• 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.

Why i hate tiktok scalers(Shinra Outerversal)

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's a difference between making fun of a community and disagreeing with them, most of the comments here have just been people making fun of Tik Tok scalers, which they deserve, but it's against the rules lol.
 
Guardian_Doge said:
Yeah no, that wouldn’t be my burden to prove then, you’re the one making the positive claim. In which I ask you

Why would creating all concepts make you above every complexity and layers of dimensionality? Why should we automatically allow that to qualify when that way of thinking is too lenient and literally a majority of verses could abuse that logic.

Also don’t even get me started on platonic concepts, did you know that euclidean squares exists in the realm of forms? Yeah the concept of a 2nd dimensional structure isn’t 1-A. The only arguable thing that can be argued to 1-A is The form of good, and ONLY under the presupposition that we are setting the mindscape in context of platonist that allow infinite sets and not finitist like Plato himself.

Transcending all dualities also means nothing. What if I make a 5-D character that transcends all dualities? Wouldn’t mean it’s beyond any and all extensions of a system automatically.
Click to expand...
All "layers" of dimensionality are still part of the concept of dimensionality. Transcending all concepts or creating all of them would scale you beyond them

Prove that euclidean squares exist in the world of forms

Why would the 5D character transcend all dualities? Thats self contradictory
 
Bernkastelll said:
source?
Click to expand...
books.google.com.sg

Theaetetus

What is knowledge? A systematic treatment of this question takes the form of a dialogue between the great philosopher Socrates and his student, Theaetetus. They explore a variety of answers, including knowledge as perception; knowledge as true belief; knowledge as true belief plus an account...
books.google.com.sg
 
Where does current shinra scale actually? And why isn't his new form in his profile
 
once i saw a 11D goku scale on tik tok

the mf who made the scale also said it was a low ball bruh
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
All "layers" of dimensionality are still part of the concept of dimensionality. Transcending all concepts or creating all of them would scale you beyond them
Click to expand...
You would have to prove:
-concept of dimensions exists in the verse
-The usage of the word "dimensionality" is broad enough in the context of the verse to encompass a cosmology big enough that transcending it would validate 1-A
XXKINGXX69 said:
Why would the 5D character transcend all dualities? Thats self contradictory
Click to expand...
Any less than omnipotent character transcending "all dualities" would be contradictory, as you can make up arbitrary dualities for the presence or absence of any kind of properties or meta properties. It all comes down to whether you can validate "all dualities" in the verse being contextually strong enough to validate 1-A.
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
All "layers" of dimensionality are still part of the concept of dimensionality. Transcending all concepts or creating all of them would scale you beyond them
Click to expand...
Flawed logic. One world can have higher existential concepts then another. You seem to be one of those “conceptual transcendence is inaccessible transcendence” believers when that’s not how it works.

To put what I just said in perspective, imagine a continuum or world simply. We’ll say there’s 10 layers to it, the concept of dimensions can be limited in one layer of the world e.g the concept of 4-D, 5-D, 6-D, all of this would ultimately be below the unifying principle of dimensions, which in a system would be a greater concept then regular concept A. But a principle itself only covers the X amount of dimensions not the foundation of the system. Because that role goes to axioms, because that inducts the entire system and all complexities of it, why do you think the axiom of infinity here is treated as the reassurance of an infinite set within native set theory.

TL;DR You’re wrong, and your seemingly instigative attitude as well as your smug remarks of “evidence, disprove it, proof?” doesn’t make your argument any stronger than it already is weak.

XXKINGXX69 said:
Prove that euclidean squares exist in the world of forms
Click to expand...
Done.
 
KLOL506 said:
TikTok as a whole is trash even if you discard the scaling portion. TikTok= Opinion automatically invalid
Click to expand...

I remember when some dude named Rose_kai scaled Freya to Outerversal… Up till this day I ask him for the volume and chapter of his Light novel scans
 
Guardian_Doge said:
Flawed logic. One world can have higher existential concepts then another. You seem to be one of those “conceptual transcendence is inaccessible transcendence” believers when that’s not how it works.

