- 21,783
- 4,826
I see nothing wrong with the current tiering of 1-As and believe this would only overcomplicate things while also only applying to a few select 1-As
-
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.
Tier 1-A Addendum
- Thread starter Fllflourine
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 32,358
- 20,298
"It's not an exaggeration whatsoever"
It is. You are treating characters created by humans as utterly incomprehensible. You are treating fiction as if it's real.
"nor a vain attempt at anything"
Already explained why it won't accomplish anything above.
"1-A battles have had much controversy lately regarding whether or not they are even suited for VS battles for this EXACT problem"
No, the only problem with 1-A matches is that people are either:
Because 1-A is literally infinite.
Split 1-A in two, congratulations, you just created two completely identical 1-A Tiers with the same infinite gap, because you cannot apply mathematical differences between a weak and strong 1-A in the first place.
It's like the Hilbert's Hotel paradox. You're just trying to divide infinity and ending up with infinity.
"Under that logic, should they not be allowed to make their OWN tiers based off of the original premise"
Yes. But why does that matter for us?
It is. You are treating characters created by humans as utterly incomprehensible. You are treating fiction as if it's real.
"nor a vain attempt at anything"
Already explained why it won't accomplish anything above.
"1-A battles have had much controversy lately regarding whether or not they are even suited for VS battles for this EXACT problem"
No, the only problem with 1-A matches is that people are either:
- A) Too lazy to properly research the characters
- B) Legitimately have difficulty debating such high-end characters
- c) Get lost on overhyping and analyzing 1-As with posts that look more like something out of a Philosophy / Theology essay than an analysis of the character.
Because 1-A is literally infinite.
Split 1-A in two, congratulations, you just created two completely identical 1-A Tiers with the same infinite gap, because you cannot apply mathematical differences between a weak and strong 1-A in the first place.
It's like the Hilbert's Hotel paradox. You're just trying to divide infinity and ending up with infinity.
"Under that logic, should they not be allowed to make their OWN tiers based off of the original premise"
Yes. But why does that matter for us?
- 32,358
- 20,298
It's not corner cutting, it's being reasonable and pragmatic in the face of something that accomplishes absolutely nothing.TheJ-ManRequiem said:
What is cutting corners, meanwhile, is creating artificial new tiers in an attempt to replace the job of actually properly analyzing and quantifying characters.
- 8,998
- 2,927
Frankly speaking and being 100% honest, the supposed use for this tier only arises due to people at times actually wanting to make 1-A matches while knowing 0 about the characters in question or how they work.
And as pointed above, a mere split in tier would not solve the problem when the root is actually a lack of proper understanding of these characters. We still would be getting 1-As who do qualify for 1-A by this hypothetical new standard but are still stomped by other even higher 1-As in matches flying around.
Therefore, said split prooooobably wouldn't change the true matter at all and might actually just generate unnecessary overcomplication in the long run (trust me, we've seen that movie happen. Look at Immeasurable speed stuff and Acausality. That went swimmingly, right?).
Hence why I find this whole thing iffy and am more with the side who thinks this is overcomplicating stuff/making redundant stuff/unneeded changes for no reason.
And as pointed above, a mere split in tier would not solve the problem when the root is actually a lack of proper understanding of these characters. We still would be getting 1-As who do qualify for 1-A by this hypothetical new standard but are still stomped by other even higher 1-As in matches flying around.
Therefore, said split prooooobably wouldn't change the true matter at all and might actually just generate unnecessary overcomplication in the long run (trust me, we've seen that movie happen. Look at Immeasurable speed stuff and Acausality. That went swimmingly, right?).
Hence why I find this whole thing iffy and am more with the side who thinks this is overcomplicating stuff/making redundant stuff/unneeded changes for no reason.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"though I'm not trying to start some sort of flame war."
Never said you were.
"It's a comparison because of the CONCEPT difference between the two."
Which is nothing alike.
