-
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
Pikaman
He/Him- 6,525
- 5,211
What I’m confused with in regards to opposition to this is how exactly they can interpret the statement. Is your issue the statement isn’t enough or that the statement isn’t a 5-D statement, because the latter makes 0 sense to me. Argue about the fact it’s on Twitter and not inside of canon material and the likes if you wanna, but a blatant statement that AD is Mathematically > All 4D Constructs is as blatant as it can particularly get
Guardian_Doge
He/Him- 628
- 606
This thread has been so exhausting and long for no reason at all. It's logical to assume that AD is qualitatively superior because by virtue it must have an element of magnitude greater than any universe that is blatantly a substructure of it mind you. This isn't meant to be some confusing map or eccentrically difficult realm to evaluate, it's just point blank a space that is large enough (and by the subset property to be of the same cardinality) to contain a vast number of already [assumed to be] infinite sized Four dimensional worlds. If what I said comes off as confusing, I basically said because it contains substructures of infinite sized worlds, it must have a larger infinity to contain and make a defined set of parameters.
In short I agree and I felt the need to express my thoughts why.
In short I agree and I felt the need to express my thoughts why.
Last edited:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #684
Interesting. What is this way I act that drags the thread for a needlessly long time to push it to an unnatural conclusion? Refuting your arguments? Being persistant? None of this is breaking the rules. No matter how many times you may try to claim I do, without elaborating on why, like so
According to Effi, the Twitter statement is fine to use. He simply thinks it's not a 5D statement. In fact, he doesn't even think it's 4D...
Last edited:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #685
Do you think I'm not tired of this too? If you had any good reason to think I engage in bad faith, you should have kept the thread closed way back then. (I was already so sick of it so much that I had given up at that point anyway.) But you have no reason to think so, so you rightfully didn't. However, what you did instead was that you opted to edit the FAQ, re-open the thread and claim that said edits dismantles the upgrade when it clearly doesn't, before unfollowing it. You want the thread to end? Then own up to it, and please answer the question below genuinely:
- 168,516
- 77,233
- 7,635
- 7,801
Do we have any precedent on our site of a space between universes/timelines being rated as above Tier 2?
If not, I keep to my prior stance that we don't have primary source material of Qualitative Superiority to justify taking the Transcendence statement at face value.
If not, I keep to my prior stance that we don't have primary source material of Qualitative Superiority to justify taking the Transcendence statement at face value.
Pikaman
He/Him- 6,525
- 5,211
Seriously? I don’t understand how you can’t view the statement as at least 4D. I think it would be rather tricky for a <4D entity to be mathematically superior to all 4D Constructs
- 168,516
- 77,233
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #692
Thanks for sticking around Firestorm. Greatly appreciated.
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?
Counter-question:
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?
There is precedance for a tier 1 structure only containing a Low 2-C structure. The FAQ even says so. Why would a structure that contains multiple Low 2-C structures not be eligible for qualitative superiority just because it also nakes up thr space between them? That's kind of required in order to contain them. As long as my evidence for qualitative superiority is valid (which it very blatantly is), there is absolutely no reason for this to be a deal breaker.
- 7,635
- 7,801
When I ask about precedence, I'm asking about an existing profile or verse location that has already been through the evaluation process. What has already been evaluated as Tier 1 that has the same attributes/justifications as the Kirby location?
Do we have any prior evaluations determining that the space between timelines qualifies as a Low 1-C location?
Last edited:
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #695
At least answer my first question and I'll answer yours.
- 7,635
- 7,801
Sorry. My previous message was for a different thread.
- 7,635
- 7,801
To clarify your earlier question, you are asking if a 2-D being can be stronger than 3-D being?
- 7,635
- 7,801
@Antvasima @Everything12
Here's a better explanation for the space between timelines being Tier 2. See the image below.
For the circle on the far left, is the red dot located in Tier 1 space?
For the middle circle, is the red dot still located in Tier 1 space?
For the far right circle, is the red dot still located in Tier 1 space?
The space between timelines is just Tier 2 because you can just add another timeline to fill in that space.
To be Tier 1 space, you need to be qualitatively beyond the limits of a Tier 2 structure.
Here's a better explanation for the space between timelines being Tier 2. See the image below.
For the circle on the far left, is the red dot located in Tier 1 space?
For the middle circle, is the red dot still located in Tier 1 space?
For the far right circle, is the red dot still located in Tier 1 space?
The space between timelines is just Tier 2 because you can just add another timeline to fill in that space.
To be Tier 1 space, you need to be qualitatively beyond the limits of a Tier 2 structure.
Last edited:
- 7,142
- 4,658
I still don't think this is Tier 1.
- 7,635
- 7,801
You get my point, though? Right?
- 13,329
- 21,298
Pepto still makes more sense to me than the counterarguments. If the translations given indicate a direct, mathematical superiority, this should honestly be a straightforward revision. Not sure what this “between” stuff does to complicate things
- 7,635
- 7,801
You consider the space between timelines as justification for Tier 1?
