FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Here, In this wikia, several times are quoted as "leaving out contradictions or consistencies", and I want to know the "why"

    For example:

    1. https://verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Entity_Types "These page presents several new contradictions to the settings on this wiki. There are already many contradictions though. It is not possible to conceptualize and describe absolute things of any type without some form of contradiction. Things like the Box and the Imaginarium are already filled with inherent contradictions. Therefore presenting a few more in order to try to enrich the shared setting does not seem like a big problem. Especially when they build upon and are coherent with those already existing "

    2. https://verse-and-dimensions.fandom.com/wiki/Omniumverse#comm-13205 "Welcome to hypercosmology. Please leave your laws of consistency at the door. (Well, okay, in this case it's really just the one-way containment principle that people pick up in their normal life but which doesn't really apply to many kinds of structures, mathematical and otherwise.) "

    Why Contradictions and Paradoxes are IGNORED here? Why take this position in this wiki?

    Did you understand what I said?

    Of course, in the "Author's Point of View" it is answered as "We want it this way", but I want to know in the "In-Universe Point of View". Do you know what I mean? I cannot develop the questioning

    For example: You explained to me that in "In-Universe Point of View". The explanation of the "Law of Cosmological Subjectivity" is that Cosmologies Exist Simultaneously, according to the Configurations and Fictional Structures

      Loading editor
    • Both of the cases you have cited are "author's view" instances rather than "in-universe" ones. The reasons we as writers say these sorts of things are pretty diverse.

      In some cases, like my post you've marked as #2, it's a shortcut for talking about how standard notions of transitivity and scale don't really apply. In some settings, A contains B and B contains A, but "contains" can be handled in a way that makes this make sense despite what looks to be some sort of contradiction. The Box's MPR property acknowledges contradictions and then resolves them in the Box's favor; meanwhile, some cosmological elements are based around loss of consistency in physics, math, or logic. This isn't "ignoring" a conflict, this is exploiting it.

      In others, like ThisWriter's overview at #1, he makes the claim that noticing how absolutes cause issues (Box contains everything vs. Nothing not being containable, say) doesn't actually hinder either article's value. This isn't "ignoring" a conflict, this is acknowledging its presence and then saying it doesn't matter, because any concept involved in a contradiction still has merit for worldbuilding.

      But you've asked only right at the end, essentially, about how you'd reconcile "A contains B and B contains A" or "Box contains everything and Nothing can't be contained" from the perspective of someone there. Honestly, there's no fixed way to handle this, either.

      In some cases, a wiki author picks a canon and runs with it as far as they can, siding with whatever it says instead of what others say that could contradict it. When Tony first wrote the The True God, he was under the rough impression that this was an independent, controlling being beyond the Box's influence, and I was under the rough impression that this was wrong. A person in my canon, no matter whether they would know of truegod's existence according to Tony's reasoning, would not find it; it wouldn't exist to them, and that would be that. A person in Tony's canon, meanwhile, might find such a truegod. On the wiki, we sometimes like to imagine we're building a single unified cosmology, but there were and are breaks from that form now and again.

      If it seems feasible enough, you can also pretty easily say that someone else's interpretation of a concept — which is incompatible with your own — just happens to be true in some other -verse. The Hexagon Lords article I wrote includes only six and does not describe the existence of Mctoran's Seventh; having both of these be true in the same place at once would be a contradiction, but I'm pretty cool just saying that this Seventh existed in some other omniverse at some point. From the perspective of the people living in each omniverse involved, there's no conflict at all.

      In other cases yet, a wiki author can just go fully off the deep end and say "Yep, these two things coexisting are absolutely a contradiction. What are you going to do about it?" The people in these cosmologies might get pretty confused, but it's the author's prerogative to do this.

        Loading editor
    • What means this things in context of this wikia?

      1. Even fictions imagined or defined as a place where they don't exist, they still exist there somehow. It is not that those fictions don't exist. It's that the contradiction itself is real and both things, the fiction without them and them in the fiction are true at the same time.

      2. Singular Entity is an entity that exists uniquely in all of everything. There is only one of it in the entire Box, the entire Omniumverse or the entire whatever else there is. There are no alternative versions of it whatsoever.

