- 167,676
- 76,256
-
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.
Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2
- Thread starter Peptocoptr27
- Start date
- Status
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #482
That's not the point. I have other evidence for that. You asked me to prove it was larger and has universes in it in the first place.
He said that because some people consider "directionless" realms to be Low 1-A. I pointed out the "directionless" thing because you said it could be possible that the fading universe pictures in AD are actually literal directions to said universes.
I tried to think of how any of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, and I've got nothing. Sorry. I guess I can say that we know absolutely nothing about the space between universe in Dr Strange, so it's no wonder there's no tier attached to it. Gravity Falls' Nightmare Realm is much more debatable, but I'm not quite a GF expert, and it provides nothing for this thread, so I don't know why I'm wasting time with this.
I can maybe sort of see a point in the last part, but if anything, it just supports me. If Another Dimension's road contains many universes in it, that means it's bigger than them, once again proving that its superiority is supported by what we literally see in the game without the need of statements. This whole comment is giving you exactly what you asked from me.
I already addressed the issue surrounding "exceed" and "beyond" so many times, it isn't funny. Here's a link that explains the difference between the two variations of "koeru" and their specifics. The one used in the Kirby statements is the one that refers to a superiority "超える" . Also, how do kanji translations not fix the crux of the issue when you don't even specify what the crux of the issue even is? The Japanese texts are the original texts, and again, to discard the meaning of kanjis is to completely discard the words that make up the statements to begin with, thereby discarding every single Japanese statement on this site.
All of this has similarly been responded to in earlier comments, and there's nothing to add here. I've proven my point and we won't be going anywhere unless you clearly let me know what the "crux of the issue" is precisely.
We already know AD is outright superior to those universes' space-times. We even have a statement of it being superior to the physical dimensions that make them up. I can't stress enough that this the most blatantly higher dimensional realm I've ever seen via mere statements (aside from those that are literally called 5D and higher dimensional word for word). Even if the Twitter statement didn't exist (it's my main argument for a good reason, but let's ignore it for now), the fact that AD is superior to space and time already tells us that it's greater than 4D space-time continuums. Now, that could still make it a 4D hypervolume, unless we had evidence that the nature of that superiority is something more. That's when the tiering system FAQ comes in. You say that universes can be portrayed as papers or films without it meaning anything, but we know that if universes are portrayed as fictional, infinitesimal, or simply "less real" by comparison, they do qualify. Being flat like a 2D being or being a work of fiction like a movie are both pretty blatant indications of at least one of those. If we already know the higher realm has a relationship of superiority over those universes' space-times, how would such a clear visual clue not seal the deal in proving the nature of said superiority?
If you're wondering why I took so long to respond, I'll have to admit that it wasn't just me being busy. After a week had gone by, I had to wonder if any of this is worth it. I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to bump this thread to show that I'm not the only one who gives a shit about it. Fighting this pretty much by myself for over a year is tiring af. If only I didn't have to debunk the same counter-arguments over and over again. I can't blame newly arrived staff members for not being fully caught up on all 5 pages of this thread, but it's a damn shame my work load has to multiply because of it. I'm not sure what can even be done to wrap this up, so how am I supposed to see a point in any of it? We're going in circles, and I can't even find the words to convey that clearly to you.
- 7,486
- 7,673
To keep it simple, you need evidence to support this visual depiction of cosmology.
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #485
Why? I don't even get how you reached the conclusion that this cosmology map is the most logical one or the one I should try to prove.To keep it simple, you need evidence to support this visual depiction of cosmology.
- 7,486
- 7,673
As previous posts mentioned before, being the space between timelines doesn't qualify for Low 1-C. You need support that Another Dimension superceded the entire 2-C structure including the space between timelines.
Mephistus
Username Only- 1,018
- 780
With how they describe the portal/rift mechanics in the tweet, looking out/in would like akin a window in a house, not selective stuff, portals to AD we don't get selective stuff either...
Anyone notice how these translucent images got updated to look like they are in bubbles/translucent spheres(?)
Last edited:
- 17,214
- 12,654
That is something important yes
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #491
I know it doesn't qualify by itself, (even then, you kinda need to edit the speed page to make it suit that premise) and I never said it does.
Kinda seems like you're moving the goal post since I was previously required to prove that AD is greater in size than "the other timelines/realms".
Since AD contains them within itself and makes up the space between them, it already achieves that.
- 167,676
- 76,256
- 7,486
- 7,673
No one is moving goal posts. We're basing it off the Tiering system.
"the other timelines/realms" and the space between them = the entire 2-C structure including the space between timelines
You need to prove that AD represents the big circle in my previous graphic, not the smaller circle. AD space needs to be proven longer than the timelines. From the AD perspective, the 2-C structure inside needs to appear finite.
