-
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.
Revising Marvel's Abstracts (Part 2 of ????)
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- Status
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #162
That's effectively what your point boils down to, yes. Since you're basically seeing usage of the word "greater" and unironically saying "That could mean this mathematical relation where it doesn't mean bigger in the conventional sense of the word!". That conventional sense is what I am locked on, plain and simple.
The idea of "greater" and "bigger" that you are bringing up is miles away from what any normal person thinks of when they hear the words. If you ask a random person why 6 is greater than 3, they'll tell you that it's because a bag of 6 things has more stuff in it than a bag of 3 things, and that's that. What you're talking about is objectively a non-standard definition, where "greater" and "bigger" just mean "X comes after Y."
What suggests it is context. If the author already mentioned cantorian infinities in the same comic before, and now is using a term that Cantor invented, then obviously he is using it as a reference to the guy.
That second point also doesn't "end" this debate so much as merges it with the first point we're discussing, so, yeah.
Neither are ordinals. Ordinals just measure up order, as you yourself acknowledge, and order is not what is being brought up here. The context is that Quasar is talking about how he draws power from the Quantum Zone, which is a wellspring of infinite energy, and then going on to explain that, even if the Quantum Zone's power is infinite, it's still just a part of Infinity's power (The entity), which is even higher. The relation between ω and ω+1 doesn't really cover that.
You don't really need to. You provided an interpretation that makes the statement nonsensical (Flowery language, as you put it), and I pointed out that this interpretation isn't the only one, and most certainly not the most valid or obvious one.
It's fairly self-evident, based on all the things I've pointed out. So, let me ask you a question, outright: If a verse has a character say "This guy has power beyond comprehension!", do you really think it means "This guy isn't that strong, but the power he does have is so alien that you can't understand it" as opposed to "This guy is so strong that it's beyond your ability to understand"? Hyping up something's power with a non-power related statement makes no sense whatsoever.
If you didn't know, then now you do. Forms are primary, and physical reality is secondary, and so Forms that aren't instantiated within the latter are by no means inferior to or less quantifiable than Forms that are, and as such both are equally relevant to tiering, and you already acknowledged that the particular of a Form is indeed lesser than the Form itself in Marvel. That's why I mentioned that Forms define reality, a point that you missed completely in that first paragraph.
So I am not assuming anything, no, because all that's needed is the fact Forms exist, and whether or not those Forms actually cast shadows is irrelevant, and even if they, for some reason, can't, it doesn't change my point. Say I have two vases, and put one of them in front of a fire so that it starts casting a shadow. Is the vase that's casting a shadow superior to the one that isn't? Of course not. And is the vase that's not casting the shadow inferior to the shadow of the other vase? No, even worse.
The Superflow is also really the only place in which they can be. At the absolute most, they'd be in the Neutral Zone, since that's the furthest place of the omniverse, after which it's all just conceptless planes of pure absence. In fact, those conceptless planes are above the narrative forces of reality, which are more fundamental than even information (The chain going like: Molecules → Atoms → Protons → Quarks → Superstrings → Information → Narrative), and as we've seen, mathematics is ultimately a subset of that information, so they'd be beholden to narrative and as such be transcended by whatever transcends it.
To add to that, the lowest of the planes beyond Eternity is described as being a point "where everything you are is not," in a story by the same author that establishes the "Everything is information" stuff. So, in short, if information was shown to extend beyond Eternity or whatever, you'd have a point, but that's not the case.
Truth be told, though, them even extending to the Neutral Zone is questionable, since that's basically Eternity's hardware (As opposed to the Superflow, which is his software, so to speak). And the Worldheart already shows Eternity's nature isn't expressible by mathematics. Whether that's due to a superiority thing or not is still being disputed, but that doesn't particularly matter for this point in specific.
It do be like that.
And that's fine, anyway. The infinite hierarchy was there as supporting evidence.
Last edited:
- 10,502
- 11,573
Yeah, this is brought up in specifically a mathematical context, so I don't think you have a point by appealing to a non-mathematical interpretation here.
And I don't think most people would link "greater" to "more numerous" either. Most people would just take greater as greater number in the vague ill-defined sense that is.
