Revising Marvel's Abstracts (Part 2 of ????)

[Kerwin0831]

Insofar as achieving that through higher-dimensional spaces go, yes. To quote our FAQ page:

ℕ₁ doesn’t exist in most tier 2/1 verses though. The reason how ℕ₁ exists is simply this wiki’s interpretation of higher dimensional difference.

Since in mathematics, lower dimensional objects can cover all of the points of a higher dimensional space. Also, if there’s an uncountable infinite difference from a lower and higher dimension then regardless how infinite one is in a lower dimension, it should always equate to zero/nothing in a higher dimension. However, certain mathematical structures disproves that.

But you are more welcome to provide a paper in geometry that the difference in Euclidean dimensional space and a lower one is an uncountable infinite.

The union of uncountably infinite lines to form a square, and uncountably infinite squares to form a cube.

Care to cite me an accepted paper study where it stated that ℕ₁ lines are required to form a square and ℕ₁ squares are required to form a cube? I’ll be waiting for that

a dimension difference and an uncountably infinite difference are the same thing.

As I’ve explained above. They are not the same thing. In the HDE page, it describes dimensions as ℝ^n and said that ℝ² (being ℝ • ℝ). Though that’s wrong, in euclidean space and real coordinate space, n is never ℝ, n is the finite ordered list of real numbers. The HDE page assumes that it indicates the entire set of real numbers when nothing suggests such. So I’m guessing you get your belief from said page, which isn’t even mathematically correct.

Hence with all the things I’ve said. R > f is the closest one can get to ℕ₁ since any transfinite recursion of F, it is lesser than R. Dimensional difference doesn’t have an uncountable infinite difference, it’s only this wiki’s interpretation of it.

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.

Incorrect. Mathematics isn’t science. It’s acceptable for fiction to go beyond the confines of our current understanding science because its purpose is to investigate observable phenomena and generate theories about our natural world. Mathematics, in this case, set theory and its axioms imply the existence of a set-theoretic universe so rich that all mathematical objects can be construed as sets. By all means, it is its own-universe constructed on axioms which may or may no real world phenomena. So you’d have to prove that Marvel actually have it correct(which they don’t).

Mathematical structures are also required to exist in some way, yeah, but this doesn't terribly matter here. The Galactus Seed is already described as containing more power than mathematics can express, so, whether an aleph-sized structure physically exists or not is irrelevant, since it would be too vast to be described by any aleph anyway. That, and the fact that the Superflow is a platonic realm containing all mathematics makes the concern null and void.

You mean from Marvel’s conception of aleph which is lesser than it is? Pretty sure you wouldn’t be able to prove that it is too vast to be described by any actual mathematical aleph. It’s the same as Lovecraft stating that the Outer Gods are beyond the boundaries of mathematics while they themselves can be described in a mathematical language.

In any case, we are getting side-tracked.

The topic at hand is, does ℕ₁ exists in Marvel? Your argument of transfinite, Cantor being mentioned and “numbers greater than infinity” would be sufficient. IF AND ONLY IF, Marvel didn’t have two counter-proof, saying not only the same phrase of numbers greater than infinite and transfinite but also gave a description of what transfinite entails and an example.

Marvel can still have whatever rating you so desire. It just wouldn’t have actual alephs since it never had its description correct nor did they overwrite/update the examples provided.

 

[Antvasima]

However, I do have something else I want to comment on. Did a bureaucrat give Kerwin0831 indefinite posting rights? If not, per this thread's strictness, their argument with Ultima should be shut down. I don't believe we need Ultima to explain why we're disregarding blatantly wrong explanations of set theory to someone who isn't even authorized to post here.

No, but I am willing to let him finish his discussion with Ultima if it does not take too long, as he seems sufficiently knowledgeable to have worthwhile perspectives to add here.

 

[Antvasima]

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."

Well, I still much prefer terms to be used according to their actual meaning, not to randomly blend them with other ones. In this case, "multiverse" is the generally scientifically accepted term for such a structure, and I do not want people to start wanting to scale Marvel Comics alone from all of fiction combined.

Also, isn't it still more common to use the term "multiverse" than "omniverse" for Marvel Comics?

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."

Good point. I overlooked that.

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?

Because it doesn't actually establish Low 1-A on its own, and I think that we should use a proper split, not a halfway one, especially given how Jim Starlin has consistently acted in an extremely disrespectful and inconsiderate manner towards other authors and characters in a shared playground.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

ℕ₁ doesn’t exist in most tier 2/1 verses though. The reason how ℕ₁ exists is simply this wiki’s interpretation of higher dimensional difference.

