Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 4,408
- 3,041
I'm sorry, but Marvel's cosmology is too vast for me to read in a single sitting.
I Will read it when my job is free.
I Will read it when my job is free.
-
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
- 31,459
- 34,319
Yeah, I'm still unsure if I can be much help here.
- 16,080
- 9,325
I'd like to say that this scan is better used as supporting evidence. Lest we forget that the previous revision thread already established the existence of at least a Low 1-A cosmology. With that knowledge in mind, this statement of "beyond language and math" is given a backing context.
This is taken out of context or at least misquoted. The full quote is "Reality. All matter is information. Math, physics, quantum mechanics... All attempts to symbolize the information so it can be manipulated." The quote is about attempting to control information (as in the information of reality) by assigning it symbolic value. If the full extent of math, i.e. cardinals, ordinals, etc. is merely an attempt at giving value and meaning to reality, then surely the maximum extent of math pales in comparison to actual physical reality. Hell,
Also brother, the "object" you're referring to in the above paragraph is part of Eternity. Like, Surfer doesn't directly say it, but who else would he refer to as the All-God, whilst the seed also being stated to have been plucked from "spacetime itself" (i.e. Eternity). If, as we've stated, math can physically warp reality (a feat mind you, that is impossible with the absolute extent of human math), and a small part of Eternity's very being is stated to be "beyond math", even a toddler could piece this puzzle together.
I will reiterate again. Such math very literally breaks the laws of physics. It's not that all math is contained there; it's that the very real math that we understand and can veritably identify cannot even begin to perform such a feat. Hell, later down the scan it's even stated that the math destroyed higher-dimensional beings. This is math that affects higher dimensions in a very physical way. And surprise surprise, among the affected were Galactus, The Living Tribunal, and Eternity. Three beings that we have previously established and accepted as being Low 1-A. And if I recall correctly, Low 1-A is still within the realm of math we can conceptualize with our minds.
You're not getting the point. Everything above Eternity, in a very literal sense, is metaphor. The Beyonders are architects of reality, using The One Above All's raw imagination, filtered through the Never Queen's realm and the White Hot Room, and constructing space, time, narrative, purpose, etc. Eternity is literally everything because he is the canvas upon which The One Above All draws on (sound familiar?).
Also DT's profile picture blinks and that's creepy as hell. Stopped me from posting this sooner.
- 22,381
- 18,589
It's outright confirmed that Eternity made the seed in Damage Control 4 #5, btw.
Also, there's a bit more context to the Galactus Seed, which is actually an egg.
Bor and his children discovered the Galactus Seed at the end of the previous cycle of Ragnarok (not the previous Cosmos or anything like that, although it would survive into the next one), and they planted it to grow Yggdrasil and the universe. Odin was mad when he said this, but it's confirmed in Mighty Thor and subsequent stories.
Basically, the seed made the entire Yggdrasil as well for what that's worth, and would probably be from universal Eternity (as an infinite number of Galacti were made from the Sixth Cosmos) rather than multiversal, despite this being the same storyline where Yggdrasil's size is called potentially infinite compared to multiple universes.
Also, there's a bit more context to the Galactus Seed, which is actually an egg.
Bor and his children discovered the Galactus Seed at the end of the previous cycle of Ragnarok (not the previous Cosmos or anything like that, although it would survive into the next one), and they planted it to grow Yggdrasil and the universe. Odin was mad when he said this, but it's confirmed in Mighty Thor and subsequent stories.
Basically, the seed made the entire Yggdrasil as well for what that's worth, and would probably be from universal Eternity (as an infinite number of Galacti were made from the Sixth Cosmos) rather than multiversal, despite this being the same storyline where Yggdrasil's size is called potentially infinite compared to multiple universes.
Last edited:
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #205
So, problems with my phone happened, and I lost what I wrote (Kill me)
Do give me a moment, if you may.
Do give me a moment, if you may.
- 10,901
- 12,324
This is all still "math used to manipulate information" not "math is information".
I think taking this as the full extent of math, including ordinals and cardinals, to be describing an actual aspect is a stretch IMO. In reality math is also invented to describe the world, but many aspects of it do not do so in any meaningful way.
And the end result here is that math controls information. So I don't think one can say that information supersedes math here. It's the reverse. Math seems to be able to control reality, like the other scan shows.