Last edited:
Darkz
He/Him- 36
- 14
Honestly, with how we're going back and forth all the time, and how we're not making any headway either, I think this is kind of inconclusive. (Unless conclusive in time of course)
If it continues like this, I feel like a solution is to simply put "Possibly Low-1-C", albeit I can see how that's debatable.
If it continues like this, I feel like a solution is to simply put "Possibly Low-1-C", albeit I can see how that's debatable.
- 167,676
- 76,256
- 7,486
- 7,673
I don't see what justification from the prior lists that would imply the Possibly rating.
We are told that AD is the space in between universes, but we aren't given context if the space extends past the infinitely long timeline.
We are told that AD is the space in between universes, but we aren't given context if the space extends past the infinitely long timeline.
Darkz
He/Him- 36
- 14
Possibly
Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild.The possibility of Another Dimension being what you said is there, Pepto made a lot of points and evidence to back up his claims, however we don't have definitive evidence; and we are unsure of the results. As you said, there's not much context but there is a basis, but the whole thing is incredibly vague and fuzzy.
Unless I'm that wrong and the Possibly Low-1C is that wrong, I feel like it's the best way to make sense of all of this.
Either that or this thread continues for 2 more years until we find a definitive conclusion. (It being Low-1C or not being Low-1C definitively)
I'm fine with it being denied, by the way. It's just a proposition.
- 2,780
- 1,690
I could be missing some details, but to me this situation ultimately just has to do with grammar. If the translations and interpretations of the grammar that Peptocoptr27 has been conveying is the correct judgement, then his revision is correct, as it means Another Dimension was basically stated to be of superior dimensional complexity than the temporal dimension. If those factors are being judged incorrectly by him, then the revision is wrong. People arguing for either stance in this matter don't realize that their big amount of additional points are just supporting evidence to their ideas, and the main deciding factor is the grammar which is not being given the attention it needs. I think that there is accidentally a lot of misleading vividness fallacy from both sides, as they are both trying to emphasize why they think their judgement is correct by showing evidence that is not of priority to analyze right now.
This paragraph has some examples. 1: We shouldn't discuss the individual detail of how Another Dimension has fading images of previous places Kirby went to. That has the potential to mean something unimportant if we put aside the statements about Another Dimension that may or may not provide the context of those images being significant. 2: We shouldn't debate about what sense words like "beyond" are being used in. Some people think that Another Dimension being stated to be beyond space and time was it being implied to have 5D capabilities, while some people think that the fictional work was just hyping up Another Dimension's useful space-time travel 4D capabilities that it has been shown to be capable of. Either stance is just an opinion, and the reason Peptocoptr27 is trying to explain why he's correct is because he has evidence that it yet to be verified, and people against this idea are making points that try to skip ahead to verifying the entirety of the revision. If we actually verify if the translations and interpretations of the grammar that Peptocoptr27 provided are correct or not, then we can find a more objective conclusion instead of trying to debate about whose opinion is more reliable and instead of trying to debate about if staff privilege is balanced or not. 3: Similarly to the previous example, there's no point in debating in English about if Another Dimension is the space between universes or if it is beyond time. It's always been portrayed as another dimension that's beyond space and time, so if we want to reach a definite conclusion, we need to find a way to verify if the grammar is really what Peptocoptr27 writes it to be. It will show if Another Dimension is 5D or if it is a normal multiverse (with vague special attributes) like it's already regarded as on the VS Battles Wiki.
If attempting to verify the information proves to be too difficult or unreliable, then we should simply consider it so. I know that the people who want the revision to get accepted are disappointed about claims of there being "not enough evidence" despite their efforts, but the people claiming that there isn't enough evidence are doing so because no one, not even them, is putting most of their focus on the aspect of this revision that matters the most, so the whole situation becomes confusing, especially to people who have other threads to attend to.
Here's what I think should be done as a solution. We need to ask about the grammar to someone, or maybe multiple people individually, who are bilingual, being proficient in both English and Japanese. We will ask them if the statements in Japanese necessarily refer to dimensional complexity as a result of the way Japanese works or if the case is just that it can be as ambiguous as it can be in English. A good strategy is to, although providing the context, not mention the fact that this has to do with Kirby, so we can decrease the likelihood of bias coming from any of the people asked. The result will be very reliable, much more than Peptocoptr27's current evidence, since we will have clarification from at least one additional person who is likely to know the correct answer, and since answering multiple people decreases the likelihood of the answer being biased, not just to Kirby, but maybe to someone's personal beliefs on grammar. This should determine the direction that this revision will go, and remove doubts.
