C.A.S. and Monitor Sphere Potential Downgrade

[ExcelsisBerny]

I have a question that (depending on the answers) could potentially lead to a downgrade.

Currently, C.A.S. (and the Monitor Sphere as a whole) is listed as 1-A, but I think there’s a contradiction regarding that tier in Superman Beyond itself.

The difference between the Multiverse of the Orrery and the Monitor Sphere is explicitly described in quantitative terms:

Mandrakk’s ships (which are city-sized in the normal Multiverse) are described from the Monitors’ perspective as infinitesimally small monitor-based nanotech.

In mathematics, an infinitesimal number is a non-zero quantity that is closer to 0 than any non-zero real number is. (Wikipedia)

The worlds in the Orrery are shown as being comparable in size to the Monitors themselves.

The Monitors repeatedly refer to the Multiverse as being made up of “germ worlds,” but based on what’s said above, the size difference between a Monitor and an Orrery world doesn’t match the kind of gap we should expect between something High 1-B and something 1-A.

How does that work exactly?

I’d like to read what explanation is usually given for this.

 

[Hellformer]

I have a question that (depending on the answers) could potentially lead to a downgrade.

Currently, C.A.S. (and the Monitor Sphere as a whole) is listed as 1-A, but I think there’s a contradiction regarding that tier in Superman Beyond itself.

The difference between the Multiverse of the Orrery and the Monitor Sphere is explicitly described in quantitative terms:

Mandrakk’s ships (which are city-sized in the normal Multiverse) are described from the Monitors’ perspective as infinitesimally small monitor-based nanotech.

In mathematics, an infinitesimal number is a non-zero quantity that is closer to 0 than any non-zero real number is. (Wikipedia)

The worlds in the Orrery are shown as being comparable in size to the Monitors themselves.

The Monitors repeatedly refer to the Multiverse as being made up of “germ worlds,” but based on what’s said above, the size difference between a Monitor and an Orrery world doesn’t match the kind of gap we should expect between something High 1-B and something 1-A.

How does that work exactly?

I’d like to read what explanation is usually given for this.

This should not only downgrade Monitor sphere, but also the sphere of gods

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

This should not only downgrade Monitor sphere, but also the sphere of gods

Yeah. Limbo too.

 

[Hellformer]

Yeah. Limbo too.

You can make pretty decent args about the source wall having statements corresponding to dimensionality existing over there. And even the fifth dimension being called a higher mathematical dimension (which is somehow accepted as 1-A+ on this wiki). I was already aware of the contradictions but I was too lazy to make a downgrade.

 

[Xearesay]

I have a question that (depending on the answers) could potentially lead to a downgrade.

Currently, C.A.S. (and the Monitor Sphere as a whole) is listed as 1-A, but I think there’s a contradiction regarding that tier in Superman Beyond itself.

The difference between the Multiverse of the Orrery and the Monitor Sphere is explicitly described in quantitative terms:

Mandrakk’s ships (which are city-sized in the normal Multiverse) are described from the Monitors’ perspective as infinitesimally small monitor-based nanotech.

In mathematics, an infinitesimal number is a non-zero quantity that is closer to 0 than any non-zero real number is. (Wikipedia)

The worlds in the Orrery are shown as being comparable in size to the Monitors themselves.

The Monitors repeatedly refer to the Multiverse as being made up of “germ worlds,” but based on what’s said above, the size difference between a Monitor and an Orrery world doesn’t match the kind of gap we should expect between something High 1-B and something 1-A.

How does that work exactly?

I’d like to read what explanation is usually given for this.

1: That specific statement is described from Superman’s perspective but I digress, you’re basically saying that the Monitor Sphere is only infinite in size relative to a regular city correct? The Monitor ships can adjust to operate on a various higher planes of existence beneath the Monitor Sphere so it’s not fixed at the scale of a city or to the ontological level of the material world in general. Your reasoning here also has another problem that I’ll get into within my second point in reply to your second argument.

2: The Orrery of Worlds is a contained construct within Nil which is a realm on a higher metaphysical level. While, yeah it is illustrated as a large jar like structure filled with universes, surrounded by smaller Monitors, that’s just a visual metaphor, not a literal ontological scale comparison. DC’s cosmology, especially at the level of the Monitor Sphere, doesn’t operate on physical space or size. It operates on ontological priority, hence why the Monitors are outside of the jar and repeatedly talk down upon it as this inferior thing throughout Final Crisis. So weighing the arbitrary and symbolic imagery above the established metaphysical hierarchy would be counterproductive here.

I like to see the illustration as something intended to be ironic where, the jar is ontologically insignificant yet in the same moment, metaphorically significant, as it gave the Monitors who were once unified with the Overvoid, the chance to experience reality and have their own narratives. It’s what made their world the most meaningful and profound despite being literally nothing where form and meaning have surrendered to the Overvoid.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

you’re basically saying that the Monitor Sphere is only infinite in size relative to a regular city correct?

Not necessarily. It can be several orders of infinity greater, but my point is that it’s still a quantitative difference.

The Monitor ships can adjust to operate on a various higher planes of existence beneath the Monitor Sphere so it’s not fixed at the scale of a city or to the ontological level of the material world in general.

Do you have scans for that? Because in that specific comic, it’s not ever stated, mentioned, or shown that the Monitors’ nanotech ships can modify their size to scales as absurd as the difference between Tier 1-B and Tier 1-A.

In the same run, other Monitor-nanotech ships like Zillo Valla’s don’t change in size or “ontological level” when traveling from one part of the multiverse to another — they simply move through the bleed arteries between universes, a 4th-dimensional bulk; in other words, simple dimensional travel.