Basically, I don't think this establishes with any certainty that math is contained purely to that level in all aspects.
Well, call me an infant then because I ain't piercing that together.
You are basically saying that a rock is above the power of all soul manipulators because it has no soul. Or equivalently, the object to which math doesn't apply is superior to all math manipulation.
Just because something lacks the attribute to be manipulated that doesn't mean it has qualitative superiority, bro.
Is that supposed to be a point for or against me? Because it sounds like you just confirmed that Eternity is below math. Like, I'm not aware of the circumstances of those scans, but if Eternity is affected by reality-deformation math, a subset of total mathematics for sure, that pretty much settles that Eternity is not qualitatively superior to the totality of all mathematics.
And if it isn't above all mathematics, there is no ground to it being above some specific very large aspect of it that is never specifically compared with it. (I.e. we can't say it's specifically above all cardinals, without statements that it is)
I will put something in red here just so people read this, because that seems like a really conclusive counterargument.
I don't get how that's a counterpoint? Like, the point I'm making is that just because humanity knows something, that doesn't mean its concept is contained in the Superflow. Because there are things humanity knows which clearly are not contained to the Superflow. How does them being metaphors matter for that argument? The point is just they are something and the concept of that something isn't in the Superflow.
Honestly, mathematical objects could easily be envisioned to be part of a metaphor space anyway. There's philosophy on what kind of thing an abstract mathematical objects is even supposed to be. (which of course means lots of theories and no agreement)
Why is everyone suddenly noticing that now lol
Been like that for few month now, I think. A little easter egg.
Last edited:
- 7,550
- 7,738
I had no idea Marvel did a rework of it's cosmic hierarchy this past year with more to come in the upcoming "Gods" series.
TOAA is back. We have a Prime Beyonder. Now we have a... thing referred to as the Crown Enigma, I think.
I have catching up to do.
TOAA is back. We have a Prime Beyonder. Now we have a... thing referred to as the Crown Enigma, I think.
I have catching up to do.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #209
Alright, so, after having more issues with the phone I've more or less entirely lost both my patience and my faith in God. From here and onwards I'll try my absolute best to be as brief and concise as possible. By extension I will, for now, only quote what I deem crucial to the discussion. Side-arguments I'll at best make brief note of and at worst leave for later.
It also seems DontTalk's largely focused on my last point in his last reply to me, so, for now, I'll do the same as well.
But all-in-all. As you know, the Tiering System doesn't concern itself purely with relationships of size. That's pretty much the whole concept of a "qualitative superiority." A relationship of superiority that's not really a physical difference in size but practically similar enough to one to be equated (Reality-Fiction Transcendences are a prime example of that)
So, when manifestations of Forms are described as lesser than them, just because Forms are abstract doesn't mean this superiority isn't one equivalent to size. Especially since the Superflow (The World of Ideas in question) already demonstrates such a size-like relationship with the physical world, anyway. (It's the higher plane that encompasses all the universes)
Another example would be shapes. The Form of a Cube is superior to all particular instances of a cube. All cube-like objects in reality participate in it. Same would apply, to, say, the Form of a Tesseract or something.
So, yeah, I'd say the vase analogy is pretty good, actually.
The bolded part is wrong. What it's saying is that mathematics as formulated by us is basically just taking what is already there (The information of reality) and translating it into a code that we can see and manipulate. So it's ultimately the same thing, for practical purposes. Like how a voice recording and a transcript of said voice recording are the same content, just in different formats (Audio and Text, respectively)
Overall, the whole idea that that storyline works with is that reality is underlaid by "symbology" and meaning. Mathematics, as it were, is part of this symbology (Worth to note, also, is that some stories also say symbols and reality are really the same thing, so, roughly same idea here)
The whole "But does all of math exist there?" question is also pretty silly, considering that even things as random as the ideas that you express when writing something down are Forms in the platonic world, too.
So I'd say there's a marked difference between what you're suggesting and this case here. Infinite stuff can't be fully grasped because our minds have finite capacity. Stuff outside the Superflow (And the omniverse) can't be grasped because it's beyond the space where thought happens to begin with (And for the matter the Superflow doesn't contain only finite ideas. The Abstracts, who are very infinite, live there, after all)
And like I said, a fragment of Eternity is already described as outside mathematical description. Superiority or not (Because you're still contesting that), it shows mathematical ideas can't extend beyond the Superflow, even if it were to not contain all ideas. You can't have mathematical descriptions be part of planes that lack mathematical descriptions.