"3-A deals with finite levels of 3-D power where High 3-A deals with the infinite."
All 1-As are infinite. Your point?
"The same would apply here"
No.
"characters who are simply beyond euclidean dimensions aren't even near equivalent to a character like Hajun who transcends virtually all of existence and its concepts"
>Euclidean dimensions.
All 1-As technically transcend all of existence and its concepts. You are misinterpreting 1-As.
"And I don't see how that DOESN'T warrant a new tier"
Already explained repeatedly. It would accomplish nothing.
"it's like saying because 1-B is more dimensions than 12, that having a tier for an infinite number equates to redundancy."
It isn't. You can't use things that are mathematically quantifiable to compare with what isn't.
Never said you were.
"It's a comparison because of the CONCEPT difference between the two."
Which is nothing alike.
"3-A deals with finite levels of 3-D power where High 3-A deals with the infinite."
All 1-As are infinite. Your point?
"The same would apply here"
No.
"characters who are simply beyond euclidean dimensions aren't even near equivalent to a character like Hajun who transcends virtually all of existence and its concepts"
>Euclidean dimensions.
All 1-As technically transcend all of existence and its concepts. You are misinterpreting 1-As.
"And I don't see how that DOESN'T warrant a new tier"
Already explained repeatedly. It would accomplish nothing.
"it's like saying because 1-B is more dimensions than 12, that having a tier for an infinite number equates to redundancy."
It isn't. You can't use things that are mathematically quantifiable to compare with what isn't.
- 7,200
- 2,180
- 12,239
- 1,112
>nothing
It gives better accuracy to where they stand.
And for the last part, Why not do both?
It gives better accuracy to where they stand.
And for the last part, Why not do both?
- 4,652
- 1,328
Why are VS matches even an argument here? We're primarily an indexing site, and I recall that we're not even allowed to debate 1-A matchups to begin with.
- 32,358
- 20,298
And Fate is correct. Every time people try to over-divide something that already works for the sake of "Making it easier to understand", the exact opposite is reached.
Immortality / Regenerationn
Acausality
Immeasurable Speed requirements
Dividing Void Manipulation and Existence Erasure...
Immortality / Regenerationn
Acausality
Immeasurable Speed requirements
Dividing Void Manipulation and Existence Erasure...
- 2,764
- 723
- Thread starter
- #50
Why are VS matches even an argument here? We're primarily an indexing site, and I recall that we're not even allowed to debate 1-A matchups to begin with.
High 1-A and 0 are banned, 1-A is not, unless the rule changed.
High 1-A and 0 are banned, 1-A is not, unless the rule changed.
- 32,358
- 20,298
We are allowed.ArbitraryNumbers said:
But people make 1-A matches without knowing cr*p about either character, and then they get cluttered in meaningless discussions.
The only reason this is being proposed is for people to debate 1-As without having to know the characters easier.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"It gives better accuracy to where they stand."
It really doesn't. You can't split a 1-A and hope it sticks. You are trying to use numbers to quantify something beyond numbers.
It really doesn't. You can't split a 1-A and hope it sticks. You are trying to use numbers to quantify something beyond numbers.
- 2,650
- 467
Now you're appealing to emotion, this has nothing to do with a reality/fiction interaction and that is essentially trying to derail the argument; I am well aware of all the concepts which are put in place on this wiki and simply saying "no," based on the fact that it "complicates," things because it requires that certain profiles might need a slight addendum is ludicrous.Matthew Schroeder said:
There is no, "hype," here whatsoever. I, and the others who have spent hours formulating these ideas, have thought that it would perhaps add more diversity to the character profiles in that they would portray more accuracy than simply not evaluating them differently at all. You also have failed to address the fact ACF is something which we have based our tiering system around.
This would help alleviate the "lazy," concern too. Maybe people would be able to accurately gauge whether two characters deserve to be fighting instead of simply creating redundant threads which lead nowhere. Again, this would help the 1-A battles issue more than hinder it.