I think "the author did math before at some unrelated point" is a weak argument for interpreting the terms in mathematical terms. Particularly since thinking of it as cardinals doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the sentences, as we are not counting things.
And call it merging as you want, but the point is that you don't get cardinals from this, as it could easily mean ordinals.
There is an analogy made here, which you keep missing. It's not that they are literally numbers. And the analogy is that the way there is a distinction and order to the hierarchies of infinite power, is how there is a hierarchy and order to some numbers larger than infinity. Ordinals fit that well, as they are ordered by a ">" relation.
Putting restriction on statements to make them not flowery language in the way to highest inflate power is really not our modus operandi.
That's not what the scan says, though. And by what the scan says I don't agree at all that your interpretation is self-evident.
And to answer your question: If a verse said someone has power beyond comprehension I would consider it flowery language.
I realize a hierarchy of abstractness, but not of size, what forms are concerned. And remember that cardinals aren't tiering relevant in every form, but only when brought into context of something physical. Cardinal many of something not physical or cardinal as pure mathematics has no size. So you don't even just need cardinality as mathematical object but a concept of something physical existing cardinality often.
Anyway, what the rest is concerned: Your argument for them necessarily being there fails in the fact that mortals can also have ideas about Eternity itself which is not contained there. If anything a mortal can have knowledge on is beyond that, then we pretty much know not all ideas are in there. You can't have a world of all things that can be thought and yet have something people know be not in it.
- 150
- 62
I think it would be better to not use that page to deduce that the cardinality/cardinal ℵ2 is used to quantify an amount of "something" in the Marvel cosmology.
The term "trans-infinite forces" doesn't refer to cardinality/cardinal and the forces aren't measurable the way sets typically are. We can say that a set of elements possesses the cardinality/cardinal ℵ2 but it is very strange to talk about "forces ℵ2". In my opinion, the writer didn't understand how the set theory works, and he used the term "trans-infinite forces" in an attempt to make the statement more impressive.
In fact, even if we don't take into account the fact that forces aren't sets, the term "trans-infinite" doesn't mean "transfinite" and it would imply that the forces inside the multiverse are on a higher scale than infinity itself.
Therefore, I think that, due to the strangeness of the statement, we can't deduce anything from that sentence.
Before posting, I asked for permission here.
The term "trans-infinite forces" doesn't refer to cardinality/cardinal and the forces aren't measurable the way sets typically are. We can say that a set of elements possesses the cardinality/cardinal ℵ2 but it is very strange to talk about "forces ℵ2". In my opinion, the writer didn't understand how the set theory works, and he used the term "trans-infinite forces" in an attempt to make the statement more impressive.
In fact, even if we don't take into account the fact that forces aren't sets, the term "trans-infinite" doesn't mean "transfinite" and it would imply that the forces inside the multiverse are on a higher scale than infinity itself.
Therefore, I think that, due to the strangeness of the statement, we can't deduce anything from that sentence.
Before posting, I asked for permission here.
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #168
I disagree with your overall assessment, but, as far as the point about the Superflow and whatnot goes, it doesn't matter much, really. That particular point boils down to "There are realms that encompass/transcend all mathematics. Mathematics in Marvel includes higher cardinal numbers. Therefore these realms encompass/transcend those cardinals as well."
All it requires to work is that the "numbers greater than infinity" indeed refer to cardinals above aleph-0. Whether the forces those numbers are being analogized to have a 1:1 correspondence with them is more to the side.
I do have a point, yes, because you don't really need to 100% tie yourself to mathematical jargon while talking about math ideas. Some things can't be separated from math, and others... Can. And honestly if you seriously think that the average person, when thinking of the terms "bigger" or "greater," wouldn't adhere to the conventional meaning of the words, especially with regards to numbers, then you're wrong, plain and simple, else this conventional meaning would not be so conventional after all. This semantics debate is pretty pointless, so, I'd kindly ask that you and I drop this nonsense.
All in all, this is partly why I say that your accusation that I am strawmanning you here was an inaccurate one. I claimed that your argument is basically that "greater" doesn't necessarily mean "bigger," and you corrected me saying that, actually, it's that "greater" and "bigger" may refer to mathematical relations that don't fit with the usual meaning of the words. This distinction is ultimately one without a difference.
