Transcending
He/Him- 1,998
- 1,524
To clarify, is this trying to downgrade Marvel's entire verse to 1-B or just the Multiverse?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Multiverse but ultima proved High 1-B Negative Zone so it's cool.To clarify, is this trying to downgrade Marvel's entire verse to 1-B or just the Multiverse?
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.Beings like LT resides in a 16 Dimensional Space,literary Hyperversal scale makes more sense than High 1-B or Low 1-A.
I see. Did anyone mention this scan?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.
Yes and it was rejected.I see. Did anyone mention this scan?
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.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.
Can you show where please?Yes and it was rejected.
Why should it be? There's no reason to assume that the scan was referring to spatial dimension.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.
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.Why should it be? There's no reason to assume that the scan was referring to spatial dimension.
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.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.
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.How? That example doesn't fit because when you hear hooves, you know it's hooves.
I thought he did and was agreed upon, my bad I guess.Ultima didn't 'prove' High 1-B Negative Zone, he made an argument for it that is being assessed.
Check 1st and 2nd page.Can you show where please?
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-I thought he did and was agreed upon, my bad I guess.
Check 1st and 2nd page.
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.The actual scan makes no mention of microverse, nor atoms.
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.2: Microverse is a parallel reality, not something that is contained by another universe and viewed as a dream.
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.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.
Again, how? Because it's called a domain? It's not good evidence because it's not explicit.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.
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.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.
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.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
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
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.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.
Yes, there is. Something referred to as "x-dimensional" is, in the vast majority of cases, referring to the spatial dimensionality.In this case, there's no reason to assume that dimension in the scan was referring to spatial.
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.Again, how? Because it's called a domain?
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.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.
Because the relationship between the universe and the microverse is not dream like, and that is the relationship upon which the macroverse is modeled.How do we know that?
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.I agree with Deagonx, as usual.
Again, how does being called "16-Dimensional" mean it's spatial? Why should it be assumed by default?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.
The answer to your question is literally in the quote.Again, how does being called "16-Dimensional" mean it's spatial? Why should it be assumed by default?
Show.The answer to your question is literally in the quote.
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.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.
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.Here are some previous arguments about the Negative Zone btw, just so we do not have to repeat ourselves over and over.
But the universes don't contain the Microverse.The Macroverse contains the universes that contain the Microverse.
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?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
This is not true- https://media.discordapp.net/attach...letCvp5om8GFUTrEmNm7ST0kZHcG3gYV5QOBs1600.pngAlso, 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.
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.Because the relationship between the universe and the microverse is not dream like, and that is the relationship upon which the macroverse is modeled.
I legitimately don't understand why you do this, whenever we argue in a civil manner you guys start insulting us.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.
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.But the universes don't contain the Microverse.
That's part of it, but if I had to list the full reasons it'd be this:are you saying the Macroverse and Microverse are opposite extensions of the same concept because both places were shown in the same comic?
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.
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.I legitimately don't understand why you do this, whenever we argue in a civil manner you guys start insulting us.
Refer to my last point.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.
This is the only actual point.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.
So is Earth-8 the opposite of Earth-0 because they were both shown in the same comic(JLI #1)?2) The fact that it was featured solely in this comic, which included the microverse, is a further and even stronger indication of this
Why are you ignoring my points? I directly addressed 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.
Doctor Multiverse called Earth-0 the primary universe. So is Earth-8 an inverse of Earth-0?
And you should spend more effort in addressing my points instead of ignoring them and explain how your points actually support your stance-This should be obvious. You should spend less effort dogmatically fighting foregone conclusions. It is a waste of everyone's time.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.Your constant stonewalling and sealioning is wasting other people's time and serves no purpose.
It will be definitive when you can actually explain how your evidence supports your stance, something you still haven't done.The evidence presented, for instance, with regard to the Microverse/Macroverse relationship is completely definitive
This is just Ad Hominem, not worth responding to.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.
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.This is just Ad Hominem
Civil war (2006), it's shown to be a dimension used as a prison by the Avengers.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.
It's true. Deep down I'm seething. Filled with an almost comical degree of rage. Like Darth Sion.I think Deagon needs to calm himself.