- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #641
Thank you so, so much. God bless you and your family.
-
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
- 7,635
- 7,801
Have you guys reached a conclusion on the translated statement side of things?
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #643
Yes.
It only took (almost?) 2 years, but we're finally done. (I think that's how long it was overall? I lost track of time and I don't wanna check.) The official Twitter statement undeniably says that AD is superior to mathematical dimensions. I can't think of a more blatant way a statement can call something 5D without uttering the term "5D". If you disregard the Twitter statement completely, AD is still absolutely 4D due to how we now all know that it is superior to space and time, along with being big enough to contain them within itself.
The only thing left to debate is how seriously do we take the Twitter statement within the context of a CRT. It is a tertiary source from what I've been told, but it's not contradicted by anything in the games at all. And when it comes to everything else in the OP, I'm officially right.
- 3,060
- 1,296
- 7,142
- 4,658
Still disagree, names and statements of being beyond/transcending are not adequate evidence for Low 1-C. They lack evidence of a qualitative difference.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #648
Still ask you one more time. How can anything be superior to the very foundation of EVERY 4D structure without being 5D?
- 7,142
- 4,658
By lacking the evidence of qualitative superiority.
Being above a 4D cosmology structure but lacking evidence of qualitative superiority does not get you Low 1-C, as that qualitative superiority is essential evidence for Low 1-C.
You just get the same that every other structure that claims to transcend or be superior to the multiverse without evidence of qualitative difference, Tier 2.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #650
Strawman. My argument isn't that AD is superior to the multiverse or a 4D cosmology structure. It's that it is superior to every 4D structure you can imagine by virtue of being superior to the 4 previously established mathematical dimensions in the verse. It's not superior to any given particular 4D structure. It's superior to the entire framework of 4 dimensionality. This is what being superior to mathematical dimensions entails. And this is what AD is proven to be if you read TheNinthHour's translation. So I'll ask again:
- 7,142
- 4,658
That sure is a large claim to make with the only evidence being a sentence that states that Another Dimension is beyond time and (mathematical) dimensions.
- 7,635
- 7,801
For a space to be qualitatively superior to a Tier 2 structure, the space needs to be infinitely large than the Tier 2 structure to the point that the length of the timelines basically become miniscule in comparison to the space.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #653
Hence my question. How else would you interpret such a statement? Truth is, that is what that sentence means. The only real point of contention is how it can be applied to a CRT given that it comes from what is considered a tertiary source.
In case you don't wanna take the statement for what it is, there's always the aforementionned fact that universes in AD are percieved as flat & fading projections. While I did refute the argument that those images could be portals or other such assumptions, I didn't explain why they should likely be considered timelines. This is most likely the case though, as AD would have to extend throughout time in order to allow users to traverse it. I could go into more detail, but I want to know what you think about the statements now that you know my kanji translations were correct.
- 15,456
- 5,051
My thoughts exactly. Universes in AD don't exceed dimenisons and time in any notable way.
You are not able to conceive that they can exceed all that while not doing so to an infinite degree, despite this being someting objective and that I told you many times already. This stubbornness has no reason to be, if you were someone else I would think you do this on purpose, but again, I believe you can't see why the disagreement and why things aren't as you want them to be.
This is a very wanked view on this, as I explained before. Hopefully other staff can bring themselves to go over this until you understand it.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #656
How? Just tell me already. Without pulling a straw-man that distracts from the fact that it is in fact superior to mathematical dimensions, as in the 4 dimensional axes that make up not only the verse inside of it, but any 4D construct you can imagine. I've made my point very clear and yet absolutely no one has answered the age-old question:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #657
Is everyone else this confused by what I'm saying or is it just mods? Please let me know.
- 33
- 96
I've looked over the thread and the source material, and as someone outside the discussion, the evidence seems to be in your favor. @Peptocoptr27
- 956
- 1,116
So even being mathematically above time and space/dimensions isn't enough?
Seems some verses are gonna need a second look at their L1C rating
Seems some verses are gonna need a second look at their L1C rating
Mephistus
Username Only- 1,046
- 809
AD is regarded as endless in size in one of those novel adaptations noted in this thread by firestorm available on on archive.org (which are fan translated to japanese to spanish for now i guess, will link here if someone wants to verify what the original says):
"Un agujero en forma de estrella se abrió en el espacio distorsionado. Extendiéndose en su otro lado había una oscuridad sin fin."
