• 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.

New profile posts

Hello fellow monke

Would you be kind enough to do a render for Ezio Auditore? Just a background removal while keeping the original resolution.

Here

Careful with the hood, if you zoom in enough you should be able to see the highlight area for where to mark the hood. Also, include the fur (The shoulder pads and the gauntlets, they seem obscured by the light but if you zoom in enough you will see the highlights and borders for where to cut) and be especially careful with the boots.
KLOL506
KLOL506
It's kinda hazy at certain parts.
MonkeyOfLife
MonkeyOfLife
True but it's still quite decent and the feathers is rendered very well... It would take me a long time for me to do a similar/better job that will only just look less hazy and barely be an improvement I feel like

And also the hazy stuff is mostly shown when zooming in, so I think the image should still be fine

Tho if you truly want another render of it, it's better to ask other image helpers as they'd be much faster than me, Sorry 🙏
KLOL506
KLOL506
I see. Thanks anyway.
Hi, could you please move this discussion to the vs battle Wiki vs thread section instead of Joke battles

Hmmm. If I may ask why anos have likely supergenius?
Take note that for a Supergenius rating to be given based on technological prowess, the character in question should be able to essentially warp reality as they wish on an at least universal (3-A) scale with their inventions, or even use them to overpower tier 1 entities for higher cases. Simply defying the laws of physics with futuristic technology is very common for Extraordinary Geniuses as well.
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
But Venuzdonoa isn't a technological Weapon
Dereck03
Dereck03
Supergenius: The highest level of non-omniscient intellect, possessed by individuals with unfathomably superhuman intelligence who are capable of creating impossibly advanced physics-defying and reality-warping fantasy technology for extremely diverse purposes.
It seems that you are taking technology as the only basis for gaining supergenius, in maou magic is much more complex than technology to the point that magic is Info type 2.

The Reason Destroying Sword <Venuzdonoa> (理滅剣 <ヴェヌズドノア>, Rimetsuken <Vu~enuzudonoa>), the magic sword of the founder which is the destroyer of anything in all of existence. No matter how sturdy, how eternal, or how infinite something is, Venuzdonoa can destroy it - even Reason itself

Venuzdonoa was created by transforming the God of Destruction Aberneyu's divine body and source into the Demon King Castle Delsgade, therefore distorting and disrupting the Order of Destruction, and transforming the God of Destruction's authority, the Sun of Destruction <Sargeldonave>, into a magic in the form of a sword that destroys reason.

Before this Reason Destroying Sword all reason is meaningless. Dimensions and spaces mean nothing to Venuzdonoa, and it reduces all logic to nothing. It's pointless to think about the "what", "how", or "why".
Destroy all creation no matter how infinite, concepts, laws, reason, information, destroy reason in order to destroy anything no matter how sturdy.

And the same method of creation depends on intelligence since Anos managed the order (fate, laws and concept) of destruction and at the slightest mistake the whole world would have been destroyed and thus managing information.

Also ant accepted the supergenius here.
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
I was asking this cuz I recently saw Antvasima saying supergenius is only given to those whose technological inventions are capable of affecting 3A and above, that's why I asked.

I think i need to confirm this topic with him once, if he reply .
Thnx for the reply.👍
Sorry to disturb you.
Mind giving your opinion on this?
Hello. Apparently I need permission to post on this thread, so could I have some permission? The thread is very long and I'm not sure if something that's essentially the same as my take's been raised already, so here's mine, please tell me if it's good/I can post it. Theoretically you could give me permission without reading my take as well, but I would appreciate feedback:

