• 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.

Marvel Cosmology Downgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
LuciferX said:
Beings like LT resides in a 16 Dimensional Space,literary Hyperversal scale makes more sense than High 1-B or Low 1-A.
Click to expand...
There's literally no evidence whatsoever that the dimension is a spatial dimension. "16 dimension" on it's own doesn't debunk High 1-B-Low 1-A Living Tribunal. It's like DC's 6D.
 
Vasco said:
Multiverse but ultima proved High 1-B Negative Zone so it's cool.

The Negative Zone in Civil War( 2006) isn't higher dimensional though.
Click to expand...
I see. Did anyone mention this scan?
main-qimg-b629060db5f647f1098bcadeee17da4e
 
Beyond_transcending said:
There's literally no evidence whatsoever that the dimension is a spatial dimension. "16 dimension" on it's own doesn't debunk High 1-B-Low 1-A Living Tribunal. It's like DC's 6D.
Click to expand...
A "16-dimensional domain in multiversal superspace" should be interpreted as 16 spatial dimensions unless we have a specific reason to believe otherwise. In DC we have the context that neither the 4th, 5th, nor 6th dimensions are spatial.

And while being 16 dimensional in and of itself does not rule out a tier, if the tiering is based on dimensionality that is beyondd 16 dimensions, but those scans are debunked, then the character should be downgraded to the best supported scan. The discussions are ongoing, Ultima didn't 'prove' 1-B Negative Zone, he made an argument for it that is being assessed.
 
Deagonx said:
A "16-dimensional domain in multiversal superspace" should be interpreted as 16 spatial dimensions unless we have a specific reason to believe otherwise. In DC we have the context that neither the 4th, 5th, nor 6th dimensions are spatial.
Click to expand...
Why should it be? There's no reason to assume that the scan was referring to spatial dimension.
 
Beyond_transcending said:
Why should it be? There's no reason to assume that the scan was referring to spatial dimension.
Click to expand...
An "x-dimensional domain" is absolutely a reason to assume it's refer to spatial dimensions. That is not how a collection of realms/universes are commonly referred to. When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras. There's no reason to reject clear evidence based on the errant possibility of an extremely idiosyncratic usage of a phrase.
 
Deagonx said:
An "x-dimensional domain" is absolutely a reason to assume it's refer to spatial dimensions. That is not how a collection of realms/universes are commonly referred to. When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras. There's no reason to reject clear evidence based on the errant possibility of an extremely idiosyncratic usage of a phrase.
Click to expand...
How? That example doesn't fit because when you hear hooves, you know it's hooves. In this case, you don't know what "dimensional domain" was referring to. It's not clear evidence, it's an assumption.
 
Beyond_transcending said:
How? That example doesn't fit because when you hear hooves, you know it's hooves.
Click to expand...
You're right, you know it's hooves. You can conclude that it is extremely likely to be a horse, based on a collection of experiences that indicate that horses are by far the most common animal with hooves, and that it's unlikely to be a Zebra randomly running around. This idea that we need absolute unerring certainty in order to make a conclusion is not a standard we apply to pretty much anything.

When something is called "x-dimensional" it is an extremely safe assumption that -- in the absence of contrary evidence -- it is referring to the spatial dimensionality of that thing. Saying we must abstain from judgment until we find a scan that says "spatial" is not realistic and if we applied that standard universally we would never pass a single CRT. We don't need absolute certainty, we just need good evidence. In this case, a "16-dimensional domain" is great evidence of 16 spatial dimensions.
 
Vasco said:
I thought he did and was agreed upon, my bad I guess.

Check 1st and 2nd page.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I checked and the argument for rejection seems to be that the dream-like universes are within atoms and that it is a reference to the Microverse. I have two issues with this however-

1: The actual scan makes no mention of microverse, nor atoms. Viewing something as an atom isn't a qualitative superiority anyway, unlike viewing it as a dream.

2: Microverse is a parallel reality, not something that is contained by another universe and viewed as a dream.
 
Transcending said:
The actual scan makes no mention of microverse, nor atoms.
Click to expand...
In the issue itself, this event happens concurrently with another character being in the Microverse. In that sense, "Macroverse" is established as a concept that directly parallels the concept of the microverse.

Transcending said:
2: Microverse is a parallel reality, not something that is contained by another universe and viewed as a dream.
Click to expand...
That's the point. His comment about dreams is clearly flowery language, as we know that the relationship between these universes is not dream like.
 