It also seems DontTalk's largely focused on my last point in his last reply to me, so, for now, I'll do the same as well.
The fact that the Seed grew Yggdrasil tells me that it can't really be from the Universal Eternity, given how Yggdrasil is often described as a structure that spans all realities.
If you accept "numbers greater than infinity" as referring to cardinals, stopping that at some arbitrary limit is... Well, completely arbitrary. Just deciding that cardinals in Marvel actually meet a sudden stop at, say, aleph-2 or something is far more conjectural than simply taking them to generally exist. I would not consider it conjecture, for instance, to think that the full set of natural numbers exists (As an idea) in a verse, even if the verse in question doesn't up and mention every single natural number.
That was one of Eternity's universal aspects. The Eternity that'd be beyond mathematics is his true, multiversal self. I'm not quite sure what point Ovens was making (Mostly since I only skimmed some of it), but I'm gonna note that down here anyway.
If you so insist, I suppose this scan more explicitly satisfies what you're looking for, since it says that the Form of "Blade" is powerful enough to kill beings that are only able to be destroyed by greater Infinities (And notably anything short of the Form itself is unable to do so). The Form of "Judgement" is also able to do that, for the matter.
But all-in-all. As you know, the Tiering System doesn't concern itself purely with relationships of size. That's pretty much the whole concept of a "qualitative superiority." A relationship of superiority that's not really a physical difference in size but practically similar enough to one to be equated (Reality-Fiction Transcendences are a prime example of that)
So, when manifestations of Forms are described as lesser than them, just because Forms are abstract doesn't mean this superiority isn't one equivalent to size. Especially since the Superflow (The World of Ideas in question) already demonstrates such a size-like relationship with the physical world, anyway. (It's the higher plane that encompasses all the universes)
Sure, but the physical manifests from the abstract, so, that doesn't matter too much. What I just said probably didn't ring any bells, so let's do examples: Say, let's think of the Platonic Form of 3. If that projects on reality, then it forms the basis for, and instantiates (Along other Forms), all sets of three things. 3 planets. 3 galaxies. 3 universes. 3 jelly beans. 3 oranges. 3 points in space. The 3 ribcages I keep in my closet, and so on. It doesn't matter what those particular three things are. The Form of 3 is behind their manifestation anyway.
Another example would be shapes. The Form of a Cube is superior to all particular instances of a cube. All cube-like objects in reality participate in it. Same would apply, to, say, the Form of a Tesseract or something.
So, yeah, I'd say the vase analogy is pretty good, actually.
Not quite. Being unphysical is just a property that Forms in general hold, and not exactly part of the set of characteristics that they encompass, and which are to be instantiated into particulars. Say, think of the Form of a Circle; obviously, it doesn't exist anywhere, since a perfect circle is a mathematical concept that isn't found in reality. Yet all circle-like objects would be manifestations of it. Being a math thing doesn't mean your manifestations are also purely mathematical.
"Math" and "physics" are given as separate things there, so, interpreting it as being limited to that is a no-go here.
The bolded part is wrong. What it's saying is that mathematics as formulated by us is basically just taking what is already there (The information of reality) and translating it into a code that we can see and manipulate. So it's ultimately the same thing, for practical purposes. Like how a voice recording and a transcript of said voice recording are the same content, just in different formats (Audio and Text, respectively)
Overall, the whole idea that that storyline works with is that reality is underlaid by "symbology" and meaning. Mathematics, as it were, is part of this symbology (Worth to note, also, is that some stories also say symbols and reality are really the same thing, so, roughly same idea here)
That scan wasn't really meant to be decoupled from the above one. Largely, it serves as an answer to your above doubts that Math = information, though.
The whole "But does all of math exist there?" question is also pretty silly, considering that even things as random as the ideas that you express when writing something down are Forms in the platonic world, too.