      It is possible that this entity still exists in multiple places at the same time though, possibly also being a Transfictional Entity or even an Omnifictional Entity at the same time but that is not required. If that is the case, all those places it exists in at the same time, they are all its unique individuality.

      Even though the Box contains all possible and impossible versions of everything and the Imaginarium also contains all versions of everything, there still are no other versions of these entities. Either because there are actually no possible and impossible versions of it, with its concept implying such strange uniqueness to the absolute, or because it exists in the contradictory state of having all those versions of itself and having none at the same time, or because all of those versions are all its singular existence simultaneously.

      3. Somewhat opposite of the Plurifictional or Omnifictional Entity, an Afictional Entity is an entity that does not exist in any fiction at all. They exist outside any of those things that are identified as fictions, they exist outside of any Altarcae, outside of any Imaginata. They could exist directly in The Box or the Imaginarium or inside any other inner medium that exists in between fictions, possibly things like one of the Voids.

      Even fictions imagined as having them existing in there, don't have them in there. Either they immediately die as soon as they are created there or they get out of there or the fictions contain alternative versions of them or the fiction and the entity exist in a contradictory state where the the fiction exists with them and they do not exist on the fiction.

      4. A Non-Existing Entity is an entity that doesn't even exist at all. Not only does it no exist in any fiction but it doesn't even exist outside of any fiction. It doesn't exist either in the Box or in the Imaginarium at all. No versions of it exist.

      Even despite this being in direct contradiction with the Box and the Imaginarium that tell that all the possible and impossible, real and unreal versions of these entities exist, they also don't at the same time.

      The fact that any proper character must have characteristics to qualify (nullifying Nothing) doesn't allow such entities to exist at all.

      Explain me, please

        Loading editor
    • Vitorriq wrote:
      What means this things in context of this wikia?

      1. Even fictions imagined or defined as a place where they don't exist, they still exist there somehow. It is not that those fictions don't exist. It's that the contradiction itself is real and both things, the fiction without them and them in the fiction are true at the same time.

      2. Singular Entity is an entity that exists uniquely in all of everything. There is only one of it in the entire Box, the entire Omniumverse or the entire whatever else there is. There are no alternative versions of it whatsoever.

      It is possible that this entity still exists in multiple places at the same time though, possibly also being a Transfictional Entity or even an Omnifictional Entity at the same time but that is not required. If that is the case, all those places it exists in at the same time, they are all its unique individuality.

      Even though the Box contains all possible and impossible versions of everything and the Imaginarium also contains all versions of everything, there still are no other versions of these entities. Either because there are actually no possible and impossible versions of it, with its concept implying such strange uniqueness to the absolute, or because it exists in the contradictory state of having all those versions of itself and having none at the same time, or because all of those versions are all its singular existence simultaneously.

      3. Somewhat opposite of the Plurifictional or Omnifictional Entity, an Afictional Entity is an entity that does not exist in any fiction at all. They exist outside any of those things that are identified as fictions, they exist outside of any Altarcae, outside of any Imaginata. They could exist directly in The Box or the Imaginarium or inside any other inner medium that exists in between fictions, possibly things like one of the Voids.

      Even fictions imagined as having them existing in there, don't have them in there. Either they immediately die as soon as they are created there or they get out of there or the fictions contain alternative versions of them or the fiction and the entity exist in a contradictory state where the the fiction exists with them and they do not exist on the fiction.

      4. A Non-Existing Entity is an entity that doesn't even exist at all. Not only does it no exist in any fiction but it doesn't even exist outside of any fiction. It doesn't exist either in the Box or in the Imaginarium at all. No versions of it exist.

      Even despite this being in direct contradiction with the Box and the Imaginarium that tell that all the possible and impossible, real and unreal versions of these entities exist, they also don't at the same time.

      The fact that any proper character must have characteristics to qualify (nullifying Nothing) doesn't allow such entities to exist at all.

      Explain me, please

      I would like to understand the context of what you mean by each information taken above

        Loading editor
    • "What you mean"? Vitorriq, I didn't write any of these; ThisWriter did.

