No, it isn't. I have already accepted the main revision. Starlin has just repeatedly proven himself to be a power-mad egomaniac who wantonly messes up established continuity, even contradicts himself, and identifies strongly with his powertripping psychopathic Gary Stu character Thanos.
Ya see the bolded parts? Yeah that's the bias coming in. Just because ya don't like the guy doesn't mean his stories can't be used, find issues conflicting with the Cosmology set up here from Starlin's side directly, okay? This solves about 50% of the criticisms people have of you
I know Ant, but at the end of the day it's an author of a big ass verse spanning nearly a century at this point, it's getting more... political then people are comfortable with. If you want I will make a thread where you can pour out all your annoyance for the man as well as other Marvel and DC writers, just... keep it off the revisions please
And it may be, but it's also one of the main criticisms of you...
This seems like a bad idea btw. I am just doing these things intuitively and impulsively, not through careful deliberation.
Yeah, but how does All-Above-Others being vaguely above (not a step above like you're claiming) The Living Tribunal contradict those elements? He's not even the real One-Above-All, and TLT is so much less powerful that he can't even verify that AAO isn't omnipotent.
But this is wrong because we previously see the Adam Warlock tribunal overseeing the recreated version of his own Earth-19141 reality. So there's at least two higher manifestations of Adam Warlock TLT made by Starlin.
I'm saying they're M-Bodies in the sense that they're visible. I'm not excusing it with M-Bodies. The very simple explanation is that TLT isn't infinitely stronger than the Abstracts because he's a universal body rather than his multiversal form that fought The Beyonders.
But there's just no proof of this, though. Even if your point didn't hinge on that one assertion, how is All-Above-Others' standing (which isn't explicitly stated to be universal or multiversal) proof that multiversal Eternity doesn't exist in Starlin's view?
Because Above-All-Others in the storyline is pretty much treated as the direct personification of all realities, since this is what Thanos becomes after he absorbs them. And that's also demonstrated by the fact that their unlimited power is dependent on the stability of the multiverse. When Thanos starts ******* shit up and causing realities to meld together by grabbing the Astral Regulator of his reality, the resulting imbalance results in AAO not being omnipotent and infallible anymore.
Because those stories all go with the age-old idea that the Living Tribunal is TOAA's direct sidekick and the most powerful being in existence aside from him. So much so that, like I pointed out, the Tribunal actually fights by Above-All-Others' side in the last scuffle against Thanos. That characterization doesn't really work (Especially now, since it's implied that AAO made the new Tribunal more powerful than the Beyonders that killed the old). if there are things in-between the two in power, which Multi-Eternity would be.
Or All-Above-Others also embodies the Cosmos on an even higher and fundamental scale because he plays a superior role in it to Eternity, Griever and The Queen of Nevers, much like how universal Eternity does with other Abstracts.
TLT can still just be appointed above Eternity in terms of rank by TOAA without being more powerful. He is the living embodiment of balance between forces in the multiverse, after all.
I don't see how that means anything.
This statement is extremely questionable because it was universal TLT that made the claim. Plus, I don't even see how TLT becoming stronger makes much difference.
That doesn't really work because Eternity is the cosmos itself, and there is no higher personification of it that ranks above him. In fact we're even told that he's the concept of reality itself, and that anything beyond him is likewise beyond the concept of existence, which we see by the fact that the realms of the Mystery aren't really higher versions of the multiverse so much as they're the voids from which the multiverse is born at all.
The Living Tribunal isn't really above Multi-Eternity in ranking or in authority, and in fact applying those terms to him is incorrect because he is not part of the hierarchy in which those things mean anything in the first place. The hierarchy is part of him, not vice-versa.
You're missing the point. This being that the Tribunal directly teaming up with AAO against Thanos is really just another expression of the idea that he's TOAA's Number 2, which was indeed a thing once upon a time, and which evidently is still a thing to Starlin. Much of Starlin's depiction of the cosmics there is rooted entirely in how the old comics, and him in particular, depicted them, in fact.
God is everything and nothing in Marvel (though obviously this probably isn't the same as Above-All-Others), which would include the multiverse, and as I showed in the scan there are more facets to the order of the multiverse than Eternity alone, like entropy and probability. So my point was that it doesn't matter that Eternity is the concept of the multiverse.
