Marvel Cosmology Downgrade

[Gasper]

This is just what the author tried to explain in the beginning, but then he explicitly talks about several math theories, and then e got into Cantor's theory of transfinite aleph numbers.

Yeah, and in that same comic with celestials and cubic, he dosen't even mention higher alephs.

 

[Deagonx]

he dosen't even mention higher alephs

He does, however, mention greater levels of infinity, and the word transfinite.

 

[Reiner04]

This is just what the author tried to explain in the beginning, but then he explicitly talks about several math theories, and then e got into Cantor's theory of transfinite aleph numbers.

It has alot of problems emerging with how he has defined it and in the end, the only thing we are relying on is that he has said one infinity is greater than another which doesn't helps the case even a little bit. That's the entire thing in the scan.

And all other verses who hasn't used the mathematics correctly are in the same page. They also don't know 2*infinite is not bigger.

 

[Gasper]

So apparently just mentioning "higher infinites" is enough for aleph scaling.
And i know alephs are mentioned in doctor strange comic, but it dosen't help much if those alephs aren't as strong as rl alephs.
I'm just waiting for a time when one verse just needs to mention Higher infinites to get 1-A+ scaling.

 

[Deagonx]

So apparently just mentioning "higher infinites" is enough for aleph scaling.

Please stop misrepresenting our arguments.

 

[LordTracer]

This actually seems to be a great and thorough analysis.

@Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @Sandman31 @SuperAPM @Firestorm808 @EmperorRorepme @Ehnkr2beboh @Elizio33 @LordTracer @MarvelFanatic119 @catzlaflame @Gasper @Maverick_Zero_X @Lightning_XXI @Deagonx @Vasco @Eseseso @MARVEL_Future_Fight_Gamer @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Tllmbrg @Dark-Carioca @ObberGobb

What do you think about this?

My apologies, but Tier 1 stuff is completely out of my wheelhouse (and I really don’t like cosmology stuff for Marvel/DC), so I don’t think I’ll be much help here.

 

[Gasper]

Please stop misrepresenting our arguments.

Sorry, what did i misinterpreted again?

 

[Deagonx]

Sorry, what did i misinterpreted again?

The evidence, and our arguments, are not best described as "they said higher infinities."

 

[Antvasima]

Ya'll do realize aleph hierarchy is 1-A+, right?
And i don't think marvel deserves that tier for using math wrong.

Strongly agreed.

 

[Antvasima]

The infinities they used is terribly wrong. If the maths and infinities is not correctly used then it shouldn't be applied but just what explaination has been given should be considered. We don't have to use irl infinities if verse don't follow it.

Yes, I am also uneasy with it. It also seems far too high for Marvel in context with the general portrayal in other stories.

 

[Deagonx]

Yes, I am also uneasy with it. It also seems far too high for Marvel in context with the general portrayal in other stories.

I agree, I am just not okay with the reasoning being that they didn't describe the math correctly. If we have anti-feats or if this seems like an outlier, or etc, then that's a different discussion entirely.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. "For the multiverse is literally a transfinite number -- that is, a number greater than infinity -- of universe."

"There are, of course, an infinite number of levels of infinity. Towering above us is a being possessed of a transfinite level of power many orders of magnitude beyond our own."

But the Kosmos and Kubik story was from an unknown writer in a very obscure Fantastic Four annual side story. It seems very unreliable to base our entire understanding of Marvel Comics scaling on something like that.

And the Doctor Strange story seems to have gotten the mathematical principles wrong and not have been officially established and referenced anywhere afterwards.

 

[Deagonx]

But the Kosmos and Kubik story was from an unknown writer in a very obscure Fantastic Four annual side story. It seems very unreliable to base our entire understanding of Marvel Comics scaling on something like that.

I think that's a fair point.

And the Doctor Strange story seems to have gotten the mathematical principles wrong and not have been officially established and referenced anywhere afterwards.

I agree with the latter, not the former. My sole contention is this: If we are going to dismiss it, inconsistency is a good reason. Bad math, IMO, absolutely isn't. How many verses actually reference bijection or use the word 'uncountable?' I am sure they exist, but I have seen many that don't. This scan, in a vacuum, is as good as any for establishing greater infinities. I prefer we focus on things like "this is out of line with other comics" than say "we won't accept it because this guy wasn't a mathematician."

 

[Hasty12345]

I would strongly disagree. They went so far as to explicitly reference Cantor, who established uncountable infinities, and explicitly used them to establish the notion of greater infinities. The only slip up was that in explaining the concept of greater infinities, they used two countable infinities added together. In comparison to a lot of the other evidence used to establish uncountable infinities, this is probably some of the best there is. It's not like other comics are explaining mathematical bijection as a proof for uncountable infinities before they get rated like that.

As far as "evidence for higher infinities" go, this is the most explicit and clear I've ever seen.

That’s fine, but I’d just argue infinities work differently in marvel based on this explanation, and it does not coincide with our tiering system unfortunately.

and I don’t think referencing cantor has any kind weight, especially when cantor knew two countable infinities doesn’t equal an uncountable infinity. Marvel cantor is an idiot.