/my take begins here
In my opinion, superiority to dimensionality as Ultima puts it is illogical and contradictory. For one example of how it can easily lead to contradictions, consider a character who is aspatial as opposed to being dimensional, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all dimensional beings and is superior to dimensionality as a whole in terms of power due to their aspatiality. This is something that is explicitly brought up by Ultima and is viewed as perfectly valid. Now take a character who is dimensional as opposed to being aspatial. This second character is treated as being inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings in power due to their dimensionality. This in and of itself should not be a problem by Ultima's standards. To say otherwise is special pleading, as it is viewed to be perfectly fine for there to be "a character who has X characteristic, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all characters of Y characteristic due to having X characteristic (AKA the "mechanism attached to it that justifies its limitlessness" as Ultima called it)." Hopefully one can see the problem here. The two characters are completely contradictory, and there is no way of scaling the two if you take both descriptions as true. The first character would be stronger than the second character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the second character being a dimensional character. However, the second character would also be stronger than the first character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the first character being a dimensional character. This results in both characters being both inaccessibly stronger and inaccessibly weaker than the other. This is a contradiction.

From my understanding, this problem arises from allowing the arbitrarily decision of whether dimensionality or non-dimensionality is inaccessibly superior in power (or perhaps neither!) This is because one can arbitrarily decide that dimensionality is the more powerful end of the spectrum, whereas another can arbitrarily decide that non-dimensionality is more powerful. Allowing both decisions to be made inevitably allows for contradictions. These sorts of statements of "being superior to dimensionality" are essentially a category error (as mentioned by Ultima) of attributing "power" to "whether or not something is dimensional," an attribute which neither possesses power nor is it inherently connected to a certain level of power. The only solution is to either prohibit both of these arbitrary decisions (that is, to disregard both the idea of being "superior to dimensionality" and the idea of being "superior to non-dimensionality") or to prohibit one of them. The former must be implemented due to the latter being special pleading, as both arbitrary decisions are equally plausible. There is no logical reason to believe non-dimensionality is superior to dimensionality or vice versa other than "the author said so." Unfortunately, as demonstrated here, these would be author statements that inherently lead to contradictions and thus must be discarded.

/my take on RF transcendence begins here
The argument placed forth about reality-fiction vs quantitative superiority is likewise flawed. Reality-fiction differences are considered as being greater than dimensional differences due to the fact that the "RF-superior" (for lack of a better term) side views the "RF-inferior" side as literally being zero or nothing, and thus, no mathematical operation can possibly bring the "RF-inferior" side, which is zero, up to the level of the "RF-superior" side, which is non-zero. On the other hand, dimensional differences are said to simply be solved by infinite multiplication as a cube is said to be the sum of infinite squares. Since the former is such a large difference such that no mathematical operation can bridge the gap, whereas the latter can be bridged by simple infinite summation, the former ie RF transcendence must be treated as inherently greater than the latter ie dimensional transcendence, or so the argument goes. However, this line of argumentation causes a large problem considering a statement made later by Ultima, that being that "the square has 0 volume." Unlike what Ultima later said about a cube actually being the sum of infinite squares, a cube (which inherently has non-zero volume) CANNOT be formed from infinite squares (each of which is said to have zero volume). Ultima says in his post that "the principles behind operations on the empty set do not apply to it ["it" referring to the null set of the square]", but this just isn't true. It still holds for the null set of the square that multiplication of infinite zeros (zero volume) does not and cannot add up to a non-zero quantity (cube with non-zero volume.

Now, this doesn't NECESSARILY have to invalidate Ultima's reasoning. We can simply view a square as having infinitesimal volume as opposed to zero volume. Then Ultima's point of cubes actually being the sum of infinite squares could make sense. I would actually view this as optimal considering the fact that higher dimensional beings in fiction, even when they are infinitely superior, often do NOT view lower dimensional beings as literal zero/nothingness. Additionally, it allows for compactification as an explanation for higher dimensional beings lacking infinite superiority to lower dimensional beings (that being that these higher dimensional beings practically only have infinitesimal extension in their extra dimension, or something like that, thus making them comparable in power to lower dimensional beings and vice versa).