Ok, then. But his role in the cosmic hierarchy is still to judge all realities. So being TOAA's representative without being more powerful than Eternity is still quite possible due to his role.
What it's meant to show is that this was likely universal TLT anyway. If there is a multiversal TLT in Starlin's story,
What says that's Multi-Eternity? What we know from that scan (and why I use it) is that Eternity is the one of the dominant forces of existence (which applies on a universal scale), but it doesn't say this is Multi-Eternity and doesn't exactly make sense when any Eternity would have to use an M-Body to even be inaccurately seen by beings on this level.
I'm not missing the point because my point is that being someone's best servant doesn't make your their most powerful servant.
Literally all of Starlin's depictions (as far back as Infinity War) involve universal Eternities and universal TLTs, though.
What about this?
Eh, it's whatever. Easier for me that way, in any case.
Yeah. The tier I have in mind for naked golden man here is pretty much "Varies, up to Low 1-A | High 1-A"
Can others reread the post-ascension Thanos scene in "Marvel Universe: The End", so you understand what I am referring to please?
Not really necessary. We can just clarify what "Omniverse" means in Marvel nowadays. It's just a cosmological term like any other and clinging to the old guidebook definition is just silly at this point.
(Taken from the last thread)
"Multiverse" is correct, sure, but so is "omniverse." No term is immutable, especially in a verse like Marvel, and even if Al Ewing's claimed to have used the term incorrectly, other writers have done it before and after him. All of that trumps the one time that the term was used to refer to "All of reality and fiction combined" in one handbook.
We've already established that individual Earths in Marvel are Low 1-A, and Starlin's comics never, at any point, contradicted the bits of evidence that led us there. No particular reason to dismiss it for his writings in particular, especially when The End doesn't have anything that strictly cap its depiction of the universal structure at Tier 2.
They won't be taken into account because they give an incorrect explanation of set theory. Quasar's scan doesn't do that, so it will be taken into account insofar as evidence for 1-A and up goes.
The issue is that Quasar didn’t even explain what transfinite numbers are NOR gave an example like the other two instances. So how do you know it has a different definition? Because you’re basing it on a single line “there are numbers greater than infinity” when that was also existent in Dr Strange’s scan. The word “transfinite” is also the same.
I think that it depends a lot on the time. Going by most of his recent materials that have been mostly his isolated Thanos works, that could really be the case considering he just does his thing on isolated works. That wasn't the case for most of the time in the early years, even when you look at the works related to the Infinity Gauntlet there was a lot of build-up from the work of previous writers, especially when he's just following the story threads that were written by others.
The point is that as far as I am aware Mark Gruenwald, the original creator of the Marvel Comics handbooks, also originally invented the term "omniverse" in a fanzine with the same name, and defined it as all of fiction and reality combined, and we even have a wiki policy page that reiterates it.
The point is that Starlin consistently does his own thing without any regard for anybody else, and he has explicitly only defined the perceptions of ascended Thanos as reaching a Low 2-C scale, and that is it. If we are going to separate his cosmological structure, we should do so in a proper manner.
Why does that matter, exactly? Omniverse was really never used that way again in any comic (And since the definition comes from a handbook, technically it never was used in any comic whatsoever). At that point it's not "They used the term incorrectly" and more "This definition is outdated and ignored by later writers."
No, he hasn't. Thanos just describes becoming one with the universe, and even then he states his awareness expanded into higher realms, "beyond both the material and the abstract." Ultimately Starlin having a tendency to ignore things established by other authors doesn't matter if he didn't contradict certain things in this one case. Why would we refuse to scale his cosmology to Low 1-A on the basis of "It contradicts Low 1-A" if it doesn't actually... contradict Low 1-A?
He doesn't really need to explain what they are, because transfinite numbers are an actual mathematical concept in the same vein the quadratic formula is. If a verse mentions aleph numbers, we don't require it to give a painstaking explanation of what they are and what makes them Tier 1. We just apply the knowledge we, ourselves, have of them. Ultimately it boils down to "These scans give a wrong explanation. This one doesn't," and I already explained why we aren't going to take Kubik and Strange's explanation as a cosmological fact of the Marvel Universe, or anything like that.