Deagonx said:
You're right, you know it's hooves. You can conclude that it is extremely likely to be a horse, based on a collection of experiences that indicate that horses are by far the most common animal with hooves, and that it's unlikely to be a Zebra randomly running around. This idea that we need absolute unerring certainty in order to make a conclusion is not a standard we apply to pretty much anything.
Click to expand...
Right, you can conclude that it's a horse, but there is a good reason to assume that. In this case, there's no reason to assume that dimension in the scan was referring to spatial.
Deagonx said:
When something is called "x-dimensional" it is an extremely safe assumption that -- in the absence of contrary evidence -- it is referring to the spatial dimensionality of that thing. Saying we must abstain from judgment until we find a scan that says "spatial" is not realistic and if we applied that standard universally we would never pass a single CRT. We don't need absolute certainty, we just need good evidence. In this case, a "16-dimensional domain" is great evidence of 16 spatial dimensions.
Click to expand...
Again, how? Because it's called a domain? It's not good evidence because it's not explicit.
 
Deagonx said:
In the issue itself, this event happens concurrently with another character being in the Microverse. In that sense, "Macroverse" is established as a concept that directly parallels the concept of the microverse.
Click to expand...
That's a Non-Sequitur, but even without that, as I said before, Microverse is parallel, not something contained by universes. Going by your logic the Macroverse is a universe that contains the Microverse.
Deagonx said:
That's the point. His comment about dreams is clearly flowery language, as we know that the relationship between these universes is not dream like
Click to expand...
How do we know that? Again he didn't mention atoms, you are assuming he's referring to atoms, something which clearly contradicts the nature of the Microverse. It's a contradictory assumption.

And it's clearly not flowery language as Silver Surfer said this-
He might be making the whole thing up; but, having had personal experience of the worlds-within-worlds phenomenon- and intuiting a genuine- albeit twisted- wisdom beneath his lunacy, I believe him
Click to expand...

Silver Surfer directly refers to the worlds-within-worlds phenomenon(while the Microverse is parallel), and he uses his own knowledge into what Sama-D stated and goes into why he trusts him. Sama-D also not only mentions dreams but also thoughts, clear references to a qualitative superiority.

The "worlds-within-worlds" phenomenon in Marvel is quite consistent, Silver Surfer and Sama-D were clearly referring to this, not any Microverse or atoms or parallel universes- https://2.bp.blogspot.com/6lzy0zS04...vjDr1looRLovbs3FxBbLrqx9rnBRNWIMHWuRbEA=s1600
 
Vasco said:
Multiverse but ultima proved High 1-B Negative Zone so it's cool.

The Negative Zone in Civil War( 2006) isn't higher dimensional though.
Click to expand...
The Negative Zone in itself has been stated or shown to be 3-dimensional plenty of times, and is portrayed as a negative mirror-universe to the 3-dimensional Marvel universe, and from what I recall we cited several of these occasions in the previous thread (about the Negative Zone) and this one combined. However, it definitely seems to intersect with an infinite-dimensional nexus that would scale to the Marvel multiverse as a whole.
 
Beyond_transcending said:
In this case, there's no reason to assume that dimension in the scan was referring to spatial.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. Something referred to as "x-dimensional" is, in the vast majority of cases, referring to the spatial dimensionality.

Beyond_transcending said:
Again, how? Because it's called a domain?
Click to expand...
No, because it is called "16-dimensional." If it had simply said "A domain with 16 dimensions" I'd still argue this leans towards spatial, but not as strongly. "16-dimensional" however is extremely strongly leaning towards spatial, to the extent that it should be assumed by default unless it is contradicted by other evidence.

Transcending said:
That's a Non-Sequitur, but even without that, as I said before, Microverse is parallel, not something contained by universes. Going by your logic the Macroverse is a universe that contains the Microverse.
Click to expand...
The Macroverse contains the universes that contain the Microverse. And no, it's not a "non-sequitur." The fact that "Macroverse" and "Microverse" were used in the same issue of the same comic is a clear and direct indication that the two are operating on opposite extensions of the same concept.

Moreover, the inhabitants of the Microverse refer to the main universe as the "Macroverse" which further indicates that the term "Macroverse" is an inverse of the relationship between the main universe and the Microverse.

Also, the idea that the microverse is "parallel universes" is a somewhat recent retcon. For the majority of the realms initial history it was explicitly described as being within the main universe, just smaller. The Silver Surfer scan is from the 90s, during this same period, so it is obviously written within that framework.

Transcending said:
How do we know that?
Click to expand...
Because the relationship between the universe and the microverse is not dream like, and that is the relationship upon which the macroverse is modeled.
 
 
Antvasima said:
I agree with Deagonx, as usual.
Click to expand...
Yeah. We're back to their usual bad faith arguments. In a comic issue which features both the Microverse and the "Macroverse" -- a term which Microverse inhabitants sometimes use to refer to the regular universe -- they are arguing that the usage of terms aren't related to each other. It's not really worth taking seriously.
 