I also have no idea how you assume the two tiers are identical. One deals with exclusively being beyond-dimensional, while the other is something which is beyond conceptualizations. Again countering your previous argument, under those terms we shouldn't have a tier High 1-A or 0 either, since omnipotence cannot be proven and leads to fruitless arguments.
Finally, the other wikis derive their systems FROM US. Therefore, it would be courteous to at least consider the idea instead of instantly trying to extinguish it because it's "complicated".
- 3,323
- 1,856
Seeing both sides of the discussion here, I have to agree with Matt. I personally think that the idea is good-intentioned, but if we analyse it logically, the proposal makes no sense, in a conceptual level.
- 4,652
- 1,328
Don't quote large blocks of text.
- 12,239
- 1,112
It does though?
They're below actual 1-A's but above everything else.
Nt like we dont have Low 2-C and other low tiers. It overcomplicating this, may be a point, but as said this is an indexing site. Accuracy and details is something that should be put to work.
They're below actual 1-A's but above everything else.
Nt like we dont have Low 2-C and other low tiers. It overcomplicating this, may be a point, but as said this is an indexing site. Accuracy and details is something that should be put to work.
- 2,650
- 467
Also, just because something is beyond numbers, does not mean it is beyond concepts. For instance, the Downstreamers may *understand* why existence functions how it does, but they aren't transcendent of LITERALLY everything. If you could exist in an n-dimensional space, does that mean you transcend the concept of hierarchies? No. Simply being beyond euclidean geometry does not even mean you are beyond numbers themselves, just that you can exist and manipulate realms which are not bound by dimensional space and time.Matthew Schroeder said:
- 7,200
- 2,180
What
- 8,998
- 2,927
And what's even the need for a Low 1-A? No, real talk.
What is the reason for that? Now you can't answer "VS Matches" if that is irrelevant. And if you answer "yes, it's Matches" then refer to my reply above.
The separation is borderline useless at this point. They are still 1-As and still transcend all dimensions.
Even if we make some baseline line that still encompasses some minority of an already rare tier and if we ignore all that, it doesn't change a thing. 1-A is literally the most vast tier out there, the line between baseline 1-A and High 1-A gets drawn at Borderline "Questionable Omnipotence".
Meaning: Low 1-A will have some "baseline 1-As" around and then what? We'll still have 1-As around that exceed said Low 1-A but don't get any close to other 1-As who exceed it even more and get stomped nonetheless. So what then? We also split it into Low-Mid and Mid 1-A or something?
This legit feels like some random overcomplication, no offense intended.
What is the reason for that? Now you can't answer "VS Matches" if that is irrelevant. And if you answer "yes, it's Matches" then refer to my reply above.
The separation is borderline useless at this point. They are still 1-As and still transcend all dimensions.
Even if we make some baseline line that still encompasses some minority of an already rare tier and if we ignore all that, it doesn't change a thing. 1-A is literally the most vast tier out there, the line between baseline 1-A and High 1-A gets drawn at Borderline "Questionable Omnipotence".
Meaning: Low 1-A will have some "baseline 1-As" around and then what? We'll still have 1-As around that exceed said Low 1-A but don't get any close to other 1-As who exceed it even more and get stomped nonetheless. So what then? We also split it into Low-Mid and Mid 1-A or something?
This legit feels like some random overcomplication, no offense intended.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"Now you're appealing to emotion, this has nothing to do with a reality/fiction interaction and that is essentially trying to derail the argument"
No, I am pointing out language I find silly or ridiculous. It simply fits what I already see happening over and over:
I mean no offense, but people often try to sound more intelligent than they probably are using fanciful words and such.
"I am well aware of all the concepts which are put in place on this wiki and simply saying "no," based on the fact that it "complicates," things because it requires that certain profiles might need a slight addendum is ludicrous."
Read my posts. I give plenty of reasons but you are dismissing them with a strawman that my only argument is that it "complicates things".