They know about him, obviously, but being able to actually conceive of him on any level is a different story. As said, the Superflow is the place where thought in general happens ("This is where Wakan lives. This is where we think"). So, all ideas that can be had being contained there is what makes sense. We're even explicitly told it's where ideas are from, after all. So you can pick at it all you want, but it's what the verse says at the end of the day.
So I'd say there's a marked difference between what you're suggesting and this case here. Infinite stuff can't be fully grasped because our minds have finite capacity. Stuff outside the Superflow (And the omniverse) can't be grasped because it's beyond the space where thought happens to begin with (And for the matter the Superflow doesn't contain only finite ideas. The Abstracts, who are very infinite, live there, after all)
And like I said, a fragment of Eternity is already described as outside mathematical description. Superiority or not (Because you're still contesting that), it shows mathematical ideas can't extend beyond the Superflow, even if it were to not contain all ideas. You can't have mathematical descriptions be part of planes that lack mathematical descriptions.
Last edited:
- 22,381
- 18,589
I'd argue that the stories definitely intend it to be Universal Eternity (the fact that Bor grew it in Earth 616 also suggests that), but it just doesn't gel with those other stories, especially since this was coming off the back of a plotline that heavily retconned some major aspects of Yggdrasil.
So, I'll compromise and say it's Multiversal Eternity for the sake of continuity.
Last edited:
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,566
- 13,851
I currently have 31 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.I think that DontTalk seems to make sense. Thank you very much for helping out.
@Agnaa
What do you think about his arguments?
- 2,033
- 3,263
Sorry, I will have to back out for this one. I lack knowledge about Marvel-related topics, and I also have other tasks that require my attention.I think that DontTalk seems to make sense. Thank you very much for helping out.
@Just_a_Random_Butler
What do you think about his arguments?
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #215
I am not delaying these revisions until September for a comic that may or may not impact them. Get ye gone.OP, you might have wanted to put a hold on this revision because it might get ****** by Hickman's upcoming book.
"The new series will dramatically transform Marvel’s classic pantheon of cosmic beings and introduce brand-new concepts and characters that operate at the crossroads of science and magic!"
Get Your First Look at Jonathan Hickman and Valerio Schiti's 'G.O.D.S.'
Check out the issue one cover reveal and a lettered preview for 'G.O.D.S.,' the mythology-shattering new series launching in October.www.marvel.com
- 10,901
- 12,324
(Just a small note that I used today's vs debate work time to take care of a bunch of calc related threads and that GoW thing that wanted my attention. Will reply to Ultima as early tomorrow as I can. I have not forgotten)
- 10,901
- 12,324
Not sure I agree with that.
The thing is, you could for example say the same about reality-fiction stuff. Once it has a statement like "everything that can be written" you could argue that it doesn't make sense to stop even before Large Cardinals, since those are a logical extension of that.
We usually keep things to what is mentioned. So without any real mention of something being "above all cardinals", but us at best having "some cardinals exist" and "some entity should scale above what is mentioned", it does make sense to cut off at the highest thing mentioned IMO.
I see, I see. Evidence of that? Just to make sure. And I take it the same goes for TLT?
I don't really see how that proofs the point? Like, the form of "Blade" can kill powerful beings (infinities in some sense), but how does that proof that the mathematical object that is a cardinal would be implemented in a fashion that equates in size to a space with that cardinality many points (or dimensions)? All that proofs is that this particular idea scales above those particular infinite beings.
Also, what's that Bythos stuff about? I thought the Superflow was responsible for that stuff?
Also, the guy says there are only 2 greater infinities, Bythos and Sophia. So... how does that work?
This wouldn't be a problem if we had a space of cardinality many dimensions. However, as said, that being superior to the color "red" is an impressive feat is unclear. Similarily, being superior not to a physical space of some cardinality, but just superior to it as a number (i.e. a mathematical object) is not clearly equating to being superior to a space with that number of dimensions.
So yes, you can count levels of qualitative superiority to gain a tier even without size being involved. But as baseline you need something that has a specific tier to start with. 1 level of qualitative superiority above cardinal numbers that you have not established a tier for yet, won't land you in High 1-A. Because we have no guarantee that that is superiority above something that is equivalent to spaces with all cardinalities as dimensions.