It does, yes, since cardinals are really the only kinds of infinities where the conventional notion of "X is bigger than Y" really applies. As you know, countable ordinals after omega may seem impressive and all, but their "size" compared to their predecessors is just a mirage. In actuality they're all the same set arranged in distinct ways. And it does make sense to use cardinals to measure the scale of a space, depending on the context. Reminder a space can be thought of as just a set of points, too.
Applying ordinals doesn't really work for this particular scan because it isn't even an analogy, as the Quasar one is, so you don't even have room to argue that the comparison is just imperfect, because there is no comparison to begin with. It's flat-out Eternity being described as more transfinite than his Manifestation Bodies, so if you are to entertain that it indeed refers to "transfinite" in the set theory sense, and that levels of infinity are what is being talked about, cardinals are the only option that makes sense. So, I say that point make you make is just a bad one.
Not really applicable here, no, because Quasar says "Just as in mathematics, there are numbers greater than infinities, so there are trans-infinite forces in this universe as well." Which is to say "trans-infinite" is a property that he's assigning both to the numbers and to the forces. Doesn't really work if you say the relationships between Number X and Number Y is an unequal infinite relationship to the one between Force X and Force Y.
I'm not imposing anything on the statement, because, as said, it's an ambiguous one, and your interpretation has no reason to be the default one. And, of course, there's how the "beyond language" is not really the bit I'm focusing on, to begin with. It's the "beyond math" one. We may dance around about this tidbit, but it doesn't have us make much progress.
In response to this, you or someone else may accuse me of cherry-picking, of arbitrarily taking one part of the sentence at face value but not the other, and to that I answer: Being beyond mathematics is not a self-contradictory statement, so taking it at face value poses no issue.
You would consider it flowery language, yes, but this flowery language would not be meaningless, since it expresses the notion that the character is so much stronger that the weaker character can't really comprehend their power. Ergo, a notion of superiority, not "His power is just very weird." So this non-answer is really just missing the point of the question.
First paragraph: I've already showed evidence that Forms are indeed greater than their particulars in Marvel (Which you acknowledged), so, "It's just an hierarchy of abstractness" and similar points aren't really valid here. The rest of what you mention isn't really a sound argument. Cardinals are just a measure for the size of sets. If the cardinal 2 exists, then a set with two elements does, too. Same applies to the transfinite numbers. So if the platonic ideal of some random cardinal exists in the Superflow, then... so does the ideal of some arbitrary set with that exact cardinality.
You then go on to say "And remember that cardinals aren't tiering relevant in every form, but only when brought into context of something physical. Cardinal many of something not physical or cardinal as pure mathematics has no size." Which is something already addressed by what I said up there. Think back to the vase analogy.
To elaborate a bit more: You overall seem to have this weird idea that Forms are just like mental constructions that have no tier at all (Hence the "That's like saying real life is High 1-A!" retort, I assume), which isn't the case; they're superior existences encompassing all the qualities that would-be physical instances of them hold, in greater form than if they existed physically. Hence the thing about physical things being imperfect (Or "fallen," as Mephisto puts it) imitations of them. So if an aleph exists as a platonic ideal, then that absolutely counts as it existing in a tiering-relevant sense.
For the second paragraph: That counterpoint would only work if my argument was dependent on all ideas being contained in the Superflow, when it isn't, really. All it needs to work is for all mathematics to be contained in the Superflow, and mathematics is not all ideas (Unless the life of a math student is that miserable. Sheesh). You can contain all math without containing all ideas (Especially given that the concepts that exist beyond the Superflow, but before the conceptless voids outside, are implied to not be normal concepts at all, but eldritch, "predatory" ones)
And for that, I've already provided evidence. See up there: Information contains math. Narrative contains information. So realms above Narrative entirely are above information and by extension above mathematics as well, and therefore cardinals can't really be part of those, as you suggest. I mean, it's basic logic, even. Mathematics is symbolic/descriptive in nature and as such by definition a form of information, and as such, a void that lacks information entirely would be something without mathematics at all. And it's a good thing that the verse spells out the Math = Information bit for us, isn't it?