To put what I just said in perspective, imagine a continuum or world simply. We’ll say there’s 10 layers to it, the concept of dimensions can be limited in one layer of the world e.g the concept of 4-D, 5-D, 6-D, all of this would ultimately be below the unifying principle of dimensions, which in a system would be a greater concept then regular concept A. But a principle itself only covers the X amount of dimensions not the foundation of the system. Because that role goes to axioms, because that inducts the entire system and all complexities of it, why do you think the axiom of infinity here is treated as the reassurance of an infinite set within native set theory.

TL;DR You’re wrong, and your seemingly instigative attitude as well as your smug remarks of “evidence, disprove it, proof?” doesn’t make your argument any stronger than it already is weak.


Done.
Click to expand...
Why would an inaccessible transcendence be relevant here when we're talking about something beyond all concepts of that?

What is a "layer"? That's just a made up term. And why would "principles" and "axioms" not be included in the concept of dimensions?

That doesn't say they exist in the world of forms, just that they exist, and even if they did exist in the world of forms, it wouldn't contradict it being 1-A
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
Why would an inaccessible transcendence be relevant here when we're talking about something beyond all concepts of that?
Click to expand...
???
You are treating "Character B is beyond all concepts and created them" as somehow a citation to become 1-A because you seem to fail any basic understanding of conceptual existence. Okay, touhou primordial gods are High 1-A now, because they are conceptless to the concept of dimensions. See how fallacious what you're arguing is?

XXKINGXX69 said:
What is a "layer"? That's just a made up term. And why would "principles" and "axioms" not be included in the concept of dimensions?
Click to expand...
Wow, you actually just have proven to not only me, but the ENTIRE wiki that
  1. You know nothing about scaling and just open your mouth because you're allowed to.
  2. Or you're just a blatant waste of everybody's time.
A "principle" is not included in the "concept" of dimensions because principles are the basis and foundation of every concept that exists or does not exist, without a principle, a concept cannot exist.
An "axiom" cannot be included in the concept of dimensions because axioms are the utmost highest point of a "concept" or in this case system. Without a "fundamental truth" to go off of, there cannot be any existence of a basis of concepts nor principles, because that world is logically impossible.

XXKINGXX69 said:
That doesn't say they exist in the world of forms, just that they exist, and even if they did exist in the world of forms, it wouldn't contradict it being 1-A
Click to expand...
.......
mathematical objects are not the only immaterial objects.
Click to expand...
??????
Oh if that's not enough, literally look up on almost any source, and it will tell you, platonist believe that mathematical structures exists in the mindscape.

That doesn't say they exist in the world of forms, just that they exist, and even if they did exist in the world of forms, it wouldn't contradict it being 1-A
Click to expand...
And yes it would?? Literally states natural numbers exists in the world of forms, the concept of 22 apples is not 1-A. Either you actually bring something good to the table to debate or I just dismiss all your claims, because you don't have the knowledge to back up what you say, and it shows.
 
Guardian_Doge said:
???
You are treating "Character B is beyond all concepts and created them" as somehow a citation to become 1-A because you seem to fail any basic understanding of conceptual existence. Okay, touhou primordial gods are High 1-A now, because they are conceptless to the concept of dimensions. See how fallacious what you're arguing is?


Wow, you actually just have proven to not only me, but the ENTIRE wiki that
  1. You know nothing about scaling and just open your mouth because you're allowed to.
  2. Or you're just a blatant waste of everybody's time.
A "principle" is not included in the "concept" of dimensions because principles are the basis and foundation of every concept that exists or does not exist, without a principle, a concept cannot exist.
An "axiom" cannot be included in the concept of dimensions because axioms are the utmost highest point of a "concept" or in this case system. Without a "fundamental truth" to go off of, there cannot be any existence of a basis of concepts nor principles, because that world is logically impossible.


.......

??????
Oh if that's not enough, literally look up on almost any source, and it will tell you, platonist believe that mathematical structures exists in the mindscape.