"There is no, "hype," here whatsoever. I, and the others who have spent hours formulating these ideas, have thought that it would perhaps add more diversity to the character profiles in that they would portray more accuracy than simply not evaluating them differently at all."
It doesn't matter how much time you spend formulating this if it's wrong.
"You also have failed to address the fact ACF is something which we have based our tiering system around."
Then I hate to shatter the bubble, but our Tiering System is only based on ACF's, it's not a Carbon Copy. There's several differences already.
"This would help alleviate the "lazy," concern too. Maybe people would be able to accurately gauge whether two characters deserve to be fighting instead of simply creating redundant threads which lead nowhere. Again, this would help the 1-A battles issue more than hinder it."
No, it wouldn't. If you are incapable of understanding a 1-A character you will be unable to understand 1-A characters with an artificial division between them.
"I also have no idea how you assume the two tiers are identical"
Simply put, you assume that you are able to identify a base level and perform a mathematical division for something beyond such things.
"e deals with exclusively being beyond-dimensional, while the other is something which is beyond conceptualizations"
>Beyond conceptualizations.
All 1-As are beyond concepts. Even a High 1-C would be beyond most concepts we have. You don't seem to get how 1-As work.
"Again countering your previous argument, under those terms we shouldn't have a tier High 1-A or 0 either, since omnipotence cannot be proven and leads to fruitless arguments."
You don't seem to know what High 1-A or Tier 0 are either, since neither are Omnipotent.
"Finally, the other wikis derive their systems FROM US. Therefore, it would be courteous to at least consider the idea instead of instantly trying to extinguish it because it's "complicated"."
No? Why should we be helping copycats now? What manner of argument is this. People steal and copy our system, modify it, or create systems merely based on this all the time.
Also: You addressed nothing of the post you copied.
No, I am pointing out language I find silly or ridiculous. It simply fits what I already see happening over and over:
I mean no offense, but people often try to sound more intelligent than they probably are using fanciful words and such.
"I am well aware of all the concepts which are put in place on this wiki and simply saying "no," based on the fact that it "complicates," things because it requires that certain profiles might need a slight addendum is ludicrous."
Read my posts. I give plenty of reasons but you are dismissing them with a strawman that my only argument is that it "complicates things".
"There is no, "hype," here whatsoever. I, and the others who have spent hours formulating these ideas, have thought that it would perhaps add more diversity to the character profiles in that they would portray more accuracy than simply not evaluating them differently at all."
It doesn't matter how much time you spend formulating this if it's wrong.
"You also have failed to address the fact ACF is something which we have based our tiering system around."
Then I hate to shatter the bubble, but our Tiering System is only based on ACF's, it's not a Carbon Copy. There's several differences already.
"This would help alleviate the "lazy," concern too. Maybe people would be able to accurately gauge whether two characters deserve to be fighting instead of simply creating redundant threads which lead nowhere. Again, this would help the 1-A battles issue more than hinder it."
No, it wouldn't. If you are incapable of understanding a 1-A character you will be unable to understand 1-A characters with an artificial division between them.
"I also have no idea how you assume the two tiers are identical"
Simply put, you assume that you are able to identify a base level and perform a mathematical division for something beyond such things.
"e deals with exclusively being beyond-dimensional, while the other is something which is beyond conceptualizations"
>Beyond conceptualizations.
All 1-As are beyond concepts. Even a High 1-C would be beyond most concepts we have. You don't seem to get how 1-As work.
"Again countering your previous argument, under those terms we shouldn't have a tier High 1-A or 0 either, since omnipotence cannot be proven and leads to fruitless arguments."
You don't seem to know what High 1-A or Tier 0 are either, since neither are Omnipotent.
"Finally, the other wikis derive their systems FROM US. Therefore, it would be courteous to at least consider the idea instead of instantly trying to extinguish it because it's "complicated"."
No? Why should we be helping copycats now? What manner of argument is this. People steal and copy our system, modify it, or create systems merely based on this all the time.
