• 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.

The DC Comics Cosmology Revision Project - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking this too but it was all cleared up here
"A good way to accomplish this would be to show that whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. For example, if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely, or if they exist as a "background" or canvas of sorts in which any amount of them can be inserted. This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well."
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.
 
Hard disagree on both points, but I suppose the mods can offer their input if they feel differently.
 
No, it wasn’t cleared up. The Void hasn’t demonstrated any of that.
Did you see the cosmology blog at all?
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.
We know heaven> Creation because it views the IMMENSITY of creation as 'spangled'
Creation is immense but heaven views that as small which is qualitative superiority
 
Did you see the cosmology blog at all?
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.

We know heaven> Creation because it views the IMMENSITY of creation as 'spangled'
Creation is immense but heaven views that as small which is qualitative superiority
‘Spangled’ is not the same as small. Spangled is just something that’s covered in glitter.

Spangled definition: “covered with spangles or other small sparkling objects or lights.”

Heaven viewing creation as covered in glitter or small lights has absolutely nothing to do with qualitative superiority.
 
Last edited:
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 of qualitative superiority beneath the Void to begin with.
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
‘Spangled’ is not the same as small. Spangled is just something that’s covered in glitter.

Spangled definition: “covered with spangles or other small sparkling objects or lights.”

Viewing something as covered in glitter or small lights has absolutely nothing to do with qualitative superiority.
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..
 
Heaven viewing creation as covered in glitter or small lights has absolutely nothing to do with qualitative superiority.
What you just said here is qualitative superiority
Heaven views the immensity of creation as small glittery lights, looking down upon it.
You claim you read the cosmology blog but there is more evidence heaven>2-A creation. The universe is described as far below the silver city, glistens and glitters like a child's toy, galaxies gleam like multi colored jewels and nubulae flicker and pulse.
 
Last edited:
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
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.

1. There is no hierarchy of qualitatively superior dimensions/layers in Vertigo so this is already ruled out.

2. Even if there was, The Void isn’t superior to the amount layers or dimensions being added to creation, it’s superior to the amount of creations that can exist due to it being infinite. Transcending infinite tier 2 Multiverses or even an infinite amount of low 1-C structures, is not 1-A.

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
Heaven views the immensity of creation as small glittery lights, looking down upon it.
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.

As I said before, seeing something as covered in small glitter or lights has absolutely nothing to do with tiering.
 
I have to say the 1-A for the Void is controversial and would probably require its own CRT, so to move things forward and not drag things out unnecessarily, the Void can be "At least low 1-C" for now since that is solid, then we can make the CRT for 1-A void later.
 
I have to say the 1-A for the Void is controversial and would probably require its own CRT, so to move things forward and not drag things out unnecessarily, the Void can be "At least low 1-C" for now since that is solid, then we can make the CRT for 1-A void later.
This is the reason why the ratings are possibly 1-A
makes everything less controversial
 
I agree with Robo that the scans provided speak pretty clearly to a qualitative superiority, and it's clear that the void transcends that as well.
 
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.
The faq literally says you dont need a layered hierarchy or anything.
2. Even if there was, The Void isn’t superior to the amount layers or dimensions being added to creation, it’s superior to the amount of creations that can exist due to it being infinite. Transcending infinite tier 2 Multiverses or even an infinite amount of low 1-C structures, is not 1-A.
I told you its because the void exist as a background in which any amount can be inserted.
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.
Not really a big difference...
As I said before, seeing something as covered in small glitter or lights has absolutely nothing to do with tiering.
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
main-qimg-afdb82f368e49d6d84a50e8903de42de-lq
 
The faq literally says you dont need a layered hierarchy or anything.
It says you don’t need an infinitely layered/dimensioned hierarchy. That doesn’t mean no dimensioned or layered hierarchy.

I told you its because the void exist as a background in which any amount can be inserted.
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.

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
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.

Looking down on a 2-A structure alone doesn’t warrant low 1-C.
 
The other scan describes creation as "far below" Heaven and describes it as a "child's toy." It goes on to say that the inhabitants and the city were created before the existence of time, and that it isn't apart of the order of created things. As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.
 