This paragraph has some examples. 1: We shouldn't discuss the individual detail of how Another Dimension has fading images of previous places Kirby went to. That has the potential to mean something unimportant if we put aside the statements about Another Dimension that may or may not provide the context of those images being significant. 2: We shouldn't debate about what sense words like "beyond" are being used in. Some people think that Another Dimension being stated to be beyond space and time was it being implied to have 5D capabilities, while some people think that the fictional work was just hyping up Another Dimension's useful space-time travel 4D capabilities that it has been shown to be capable of. Either stance is just an opinion, and the reason Peptocoptr27 is trying to explain why he's correct is because he has evidence that it yet to be verified, and people against this idea are making points that try to skip ahead to verifying the entirety of the revision. If we actually verify if the translations and interpretations of the grammar that Peptocoptr27 provided are correct or not, then we can find a more objective conclusion instead of trying to debate about whose opinion is more reliable and instead of trying to debate about if staff privilege is balanced or not. 3: Similarly to the previous example, there's no point in debating in English about if Another Dimension is the space between universes or if it is beyond time. It's always been portrayed as another dimension that's beyond space and time, so if we want to reach a definite conclusion, we need to find a way to verify if the grammar is really what Peptocoptr27 writes it to be. It will show if Another Dimension is 5D or if it is a normal multiverse (with vague special attributes) like it's already regarded as on the VS Battles Wiki.
If attempting to verify the information proves to be too difficult or unreliable, then we should simply consider it so. I know that the people who want the revision to get accepted are disappointed about claims of there being "not enough evidence" despite their efforts, but the people claiming that there isn't enough evidence are doing so because no one, not even them, is putting most of their focus on the aspect of this revision that matters the most, so the whole situation becomes confusing, especially to people who have other threads to attend to.
Here's what I think should be done as a solution. We need to ask about the grammar to someone, or maybe multiple people individually, who are bilingual, being proficient in both English and Japanese. We will ask them if the statements in Japanese necessarily refer to dimensional complexity as a result of the way Japanese works or if the case is just that it can be as ambiguous as it can be in English. A good strategy is to, although providing the context, not mention the fact that this has to do with Kirby, so we can decrease the likelihood of bias coming from any of the people asked. The result will be very reliable, much more than Peptocoptr27's current evidence, since we will have clarification from at least one additional person who is likely to know the correct answer, and since answering multiple people decreases the likelihood of the answer being biased, not just to Kirby, but maybe to someone's personal beliefs on grammar. This should determine the direction that this revision will go, and remove doubts.
- 167,676
- 76,256
@TheNinthHour @Maruishimaryishi @Jasonsith @Makai64100 @AnimesFreak2 @Executor_N0
Would any of you be willing to help us reach a conclusion here via your language skills, please?
- 2,780
- 1,690
Yeah, calling other members who know Japanese can work too.
- 3,177
- 2,948
I fear there's a bit of misunderstanding about trying to find "one true understanding" over those words, Japanese can have just as many different meanings to a word as English and there are a lot of meanings that you are only going to find out by looking at fictional tropes and isn't in any dictionary yet. Take the word "Kukan" for example, it literally means "space", but looking into anime and manga there are a lot more uses of the word to have the same usage as the concept of pocket or parallel dimensions and just translating it as "space/spatial" just ignore how the word is used in some anime when you get the context.
And there are a lot of examples of this and Koeru is one of them. Yes, you can look at dictionaries and pinpoint a specific meaning for it, but there are just as many usages that ignore this etymology and just go to a different meaning. In fact "Koeru" in regards to space-time is exactly the example that I have seen the most about as most of the time, it really is just used to mean something that "crosses" instead of "is beyond it".
Japanese is by no means a language you can just pick a dictionary and try to just think that every word is 100% what says there, specially in manga/game/anime/novels there are a lot of corrupted meanings that are dictated by fictional tropes that are yet to be added in dictionaries.
And even if the intent was that of "being beyond", what that means in the context of the work is something that can only be clarified by what is in the work itself, and no amount of "knowing Japanese" is going to substitute this kind of understanding, that sometimes the series themselves never explain anything about that.
- 4,532
- 3,789
First of all i would like to give my opinion on the « Koeru/越える » thing it doesn’t necessarily mean « to transcend
It can mean:
-to cross something (Like the street)
-To overcome (feelings etc…)
-To exceed
-Pass through
Not necessarily about transcendance Just cherry picking It is bad jap has multiple meanings Just like english
There are words that are far less inclusive and precise in japanese tho
Molecule is an exemple it means particles of any structure even mono atomic structures and thus would Also refer to atoms
I didn’t see the feat but we shouldn’t take « Koeru » as a perfect evidence
Also in japanese « 次元 » can be about:
-Perspective
-Dimension (Not in the sense of dimensional complexity Just dimensional space)
-Dimension (Dimensional complexity generally speaking this term is about the minimum number of coordinates of an object)
-Level
-Point of reference
As i said i did not see the feat but it’s incorrect to cherry pick something like this imho
Hope it helps i’m getting back to sleep ^^
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #503
Hol up. Lots to unpack here
- 2,780
- 1,690
So now, instead of you trying to disprove lots of points against many different aspects of this revision, the discussion is back to what it should be. (You're welcome.
