• 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.

About the Star Maker

Ultima_Reality

?????????
VS Battles
Administrator
6,195
16,480
Because I am a prick.

the thingy
So, The Star Maker is rated at 1-A primarily because of this:

"Created cosmoses that precede the concept of dimensions. Created infinite cosmoses with infinite diversity, including dimensionless "cosmoses" where its creatures were each existing in independence from each other. Only acting in stimulation of the Star Maker, these creatures had their own reality conceived by the figments of its imagination. Created non-spatial cosmoses, cosmoses where time doesn't exist and cosmoses with no physical nature. Created the hierarchy of creations which includes the cosmoses mentioned above, each cosmos in this hierarchy are greater and more complex than the last. The Star Maker created the Ultimate Cosmos, the most subtle and perfect cosmos that exists at the top of the hierarchy of creations. The Ultimate Cosmos has the essence of every cosmos and much more. All other previous cosmoses are irrelevant in comparison to the Ultimate Cosmos"

Looking at this justification alone I already noticed some pretty glaring problems with it, and how it apparently warrants an Outerversal rating. The profile isn't too clear about some stuff, so I will dissect some of the quotes present in the blog linked at the bottom of the page, which is supposed to elaborate on why that thing is 1-A and yada yada:

Space, my dream declared, appeared first as a development of a non-spatial dimension in a "musical" cosmos. The tonal creatures in this cosmos could move not merely "up" and "down" the scale but "sideways." In human music particular themes may seem to approach or retreat, owing to variations of loudness and timbre. In a rather similar manner the creatures in this "musical" cosmos could approach one another or retreat and finally vanish out of earshot. In passing "sideways" they traveled through continuously changing tonal environments. In a subsequent cosmos this "sideways" motion of the creatures was enriched with true spatial experience.

Many of these early universes were non-spatial, though none the less physical. And of these non-spatial universes not a few were of the "musical" type, in which space was strangely represented by a dimension corresponding to musical pitch, and capacious with myriads of tonal differences. The creatures appeared to one another as complex patterns and rhythms of tonal characters. They could move their tonal bodies in the dimension of pitch, and sometimes in other dimensions, humanly inconceivable. A creature's body was a more or less constant tonal pattern, with much the same degree of flexibility and minor changefulness as a human body. Also, it could traverse other living bodies in the pitch dimension much as wave-trains on a pond may cross one another.


This is not an indication that the first Cosmoses created by the Star Maker preceded the concept of dimension, or anything of the sort. In fact the very text debunks that, as it says they did possess Dimensions of a non-spatiotemporal, more abstract nature, and even goes as far as stating they were still physical in nature, in spite of the fact they lacked any form of spatial existence. This alone should already prove the Star Maker's feat isn't 1-A in scale, but I'd rather elaborate a bit more on it, for clarity's sake. This is an argument I already used a bunch of times in past threads and I'm pretty sure at least some of you know the gist of it, but aaaaanyways...

Basically, the whole point of the Tiering System is to measure objects and spaces based on the notion of geometrical size (dImInShUnS), pretty much extending the notion of "X is bigger than Y" to fit into higher-end stuffs. The thing is that in the context of it, lacking spatiotemporal dimensions/existence isn't an indicator that you are bigger or smaller than anything, rather it would indicate that you are really ******' weird in nature and have no actual quantifiable size. This obviously shouldn't impact tiering, as it is all about AP and sheer size in the first place.

Lacking something is obviously vastly different from being outright superior to it in nature, conflating the two and saying something of an aspatiotemporal nature would automatically stomp anything bound by space-time through sheer raw power is like saying something without capsaicin is hotter than any pepper. It would only mean these two specific constants wouldn't really apply to you, not that you're a transcendental god who perceives anything with a different nature as insects or something.

And by the way, looking at the quotes in the blog, this is exactly what the Star Maker demonstrates: He creates different universes with differing fundamental laws and constants, each more complex than the last in terms of structure. He is something like an artist going from drawing simple shapes and figures (Such as a stickman) to drawing genuine works of art, like famous paintings from the renaissance (Such as the Mona Lisa)

Literally nothing suggests the Universes he creates are hierarchically ascending planes or anything of the sort, as his profile seems to suggest, the fact cosmoses with actual defined laws and physical constants such as our own are deemed more complex than those that lack them by the story itself should speak volumes here.

