FANDOM

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Hello there. I was wondering if you could answer a question I have regarding the Kardashev scale. If we were to consider that a Type Infinite Civilization could exist, what would their capabilities be (ie, the weapons they would use, the technology they possess, etc)?

      Loading editor
    • I am definetely not the best user to post this question to as these are not the types of things I find interesting at all.

      There are many more users around here who are probably more interested in this question than me. Maybe try posting it here as it would make more sense.

      The only quick answer, based on that page I'm linking, is that such a civ would be able to use the entire power of whatever verse or dimension is considered to be at position w in the cosmological hierarchy. This is probably the omniverse according to soupcount.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The pages for Imaginarium and Omniumverse directly state their corresponding structure is Box equivalent, therefore, you are calling the Box metaboxial which is absurd as reasoned by Scoot. I highly recommend you either a. rewrite both pages to state they are metaboxial or b. remove the tags

      Loading editor
  • I understand that you do not believe Metaboxiality to be real. But not everyone agrees and you shouldn't have the right to mess with the Wiki as if your opinion on the matter was objectively right. Adding specifically Box-equivalent -verses to the Metaboxial Category and then adding the Box itself basically invalidates Metaboxiality as a practice, because it implies, if not directly states, that Metaboxiality isn't actually good enough to overcome the Box in a way that the Box itself can't already.

    I understand that this is your opinion but trying to enforce this opinion on the Wiki as if it were fact is absurd. The Metaboxial category very specifically takes the controversy into account by mentioning that they are all potential mBoxes and any and all of them could be inside the Box. This way, both sides of the debate are treated fairly. Box Transcendentalists get a category full of their Box-beating ideas, and Box Absolutists get reasurred that they don't necessarily beat the Box. By adding the Box to the category, implying the others might only beat the Box to the same extent the Box overrides itself, you've just ignored this entire principle. You might as well pull a BeyonderGodOmnipotent and just edit the text on the category page to say "Metaboxiality is a fan-made term that has no meaning and is nonsense. Please ignore the contents of this category and any suggestion that the Box can be beaten."

    I hate the fact that you added Realium, Imaginarium and Omniumverse and I wish you would remove them but I have no solid reasoning (yet) to remove them so there's not much I can do, however the Box as an addition is utterly absurd and I am not willing to relent on the fact that it should not be part of that category because it would undermine the entire thing and no user should be able to treat extremely controversial and debated opinions as facts, as any new users or even active users who are out of the loop might think that's just the general consensus.

      Loading editor
    • View all 11 replies
    • > "it really doesn’t matter" -> I disagree. This is not just me liking to take the conversations to their natural end. It matters because helps people better understand each other and their points, where exactly their disagreements are or why they do disagree in the first place. Me trying to continue conversations is not just me trying to have the last word on them. Is actually me trying to give them some sort of conclusion that makes things clearer than they where in the beginning.

      Well that worked bloody wonderfully didn't it.

      I see no reason to continue wasting time with this. If you give me a valid reason why I should respond to your comment then I might consider responding. Otherwise, this is going absolutely nowhere. If your goal is to make everything clearer than it started then I think it’s safe to say you didn’t succeed, and now you're going back on changes you made in the right direction anyway so I don't see anything being resolved. Nothing is getting clearer or more conclusive, and if that is the only reason you wanted to continue yesterday, then don't respond. If there's another reason besides that, well then you shouldn't have made a paragraph talking about how that was the reason you were responding.

      If you think I'm not responding because I can't refute your arguments, well you're incorrect, but I can't prove that without actually refuting them, so feel free to think that if you want. Hell, feel free to say I accused you of wanting to think that! It's not at all correct but it's about as accurate as saying I think you're evil and are trying to kill Metaboxiality or whatever. I say that you can do something; you assume that means I think you want to do that thing. It’s the same line of logic and I have no energy left to try and debunk you at this point.

      Have a nice day. I haven't.

        Loading editor
    • "going back on changes you made in the right direction"

      I put that back because, after thinking more about it, it makes sense. It had nothing to do with the rest of the conversation.

      If you don't want to talk that's on you, not me.