"A star-shaped hole opened up in the distorted space. Extending on its other side was endless darkness."
Kirby of the Stars/Kirby de las Estrellas Novel Spanish Fan Translations : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Archive of Spanish Fan Translations of the Kirby of the Stars (星のカービィ) novels. These were originally found in a a MEGA folder...
archive.org
There's this fan translation too from japanese to english with it also stating the endless darkness with the extra-dimensional road.
Were those decided to be teritary canon being based upon the games setting according to the author, it would be something.
Last edited:
- 7,635
- 7,801
You can't have transcendence statements alone. You need supporting evidence of qualitative superiority.
I refer to my image previously posted.
May the other staff correct me if I'm mistaken.
@Eficiente
@Everything12
@Antvasima
We have a space encompassing a 4-D structure, including the space between timelines. To qualify for qualitative superiority, the space needs to dwarf the "length" of the timelines, not just have the space between them.
Here's an example of Qualitative Superiority over a dimensional structure 1 level lower.
Last edited:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #664
So even if a realm is literally, directly, called "qualitatively superior to any and all 4D constructs", it still would not be qualitatively superior to 4D constructs unless it has "supporting evidence" whatever that may be? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? It fits the standards of the FAQ 1 to 1. Who cares if it's achieved via statements? Such arbitrary limitations aren't applied to feats. For example, if a reliable source says a character's bomb can "destroy the entire multiverse", we don't need supporting evidence that it was going to do so. As long as the source is reliable, we have absolutely no reason not to take the statement at face value. How is this any different?
You should tag Ultima too. As you can see in the comment above yours, his viewpoint is opposed to the one your assert here:
Honestly, the flat and fading projections in AD that I keep bringing up are most likely timelines rather than universes, but I don't want this to be the focal point of the discussion until you give a good reason for it to be.
Is there something being left out? I can see how this is a higher-D statement, but this is so much more vague than the statement currently being discussed.Here's an example of Qualitative Superiority over a dimensional structure 1 level lower.
- 15,456
- 5,051
That's another continuity, it even has events that differ from the games. And that statement is most likely poetic.AD is regarded as endless in size in one of those novel adaptations noted in this thread by firestorm available on on archive.org (which are fan translated to japanese to spanish for now i guess, will link here if someone wants to verify what the original says):
"Un agujero en forma de estrella se abrió en el espacio distorsionado. Extendiéndose en su otro lado había una oscuridad sin fin."
"A star-shaped hole opened up in the distorted space. Extending on its other side was endless darkness."
Kirby of the Stars/Kirby de las Estrellas Novel Spanish Fan Translations : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Archive of Spanish Fan Translations of the Kirby of the Stars (星のカービィ) novels. These were originally found in a a MEGA folder...archive.org
There's this fan translation too from japanese to english with it also stating the endless darkness with the extra-dimensional road.
Were those decided to be teritary canon being based upon the games setting according to the author, it would be something.
Well, it was never said that it encompasses a 4-D structure or the space between timelines, just the space between dimensions.
Well, you could have something like that in a verse and just mean that the bigger place is just far bigger than the smaller place.Here's an example of Qualitative Superiority over a dimensional structure 1 level lower.
You "somehow" missed how "qualitatively superior" is a term we use. Meaning we placed a meaning to it for practicality, and it otherwise talks about something very complex. Yes a realm could very much be called that and still need better evidence, it would prove superiority but to no proven degree.
You didn't understand them well, as pointed out before.
It can achieved via statements, nobody said that, it's just that those statements are worthless to what you want them to achive.
- 168,514
- 77,231
Mephistus
Username Only- 1,046
- 809
but the way its translated/ phrased with the second statement is pretty hard to take as a prose: "It’s the same as when Galacta Knight appeared. A star-shaped hole opened on the wavering space, and endless darkness was partially shown on the opposite side."
Looking into the novels canon state, at best they would be hints to elements that the games ought to share, given how its still using them as a source material with them being stated by the author / devs as intentionally deviant for sake of a fresh take. Better to just not bring it up at all.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #669
So it's superior to 4D structures (undeniably so, even without the Twitter statement, thanks to TheNinthHour's translation), it contains universes and bridges them to each other through both space and time, and you're not even going to admit that it encompasses even one 4D structure? I won't lie. This is a first.