Also: You addressed nothing of the post you copied.
- 8,998
- 2,927
And if VS Matches don't play any role in this, it's even more reason I don't see why we would need a Low 1-A when the characters are still beyond all dimensions nonetheless and will have justifications for their tiers and where they stand at in their respective profiles.
- 2,650
- 467
Because at this point, it's essentially a throwaway tier for anything to complex to explain. Beyond dimensions? Okay, it goes there. Beyond all existence and comprehension and any other words and ideas? Also goes there. Makes sense? No, it really doesn't. And we have gone to the trouble of gathering several profiles, as well.
- 12,239
- 1,112
Thats a good point Fate, now I gotta think about this shit and my stance.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"Also, just because something is beyond numbers, does not mean it is beyond concepts. For instance, the Downstreamers may *understand* why existence functions how it does, but they aren't transcendent of LITERALLY everything. If you could exist in an n-dimensional space, does that mean you transcend the concept of hierarchies? No. Simply being beyond euclidean geometry does not even mean you are beyond numbers themselves, just that you can exist and manipulate realms which are not bound by dimensional space and time."
What.
This is exactly what I mean in what I've been saying. You are overanalyzing things.
What.
This is exactly what I mean in what I've been saying. You are overanalyzing things.
- 32,358
- 20,298
It does make perfect sense. I'm sorry if you have a problem with it.Aeyu said:
Also, something that is beyond the first is also the second.
- 8,998
- 2,927
Well, my stance is that one. Won't try to be convincing anyone else from now on, but if people count support and opposition by the end of this or something, count me as opposition.
Peace out.
Peace out.
- 4,652
- 1,328
I'm going to side with Matt here as well.
Dividing a tier that is literally infinite and trancends concepts to begin with accomplishes nothing.
Dividing a tier that is literally infinite and trancends concepts to begin with accomplishes nothing.
- 12,239
- 1,112
Well to be fair Matt, overanalyzing things is what we do here.
- 32,358
- 20,298
No. We analyze things. Overanalyzing is completely different.TheJ-ManRequiem said:
- 2,650
- 467
>language I find silly
>more intelligent than they are
So you admit that you're attacking me instead of the argument.
First off, I don't understand how you assume the division is artificial. It's based *entirely* off of conceptual differences.
Do writers all the time care about logic? No, they don't. We account for this.
Also. Where does it state that 1-As are INHERENTLY beyond numbers, or concepts? Furthermore, mathematically speaking, and logically, there is no way to PROVE that argument. Sure, just because a 1-C is more complex conceptually than a 3-A, there might be many 3-D concepts they transcend, but there could also be MORE concepts introduced at that level. Same with 1-A. If all 1-As are defined the same, why could Hypnos not comprehend the Outer Gods, for instance? Even the weakest ones?
The High 1-A / 0, then. How do you assume I don't know what they are or that they're *not* considered near questionably omnipotent? That's the crux of their tier and why they're defined as being such, otherwise 1-A would be the logical limit, would it not?
>overanalyzing
Then why have this site? Is it not for character analysis?
>more intelligent than they are
So you admit that you're attacking me instead of the argument.
First off, I don't understand how you assume the division is artificial. It's based *entirely* off of conceptual differences.
Do writers all the time care about logic? No, they don't. We account for this.
Also. Where does it state that 1-As are INHERENTLY beyond numbers, or concepts? Furthermore, mathematically speaking, and logically, there is no way to PROVE that argument. Sure, just because a 1-C is more complex conceptually than a 3-A, there might be many 3-D concepts they transcend, but there could also be MORE concepts introduced at that level. Same with 1-A. If all 1-As are defined the same, why could Hypnos not comprehend the Outer Gods, for instance? Even the weakest ones?
The High 1-A / 0, then. How do you assume I don't know what they are or that they're *not* considered near questionably omnipotent? That's the crux of their tier and why they're defined as being such, otherwise 1-A would be the logical limit, would it not?