In one inconceivably complex cosmos, whenever a creature was faced with several possible courses of action, it took them all, thereby creating many distinct temporal dimensions and distinct histories of the cosmos. Since in every evolutionary sequence of the cosmos there were very many creatures, and each was constantly faced with many possible courses, and the combinations of all their courses were innumerable, an infinity of distinct universes exfoliated from every moment of every temporal sequence in this cosmos.

I vaguely remember someone bringing up the fact that "Temporal Dimensions" are mentioned here to say this is a High 1-B feat. I may be remembering incorrectly but really, it's painfully obvious that this is referring to timelines which branch off of a singular universe.

I should also note he somehow has Plot Manipulation due to creating a Universe where the author and readers of the book are present. This just seems like metafictional shenanigans involving the sheer variety of the Cosmoses he creates resulting in worlds where Olaf Stapledon actually exists and is writing Star Maker. No different from another part of the book which says the Star Maker used to interfere with the initial Cosmoses he created by inducing revelations and epiphanies on people.
 
2-A seems like a pretty huge lowball. He could be "At least Low 1-C, likely far higher" or something due to creating Universes with multiple additional dimensions of time.
 
Ultima Reality said:
And by the way, looking at the quotes in the blog, this is exactly what the Star Maker demonstrates: He creates different universes with differing fundamental laws and constants, each more complex than the last in terms of structure. He is something like an artist going from drawing simple shapes and figures (Such as a stickman) to drawing genuine works of art, like famous paintings from the renaissance (Such as the Mona Lisa)
Hmmm... I wonder why this argument looks so familiar?


But putting aside my pettiness, I agree at what is being proposed here - I have always been one of the biggest vocal detractors of The Star Maker's supposed power, although I didn't realize that the drop off in his power would be so huge.

Despite that, as I said, I agree with the logic being presented here in this thread, it's a sound analysis on the character.

Good work, Ultima.
 
It is probably best to invite the people who have made major edits to the page in the past (check the editing history for the profile) to take part in this discussion.
 
I agree with the arguments put forward in the OP.
 
The lack of philosophycal points of view makes this a little bit uncomfortable to read the OP. Mostly because of the pages listed in the blog. On the other hand we had mathematical cosmoses that, if we go by the platonic mathematical-philosophies we can say that:

"Mathematical Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging. This is often claimed to be the view most people have of numbers. The term Platonism is used because such a view is seen to parallel Plato's Theory of Forms and a "World of Ideas" (Greek: eidos (╬Áß╝Â╬┤╬┐¤é)) described in Plato's allegory of the cave: the everyday world can only imperfectly approximate an unchanging, ultimate reality. Both Plato's cave and Platonism have meaningful, not just superficial connections, because Plato's ideas were preceded and probably influenced by the hugely popular Pythagoreans of ancient Greece, who believed that the world was, quite literally, generated by numbers."

Also the thing is that you don't specify which Maker's key you'll judge. A question here would be... what you consider a dimension? Because Stapledon specify with (") the directions he "saw" in the "dream of his dream". Now... I don't think that the points are so clear in the OP, but I think revisioning this character was necessary.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
Being based on a philosophy doesent mean you scale to it
However, if the verse clearly demonstrates it follows/is the same as the real life version, then it should scale on that account.

Otherwise it's going against Author intent and what would have been shown.
 
ZacharyGrossman273 said:
Define "follows"

Like, Shin Megami Tensei has Kabbalah, Hinduism, Gnosticism, and Buddhism, all of which have 1-A feats, as part of its lore.
Clearly follows what the original text has, Obviously no religion is composite, except maybe Greek and Roman mythos.

I don't think Shin Magami only has those religion's names too, none of their 1-A stuff.
 
Udlmaster said:
Clearly follows what the original text has, Obviously no religion is composite, except maybe Greek and Roman mythos.

I don't think Shin Magami only has those religion's names too, none of their 1-A stuff.
If it follows what the original text has then it shouldn't need that outside religion for feats; it should have the noteworthy feats itself.
 
Agnaa said:
If it follows what the original text has then it shouldn't need that outside religion for feats; it should have the noteworthy feats itself.
This is all in reference to the Platonic Math above, where the verse follows those ideals, and thus, is 1-A because of it.

It scales to Platonic Mathmatics as it follows it, in the same way many verses follow Quantum theory and the likes which gives them Quantum Hax.
 
Udlmaster said:
This is all in reference to the Platonic Math above, where the verse follows those ideals, and thus, is 1-A because of it.