You ""somehow"" didn't answer the question I asked you ages ago. At this point, it might not even be necessary considering it was partly in response to this claim you made, which aged like milk after the recent translation of Jigen, but I digress. The point is, for as complex as qualitative superiority is, you can and did still use words to describe it. It's not complex to the extent that words literally can't explain the requirements for it. If the words you use to describe it are accurate, then those same words can be used in an official statement to assert definite qualitative superiority in-universe. If the words you use to describe it don't do it justice, and never could, then you are saying that it can't be achieved via statements.
what?
Then why didn't you refute my assertion that they mean AD is ultimately superior to the foundation all 4D structures? Do you think that's somehow worthless? That this is somehow not enough to make it 5D or even 4D for that matter? Let me make myself clear. AD's superiority to mathematical dimensions means it is superior to every dimensional axis previously established in the cosmology. Every 4D structure imaginable is bound by the 4 dimensions that make them up. That's what makes them 4D structures. AD surpasses those 4 dimensions completely, which inherently makes it qualitatively superior to any structure confined by thier limitations, which, I repeat, means every 4D construct. If you still want to assert that doesn't make Kirby cosmology 5D, at least say it's because Twitter statements in general aren't a reliable enough source and save yourself from the time-waste that takes like these provide you.
If someone asserts that a character who quotes the FAQ word for word in their statement of qualitative superiority should be considered qualitatively superior "doesn't understand" the FAQ, we might as well consider it an admission that the FAQ standards only apply to verses that you want it to apply to.
Just so we're clear, you do think AD itself is at least 4D?
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #670
Yeah...
- 168,514
- 77,231
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #672
- 7,635
- 7,801
At the moment, we are still in the step of determining Qualitative Superiority from the source material.
Eficiente corrected me in that we are only told that the AD is the space between dimensions.
We don't have a solid source justification that AD is qualitatively larger than 4-D.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #675
I'll ask for the 8th time then:
Can you also at least answer to the question I asked you in my last comment? Seems you didn't read any of it.
- 15,456
- 5,051
That's no reason to conclude that at all, anyone can say something poetic and follow it by saying that it's being partially shown, nothing makes it less poetic. Also the "darkness" is "outer space", which is dark and hence called darkness.
That's made up and an awful standard to follow, you could say that about any continuity that's its own take on another continuity, there is no reason to affirm that they have to share elements, affirm so is thus dogmatic. Being stated to be deviant is meaningless to point out as something good.
We went over this.
It doesn't matter. Its time is weird, within that weirdness it's up to unquantifiable standards to say that it has a linear flow of time like a regular universe or not.
You don't digress, you wanted to one up the conversation by saying something similar to what I said but without substance, Rings of Power style, regardless of it not being necessary as you point out, being an old thing and how petty it is to copy & paste a wording unrelated to the discussion to reply in the same way with some sarcasm.
Below the comment you quoted I say "It can achieved via statements, nobody said that, it's just that those statements are worthless to what you want them to achive."
Meaning that it's pointless to point that out as I already know that, the matter clearly, evidently being that the words/statements don't do it for this to be Low 1-C. You should have concluded that & moved from there, because you already had all the information needed to know that. It could very well be that you said all that because you had as a priority to just have something to say, which I say as an educated guess in context.
As before, it should have come as no surprise.
The Twitter statements are good, the superiority is unquantifiable rather than infinite. Those universes that got the statements could have something as simple as being a bit older than Kirby's universe and that alone would make the statements fit, you oversell them with things like "ultimately superior to the foundation all 4D structures".
That's how you view it but not how it is, hence what I said. And the conclusion is antagonistic for the sake of it rather than because it follows, what follows on that premise is that I would be wrong in how I understand that bit of the FAQ, not that I must always apply the FAQ standards to verses I want it to apply it, what even would those verses be in which it applies and in which it doesn't apply.
We went over this here.
