Marvel Cosmology Downgrade

[Transcending]

I'm not going to stop saying a true thing simply because you think you've rebutted it.

I'll say it again. Surfer directly states that the Microverse is a small universe that is contained within the Equiverse, which means it is not a parallel universe in that comic. You mentioning that other comics write it differently does not change how we interpret the information in the run.

If you are just gonna repeat your points which I rebutted I think I have already made my point and don't have to repeat myself.

 

[Beyond_transcending]

That's the closest way to understand him that's why silver surfer uses the analogy of him being there himself to understand what sama-D said,

That's the closest way for Silver Surfer to understand Sama-D, with his limited knowledge. Not us.

if not everyone else is saying another thing about dreams, folded inside dreams.

Wdym?

But the silver surfer himself didn’t mention the Microverse as a parallel dimension but a sub-atomic dimension he personally experienced.

Yes, which is irrelevant since his knowledge contradicts the reality. We know the actuality, and hence how to actually interpret Sama-D.

And parallel dimensions don't make sense with Sama-D statement of dreams, folded inside dreams.

Exactly, so Surfer interpreted Sama-D wrongly.

Silver surfer sees Microverse as a sub-atomic universe which he referenced in that book, it being parallel dimension later on is irrelevant if his talking about the sub-atomic reality he personally experienced, Silver Surfer never called it a parallel dimension or saw it that way but a sub-atomic universe he personally experienced.

Refer above.

on to Dormammu's case, I mean look at the scan, Dormammu went in this Order in his speech on Worlds within worlds, He first started with Worlds then dimensions then universes so him saying Worlds in context of planets makes sense.

It doesn't, he would be changing the meaning of a word in the same phrase. That just serves to confuse, if he wanted to differentiate them he would have referred to them differently, for example "Worlds within universes" or "Planets within worlds".

Dimensions in the context refers to universes, so it would only make sense for world too, to refer to universes.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't know why you posted this, and I don't know how this counters my point in any way.

I tried to clarify my overall viewpoints and our matter-of-fact rules and general conventions regarding this issue.

You said "yes" to Deagonx clearly, and agreed with him-
And this was to a reply where Deagon said using
You pretty clearly said that saying comics written by different writers that have the same term means they used the same meaning of the term is insane.

I am not sure what viewpoint you are trying to claim that I firmly die-hard believe in here, but believe it or not, given how extremely overworked and stressed out I am, I sometimes make mistakes.

This is what the opposition did, equated a term from a scan from 1968 written by Stan Lee to a scan from 1998 written by DeMatteis. That's a difference of over 3 decades.

Well, I much prefer as much consistency as possible, but given that you are the ones who are trying to argue for an absolutely enormous and wantonly destructive upgrade, you are also the ones who have to prove an ongoing consistency as a basis for it, whereas the opposition, who only want to use the by far more plausible currently used interpretation, only have to poke holes in your theories.

 

[Deagonx]

If you are just gonna repeat your points which I rebutted I think I have already made my point and don't have to repeat myself.

Okay. Great.

Exactly, so Surfer interpreted Sama-D wrongly.

No, he didn't. You're trying to impose a different writer's concept of the Microverse on the Surfer run in order to take a clearly figurative statement literally. You cannot overwrite what a comic says with other comics in order to justify an incorrect interpretation of what happened. Even in the context of a composite cosmology, the self-contained meaning of information in a run is not freely rewritten, it is a question of how we incorporate that information into the greater composite.

In this context, we know that in Silver Surfer the Microverse is not a parallel universe, that it is a small universe contained within Earth-616, and that the Macroverse is an even larger universe that contains 616. The "dream within dreams" statement is explicitly referring to the relationship between these three terms, which is explicitly not dream-like in any way. We cannot say "well it can't be that because other authors said the Microverse IS a parallel reality, so this dream statement must be referring to something else!" That changes nothing about what the Surfer comic is actually telling us. The "dream within dreams" statement is in the context of the Surfer run.

 

[Qawsedf234]

If you are just gonna repeat your points which I rebutted

I've said this before on other threads, but ultimately speaking you can't really decide if you rebutted their points or not. It's up to the community. If more people agree with Deagonx then ultimately you just provided points that people didn't agree with.

For the Microverse thing in question, what matters is era rather than counter points. What was provided earlier that the Microverse is a different thing is fine, but that's for modern Marvel Comics. You would need to prove the Microverse is a separate universe during the era where the Silver Surfer comic was written.