The Orrery of Worlds is a contained construct within Nil which is a realm on a higher metaphysical level. While, yeah it is illustrated as a large jar like structure filled with universes, surrounded by smaller Monitors, that’s just a visual metaphor, not a literal ontological scale comparison.

This is a good point, but is there actual material to back it up, or is it just headcanon?

I personally think the author’s intention isn’t to make a literal 1:1 comparison between the worlds of the Orrery and the Monitors, but rather to show that these beings are so vast that they have the universes of the Orrery sealed inside divine metals — and that’s why they keep repeating the whole “germ worlds” thing over and over.

So, they’re actually somehow comparable in size to those worlds. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t make sense that — given their perspective and scale — they could develop nanotechnology small enough to enter a world they supposedly completely trivialize as a zero (R>F).

DC’s cosmology, especially at the level of the Monitor Sphere, doesn’t operate on physical space or size.

Sorry, but that’s directly contradicted in the story itself. If the Monitor world didn’t operate on any level of physical space or size, then I don’t think there would be such a strong emphasis on that aspect.

This is fiction. Beings made of pure thought can still have a physical scale if that’s what the writer intends.

In fact, in the same comic, it’s explicitly mentioned that space still exists — it's just “deeper” and more meaningful, which is poetic language meant to convey the immense scale of that world itself.

It operates on ontological priority, hence why the Monitors are outside of it and repeatedly talk down upon it as this lesser thing throughout Final Crisis.

I agree with this part, but one thing doesn’t cancel out the other. As a writer, Morrison highlights not only the archetypal nature of the Monitor world, but also emphasizes its scale — so the difference between the Monitor world and the multiverse is still clearly quantitative.

 

[Hellformer]

The scale of space and time between the Multiverse and the Monitor Sphere is said to be "different" by Superman which contradicts a qualitative difference.
A qualitatively transcendental realm should be so big that the scale of space-time would render meaningless over there.
The downgrade is pretty obvious

 

[Xearesay]

Not necessarily. It can be several orders of infinity greater, but my point is that it’s still a quantitative difference.

If taken literally and under the interpretation that the Monitor ships like Mandrakks destroyers and the ultima Thule only adjust for spatial differences, then yes. Obviously, it does not since you can literally reach the Godsphere and higher realms like Comic Book Limbo with it.

Do you have scans for that? Because in that specific comic, it’s not ever stated, mentioned, or shown that the Monitors’ nanotech ships can modify their size to scales as absurd as the difference between Tier 1-B and Tier 1-A.

In the same run, other Monitor-nanotech ships like Zillo Valla’s don’t change in size or “ontological level” when traveling from one part of the multiverse to another — they simply move through the bleed arteries between universes, a 4th-dimensional bulk; in other words, simple dimensional travel.

Here. They’re powered by frequencies, which the whole map runs off of, hence why the ultima thule is an explorer ship, intended to be used by the Monitors who can adjust their frequency to traverse the Multiverse.

It’s even stated that other monitor ships can return to the Monitor Sphere, which means it has to go beyond the Sphere of Gods and the Collective Unconscious which are already beyond the concepts of space and time.

The carrier in the recent outsiders comic could reach narrative singularities, with narratives being defined as ideas and concepts. And I think there is a scan stating that the monitor ships move through concept space, however I can’t seem to find that one.

Although, like I said earlier, the fact that the Ultima Thule literally traveled to Comic Book Limbo during Final Crisis, is literally blatant proof in itself that they can traverse to 1-A realms(I’d argue Comic Book Limbo is beyond 1-A, but I’ll leave that be).

This is a good point, but is there actual material to back it up, or is it just headcanon?

I personally think the author’s intention isn’t to make a literal 1:1 comparison between the worlds of the Orrery and the Monitors, but rather to show that these beings are so vast that they have the universes of the Orrery sealed inside divine metals — and that’s why they keep repeating the whole “germ worlds” thing over and over.

So, they’re actually somehow comparable in size to those worlds. If they weren’t, it wouldn’t make sense that — given their perspective and scale — they could develop nanotechnology small enough to enter a world they supposedly completely trivialize as a zero (R>F).

I don’t think that’s the reason they call it the germ worlds. They say germ worlds because they consider that jar a flaw amidst the Overvoids perfection. When combined with the inferiority and imperceptibility of it to the Overvoid, it becomes like a plague or a virus that the Monitors need to manage, hence the constant germ analogy.

Also the divine metals comment is referring to Superman, not the jar. The idea is that Superman’s emergent presence overshadows the flaw, concealing it from the probe(Mandrakk) and making it safe from dissolution.

Sorry, but that’s directly contradicted in the story itself. If the Monitor world didn’t operate on any level of physical space or size, then I don’t think there would be such a strong emphasis on that aspect.

This is fiction. Beings made of pure thought can still have a physical scale if that’s what the writer intends.

In fact, in the same comic, it’s explicitly mentioned that space still exists — it's just “deeper” and more meaningful, which is poetic language meant to convey the immense scale of that world itself.

There isn’t a strong emphasis on that aspect, and the writer quite literally doesn’t intend that. And I really don’t think you want to go down the route of author intent. As shown here, Grant Morrison in his own Multiversity guidebook literally establishes the Godsphere as “the ring of duality” and platonic forms, reached in a manner that mirrors the astral ascension, with the Monitor Sphere transcending this by virtue of dissolving the manifest and conceptual universe into the Overvoid, and requiring a “more pure or rarified monad” to be reached. If we went purely off the author intent of Grant Morrison, this realm would be a tier much higher than what it already is lol.