 

[Antvasima]

"Infinite levels of greater infinity" explicitly stated twice isn't enough for a higher tier? Sheesh.

Well, based on that I can buy High 1-B for oldschool Marvel Comics, but not 1-A+ or higher.

 

[Comicgyal]

Honestly, when the feat in question is mentioned twice, in two seperate stories, I don’t think it’s an inconsistency at all. Transfinite has been mentioned more times than those two instances, and even if the math is wrong, we cannot disregard the “Higher levels of infinity” that was mentioned.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree, I am just not okay with the reasoning being that they didn't describe the math correctly. If we have anti-feats or if this seems like an outlier, or etc, then that's a different discussion entirely.

Yes. Marvel has never had such a vast hierarchy of power firmly established as far as I am aware. At least definitely not in the modern cosmology.

 

[Deagonx]

That’s fine, but I’d just argue infinities work differently in marvel based on this explanation, and it does not coincide with our tiering system unfortunately.

I don't think that's giving the comic a fair shake. If you pick any random author and ask them to establish "higher infinities" in their comics, I am sure it would look similar. The fact that these comics would benefit in their tiering from not getting into the details seems backwards to me. Despite the misstep, they went to considerable lengths to establish greater infinities in a mathematically sound way, and that is very important.

Honestly, when the feat in question is mentioned twice, in two seperate stories, I don’t think it’s an inconsistency at all. Transfinite has been mentioned more times than those two instances, and even if the math is wrong, we cannot disregard the “Higher levels of infinity” that was mentioned.

Agreed. My only caveat is that if it is indeed overruled by a large body of other evidence that shows these beings aren't that powerful, that would take precedence. e.g. if Kubik struggles with galaxy level fights, and the "orders of magnitude higher than us" being gets defeated by a 2-A being, then that would overrule the statement IMO.

I just don't agree with dismissing it because of the math.

 

[Hasty12345]

It’s clear marvels higher infinities don’t coincide with our tiering system given 2*infinity = higher infinity

 

[Antvasima]

I think that's a fair point.

Thank you.

I agree with the latter, not the former. My sole contention is this: If we are going to dismiss it, inconsistency is a good reason. Bad math, IMO, absolutely isn't. How many verses actually reference bijection or use the word 'uncountable?' I am sure they exist, but I have seen many that don't. This scan, in a vacuum, is as good as any for establishing greater infinities. I prefer we focus on things like "this is out of line with other comics" than say "we won't accept it because this guy wasn't a mathematician."

Well, a statement of infinite degrees of infinity seems fine at least, if it was explicit, as it is hard for an author to misunderstand, but an infinite series of alephs requires a higher degree of evidence that authors know what they are talking about, and also needs to be consistent with the setting as a whole of course.

 

[Deagonx]

It’s clear marvels higher infinities don’t coincide with our tiering system given 2*infinity = higher infinity

You said that the first time, but you didn't address anything in my response to that.

Well, a statement of infinite degrees of infinity seems fine at least, if it was explicit, as it is hard for an author to misunderstand, but an infinite series of alephs requires a higher degree of evidence that authors know what they are talking about.

I just feel like we're working from an inconsistent standard of evidence. You know me, I am not the person who carelessly supports overblown tiering, and I see a lot of people try to sneak in upgrades based on extremely generously interpreted scans, and I believe there are a lot of profiles on the wiki that are way way way overrated. However, this is one of the most direct and matter-of-fact scans about higher infinities I've ever seen, and I think the standard of "must demonstrate familiarity with advanced mathematics" is not one that we generally impose upon other verses. I have the impression that this is being used as a hail mary to prevent a rather unfavorable upgrade, because it provides an "out" for an otherwise extremely clear scan, but I don't think that's right. I think we should focus on establishing it's truly inconsistent with Marvel.

 

[Comicgyal]

Deagonx makes sense to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise what you want to do here exactly? Only apply High 1-B statistics for pre-Quesada Marvel Comics, or something considerably more?

I do not think that somebody simply suddenly using the word "Inaccessible Cardinal" without knowing what it means in a story that has not been referenced anywhere else in a setting where there have likely been over 100,000 regular comic books in sum total should warrant tier High 1-A or 0 statistics for all the most powerful characters within it, for example.

 

[Antvasima]

I think we should focus on establishing it's truly inconsistent with Marvel.

I would greatly appreciate help with research in this regard in any case.

 

[Gasper]

I don't think that's giving the comic a fair shake. If you pick any random author and ask them to establish "higher infinities" in their comics, I am sure it would look similar. The fact that these comics would benefit in their tiering from not getting into the details seems backwards to me. Despite the misstep, they went to considerable lengths to establish greater infinities in a mathematically sound way, and that is very important.


Agreed. My only caveat is that if it is indeed overruled by a large body of other evidence that shows these beings aren't that powerful, that would take precedence. e.g. if Kubik struggles with galaxy level fights, and the "orders of magnitude higher than us" being gets defeated by a 2-A being, then that would overrule the statement IMO.