Since in mathematics, lower dimensional objects can cover all of the points of a higher dimensional space. Also, if there’s an uncountable infinite difference from a lower and higher dimension then regardless how infinite one is in a lower dimension, it should always equate to zero/nothing in a higher dimension. However, certain mathematical structures disproves that.

But you are more welcome to provide a paper in geometry that the difference in Euclidean dimensional space and a lower one is an uncountable infinite.

It not being mentioned doesn't really mean we don't take it to exist. As explained in the FAQ, we generally assume a continuum of points exists in a verse, hence destroying a timeline is Low 2-C and not High 3-A or 3-A.

Lower-dimensional objects being able to fill up higher-dimensional spaces is largely a byproduct of there being a bijection of points between the two (i.e 1-D space and 2-D space have the same cardinality). If you extend that principle to real life, a pea is the same size as the sun, so, obviously cardinality is generally not used to determine the sizes of solids. Things like Length and Area and Volume and etc are.

For the bolded bit: You're absolutely right. For example, no matter how large your area is, you'll always have 0 volume. That's called being a null set. Gabriel's Horn doesn't disprove that, and I've no clue of why you'd think it does.

I also don't need to provide a paper, no, when basic understanding of geometry already shows as much. To quote the FAQ again:

One may think of it as a multiplication between sets: For instance, the unit square [0,1]² may be expressed as the product of two unit intervals [0,1] x [0,1], which itself can be visualized as taking "copies" of the first interval and lining them up along each point of the second interval, of which there are uncountably infinitely-many, thus forming a square out of infinite line segments.

In a way you can see this as a natural extension of the fact that, in a line (1-D), there are uncountably infinite points (0-D). You can also see this by how you can take a cross-section of some object along any point of the axis (Or more specifically the bit of that axis that the object covers) to which that cross-section is perpendicular. There are uncountably infinitely many such points, therefore uncountably infinite cross-sections.

As I’ve explained above. They are not the same thing. In the HDE page, it describes dimensions as ℝ^n and said that ℝ² (being ℝ • ℝ). Though that’s wrong, in euclidean space and real coordinate space, n is never ℝ, n is the finite ordered list of real numbers. The HDE page assumes that it indicates the entire set of real numbers when nothing suggests such. So I’m guessing you get your belief from said page, which isn’t even mathematically correct.

The "n" is used to indicate exponentiation, so, it does indeed represent the real number line being multiplied by itself n times, yes. It's not finite, of course, since real coordinate space itself isn't. We can, after all, have (x,y) take any real value, of which there are (uncountably) infinitely many.

Hence with all the things I’ve said. R > f is the closest one can get to ℕ₁ since any transfinite recursion of F, it is lesser than R. Dimensional difference doesn’t have an uncountable infinite difference, it’s only this wiki’s interpretation of it.

This, to me, seems to indicate that you simply disagree with the wiki's standards, so, on that angle this conversation really has no place in this thread.

Incorrect. Mathematics isn’t science. It’s acceptable for fiction to go beyond the confines of our current understanding science because its purpose is to investigate observable phenomena and generate theories about our natural world. Mathematics, in this case, set theory and its axioms imply the existence of a set-theoretic universe so rich that all mathematical objects can be construed as sets. By all means, it is its own-universe constructed on axioms which may or may no real world phenomena. So you’d have to prove that Marvel actually have it correct(which they don’t).

It's acceptable, sure, but we are never going to take an author getting a scientific fact incorrectly as them "Going beyond the confines of our current understanding of science." We're going to take them as having made a mistake. Plain and simple. Same goes here.

Honestly I don't even know what point this bit is trying to make.

The topic at hand is, does ℕ₁ exists in Marvel? Your argument of transfinite, Cantor being mentioned and “numbers greater than infinity” would be sufficient. IF AND ONLY IF, Marvel didn’t have two counter-proof, saying not only the same phrase of numbers greater than infinite and transfinite but also gave a description of what transfinite entails and an example.

Your point here hinges entirely on us accepting Kubik and Strange's explanations as being simply how cardinals work in Marvel as a cosmological fact, which dials back up to the above debate, so, would rather not needlessly extend this post by repeating myself.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

No, but I am willing to let him finish his discussion with Ultima if it does not take too long, as he seems sufficiently knowledgeable to have worthwhile perspectives to add here.