It scales to Platonic Mathmatics as it follows it, in the same way many verses follow Quantum theory and the likes which gives them Quantum Hax.
Pretty sure verses with Quantum Hax only get as much as their verse describes. Also, some things tend to need more evidence than others. 9-B requires a simple statement of punching through a wall, but 1-A needs many statements of various kinds to be accepted. Just following a theory may be enough for some hax that's elaborated on in-verse, but not for one of the highest tiers on the site.

I'm not exactly sure with how much it "follows" Platonic Mathematics (?) so I can't comment on that, but I know that SCP had an SCP of a platonic 8-ball, with elaborate descriptions and many references to Plato's theory, as well as another SCP of using socratic dialogue to travel to a Platonic realm. These weren't accepted as giving 1-A as they lacked any actual beyond all possible dimensionality statements - it was just scaling to a real-life philosophy, which Dargoo compared to scaling one verse to another.
 
Yeah, I'm basically saying that if it shows clearly that it follows Platonic Mathmatics, then by Author intent, we should follow it.
 
Can you please elaborate a little bit more, Zach? Don't depend on someone else to give their point of view and you just agree with them. Tell what YOU think, here's what matters the most. Because things here mean to discuss what you think, no just others views.

That aside, if we go by our standards, The Maker is... "Baseline" by Zachary's means. But the thing is that, when you dive deep into the philosophy that Stapledon writes, The Maker is even more complex than some our Tier 1. I bring the philosophical matters here because I've been reading some Stapledon's non-fiction books and he was also a philosopher besides a fiction writer.

BTW I'm not saying that Zach is wrong just by saying "baseline" like this. The thing is that there's no way to measure The Maker's trascendence. There's no references, no power levels, no other Maker... hell, even the character doesn't have a personality nor individuality. The thing is that it keeps evolving even after reaching The Eternity Point of View. When the book says that is omnipresent, it means it, because The Maker is EVERYTHING. Literally
 
The point is that philosophy and religion really don't belong here. They are basically anathema to the purpose of this site, which is indexing fictional characters from an objective point of view, based on hard facts and evidence - Both of which don't at all fit in neither a religious nor a philosophical context. Treating those things as if they were fictional environments that can be nitpicked and critically analyzed like a normal verse is ridiculous, disrespectful and sorta missing the point by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.

In short, philosophical arguments are irrelevant here. We analyze stuff from an objective point of view, and that's the end of it.
 
Ummmmm... disrespecful? But Ultima, my point is not to dismiss the arguments others bring here. My point is to remark the things that Stapledon uses as his reference regarding what The Maker can do according to his philosophical studies. The character in question is a simple one: The Maker is everything, and everything is The Maker. Mostly because of the philosophy about the mathematical entities that, according to platonism. doesn't need space nor time. When he wrote that in "The Star Maker", he knew the... "trascendence" level that the mathematical entities represents. Not saying that you're wrong either, but when we talk about beyond dimensional stuff, philosophy is very relevant if both characters are not in the same verse. In that case, philosophy and debate are kinda synonyms regarding the whole analytical thing that's objective.

Not wanting to say "YyUOUUU aRRRRRR 'rRRrrrrong... mate", since I don't want to impose myself over other people's point of view regarding a character in a wikia.

Now... I have to read some psychological things for college.
 
Wait

I might have found an infinite dimensional statement + a 1-A feat

"There followed creations with spatial characters of several dimensions, creations Euclidean and non-Euclidean, creations exemplifying a great diversity of geometrical and physical principles. Sometimes time, or space-time, was the fundamental reality of the cosmos, and the entities were but fleeting modifications of it; but more often, qualitative events were fundamental, and these were related in spatio-temporal manners. In some cases the system of spatial relations was infinite, in others finite though boundless. In some the finite extent of space was of constant magnitude in relation to the atomic material constituents of the cosmos; in some, as in our own cosmos, it was manifested as in many respects "expanding." In others again space "contracted"; so that the end of such a cosmos, rich perhaps in intelligent communities, was the collision and congestion of all its parts, and their final coincidence and vanishing into a dimensionless point."
 
"Infinite system of spatial relations" is vague as all hell, and "dimensionless" here refers to 0-D, not beyond-dimensional or whatever. I already explained why dimensionlessness is unquantifiable with no context in the OP anyways.
 
What about this?

"In one inconceivably complex cosmos, whenever a creature was faced with several possible courses of action, it took them all, thereby creating many distinct temporal dimensions and distinct histories of the cosmos. Since in every evolutionary sequence of the cosmos there were very many creatures, and each was constantly faced with many possible courses, and the combinations of all their courses were innumerable, an infinity of distinct universes exfoliated from every moment of every temporal sequence in this cosmos."
 
Back
Top