Well it’s also “explicitly mentioned” that as a realm it is literally nothing, blank and gone, where form and meaning surrender to the Overvoid, with one of the Monitors(Weeja Dell) even going as far to imply that all expressions of dialect about Nil are just other ways of saying nothing. The larger context is clearly that every expression of a thing in Nil is simultaneously negated, hence why it’s the most profound and paradoxically completely without meaning. This type of language is used everywhere btw. They call It a timeless world filled with time. They say it’s absolutely empty and gone, yet it contains all existence in a shattered jar. They refer to themselves as hyper-gods(Gods beyond Gods), in a hyper-story(story that is beyond story).

The scale of space and time between the Multiverse and the Monitor Sphere is said to be "different" by Superman which contradicts a qualitative difference.
A qualitatively transcendental realm should be so big that the scale of space-time would render meaningless over there.
The downgrade is pretty obvious

^ You can read the paragraph above too.

 

[Weaver261]

he worlds in the Orrery are shown as being comparable in size to the Monitors themselves.

I don't have much to say in other parts cuz these known facts are proven in later runs. But this one is completely wrong. They are visualize as earths and DC called them earth- no whatever but they are universes with infinite planets. It's just a visualization and not an actual scale.

 

[ExcelsisBerny]

I’ll respond tomorrow since it’s really late where I live.

I’d appreciate it if you could drop scans of what you mentioned here:

It’s even stated that other monitor ships can return to the Monitor Sphere, which means it has to go beyond the Sphere of Gods and the Collective Unconscious which are already beyond the concepts of space and time.

The carrier in the recent outsiders comic could reach narrative singularities, with narratives being defined as ideas and concepts.

Now, regarding Weaver...

I don't have much to say in other parts cuz these known facts are proven in later runs. But this one is completely wrong. They are visualize as earths and DC called them earth- no whatever but they are universes with infinite planets. It's just a visualization and not an actual scale.

I've never said the opposite. Read what I wrote again. What I'm arguing is that the world's extension is comparable to the Monitors in size.

 

[KLOL506]

@VeryGoofyToddler2

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

This ignores too much of what was changed to such a fundamental degree that it hinges on the notion that Monitor Sphere is consistently only quantitative but that's answered by the chain scaling. It’s rather stupid if we isolate DC as a stand-alone for this simply because there's some statement going against it.

This also doesn't really go over the many changes after Final Crisis. So if you're to argue for this point then you would have to change DC as a whole and that requires nitpicks in the holes we have simply because comics aren't consistent enough.

Now for the actual points in the OP:

Mandrakk’s ships (which are city-sized in the normal Multiverse) are described from the Monitors’ perspective as infinitesimally small monitor-based nanotech.

In mathematics, an infinitesimal number is a non-zero quantity that is closer to 0 than any non-zero real number is. (Wikipedia)

We don't always index the identical definition of what is said in real life to fiction. It only propagates the scale in comparison to Nil and the Orrery.

Infinitesimal was also used to describe the Multiverse in conjunction with the Overvoid, the latter being the infinite conscious Void, by scale and by definition it can't be “infinite” if we truly go with taking the word “infinitesimal” as literal.

You see why this example is nitpicky? If an author uses a term wrong, but we get the message across, why pick on it?

The worlds in the Orrery are shown as being comparable in size to the Monitors themselves.

The Monitors repeatedly refer to the Multiverse as being made up of “germ worlds,” but based on what’s said above, the size difference between a Monitor and an Orrery world doesn’t match the kind of gap we should expect between something High 1-B and something 1-A.

How does that work exactly?

It’s visually pleasing and if it were literal then the Orrery would be bigger than the entirety of the local Multiverse, but you can't physically depict how that would look since the Multiversity didn't even show us the actual shape that we see in Final Crisis.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

God of sphere being 1A is suprising. I may need to check what makes them it in the first place

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

As an outsider with no real stakes here, I think the CRT makes sense, and I'm leaning towards agreeing. The use of terms like "infinitesimal" and how the Monitor Sphere is depicted seem more like extreme scale differences rather than something like outright reality-fiction transcendence, IMO. (Like, let's not act that authors don't know what infinitesimal means, I've seen it used well enough before.)

Given how the new tiering system defines 1-A, especially the importance of qualitative difference over just scale or perception, I can see why this would be questioned. It's not that the Monitor Sphere isn’t higher, since it clearly is, but whether it's truly beyond in the ontological sense that 1-A requires. So far, the scans in the OP speak for themselves, IMO. (Also, I did read this issue yesterday, and I did find it weird that they traveled to and from a supposedly 1-A world with technology.)

Though, question: If this CRT does pass, where will they be downgraded to?

 

[Xearesay]

I’d appreciate it if you could drop scans of what you mentioned here:

I already dropped the one about the Monitor ships being able to return to the Monitor Sphere. It’s in the first Imgur link I posted where it shows the “tanker” which I pulled from the right side of the multiversity map.

Here’s the scans related to the carrier from the Outsiders.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

As an outsider with no real stakes here, I think the CRT makes sense, and I'm leaning towards agreeing. The use of terms like "infinitesimal" and how the Monitor Sphere is depicted seem more like extreme scale differences rather than something like outright reality-fiction transcendence, IMO. (Like, let's not act that authors don't know what infinitesimal means, I've seen it used well enough before.)

You're taking a shot in the dark with your final statement.

Grant Morrison has used that term and coined it several times in correlation to two things not scalebale in size. His intent was that it was used in conjunction to infinity, this example is highlighted with the Multiverse and the Overvoid.

During Final Crisis, he made it clear that the Overvoid was an infinite eternal void outside the entirety of the Multiverse, and he described the Multiverse as infinitesimal to it, not because it’s quantifiable but it emphasizes a size difference, which in precisely as he describes is how it isn't quantifiable.

