Void question

[SweetDao]

So, what if a void is said to be :

"The nothingness was the starting point of all action and thought, in fact, was the background that defined action and thought, that defined somethingness."

" [...] The void might be actually be necessary for our existence. As the total emptiness of the Void was clearly an essential part of its nature, we celebrated that emptiness."

Could that be anything above 1-A? Obviously, I didn't put every description of it, but just wondered if those two descriptions could warrant something higher. (so assume it's baseline 1-A)

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

So, what if a void is said to be :


Could that be anything above 1-A? Obviously, I didn't put every description of it, but just wondered if those two descriptions could warrant something higher. (so assume it's baseline 1-A)

I don't think this alone is enough for things like High 1A+, but anything above 1A is mostly cosmology dependent. Tho, if the verse makes some distinction between any sort of "Reality Fiction" stuff and the void is the background of both, it can very well be High 1-A.

 

[SweetDao]

I don't think this alone is enough for things like High 1A+, but anything above 1A is mostly cosmology dependent. Tho, if the verse makes some distinction between any sort of "Reality Fiction" stuff and the void is the background of both, it can very well be High 1-A.

Can't it be something like tier 0? It's not like there are any "limits" to the world that can be created, as stated above.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Can't it be something like tier 0? It's not like there are any "limits" to the world that can be created, as stated above.

Technically, it can be, but just this description likely won't be enough to rate it at tier 0. Albeit, it can be used as a supporting evidence.
I remember a staff, likely Ultima, using a graphical depiction of a tier 0 as the infinite background of a circumference, where the circumference was the set of all logically possible things.

 

[SweetDao]

Technically, it can be, but just this description likely won't be enough to rate it at tier 0. Albeit, it can be used as a supporting evidence.
I remember a staff, likely Ultima, using a graphical depiction of a tier 0 as the infinite background of a circumference, where the circumference was the set of all logically possible things.

Which kind of additional evidences would it need?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Technically, it can be, but just this description likely won't be enough to rate it at tier 0. Albeit, it can be used as a supporting evidence.
I remember a staff, likely Ultima, using a graphical depiction of a tier 0 as the infinite background of a circumference, where the circumference was the set of all logically possible things.

If I remember correctly, in a DC thread a void got Tier 0.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Which kind of additional evidences would it need?

I think would need context like it lacking any distinction at all, even between oneness and manyness. For example, it being the all in one and one in all simultaneously, the infinitely small original quality existing in every element as well as the circumference that defines the boundary of logic, but even that falling infinitely below its true nature, is a good way to start.
It being incomprehensible in all ways is also a good example, and stuff like everything being an illusion or inferior to it is a good way to prove tier 0 as well.

If I remember correctly, in a DC thread a void got Tier 0.

The Ocean of nothingness? I think that was the name, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[SweetDao]

I think would need context like it lacking any distinction at all, even between oneness and manyness.

This?

Not much was happening at that time. As a matter of fact, time didn’t exist. Nor space. When you looked out into the Void, you were really looking at nothing more than your own thought. And if you tried to picture wind or stars or water, you could not give form or texture to your notions. Those things did not exist. Smooth, rough, waxy, sharp, prickly, brittle—even qualities such as these lacked meaning. Practically everything slept in an infinite torpor of potentiality. I knew that I could make whatever I wanted. But that was the problem. Unlimited possibilities bring unlimited indecision.

 

[Digital_Franz]

The Ocean of nothingness? I think that was the name, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah I think.

 

[Voidnether]

So, what if a void is said to be :

Could that be anything above 1-A? Obviously, I didn't put every description of it, but just wondered if those two descriptions could warrant something higher. (so assume it's baseline 1-A)

Even for 1-A, it's still very vague as Void here isn't described as something that's vaster than dimensions, space-time, etc (reality themselves) but rather the starting point — Sounds like Singularity, tbh.

I believe it wouldn't get higher than 1-A (Assuming it was baseline 1-A), as High 1-A requires you to transcend the duality of non 1-A and 1-A (In which case, it's probably the Void that's being transcended here).

And I don't see anything remotely close enough to Tier 0, except if the Void is explained as something that's the foundational principle of reality and basically Tier 0 qualities on the Omnipotence page.

 

[SweetDao]

Even for 1-A, it's still very vague as Void here isn't described as something that's vaster than dimensions, space-time, etc (reality themselves) but rather the starting point — Sounds like Singularity, tbh.

It still exists devoided of time and space (being unchanging, basically) despite time/space being something. Similarly, it's said that within a universe (of whatever dimensions) it's a mathematical impossibility to reach the Void. Among other things, 1-A is more or less guaranteed.

I believe it wouldn't get higher than 1-A, as High 1-A requires you to transcend the duality of non 1-A and 1-A (In which case, it's probably the Void that's being transcended here).

I was more so referring to tier that doesn't need predetermined layers like High 1-A+ or Tier 0.

And I don't see anything remotely close enough to Tier 0, except if the Void is explained as something that's the foundational principle of reality and basically Tier 0 qualities on the Omnipotence page.

I mean, it's stated to be the background of thoughts and actions, what defined such things and somethingness in the first place.

Similarly, you have this:

Not much was happening at that time. As a matter of fact, time didn’t exist. Nor space. When you looked out into the Void, you were really looking at nothing more than your own thought. And if you tried to picture wind or stars or water, you could not give form or texture to your notions. Those things did not exist. Smooth, rough, waxy, sharp, prickly, brittle—even qualities such as these lacked meaning. Practically everything slept in an infinite torpor of potentiality. I knew that I could make whatever I wanted. But that was the problem. Unlimited possibilities bring unlimited indecision.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

This?

It lacking those specific qualities is not really a big deal, however, the "Infinite torpor of potentiality", "unlimited possibilities", "You could not give form or texture to your notions" seem to be promising, however, neither of those suggest the lack of distinction between one-ness and many-ness.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Even for 1-A, it's still very vague as Void here isn't described as something that's vaster than dimensions, space-time, etc (reality themselves) but rather the starting point — Sounds like Singularity, tbh.

I think it being the "background" that is necessary for "somethingness" to exist is enough to suggest that it's, at the very least, superior to space-time

 

[SweetDao]

It lacking those specific qualities is not really a big deal

No, you're misunderstanding the text. It's not that the void is lacking those qualities (well, it does, most likely) but it's the fact that QUALITIES themselves didn't have any meanings before the MC created them. Everything was merely potential.

I'll check if I can find something regarding oneness and manyness.

 

[SweetDao]

however, neither of those suggest the lack of distinction between one-ness and many-ness.

This? Basically, the "One" and the "Many" are things that can only exist in the "somethingness" that isn't the void.

And subtle. As soon as I had created quantum physics, all objects—even though objects at that point existed only in my mind—billowed out and swelled into a haze of indefinite position. All certainties changed into probabilities, and my thoughts bifurcated into dualities: yes and no, brittle and supple, on and on. Henceforth, things could be hither and yon at the same time. The One became Many. And a great softening blanket of indeterminancy wrapped itself over the Void.