Respectfully, in response to the request from the OP, I will evaluate this and present my perspective:
Before delving into the intricacies of the cosmology section, it is worth noting that I find your exposition on the verse page to be quite commendable upon a cursory perusal, appreciating the artistic style that it embodies.
To cosmology, it is superjacent upon me to express that there exist certain aspects within it that I personally find myself at odds with. Consequently, I am inclined to propose an alternative hierarchical framework, tier one rooted in my own interpretation of the content presented within the blog. This assertion is made with an inherent willingness to remain receptive to divergent viewpoints, counter-interpretations, or substantiating evidence that may be brought forth. It is, however, my contention that these aspects should have been addressed from the outset.
To begin, as I meticulously journeyed through the cosmology section up to the juncture demarcated as the “Darkness” segment, my evaluation culminated in the attribution of a tier of 2-A (or a probable 2-A) tier, predicated upon the concept of infinite worlds being contextualized and equated as what could be termed as “stories”. The author's clarification on this matter, coupled with an implicit indication, fortifies this determination.
Allow me to reference a specific passage for context:
Perhaps there is a minor semantic misstep in the formulation? This could be a plausible conjecture; nevertheless, substantiating the discourse with fragments of evidence, it emerges that these worlds are characterized by eternal extension, as opposed to an infinity of distinct worlds. This delineation, while seemingly semantic in nature, is pivotal to emphasize in order to dispel potential confusion.
Subsequently, a knowledgeable character within the verse proclaims these realms to lack genuine existence, potentially implying that they are naught but illusory constructs.
Nonetheless, I find myself unable to readily discern the basis for this conclusion within the evidence you've provided. Regrettably, the rationale guiding this deduction eludes my grasp. Hence, I respectfully request further elucidation, supplemented by relevant evidence to support your viewpoint. Notwithstanding this absence of clarity, I shall endeavor to progress in my analysis.
Drawing solely upon the evidence furnished within the “Darkness” section, I am inclined to assert that the world in question seemingly possesses qualitative superiority over the framework proposed by a 2-A hierarchy. This, in turn, prompts me to propose an elevated classification akin to a low 1-C standing.
In accordance with my understanding, I delineate
the following structures:
- “This world” equates to an expanse that is boundlessly vast, accompanied by its distinct temporal axis | low 2-C
- Coexisting with a variety of gateways (though specifics are not outlined), the equivalence between these entities gains precision when juxtaposed with 2-dimensional worlds.
- A nuanced distinction surfaces here; the world extends indefinitely, but not necessarily infinitely.
- “Theater Movie” this entity epitomizes one of the many “worlds” within “this world." It's characterized by spatial enclosure (as specified by the author) and comprises an extensive multiverse brimming with stories (each story akin to a world) | 2-A
- “Darkness” to my interpretation, serves as a conduit bridging “these worlds” and the “real world,” functioning akin to a wormhole.
- “The real world” inhabits a realm imperceptible to the inhabitants of “these worlds” and remains beyond reach | low 1-C
Conclusion: I find myself in disagreement with 1-A with the reasons above. I suggest low 1-C instead. Altho, I still need to understand what exactly is Darkness due to lack of explanation there, and this is a significant merit of the thread since it is where it grants a significant jump in the tiers.
vsbattles.fandom.com