So, he clearly did not intend infinitesimal to be scaled, and even if he did, the Cosmology portion where his works lie isn't his alone. Just like how in Justice League it was described that the Universe was infinitely expanding, it’s not a statement to be made sense of, but purely that it emphasized a scale with beings that are seemingly higher degrees of infinity because what’s a Universe to a being that created a Multiverse mumbo jumbo.

So this narrow-minded viewset is a problem and doesn't really address anything, but wanting to nitpick a certain author's work, but also undermines the whole of DC in general, which should be the target of the OP, or else picking apart a structure that scales from the lower realms doesn't make sense unless you dismantle what gave it 1-A in the first place.

Given how the new tiering system defines 1-A, especially the importance of qualitative difference over just scale or perception, I can see why this would be questioned. It's not that the Monitor Sphere isn’t higher, since it clearly is, but whether it's truly beyond in the ontological sense that 1-A requires. So far, the scans in the OP speak for themselves, IMO. (Also, I did read this issue yesterday, and I did find it weird that they traveled to and from a supposedly 1-A world with technology.)

He jumps to the Monitor Sphere about Morrison's way of writing things, but that ignores that it’s 1-A is through chain-scaling. Something that every verse goes through.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

Thanks for the reply. I get the point about Morrison using “infinitesimal” more to emphasize "vastness" than strict math, but I think that kind of language still needs to be weighed against how things are actually shown and, well, stated. If something is meant to be truly 1-A, it shouldn’t be reachable by physical means like technology, especially when the tiering system emphasizes qualitative and ontological difference, not just scale or poetic language.

Even if Morrison meant the Monitor Sphere to be “beyond”, it doesn’t quite line up with the way it's portrayed in the story so far IMO. Traveling there with a ship or tech doesn’t really suggest something that’s inaccessible in the way the tiering system defines 1-A now. And unless there's more context to that, I think it’s justified to raise a few questions.

Also, with author intent, I’d just prefer to see some direct quotes if it's being used as a core argument. Otherwise, it’s easy to project meaning into poetic phrasing that might not have had that depth of intention. As for chain scaling, then everything else below would have to be downgraded from 1-A, if you mean it's 1-A via upscaling. If not, clarification would be useful. Just my two cents, I guess.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Something to note as well. With the example of the Overvoid and the Multiverse using the term “infinitesmal” was nothing something to be quantified as much as the scale is so big that the Multiverse in comparison to the infinite Void is “infinitesimal.” Morrison wasn't going to contradict his notion of the Overvoid as something infinite by using something that’s finite in scale hence why it isn't a quantifiable comparison even with that word. This is why the Overvoid describes it as a flaw, a concept, a germ-like mess in its serene perfection.

My final sentence is important because the OP only uses the context of Final Crisis:

Argumentation #1: Nil is quantifiable in scale:​

This is quite wrong. The example used was that of the technology of the Monitors were city-sized in the Multiverse. As much as I disagree with @Xearesay in many things DC-related. I agree that the scale isn't a literal thing to be taken literally. I'll expanded upon some overlooked things which applies to only during the time of Final Crisis because most of that was contradicted in Multiversity despite the same author writing both.

• Nil during the time of Final Crisis was in the Overvoid and not the Multiverse as shown in Multiversity. The idea of a “Monitor Sphere” didn't even exist until that map that came out years later.
• All of Existence or the Orrery was part of the divine metal caged by the Overvoid because it was a germ to the perfection and that's why to the Montiors as well describe the worlds as germ-like.
• The techonolgu, themselves, aren't part of the Multiverse, so it's impossible to see their size in a city-like structure in Nil in comparison to the Multiverse, after all, if it can exist in the Overvoid due to Nil being in the Overvoid then there's no way it can enter the Multiverse without adjusting size.
• To add on top of the visual display that the OP mentions. The Monitor are very much bigger than the Universe thslmves as the Earth are representative of each of the 52 Universes. The ships can hold multiple Monitors, if it were literal then the ships are would literally be bigger than the Multiverse as we seen the Multiverse being contained in Nil rather easily.

Argumentation #2: Infinitesimal​

I've already said that Morrison likes to use words that aren't exactly what they mean.

• Morrison always described the Overvoid as the “infinite” nothingness outside Creation. So using “infinitesimal” to make the comparison clearly isn’t to contradict himself, but that he finds the contrast so large that “infinitesimal” seemed like the appropriate word, or else he clearly doesn't know what it means.
• He also described the New Gods as “platonic” despite the fact that they can't be by using it as the ideas that are all-prevading, eternal, and unchanging yet he still used the word to “emphasize” how non-mundane the gods are in comparison to the mortal realms.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Thanks for the reply. I get the point about Morrison using “infinitesimal” more to emphasize "vastness" than strict math, but I think that kind of language still needs to be weighed against how things are actually shown and, well, stated. If something is meant to be truly 1-A, it shouldn’t be reachable by physical means like technology, especially when the tiering system emphasizes qualitative and ontological difference, not just scale or poetic language.

The technology comes from Nil, which isn't part of the Multiverse during the Final Crisis. Plus, none of the heroes “physically” went there without help from a fellow Monitor.

Even if Morrison meant the Monitor Sphere to be “beyond”, it doesn’t quite line up with the way it's portrayed in the story so far IMO. Traveling there with a ship or tech doesn’t really suggest something that’s inaccessible in the way the tiering system defines 1-A now. And unless there's more context to that, I think it’s justified to raise a few questions.

The ship is part of the Monitor’s creation so it can be used to travel in and out of Nil and any realms within the Multiverse.

Also, with author intent, I’d just prefer to see some direct quotes if it's being used as a core argument. Otherwise, it’s easy to project meaning into poetic phrasing that might not have had that depth of intention. As for chain scaling, then everything else below would have to be downgraded from 1-A, if you mean it's 1-A via upscaling. If not, clarification would be useful. Just my two cents, I guess.

