Post-Crisis Wally West 2-A CRT

[Deagonx]

Thats not true

Your scan doesn't conflict with what I said. What point are you trying to make with it?

You didn't point out any logical errors

Yes I did, are you simply going to continue to ignore them so you can repeat yourself again?

You literally brought up Allen Adam using the comic book to compare how see's the universe as a way to debunk Allen Adam using the comic book to compare how he see's the universe.

Are you being willfully obtuse? What I debunked was the idea that the comic book analogy indicated a reality->fiction difference, by using his own words to establish that the purpose of the analogy was temporal transcendence and transparency, not fictionality. You have provided no response to this, simply repeating ad nauseum "but he used a comic book for that analogy" even though he never used the fictionality of the comic book in his analogy.

So, once again:

Analogies are not all encompassing, what an analogy means depends on how its used. He used the comic book as an analogy to demonstrate temporal transcendence, among other things, like being able to see thoughts.

He never alludes to fictionality being part of the higher dimensional perspective, that simply isn't anywhere in the scan. You're taking the comparison literally, despite him only using it to highlight a couple of specific aspects of reading a comic book. A reality fiction difference simply isn't implied anywhere in his analogy.

Likewise, Perpetua is far above Quantum Superman, yet doesn't have a reality->fiction layer separating her and the Justice League, which means even the highest beings in DC are on the same level of fictionality as the lowest.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Your scan doesn't conflict with what I said. What point are you trying to make with it?

It does, unless you want to argue that a 5th dimensional being is on the same level of existence as 3-D

Your scan doesn't conflict with what I said. What point are you trying to make with it?


Yes I did, are you simply going to continue to ignore them so you can repeat yourself again?


Are you being willfully obtuse? What I debunked was the idea that the comic book analogy indicated a reality->fiction difference, by using his own words to establish that the purpose of the analogy was temporal transcendence and transparency, not fictionality. You have provided no response to this, simply repeating ad nauseum "but he used a comic book for that analogy" even though he never used the fictionality of the comic book in his analogy.

So, once again:

Analogies are not all encompassing, what an analogy means depends on how its used. He used the comic book as an analogy to demonstrate temporal transcendence, among other things, like being able to see thoughts.

He never alludes to fictionality being part of the higher dimensional perspective, that simply isn't anywhere in the scan. You're taking the comparison literally, despite him only using it to highlight a couple of specific aspects of reading a comic book. A reality fiction difference simply isn't implied anywhere in his analogy.

Likewise, Perpetua is far above Quantum Superman, yet doesn't have a reality->fiction layer separating her and the Justice League, which means even the highest beings in DC are on the same level of fictionality as the lowest.

Now you're just repeating urself

 

[Xearsay]

Are you being willfully obtuse? What I debunked was the idea that the comic book analogy indicated a reality->fiction difference, by using his own words to establish that the purpose of the analogy was temporal transcendence and transparency, not fictionality. You have provided no response to this, simply repeating ad nauseum "but he used a comic book for that analogy" even though he never used the fictionality of the comic book in his analogy.

His own words don't debunk this though. All he does further into the scan is describe how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective by going over how time appears, and how there thoughts appear. This doesn't take away from the fact that he's still making the comparison between how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective to how one would look at a comic book.

 

[Deagonx]

It does, unless you want to argue that a 5th dimensional being is on the same level of existence as 3-D

Level of existence doesn't refer to fictionality, which is my point

Now you're just repeating urself

Yes, because he hasn't responded to what I said in any way.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Are you being willfully obtuse? What I debunked was the idea that the comic book analogy indicated a reality->fiction difference, by using his own words to establish that the purpose of the analogy was temporal transcendence and transparency, not fictionality. You have provided no response to this, simply repeating ad nauseum "but he used a comic book for that analogy" even though he never used the fictionality of the comic book in his analogy.