I would not say he's knowledgeable by any means, no, seeing as he just got fairly basic things wrong. A good chunk of his point also seems to hinge more on problems with wider side standards (And with math, it seems), so, I don't think the conversation in general has any place here, like I said.

Well, I still much prefer terms to be used according to their actual meaning, not to randomly blend them with other ones. In this case, "multiverse" is the generally scientifically accepted term for such a structure, and I do not want people to start wanting to scale Marvel Comics alone from all of fiction combined.

"Omniverse" has no actual meaning and is just whatever writers want it to mean. And nowadays it's really just a campy way of saying "All of existence." As long as we clarify that, using it on profiles does us no harm.

Because it doesn't actually establish Low 1-A on its own, and I think that we should use a proper split, not a halfway one, especially given how Jim Starlin has consistently acted in an extremely disrespectful and inconsiderate manner towards other authors and characters in a shared playground.

How does that warrant complete isolation of his cosmology from the main one?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Based on the model of the cosmology Ultima has presented to us, would it not make sense that universes presented at face value would all share the same properties? Wack or not, Starlin's contributions to Marvel would (in-universe) be part of the machinations of TOAA. So unless there are direct contradictory statements, why wouldn't the universe fit under the same cosmological structure as the rest?

 

[Antvasima]

I would not say he's knowledgeable by any means, no, seeing as he just got fairly basic things wrong. A good chunk of his point also seems to hinge more on problems with wider side standards (And with math, it seems), so, I don't think the conversation in general has any place here, like I said.

Okay.

"Omniverse" has no actual meaning and is just whatever writers want it to mean. And nowadays it's really just a campy way of saying "All of existence." As long as we clarify that, using it on profiles does us no harm.

Well, I still much prefer using standardised terms.

How does that warrant complete isolation of his cosmology from the main one?

Because Starlin just does whatever he wants without any concern for what others have established, so if we are going to split his version of the cosmology, it should be properly split, not use cherry-picking of whichever parts that one wants to use.

 

[Antvasima]

Based on the model of the cosmology Ultima has presented to us, would it not make sense that universes presented at face value would all share the same properties? Wack or not, Starlin's contributions to Marvel would (in-universe) be part of the machinations of TOAA. So unless there are direct contradictory statements, why wouldn't the universe fit under the same cosmological structure as the rest?

Because Starlin very strongly seems to be a power-mad egomaniac who doesn't take other creators into consideration at all, and strongly continuously shows this tendency in his work.

 

[ByAsura]

Let's leave stuff like 'power-mad egomaniac' out of our arguments from now on, especially since they don't have much bearing on these incongruities.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Because Starlin just does whatever he wants without any concern for what others have established, so if we are going to split his version of the cosmology, it should be properly split, not use cherry-picking of whichever parts that one wants to use.

It's not cherrypicking when the process is just:

"Is this part contradicted?"

"No" → "Then it can be applied."

"Yes" → "Then it can't be applied."

 

[ByAsura]

On another note, I'd kind of like to sort of expand on an argument from a previous thread.

The local Superflow had disappeared, but the entire realm was eventually going to crumble and kill all Abstracts inside, albeit some time after the multiverse became a super-strong universe.

However, it's not as simple as 'the Superflow isn't a higher reality' like I claimed before because The Maker specifically coded a weakened Eighth Cosmos with the Aspirants' information to be that way.

With this in mind, would this scale to the Aspirant's (and thusly multiversal Celestials') AP in some fashion?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

On another note, I'd kind of like to sort of expand on an argument from a previous thread.

The local Superflow had disappeared, but the entire realm was eventually going to crumble and kill all Abstracts inside, albeit some time after the multiverse became a super-strong universe.

That would make sense, given that, even after Maker did his thing, there was still a corner of the Superflow that remained where Logos was chilling out with the Aspirants. Explains how the universes didn't instantly disappear despite the Superflow being home for the concepts sustaining it, too.

With this in mind, would this scale to the Aspirant's (and thusly multiversal Celestials') AP in some fashion?

Doubtful, given it's less a power-related thing and more the fact that they carried the First Firmament's DNA in them, and this DNA included "No multiverses allowed." So that nature was transposed into Eternity when Maker injected their information into him.

 

[ByAsura]

ok, then.

 

[Udlmaster]

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."

I vote we just call it Universal, just as he would have wanted it. >: )

 

[Executor_N0]

A point to be taken in regard to the naming is that at one point, the very name "Universe" has too many meanings. You sometimes have the different planes of existence as being called alternate universes separated to the standard 4-dimensional universe humans live, other times they are called something inside the universe, they are often called both universe, actualities, realities, pocket dimensions, and more.