If we don't know which tier the color "red" has, we can't say that the idea of "red" is any particular tier either, even if it is qualitatively superior to it. (Although, I should note that from the scans I don't think forms are qualitatively superior, but generally equal to it... or equal to a composite of it. Like, it's a perfected version of the thing itself, so it's at least equal but not necessarily superior. Not that it matters too much for this case)
The problem is that you start with the assumption that those things can exist, and reason that the form needs to function a certain way from that. However, we have no evidence that those things can exist like that.
Things have multiple meanings. 3 as a quantity may project as such. Well, maybe. Actually, I'm not sure how Marvel handles that, so evidence would be appreciated. I have only seen the ideas of physical objects to this point.
However, 3 as a number is a different thing altogether. Remember 3 as a number can (in some popular constructions) be defined as {{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}}. So, 3 as a number would be that and the things participating in that would have to be that, too. But three apples are not {{}, {{}}, {{},{{}}}} in any way. One aspect of the perfected representation of a pile of sets that contain nothing, may be that it contains nothing.
Furthermore, you are conflating a case of a form with physical instances, to one which doesn't have those. If we consider forms to be characters, objects and have powers, the question whether a form that has never projected anything into reality can do so becomes relevant. I can agree that it would be the comparable to every actual instance, but to something that perhaps doesn't physically exist? Nothing dictates, that any form can freely be combined with every other form.
It's not necessarily possible for anything to simultaneously participate in the form of gravity and light. How do we know that an apple (or an object that participates in the form of apples) can even participate in the form of being aleph_6 many?
Evidence of Marvel dealing with things like that? In general, that doesn't hold true. Philosophy on that varies, but mathematical objects are frequently viewed as objects.
I.e. the number 3 is not necessarily the form of 3.
Or for the circle: You you in your reasoning the knowledge that non-mathematical things that are circles exist. Your argument doesn't hold if we didn't know that a circle can exist in a non-mathematical context. Because if it didn't, then "being a mathematical object" could be one of the fundamental perfect properties of the form.
Eh, not sure. Like, Marvel is based on reality enough that I don't think all mathematicians in the verse have a universal agreement of what math is for. This person views the point of math to be applied math. But I don't think one can take this to mean every mathematical work anyone in the verse ever did had that purpose.
Like, this is a character statement, so we have to think in terms of what that characters knows and means. This is an opinion of them.
Even applied math is not just physics, so it makes sense to name them separately.
And... well, even if it mean that, what math was designed for by humans and what the outer limit of what it can describe are different. Nowhere does this say that math couldn't describe something besides what they use it for in this case.
I don't think the scan says that. It says clearly math is an attempt to symbolize information to manipulate it. Math seems to be the tool here, which manipulates information. They say using math information could be compressed. So the information wasn't compressed already, they used math to influence it.
Technically, what you say is not much different either. If mathematics is the process of taking information into a form we can manipulate, then math isn't information. It is external we use to describe it (and evidently manipulate it, seeing as the right math symbols could manipulate reality to create perpetual motion machines).
The point is, it's either a tool to manipulate information or a description of information that can be used to manipulate it. In both cases it is not the information itself, though. It's a structure added on top.
So I don't think one can say that mathematics can exclusively describe that reality altering information.
I'm not against the notion that mathematics is a fundamental force in Marvel. I just don't think this proves that
a) its possibilities are restricted to within Eternity.
b) that this fundamental mathematical force involves every theoretical mathematical object.
I don't see how it would establish that math is a subset of information.
Again, the problem is that is contradicted, as characters can know things outside the superflow. I.e. humanity is, to some extent, capable of having ideas about things that are not in the superflow.
True Eternity has no form in the Superflow, but people like Dr. Strange still have knowledge about that stuff.
You have no evidence that humanity understands those great infinities any better than it understands Eternity, though. That's the problem. We have established that there are things without form in the Superflow and you have not proven that those high levels of infinity aren't amongst them.
The premise that all things humanity thinks exist in the Superflow is just wrong.
It really doesn't? Like, that's a hasty generalization. Because one object that might be from outside the Superflow (I don't think we have established where it was created?) is beyond mathematical description, it doesn't mean all things are.
Just because I have seen a car in Denmark that is not red, it doesn't mean red cars can't exist in Denmark.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #218
Iesvs, that's a big one.
Responding tomorrow when I'm able. Late here. I despise bible debates, so, as prior, I'll make the following posts as small and succinct as possible.