And to be honest I'm not sure I agree with saying mortals can actually have ideas about Eternity or any of the realms above him. As said, the planes beyond the omniverse are supposed to be utter nothingness, outside imagination, which doesn't seem to be just a flowery description here, seeing as Eternity is also called "all that is known" a lot (Relevant because, as you probably already gathered, Eternity is "everything" in a very broad abstract sense, and not strictly as in "all physical realms," so that "Everything that is known" wouldn't be just in the sense of physically charted territory or something similar). So it does seem he is indeed supposed to delineate a limit to thought in the cosmology, with the realms beyond being thus literally unthinkable. It makes sense with the fact that the Superflow is where thought happens, and how the Neutral Zone, which is beyond it, is the realm of eldritch concepts, rather than normal ones (i.e It's outside the realm of conceivable ideas, and as such the realm of inconceivable, otherworldly ones)
But I say this with an asterisk, given the verse recently bringing up the notion that the real "limit" to all understanding is The One Above All, not Eternity, so the issue is a bit muddled. It doesn't affect the above point, but it's probably something worth noting.
Last edited:
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #173
Actual presentation of the profiles is something I reserved for the thread following this one, and, in theory, DT has 5-6 more days to chime in on this. But, regardless, here's a sneak peak, for the sake of letting you all know how things are going:
Beyonder
Beyonders
Eternity
Death
Chaos and Order
In-Betweener
Celestials
Living Tribunal
Phoenix Force
The One Above All
Beyonder
Beyonders
Eternity
Death
Chaos and Order
In-Betweener
Celestials
Living Tribunal
Phoenix Force
The One Above All
- 22,042
- 18,126
Also, I have a question.
The Eternity Mask is explicitly a small part of the fabric that makes up one of Eternity's universal selves, yet it's able to place characters on the same level as the completed Beyonder and the Phoenix Force in the White Hot Room in Defenders: Beyond through cosmic equity.
I personally don't think it makes sense since cosmic equity shouldn't work on beings that aren't even part of Eternity on any level, but how would we go about treating this?
The Eternity Mask is explicitly a small part of the fabric that makes up one of Eternity's universal selves, yet it's able to place characters on the same level as the completed Beyonder and the Phoenix Force in the White Hot Room in Defenders: Beyond through cosmic equity.
I personally don't think it makes sense since cosmic equity shouldn't work on beings that aren't even part of Eternity on any level, but how would we go about treating this?
- 15,279
- 15,444
I feel like the Beyonders’ could have actual keys for their True Selves and Physical Forms, and their physical forms could have a tier attached to them. Something like “High 1-A | Varies, up to High 1-A” or whatever tier their physical forms would peak at.
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #177
Loki implies that the Eternity Mask only allowed America to punch out a Beyonder because of them being trapped inside of a narrative arc, so, that would be in-universe PIS, pretty much.
Likewise, the Mask could only copy the Phoenix Force because an aspect of it felt compelled to let the Defenders pass through in their journey, and so Taaia's fight with America was basically this inner debate being played out. Later on, when the Phoenix assumes her full form, she kinda easily sucks back the part of herself that Mac was tapping into, and the Mask can't do anything about it.
- 22,042
- 18,126
On second thought, I don't have that much to say. The sandboxes are pretty thorough, and sorry if I'm being a bit pedantic.
Firstly, while TLT did null the attack from Warlock and claimed to represent greater forces, it's suggested that even he's not quite sure how such a confrontation would end.
Secondly, should we consider the Celestials' physical shells to move at finite speeds in most situations? As FF #400 mentions, they inhabit these shells to manifest outside of hyperspace. When Thor enters Exitar's brain, he describes them as living in every locale simultaneously, but we also see them perform feats of limited speed (obviously, this is just one of god knows how many examples).
Also, on an unrelated note, I have a bunch of multiversal feats from a canonical novel trilogy about the cosmic cube if that's helpful.
Firstly, while TLT did null the attack from Warlock and claimed to represent greater forces, it's suggested that even he's not quite sure how such a confrontation would end.
Secondly, should we consider the Celestials' physical shells to move at finite speeds in most situations? As FF #400 mentions, they inhabit these shells to manifest outside of hyperspace. When Thor enters Exitar's brain, he describes them as living in every locale simultaneously, but we also see them perform feats of limited speed (obviously, this is just one of god knows how many examples).