      Debunking is for quacks. You could argue, maybe even prove me wrong or whatever, not debunk.

      "Have a nice day. I haven't."

      That's your problem, not like I have anything to do with that.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • How do I know when I have the go ahead to make a article? I have read the rules but either i'm a dunce or the rules are vague.

      Loading editor
    • ups, just replyied to your identical message on cheetah's wall.

      They are vague. I never had this problem. I even think its a little bit on purpose having seen how that rule appeared...

      Anyway: either talk to people on the discord and you will probably be told to write a blog post and then ask some admin if you can put that specific post as a page or just like, if you think you have content that deserves a page, just create it. Some of your blogs would probably do but require cleaning up, formatting and probably developing a little bit more. That's my personal and non-official advise.

        Loading editor
    • Thx

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hello, are pages articles?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hello, Writer. I have wrote on your message wall to request usage of information from the V&D Wiki. I make this message as it's recommended on the main page to do so before using any information from there. I'm planning on creating my own Wiki for a role-play I am creating, which will take place far beyond the Multiverse. Is that okay? 

      Loading editor
    • Eya

      If this is about any of the content that I have personally created, its fine by me, I just don't really care about those things at all. I'ts nice to know though and I would like to see the wiki.

      If you are talking about wiki content in general, ya, I still don't care but I'm not the best person to ask about it. Either ask one of the admins or go on the discord which is where the community is more active.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi there, I've recently become infactuated with V&D's cosmologies and the Wiki. I'm an active member of the Discord server, and I was wondering if you ever plan to become active on it once again?

    I'm inspired by some of your work on the wiki as well the discussions that you've had with the other members. It would be nice to see you join the discussion once again!

      Loading editor
    • Hey

      Ya, I'll be back in a week or two. I'm trying to find the time... been busy lately and have a lot to catch up with.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • 1- Imaginarium is all that is unreal, right?

    2- What you define real?

    3- What you define unreal/imaginary?

      Loading editor
  • Hello. I have already published on pages about my cosmology. If you want to see it will be there.

    Your answers

    1 - Yes, all right then.

    2- I will break this question into several answers because you questioned several different points

    2.1- My definition of Sphere and Non-Sphere will be presented in a blog that I will publish here
    2.2- Yes, Meta could create a Sphere that would be Meta itself. But according to the Abstract Sage, it has not yet occurred
    2.3 - Yes, Meta could create things that are not Spheres, because Spheres is a comprehensive totality with a complex organized cosmological structure, which may or may not be physical. For example, within Meta there are things that randomly he has created as bottles, cell phones, structures of buildings floating up a structure of land, mountains and the like. If you doubt, there are humans floating aimlessly.

    4- Maybe I'm confusing the context of what you're saying or you'd be confused about what I'm saying.

    When I say "law of randomness," I am not saying something as a rule or determination, I am saying of the random nature of this realm. Do you understand?

      Loading editor
    • Ok, cool

      I'll wait for the blog post about spheres as I'm curious about what you have to say in relation to that.

      4 - more or less. If you where just talking about its nature, in the sense that it just is random that's ok. It sounded like you where saying that there is some law defining that randomness though. My confusion came from that.

      Next time please continue a conversation on the same place it was before, don't jump to a different page to reply ok. It makes things harder to follow.

        Loading editor
    • About your questions. I sent it here because I was not able to publish the answer in the comments. He was giving a kind of "error."

      If you have any further questions. You can send it if you want.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Let us assume that our real universe coexists with an infinite variety of realities and each would have an infinite variety of gradations of difference-likeness. We know that our universe emerged from a quantum vacuum and that this would probably be the source of many different big bangs, but is it likely that there are different types and forms of pre-cosmogony in the multiverse? How so pre-cosmogony? In the case of our universe it would be a quantum vacuum. For a possible universe in which Christianity would be real then it would be God and so on. In a multiverse, would you have a huge variety of "pre-cosmogonies" or "origins" coexisting at the same time? I know there's no evidence, it's a guess.

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Yes, yes, but what do you think about what I presented?

        Loading editor
    • What I think is what I said: It can be anyway one wants.

      If that doesn't answer your question I don't understand what you are asking.

        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.