Read my other post then. You don't need actual quotes since the Cosmology blog already covers many 1-A statements prior to reaching the Monitor Sphere.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Read my other post then. You don't need actual quotes since the Cosmology blog already covers many 1-A statements prior to reaching the Monitor Sphere.

Thanks for the clarification. I did read your longer post, and I appreciate the effort trying to contextualize everything. That said, I think it highlights some recurring issues with how some arguments are framed:

1. No scans or direct textual support are provided for many of the more specific claims (like Nil being definitively in the Overvoid during Final Crisis, or Morrison’s exact intent with “infinitesimal”). These seem like important points, but without backing, they lean heavily into interpretation. For example, saying Morrison “clearly didn’t mean” something a certain way really needs direct quotes or commentary to support it.

2. Literal stuff are dismissed as metaphors, while metaphorical stuff are treated as metaphysically definitive. E.g., the depiction of Monitors using ships to move through Nil and interacting with the Multiverse is prettyu muched waved off as symbolic, but metaphors like “germ worlds” or “flaws” in the Overvoid are taken as proof of qualitative difference. That’s a bit of a double standard. If one kind of symbolism is non-literal, the same scrutiny should apply to the rest.

3. If the chain-scaling is the real basis of the 1-A rating here, that’s would be fine on surface, but it also means if this has contradictions, then things below it suffer as well.

I don’t think it's unreasonable to want more than interpretive explanations, especially for something as high as 1-A. The CRT, from an outsiders' perspective, (like mine) seems like a fair re-examination of that portrayal based on how it’s actually presented in the story.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

1. No scans or direct textual support are provided for many of the more specific claims (like Nil being definitively in the Overvoid during Final Crisis, or Morrison’s exact intent with “infinitesimal”). These seem like important points, but without backing, they lean heavily into interpretation. For example, saying Morrison “clearly didn’t mean” something a certain way really needs direct quotes or commentary to support it.

The story points out:

• The Multiverse is covered in divine metal, which is the structure we see that is the Orrery ie Existence.
• The resident of Limbo saying they're the final outpost of Creation and beyond them is only the Void.
• We see that a city in Nil leads to the Overvoid where Mandrakk and Cosmic Armor Superman fought.
• Nil was described as “nothing, zilch, the gone, the blanks and all 6666 words for nothing.
• Nil is described as a place where forms and meaning surrender to the Overvoid, which is at the crumbling edge of the Monitor’s world.

These were all shown in the two issues of Superman: Beyond. As for Morrsion, you don't have to be a genius to know that he views the Overvoid as one thing, infinite, so the comparison isn't a literal one or he's contradicting his own self.

2. Literal stuff are dismissed as metaphors, while metaphorical stuff are treated as metaphysically definitive. E.g., the depiction of Monitors using ships to move through Nil and interacting with the Multiverse is prettyu muched waved off as symbolic, but metaphors like “germ worlds” or “flaws” in the Overvoid are taken as proof of qualitative difference. That’s a bit of a double standard. If one kind of symbolism is non-literal, the same scrutiny should apply to the rest.

Except the ship isn't “Nil” it was created in Nil by the resident there. The ships adjusted size given that we see that each Monitor by the scans is bigger than the world and the ship can hold many monitors at once, so there's that.

It would only be a problem if something not part of it, can travel in and out of Nil, but fortunately, that doesn't happen. Superman, Ultraman, Captain Marvel, and the Nazi Superman all were in Limbo with the first two consciousness placed in the Sentinel that was already in Nil.

3. If the chain-scaling is the real basis of the 1-A rating here, that’s would be fine on surface, but it also means if this has contradictions, then things below it suffer as well.

Then the problem should be addressed by the structures below because if they have basis for 1-A then it still upholds the Monitor Sphere.

I don’t think it's unreasonable to want more than interpretive explanations, especially for something as high as 1-A. The CRT, from an outsiders' perspective, (like mine) seems like a fair re-examination of that portrayal based on how it’s actually presented in the story.

It’s all in the Cosmology blog I updated. That's not something that needs to be extrapolate further.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

I appreciate the explanation, but I still think some key issues remain unaddressed.

A lot of the core claims, such as Nil being in the Overvoid during Final Crisis, or what Morrison “clearly meant”, are interpretations presented as fact, without scans or quotes to back them. That’s a big deal when we’re talking about something as high as 1-A, where the standards for ontological separation are supposed to be strict. Being infinite isn’t the issue, what’s being questioned is whether Morrison’s use of terms like “infinitesimal” implies actual qualitative transcendence, and that still needs direct support.

Also, I think there’s still a bit of a double standard at play: literal depictions (like ships or tech being used in Nil) are waved off as symbolic, but metaphors like “germ-worlds” or “flaws” are taken at face value to justify transcendence. If one side gets symbolic treatment, the other should be scrutinized just as much.

Most importantly here that bugs me now: R>F chains are only as strong as their top layer. If there are serious inconsistencies at the Monitor Sphere level, it does affect the logic used to justify the tiers beneath it. That’s why re-evaluating the top is important now IMO.

I’m not saying there’s zero merit to the position, just that it needs more concrete support than interpretive summaries or blogs. Solid scans and direct statements would go a long way here, rather than redirecting people that supposedly has answers in a... checks ...154k byte blog.

