No, it wasn’t cleared up. The Void hasn’t demonstrated any of that. Also that type of situation requires dimensions or layers with qualitative superiority to already exist in Neil Gaiman and Mike Carey’s cosmology. Which none do, as Heaven does not qualify.
Did you see the cosmology blog at all?
We know heaven> Creation because it views the IMMENSITY of creation as 'spangled'
how is that even relevant here??
Yes I did. And there’s nothing about the Void that makes it so superior that it exists in a way where it is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. Even worse, there’s not even a hierarchy layers/dimensions with qualitative superiority beneath the Void to begin with.
‘Spangled’ is not the same as small. Spangled is just something that’s covered in glitter.
The void acts as a background for everything. Creations rise and then they fall. No matter how many creations you have, the void will fill it up and amount it to zero. The void transcends the endless repetitions of creations and doesn't care. This matches with the 1-A description. We have a possible rating for 1-A because we dont know at what extent people can affect the void tho
Heaven views creation as spangled which means they see it as covered with small sparkling objects or lights. We know this because heaven looks down upon creation. Literally because heaven>creation. They even described creation using the word immense, showing the comparison between heaven and creation..
What you just said here is qualitative superiority
No it doesn’t match with the 1-A description. The Void has to be superior to a dimension or layered hierarchy, in the manner that which it’s independent of the amount of layers or dimensions being added.
Based off the scan, Heaven does not see creation as small glittery light, it sees it as ‘spangled’ which means to be covered in small glitter or lights. There’s a difference.
This is the reason why the ratings are possibly 1-A
The faq literally says you dont need a layered hierarchy or anything.
I told you its because the void exist as a background in which any amount can be inserted.
Not really a big difference...
The entire fking universe is being compared as small glitters of light. We know Heaven looks down upon creation and creation is far below the silver city
Could you explain?
It says you don’t need an infinitely layered/dimensioned hierarchy. That doesn’t mean no dimensioned or layered hierarchy.
Which isn’t 1-A. Any amount of 2-A structures being able to inserted into the Void, and still amounting to 0 is low 1-C, not 1-A. And even if Heaven was low 1-C(which it isn’t) any amount of low 1-C structures being able to be inserted into the Void, and still amounting to 0 would be just another level of infinity up, not 1-A.
It is a big difference. You said creation is small glitters of light when the scan says creation is covered in small glitters of light. And seeing a structure as covered in glitters of light means nothing tiering wise.
You don't need any dimension or hierarchy to be 1-A, as long as you prove you are above them.
vsbattles.fandom.com
With the information we have from Morrison's 2008s - 2015s and Scott Snyder's approach to DC Cosmology, there isn't enough evidence to say that the New Gods are infinitely transcendent to the 4-dimensional spatiotemporal multiverse. With information from Morrison's older stories, perhaps, but it was decided to use information gathered from Grant Morrison's Final Crisis and Multiversity. Even the information gathered from Scott Snyder's stories is not enough to support that the New Gods are 1 layer of infinity above Low 2-C the way they represent them.
Yes but part of the Voids justification is that it’s beyond a hierarchy of dimensions that they’re claiming exist in Vertigo.
The universe being far below you doesn’t mean you’re qualitatively superior to it.
Thats nonsensical. The ability to see parts of the universe isn't contradictory to superiority whatsoever.
Okay, yet that wasn't the argument being made at all.
That discussion took place in Part 2. This is for tiering only, not the details of what we include in the cosmology split.
If I recall, galaxies and Nebulae of a universe should be infinitesimal to something that exist on a higher infinity.
Yes it was.
Do you have any argument aside from accusing people of handwaving when they’re not? If I was ignoring the evidence I wouldn’t even be posting the scans you’re referring to and quoting them. Part of the scan simply doesn’t state what you claim it does, and your reasons don’t support a hierarchy of qualitative superiority like you’re arguing.
So you no longer believe the Monitor Sphere is a higher level than Limbo or the Multiverse?
No, it wasn't.
Saying "that doesn't mean anything" is absolutely handwaving.
Whataboutism. Stop trying to divert the conversation away from Vertigo's cosmology.
As proven from your own comment.
I never said “that doesn’t mean anything” in reply to your arguments. What I actually did was tell you that your reasons listed in support of a hierarchy of qualitative superiority don’t actually support that, and I corrected you after you lied about the universe being described as a toy to the Silver City.
Ignoring the scan? the scan says that the universe is like childs toy to the silver city
A counter example to your bad logic isn't "whataboutism."
Nothing within that comment says "being far below means qualitative superiority" which is the strawman you attempted.
Correct, you blindly asserted that every piece of evidence listed didnt support superiority. AKA handwaving.
I already addressed this in the first comment on this page. The scan says the universe glistens and glitters like a child’s toy. Something glistening and glittering like a toy has nothing to do with tiering.
“Bad logic” oh the irony. Also yes, you’re doing whataboutism. Instead of addressing the issue at hand with the Silver City, you responded trying to bring up a different issue in attempt to undermine and divert from what’s currently being talked about.
Lying about what you’ve argued isn’t going to work here. You used the description about creation being “far below heaven” from the scan I posted as evidence to support that it “speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.”
Calling you out for lying about what a scan says and listing bad reasons which don’t actually support what you claim isn’t handwaving Deagon. I know what you want it to be so bad but it’s not.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. It's not whataboutism, its a valid counter example that proves your logic wrong. It's that simple.
This is a cringe response, but nonetheless, the fact remains that saying "this doesn't support superiority" isn't a rebuttal. It's just handwaving.
oh my god xear. The universe glitters and glistens from heaven, down below, like childs toy. The fact that universe is compared to as like childs toy to heaven is already enough for qualitative superiority. Your ratty arguments are not helping you at all.
Saying “it’s a counter example” doesn’t invalidate that you’re performing whataboutism. Instead of addressing my argument on the Silver City not seeing the universe as infinitesimal, you replied with a counter-question trying to accuse me of not seeing the Monitor Sphere the same way.
I don’t care if you think it’s cringe. Most of your reasons are so irrelevant and low effort that they don’t even require an in-depth explanation.
Nope. It's a counter example that demonstrates that your logic doesn't work. You can repeat yourself if you want.
You're committing the usual mistake of taking each piece of information out of its full context and saying that no one piece, individually, is sufficient. That's not how evidence works. It's cumulative. By my assessment and many others, the full weight of the evidence leans in favor of qualitative superiority. You feel differently? So be it. But it's by staff vote, and I doubt many of the staff have the same aggressive bias against Vertigo that you do.
Where did I repeat myself? Also I already addressed how saying “it’s a counter example” doesn’t invalidate whataboutism. And repeating your stance over again without engaging with my replies is stonewalling.
Where did I take the information out of its full context? Also, evaluating each piece of evidence and seeing whether and how it supports one’s conclusion is basic argumentative analysis. In your case, you mentioned one scan which contained a multitude of different descriptions about the Silver City which you listed in support for your conclusion that there exists a hierarchy of qualitatively superiority in Vertigo. However, as I explained earlier, the problem was that the descriptions within the scan you brought up played absolutely no role in supporting your conclusion. Meaning you essentially have no evidence that actually supports what you’re arguing.
By repeatedly claiming that a counter example to poor logic is "whataboutism" despite the fact that demonstrating a counter example is precisely how one demonstrates that an argument is invalid. You cannot escape the counter example by repeating yourself.
So you claim, but in reality each piece of evidence combines in aggregate to make a compelling argument. The fact that any single piece of information can't by itself prove superiority isn't really problematic at all. No one is saying that in the first place.
Well clearly many people disagree, so we'll see what the mods say
