-
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.
- Status
- 12,828
- 3,995
If people think possibly 9-D is good I think I'm okay with it too.
- 12,828
- 3,995
Though, looking back at the scans, it only says the barrier is impossible to reach or pass. Which, would make sense, given it exists in 8 dimensions. Idk about this then.
- 292
- 123
- Thread starter
- #284
1 more admin approval required for processing on profiles?
- 12,828
- 3,995
To me, the argument seems to rely on extrapolating that the barrier is unbreachable, to mean that the core is unreachable in an even higher dimension. However, the barrier being unbreachable is its own statement, obviously because it extends through higher dimensions. I genuinely am not sure if this can be extrapolated like that.
- 292
- 123
- Thread starter
- #286
well, isn't the kernel already a structure that manages the barrier? If the barrier in logic consists of 8D or 8 Spatial Dimensions, and in a structure that manages them in the core, the logic is higher dimensional than the 8D barrier, which should give it 9D
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
The statements are a bit confusing that's for sure. I personally think that the most logical reasoning would be that the barrier (which cuts through said 8 dimensions) lies within the 8 dimensional space, which is what it's supposed to cut through. Considering this, it would be weird to call the core a "higher dimensional existence" only for it to de dimensionally equal to the 8th dimensional space. Also, the statement specifying that the Core is higher dimensional has been made well after the "eight dimensions" statement, so it would make sense that it meant higher dimensional compared to the eight dimensional space, I guess.
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
higher dimensional statements is already there in the scans, and I think it's higher than 8D. So I agreed (9D)
- 842
- 511
As usual I agree with 9D absolutely disagree with anything higher but gaven the fact that nasuverse atleast the mooncell still isn't even definitively 1-C only possibly which still doesn't make sense to me it'll be pretty weird to be possibly 8D possibly 9D
- 842
- 511
I think people argue its inconsistent cause of avalon descriptions or something like that but I don't see how that's problem
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
This is probably because at the time when the 1-C upgrade was proposed, the translation didn't make it clear that it was specifically higher dimensions. But now, be do know it was.
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
So, would we have Possibly 8D and Possibly 9D at the same time ?
Ubdon
He/Him- 636
- 279
why
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
Because at the moment we have Possibly 1-C for 8D. So if we add another possibly rating it’d be a bit weird.
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
This would be better, I guess ?
Ubdon
He/Him- 636
- 279
Aren't everyone just apscales to core and 8d became 9d?
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
Yeah you’re probably right. In this case we’d just straight up replace the possibly 1-C (8D) by a possibly 1-C (9D). Is that what you meant ?
Ubdon
He/Him- 636
- 279
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
I’m just waiting for him to read what I and 1Nairov said
.
- 143
- 32
That’s because the core isn’t a “higher dimensional existence” within the context of the barrier. It is narratively more consistent that the core is a higher dimensional existence to the record universe and near side of the moon. Because that is what it holds “higher dimensional perspective” over. Both of these regions don’t have any 8d reasoning. You attempted to argue that since the barrier cuts through 8d space, it lies within it. Which is true, but this can only be said for the region of the barrier and the core. Nothing else. This, as crimson said, makes it hard to say the core is higher from 8d because the barrier itself is already unreachable from the things that are considered lower dimensional to the core.
- 3,493
- 1,367
Disagree. Being a higher dimensional object does not give you any tiers. In order to gain tier through dimensionality you need to affect,destroy, create infinite nD space.
- 143
- 32
The part you are disagreeing with has already be accepted
- 3,493
- 1,367
In a previous thread? Can you link it?
- 143
- 32
Not exactly sure which thread, but it’s been that way for awhile. Look at the profiles for the ccc characters like archer gilgamesh, saber Nero, and BB. All of them have that 1-C rating due to these feats
- 842
- 511
That's in question there's no conclusion on this rn
That is also in question if it's more narrative consistent that way your justifications for it being that is a deductively invalid argument?
Didn't we already agree that bb could break the 8d wall with her own power yet still became unfathomably more powerful after merging with the core how is it hard to argue the cores superiority to that which it foundated
X is unreachable to P
T is also unreachable to P
Doesn't entail that T is necessarily not superior to X
Unless I'm misinterpreting something but the arguments against it seem evidently deductively invalid so I don't why you wrote that like it's definitively conclusive
- 6,034
- 3,062
I think the main two crts were these two:
Then there are more crts about this sort of this but those two were the beginning of tier 1 from what I remember.
- 4,523
- 2,242
cringeworld (low 1-a) < throne of heroes (1-a) < root (high 1-a)
- 143
- 32
obviously it’s in question. That’s why I’m arguing it. I’m providing justifications that do not correspond with the interpretation of the person I responded to. Because they verbatim said they could not see how it means anything else.
Bb becoming exponentially more powerful when merging with the core doesn’t imply the core has higher dimensional authority over the barrier. As this higher dimensional authority only stretches across the near side and record universes, both do not contain the barrier.
T is superior to X, but T is not unreachable by X. The context of every single higher dimensional statement for the core is in its authority over the observed. And since Rani’s statement is super vague we can only assume she was referring to this, otherwise it’s a leap in logic. We know that the core is stronger than the barrier, but we do not know it holds a higher dimensional perspective over it.
I’m not saying everything as if it’s set in stone, I’m just saying my opinion. You see my message where I just say “it’s been accepted”? That is something in which I imply is set in stone. I won’t bother arguing it if it was.
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
I still think it wouldn’t make sense, really. The barrier is what’s defending the core but isn’t a part of it. And BB specifically obtained a higher dimensional perspective when merging with the Core itself, being in the same 8D space which the barrier cuts before merging (when she was describing it in Entry 129). In fact, BB had to bring down the barrier/wall (which is cutting through the 8 dimensions of the space in which it is) and then went inside and merged with the core (which specifically is a higher dimensional existence, not a space), thus granting her with a higher dimensional perspective.