Anyway, I myself don't have a lot of time, so as I said, I don't have stakes in this, so I'll wait for what OP and others will bring up. Might be a while until I check up on here again, if at all.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

A lot of the core claims, such as Nil being in the Overvoid during Final Crisis, or what Morrison “clearly meant”, are interpretations presented as fact, without scans or quotes to back them. That’s a big deal when we’re talking about something as high as 1-A, where the standards for ontological separation are supposed to be strict. Being infinite isn’t the issue, what’s being questioned is whether Morrison’s use of terms like “infinitesimal” implies actual qualitative transcendence, and that still needs direct support.

You're going in circles. You're exact unaddressed point ie this portion was already answered. You feeling it wasn't enough doesn't mean it wasn't addressed.

Also, I think there’s still a bit of a double standard at play: literal depictions (like ships or tech being used in Nil) are waved off as symbolic, but metaphors like “germ-worlds” or “flaws” are taken at face value to justify transcendence. If one side gets symbolic treatment, the other should be scrutinized just as much.

You already said this. This also sounds like you've used ChatGPT or AI to write a response on your behalf because there's no way you're repeating the same thing.

Most importantly here that bugs me now: R>F chains are only as strong as their top layer. If there are serious inconsistencies at the Monitor Sphere level, it does affect the logic used to justify the tiers beneath it. That’s why re-evaluating the top is important now IMO.

All you said was the same response despite the information I've already given. You're just repeating the same thing about “inconsistencies” rather than explaining what exactly makes it inconsistent.

I’m not saying there’s zero merit to the position, just that it needs more concrete support than interpretive summaries or blogs. Solid scans and direct statements would go a long way here, rather than redirecting people that supposedly has answers in a... checks ...154k byte blog.

Can you not use AI?

Anyway, I myself don't have a lot of time, so as I said, I don't have stakes in this, so I'll wait for what OP and others will bring up. Might be a while until I check up on here again, if at all.

You haven't even formulated an argument or a direct response to my previous points. You literally repeated the same stance as the first time we talked.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm not the only one that can see this pre-written response as not actually being written by the people participating here, right? Other than the OP, this hasn't gone anywhere ie the horrible response I got above that literally doesn't go anywhere, or actual addresses the point I've just made.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

If you think I am going in circles, it’s because the issue here is the lack of proof, double standards in interpreting metaphors or what's literal, and the chain scaling part, which haven’t actually been addressed with evidence. Ignoring my points or assuming intent doesn’t resolve that, and no amount of deflection changes the fact that scans are still missing for things like author intent. (Which, let's be real here, without actually proving, is something most shouldn't do.) Also, I don't use AI to make my point, I do use a lot of autocorrect and try to come up with different words to use, (i.e., synonyms.) so I don't feel repetitive to myself or others when writing.

Additionally, one last time in case you missed it: I have no stakes here, but I do want some things answered, and so I'm less making points, and trying to clear up contentions that may arise.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If you think I am going in circles, it’s because the issue here is the lack of proof, double standards in interpreting metaphors or what's literal, and the chain scaling part, which haven’t actually been addressed with evidence. Ignoring my points or assuming intent doesn’t resolve that, and no amount of deflection changes the fact that scans are still missing for things like author intent. (Which, let's be real here, without actually proving, is something most shouldn't do.) Also, I don't use AI to make my point, I do use a lot of autocorrect and try to come up with different words to use, (i.e., synonyms.) so I don't feel repetitive to myself or others when writing.

Sure……

I recommend you read your own response or else I would interdict you for stone-walling and nauseating the hell out of me.

Additionally, one last time in case you missed it: I have no stakes here, but I do want some things answered, and so I'm less making points, and trying to clear up contentions that may arise.

That's a problem in itself. You've subjected yourself to this argument which the arguments you've made so far are incredibly weak and repetitive ie your unnecessary stone-walling which AI can't detect unless you're very specific about it being some sort of DC-aruging bot.

 

[Vesxpura]

in my opinion. using quantitive terms without evidence of it infact BEING qualitative or it being based on the quantitative term should be means of disqualification in general.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

If you believe I'm "nauseating" you for asking proof of certain things, that's really just on you. (e.g., author's intent, etc.)

Also, if the "arguments" are weak, it should be easy to counter them with direct evidence. If you don't want to, that's fine by me, and you can just say so.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If you believe I'm "nauseating" you for asking proof of certain things, that's really just on you. (e.g., author's intent, etc.)

I've literally explained the in-text story of it. Which I have already shown multiple times and stated it all happens in Superman: Beyond:

Something to note as well. With the example of the Overvoid and the Multiverse using the term “infinitesmal” was nothing something to be quantified as much as the scale is so big that the Multiverse in comparison to the infinite Void is “infinitesimal.” Morrison wasn't going to contradict his notion of the Overvoid as something infinite by using something that’s finite in scale hence why it isn't a quantifiable comparison even with that word. This is why the Overvoid describes it as a flaw, a concept, a germ-like mess in its serene perfection.

My final sentence is important because the OP only uses the context of Final Crisis:

Argumentation #1: Nil is quantifiable in scale:​

This is quite wrong. The example used was that of the technology of the Monitors were city-sized in the Multiverse. As much as I disagree with @Xearesay in many things DC-related. I agree that the scale isn't a literal thing to be taken literally. I'll expanded upon some overlooked things which applies to only during the time of Final Crisis because most of that was contradicted in Multiversity despite the same author writing both.

• Nil during the time of Final Crisis was in the Overvoid and not the Multiverse as shown in Multiversity. The idea of a “Monitor Sphere” didn't even exist until that map that came out years later.
• All of Existence or the Orrery was part of the divine metal caged by the Overvoid because it was a germ to the perfection and that's why to the Montiors as well describe the worlds as germ-like.
• The techonolgu, themselves, aren't part of the Multiverse, so it's impossible to see their size in a city-like structure in Nil in comparison to the Multiverse, after all, if it can exist in the Overvoid due to Nil being in the Overvoid then there's no way it can enter the Multiverse without adjusting size.
• To add on top of the visual display that the OP mentions. The Monitor are very much bigger than the Universe thslmves as the Earth are representative of each of the 52 Universes. The ships can hold multiple Monitors, if it were literal then the ships are would literally be bigger than the Multiverse as we seen the Multiverse being contained in Nil rather easily.