>overanalyzing
Then why have this site? Is it not for character analysis?
- 10,394
- 3,348
Analyzing and overanalyzing are different things.
"So you admit that you're attacking me instead of the argument."
He literally immediately followed that up with "no offense".
"So you admit that you're attacking me instead of the argument."
He literally immediately followed that up with "no offense".
- 32,358
- 20,298
It's not a personal attack, it's just an observation of a pattern I have seem consistently on my two years here and on other Debating Sites:
Certain people like to sound smart, and it is very easy to identify when someone is trying to sound smarter than they are.
I don't mean that you are malicious or arrogant or dumb or anything, nor that you are doing any of this by design. Maybe you're just impressionable.
Hell, I was pretty impressionable too and I used to be fixated on 1-As and similarly high-end things. I grew out of it. I know plenty of other people here who went through similar developments.
But aside from that...
"Do writers all the time care about logic? No, they don't. We account for this."
No, but writers often do care for the internal consistency and inner logic of their works. In rare cases, some works of fiction do the quantification for us, or are even self-aware of how overpowered they are (Saint Seiya is a prime example. There's even internal jokes about how fast the characters are).
"It's based *entirely* off of conceptual difference"
Which don't exist.
"Also. Where does it state that 1-As are INHERENTLY beyond numbers, or concepts? "
Read the page for Transduality. All 1-As have that. By transcending infinite dimensions of space and time, you transcend mathematical quantifications and the concepts bound to that.
It's that simple.
"Sure, just because a 1-C is more complex conceptually than a 3-A, there might be many 3-D concepts they transcend, but there could also be MORE concepts introduced at that level. Same with 1-A"
Only concepts on a 1-A scale that are beyond quantification. Not the concepts you speak of.
"Same with 1-A. If all 1-As are defined the same, why could Hypnos not comprehend the Outer Gods, for instance"
Because that's how big the 1-A gap is. Just deal with it.
"The High 1-A / 0, then. How do you assume I don't know what they are or that they're *not* considered near questionably omnipotent"
Because you brought up the Omnipotence Paradox, implying you thought they were real Omnipotents when they're not.
Certain people like to sound smart, and it is very easy to identify when someone is trying to sound smarter than they are.
I don't mean that you are malicious or arrogant or dumb or anything, nor that you are doing any of this by design. Maybe you're just impressionable.
Hell, I was pretty impressionable too and I used to be fixated on 1-As and similarly high-end things. I grew out of it. I know plenty of other people here who went through similar developments.
But aside from that...
"Do writers all the time care about logic? No, they don't. We account for this."
No, but writers often do care for the internal consistency and inner logic of their works. In rare cases, some works of fiction do the quantification for us, or are even self-aware of how overpowered they are (Saint Seiya is a prime example. There's even internal jokes about how fast the characters are).
"It's based *entirely* off of conceptual difference"
Which don't exist.
"Also. Where does it state that 1-As are INHERENTLY beyond numbers, or concepts? "
Read the page for Transduality. All 1-As have that. By transcending infinite dimensions of space and time, you transcend mathematical quantifications and the concepts bound to that.
It's that simple.
"Sure, just because a 1-C is more complex conceptually than a 3-A, there might be many 3-D concepts they transcend, but there could also be MORE concepts introduced at that level. Same with 1-A"
Only concepts on a 1-A scale that are beyond quantification. Not the concepts you speak of.
"Same with 1-A. If all 1-As are defined the same, why could Hypnos not comprehend the Outer Gods, for instance"
Because that's how big the 1-A gap is. Just deal with it.
"The High 1-A / 0, then. How do you assume I don't know what they are or that they're *not* considered near questionably omnipotent"
Because you brought up the Omnipotence Paradox, implying you thought they were real Omnipotents when they're not.