So even just "Universe" can mean anything from the conventional 4-dimensional space-time humans live to any number of higher planes of existence. At the same time, they all are called universes and sometimes even multiverse. Even the way they connect isn't always consistent, as in Doctor Strange (2018) there was the collapse of the entire universe, considering both the conventional scientifical universe and the magical one, with each being considered also their own universe and the story goes back in forth to what the "universe" really is or isn't, with Mephisto's hell not being considered a part of the universe, but rather "tangential to it, but not of it" and that being a major plot point in that story.

One of the main points of the previous revision was exactly to accept that sometimes how some things are called doesn't convey exactly the full scale of everything and the same name can be used for any number of different layers individually and also the entire structure. If we can understand that the Universe can just mean the Multiverse, or the opposite, and any other possible meanings, I don't see why we can't do the same with Omniverse.

We just need to be very precise that it has a certain meaning in a certain scene. In the end, it's really no different from how we need to properly analyze what each statement means by "universe" or "multiverse" in this revision and the last one as well.

 

[Eseseso]

I mean even the currently accepted Marvel Universe is 6.3 dimensional, aka Low 1-C.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I seem to be outvoted regarding both issues then, but it still needs to be properly clarified in our wiki pages why we are allowing usage of the term "omniverse" in this particular case.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Issues like that will be tackled in the eventual explanation page I plan to make, anyway, so, not much of a need to concern ourselves with it.

Regardless, though, what are to do here now? I remember you mentioning that the only things left to discuss were Starlin's Cosmology and usage of "omniverse."

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, and since I seem to have been outvoted, I suppose that we only wait for DontTalk to verify that the tiering reasoning is logically accurate/coherent.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I question the need for that, seeing as the thread has enough support as is, but it does give me time to finish up the profiles I'm going to present later, so, it's whatever.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The ones in the OP are the ones I deemed most relevant. There's two other ones, but they are instances where authors got set theory hilariously wrong (You've probably seen then already. The "Naturals have twice as many elements as the odd and even numbers" stuff), so they were decided to be discarded in the past thread (Or at least, not made a big deal out of)

Well, then IMO you have no good evidence for the cardinality stuff.

Let's get to the first three scans that show that the abstracts are higher cardinal infinities... they don't.

The latter two scans just say transfinite, which just means "beyond finite", i.e. basically just another word for "infinite". So no cardinalities, just one statement of an infinite level of existence and an entity "so infinitely there are many manifestations". That gets you nowhere. (it says nothing of transfinite numbers, if that's what you thought it's about)
The only scan actually going at that direction is the first one, which could talk about ordinals just as much as about cardinals. So technically it doesn't necessarily even reach aleph_1.
Not that it matters. The scan doesn't say that Infinity (the entity, I assume) is a cardinal or ordinal or anything. It just says there are different levels of infinity in the cosmology and make an analogy to how there are different levels of infinity in mathematics as well. This isn't a quantitive statement, it is just about different levels being a thing.

So yeah, the scans directly get you nowhere.

Now, as I see you already accounted for that and tried to make more arguments based on just ordinals or cardinals being vaguely mentioned that one time. That, as you yourself admit, the other author apparently don't regularly have any idea about this stuff already throws doubt into relating that vague indication to other works.

But let's go through them.

To start with the Worldheart. To begin with I wonder if it being more powerful than all spatial things would even be consistent. Like, scaling wise and due to it being beyond spacetime yet in it. But that aside. So, the entire statement is pretty much flowery language. Like, it's also "beyond what language can explain" yet it's explained in language. Worse yet, no real indication of this being a power thing. It's a power beyond explanation, but it's nowhere said that's a size issue. It's for the most part an issue of it being alien.

Then the spiderman statement about reality being information and mathematics being part of it... That's getting the subset relationship backwards. Reality being mathematics, doesn't mean all of mathematics is manifested in reality. Like, this doesn't proof a Type IV multiverse.

Same applies to the Maker statement.

And of course, something being an idea space proofs little about cardinality existing in some tiering applicable way (if that's what the Superflow part was supposed to indicate)


So yeah, there is only one scan vaguely alluding to cardinals or ordinals, not connected to anything directly, I see no evidence of a Type IV Multiverse and the "beyond description" thing is immensely vague.

Hence I'm opposed to cardinal scaling in any form. (If one would even go High 1-A is another question altogether, but not that relevant here)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The only scan actually going at that direction is the first one, which could talk about ordinals just as much as about cardinals. So technically it doesn't necessarily even reach aleph_1.