Argumentation #2: Infinitesimal​

I've already said that Morrison likes to use words that aren't exactly what they mean.

• Morrison always described the Overvoid as the “infinite” nothingness outside Creation. So using “infinitesimal” to make the comparison clearly isn’t to contradict himself, but that he finds the contrast so large that “infinitesimal” seemed like the appropriate word, or else he clearly doesn't know what it means.
• He also described the New Gods as “platonic” despite the fact that they can't be by using it as the ideas that are all-prevading, eternal, and unchanging yet he still used the word to “emphasize” how non-mundane the gods are in comparison to the mortal realms.

You're not only stonewalling, but hand-waving.

Also, if the "arguments" are weak, it should be easy to counter them with direct evidence. If you don't want to, that's fine by me, and you can just say so.

I've countered your points which you haven't address any points made, you just repeated your personal stance on just generalizing thing(That’s also hasty generalization). It also doesn't help that you don't want to read the blog, it’s not on me to explain things, if you don't know it.

I will ignore any further response if it has the same pressing issues.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

I've literally explained the in-text story of it. Which I have already shown multiple times and stated it all happens in Superman: Beyond:

Let me quote a bit of myself too:

are interpretations presented as fact, without scans or quotes to back them

You're not only stonewalling, but hand-waving.

I don't know, I think dismissing concerns regarding proof for author's intent shouldn't be a thing when it comes to defending things like 1-A realms, characters, etc. It's fine if it's your interpretation, though.

I've countered your points which you haven't address any points made, you just repeated your personal stance on just generalizing thing(That’s also hasty generalization). It also doesn't help that you don't want to read the blog, it’s not on me to explain things, if you don't know it.

I'm sorry you think that? However, I'm not the one asserting author's intent and that he uses words like "infinitesimal" wrong or interchangeably with other words.

Anyway, since you've already accused me of things, and seemingly getting heated off of me asking you about certain topics, I apologize I hurt you and made you "nauseate."

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Let me quote a bit of myself too:

You've made the claim and I only addressed it. That makes me the recipient if had you addressed my points that would have shifted the burden of proof, but you didn't. You just made the same point which you're the one to be showing undeniable proof of how 1-A works and what disqualifies the Monitors from getting it.

You failed to do any of that. So I don't need to be showing you despite the response I've made to each of the points you presented. You complain about me saying “Grant Morrison means this” yet I've used the story example, I don't need to extrapolate anything because the assumption is you did your research into it. You said yourself aren't knowledgeable in this area or you're relying on the OP's words then it's your word against your own.

I don't know, I think dismissing concerns regarding proof for author's intent shouldn't be a thing when it comes to defending things like 1-A realms, characters, etc. It's fine if it's your interpretation, though.

I've made an example with the Overvoid and the Multiverse, which you said you understand that context, but you also at the same said it wasn't enough? That's a double standard.

I'm sorry you think that? However, I'm not the one asserting author's intent and that he uses words like "infinitesimal" wrong or interchangeably with other words.

I believe that was already answered by this (You said you “read” it but I feel you haven't):

Argumentation #2: Infinitesimal​

I've already said that Morrison likes to use words that aren't exactly what they mean.

• Morrison always described the Overvoid as the “infinite” nothingness outside Creation. So using “infinitesimal” to make the comparison clearly isn’t to contradict himself, but that he finds the contrast so large that “infinitesimal” seemed like the appropriate word, or else he clearly doesn't know what it means.
• He also described the New Gods as “platonic” despite the fact that they can't be by using it as the ideas that are all-prevading, eternal, and unchanging yet he still used the word to “emphasize” how non-mundane the gods are in comparison to the mortal realms.

This is sufficient because I'm only answering the portion that you addressed as lacking, you haven't put my proof of it other than saying you read it and it wasn't enough despite it being on you to prove that wrong.

Anyway, since you've already accused me of things, and seemingly getting heated off of me asking you about certain topics, I apologize I hurt you and made you "nauseate."

I've accused you of stone-walling, which you blatantly did.

I don't need the pity, you're just bad at arguing, plain and simple. No offense.

 

[Sandman31]

I agree with VeryGoofy about the Monitor Sphere. The Monitor Sphere is not a spatial dimension. It was the thoughts/stories of the Monitor Mind given form. Grant Morrison even stated that the last realm that is within DCU is Limbo while the Monitor Realm and The Overvoid are archetypal realms that exists beyond it (Grant has grouped Nil and the Overvoid multiple times, emphasizing them both to be archetypal realm beyond the multiverse)

The Monitors basically are beings of pure thought, thoughts of the Monitor-Mind. When the Monitor Mind sent its first probe to examine the flaw, the Monitor-Mind was shocked because it doesnt know about the concept of "story", the probe split into two and the flaw was scabbed over with divine metals, the Though Robot is what remains of the first contact, the Thought Robot infects the Monitor-Mind with questions and speculations which sparked the race of the Monitors.
When the Monitor-Mind discovered the "Flaw" it created a concept to contain it:
https://www.newsarama.com/2117-grant-morrison-final-crisis-exit-interview-part-2.html

GM: As we saw in Superman Beyond #1, the original, infinitely vast Monitor-Mind created a ‘concept’ to contain and study the Multiverse. That concept – a structure known as the Orrery of Worlds – was designed to protect Monitor from the effects of the Multiverse, like a bandage over a wound, or, perhaps, a cage around a wild animal.