Dude, he said that Higher Dimensions see the Universe as flat, and use the example of humans seeing fictional characters on books

 

[Bernkastelll]

Level of existence doesn't refer to fictionality, which is my point

But fictionality proves level of existence, which is the case here

 

[Xearsay]

Dude, he said that Higher Dimensions see the Universe as flat, and use the example of humans seeing fictional characters on books

Exactly. Like this guy is refusing to fully look at what the scan is saying.

 

[Deagonx]

All he does further into the scan is describe how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective by going over how time appears, and how there thoughts appear

Which has nothing to do with fictionality.

This doesn't take away from the fact that he's still making the comparison between how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective to how one would look at a comic book

Nor does it need to, since the only aspects of a comic book he referenced were temporal transcendence and transparency, and not fictionality. If he had referenced fictionality you would have a point, but his comparison was limited to only those aspects of the comic book and nothing further.

Making a comparison doesn't encompass all aspects of the object of comparison, only the ones referenced. I can say Spider-Man is like a spider because he can shoot webs and walk on walls, but that doesn't mean I'm saying he has 8 legs or is an insect.

Analogies serve the purpose of demonstrating similarities in limited aspects, you're bringing up aspects he never mentioned, attempting to expand his analogy beyond what it actually was to make a point he never implied, which is why you're wrong.

 

[Deagonx]

Dude, he said that Higher Dimensions see the Universe as flat, and use the example of humans seeing fictional characters on books

Insofar as the temporal transcendence and transparency, not fictionality.

But fictionality proves level of existence, which is the case here

What?

 

[Bernkastelll]

What?

Using Reality-Fiction interaction proves dimensionality/levels of existence

 

[Alphaapexnep00]

is this a debate about the bleed being higher dimensional? Because it's clearly is

 

[Deagonx]

Using Reality-Fiction interaction proves dimensionality/levels of existence

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here. What relevance to the discussion does this have? Where is the proof of a reality->fiction interaction? Why are you bringing this up? What does it have to do with your scan?

You're saying random blurbs without putting them into a coherent and relevant argument.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Where is the proof of a reality->fiction interaction? Why are you bringing this up? What does it have to do with your scan?

What? Wdym? when did I said that a reality >> fiction interaction? What you're trying to say?

 

[Deagonx]

What? Wdym? when did I said that a reality >> fiction interaction?

The -> isn't a greater than sign, it's an arrow. You said it here:

Using Reality-Fiction interaction proves dimensionality/levels of existence

So allow me to rephrase if you misunderstood:

I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here. What relevance to the discussion does this have? Where is the proof of a reality-fiction interaction? Why are you bringing this up? What does it have to do with your scan?

You're saying random blurbs without putting them into a coherent and relevant argument.

 

[Bernkastelll]

The -> isn't a greater than sign, it's an arrow. You said it here:

oof, I didnt saw that it was a arrow

The -> isn't a greater than sign, it's an arrow. You said it here:




I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here. What relevance to the discussion does this have? Where is the proof of a reality-fiction interaction? Why are you bringing this up? What does it have to do with your scan?

The proof is on the fact that the higher dimensions see the lowers in the same way that humans see fictional characters on books, it is on the scan

 

[Deagonx]

The proof is on the fact that the higher dimensions see the lowers in the same way that humans see fictional characters on books, it is on the scan

No, it isn't. What you're saying isn't in the scan at all, as a matter of fact. You're just rehashing xearsay's argument which I've already responded to. The analogy never references fictionality, nor does it make a 1:1 comparison between higher dimensionality and fictionality. The only aspects of reading a comic book that are made relevant to a higher dimensional perspective is the temporal transcendence and transparency, not anything else, because he never mentioned any other aspects in his analogy. Once again:

Making a comparison doesn't encompass all aspects of the object of comparison, only the ones referenced. I can say Spider-Man is like a spider because he can shoot webs and walk on walls, but that doesn't mean I'm saying he has 8 legs or is an insect.

 

[Xearsay]

Which has nothing to do with fictionality.

Yes it does. If someone with a higher dimensional perspective see's the universe like how one see's the flatness of a comic book. That means there's a reality fiction difference between two.