 

[Deagonx]

You would need to prove the Microverse is a separate universe during the era where the Silver Surfer comic was written.

There are other comics in that era that say that, and some that don't (it was originally written as a sub-universe) but in this run specifically Surfer states that it's a sub-universe of the main universe. The "Macroverse" introduced in this run is the exact opposite of that, a larger universe that contains the main universe. The "dream within dreams" statement describes this, and clearly isn't meant to be referring to literal dreams. Their contention is that since other writers called the Microverse a parallel reality, we can't acknowledge the "dream within dreams" statement as referring to the "nesting doll universes" concept because it's not true for other comics, which doesn't make any sense, since we know explicitly it's referring to that within this comic, and we know this relationship is not dream like.

 

[Transcending]

I've said this before on other threads, but ultimately speaking you can't really decide if you rebutted their points or not. It's up to the community. If more people agree with Deagonx then ultimately you just provided points that people didn't agree with

Yeah I agree with this, but previously in the thread Deagon has said stuff like I was debunked numerous times. An example-

They don't take being debunked gracefully.

 

[Deagonx]

but previously in the thread Deagon has said stuff like I was debunked numerous times. An example-

When scans from the comic directly say the opposite of what you're saying, that's a different matter entirely.

 

[Vasco]

That's the closest way for Silver Surfer to understand Sama-D, with his limited knowledge. Not us.

That's the closest way for us to interpret it as readers would begin to bring their opinions to understand it so the author used Silver Surfer personal experience to make it clear.

Wdym?

Everyone bring their own opinions to interpret it.

Yes, which is irrelevant since his knowledge contradicts the reality. We know the actuality, and hence how to actually interpret Sama-D.

Nop, Silver Surfer experience it as a sub-atomic world, later on it got retconned but doesn't change what he personally experienced.

Exactly, so Surfer interpreted Sama-D wrongly.

No he didn't

It doesn't, he would be changing the meaning of a word in the same phrase. That just serves to confuse, if he wanted to differentiate them he would have referred to them differently, for example "Worlds within universes" or "Planets within worlds".

Dimensions in the context refers to universes, so it would only make sense for world too, to refer to universes.

I'd just say this WORLDS WITHIN WORLDS even in context of Universes doesn't grant High 1-B.​

We've got verses with Universes within universes and still just grant tier 2.

 

[Transcending]

For the Microverse thing in question, what matters is era rather than counter points. What was provided earlier that the Microverse is a different thing is fine

I used the modern comics as Marvel is still using a composite cosmology, and so the new stuff should retcon the old stuff. But if we are talking about the entire era of that time alone, Microverse was still considered a separate universe. When the Fantastic Four visited the Microverse it was explicitly found to be a parallel universe, in another comic it was stated the Microverse existed outside the entire Multiverse (and explicitly stated outside the equiverse), and another comic blatantly stated you atomic and subatomic universes are impossible to exist.

Silver Surfer did say the Microverse was an atomic universe, but in this case we can blame that on SS's limited knowledge itself, as the previous times he visited there, the misconception that the Microverse was an atomic universe prevailed. There's nothing suggesting his knowledge improved much since then.

The "Macroverse" introduced in this run is the exact opposite of that, a larger universe that contains the main universe.

The Macroverse containing the main universe doesn't mean the main universe contains the Microverse. Also even if it did, why exactly would Sama-D be referring to that?

larger universe that contains the main universe. The "dream within dreams" statement describes this, and clearly isn't meant to be referring to literal dreams.

Neither was clear or obvious. There's no reason to think Sama-D said both thought and dream as hyperbolic terms, especially when you read the text given.

 

[Transcending]

When scans from the comic directly say the opposite of what you're saying, that's a different matter entirely.

That's what you think, that's not what I think. The agreements here are pretty even.

 

[Vasco]

You mentioning that other comics write it differently does not change how we interpret the information in the run.

Not to mention Silver Surfer said personally experience which we know he experienced it as a sub-atomic world not parallel.

 

[Deagonx]

I used the modern comics as Marvel is still using a composite cosmology, and so the new stuff should retcon the old stuff.

It doesn't matter if we use a composite or if we retcon the old stuff. That would not allow us to freely re-interpret what Sama-D said as meaning something other than what it meant in the Surfer run.