To be honest, I don’t think we’ll reach an agreement, so let’s just wait for more staff evaluating this.
Last edited:
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
Yet, she became exponentially more powerful than before (specifically, higher dimensional perspective) and that « before » includes the fact that she brought down the wall that already had 1-C power because of the eight dimensions cutting stuff.
Still, I think this will just go in circles without reaching a conclusion so let’s just wait for staff members.
- 842
- 511
You conclude using a deductive form of inference with inferences that require induction to conclude upon? Deductively invalid
Didn't say it does through necessity if I did I wouldn't say I'm using inductively appealing arguments but because
X claims to be a higher dimensional existence
There's it's clear subsets that being an 8 dimensional space repeatedly called an additional aspect of its own existence like how a higher dimensional space has lower dimensions as that to embed itself on them to become higher dimensional therefore its most likely the case that it's 9D
Never said she reached the core became stronger it's higher dimensional me saying she became even more powerful is just an additional inference demonstrating that the core has some superiority over the things it foundate
(1) the core is said to be higher dimensional (question is does it include to the barrier too which is what the inference responds to). /True
(2)everything outside of the core is nothing but additional memory subsets of the core itself. /True
(3)Incidently a higher dimensional space has lower dimensional spaces as subsets of itself and has superiority over those subsets even then. /True
(4)the core shows clear superior over everything it foundated. /True
C therefore it is a logical to conclude that the core being higher dimensional is in reference to all that which it governs gaven its nature and how it behaves. /most likely true
The antecedents are all true and imply the logical consequence (you cannot deny an implication not holding using another induction it'll simply mean that there's two implication but one must be more likely true than the other therefore you can't say it doesn't definitively imply it)
We don't need always need certainty to conclude on something if something is more probable than its negation it stands to reason to take it over its negation (laymans terms for preponderance of the evidence)
Correcting misconceptions
1. BB gaining a higher dimensional perspective by the way doesn't entail that she didn't have it beforehand
2. When they demonstrate she has it by making a reference to her viewing time as a lower dimensional equivalent isn't necessarily a guarantee that she didn't have that, I can be 8D and view time of a 7th dimensional world with its combination with spatial dimensions (say time governing a 6 dimensional world) as lower dimensional equivalent but can't view time of a 8th dimensional world time governing a 7th dimensional world with its combination of spatial dimensions because the information becomes infinitely more complex than my current senses
(e.g I have 8 dimensional senses I gain even higher dimensional senses)
-they claim I gained higher dimensional senses and then they explain the nature of it higher dimensions senses using the nature of time/the magnitude of time requires the magnitude of spatial dimensions in explaining information about the world itself not just the temporal dimension alone so to say "they make a reference to time therefore 4th dimensional worlds infers she didn't have that before" doesn't work
They merely said she can handle the past and future simultaneously I don't think a 4th dimensional entity that can handle past and future simultaneously due to being higher dimensional can handle the same temporal dimensions existing in 8 dimensional worlds not in the manner of the temporal dimension itself but it's combination with the spatial dimension due to the information of the higher dimensional world generally being infinitely more complex than the 4th dimensional world
So the mention of her handling the past and future isn't doesn't entail that she couldn't view 4th dimensional worlds as lower dimensional equivalents because time is not always just on that magnitude not individually even tho individually works too but mostly with its combination with the spatial dimensions themselves
Your argument relies on something that's also in question therefore can't be assigned a truth value meaning you can't use that
You conclude on the basis of deduction as form but your argument relies on induction your argument is deductively invalid
That's fine so you have no refutation to my refutation therefore you agree that
Once again you conclude with deduction as form but use deductively invalid inferential patterns as basis deductively invalid
We can assume anything to say
"the statement is vague therefore mine holds" doesn't justify yours holding /baseless
To say "mine is a leap in logic" doesn't justify "mine being a leap in logic"/baseless
We can know of almost anything but it is a matter of justifications for that since knowledge is jtb
If I say I believe the core is like that
And I justify it with the inference above and with formal logic is appears to be inductively appealing therefore should hold more truth value than its negation
Therefore I can say knowledge is justified true belief and I can know of it being like that from the basis of the induction itself
It doesn't have to be do you think you exist? Do you think reality exists independent of whether you perceive or it not?
You believe you exist and that most likely reality does too and it is set in stone but if we dive in philosophical idealism and realism and from that you can infer that is not the case you can infer that not alot of things ab reality itself be that as it may is set in stone even knowledge itself contains skepticism towards it (epistemological skepticism)
So this entire thing of set in stone, set in stone doesn't really matter that much now
Any opinion remains to be nigh insignificant if not justified properly how do you even begin to conclude that your interpretation holds when the form of the argument itself is invalid, validity should be addressed first before attempting to assign truth values to your inferences
Doesn't matter unnecessarily reiterating it not being set in stone doesn't entail that we can't conclude upon the most probable inference many threads in the past have been accepted even in that way
Like I said many aspects of the material world and even your very existence itself is not set in stone, does that stop you from believing you exist and reality exists independent or dependent of the mind?
At this point I don't think staff will come I will most likely stop replying on this thread because it is going in circles this is bad thread management from the wiki I kind of disappointed then again nasuverse threads can be a shit show like it is rn
Maxeez
He/Him- 499
- 197
In this case we can either just message some staff members on their wall or remake a similar thread with all the arguments that have been made to support 9D MoonCell's Core to make it clearer and more likely to be evaluated. What do you think about that ?
- Status
Similar threads