Nor does it need to, since the only aspects of a comic book he referenced were temporal transcendence and transparency, and not fictionality. If he had referenced fictionality you would have a point, but his comparison was limited to only those aspects of the comic book and nothing further.

Wrong. He literally saids that he's thinking about how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective. Not just it's time, and transparency. The universe. Time, being flat, and it's transparency are just specifics that he dabbled into.

 

[Deagonx]

If someone with a higher dimensional perspective see's the universe like how one see's the flatness of a comic book. That means there's a reality fiction difference between two.

No it doesn't, flatness isn't fictionality. Comparing the universe as having the flatness of a comic book story does not imply or indicate that it also shares the comic book's fictionality.

Wrong. He literally saids that he's thinking about how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective. Not just it's time, and transparency.

I'm aware, I've already addressed this. I'm not wrong at all, time and transparency are the only aspects of a higher dimensional perspective that he references.

The higher dimensional perspective isn't separate from the time and transparency, they are the aspects of his perspective that are different. They are the elaboration of what he means by that.

 

[Bernkastelll]

No it doesn't, flatness isn't fictionality. Comparing the universe as having the flatness of a comic book story does not imply or indicate that it also shares the comic book's fictionality.

he compares the universe in the perspective of the Higher Dimensions, and yes, a Higher Dimension would see the Universe as flat

 

[Deagonx]

he compares the universe in the perspective of the Higher Dimensions, and yes, a Higher Dimension would see the Universe as flat

I am aware. This is intrinsic to what I said, and the distinction I made between flatness and fictionality.

 

[LordTracer]

Pretty sure this is derailing from the point of the thread...

 

[Xearsay]

No it doesn't, flatness isn't fictionality. Comparing the universe as having the flatness of a comic book story does not imply or indicate that it also shares the comic book's fictionality.

I never said flatness is fictionality. However treating a lower dimension like a story and perceiving it like a comic book is evidence of a reality to fiction difference.

"The story's linear but I can flip through it like pages in any order, any direction."

I don't know why you're still arguing against this. It's very blatantly clear in the scan higher dimensions perceive and treat lower one's like a work of fiction.

I'm aware, I've already addressed this. I'm not wrong at all, time and transparency are the only aspects of a higher dimensional perspective that he references.

The higher dimensional perspective isn't separate from the time and transparency, they are the aspects of his perspective that are different. They are the elaboration of what he means by that.

I never said it was. I'm just saying he's talking about the universe itself and those are specifics of the universe that he dabbled into.

 

[Deagonx]

However treating a lower dimension like a story and perceiving it like a comic book is evidence of a reality to fiction difference.

Sure, but lower dimensions aren't said to be treated like a story, and the fictionality of a comic book isn't included in the comparison, the only "comic-book like" aspects of the perception are listed as transparency and temporal transcendence, which have nothing to do with fictionality.

Once again, you are repeating yourself without even attempting to resolve the issues. You have absolutely no counter-argument, so you keep spamming comic-book = fiction even though it's been debunked.

It's very blatantly clear in the scan higher dimensions perceive and treat lower one's like a work of fiction.

No it isn't, what is in the scan, however, is that higher dimensions are temporally beyond lower ones, and can view them transparently, like a comic book. Fictionality isn't a part of that scan whatsoever, as demonstrated.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Sure, but lower dimensions aren't treated like a story

in the perspective of Higher Dimensions, the lower dimensions are like stories, yes

 

[Deagonx]

in the perspective of Higher Dimensions, the lower dimensions are like stories, yes

Absolutely no evidence of this has been provided, and it's directly contradicted in Perpetua's storyline.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Absolutely no evidence of this has been provided, and it's directly contradicted in Perpetua's storyline.

we use it on our tiering system ''They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.''

 

[DastardlyDangerousDracoga]

Looks like someone hasn't read the FAQ....

 

[Deagonx]

we use it on our tiering system ''They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.'

And? There are several qualities listed as examples, not just fictionality.

 

[Bernkastelll]

, not just fictionality.