The Macroverse containing the main universe doesn't mean the main universe contains the Microverse.

Yet the main universe does contain the Microverse in that run, and that is the context in which Sama-D is speaking.

There's no reason to think Sama-D said both thought and dream as hyperbolic terms, especially when you read the text given.

How about instead of reading solely what Sama-D said, you read the entire comic run and understand it in it's full context? We know that the relationship between these realms is not like dreams whatsoever, so indeed, dream is being used in a figurative manner.

 

[Antvasima]

If "the new stuff automatically retcons all of the old stuff", then we can no longer use the most explicit explanations regarding the structure of the Marvel multiverse from Doctor Strange issue 21 in 1990 at all, and we solely have to base its structure on the cosmology crafted by Jonathan Hickman and Al Ewing, which likely ends up somewhere in tier 1-C or High 1-C, so you are shooting yourself in your feet by using that approach.

 

[Transcending]

If "the new stuff automatically retcons all of the old stuff", then we can no longer use the most explicit explanations regarding the structure of the Marvel multiverse from Doctor Strange issue 21 in 1990 at all, and we solely have to base its structure on the cosmology crafted by Jonathan Hickman and Al Ewing, which likely ends up somewhere in tier 1-C or High 1-C, so you are shooting yourself in your feet by using that approach.

I never mentioned that comic, so I don't understand why I would be shooting myself. And besides, is there evidence that entire comic was retconned? Or what from it specifically are you saying got retconned?

It doesn't matter if we use a composite or if we retcon the old stuff. That would not allow us to freely re-interpret what Sama-D said as meaning something other than what it meant in the Surfer run.

It wasn't something meant in the Silver Surfer run, it was something SS said which he has limited knowledge of. And besides, when stuff get retconned, we do apply that change to old comics. Otherwise an incoherent timeline would be produced.

Yet the main universe does contain the Microverse in that run, and that is the context in which Sama-D is

Refer above.

How about instead of reading solely what Sama-D said, you read the entire comic run and understand it in it's full context? We know that the relationship between these realms is not like dreams whatsoever, so indeed, dream is being used in a figurative manner.

I think I will address this along with the point I am gonna make now.

Deagon conveniently left out this part of my argument when he addressed it-

Also even if it did, why exactly would Sama-D be referring to that?

I think this is a pretty crucial point, that I would like Qawsed and others to note.

Deagon failed to explain two things with his arguments -

1: Even if the Microverse did exist inside the equiverse, how exactly does that mean Sama-D was referring to the Microverse?

2: Deagon is specifically referring to three realms- The Macroverse, Equiverse, and Microverse. Sama-D however, mentioned infinite universes. Unless I have been lied to my whole life and infinite=3, this is a clear flaw in his argument that I would like him to explain.

 

[Deagonx]

It wasn't something meant in the Silver Surfer run, it was something SS said which he has limited knowledge of. And besides, when stuff get retconned, we do apply that change to old comics.

No we don't. We do not rewrite older comics to fit newer comics. At best we will overlook retconned information. We do not cherry pick phrases out of old retconned stories and freely rewrite them if a composite element was changed later on. We know that the relationship between these realms isn't dream like. Period. Sama-D was being figurative, and that will never change. You can drag this thread on for 20 or 30 pages, but that will not change. You cannot extract the phrase "dreams within dreams" out of it's original context and reinterpret it in a way that blatantly contradicts how it was used in the story itself by justifying it with the notion that something in that comic was retconned later. The phrase cannot be separated from it's context. If the contextual information is not a part of the composite verse, then neither is the phrase itself. You can't re-fashion the phrase in a different context. That's just headcanon.

1: Even if the Microverse did exist inside the equiverse, how exactly does that mean Sama-D was referring to the Microverse?

I never said he was referring to the Microverse. I said he was describing the relationship between the Macroverse and the Equiverse, which we know is identical to the relationship between Equiverse and Microverse, which in this comic is a sub universe in a smaller universe.

The Macroverse, Equiverse, and Microverse. Sama-D however, mentioned infinite universes. Unless I have been lied to my whole life and infinite=3, this is a clear flaw in his argument that I would like him to explain.

The Equiverse is one of many universes in the Macroverse.

 

[Vasco]

Even if the Microverse did exist inside the equiverse, how exactly does that mean Sama-D was referring to the Microverse?

