• 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.

Strongest 5-D Characters on the Wiki

CodeCCLL said:
By what standards do you say this? Sonic standards?
Click to expand...
Acausality (Type 5 - M is beyond time, space and causality[4]. He exists as that which is not within, the outside itself[10], he is a transcendent being of the outer universe[11] of Sharnoth, which is an eternally unchanging world[1]. M is unchanging, with time, and anything else humans value holding no meaning to him[1])
Conceptual Manipulation (Type 1 - Sharnoth, an infinite world[1] is the way it is[1] because M feels nothing. The infinite darkness of Sharnoth and M are the same thing. All areas of darkness are his domain[8]. his "Jet Black" being beyond time, space and causality[4])
His Type 1 is from being beyond Time, Space, and Causality
Robo432343 said:
we should talk about how it makes no sense for a guy with type 1 concept hax to interact with NEP 2 aspect 2 just because the concept they lack is a type 2 concept. it doesn't matter what number it is, they still lack the concept in the first place
saying, "he doesn't lack a type 1 concept so concept hax can work" doesn't make any sense
this guy is NOT interacting with this guy
Click to expand...
I mean, im pretty sure type 1 concepts are more abstract/fundemental, and a concept type 2 nep would lack something less abstract/fundemental
 
Brogeefrong said:
I mean, im pretty sure type 1 concepts are more abstract/fundemental, and a concept type 2 nep would lack something less abstract/fundemental
Click to expand...
it does not matter if the concept number is more fundamental if they lack the concept in the first place
using your logic anyone with CM 1 can interact with nep 2 aspect 2 even though they have no feats of interacting with something like that just because the concept type is different
if garfield had conceptual manip type 1, do you think he would be able to interact with nep 2 aspect 2 just because the person with nep 2 aspect 2 is a type 2 concept?
 
Last edited:
Robo432343 said:
it does not matter if the concept number is more fundamental if they lack the concept in the first place
using your logic anyone with CM 1 can interact with nep 2 aspect 2 even though they have no feats of interacting with something like that just because the concept type is different
Click to expand...
They would not be lacking the more fundamental concept if they were an aspect 2 for CM2, also since it’s a type 2 Concept, could it still be interacted indirectly because it’s dependent on something in reality
Robo432343 said:
if garfield had conceptual manip type 1, do you think he would be able to interact with nep 2 aspect 2 just because the person with nep 2 aspect 2 is a type 2 concept?
Click to expand...
This doesnt prove anything
 
Robo432343 said:
They are not above it, they are independent, it's two separate things. Type 1 Concepts, can have superiority over what they govern, however in the default description, they don't.
Click to expand...
If thats the case, shouldnt a Type 2 Concept NEP still be affect still be affected by the alteration of reality, also the NEP page says "They are hence immune to regular manipulation of said concept(s). Which type of concept should be mentioned on the profile." which implies it depends what Type it is
 
Brogeefrong said:
On an abstract/fundamental level, a Type 1 is above what it governs, while a Type 2 is on the same level as what it governs
Click to expand...
That wrong, Type 1 is just independent of reality, the only concept type that is superior to what it governs is Platonic-type concept, since according to platonic concept, the physical reality is just a shadow, and extension of the abstract concept itself. Our type 1 concept is just a broad definition for all concepts that is independent from what it govern, Jungian Archetype also a concept that independent from reality but not superior to it. People just arbitrary think that Type 1 is all platonic-type concept since current type 1 is the fusion of old type 1 which is called true platonic concept and old type 2 which is called false platonic concept bruhh

Also my sematic nitpicking: independent =/= superiority. I'm independent from the house i built, doesn't mean i'm superior to it, the house can still crush me if it fall on me
 
Last edited:
Livinmeme said:
NGMI
In all reality, that is the most logical explination of how CM1 work
Click to expand...
CM1 is just a broad term for concept that independent of reality, something that we, vsbw users created and i will repeat again, independent =/= superiority. There is no most logical explanation here, cause i already gave actual example of why independent concept doesn't mean said concept superior to what it govern
 
Robo432343 said:
bro what are you talking about? the person with type 1 CM would need proof of affecting the concept of nothingness
How is the concept of circles for example going to govern nothingness? Nothingness isn't a circle, it isn't fire, it isn't any concept based on any existing thing. The only concept that would work would be the concept of nothingness which Garfield if he had CM 1 would need proof of affecting
Click to expand...
The CM Type 1 would not need to directly affect The Concept of Nothingness if the Concept is only type 2, and could instead affect what it's bounded to, if it's bounded to something nonexistent, then sure the Type 1 cant affect either without feats, but if it's bounded to something in reality, it can be affected
 