- 13,329
- 21,298
You’re hung up on “but it’s between” despite translations proving actual qualitative transcendence
- 7,635
- 7,801
To my understanding, the outside transcendense statement could only be used if the primary source material supports that qualitative superiority. That's the step we have been discussing.
Is this not the standard procedure?
- 13,329
- 21,298
I don’t believe it should be thrown aside if it’s not contradicted.
Also I have yet to see anyone actually disprove the qualitative superiority dictated by the translations
Also I have yet to see anyone actually disprove the qualitative superiority dictated by the translations
- 7,142
- 4,658
How about the fact that it doesn't meet the qualifications for qualitative superiority.
This mathematical superiority stuff is as applicable for qualitative superiority as statements of transcending the fourth dimension. Just adding the term mathematical there does not give it any more validity.
Additional context and explanation of Another Dimension's relationship with the universes is needed for it to considered applicable for Tier 1.
Last edited:
- 13,329
- 21,298
Since when does transcending a 4-D structure not qualify? And even if that’s what’s been done in the past, doesn’t mean it’s right. How can something that transcends a 4-D structure not be a dimension higher? The logic baffles me. The term itself implies a trivialization of all below it.
Last edited:
- 7,142
- 4,658
Because you require more evidence and a more detailed description than simply being stated to transcend a 4-D structure. It is actually a firm part of the wiki's system of what does and does not count as qualitative superiority and Tier 1. Simple statements of transcendence are not applicable as anymore than supporting evidence for qualitative superiority, it has been stated by staff for years in many a Tier 1 upgrade thread.
- 13,329
- 21,298
“It’s been done before” isn’t an excuse, that’s why Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy. And I’ve been trying to find this “system” of what does and doesn’t qualify. Where is it?
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #710
No. Obviously that can be the case. Any fictional character can have power that goes beyond thier own dimensionality. I'll elaborate upon my question among other things shortly. In the meantime, merry Christmas/holidays everyone! Especially you, TheNinthHour and CloverDragon!
- 168,516
- 77,233
Maybe somebody can read through the following pages for specifics?
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Set Theory Explanation Page
The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...
vsbattles.fandom.com
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
Higher-Dimensional Existence
A given object or entity is referred to as being higher-dimensional when they exist as part of a system with a number of coordinates axes greater than our own, or in layman's terms, if they possess more than three dimensions. Speaking in simple terms, a "dimension" can be considered an axis of...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 13,329
- 21,298
Okay, after reading through, I really don’t see how this doesn’t qualify for Low 1-C. Not only does Another Dimension transcend 4-D structures, thus implying a trivialization of them, it was also mentioned that said universes are depicted in Another Dimension as flat, fading projections, meaning they are contained within AD itself. This was deemed a “wanked view” of it, but no further elaboration was given, so I don’t think that should be paid any mind.
- 168,516
- 77,233
Maybe somebody can read through the following pages for specifics?
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...
Set Theory Explanation Page
The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...
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...
Higher-Dimensional Existence
A given object or entity is referred to as being higher-dimensional when they exist as part of a system with a number of coordinates axes greater than our own, or in layman's terms, if they possess more than three dimensions. Speaking in simple terms, a "dimension" can be considered an axis of...
@Everything12 @Firestorm808 @Eficiente
- 13,329
- 21,298
Also, it should be noted that not once did I see in these guidelines that transcending a structure of X dimensions would not qualify for a dimension higher than that (X + 1). So… yeah, Appeal to Tradition go brr
- 7,142
- 4,658
You should check the Tiering System FAQ, questions 7 and 8 then.
- 13,329
- 21,298
What I’m seeing is that statements of transcendence should be taken case by case. If 4-D structures are depicted in Another Dimension as flat, fading projections (and even now on the profiles, there are spaces within Another Dimension that are considered to be likely space-time continuums, hence the likely 2-C, meaning Another Dimension has 4-D structures within it), then transcendence in AD’s case should be taken as a higher dimension
- 2,648
- 1,481
- Thread starter
- #719
My question has nothing to do with power since any character can have power that goes beyond their own dimensionality. I'm asking if an object being 3D is enough to say it is superior to mathematical dimensions within the context of a 2D cosmology, and vice-versa.
Without further context or additional statements, sure.
You can be qualitatively superior to something while still having it be a part of yourself. The basic premise of so many tier 1 structures including this one is that they have tier 2 structures inside of them. Just because they make up a part of the larger structure doesn't mean the larger structure can't extend further than them to the point of qualitative superiority.
It's neither a justification or a debunk. It's just there. You're making way too big of a deal out of it.
Thankfully, it doesn't just transcend "a 4D structure". It transcends all dimensionality up to 4D.
- 13,329
- 21,298
I think this part is especially notable in Another Dimension’s case given the aforementioned depiction of these structures. It implies that they are infinitesimal by comparison
- Status
Similar threads