Deagonx said:
Yes, there is. Something referred to as "x-dimensional" is, in the vast majority of cases, referring to the spatial dimensionality.


No, because it is called "16-dimensional." If it had simply said "A domain with 16 dimensions" I'd still argue this leans towards spatial, but not as strongly. "16-dimensional" however is extremely strongly leaning towards spatial, to the extent that it should be assumed by default unless it is contradicted by other evidence.
Click to expand...
Again, how does being called "16-Dimensional" mean it's spatial? Why should it be assumed by default?
 
Deagonx said:
Yeah. We're back to their usual bad faith arguments. In a comic issue which features both the Microverse and the "Macroverse" -- a term which Microverse inhabitants sometimes use to refer to the regular universe -- they are arguing that the usage of terms aren't related to each other. It's not really worth taking seriously.
Click to expand...
Yes, from what I recall they do seem to tend to focus on very unreasonable spam arguments to gain upgrades, regardless if it makes logical sense or not.
 
Antvasima said:
Here are some previous arguments about the Negative Zone btw, just so we do not have to repeat ourselves over and over.







Click to expand...
You only have one valid argument with evidence there, and the rest are just walls off text and don't compile more than one scan beyond the one everyone knows to show that Marvel consistently portrays the Zone as 3D, while @Ultima_Reality argued with several different comics that subspace and Crossroad is an infinite dimensional space (while both is a inner part of the Negative Zone), I even brought proof from other writers to support that.

So making an argument with a bunch of text when in fact this ''has always been portrayed as 3D'' is only based on a single scan against a vast majority of scans is bullshit.
 
Deagonx said:
The Macroverse contains the universes that contain the Microverse.
Click to expand...
But the universes don't contain the Microverse.
Deagonx said:
The fact that "Macroverse" and "Microverse" were used in the same issue of the same comic is a clear and direct indication that the two are operating on opposite extensions of the same concept.
Click to expand...
Ok..so let me get this right, are you saying the Macroverse and Microverse are opposite extensions of the same concept because both places were shown in the same comic?

Also, even if they were opposite extensions of the same concept, why would that make the Macroverse encompass universes that encompass the Microverse? Why would Sama-D be referring to the Microverse? That's why it's a Non-Sequitur.
Moreover, the inhabitants of the Microverse refer to the main universe as the "Macroverse" which further indicates that the term "Macroverse" is an inverse of the relationship between the main universe and the Microverse
Click to expand...

Doctor Multiverse called Earth-0 the primary universe. So is Earth-8 an inverse of Earth-0? And again, this doesn't answer how that means Sama-D was referring to the Microverse. People from parallel universes can call a universe the main universe.
Deagonx said:
Also, the idea that the microverse is "parallel universes" is a somewhat recent retcon. For the majority of the realms initial history it was explicitly described as being within the main universe, just smaller. The Silver Surfer scan is from the 90s, during this same period, so it is obviously written within that framework.
Click to expand...
This is not true- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...letCvp5om8GFUTrEmNm7ST0kZHcG3gYV5QOBs1600.png

Deagonx said:
Because the relationship between the universe and the microverse is not dream like, and that is the relationship upon which the macroverse is modeled.
Click to expand...
So are you saying Dormammu was also referring to the Microverse when he said "worlds within worlds"? Every character who mentioned that concept is actually referring to a parallel reality? That would be a massive grammatical error by the characters.
 
Last edited:
Transcending said:
But the universes don't contain the Microverse.
Click to expand...
As I said, for a huge portion of the Microverse's history, universes did contain it. This comic was written during that era, so it should be interpreted in that context.

Transcending said:
are you saying the Macroverse and Microverse are opposite extensions of the same concept because both places were shown in the same comic?
Click to expand...
That's part of it, but if I had to list the full reasons it'd be this:

1) Intuitively, we should lean towards seeing them as opposites, because in literal linguistic terms macro and micro are direct opposites.

2) The fact that it was featured solely in this comic, which included the microverse, is a further and even stronger indication of this

3) The fact that Microverse inhabitants refer to the main universe as the Macroverse is the nail in the coffin that the Macroverse as mentioned in this comic is a direct parallel to the relationship between the main universes and the Microverse.

This should be obvious. You should spend less effort dogmatically fighting foregone conclusions. It is a waste of everyone's time.

Transcending said:
This is not true- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...letCvp5om8GFUTrEmNm7ST0kZHcG3gYV5QOBs1600.png
Click to expand...
Your scan directly supports my point. When the Microverse was first featured in Marvel, it was portrayed as a sub-atomic world in the regular universes. The fact that this was changed later on does not contradict what I am saying.
 