However, there is still a problem with the approach to reality-fiction transcendence. In a verse where RF transcendence happens with RF-inferior beings are treated as zero, the RF-inferior humans for example are literally zero/nothingness. However, in verses where there is no RF transcendence, the human baseline of the verse is NOT zero. With Ultima's approach, the "zero-humans" would be viewed as equivalent to the "nonzero humans." It's arbitrary and quite ridiculous from a certain point of view to equate humans that are literally zero/nothingness to humans that are NOT zero and actually exist within the verse. We can equate them with our own arbitrary standards for the sake of having a fun matchup, but we should acknowledge that it is just as valid to simply equate RF-superior humans that actually exist in one verse to humans from another verse that does not have any form of RF transcendence, since they are both beings that actually exist and are non-zero within the verse rather than being zero (if the RF-superior beings aren't literal zero compared to even more RF-superior beings, that is). Ideally, this should be signified on the actual tier of the profile. For example: "0 if you use the RF-inferior beings as a baseline, 7-B if you use the RF-superior beings as a baseline" I can understand if this is too much of a hassle, but we should affirm the fact that it is just as valid to use the most RF-superior beings within a verse as the baseline as it is to use the beings that the story focuses on as the baseline.

Additionally, if this approach to RF transcendence really was to be taken, the standards for what is considered to be RF transcendence need to be MUCH stricter, along with the burden of proof being to actually prove that the allegedly RF-superior beings literally view the allegedly RF-inferior beings as zero/nothingness.

/my take on RF transcendence and my entire take in general end here

What do you think?
Planck69
Planck69
You may post on the thread once but keep in mind a vast chunk of your concerns have already been brought up and addressed in that thread, so it will likely be pointless. And this is just from me skimming your post.
Hello. Apparently I need permission to post on this thread, so could I have some permission? The thread is very long and I'm not sure if something that's essentially the same as my take's been raised already, so here's mine, please tell me if it's good/I can post it. Theoretically you could give me permission without reading my take as well, but I would appreciate feedback:

/my take begins here
In my opinion, superiority to dimensionality as Ultima puts it is illogical and contradictory. For one example of how it can easily lead to contradictions, consider a character who is aspatial as opposed to being dimensional, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all dimensional beings and is superior to dimensionality as a whole in terms of power due to their aspatiality. This is something that is explicitly brought up by Ultima and is viewed as perfectly valid. Now take a character who is dimensional as opposed to being aspatial. This second character is treated as being inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings in power due to their dimensionality. This in and of itself should not be a problem by Ultima's standards. To say otherwise is special pleading, as it is viewed to be perfectly fine for there to be "a character who has X characteristic, and is inaccessibly more powerful than all characters of Y characteristic due to having X characteristic (AKA the "mechanism attached to it that justifies its limitlessness" as Ultima called it)." Hopefully one can see the problem here. The two characters are completely contradictory, and there is no way of scaling the two if you take both descriptions as true. The first character would be stronger than the second character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the second character being a dimensional character. However, the second character would also be stronger than the first character due to being stronger than all dimensional characters, with the first character being a dimensional character. This results in both characters being both inaccessibly stronger and inaccessibly weaker than the other. This is a contradiction.

From my understanding, this problem arises from allowing the arbitrarily decision of whether dimensionality or non-dimensionality is inaccessibly superior in power (or perhaps neither!) This is because one can arbitrarily decide that dimensionality is the more powerful end of the spectrum, whereas another can arbitrarily decide that non-dimensionality is more powerful. Allowing both decisions to be made inevitably allows for contradictions. These sorts of statements of "being superior to dimensionality" are essentially a category error (as mentioned by Ultima) of attributing "power" to "whether or not something is dimensional," an attribute which neither possesses power nor is it inherently connected to a certain level of power. The only solution is to either prohibit both of these arbitrary decisions (that is, to disregard both the idea of being "superior to dimensionality" and the idea of being "superior to non-dimensionality") or to prohibit one of them. The former must be implemented due to the latter being special pleading, as both arbitrary decisions are equally plausible. There is no logical reason to believe non-dimensionality is superior to dimensionality or vice versa other than "the author said so." Unfortunately, as demonstrated here, these would be author statements that inherently lead to contradictions and thus must be discarded.