It couldn't, no. Ordinals are about order, not size, so describing infinite ordinals as numbers "greater" than infinity is not correct. ω+1 is the ordinal that comes after ω, but it's not greater than it. They're the same size and omega+1 just happens to come after. The first infinite ordinal that's greater than the ones before it (And isn't ω itself) is ω1, and it's equivalent to aleph-1 anyway. The fact that the statement itself is talking about higher power then, of course, disbands any notion that it may be talking about ordinals.

The other scans are also decently relevant, I would say. "Transfinite" was a term coined by Cantor to describe the numbers he discovered, so usage of that specific term is, indeed, about transfinite numbers, or else they would've just used "infinite." Add that to the fact the same writer has mentioned higher infinities in the set theory sense. Although they're not as relevant as the Quasar one, so, I'm fine with keeping discussion focused on it.

To start with the Worldheart. To begin with I wonder if it being more powerful than all spatial things would even be consistent. Like, scaling wise and due to it being beyond spacetime yet in it. But that aside. So, the entire statement is pretty much flowery language. Like, it's also "beyond what language can explain" yet it's explained in language. Worse yet, no real indication of this being a power thing. It's a power beyond explanation, but it's nowhere said that's a size issue. It's for the most part an issue of it being alien.

It's not really flowery language, no, since the Surfer at no point directly describes the energy itself. You can say that how something is is beyond language and that's perfectly fine as long as your statement doesn't touch on the thing itself, and instead just refers to it indirectly. Being indescribable doesn't mean being unable to be referred to.

It being a size thing is perfectly able to be inferred from the context of the scan, also, since the point of the statement (The entire scene, really) is to give exposition on how powerful the thing is, not to talk about it being simply something different, and the very fact it specifically mentions "power" should indicate as much. If someone says "This guy has power beyond comprehension!" (or similar, doesn't have to be this exact verbiage), then most likely they mean "He is so strong that it's beyond your ability to understand," not "He isn't that strong but the power he does have is so alien you can't understand it." Same principle goes here.

Then the spiderman statement about reality being information and mathematics being part of it... That's getting the subset relationship backwards. Reality being mathematics, doesn't mean all of mathematics is manifested in reality. Like, this doesn't proof a Type IV multiverse.

Same applies to the Maker statement.

And of course, something being an idea space proofs little about cardinality existing in some tiering applicable way (if that's what the Superflow part was supposed to indicate)

Kek, I should've probably have hit harder on that key.

Anyway: My point was never about a Type IV Multiverse, per se, and nor was I saying that, just because math is information, it should all be instantiated in reality. To summarize: We know that ideas in Marvel are platonic in nature (A view also mentioned here and here, both from the same writer and in the same story arc. The latter being presented as more a theory of the characters, but the additional context from other comics outright confirms that it's correct anyway), and as such the Superflow, being the higher level of reality in which those ideas exist, would be the World of Forms in Marvel's cosmology.

The Spiderman scan was not meant to prove that on its own, and was rather just there to show that mathematics is also part of the information that defines reality, and as such part of the "platonic firmament" that is the Superflow as well. This here would serve the same purpose, since it describes reality as being underlaid by abstract mathematics, and shows that, by tapping into these mathematics, you can shape reality.

So, if the Superflow contains the platonic form of aleph-2 for example, it doesn't really matter if there's no object of aleph-2 cardinality in the physical world, since the Form provides the fundamental basis for that object whether it exists or not.

By the by, do you have any opinion on the dreams within dreams stuff?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, DontTalk.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It couldn't, no. Ordinals are about order, not size, so describing infinite ordinals as numbers "greater" than infinity is not correct. ω+1 is the ordinal that comes after ω, but it's not greater than it. They're the same size and omega+1 just happens to come after. The first infinite ordinal that's greater than the ones before it (And isn't ω itself) is ω1, and it's equivalent to aleph-1 anyway. The fact that the statement itself is talking about higher power then, of course, disbands any notion that it may be talking about ordinals.

Ordinals are greater in terms of the ">" relation, which in common words is called "is greater than". I.e. in the same sense the real number 6 is great than the real nuber 3. In terms of the analogy made it makes equally much sense to use as cardinals. For the analogy, the presence of an ordering is all that is necessary, at no point does it refer to "amount" which is what cardinal describe (amount in no way is more relevant to the power analogy than ordinals would be at that).

So nah, don't see that supported by the scan.