I just don't agree with dismissing it because of the math.

I would just like to say something here, if the author himself/herself dosen't know about set theory and how it works thats fine, but when those inaccuracies show up in they're works, then i see a problem.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I just read that scan. It's obvious the author thought that transfinite means beyond infinite.

And putting "using wrong terms" aside. We should evaluate the story in a vacuum and see the idea they're trying to convey.

Is the tier system based on using specific buzzwords correctly, or is it based on what the the story actually conveys?

 

[Deagonx]

if the author himself/herself dosen't know about set theory and how it works thats fine, but when those inaccuracies show up in they're works, then i see a problem.

Not saying anything math related at all shouldn't be better for tiering than getting math somewhat wrong.

I just read that scan. It's obvious the author thought that transfinite means beyond infinite.

And putting "using wrong terms" aside. We should evaluate the story in a vacuum and see the idea they're trying to convey.

Is the tier system based on using specific buzzwords correctly, or is it based on what the the story actually conveys?

Fully agree

 

[Antvasima]

So what do you think should be done here, @Deagonx ?

 

[Hasty12345]

So essentially this comes down to, "should we ignore what the comic says literally about an infinite level of greater infinities because they didn't describe bijection in a mathematically accurate way?" And you are in the camp of "yes."

I am very firmly in the camp of "no." They said there were an infinite level of infinities, each greater than the last. This was explicitly used in connection with the number of universes as well as levels of power. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Ignoring all of that because "they established it by adding odds and evens and not bijection" is a rather a flimsy reason to ignore all of the evidence.

I think ignoring the explanation in favour of buzzwords is more or less just cherry-picking and straight up dishonest.

 

[Deagonx]

I think ignoring the explanation in favour of buzzwords is more or less just cherry-picking and straight up dishonest.

I agree.

 

[Gasper]

So what's the conclusion here?

 

[Hasty12345]

I think this crt as it currently stands just proves the need for a more in-depth marvel cosmology analysis

 

[Antvasima]

So what's the conclusion here?

I am not sure, but a lot of the "feats" that we currently scale our Marvel Comics cosmology on seem to have been rejected, although one of them may or may not imply a higher tier than we currently use. It is also likely an oddity compared to the otherwise established scale of the cosmology though.

 

[Antvasima]

I think this crt as it currently stands just proves the need for a more in-depth marvel cosmology analysis

Well, what has been uncovered here would be a useful start at least.

 

[Panpanpanjeidj]

Our standards are designed to make the ideas of different authors compatible with each other.
In comics, infinitely larger spaces than infinite 4d spaces are not five dimensions. But we give it the nickname 5D because it can be compared to a 5D space.
infinity that is twice as big as infinity cannot be compatible with Tier 1.
Our standard is when it has to be at least 2^N0 to be Tier 1.
In other words, Marvel's misrepresentation should be viewed as an infinite layer of Marvel itself, and in order to make it compatible with our standards, we should not cling to the word Aleph, but look at what Marvel itself describes.
The hierarchy where higher infinities continue infinitely in a way that is twice as large as lower is still 2-A.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Our standards are designed to make the ideas of different authors compatible with each other.
In comics, infinitely larger spaces than infinite 4d spaces are not five dimensions. But we give it the nickname 5D because it can be compared to a 5D space.
infinity that is twice as big as infinity cannot be compatible with Tier 1.
Our standard is when it has to be at least 2^N0 to be Tier 1.
In other words, Marvel's misrepresentation should be viewed as an infinite layer of Marvel itself, and in order to make it compatible with our standards, we should not cling to the word Aleph, but look at what Marvel itself describes.
The hierarchy where higher infinities continue infinitely in a way that is twice as large as lower is still 2-A.

Marvel macroverse, already has scans that show that their spaces have infinite dimensions(directions of space). This alone is viable for High 1-B according to our current standards.

Focusing on one erroneous line, doesn't negate that.

 

[Panpanpanjeidj]

Marvel macroverse, already has scans that show that their spaces have infinite dimensions(directions of space). This alone is viable for High 1-B according to our current standards.

Focusing on one erroneous line, doesn't negate that.

Yes, I was talking about 1-A+ Marvel.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I was talking about 1-A+ Marvel.

I also think that High 1-B seems reasonable after we have sifted away the scans/stories that have been clearly debunked in this thread, but 1-A+ seems way too high to be compatible with the rest of the history of the cosmology.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that High 1-B seems reasonable after we have sifted away the scans that have been clearly debunked in this thread, but 1-A+ seems way too high to be compatible with the rest of the history of the cosmology.

I would still greatly appreciate help with organising these revisions later on btw.

@Eficiente @Firestorm808 @Deagonx @Alonik

 

[LuciferX]

Marvel macroverse, already has scans that show that their spaces have infinite dimensions(directions of space). This alone is viable for High 1-B according to our current standards.

Focusing on one erroneous line, doesn't negate that.

Scan? It depends on context what mean by directions.