      I can't tell you what TW was thinking when he wrote about a couple of types of entities, and I don't even know what the "context" you're asking about would even be when we're talking about the Entity Types page. That page, as far as I know, is barely ever mentioned elsewhere. There is no context for it to connect to, unless you want to ask TW himself about it — and I don't suspect you'll get any answers.

      Even if there was some extensive body of evidence that these connected to, or, failing that, some example of me having used these entity types before, I still wouldn't be able to answer your question. It's too vague — I can't start from first principles and construct a notion of what an entity is, or whatever, or I'd be here for days.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hello Soup, a fair amount has happened since you last used V&D, and Cheetahs and I could really use your help with a certain issue. I have DMed you information about the issue on Discord. It would be extremely helpful if you could have a look at it.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • 1. Why did you create Box?

    2. What led you to create Box?

    3.What inspired you to make a "cosmological object that contains absolutely everything, regardless of any condition or restriction"?

    4. Why take this concept of "everything", specifically?

      Loading editor
    • I await reply. For discussion and curiosity

        Loading editor
    • Alright, here we go again.

      As far as I can remember — and my memory's growing hazier, this was over four years ago, so feel free to fact-check me — I first developed the idea of the Box in response to a creationist argument about causality, by positing an environment (this "box") inside which things could start existing acasually for any or no particular reason. It had a weird tinge of other peoples' ideas of the multiverse to it, but it was really just a thought experiment.

      Around this time I was looking at All Dimensions Wiki, especially at how the new hip thing to do was to take the last page you made, make a new page going more or less "this new -verse contains that one", and continuing this process for a while. Out of some desire to impose some order on the mess and get people to think about what they were writing rather than engaging in one-up games, I wrote up the Box to include the largest take on "everything" that I could to act as a "cap", saying "your structure is in here, guaranteed" and expecting people to comply. Obviously, this failed in the long run when I stopped getting into internet fights with people trying to surpass it.

      The wording is not all my own. A lot of people have contributed to the idea of what the Box is and how one might describe it; I appreciate Holomanga's placement of it on his scales, as I've frequently used those as talking points, as well as Serge's constant grilling of me with hypercosmological thought experiments and arguments that helped me better come to grips with the Box's place.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • You told them not to edit another user's page... but they weren't. They're an alt of the user they were editing the user page of who is trying to evade blocks.

      Loading editor
    • I'm sorry. I guess the more pertinent option would've been to talk about the disruptive content they posted, see if I can actually get that information before acting?

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
    • Seeing as your only contribution here was to vandalize a page and you have now linked me this unimportant thread in a separate community twice, I am not sure how much I'm inclined to care about what you're trying to do.

      At least some of them seem to have gotten the message that copying content verbatim is against Fandom's terms of use; honestly, though, most of us here aren't that interested in jumping in to call the site admins again.

        Loading editor
    • Ok...

        Loading editor
    • My mind acted weird lol

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Answer some questions

    1. Box is True Unlimkted or True Absolute? Why?

    2. Why Box contain infinite versions of Omniverse? Why "infinites", I say? If exist only four worlds in Fictional Cosmology?

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Ubersketch escreveu:
      Isso parece bastante interessante, mas um pouco impossível. Se você quiser discutir, encorajo você a participar do Discord, onde a maioria das discussões desse tipo é feita.

      Believe me, brother. It is not impossible, it is complicated but not impossible. Until I did, by the way. It is clear that for this purpose I apply the concept of unlimited possibilities and manifestations in the context of unlimited realities.

        Loading editor
    • Almost all current cosmologies do that in one way or another

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • No need to explain why you change things back it's all good just wanting to do some grammar checking and if you feel this word or wording it best then go ahead I wont change it.

      Loading editor
    • Basically some of the grammar was actually worsened by the corrections which is what Soup was fixing.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • If an admin can give other people admin, give MinersHavenM43 some admin so he can sweep up some garbage pages, if an admin cannot give others admin, sorry to disturb you. -Oof, mobile

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hey man I recently made a page called Mathematics, I tried to go to discord to get some feedback from admins so it could get published  but my safari wont let me connect to discord. Do you think you could look at my Mathematics page and give me some constructive feedback. I'd also be glad to answer any questions if you need any further elaboration on the concept.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.