He does though since the other instances which even had Cantor’s mention and “transfinite” had it incorrect. So you literally have no evidence to support your claim other than “numbers greater than infinity” which was used in Dr Strange’s scan but had the description and examples wrong.
Yes. If a verse mentions aleph numbers we don’t require for a painstaking explanation. The problem with Marvel is that they explained Alephs and even sourced the creator, Georg Cantor, HOWEVER the definition and example they gave was merely “smaller infinity, odd and even, are mere subsets of a larger infinity, whole”. If they didn’t gave their own inept definition, then we wouldn’t need one. The problem is they had the definition to be incorrect.
And I already said why we are not really taking these explanations to be information on how infinities work in Marvel. I don't care for repeating myself, so, read up.
I generally agree with that, yeah. Penalizing the verse for what was by no means intentional and instead a simple mistake makes no real sense. Take this infamous panel here as an example. The conclusion that we draw from it isn't "DC operates by different laws of mathematics than real life, and 320 * 10 is 32000 in it, not 3200," it's "The authors made a mistake and we are not going to make a big deal out of it."
In your previous thread, you didn’t really specify why it wouldn’t be taken into consideration. Just left out at with ‘obvious reasons’. So do point these “reasons”.
For the scan you provided in DC, did it happened twice by two different authors and is it a significant thing in explaining their cosmology? Because in Marvel it is. What’s stopping Marvel from having their own version of “uncountable infinity” which is a smaller and weaker version than itself. Since even the infinite levels of infinity by Kubik, can be contained within ℕ₀. Refer to what I said about the union of countably many sets of a countable infinite set.
The obvious reason, in this case, is that the existence of uncountable infinity is required to be assumed for any rating above Tier 3 to work. Arguably, its existence is required for even things as basic as, say, the real number line, as well. It'd be extremely silly to say that the continuum in Marvel is a countable set, for instance, and doing so just causes the verse's ratings to entirely break down.
I am well aware that a union of countably-many countable sets is always countable, yes, and it is for this very reason that I disregard Kubik's explanation, so I am not sure how bringing that up helps your point. As for the other point: Whether it is or isn't is immaterial, because the core point is that we are not going to frame mistakes on the author's part as cosmological facts of the verse, especially given that the specifics of the explanation aren't even the central point of the scans you are thinking of; the idea that some infinities are greater than others is.
After looking over everything, I agree. It all seems to make sense, and I don't have anything I want to say about it.
So ℕ₁ needs to exist for any rating above Tier 3 to work? Pretty sure that most tier 2 even 1-A verses doesn’t have an Aleph-number existing in their verse. What they have rather is qualitative superiority.
Pretty sure that even two sets of a 0-D point is enough to create a line. And if you’re getting it from here. Not all verses needs to have a mathematical perspective of higher dimensions to reach higher dimensional rating.
Huh? What are you going about? They are still higher dimensional spaces. It’d be just Marvel just doesn’t have the correct definition of aleph, instead its own weaker interpretation, which happens often in fiction. Pretty sure that other verses in Tier 1 doesn’t have alephs/beths but they still comfortably there. So that doesn’t really help you. Their own conception of infinities is enough. Most of the time in this wiki, it’s simply r > f or dimensional difference.
Yes, some infinities are greater than others. Like I said earlier, Marvel would’ve had it if they left it like that but they literally added their own description of it. You didn’t really provide any additional scan how Quasar’s example(Quasar never provided any) of higher infinities, is any different than the one who both used the same phrase, providing more info.
Insofar as achieving that through higher-dimensional spaces go, yes. To quote our FAQ page:
It isn't enough, no. You need the union of uncountably infinite points to form a line or a line segment. Likewise you need the union of uncountably infinite lines to form a square, and uncountably infinite squares to form a cube... If you say uncountable infinity simply doesn't exist in a verse, that breaks down.
A reality-fiction interaction is not the only way to reach Tier 2/1/0, so, mentioning it does nothing to assist your point, and as I've said, a dimensional difference and an uncountably infinite difference are the same thing. The other stuff I already explained up there.
I already explained why an author getting a science thing wrong isn't going to be taken as a fact of the cosmology, so, at this point you're repeating yourself.
Explaining why the authors getting it wrong in these two scans doesn't mean anything is something I dedicated the rest of these posts to, so, I don't believe I need to respond to this any more than I already have.