Yeh? Fictionality is one of these, if it show fictionality, it qualifies to a Higher D

 

[Xearsay]

Sure, but lower dimensions aren't said to be treated like a story, and the fictionality of a comic book isn't included in the comparison, the only "comic-book like" aspects of the perception are listed as transparency and temporal transcendence, which have nothing to do with fictionality.

Wrong. He directly starts using how one treats a comic book to compare with how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective. Which is evidence of lower dimensions being treated and appearing like a story over higher ones.

"I'm thinking how our universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective."

"The story's linear but I can flip through it like pages in any order, any direction. Forward in time to the conclusion. Back to the opening scene."

 

[Deagonx]

Fictionality is one of these, if it show fictionality, it qualifies to a Higher D

And no fictionality differences have been established.

 

[Xearsay]

Funny how everyone else can see the scan is expressing a reality to fiction difference but you.

 

[Bernkastelll]

And no fictionality differences have been established.

What are u even saying? I cant understand, about the scan, the scan literally says that the Higher Dimensions see the universe in the same way that a human see a fictional character on a book, this is a blatant example of reality fiction interaction, which is Higher D

 

[DastardlyDangerousDracoga]

And no fictionality differences have been established.

Wait, wait, how do you identify fictionality differences?

 

[Alphaapexnep00]

And no fictionality differences have been established.

That's different. It clearly states in the faq that if a being views a universe as fiction it's higher dimensional. While reality-to fiction is for example living in the real world doesn't equate higher Dimensional.

 

[LordTracer]

Seriously, you guys need to take this discussion to your message walls or something, because you’re heavily derailing.

 

[Deagonx]

Wrong. He directly starts using how one treats a comic book to compare with how the universe appears from a higher dimensional perspective.

You started your sentence with "wrong" but then followed up with something that is already accounted for directly in my comment. The fact that he is using a comic book for the comparison does not necessitate a difference in fictionality, because as explained multiple times now, using something for a comparison does not mean you are using all aspects of that thing for the comparison. I already gave an example of this, where Spider-Man can be compared to a spider because of the webs and wall-walking, but not in having 8 legs or being an insect.

Likewise, the higher dimensional perspective can be compared to a comic book because of temporal transcendence and transparency, but not in being metafictionally above the lower dimensions.

Which is to say, the only aspects of a comic book (or any object of an analogy) that are relevant to the comparison are the actual aspects that he mentions, and since he never mentions fictionality, it's erroneous to assume that's a part of the comparison as outlined above.

To recap: Something being used in a comparison doesn't mean all aspects of that thing are paralleled in the compared object. This has been explained repeatedly, yet you've never even tried to respond. You simply repeat the same debunked assumption that using aspects X and Y of comic books in the comparison must also necessitate that Z aspect is relevant too, even though that's not how analogies work.

I cant understand, about the scan, the scan literally says that the Higher Dimensions see the universe in the same way that a human see a fictional character on a book, this is a blatant example of reality fiction interaction, which is Higher D

He does not "literally say that." I have responded directly to this point of view in the thread repeatedly. See above, he never references fictionality in regards to his higher dimensional perspective.

Wait, wait, how do you identify fictionality differences?

There are several ways to accomplish this, but the most direct is having a character literally say (and hopefully demonstrate) that the lower realm is literally fictional. The Writer in Animal Man does this, for example. As does Featherine in Umineko.

It clearly states in the faq that if a being views a universe as fiction it's higher dimensional

No being views the universes in DC as fiction.

 

[Deagonx]

Funny how everyone else can see the scan is expressing a reality to fiction difference but you.

Argument via consensus is an embarrassingly fallacious way to try and dodge around the logical errors in your claim.

 

[Alphaapexnep00]

First of all none of this as anything to do with higher dimensional. You can focus on that in another thread so let's not derail any further.

 

[Deagonx]

First of all none of this as anything to do with higher dimensional

It was brought up in this thread because another user tried to use the Allen Adam scan to claim higher dimensions had reality-fiction differences between them, even though he never said such a thing in the scan. That's why it's relevant to higher dimensions.