Transcending said:
I legitimately don't understand why you do this, whenever we argue in a civil manner you guys start insulting us.
Click to expand...
Your constant stonewalling and sealioning is wasting other people's time and serves no purpose. The evidence presented, for instance, with regard to the Microverse/Macroverse relationship is completely definitive. Any reasonable person would've moved on by now, but you two have consistently chosen to bicker on in the face of completely overwhelming evidence, utterly destroyed arguments, relying solely on bad faith arguing, strawmanning, and argument from possibility. He did not insult you, he accurately described your actions.
 
Last edited:
Deagonx said:
As I said, for a huge portion of the Microverse's history, universes did contain it. This comic was written during that era, so it should be interpreted in that context.
Click to expand...
Refer to my last point.
Deagonx said:
That's part of it, but if I had to list the full reasons it'd be this:

1) Intuitively, we should lean towards seeing them as opposites, because in literal linguistic terms macro and micro are direct opposites.
Click to expand...
This is the only actual point.
Deagonx said:
2) The fact that it was featured solely in this comic, which included the microverse, is a further and even stronger indication of this
Click to expand...
So is Earth-8 the opposite of Earth-0 because they were both shown in the same comic(JLI #1)?
Deagonx said:
3) The fact that Microverse inhabitants refer to the main universe as the Macroverse is the nail in the coffin that the Macroverse as mentioned in this comic is a direct parallel to the relationship between the main universes and the Microverse.
Click to expand...
Why are you ignoring my points? I directly addressed this-
Transcending said:
Doctor Multiverse called Earth-0 the primary universe. So is Earth-8 an inverse of Earth-0?
Click to expand...
Deagonx said:
This should be obvious. You should spend less effort dogmatically fighting foregone conclusions. It is a waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...
And you should spend more effort in addressing my points instead of ignoring them and explain how your points actually support your stance-
Transcending said:
Also, even if they were opposite extensions of the same concept, why would that make the Macroverse encompass universes that encompass the Microverse? Why would Sama-D be referring to the Microverse? That's why it's a Non-Sequitur.
Click to expand...
Transcending said:
Doctor Multiverse called Earth-0 the primary universe. So is Earth-8 an inverse of Earth-0? And again, this doesn't answer how that means Sama-D was referring to the Microverse. People from parallel universes can call a universe the main universe.
Click to expand...
Transcending said:
So are you saying Dormammu was also referring to the Microverse when he said "worlds within worlds"? Every character who mentioned that concept is actually referring to a parallel reality? That would be a massive grammatical error by the characters.
Click to expand...
Deagonx said:
Your scan directly supports my point. When the Microverse was first featured in Marvel, it was portrayed as a sub-atomic world in the regular universes. The fact that this was changed later on does not contradict what I am saying.
Click to expand...
You do understand my scan is older than the Silver Surfer scan, correct? So the Microverse being a parallel universe wasn't a recent retcon.
 
And this is where I let my evidence and arguments speak for themselves. I won't indulge your obsession with arguing for lost causes.
 
Deagonx said:
Your constant stonewalling and sealioning is wasting other people's time and serves no purpose.
Click to expand...
You constantly ignoring my arguments and cherry-picking a part of them to respond to while throwing away everything else also wastes other people's time, but I do think it serves a purpose for you.
Deagonx said:
The evidence presented, for instance, with regard to the Microverse/Macroverse relationship is completely definitive
Click to expand...
It will be definitive when you can actually explain how your evidence supports your stance, something you still haven't done.
Deagonx said:
Any reasonable person would've moved on by now, but you two have consistently chosen to bicker on in the face of completely overwhelming evidence, utterly destroyed arguments, relying solely on bad faith arguing, strawmanning, and argument from possibility. He did not insult you, he accurately described your actions.
Click to expand...
This is just Ad Hominem, not worth responding to.
 
Transcending said:
This is just Ad Hominem
Click to expand...
Ad hominem does not refer to any negative remark about someone in a discussion. It specifically refers to using the said remark as a basis for rejecting the argument. This was not ad hominem, it was simply a description of your behavior. Your argument was completely rebutted on evidentiary and rational grounds, separate from this comment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

VeryGoofyToddler2
Marvel Cosmology Redo (Part 1 of 2)
Replies
15
Views
1K
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
VeryGoofyToddler2
Marvel Comics Cosmology (World Hierarchy) Revision
2 3
Replies
106
Views
7K
Antvasima
Antvasima
WanderingGecko
Ultra Series Multiversal Revision Part 2
Replies
32
Views
2K
EddisherSound
EddisherSound
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
  • Locked
The Time Ships: Verse & Cosmology Page Addition
Replies
14
Views
1K
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Arrowverse CRT: Cosmology Upgrade H1B
Replies
14
Views
974
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Back
Top