) Hopefully all that's left for you to do right now is to defend your position about the Japanese grammar. After that, people can have a better idea of how to evaluate your revision.
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #505
Yeah, thanks man. I still have a lot on my plate, but it seems we have a clearer objective now. I'll get back to it as soon as possible.So now, instead of you trying to disprove lots of points against many different aspects of this revision, the discussion is back to what it should be. (You're welcome.
The_Pink_God
She/Her- 2,641
- 731
i cant believe what im seeing right now
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #508
Ok, so that's what you meant by your previous comment. It was pretty confusing, but essentially, if I can prove that AD contains entire timelines rather than universes, you'll agree with the upgrade? I'm not sure if that's dependent on whether or not my Japanese translations are accurate, but to be honest, if they are (which they should be), there's no need for secondary evidence. Like James said, the statements as translated in the OP are undeniably Low 1-C.
Like I said, that can be true, depending on the variation of koeru. If the variation isn't specified, the most conservative estimate is the ideal one (that being crossing the subject). In this case though, it is specified as a superiority.
That's convenient, because I didn't use "越える" I used "超える". I verified my facts here, here, and with a professional translator off-site. Speaking of which, I'll be sending you a private link so you can chat with him. Ant contacted you because you're translators for this Wiki, so I don't think my word is gonna hold much weight against yours in here. All I can do is refer you to another Japanese speaker. Hope this helps reach an understanding.
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #509
Wait, why is that?
- 7,486
- 7,673
No, that's not what I meant.
As shown in the picture above, you need to prove that AD dwarfs the entire 2-C structure, not just that it contains timelines. That's the difference between the larger circle and the smaller circle. The bigger circle shows qualitive superiority to the smaller circle.
Last edited:
- 7,486
- 7,673
Per site rules, we use tweets as supplementary information if there is already published foundation for it.
That's why we're trying to establish the published foundation first.
Per the FAQ, we need some evidence of qualitative superiority before the "transcend" tweets can be used.
@Antvasima Am I incorrect in this regard?
- 2,780
- 1,690
Keep in mind that supporting evidence would be beneficial in proving your point, we just shouldn't be at that stage in the revision yet. Also, I didn't write that your translations and interpretations of the statements undeniably make Another Dimension tier 1, I wrote that the revision is correct if your translations and interpretations of the statements are correct.
- 2,360
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #513
That doesn't make any sense. The Low 1-C requirements state that you need to be qualitatively superior at least to a Low 2-C structure. We know it contains MULTIPLE Low 2-C structures, and we know its superiority to them is qualitative because of the statements and the visual evidence provided. Does a single established verse even have a cosmology map similar to what you suggest? And again, why does the speed page still say the space between dimensions is the 5th dimension?No, that's not what I meant.
As shown in the picture above, you need to prove that AD dwarfs the entire 2-C structure, not just that it contains timelines. That's the difference between the larger circle and the smaller circle. The bigger circle shows qualitive superiority to the smaller circle.
The tweets are canon as long as nothing contradicts them in the main game.
Yeah that's what I said. If you really wanna set the record straight, I guess you can do that, though.
- 7,486
- 7,673
Per DarkDragonMedeus:
A 2-C structure is finite on a 5-D scale given it requires an a number of 4-D universes and includes the 5th dimension that separates each and everyone one of those universes.
But a Low 1-C feat is uncountable infinite on a 5-D scale. Not saying countable or uncountable infinite need to be specifically stated, but if a realm is qualitatively superior in nature to those realms, then it could be Low 1-C.
DC with the Orrey of Worlds and higher. Pokemon with Arceus. Azrael of Discworld. Chronos from Chrono Clock.
- 4,532
- 3,789
Im not the only translator on this wiki
My discord is a pro related discord for work purposes
Both the links you gave repeated what i said
越える and 超える basically means the same and can be used still in many contexts
From what i can read you did not Complete the first part of the upgrade you have to determine the settings for the verse it’s size etc…
Then we’ll talk about the context and translation
- 4,630
- 1,615
You are correct in this regard. Anyway, still neutral overall.
Edit: “However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify.”
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 167,676
- 76,256
Yes, tweets are not considered to be sufficiently reliable evidence in themselves. We need officially established parts of the canon of a specific fictional setting as a basis.
- 5,879
- 1,072
Where in the FAQ does it say this? The FAQ here doesn't mention it
- 7,486
- 7,673
About the use of tweets?
- 5,879
- 1,072
- Status
Similar threads