Robo432343 said:
broge thinks CM 1 can interact with nonexistent physiology type 2 aspect 2 if the person with NEP aspect 2 aspect is a type 2 concept
Click to expand...
I mean, depend, since the NEP guy lack concept aspect, CM can't interact with him, but some fiction characters have feat capable of applying concept into objects, person, etc....these kind of characters can definitely doing something to NEP guy who lack concept. So it is depending on available feats

Or you need to overwhelming the NEP guy with higher dimensionality power and the NEP guy lack feat of surviving after getting slapped by such a force
 
Robo432343 said:
we are assuming the guy with CM 1 has no feats of interacting with nep 2 aspect 2 if he is a type 2 concept
Click to expand...
I editted my comment, but anyway like i said, depend on what kind of feats the guy with CM1 have been showing, if he has feat applying concept to objects, persons, etc...... then he can force a concept on the NEP guy, make him now do not lacking a concept anymore, but if CM1 guy have no such feat then yeah he can't do anything unless his CM1 is platonic-type concept
 
Robo432343 said:
you are just making up your own standards man..
Click to expand...
those arent my own, thats just how concept type 2 works, it can be affected indirectly by what it’s bound to
Robo432343 said:
i made this thread
vsbattles.com

ANSWER THIS QUESTION PLEASE

Character A has 8-D soul crush Character B has 5-D high godly regeneration Will Character A bypass the high godly regeneration? question2 basically character A has type 1 concept hax, has no feats of interacting with NEP 2 aspect 2 is fighting B who has nonexistent physiology type 2 aspect 2...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
lebron james
 
Robo432343 said:
@Brogeefrong see bro i told u
Click to expand...
Was this scenario even taken into account, it's not directly manipulating the Nonexistent Concept here
Brogeefrong said:
The CM Type 1 would not need to directly affect The Concept of Nothingness if the Concept is only type 2, and could instead affect what it's bounded to, if it's bounded to something nonexistent, then sure the Type 1 cant affect either without feats, but if it's bounded to something in reality, it can be affected
Click to expand...
 
Robo432343 said:
yes it is
saying someone with CM 1 can interact with type 2 concept nep with no feats is and will always be an nlf
Click to expand...
He mean that rather than directly interacting with concept, you can indirectly affect the concept by affect what the concept tied to, since Type 2 mean the concept itself is dependent on something, if you affect said thing, it will create a chain reaction that alter the concept

However in this case, CM1 guy try to affect the NEP guy that lack concept type 2, so it is pointless since there is no concept to interact with, and the concept is absence, it can't be tied to anything for CM1 guy to indirectly affect the concept via affect what the concept tied to. And even if we sematically nitpicking thing, type 2 concept of nothingness will be tied to the nothingness itself, since it describe what is nothingness, that go back to the start where you need to be able interact with the nothingness first in order to indirectly affect type 2 concept of nothingness
 
Last edited:
Vietthai96 said:
He mean that rather than directly interacting with concept, you can indirectly affect the concept by affect what the concept tied to, since Type 2 mean the concept itself is dependent on something, if you affect said thing, it will create a chain reaction that alter the concept

However in this case, CM1 guy try to affect the NEP guy that lack concept type 2, so it is pointless since there is no concept to interact with, and the concept is absence, it can't be tied to anything for CM1 guy to indirectly affect the concept via affect what the concept tied to.
Click to expand...
Doesnt the concept still paradoxically exist, like what the NEP page says “Nonexistent Physiology refers to the ability to lack certain aspects of one's existence, to paradoxically 'exist,' yet lack certain identifiable traits of existence or exist outside of a particular scope of 'existence.'” and would still be tied to something
Vietthai96 said:
And even if we sematically nitpicking thing, type 2 concept of nothingness will be tied to the nothingness itself, since it describe what is nothingness, that go back to the start where you need to be able interact with the nothingness first in order to indirectly affect type 2 concept of nothingness
Click to expand...
Yeah thats for nothingness but what about lacking something the concept of something not inherently nonexistent
 