The other scans are also decently relevant, I would say. "Transfinite" was a term coined by Cantor to describe the numbers he discovered, so usage of that specific term is, indeed, about transfinite numbers, or else they would've just used "infinite." Add that to the fact the same writer has mentioned higher infinities in the set theory sense. Although they're not as relevant as the Quasar one, so, I'm fine with keeping discussion focused on it.

There's no way around the fact that the word transfinite is just not defined that way. You're making a connection to a concept not mentioned.

It's not really flowery language, no, since the Surfer at no point directly describes the energy itself. You can say that how something is is beyond language and that's perfectly fine as long as your statement doesn't touch on the thing itself, and instead just refers to it indirectly. Being indescribable doesn't mean being unable to be referred to.

It being a size thing is perfectly able to be inferred from the context of the scan, also, since the point of the statement (The entire scene, really) is to give exposition on how powerful the thing is, not to talk about it being simply something different, and the very fact it specifically mentions "power" should indicate as much. If someone says "This guy has power beyond comprehension!" (or similar, doesn't have to be this exact verbiage), then most likely they mean "He is so strong that it's beyond your ability to understand," not "He isn't that strong but the power he does have is so alien you can't understand it." Same principle goes here.

Calling something indescribable is in itself a description. So is describing it as the soul of a god.

And no, I don't see that inference from the scan at all. You don't call something indescribable as a point of power, you call it such due to its alien nature. Same reason it's mentioned to be plucked from spacetime and originating from a time-before-time. Those aren't power statements, those are statements to make it seem special, weird and mysterious.

Anyway: My point was never about a Type IV Multiverse, per se, and nor was I saying that, just because math is information, it should all be instantiated in reality. To summarize: We know that ideas in Marvel are platonic in nature (A view also mentioned here and here, both from the same writer and in the same story arc. The latter being presented as more a theory of the characters, but the additional context from other comics outright confirms that it's correct anyway), and as such the Superflow, being the higher level of reality in which those ideas exist, would be the World of Forms in Marvel's cosmology.

The Spiderman scan was not meant to prove that on its own, and was rather just there to show that mathematics is also part of the information that defines reality, and as such part of the "platonic firmament" that is the Superflow as well. This here would serve the same purpose, since it describes reality as being underlaid by abstract mathematics, and shows that, by tapping into these mathematics, you can shape reality.

So, if the Superflow contains the platonic form of aleph-2 for example, it doesn't really matter if there's no object of aleph-2 cardinality in the physical world, since the Form provides the fundamental basis for that object whether it exists or not.

No, that's not how tiering works. Just because the concept of something exists, someone governing concepts isn't High 1-A due to the idea of cardinality. By this logic real life is High 1-A, since we possess a concept of cardinals.

The idea existing is just entirely insufficient evidence, if it's not instantiated in any proper form.

By the by, do you have any opinion on the dreams within dreams stuff?

I see no evidence that the layers refer to something with qualitative superiority and that the dreams mentioned are hierarchial instead of parallel. The only dream in a dream mentioned is the first one and I am not sure how exactly that is to be interpreted.

That said, even if taken as you suggest, the number of layers appears lower than the more than any cardinal many layers needed for High 1-A.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ordinals are greater in terms of the ">" relation, which in common words is called "is greater than". I.e. in the same sense the real number 6 is great than the real nuber 3.

That's a terrible example to make, seeing as 6 is indeed larger than 3, while ω+1 is not larger than ω. Furthermore, it is immensely more likely that the author is using "greater" in its conventional meaning (A synonym of "bigger"), rather than in a non-standard way that's only found in mathematics (And which is also a misnomer when you reach the realm of the infinite, since by then it really just stands for the successor relationship, which in there isn't the same as being bigger).

So right now you're basically arguing that "greater" doesn't necessarily mean "bigger" (Or even "superior to"), and I think you're much better off bringing those objections to whoever came up with the English language, by that point.

And for the matter, amount indeed is more relevant to the power analogy than ordering is (Because lower infinity < higher infinity isn't a relationship that's described by two ordinals of the same cardinality)

There's no way around the fact that the word transfinite is just not defined that way. You're making a connection to a concept not mentioned.

It is indeed mentioned. This, for example, is by the same author, in the same comic.

Calling something indescribable is in itself a description. So is describing it as the soul of a god.

And no, I don't see that inference from the scan at all. You don't call something indescribable as a point of power, you call it such due to its alien nature. Same reason it's mentioned to be plucked from spacetime and originating from a time-before-time. Those aren't power statements, those are statements to make it seem special, weird and mysterious.