/my take on RF transcendence begins here
The argument placed forth about reality-fiction vs quantitative superiority is likewise flawed. Reality-fiction differences are considered as being greater than dimensional differences due to the fact that the "RF-superior" (for lack of a better term) side views the "RF-inferior" side as literally being zero or nothing, and thus, no mathematical operation can possibly bring the "RF-inferior" side, which is zero, up to the level of the "RF-superior" side, which is non-zero. On the other hand, dimensional differences are said to simply be solved by infinite multiplication as a cube is said to be the sum of infinite squares. Since the former is such a large difference such that no mathematical operation can bridge the gap, whereas the latter can be bridged by simple infinite summation, the former ie RF transcendence must be treated as inherently greater than the latter ie dimensional transcendence, or so the argument goes. However, this line of argumentation causes a large problem considering a statement made later by Ultima, that being that "the square has 0 volume." Unlike what Ultima later said about a cube actually being the sum of infinite squares, a cube (which inherently has non-zero volume) CANNOT be formed from infinite squares (each of which is said to have zero volume). Ultima says in his post that "the principles behind operations on the empty set do not apply to it ["it" referring to the null set of the square]", but this just isn't true. It still holds for the null set of the square that multiplication of infinite zeros (zero volume) does not and cannot add up to a non-zero quantity (cube with non-zero volume.

Now, this doesn't NECESSARILY have to invalidate Ultima's reasoning. We can simply view a square as having infinitesimal volume as opposed to zero volume. Then Ultima's point of cubes actually being the sum of infinite squares could make sense. I would actually view this as optimal considering the fact that higher dimensional beings in fiction, even when they are infinitely superior, often do NOT view lower dimensional beings as literal zero/nothingness. Additionally, it allows for compactification as an explanation for higher dimensional beings lacking infinite superiority to lower dimensional beings (that being that these higher dimensional beings practically only have infinitesimal extension in their extra dimension, or something like that, thus making them comparable in power to lower dimensional beings and vice versa).

However, there is still a problem with the approach to reality-fiction transcendence. In a verse where RF transcendence happens with RF-inferior beings are treated as zero, the RF-inferior humans for example are literally zero/nothingness. However, in verses where there is no RF transcendence, the human baseline of the verse is NOT zero. With Ultima's approach, the "zero-humans" would be viewed as equivalent to the "nonzero humans." It's arbitrary and quite ridiculous from a certain point of view to equate humans that are literally zero/nothingness to humans that are NOT zero and actually exist within the verse. We can equate them with our own arbitrary standards for the sake of having a fun matchup, but we should acknowledge that it is just as valid to simply equate RF-superior humans that actually exist in one verse to humans from another verse that does not have any form of RF transcendence, since they are both beings that actually exist and are non-zero within the verse rather than being zero (if the RF-superior beings aren't literal zero compared to even more RF-superior beings, that is). Ideally, this should be signified on the actual tier of the profile. For example: "0 if you use the RF-inferior beings as a baseline, 7-B if you use the RF-superior beings as a baseline" I can understand if this is too much of a hassle, but we should affirm the fact that it is just as valid to use the most RF-superior beings within a verse as the baseline as it is to use the beings that the story focuses on as the baseline.

Additionally, if this approach to RF transcendence really was to be taken, the standards for what is considered to be RF transcendence need to be MUCH stricter, along with the burden of proof being to actually prove that the allegedly RF-superior beings literally view the allegedly RF-inferior beings as zero/nothingness.