And yes it would?? Literally states natural numbers exists in the world of forms, the concept of 22 apples is not 1-A. Either you actually bring something good to the table to debate or I just dismiss all your claims, because you don't have the knowledge to back up what you say, and it shows.
Click to expand...
I don't care about Touhou

Why is a principle the basis and foundation of every concept? And where are you getting that definition of axiom from?

How the hell is numbers existing in the world of forms relevant here at all?
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
I don't care about Touhou
Click to expand...
Which wasn't the point, it was show the instability of the logic you're proposing.
XXKINGXX69 said:
Why is a principle the basis and foundation of every concept? And where are you getting that definition of axiom from?
Click to expand...

principle:
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

A concept is merely a general notion or abstract idea, while a principle allows such general ideas to arise.

And the definition of the axiom is verbatim on here.

XXKINGXX69 said:
How the hell is numbers existing in the world of forms relevant here at all?
Click to expand...
You CANNOT be serious right? A natural number literally is what we humans use to count a given number of objects, you're proposing that simply again "22 apples" is 1-A. Natural numbers also belong to aleph null, that's its corresponding aleph which is only high 1-B at it's peak.
 
Guardian_Doge said:
Which wasn't the point, it was show the instability of the logic you're proposing.


principle:
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

A concept is merely a general notion or abstract idea, while a principle allows such general ideas to arise.

And the definition of the axiom is verbatim on here.


You CANNOT be serious right? A natural number literally is what we humans use to count a given number of objects, you're proposing that simply again "22 apples" is 1-A. Natural numbers also belong to aleph null, that's its corresponding aleph which is only high 1-B at it's peak.
Click to expand...
Existing in a 1-A realm doesnt even make you 1-A so that point is null

You're appealing to vsbw's website like its some objective definition

A concept is just the idea as a whole, which includes the principle, same for axiom
 
XXKINGXX69 said:
Existing in a 1-A realm doesnt even make you 1-A so that point is null
Click to expand...
Which loses its value to your own very logic. You said "hey this person scales beyond all concepts and created them so he's 1-A" which is exactly what the primordial gods did. It amazes me you couldn't even identify the justification I used given it's exactly the case here.
XXKINGXX69 said:
You're appealing to vsbw's website like its some objective definition
Click to expand...
And you're disregarding it as if your personal interpretation holds more value than the very tiering we use. Also look at wikipedia:
An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Click to expand...
States that an axiom is the starting point for any other general notion to be added onto. They inherently are > concepts. How do you not see this?

XXKINGXX69 said:
A concept is just the idea as a whole, which includes the principle, same for axiom
Click to expand...
A concept is a general idea of something.
A principle is the foundation of that general idea.
An axiom is the starting point of any principle or concept thus makes up the entirety of a system.
 
Guardian_Doge said:
Which loses its value to your own very logic. You said "hey this person scales beyond all concepts and created them so he's 1-A" which is exactly what the primordial gods did. It amazes me you couldn't even identify the justification I used given it's exactly the case here.

And you're disregarding it as if your personal interpretation holds more value than the very tiering we use. Also look at wikipedia:

States that an axiom is the starting point for any other general notion to be added onto. They inherently are > concepts. How do you not see this?


A concept is a general idea of something.
A principle is the foundation of that general idea.
An axiom is the starting point of any principle or concept thus makes up the entirety of a system.
Click to expand...
Its not even about existing in a 1-A place, more like being superior to all concepts

If they're the "starting point" of a notion, they are still part of it. The foundation of that general idea would also be part of the idea
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shinra outerversal
Replies
8
Views
1K
LuisGeno
LuisGeno
Fallen_Angelicx
  • Locked
Wang Ling (Anime) Vs. Shinra Kasukabe
Replies
33
Views
3K
Fallen_Angelicx
Fallen_Angelicx
Who is Smarter - Stop Scaling Method
Replies
0
Views
1K
Savior
Seriall001
Why did fire force cosmology become 2-c?
2
Replies
75
Views
4K
SeijiSetto
SeijiSetto
RandommmDebater
DMC's new updates
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
Palito266
Palito266
Back
Top