Silver surfer said it's his personal experience which is the Microverse.

Deagon is specifically referring to three realms- The Macroverse, Equiverse, and Microverse. Sama-D however, mentioned infinite universes. Unless I have been lied to my whole life and infinite=3, this is a clear flaw in his argument that I would like him to explain

Wtf are you saying here?

 

[Deagonx]

Wtf are you saying here?

They're arguing just to argue. It doesn't conflict with anything I've said, but they'll just drag out the thread forever until it's forcibly closed. The same thing with the "Sama-D didn't mention the Microverse thing."

Sama-D says "All the universes are dreams within dreams. Each universe a thought within a larger thought, and each containing smaller thoughts within itself." Then he says this universe contains the Equiverse, and quite a few others, therefore they can call it a Macroverse. In the same comic Surfer says that the Microverse is a smaller universe within the Equiverse. Just like Sama-D said, the universe is contained within a larger universe (the Macroverse) and contains even smaller universes within it (the Microverse.)

The dream/thought statement clearly isn't literal because throughout the comic the relationship between these realms is explicitly demonstrated to not be dream like at all. The Microverse isn't a dream to the Equiverse, the Equiverse isn't a dream to the Macroverse, these are all explicitly physical realities that can be traversed through physical means.

For some reason they think that the fact that other writers said the Microverse is actually parallel, not small, and not within the Equiverse, should completely rewrite the context of what Sama-D so that we reinterpret it to be a literal dream hierarchy, for the sole purpose of wanking the statement to high heaven. Even if we did subtract the Microverse from the equation, that would not change the fact that the relationship between the Macroverse and the Equiverse isn't dream like (can be travelled to and from with a ship, Surfer was sent there from the Equiverse by villains -- are we theorizing that they sent him upwards through an R>F layer? That's laughable) and the fact that there are two explicit statements from Surfer that say the Macroverse isn't a dream at all.

This was all settled like, 4 pages ago. But they'll just keep arguing in bad faith forever and waste everyone's time.

 

[Antvasima]

I never mentioned that comic, so I don't understand why I would be shooting myself. And besides, is there evidence that entire comic was retconned? Or what from it specifically are you saying got retconned?

You cannot cherry-pick which parts of that comic book story that you want to retcon to suit your hunger for upgrades. If you do not want to accept that the Negative Zone was here established to be a 3-dimensional antimatter counterpart to the "616" universe, then you also lose the most explicit foundation for an infinite-dimensional Marvel multiverse that we have available.

 

[Antvasima]

They're arguing just to argue. It doesn't conflict with anything I've said, but they'll just drag out the thread forever until it's forcibly closed.

This was all settled like, 4 pages ago. But they'll just keep arguing in bad faith forever and waste everyone's time.

That is my strong impression as well, yes. They have continuously acted as absolutely relentless unreasonable stonewalling timesinks, and draining my time in particular in this manner negatively affect our entire community, as I am not able to properly perform my ongoing crucial maintenance tasks or exercise as much as I should, which drastically worsens my irritability in general for basic biological reasons.

Basically, I consider them to be detrimental for this community in general at this point, unless they make a serious effort to shape up their attitudes and behaviours.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

They're arguing just to argue. It doesn't conflict with anything I've said, but they'll just drag out the thread forever until it's forcibly closed. The same thing with the "Sama-D didn't mention the Microverse thing."

Sama-D says "All the universes are dreams within dreams. Each universe a thought within a larger thought, and each containing smaller thoughts within itself." Then he says this universe contains the Equiverse, and quite a few others, therefore they can call it a Macroverse. In the same comic Surfer says that the Microverse is a smaller universe within the Equiverse. Just like Sama-D said, the universe is contained within a larger universe (the Macroverse) and contains even smaller universes within it (the Microverse.)

The dream/thought statement clearly isn't literal because throughout the comic the relationship between these realms is explicitly demonstrated to not be dream like at all. The Microverse isn't a dream to the Equiverse, the Equiverse isn't a dream to the Macroverse, these are all explicitly physical realities that can be traversed through physical means.