/my take on RF transcendence and my entire take in general end here

What do you think?
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
A thing I'd like to get out of the way is this:

However, this line of argumentation causes a large problem considering a statement made later by Ultima, that being that "the square has 0 volume." Unlike what Ultima later said about a cube actually being the sum of infinite squares, a cube (which inherently has non-zero volume) CANNOT be formed from infinite squares (each of which is said to have zero volume). Ultima says in his post that "the principles behind operations on the empty set do not apply to it ["it" referring to the null set of the square]", but this just isn't true. It still holds for the null set of the square that multiplication of infinite zeros (zero volume) does not and cannot add up to a non-zero quantity (cube with non-zero volume)
This is incorrect. Firstly because a null set is closed only under countable unions, and not under uncountable ones. This is to say that the union of even countably infinitely many null sets is, itself, a null set, but the union of uncountably infinite null sets is not necessarily null. You can see an example of that in the real line: Each of the 0-dimensional points composing it are null sets, yet nevertheless their union produces a non-null set.

So your argument is half-and-half, more or less. "A cube cannot be formed from infinite squares" is correct if, by "infinite," you mean "countably infinite." Not so if you extend the term to also include uncountable infinities, though. The latter is what I was doing in the post.




Now take a character who is dimensional as opposed to being aspatial. This second character is treated as being inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings in power due to their dimensionality. This in and of itself should not be a problem by Ultima's standards.
I don't view this as a problem, indeed. That said, the concept of "A character who is treated as inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings due to being dimensional in nature" is something that, rather, would make me question how exactly the hypothetical verse in question sees aspatial beings.

For instance, you could very well interpret such a thing to mean that the verse views aspatial entities (Or at least the ones in question) as being below dimensionality, rather than above it, and frankly that seems like the most sensible takeaway from such a thing. Especially if the character above them is not depicted as different from other dimensioned characters in their verse. So in that case I'd say it's a situation where aspatial entities are treated as inherently weak, rather than dimensional entities being treated as inherently strong.

Now, if that's not the case, and the aspatial characters are not depicted as utterly inferior to all dimensioned beings, but rather to just that character in particular, then, clearly, the character has something abnormal about their dimensional nature that distinguishes it from that of others. In which case... Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with rating them at a high tier. This does bring the potential question of what potential structures, exactly, the dimensional character would be unreachable to, but I'll assume optimal conditions and say the verse has a notion of levels of infinity applied to aspatial things.

Frankly the hypothetics involved are so wacky and overspecific that I doubt they'll ever show up in that manner in any verse, regardless, but they're still interesting as food for thought.

However, there is still a problem with the approach to reality-fiction transcendence. In a verse where RF transcendence happens with RF-inferior beings are treated as zero, the RF-inferior humans for example are literally zero/nothingness. However, in verses where there is no RF transcendence, the human baseline of the verse is NOT zero. With Ultima's approach, the "zero-humans" would be viewed as equivalent to the "nonzero humans." It's arbitrary and quite ridiculous from a certain point of view to equate humans that are literally zero/nothingness to humans that are NOT zero and actually exist within the verse. We can equate them with our own arbitrary standards for the sake of having a fun matchup, but we should acknowledge that it is just as valid to simply equate RF-superior humans that actually exist in one verse to humans from another verse that does not have any form of RF transcendence, since they are both beings that actually exist and are non-zero within the verse rather than being zero (if the RF-superior beings aren't literal zero compared to even more RF-superior beings, that is). Ideally, this should be signified on the actual tier of the profile. For example: "0 if you use the RF-inferior beings as a baseline, 7-B if you use the RF-superior beings as a baseline" I can understand if this is too much of a hassle, but we should affirm the fact that it is just as valid to use the most RF-superior beings within a verse as the baseline as it is to use the beings that the story focuses on as the baseline.
I've thought over that point myself in the past, yeah. In that case, you're saying "The verse with R>F simply operates on a weaker conception of reality that admits of degrees, while the verse with no R>F can be said to operate on a more stable and robust notion of it that supports no such thing." With that said, I think it's easily answered simply by saying "You can say the verse with R>F is moreso questioning the idea that our notion of reality is the maximally real at all," which I think is a fair assessment of most such cases. Especially with regards to cases where the "R>F" is less based on metafiction and more on concepts you'd find while studying metaphysics.