It is, but it's a description about the thing, not of it. You can say that some object is beyond your capability to describe (Say, a higher-d thing), and that's accurate as long as you're talking about the actual, physical features of it, and not extending that into a broader context.

And you do, indeed, often call something indescribable or incomprehensible as a point of power, yes. See the example I gave above, which often shows up in fiction. The fact that the Surfer immediately goes on to talk about how the seed is so powerful than it may sate Galactus' hunger forever lends to that interpretation, too.

No, that's not how tiering works. Just because the concept of something exists, someone governing concepts isn't High 1-A due to the idea of cardinality. By this logic real life is High 1-A, since we possess a concept of cardinals.

The idea existing is just entirely insufficient evidence, if it's not instantiated in any proper form.

No offense, but did you even read my post? Because that's a complete strawman.

Obviously, a concept existing doesn't warrant any tier of its own, but Platonic Forms are different because they exist prior to reality and define it, and are greater than their particulars regardless of whether or not they're instantiated (Something that's true in Marvel. See Mephisto saying that Platonic Ideals are "cast down" into the earthly realm and enter fallen states while manifested in it).

Real life isn't High 1-A because, as far as we know, Plato was just an old kook and ideas like math are just mental constructs, with reality not being lesser than or derived from them. Completely different cases.

I see no evidence that the layers refer to something with qualitative superiority and that the dreams mentioned are hierarchial instead of parallel. The only dream in a dream mentioned is the first one and I am not sure how exactly that is to be interpreted.

Makes me want to repeat the question I made up there, seeing as:

"All the universes are merely dreams folded inside dreams. Each universe a thought within a larger thought, and each containing smaller thoughts within itself. Ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum, ad-hoc...."

It's very explicitly hierarchical.

 

[DaReaperMan]

So right now you're basically arguing that "greater" doesn't necessarily mean "bigger" (Or even "superior to"), and I think you're much better off bringing those objections to whoever came up with the English language, by that point.

More specifically, Anglo-Saxon Migrants.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

More specifically, Anglo-Saxon Migrants.

I'll kill them.

 

[KLOL506]

So basically, "greater doesn't mean bigger" and "infinite doesn't mean infinite" debates.

Peak battleboarding brainrot at its finest, people.

 

[Antvasima]

Don't be rude and disrespectful to DontTalk. He has done more for this community over the years than almost anybody else in it.

 

[KLOL506]

I am just expressing my views on the whole "greater isn't bigger" and "infinite isn't infinite" sentiments, it wasn't a targeted attack towards DontTalk, but rather the sentiments themselves, which I do indeed find highly illogical and borderline rejecting basic grammar and reading comprehension.

 

[Antvasima]

You used the word "brainrot" towards one of our bureaucrats and absolutely most intelligent and reasonable members. That is not appropriate.

 

[KLOL506]

With due respect, Ant, I did not, I used this term solely for the argument itself, because I am tired of the petty semanticality like this that drags on these already-controversial threads for far longer than they already are. That is all I have to say on the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

With due respect, Ant, I did not, I used this term solely for the argument itself, because I am tired of the petty semanticality like this that drags on these already-controversial threads for far longer than they already are. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Okay then, but I still think that you should try to be less aggressive and more respectful.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay then, but I still think that you should try to be less aggressive and more respectful.

I would like to ask you, and everyone else here, to do the same as well. To have a little bit of patience, and, if they truly know the verse at hand, to try and at least attempt to thoroughly look up the source material as much as possible, as this thread warrants us to.

I truly wish to see threads like this in general end more amicably than what is traditionally expected of them. But that can only be done if we're not harping at each other's throats stonewalling and throwing personal ad-hominems at each other that have little to do with the actual topic at hand and in fact serve to derail from the original purpose of the thread. Despite my lack of knowledge regarding this topic specifically, I am trying my level best to ensure this thread does not end up in chaos and there is a peaceful and mutual understanding between the two sides of this debate, but my patience can only go so far.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but I think that I have tried to be respectful and reasonable regarding this revision, despite initially strongly disagreeing with it.

 

[Eseseso]

I'm sorry but can we focus more on the final parts of this CRT?

Aka, focusing on the parts that are still in contention.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we are really just waiting for DontTalk and Ultima to reach an agreement here.

 

[LordTracer]

Rock paper scissors?

I’d like to remind you that this is a staff-only thread. Non-staff are not allowed to comment unless they’ve gotten permission and/or have something important to add to the discussion. Comments like this aren’t helpful.