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #678
None of what you said debunks its superiority to space-time, and it never could, because that's what the statements say, as made painfully clear by TheNinthHour's translation. AD is not just outside of space-time or transcending it in an unspecified way. It is superior. Plain and simple. Early on in the thread's history, your counter-argument was that we don't even know if it's "beyond" in a superiority sense or if it's "beyond" in a "going outside the boundaries" sense. Except now we do know it's the former. So yeah. We did go over this, and if you stayed consistent in your outlook instead of moving the goal post, you would agree with 4D even without the Twitter statement.
It absolutely matters. Or at least, it did before the translations were confirmed. If it had linear flow of time, we could infer that it operates on a different time scale like the quantum realm from the MCU, which you brought up as an example to support your argument.
As if your ""somehow"" had any substance in the first place. You know why you said it like that. All I did was use your own coy sarcasm against you. If you're gonna assume I debate in bad faith because I continuously find your arguments illogical, I'm allowed to assume the same about you when you intentionally ignore my questions.
The same sarcasm that you used, true. I'll admit I shouldn't have sunk to that level. The only reason the "old thing" lost relevance was because the recent translation utterly buried any credibility your side of the argument had left. I asked you that question to give you the chance to accept AD as 4D so we can put this to rest and you declined even that. Now that my translations are accurate for everyone to see, I have absolutely no reason to let go of 5D anymore. The burden of proof is on your end. You have three options:
1: Try to debunk the legitimacy of the translations, in which case you're going against TheNinthHour and my own Japanese translator's clearly superior expertise.
2: Try to prove that superiority to the mathematical dimensions that make up time, space and any other 4D structure is no different from superiority to space and time, and that in either of those cases, it's still just 3D by default.
3: Unfollow the thread... again. Lie and say that i just don't get it, and that you've done all you could. You know that the thread's approval relies on you, so when push comes to shove, you can always take the easy way out after running out of alternarives and finding out you're wrong.
Option 2 is what you're currently doing because despite its clear flaws, it's much more viable than 1 at this point. That doesn't mean it holds up to scrutiny though. You can see everything wrong with it as soon as I present it how it is. You probably know that already, but you also know you always have option 3 as a last resort.
If you already knew that, then why did you say "Yes a realm could very much be called that and still need better evidence" in response to a verse which hypothetically quotes the FAQ word for word in-universe as its justification for qualitative superiority? First, you say that it still wouldn't be enough. Then, you say that it is, and you already knew that. Which is it?
Contradicting yourself again. Can statements alone do it or not? If you're trying to say that my statements specifically aren't enough, then go tell Firestorm that transcendence statements can be enough given the proper wording. The whole reason this specific debate started is because he said that they can't be no matter what.
Everything I say is either to get a straight-forward conclusion through to you or to point out your hypocrisy and neglect of the thread. Assuming your intent is to reach the conclusion you believe to be true, you have no reason to assume my intent is any different from yours. What a waste of a paragraph this is.
Your baffling hypocrisy, that is? I guess you're right. The point of this reaction was to let you see it for yourself.
Even if that were true, an unquantifiable superiority to 4D is still 4D, You're asserting it's not even that.
Any standard universe/timeline, no matter how old, is not superior to 4 mathematical dimensions, as it is still bound by them. It's that simple. Mathematical dimensions are, by definition, the foundation of everything that has dimensionality. That doesn't mean Low 1-A unless the verse in question has infinite mathematical dimensions, of course. Being superior to them is to be superior to all the different mathematical dimensions that exist in a given setting, as stated by the FAQ here. Being superior to "physical (or mathematical if you prefer) dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context".
Within the context of a 2D cosmology, a 3D being would be superior to the mathematical dimensions in said cosmology. Another 2D being, no matter how large, would not. Do you agree with that?
I've come to notice that it is a waste of space and time to accuse someone of bad faith, no matter how legitimate. From now on, no matter how much I may believe it to be true, I'll turn my accusations into questions for the sake of a more fluid debate.
I wasn't asking you.
Last edited:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #679
For those who struggle to keep up with these huge wall of texts, I colored the most important parts of the debate in red. Those are the most crucial elements in the grand scheme of things. That way, it's harder to derail and lose focus. Of course, for maximum transparency, I encourage you to read the whole thing, but it's probably tedious to go through for almost anyone.
- 17,628
- 13,163
my man only now reached 1k messages
- Status
Similar threads