Responding tomorrow when I'm able. Late here. I despise bible debates, so, as prior, I'll make the following posts as small and succinct as possible.
- 10,901
- 12,324
I don't think we have.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #222
Different cases entirely, really. With a statement like "everything that can be written," there is no reasonable cut-off point below 0, if you chose to take it at face value, and nor is there any logical chain to it beyond "It says everything, so, everything it is."
With cardinals, however, that's different. One angle of it is that, once you have aleph-2 as a set, you already have the materials to construct higher cardinals on you. So stopping there is the same as going "This verse doesn't mention every natural/real number? Then clearly numbers must form a finite set in it!". The full brunt of that kind of sophistry is better left off at Wookiepedia.
Here, a scene from after they butchered the Abstracts. We can see the multiverse at large is still around (And not taken over by then yet, even after half a billion years), so the Eternity that's shown dead there was really just the aspect local to their reality.
Putting the answers to the less substantial stuff into collapsibles, as to not make the post too big.
The "only two greater infinities" bit is justifiable, since the omniverse is everything that is known. Beyond it, it's all "Mystery," and Nothing is known.
For the Bythos and Sophia stuff: In short, Marvel goes by an "all myths are true" cosmology, with regards to how existence comes to be. There's several narratives about how that happened which are all equivalent to each other. So, for example, some may say that existence came to be out of an egg, or out of the Big Bang, or from the body of a giant, or when Gaea emerged from the void. But in the end it's all just different viewpoints of a single thing. Bythos and Sophia fall under that.
For the first paragraph: Your questioning here was whether we know Forms in Marvel have a "size" relationship with their manifestations/particulars. That scan was meant to prove this, since it demonstrates they are indeed higher infinities than the contents of the physical world. So for example the Form of Blade is a greater infinity than all the blades derived from it.
By the way, while I was typing this I realized those scans also respond one of your prior doubts: Earlier on (And in your latest post) you questioned if all ideas could even be instantiated physically in Marvel. This proves they can. Notice how the chick there says that the physical world is "equally infinite in its adaptability and changing" to the World of Ideas.
That is to say: While they're not actually equal in scope, they're "equally infinite" in the sense that the physical world can adapt and accomodate for manifestations of whatever is in the World of Ideas. The story overall complements that by referring to both as being in some sense mirrors of each other; Aeos for example says the physical world is the World of Ideas' "other half," and the entity created from their separation is even called "Coin" (As in, the coin they are the two sides of)
Evidence of that is to be found in the fact that manipulation of the math part of the platonic world actually affects reality.
IRL, Mathematical Platonism indeed doesn't necessarily posit that numbers create reality, or anything, just that they exist independently from us. Marvel in particular goes with the classical version (The baaaasic premise of it, at least), and the idea that reality does indeed derive from the Foms, though. So for example the Form of a Circle would, indeed, shape all circular things.
Much of this is something that I feel the scans up there already do the job of answering, so in the interest of not dragging this on and making the debate comprehensible to the audience, I won't bother tackling it in-depth. For now, anyway; push might come to shove.
The Seed is a direct piece of Eternity. Unless otherwise stated, a whole shares the same nature as a piece of itself. So if the Seed is beyond math, Eternity is, too.
With that said: Marvel's cosmology works by a process of emanation, which is to say that lower realms flow out of higher planes, and exist as reduced versions of them. So, if Eternity is beyond math, so are the planes above him. Anything he is unbound by, they are also unbound by.
Putting this here first because it clarifies some stuff going forwards. But needless to say, the car analogy has no place here. That is, indeed, how it works in this case.
Not really wrong, no. All of the statements I've shown are presented as facts (Relayed by knowledgeable cosmic beings), and none of them are ever treated by the narrative as being somehow incorrect (The Superflow is called "the dreamspace of human potential" by omniscient narration at one point), ontop of being backed by other information we receive.
Namely, the omniverse is compared to a cave, while the "outer side" (The void) is the unknown and the unknowable outside that cave. Elsewhere it's also called a point past which words stop working (And remember what I said about words being expressions of the Forms?)