Also, on an unrelated note, I have a bunch of multiversal feats from a canonical novel trilogy about the cosmic cube if that's helpful.
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #180
Wouldn't be opposed to treating it like that, yeah. Granted, these same physical shells are the things that Kubik and Kosmos were scared shitless of, so I'm unsure if we ought to treat them as that much slower.
Nice. Any input is welcome.
- 22,042
- 18,126
I mean on a limited basis, like they can just remove the limitation at will by manipulating physics. Otherwise the top Celestials wouldn't have been able to do shit against Nebula and Thanos—they'd have been statued by all the other Abstracts, in fact.
Sure, I'll give the quotes.
Sure, I'll give the quotes.
- 22,042
- 18,126
In this novel, Omniverse is used as a stand-in for multiverse, which obviously contains infinite universes (also referred to here as planes).
The Cube was genuine, but defective and flawed, so its energies were going to obliterate (the cosmic cube itself isn't the thing separating realities, so this is an oversimplification that doesn't detract from the feat) the omniverse by stacking realities and eating away at the walls that separate them.
While it was a reality-cancer that was breaking down the walls of the entire omniverse, this was still explicitly the cube's energies unravelling everything and causing individual timelines to collapse, so it definitely isn't some chain reaction BS.
Last edited:
- 578
- 140
On the "beyonder" page, are you going to add any power and abilities to the final key of the page (after he breaks free of the plot), or is there not enough known about that state yet to make a powers and abilities section?
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #184
Nice. I suppose Cosmic Cubes can probably be rated as "Varies. High 1-B to Low 1-A" or something of that nature. Fits with five of them being used to keep Eternity catatonic in Infinity War.
- 165,155
- 72,087
I recall that it was stated in one of Jim Starlin's stories that Eternity and Infinity are (paradoxically) not infinite according to his perception of the Marvel Comics cosmology.
Does anybody else remember this as well, and if so, can you find the scan please?
Does anybody else remember this as well, and if so, can you find the scan please?
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #186
You're thinking of this. It's from Infinity Abyss. Issue 4, to be precise.
I wouldn't take it super literally, myself, given Adam Warlock basically derives this conclusion from there being things outside Infinity and Eternity, which would make a lot of things finite, even stuff that Starlin himself refers to as infinite.
- 165,155
- 72,087
I do not think that was the occasion I was thinking of, but if Jim Starlin has repeated this several times, this does further validate my impression that his version of the Marvel cosmology is very tiny compared with that of other writers.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,868
- 2,064
From context, it seems that the Writer was using "Infinite" as a stand-in for "Omnipotent/Omniscient" rather than denoting size.
Since "Infinity" referring to the nature of something being all-powerful has been around for millennia.
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #190
So, time has passed, and the two weeks are either over or extremely close to being over, depending on where you live.
Have we wrapped everything up, or does anyone in the opposition still wish to say their piece?
Have we wrapped everything up, or does anyone in the opposition still wish to say their piece?
- 7,236
- 13,107
Beyonder Tier 5-C. Final offer.
- 5,466
- 12,480
- Thread starter
- #192
- 15,860
- 8,953
Counter-offer: We get High 1-A Beyonder and you get everything in my pocket plus a 1.5 litre bottle of cherry soda.
- 7,236
- 13,107
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,877
- 3,351
@DontTalkDT Do you have anything else you want to say?
- 10,502
- 11,573
Yeah, sorry for the delay. End of semester deadlines been haunting me. But after a 16h drive I'm finally in my vacation destination so I can invest some time in this now between my holiday activities.
Anyway, instead of responding to Ultima's post point by point (I can do so later, I guess... after some sleep), let me just generally summarize how I see the cardinality evidence given what has been shown:
We have some speech that can be cardinals or ordinals. There is absolutely no proper evidence that not ordinals are meant. Ultima's arguments regarding semantics in that regard are completely unconvincing to me. Any sense of mathematically greater meets the analogy made within the scope it is being made in a sensible manner.
I expect less ambiguity for a scan that is supposed to carry a High 1-A rating as pretty much singular basis.
Then there is an object beyond language and math, which Ultima wishes to interpret as meaning "above all cardinals in mathematics". Problem is that it doesn't say that at all. It just states that it can't be described, so once again, terrible evidence to carry a rating.