To that, comes the fact that Reality-Fiction Transcendence doesn't necessarily hinge wholly on perspective. That's an accidental feature of (Most, probably, but not all) the verses that tend to feature it, but not an essential feature of the concept itself.

Additionally, if this approach to RF transcendence really was to be taken, the standards for what is considered to be RF transcendence need to be MUCH stricter, along with the burden of proof being to actually prove that the allegedly RF-superior beings literally view the allegedly RF-inferior beings as zero/nothingness.
I don't particularly mind the idea of stricter standards for R>F. Largely, what I mind is when said "stricter standards" turn into something ridiculous like "You NEED to have infinite dimensions (or some insinuation thereof) for your verse to be 1-A." That sort of stuff is just extremely silly to me.
TyphonEX
TyphonEX
This is incorrect. Firstly because a null set is closed only under countable unions, and not under uncountable ones. This is to say that the union of even countably infinitely many null sets is, itself, a null set, but the union of uncountably infinite null sets is not necessarily null. You can see an example of that in the real line: Each of the 0-dimensional points composing it are null sets, yet nevertheless their union produces a non-null set.
I'll give my thoughts on the rest later, but that's pretty interesting. That seems to maybe disqualify the idea of compactification explaining why some higher dimensions don't have infinite superiority over lower dimensions in fiction though, doesn't it? Because with compactification a higher dimensional being seems to have an infinitesimal extension in its extra dimension(s), whereas a lower dimensional being would have zero extension whatsoever. And an infinitesimal is still a lot greater than zero to the point where you can add zero countably infinitely many times while still not getting to an infinitesimal quantity, so this doesn't explain why some higher dimensional beings in fiction don't have any infinite superiority. How would you explain higher dimensional beings that do not have infinite superiority? Or am I misunderstanding compactification? Can a compactified dimension actually have an extent of zero? I have some other ideas, but I'm wondering what you think about this. Should we actually treat higher dimensional beings as infinitely superior to lower dimensional beings by default?
TyphonEX
TyphonEX
I suppose we should probably discuss this some other time though.
🙏
my 20,000th message on this godforsaken forum: piss
Greatsage13th
InfiniteDay
InfiniteDay
image.png
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
it scorns me, mocks me with its lack of an updated figure, torments me in the dead of night. indeed, I am defeated.
Hı,can you look at this?

A smol Smash CRT.
Hello Ultima!

In The One Above All/The One Below All's profile, it says:

Simultaneously, as The One Below All, it is also the lowest point of all,[15] the infinite abyss that lies underneath creation[23] as its bedrock,[24] encompassing the Qlippoth that serve as the dark reflections of each Sefirot in the Mystery)

and Hulk's profile says:

Immortality (Types 1, 3 & 4. Will end up in the Below-Place after dying from which he can quickly revive himself through the Green Door should he choose to do so)

my question is, would him reviving through the green door grant him any other form of immortality like Type 5 or any extra ability?
Hi. I've been presenting a smallish CRT for Akatsuki Blitzkampf (fighting game) and I've been struggling to place attention on it. Could you please leave some input if you have the free time? Thank you.
Hi. I've been presenting a smallish CRT for Akatsuki Blitzkampf (fighting game) and I've been struggling to place attention on it. Could you please leave some input if you have the free time? Thank you.

Hello Deagonx, I was wandering and stumbled upon this regarding DC, I'd like your input regarding it. Although I don't know if it was talked about before, but my bad if it was.
Deagonx
Deagonx
No worries. Generally it's not accepted that this is some sort of infinite R>F layer.
May I have your input here, please?
May I have some input here, please?
Hello, can you take a look at this when you are free?
Back
Top