So, given how much the verse hammers this in, we are not really dismissing it because of what amounts to nitpicking. Clearly, the stuff beyond Eternity, at the very least, is indeed meant to be of a nature that's literally unthinkable (Which makes sense, since it's supposed to be "pure, perfect nothing" in the context of the verse), and... that's that.
I know you aren't. However if you say mathematics is a description/symbolization of the information, then the distinction between the two is semantics. The text even marks a 1:1 corespondence between the thing being transcribed and the transcription (e.g Referring to disrupting something's base code as "disrupting its symbology"), and the Superflow is stated to be a level where signifier and signified are one (i.e A symbol and the thing being symbolized are the same thing).
So, yeah, for all intents and purposes they are the same.
For the last part: True. Mathematics aren't the only form in which reality's underlying information is expressed (I mean, duh), and neither was that the point I was making, really. You got what I'm saying backwards.
That's a good point. I could accept it, but it only gels if the statement is taken in absolute isolation. Let's look back at the scans I showed:
"This is where ideas come from. There is weather here, and from that weather comes what you call the Zeitgeist."
So the Superflow is the source of ideas, not an expression of them. Ideas exist in the Superflow first, and then are beamed down into reality.
"Ink is how words are chained to paper. Words are ideas, cast down from the platonic firmament to this earthly hell."
Same thing is said here, pretty much. Ideas descend from the platonic world, and are expressed even in things like writing and language. The stuff about reality's source code being compressed into a symbology is the same thing as this here, so much so that language can warp reality too, through the same methods math can (Which is really just the general principle behind magic in the verse)
So, taking all of that context into account, the scan isn't really talking about a specific kind of math that had a specific purpose, any more than Mephisto's spiel is talking about a specific kind of word. It's just referring back to the general idea that all symbol-based frameworks (Math, Language, etc) that mortals come up with are expressions of reality's information. All of that stuff's already out there, and is really just emanating down into their heads.
Last edited:
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #223
Actually, after mulling over this for a bit:
Actually, even if a verse mentioned "infinite cardinals," it wouldn't be enough, since that would only imply something like aleph-omega, which is 1-A+
Which is to say that your line of thought results in High 1-A being pretty much impossible to get. Not just through mathematical statements, but... In general, really. At that point the literal only way to have something qualify would be to have it directly name-drop a large cardinal and then have something somehow scale to it, literally saying "You only get here if you say the magic word." And such an incredibly narrow and lopsided Tiering System is not, last I checked, in our current interests.
By the logic you're using, even if a statement like "All cardinals" popped up, it still wouldn't be enough, since we would have to limit it to the cardinals that exist in the verse, and if we are to require mentions that explicit, for all we know those could top at aleph-1 or aleph-2, right? No mention of aleph-6, or aleph-7, or aleph-10^100, after all.
Actually, even if a verse mentioned "infinite cardinals," it wouldn't be enough, since that would only imply something like aleph-omega, which is 1-A+
Which is to say that your line of thought results in High 1-A being pretty much impossible to get. Not just through mathematical statements, but... In general, really. At that point the literal only way to have something qualify would be to have it directly name-drop a large cardinal and then have something somehow scale to it, literally saying "You only get here if you say the magic word." And such an incredibly narrow and lopsided Tiering System is not, last I checked, in our current interests.
Last edited:
- 10,901
- 12,324
Literally typing my reply right now
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #226
Nothing ever ends, Adrian.
- 10,901
- 12,324
That is hardly an argument. You can't rank things by different standards of reasoning, just because one thing happens to get a high tier.
It really has the same level of "logical chain". Once you accept that words can represent reality you have all the ingredients to construct Tier 0 objects via just assembling the words in a new way according to grammar.
It actually is basically the same, if you consider that mathematics is a formal language with the rules of inference being its grammar.
I think there is a big difference between "3 are mentioned, let's assuming infinitite hierarchies of infinity many are included too" and "the verse says something is above all of them in general, so let's rank them as above all of them".
The latter is explicitly talking about a specific real-life thing in its totality. The "all" carries some weight.
I see, that's fine then.
I'm not following how that relates to the argument.
Soooo... how does that answer the question?
But... it doesn't. This shows that one form, of one particular physically existent thing, is greater than the thing that participate in it.
This just doesn't establish a general rule, much less one that would apply to our case.
You can disprove a rule with an example, but you can't prove a rule with one.