For some reason they think that the fact that other writers said the Microverse is actually parallel, not small, and not within the Equiverse, should completely rewrite the context of what Sama-D so that we reinterpret it to be a literal dream hierarchy, for the sole purpose of wanking the statement to high heaven. Even if we did subtract the Microverse from the equation, that would not change the fact that the relationship between the Macroverse and the Equiverse isn't dream like (can be travelled to and from with a ship, Surfer was sent there from the Equiverse by villains -- are we theorizing that they sent him upwards through an R>F layer? That's laughable) and the fact that there are two explicit statements from Surfer that say the Macroverse isn't a dream at all.

This was all settled like, 4 pages ago. But they'll just keep arguing in bad faith forever and waste everyone's time.

I agree with this

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the support.

 

[Transcending]

You cannot cherry-pick which parts of that comic book story that you want to retcon to suit your hunger for upgrades. If you do not want to accept that the Negative Zone was here established to be a 3-dimensional antimatter counterpart to the "616" universe, then you also lose the most explicit foundation for an infinite-dimensional Marvel multiverse that we have available.

When did I ever mention the Negative Zone? Ant, are you even reading my arguments? I also recall telling you earlier I was NOT part of the Negative Zone argument. I did like some posts related to them, but I didn't take part in the arguments themselves.

 

[Transcending]

No we don't.

"Overlook" the retconned information? Are you saying to ignore entire comics because a newer comic made a retcon on some part? Would you ignore Final Crisis: Superman Beyond because JL apparently retconned the Monitors' origin?

Also, we do apply newer information onto older comics. Take this analogy, a new Batman comic showed Batman one-shotting Superman. But a Detective Comics issue half a decade later reveals that it wasn't Batman who one-shotted Superman but actually Presence in the form of Batman.

In this case, we wouldn't upgrade Batman to 4-B because in the original comic Batman did one-shot Superman, and the Detective Comics issue is a retcon(we wouldn't anyway due to outliers but consider they don't exist).

Same thing here!

I never said he was referring to the Microverse. I said he was describing the relationship between the Macroverse and the Equiverse, which we know is identical to the relationship between Equiverse and Microverse, which in this comic is a sub universe in a smaller universe

Are you basing this entire claim based on Surfer's "As above, so below" statement?

The

Ok, so you do admit multiple universes (infinite) exist, I am saying the relationship between these universes is dream-like.

 

[Antvasima]

When did I ever mention the Negative Zone? Ant, are you even reading my arguments? I also recall telling you earlier I was NOT part of the Negative Zone argument. I did like some posts related to them, but I didn't take part in the arguments themselves.

Okay. It seems like I may have got mentally stuck on outdated old arguments then, if nobody wants to derive the scale of the Negative Zone itself to a higher- or infinite-dimensional nexus anymore.

It helps if people clarify these things to me much earlier though.

 

[Transcending]

Then he says this universe contains the Equiverse, and quite a few others, therefore they can call it a Macroverse. In the same comic Surfer says that the Microverse is a smaller universe within the Equiverse.

No, Surfer's comment on the Microverse came 2 or 3 issues after Sama-D.

And again, Surfer's limited knowledge is irrelevant to what Sama-D said.

Just like Sama-D said, the universe is contained within a larger universe (the Macroverse) and contains even smaller universes within it (the Microverse.)

As I said before, there's no evidence Sama-D was referring to the Microverse. Even if the Microverse did exist inside the equiverse, why can't universes exist both in atoms and some other universes be qualitatively inferior or superior?

Even if we did subtract the Microverse from the equation

He was sent beyond Eternity itself. Are you saying Eternity has no R>f layers?

and the fact that there are two explicit statements from Surfer that say the Macroverse isn't a dream at all.

I addressed both, which you haven't countered. In fact, you didn't even show one of the scans, I had to show it.

 

[Deagonx]

Are you saying to ignore entire comics because a newer comic made a retcon on some part?

No. I am clearly not saying that.

The information within the comic must be interpreted within it's original context. This does not change if the information that this interpretation is based upon is later changed, that does not alter how we interpret the information within the original run. Point being, you cannot rewrite the meaning of "dreams within dreams" to mean something other than "larger universes contain smaller universes."

Are you basing this entire claim based on Surfer's "As above, so below" statement?

No. Stop strawmanning me in the form of "questions." That is clearly not what I am basing it on.

I am saying the relationship between these universes is dream-like.

Then you'll need to find evidence for that. Sama-D's statement is not evidence of that, as we know definitively that his statement wasn't literal. Can we move on from this debunked topic or do you insist on wasting several more pages worth of this thread on this pointless argument?

