thing in our tiering system.
- 1,096
- 94
Okay no problem. assaltwaffle
So basically aeyu, this "symbolism" is the only way one can describe a world without actually having to understand the full technicalities of things with meaning.
And the boundless have their own symbolism, fortunately for you. Some people call it magic, though not really, a actual miracle might be the case.
So basically aeyu, this "symbolism" is the only way one can describe a world without actually having to understand the full technicalities of things with meaning.
And the boundless have their own symbolism, fortunately for you. Some people call it magic, though not really, a actual miracle might be the case.
- 2,650
- 467
Symbolism and intention doesn't change the fact that it isn't related to how we tier things. We don't consider omnipotence at all, as outlined on the Omnipotence page, for a number of reasons, all based around logical inconsistency. And it's what I meant before about even 1-A's being observable as omnipotent from a certain point of view. You could have a number of "boundless," beings as well in a setting, and they don't all have to be at the top of a hierarchy.
- 1,096
- 94
Aeyu, i think you know well that the term "boundless" isnt applicable to those things that dance around something that isnt really asleep. That's just complete symbolism for a better depiction of the chulthu mythos, azathoth could aswell be doing something only he can value as "truth"while the outer gods are under the dillusion that they are trying to prevail the inevitable. Meaningly to say what azathoth is actually "doing" is obviously beyond the authors hope to define any more symbolism.
- 2,650
- 467
But that's not the case.
They are described as boundless.
They are "omnipotent," in one sense.
But they are limited by beings who are hierarchically superior to them.
The author could describe Azathoth in a million more ways.
You could say a dog, which appears three-dimensional, is beyond dimensions and realities and is "boundless," in terms of its capabilities in a system related to other boundless entities. That doesn't mean they're necessarily beyond description.
They are described as boundless.
They are "omnipotent," in one sense.
But they are limited by beings who are hierarchically superior to them.
The author could describe Azathoth in a million more ways.
You could say a dog, which appears three-dimensional, is beyond dimensions and realities and is "boundless," in terms of its capabilities in a system related to other boundless entities. That doesn't mean they're necessarily beyond description.
- 1,096
- 94
The description of a boundless lies in the symbolism that azathoth is boundlessly beyond meaning. No matter if the author supposedly described azathoth in a eons of more ways, or a infinite. Those are still meaningful, a boundless is beyond meaningness in the entirety.
The narrow symbolism that a miracle can be truth. Something needing no observer at all to actually be "one" ,either inside or outside the verse. The author simply isnt aware of azathoth's actual doing, and that isnt needed either. Because it has to be meaningful for one to actually grasp something at all. However the author describes the symbolism at least in a way that every audience can understand Azathoth, and that's meaningful.
The narrow symbolism that a miracle can be truth. Something needing no observer at all to actually be "one" ,either inside or outside the verse. The author simply isnt aware of azathoth's actual doing, and that isnt needed either. Because it has to be meaningful for one to actually grasp something at all. However the author describes the symbolism at least in a way that every audience can understand Azathoth, and that's meaningful.
- 2,650
- 467
Those are arbitrary terms that you're constructing. It's, and this is the last time I will say such a thing, not absurd, and cannot possibly be verified to be such. I will say it until I'm blue in the face: Tier 0 is a hierarchy thing. It is characters who are at the top of a hierarchy and are infinitely above tier 1-A characters with no one who can challenge them in their respective verses. Discussions about necessity and the philosophical significance of "boundlessness," are irrelevant to the rating.
The author COULD be aware of what they're doing. For the last time, a tier 0 does not, and cannot, transcend the author's understanding completely. Sure, they might not be able to visualize a higher-dimensional space, but applying articles or parameters to an object and arbitrarily putting limits on them like, "we can't understand this," is irrelevant. They can still be understood by said parameters.
The author COULD be aware of what they're doing. For the last time, a tier 0 does not, and cannot, transcend the author's understanding completely. Sure, they might not be able to visualize a higher-dimensional space, but applying articles or parameters to an object and arbitrarily putting limits on them like, "we can't understand this," is irrelevant. They can still be understood by said parameters.
- 1,096
- 94
Then exactly how are you gonna contend to the reason that tier 0 is not some mere rating. It is symbolism to the justification of a boundless, illimitable.
I'm sorry if i have to extend to such prolonged time, but it's self-explantory by every means. So For the last time, it is...not....a....level with meaningness. The author cannot possibly or impossible be aware of azathoth's doing, since that's the most simplifed picture of azathoth. Azathoth is beyond the symbolism which the author has depicted for the audience. True infinity.
He is boundless. Now you can indeed argue that high 1-a to 1-A is a hiearchy thing, that is perfectly fine. The outer gods can argue that they are relatively boundless to a other level, but i on the other hand know that none are omnipotent. Does that squabble matter for me? It does, they are meaningful to me. Thus a hiearchy is set.
I'm sorry if i have to extend to such prolonged time, but it's self-explantory by every means. So For the last time, it is...not....a....level with meaningness. The author cannot possibly or impossible be aware of azathoth's doing, since that's the most simplifed picture of azathoth. Azathoth is beyond the symbolism which the author has depicted for the audience. True infinity.
He is boundless. Now you can indeed argue that high 1-a to 1-A is a hiearchy thing, that is perfectly fine. The outer gods can argue that they are relatively boundless to a other level, but i on the other hand know that none are omnipotent. Does that squabble matter for me? It does, they are meaningful to me. Thus a hiearchy is set.
- 165,333
- 72,561
As usual, my time is limited, but I obviously mostly agree with Aeyu here. This thread is starting to get extremely tiresome and repetitive.
That said, a tier 0 does in fact transcend human understanding. Even regular higher-dimensional characters transcend human ability to properly visualise.
That said, a tier 0 does in fact transcend human understanding. Even regular higher-dimensional characters transcend human ability to properly visualise.
- 165,333
- 72,561
We can categorise the characters in ranking systems, and fiction cannot directly affect us (unless it brainwashes people into crazed fundamentalist religious zealots, and encourages them to commit genocide, or similar), but if such a being would exist in reality, it would clearly be beyond true human comprehension.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Well with that answer has this thread been concluded?
- 1,096
- 94
My point however, was exactly what ant said. The author submits to you the overral idea of one to understand the plot, the world. But the symbolism itself on the other hand which explains that mortals cannot even hope to concive their true being(like man to outer gods, or outer gods to azathoth). As long you understand the explicit symbolism, the story can be realized narrowly as a whole by three-dimensions or even 4-dimensions.
Also, other worlds cannot "affect" us, just as we cannot physically interact with them or affect them in any way, that's the significance of effect. One can only explain the configuration of a world, That's my saying of things.
@Assaltwaffle
Okay no problem, i think that's enough for me.
Also, other worlds cannot "affect" us, just as we cannot physically interact with them or affect them in any way, that's the significance of effect. One can only explain the configuration of a world, That's my saying of things.
@Assaltwaffle
Okay no problem, i think that's enough for me.
- Status
Similar threads