That seems like a massive stretch of what that phrase means especially since, as you pointed out, the world currently is not large enough to actually do that.
And them being called each others halfs really doesn't mean anything for this debate. They don't mirror each other in a way that all ideas physically exist, after all. They only are two halves in that they are mutually influencing realms.
Again, you're assuming that there are no mathematical objects other than forms, which you have not established.
Yeah, but the seed isn't established to be beyond math in a relevant manner. That Eternity is stronger than it wasn't the issue. So that's just going back to the old argument.
The evidence you provided does not state this.
Feels like a stretch in general. Would imply that nothing outside Eternity has a property Eternity doesn't have.
Yeah, no.
The statement "all things humanity knows exist in the Supeflow" is provably wrong. You can't just declare the contradicting cases exceptions and assume the thing you want to apply it to follows the rule, if you have nothing saying it does.
If an exception exists to a rule, you have to proof that the case you want behaves regular.
No. In real life, I would call the heat quation a symbolization of the spread of heat. Doesn't mean the equation in itself is heat or physics for that matter.
And you assume code refers to information there?
Disrupting something more abstract would disrupt the less abstract aspect in any case.
Which is just a way to say that this is a level of concepts. I.e. a conceptual entity is its own concept.
I think you got backwards what I said actually. What I meant is the mathematics can't be said to describe nothing besides the information of reality. Which is the argument relevant to the debate.
That seems to connect rather unconnected conversations. Honestly, that language as well can manipulate that information like that just strengthens my opinion that math is a tool separate from information itself. With language being another similar tool.
The point I was making was that some parts of mathematics don't need to describe reality in a physical sense, in any case. The arguments you brought up seem to rather relate to ideas being beamed down from the Superflow, independent on whether the idea describes physical reality. (which, when it comes to mathematics in particular, of course relates to prior debate points I won't repeat here)
That is to say: Your conclusion that the scan in question talks about general math doesn't arise from the arguments you gave, in my opinion.
You reference language for instance, but not all language has the attribute of warping reality. It's a subset of language as well that does that.
And ideas being beamed down in no way implies that every idea describes reality.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #229
Going to type out a reply in a second.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #231
Realistically speaking, the bulk of the revision is not going to be significantly affected by the results of this discussion, at least for the higher-end characters. The verse already has a 1-A+ hierarchy that several characters transcend, so, High 1-A will be a thing regardless (Not to mention the cosmology stuff is largely in-verse factors that were already agreed upon, anyway)
So, I'll confess that at this point I am arguing purely out of disagreement with the counterpoints raised, rather than anything else. While I personally want to continue the discussion, if this approach is deemed unproductive (Which it likely is), I've no issue with finding another avenue.
Last edited:
- 18,620
- 12,899
No worries.
I apologize if I came off as rude and/or impatient, I just didn't want to see this thread brought to a halt since neither side seemed to be budging.
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #234
Been busy as of late. Given that and the above factors, I suppose I'll just write one last reply to DontTalk's objections and then ping the staff members who participated here before, if there's still no agreement in sight.
- 578
- 140
I don't believe so. The first thread would likely have your answer. (Pls don't ban me, im just trying keep the thread alive)
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #238
So, a couple days later, and it seems I'll become even more occupied for the months to come. Given that and in the interest of getting these revisions over with already (It's been nearly two months), I've decided to drop the points regarding the Superflow and cardinals for the moment. As mentioned prior, the final outcome of this thread won't be particularly impacted by that, so, no real point in clinging to it out of stubbornness, anyway.
Last edited:
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,245
- 3,944
So what should be applied here?
- 6,198
- 16,496
- Thread starter
- #240
High 1-A for Eternity and the things above him (i.e What the upper portions of the OP are dedicated to explaining) is to go through. That said, one point that's open to a bit of discussion is the exact tiering of the Superflow (Since that's relevant to the Multiversal Abstracts not named Eternity or Death)
As is, I would suggest it to be High 1-A as well, since it's described as the highest level of reality, and generally portrayed as the last plane that there is before reaching Eternity proper (Which is also established by what it represents: It's Eternity's mindscape, as opposed to the Neutral Zone, which is his "body," so to speak). Given the close tie shared by the two, I'd say it is proper to consider it above the hierarchy of worlds within worlds.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