I also wish to add that the comic hasn't even established all cardinals of mathematics. It has, at best, mentioned a few of the lower ones. That all of the non-mentioned ones are included is an additional layer of conjuncture. Like I never get tired of saying, there are countless different hierarchies within the cardinals which are also constructed somewhat different. (Just potency sets vs. infinite potency sets + using replacement vs. cardinals as indices)
With that said, I will address the last part point for point, since it's hard to address the problems any other way.
The problem is that this is not an applicable argument to the subject in question and if it is show me the scans that proof it.
The idea of "greater" here isn't size. The abstract of "red" isn't "greater than red", that wouldn't make sense. You can't apply a concept of size on a colour.
I don't recall acknowledging that Marvel has a size relationship of that nature.
And the problem here is that you only know those numbers exist as numbers. You don't have a corresponding space to apply it to. So "greater" in which sense? In which sense would the concept be "greater" than the number 3?
That's in my eyes entirely unclear.
Problem is, sets don't give you tiers. You need physical space. Remember that sets in mathematics are per definition all just nothing in different imaginary containers. (i.e. it's all build upon the empty set; mathematics doesn't acknowledge sets containing physical objects)
That analogy... just is not good. You are trying to make the concept of a mathematical cardinality into that of a physical cardinality, when those are different concepts. (different properties = different concepts involved)
The problem with that notion, if we were to accept Marvel applies it like that (I'm happy for more scans on that) is that the physical instances of a mathematical object are still purely mathematical.
Encompassing all qualities of the actual thing, in case of a number, includes the quality of not being a physical thing.
The concept of "red" won't be physical as a form, since that's not a property of "red" either.
As I pointed out before, your evidence for that is just not there.
Scan. "All matter is information. Math, Physics, Quantum Mechanics... All Attempts to Manipulate Information so it can be manipulated." This doesn't state math is information, this states math is a tool to manipulate information. And quite possibly this is talking about math as part of physics, rather than abstract mathematical models with no application to reality. Heck, technically it makes a delineation that math is not information, in the same sense, as otherwise that would be information manipulating other information.
Scan 2. "Only then would they be able to calculate and harness reality-deformation math... which underlaid universe-warping cheat codes ranging from mutant gene to the power cosmic and the infinity gems." This establishes math as some underlaying force of the universe, but it again doesn't establish that all of math is contained there. It's just some specific math, namely the reality-deformation math.
Basically, the "mathematics is all contained in the Superflow"-relationship is not established.
We know characters know Eternity anyway. Even I know Dr. Strange knows the guy.
You can argue that maybe they don't properly know Eternity, in true infinite scope, but that wouldn't solve the issue. Because it's hard to say that any human would fully comprehend cardinality either in true full depth, as those are things that are too great to be grasped in full scope. (like, anything infinite really, as our brain just has finite capacity; could be different in fiction of course, and one could philosophically debate the point, but inherently there is grounds to say we don't).
- 165,155
- 72,087
I think that DontTalk seems to make sense. Thank you very much for helping out. 
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @Deagonx @Elizio33 @PrinceofPein @Planck69 @Ovy7 @TheUnshakableOne @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Kerwin0831
What do you think about his arguments?
@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @Deagonx @Elizio33 @PrinceofPein @Planck69 @Ovy7 @TheUnshakableOne @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Kerwin0831
What do you think about his arguments?
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,904
- 5,811
I will say this, I did not read the entire thread, just Ultima's post quoted by the latest DT's argument and DT's argument. So if there is anything I should know, tagging it will be appreciated.
I agree with DT in this case, applying sets not mentioned to be physical space to tiers is something I have always disagreed with.
Each cardinality used for tiering should be done within the confines of the verse.
I agree with DT in this case, applying sets not mentioned to be physical space to tiers is something I have always disagreed with.
Each cardinality used for tiering should be done within the confines of the verse.
- 22,042
- 18,126
I disagree with how many of the arguments are presented, especially that second to last paragraph (I can't stress that enough), but I think the overall point at the end of the day is reasonable.
Overall, I'll wait to see what Ultima has to say because I'm not familiar enough with Tier 1-A/B, and am mostly just participating in this thread for the scaling between Abstracts and canonicity.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