Anyway
will hunter's 1-A stuff be affected?
 
Could you explain?
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.
 
Last edited:
You don't need any dimension or hierarchy to be 1-A, as long as you prove you are above 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 Void is 1-A as it's beyond space-time and the hierarchy of dimensions and transcends it completely.
If this hierarchy of dimensions doesn’t exist due to Heaven not even being qualitatively superior then this justification is only left with “The Void is 1-A as it’s beyond space and time, and transcends it completely.”

And as far as I’m aware, being beyond space and time means absolutely nothing and is low 1-C at best.

The other scan describes creation as "far below" Heaven and describes it as a "child's toy." It goes on to say that the inhabitants and the city were created before the existence of time, and that it isn't apart of the order of created things. As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.
The universe being far below you doesn’t mean you’re qualitatively superior to it.

- “The universe glitters and glistens, like a child toy.”
image.png


It’s not that the universe is a child toys, it just glistens and glitters like one. And glistening like a child’s toy has nothing to do with tiering.

Also you do realize by bringing up this scan you just refuted yourself right? The fact that they can see galaxies and nebulae from the Silver City proves that it isn’t qualitatively superior to the universe.

Furthermore, predating time doesn’t prove there’s a hierarchy of qualitative superiority, and neither does being “not apart of the order of things.”
 
Last edited:
As always, Xearsays arguments make sense to me.

We should use Grant Morrisons Pre-2000 lore, literally nothing besides small contradictions like the Fifth Dimensions physicality contradicts it.

Grant Morrison constantly reaffirms the fact that each Universe is an authored work, Planetime is the literal summation of all comic books authors have ever made. And this explicitly doesn't care about canonicity issues



Also, considering i was kinda the first guy to bring this up, i do definitely agree that The Voids 1-A justification doesn't really make that much sense.
 
The fact that they can see galaxies and nebulae from the Silver City proves that it isn’t qualitatively superior to the universe.
Thats nonsensical. The ability to see parts of the universe isn't contradictory to superiority whatsoever.

The universe being far below you doesn’t mean you’re qualitatively superior to it.
Okay, yet that wasn't the argument being made at all.

t’s not that the universe is a child toys, it just glistens and glitters like one. And glistening like a child’s toy has nothing to do with tiering.

Also you do realize by bringing up this scan you just refuted yourself right? The fact that they can see galaxies and nebulae from the Silver City proves that it isn’t qualitatively superior to the universe.

Furthermore, predating time doesn’t prove there’s a hierarchy of qualitative superiority, and neither does being “not apart of the order of things.”

Do you have any argument aside from handwaving the evidence one by one? I don't know who you're trying to convince, but simply saying "this means nothing" over and over to each piece of evidence isn't persuasive whatsoever.

We should use Grant Morrisons Pre-2000 lore, literally nothing besides small contradictions like the Fifth Dimensions physicality contradicts it.
That discussion took place in Part 2. This is for tiering only, not the details of what we include in the cosmology split.
 
Thats nonsensical. The ability to see parts of the universe isn't contradictory to superiority whatsoever.
If I recall, galaxies and Nebulae of a universe should be infinitesimal to something that exist on a higher infinity.

Okay, yet that wasn't the argument being made at all.
Yes it was.

Deagonx - “As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.”

Unless you were talking about a hierarchy of dimensions/layers that aren’t qualitatively superior. Which I doubt you were since then your reply wouldn’t serve any purpose to the conversation.

Do you have any argument aside from handwaving the evidence one by one? I don't know who you're trying to convince, but simply saying "this means nothing" over and over to each piece of evidence isn't persuasive whatsoever.
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.
 
If I recall, galaxies and Nebulae of a universe should be infinitesimal to something that exist on a higher infinity.
So you no longer believe the Monitor Sphere is a higher level than Limbo or the Multiverse?

Yes it was.
No, it wasn't.

Do you have any argument aside from accusing people of handwaving when they’re not?
Saying "that doesn't mean anything" is absolutely handwaving.
 
So you no longer believe the Monitor Sphere is a higher level than Limbo or the Multiverse?
Whataboutism. Stop trying to divert the conversation away from Vertigo's cosmology.