 

[Deagonx]

No, Surfer's comment on the Microverse came 2 or 3 issues after Sama-D.

Irrelevant. The term "comic" refers to the run itself, not the specific issue.

And again, Surfer's limited knowledge is irrelevant to what Sama-D said.

The only thing that is relevant to what Sama-D said is the relationship between the Macroverse, Equiverse, and Microverse. Which is that larger universes contain smaller universes, in a manner that is definitively not dream-like. The fact that other comics portray the Microverse as not being inside the Equiverse changes nothing. That would not magically change the relationship between Macroverse and Equiverse as being dream-like.

I addressed both, which you haven't countered.

You replying to them doesn't mean they are no longer relevant or that their content is not pertinent to the discussion. I do not need to respond to every silly thing you say for the evidence to be valid. The evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Transcending]

The information within the comic must be interpreted within it's original context. This does not change if the information that this interpretation is based upon is later changed, that does not alter how we interpret the information within the original run. Point being, you cannot rewrite the meaning of "dreams within dreams" to mean something other than "larger universes contain smaller universes."

So going by my analogy, would you say Batman would have to be upgraded to 4-B and we should ignore that that Batman was actually the Presence in disguise? Also, the "dreams within dreams" meaning "larger universes contain smaller universes" was never retconned.

No. Stop strawmanning me in the form of "questions." That is clearly not what I am basing it on.

I am not strawmanning you, asking questions isn't strawmanning, it's asking to clarify and understand your point so I won't straw man it.

If that's not what you are basing it on, what are you?

Then you'll need to find evidence for that. Sama-D's statement is not evidence of that, as we know definitively that his statement wasn't literal.

It is literal but you didn't really make an argument here for me to address.

 

[Deagonx]

So going by my analogy, would you say Batman would have to be upgraded to 4-B

Your analogy doesn't correspond to the situation at hand. The relationship between the Microverse and the Equiverse being changed later doesn't matter. The "dreams within dreams" statement refers to larger universes containing smaller universes. If that conflicts with different writers' iterations of the Microverse, that doesn't magically change that statement's meaning. The Macroverse is simply a larger universe that contains the Equiverse and other universes. That relationship is not dream like, as is explicitly demonstrated in the comic.

I am not strawmanning you, asking questions isn't strawmanning

Saying "are you saying X" when X is a blatant and obvious strawman of my position is 100% strawmanning. You're not fooling anybody with your bad faith tactics.

If that's not what you are basing it on, what are you?

How about you actually read my comments?

It is literal but you didn't really make an argument here for me to address.

That's a blatant lie. This is a waste of time.

 

[Transcending]

The only thing that is relevant to what Sama-D said is the relationship between the Macroverse, Equiverse, and Microverse

No? Why would it? He was referring to infinite universes, not 3. He also never mentioned the Microverse, only the Equiverse and the Macroverse.

The Microverse part was something added on by Silver Surfer 2 or 3 issues later, which is due to his limited knowledge and besides, doesn't debunk my ultimate point-

Even if the Microverse did exist inside the equiverse, why can't universes exist both in atoms and some other universes be qualitatively inferior or superior?

You replying to them doesn't mean they are no longer relevant or that their content is not pertinent to the discussion. I do not need to respond to every silly thing you say for the evidence to be valid. The evidence speaks for itself.

Evidence doesn't, you are misintepreting what the text said. Surfer said the Macroverse wasn't something he was dreaming, not relevant to if it's a dream to higher realities. You yourself distinguished between the context where Surfer was dreaming and the context of the actual realities. This is why "Fallacy of Misinterpretation" exist. The Macroverse was also implied to be the "highest" universe in the stack of infinity, meaning it wouldn't be contradictory even if it wasn't a dream as there's nothing higher to dream it.

 

[Deagonx]

No? Why would it? He was referring to infinite universes, not 3. He also never mentioned the Microverse, only the Equiverse and the Macroverse.

This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The Microverse part was something added on by Silver Surfer 2 or 3 issues later, which is due to his limited knowledge and besides, doesn't debunk my ultimate point-

The relationship was different in this run, it has nothing to do with "limited knowledge" from Surfer.

Surfer said the Macroverse wasn't something he was dreaming, not relevant to if it's a dream to higher realities.

He said it wasn't a dream at all.