 

[Timeless]

bump

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's a terrible example to make, seeing as 6 is indeed larger than 3, while ω+1 is not larger than ω. Furthermore, it is immensely more likely that the author is using "greater" in its conventional meaning (A synonym of "bigger"), rather than in a non-standard way that's only found in mathematics (And which is also a misnomer when you reach the realm of the infinite, since by then it really just stands for the successor relationship, which in there isn't the same as being bigger).

That's an opinion I don't agree with from a mathematical standpoint. All greater relations in mathematics are fundamentally of the variety of ordinals. That is to say they are half-orders, a special kind of relations. The number 6 being greater than the number 3 is for instance also not defined based on amounts or number of elements in their set representation or anything like this. It's an ordering relation.

And in terms of the analogy the comic makes, it is a half-ordering relation that is supposed to be defined. I see no reason this would be cardinals rather than ordinals.

So right now you're basically arguing that "greater" doesn't necessarily mean "bigger" (Or even "superior to"), and I think you're much better off bringing those objections to whoever came up with the English language, by that point.

That's a strawman. I at no point suggested that. It's just that your idea of "greater" is singlemindedly locked on one way in which something can be mathematically bigger. Saying ordinals are bigger than one another is so natural that, for example, wikipedia's article on transfinite numbers that explains ordinals is also doing so.

Not every greater is cardinals.

And for the matter, amount indeed is more relevant to the power analogy than ordering is (Because lower infinity < higher infinity isn't a relationship that's described by two ordinals of the same cardinality)

No, it really isn't. The only relevant part of that is the ordering.

Obligatory reminder that cardinality only measures how many of something there are. It is by nature not a power measure.

It is indeed mentioned. This, for example, is by the same author, in the same comic.

I have seen that scan already. I see nothing in it that would suggest that "transfinite" isn't used to mean "beyond the finite" / "infinite". I.e. what's said is just "Eternity is so infinite that there are numerous manifestations of him here". Which, again, only means different levels of infinite.

In any case, to hopefully end this debate: Transfinite numbers can likewise mean ordinals, so even if we made the relation it wouldn't get you anything we don't already have.

It is, but it's a description about the thing, not of it. You can say that some object is beyond your capability to describe (Say, a higher-d thing), and that's accurate as long as you're talking about the actual, physical features of it, and not extending that into a broader context.

Which I don't see the scan do. Really, if we restrict it to some aspect of it, I don't see why that restriction couldn't just as well go as far as to not make the statement useless.

And you do, indeed, often call something indescribable or incomprehensible as a point of power, yes. See the example I gave above, which often shows up in fiction. The fact that the Surfer immediately goes on to talk about how the seed is so powerful than it may sate Galactus' hunger forever lends to that interpretation, too.

I'm not saying that you can't do that, I'm saying that I see no solid evidence that it is done here.

No offense, but did you even read my post? Because that's a complete strawman.

Obviously, a concept existing doesn't warrant any tier of its own, but Platonic Forms are different because they exist prior to reality and define it, and are greater than their particulars regardless of whether or not they're instantiated (Something that's true in Marvel. See Mephisto saying that Platonic Ideals are "cast down" into the earthly realm and enter fallen states while manifested in it).

Real life isn't High 1-A because, as far as we know, Plato was just an old kook and ideas like math are just mental constructs, with reality not being lesser than or derived from them. Completely different cases.

Existing prior to reality is irrelevant and defining it scales to the reality in question at most.

And that they are "greater" than their particulars in a size sense is news to me. Especially to particulars which don't exist, in the Marvel case.

What ideals being cast down into lesser states is concerned... that's nice, but we don't see that happen to cardinals. Again, it's assuming every idea can be instantiated and I have seen no proper evidence that it can.

Heck, that cardinals are in that idea sphere is speculation on your part. Clearly some things are not e.g. ideas of the entities superior to that level of reality. Basically, some infinite powers are too infinite to that space. If you suggest that idea space implements such a size relationship, you would have to actually proof that cardinals are all in there and not part of the infinite powers that go beyond it.

Makes me want to repeat the question I made up there, seeing as:

"All the universes are merely dreams folded inside dreams. Each universe a thought within a larger thought, and each containing smaller thoughts within itself. Ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum, ad-hoc...."

It's very explicitly hierarchical.

Huh, must have missed that between all the scans.

If he's literal, then sure. Sounds like a hierarchy. Although I don't think it gets you to High 1-A cause, as said, it doesn't appear as large as the totality of all cardinals.