Brogeefrong said:
Doesnt the concept still paradoxically exist, like what the NEP page says “Nonexistent Physiology refers to the ability to lack certain aspects of one's existence, to paradoxically 'exist,' yet lack certain identifiable traits of existence or exist outside of a particular scope of 'existence.'” and would still be tied to something
Click to expand...
unless the guy is NEP Nature 3, otherwise it make no sense. The paradoxical part is just mean that normally nothingness mean, nothing exist, however still some how existing, it have almost nothing on aspect
Brogeefrong said:
Yeah thats for nothingness but what about lacking something the concept of something not inherently nonexistent
Click to expand...
the.................what?????, now you make no sense bruhh

Tbf, current NEP is a mess
 
Vietthai96 said:
unless the guy is NEP Nature 3, otherwise it make no sense. The paradoxical part is just mean that normally nothingness mean, nothing exist, however still some how existing, it have almost nothing on aspect
Click to expand...
If it somehow still exist, and counts as a concept, shouldnt it still be tied to whatever it’s linked to, also also if it is a Type 3, is it possible?
Vietthai96 said:
the.................what?????, now you make no sense bruhh
Click to expand...
Like the concept is tied to nothingness in this situation, what if its something else
Vietthai96 said:
Tbf, current NEP is a mess
Click to expand...
mood
 
Brogeefrong said:
If it somehow still exist, and counts as a concept, shouldnt it still be tied to whatever it’s linked to, also also if it is a Type 3, is it possible?
Click to expand...
if the concept still exist, then the character in question will never lack it in the first place, which mean his nonexistence aspect is wrong, unless he is NEP Nature Type 3, which allow for paradoxical existence even with the aspects
Brogeefrong said:
Like the concept is tied to nothingness in this situation, what if its something else
Click to expand...
no, it is impossible, concept type 3 tied with what it describes, concept type 2 of circle describe the fundamental principle of circle, and also tied to said circle, concept type 2 of nothingness describe properties of nothingness and also tied to it, you can't have a concept type 2 that somehow tied to a completely different thing that it not describe and govern over, the only concept that is possible in such a way in our current system is concept type 3, as it is lesser realist concept, it is tied to what it describe and govern, at the same time it is a part of a larger reality

Anyway i'm gonna sleep, it is midnight in my country now
 
Oh right, I remember reading a question here. The note on Acausality Type 5 about needing feats, that was because Acausality Type 5 was changed from something that ignored dimensionality to something that was limited by it. So it was about Tier 1, not about Concepts or anything.
 
Celestial_Pegasus said:
Amusing to see my obscure Nyarlathotep's generating pages of discussion.

Like us WABS guys are just chilling, and this discussion is still ongoing.
Click to expand...
Surprising how M went from not so being quite broken ish (but still fairly powerful) to becoming pretty broken and even abstractically hard to affect lol.

That's not even adding Edison whose basically another M (Nyarlathotep) and more, and both got pretty good hax resistances from a growing Nyar owo.
 
Robo432343 said:
oh wtf
vsbattles.com

Spaces in Times Dragon Ball revision

Continuation of this thread, will make the arguments very clear now with a voting poll from the beginning, full disclosure though, if this becomes as much of a mess and flood and the last thread i will ask for this to be closed and make a staff thread instead, clear? ok, so for the thread itself...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com

No more 5-D DB???
Click to expand...
To my understanding, the DBH cosmology is still composite, and I believe there is still a hyper-timeline based on the other universe in the timeline.
 
With Ultima's revisions making 6-D now part of 1-C, this may end up being the real list for Strongest Low 1-C people
 
Robo432343 said:
im so confused
how does ultima's thread affect this thread
Click to expand...
This will replace the strongest non smurf....
Sad because I like dedicated threads, easier to ignore all of the mess that generates when two BS series duke it out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gamin_Yoon23
Strongest 6D Characters on the Wiki
4 5 6
Replies
238
Views
15K
IReallyLoveRilysse
IReallyLoveRilysse
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Strongest 4-D Characters on the Wiki
7 8 9
Replies
342
Views
46K
EL_xWatcher1234x
EL_xWatcher1234x
Spinoirr
Okay, is there ANY 8-D characters on this wiki
Replies
3
Views
473
Lycoris4812
Lycoris4812
Hecky2222
Strongest Planets in Fiction
2 3
Replies
112
Views
5K
WeeklyBattles
WeeklyBattles
Dark_Soul20189
Strongest weapons on the wiki.
Replies
34
Views
4K
AlipheeseXIV
AlipheeseXIV
Back
Top