The Macroverse was also implied to be the "highest" universe in the stack of infinity, meaning it wouldn't be contradictory even if it wasn't a dream as there's nothing higher to dream it.

It was never stated that there were infinite layers, only infinite universes. Regardless, the relationship is not dream like between the Macroverse and the Equiverse, so his statement was figurative.

 

[Tarang123]

Anyway, given that you weren't even a part of this thread until you saw an opportunity to attack me, I will ban you from responding further here, as this thread is sufficiently out of control as it is.

I feel like writing off criticism as "attacking you" isn't a fair thing to do. Milly's simply saying that arguments of "this'll destroy the verse" aren't really suitable points when arguing for a verse's tier. We argue based on the information provided by the comics.

 

[Tarang123]

Seems to be better to just close the thread at this point. Close it, and start again to continue the discussion in a cleaner manner cause this is not only too convoluted, but it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere truly productive

 

[Vasco]

Sama-D says "All the universes are dreams within dreams. Each universe a thought within a larger thought, and each containing smaller thoughts within itself." Then he says this universe contains the Equiverse, and quite a few others, therefore they can call it a Macroverse. In the same comic Surfer says that the Microverse is a smaller universe within the Equiverse. Just like Sama-D said, the universe is contained within a larger universe (the Macroverse) and contains even smaller universes within it (the Microverse.)

Basically this, the debate really got annoying to a point I don't even feel like replying them or getting toxic so i just leave.

No, Surfer's comment on the Microverse came 2 or 3 issues after Sama-D.

He legit gave a reply in the same panel about the worlds within worlds phenomenon he experienced.

And again, Surfer's limited knowledge is irrelevant to what Sama-D said.

Sama-D is also stated to be mad and might be making the thing up, Silver Surfer simply agreed causes of the sub-atomic reality he personally experienced.

As I said before, there's no evidence Sama-D was referring to the Microverse.

Silver surfer referenced it that's a credible evidence, the one in convo with Sama-D was the surfer.

dreams within dreams" meaning "larger universes contain smaller universes" was never retconned.

Your personal interpretation plus it said dreams folded inside dreams.

 

[LuciferX]

@Transcending
Macroverse is beyond eternity and just curious how does that affect scaling if we assume this is true? I feel like sama-D's statement is kinda figurative.

There are several hyperboles there too such as Macroverse being infinite but surfer blitzed to its end, mean clearly a finite universe.

 

[Deagonx]

Macroverse is beyond eternity and just curious how does that affect scaling if we assume this is true?

Eternity is the embodiment of the universe, so if the Macroverse contains the universe that would encompass Eternity as well. I don't see it affecting scaling without definitive information that would scale a character to it. But given that it was essentially orphaned as a concept outside of this run, I don't see that being realistic.

 

[AndrewBennet]

If composite cosmology is still accepted in Marvel . Then even infinite gauntlet would be low 1A .

Eternity imo should get a 2A key and Ultimate nullifier should only be 2A.

In abraxas stories , Abraxas was simply destroying the physical and parallel universes

The highest showing of Multi -Eternity is from JM Demattis run .

Literally none of the 4D characters scales to multi eternity

 

[Deagonx]

Though, there was this:

The concept was expanded upon in 2009, but it turns out it's just a different dimension/different universe. They actually explain that the process of entering the Macroverse is the direct opposite of entering the Microverse, and that it's just another dimension. He actually directly states that the last time they went to the Macroverse they used a wormhole.

So since they said new information retcons the old, can we finally drop this nonsense, or do they have some excuse in mind to perpetuate this?

 

[Antvasima]

I feel like writing off criticism as "attacking you" isn't a fair thing to do. Milly's simply saying that arguments of "this'll destroy the verse" aren't really suitable points when arguing for a verse's tier. We argue based on the information provided by the comics.

I was extremely stressed out and mentally strained at the time from trying to handle a lot of my ongoing community maintenance tasks at the same time that I was being ganged up on by multiple people, and had also not had the time to exercise and get rid of stress hormones for weeks due to constant overwork, and since Milly was not even involved in the preceding discussion and only seemed to have suddenly joined to relentlessly attack me, I tried to bring things in somewhat better order by removing them from this thread.

It is possible that I made a bad judgement call, but I do not mind criticism against me under less stressful circumstances. I fact I continuously produce a lot of it myself.