No, it wasn't.
As proven from your own comment.

Deagonx - “As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.”

Saying "that doesn't mean anything" is absolutely handwaving.
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.
 
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
and if you trying debunking it by using the word 'like' then you are just supporting my argument even more actually.
 
Whataboutism. Stop trying to divert the conversation away from Vertigo's cosmology.
A counter example to your bad logic isn't "whataboutism."

As proven from your own comment.

Deagonx - “As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.”
Nothing within that comment says "being far below means qualitative superiority" which is the strawman you attempted.

What I actually did was tell you that your reasons listed in support of a hierarchy of qualitative superiority don’t actually support that,
Correct, you blindly asserted that every piece of evidence listed didnt support superiority. AKA handwaving.
 
Ignoring the scan? the scan says that the universe is like childs toy to the silver city
and if you trying debunking it by using the word 'like' then you are just supporting my argument even more actually.
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.

A counter example to your bad logic isn't "whataboutism."
“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.

Nothing within that comment says "being far below means qualitative superiority" which is the strawman you attempted.
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.”

Deagonx - “The other scan describes creation as "far below" Heaven and describes it as a "child's toy." It goes on to say that the inhabitants and the city were created before the existence of time, and that it isn't apart of the order of created things. As far as I am concerned, that speaks very strongly to a hierarchy.”

Correct, you blindly asserted that every piece of evidence listed didnt support superiority. AKA handwaving.
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.

The Universe being “far below Heaven” doesn’t support a hierarchy of qualitative superiority.

Heaven “predating time” doesn’t support a hierarchy of qualitative superiority. (FAQ literally has a whole answer for this btw).

The universe “glistening and glittering like a child’s toy” doesn’t support a hierarchy of qualitative superiority. (What is this one even supposed to prove?)

And Heaven being “not apart of the order of things” doesn’t support a hierarchy of qualitative superiority.
 
Last edited:
“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.
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.


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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
Repeating yourself doesn't make it true. It's not whataboutism, it’s a valid counter example that proves your logic wrong. It's that simple.
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.

Me - “If I recall, galaxies and Nebulae of a universe should be infinitesimal to something that exist on a higher infinity.”

Deagonx - “So you no longer believe the Monitor Sphere is a higher level than Limbo or the Multiverse?”

This is standard whataboutism.

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.
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.

Universe being far below the Silver City is not the same as the universe being infinitely below it. “The universe being like a child’s toy” is a straight up lie and editorialization of the text. Predating time can literally be discarded due to FAQ. And the Silver City being outside the order of created things, has no additional context to make it hold weight.
 
This is standard whataboutism.
Nope. It's a counter example that demonstrates that your logic doesn't work. You can repeat yourself if you want.

Universe being far below the Silver City is not the same as the universe being infinitely below it. “The universe being like a child’s toy” is a straight up lie and editorialization of the text. Predating time can literally be discarded due to FAQ. And the Silver City being outside the order of created things, has no additional context to make it hold weight.
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.
 
xearsay own statement simply doesn't make any sense just saying that silver city has no qualitative superiority


silver city
case looks at creation as glistening and glistening like a child's toy like its case with superman cosmic armor sees limbo as a disc obviously has a qualitative superiority.
 
Xearsay just has a particular axe to grind against Gaiman/Carey which is why he's making such a fuss about it. I don't think the thread will benefit from going in circles forever about this, I think both sides have made their stances clear and now the staff should decide. I let Ant know that things are getting pretty circular and we should probably let the discussion move on from this.
 
Nope. It's a counter example that demonstrates that your logic doesn't work. You can repeat yourself if you want.
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.

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 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.

Also this isn’t about a bias against Vertigo. The justifications and evidence being used to support Vertigo’s tier are simply insufficient, some of which literally go against FAQ. And I see no reason for why site rules should be bended so Lucifer can be tier 1.
 
Last edited:
Where did I repeat myself?
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.

Also, evaluating each piece of evidence and seeing whether and how it supports one’s conclusion is basic argumentative analysis
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.


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.
Well clearly many people disagree, so we'll see what the mods say
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top