- 2,650
- 467
It's not a "fixation," and I take umbrage to that. I am not a child, nor obsessive. I merely deal in my work with the concept of beyond-dimensional concepts and as such I and others had thought it to be a useful addition to an already good tiering system; it's not an attempt to undermine the work of many intelligent individuals.
Regarding writers and their usage of concepts, there are many who HAVE differentiated this, Lovecraft especially, and it could reflect well on their intentions of defining where a character is regarding hierarchies, which 1-As still fall under, thus, not transcending all concepts. By your definition, this would be impossible anyway.
How do you figure the conceptual difference doesn't exist? If Hypnos truly transcended all concepts, or the Throne, or whatever, hierarchies would not exist to them. They would all be at equal and unparalleled status in relation to one another.
>only the concepts you speak of
What's the difference? A concept is still a concept. We can conceive of mathematical worlds that are non-dimensional already. We can conceive of higher-dimensional physics.
>just deal with it
That doesn't sound a convincing enough argument.
>brought up omnipotence paradox, implying
And you're implying I thought they were "real omnipotents," once again implying yourself that I'm referencing reality/fiction interaction, which I have not mentioned even once. I am talking completely about within the context of fiction, not outside of it. Hence, QUESTIONABLY omnipotent.
Regarding writers and their usage of concepts, there are many who HAVE differentiated this, Lovecraft especially, and it could reflect well on their intentions of defining where a character is regarding hierarchies, which 1-As still fall under, thus, not transcending all concepts. By your definition, this would be impossible anyway.
How do you figure the conceptual difference doesn't exist? If Hypnos truly transcended all concepts, or the Throne, or whatever, hierarchies would not exist to them. They would all be at equal and unparalleled status in relation to one another.
>only the concepts you speak of
What's the difference? A concept is still a concept. We can conceive of mathematical worlds that are non-dimensional already. We can conceive of higher-dimensional physics.
>just deal with it
That doesn't sound a convincing enough argument.
>brought up omnipotence paradox, implying
And you're implying I thought they were "real omnipotents," once again implying yourself that I'm referencing reality/fiction interaction, which I have not mentioned even once. I am talking completely about within the context of fiction, not outside of it. Hence, QUESTIONABLY omnipotent.
- 32,358
- 20,298
"Then why have this site? Is it not for character analysis?"
It's for Character Analysis, Appreciation, Discussion, Conversation, Calculations, for people to share and talk about series they like, make profiles and revise profiles, make blogs.
It's not about over-analysis.
It's for Character Analysis, Appreciation, Discussion, Conversation, Calculations, for people to share and talk about series they like, make profiles and revise profiles, make blogs.
It's not about over-analysis.
- 8,998
- 2,927
To be quite blunt, the fact that it's an unnecessary expansion altogether that will change borderline nothing in the long run and may result in unneeded overcomplication later as opposed to simplifying anything.Aeyu said:
- 12,239
- 1,112
This is starting to look like it's gonna turn bad, I'm changing my posistion to neutral as Fatevmade some decent points.
But Matt, does it matter what Asyu acts like? It doesn't matter if you seen this before, or whatever, this is now not then and Asyu ain't thise people, it has no bearings on your two's arguments.
Make good solid arguments on the topic at hand and debunk each other or reason, don't bring stuff like that into this.
But Matt, does it matter what Asyu acts like? It doesn't matter if you seen this before, or whatever, this is now not then and Asyu ain't thise people, it has no bearings on your two's arguments.
Make good solid arguments on the topic at hand and debunk each other or reason, don't bring stuff like that into this.
- 1,604
- 1,534
I'd say it's an unessasary division. The tier is so vast you could seperate it into endless sections and still have immesurable gaps in power beetween them all that could be split apart further. You have to draw the line of where you stop trying to make extra tiers leading up to omnipotence. Also if a person takes the time to research the character in multiple sources, if they even can be quantified within the tier, that is always the best way to get the info and figure out where they stand. Its impossible to come close to having all the info and precise placement for all the characters on the wiki.
- Status