The Monitors basically are beings of pure thought, thoughts of the Monitor-Mind. When the Monitor Mind sent its first probe to examine the flaw, the Monitor-Mind was shocked because it doesnt know about the concept of "story", the probe split into two and the flaw was scabbed over with divine metals, the Though Robot is what remains of the first contact, the Thought Robot infects the Monitor-Mind with questions and speculations which sparked the race of the Monitors.
If the Overvoid is the "Monitor-Mind" the Monitors are its "thoughts" created to protect itself against the story of DC that is staining its perfection.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/02/03/inside-the-mind-of-grant-morrison?page=2

GM: In the case of comic book stories, it's the war between white page and ink. And who's to say that the page might want that particular story drawn on it? [laughs] What happens if the page is a bit pissed off at the story that's drawn on it? So I thought of the page as God. The idea being that the Overvoid – as we called it in Final Crisis - of the white page as a space is sort of God. And it's condensing stories out of itself because it finds inside its own gigantic white space, self-absorbed pristine consciousness, it finds this little stain or mark, this DC Multiverse somebody has 'drawn'. And it starts investigating, and it's just shocked with what it sees, with all the crazy activity and signifying going on in there. It then tries to protect itself from the seething contact with 'story' and imagines a race of beings, 'angels' or 'monitors' (another word for angel, of course) to function as an interface between its own giant eternal magnificence and this tiny, weird crawling anthill of life and significance that is the DC Multiverse.

The story of the Monitors was created by the Monitor-Mind itself, the story of the Monitors is the Ultimate Story of the Monitor-Mind.

GM:: No. Monitor-Mind has worked through its own Ultimate Story and spared Nix Uotan to be its sole representative and interface with the Multiverse. I see Uotan’s ‘hyperhero’ role in the DCU as a cross between the Silver Surfer and Doctor Who (particularly the Earthbound Jon Pertwee iteration of the character).

The Cosmic Clock (see the sky in Monitor Sphere are made of clockworks) contains the Archetypal World world of Nil around the central multiverse

So yeah, the Monitor Sphere isn’t a place in space or in the multiverse — it’s conceptual. It’s the thoughts of the Monitor-Mind (aka the Overvoid) given form. The Monitors are basically ideas or mental constructs created by the Overvoid to shield itself from the "Flaw" — aka the DC Multiverse, which is like a stain of narrative chaos on its perfect, storyless being.

When the Monitor-Mind first encountered the Flaw, it didn’t understand "story" and was basically infected by it. Its first probe split into the Monitor and Anti-Monitor, and the Thought Robot (Superman in that higher form) is what’s left of that first contact. That first infection led to speculation, identity, and eventually the birth of the Monitors as a race of conceptual beings meant to study and contain the Multiverse.

The Orrery of Worlds is the structure it created — like a bandage — to hold the Multiverse at a safe distance. Limbo is the last "place" within the DCU — everything beyond that (Monitor Sphere, Overvoid) exists in a metafictional/archetypal space beyond story. The Monitor Sphere is the interface between the Overvoid (pure thought, no story) and the DC Multiverse (a chaos of stories). For it to function as a buffer, observer, and containment system, it must exist outside the Multiverse — not within it — just like a computer interface isn’t part of the program’s code, but a layer that allows interaction with it.


Basically:
Overvoid = Monitor-Mind (blank page/God)
Multiverse = Flaw/stain (story/ink)
Monitors = thoughts of the Overvoid, made to deal with story
Orrery of Worlds = containment concept (a “cage” for story)

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

I believe asking for proof isn't a claim. I'm sorry you think that was the case. You said the following beforehand:

So using “infinitesimal” to make the comparison clearly isn’t to contradict himself, but that he finds the contrast so large that “infinitesimal” seemed like the appropriate word, or else he clearly doesn't know what it means.

This, in my opinion, is arguing author's intent, which you failed to prove so far. (E.g., an interview with the author regarding his thoughts on the usage of "infinitesimal," or anything else that would let this be interpreted as qualitative difference.)

So, for all intents and purposes, it is used as a quantitative gap as mentioned in the OP until proven otherwise. I hope you won't mistake me asking questions and for clarifications as arguments, again. I believe I made my stance clear since the beginning:

As an outsider with no real stakes here, I think the CRT makes sense, and I'm leaning towards agreeing. The use of terms like "infinitesimal" and how the Monitor Sphere is depicted seem more like extreme scale differences rather than something like outright reality-fiction transcendence, IMO.

As for using the story, you haven't exactly made a compelling argument that it aligns with your view. But, if you believe you have, I guess I should take your word for it, right? So should everyone who reads DC pages and asks questions, right?

As for you saying I'm using double standard in regard to the Overvoid and the Multiverse, not really, no. Even if the Overvoid is infinite, describing the Multiverse as “infinitesimal” doesn’t automatically imply a qualitative superiority, since it can still be a quantitative comparison. (E.g., an infinite 10-D space could see its inhabitants as infinitesimal, without that implying full transcendence.)

The rest of that response is you going in circles, which, funnily enough, you accused me of earlier. Also, I'm not pitying you, I was concerned for your well-being, since it’s the first time I’ve met someone who gets nauseated over power scaling. One last thing: Asking for evidence of author intent instead of accepting personal interpretation isn’t stonewalling.

 

[ArgentDragonPluto]

Snip

Honestly, this is the kind of post that actually makes me reconsider parts of the CRT since it has scans, direct author quotes, and a coherent structure. Big difference from just asserting interpretations as fact without backup. Thanks.

 

[Xearesay]

Honestly, this is the kind of post that actually makes me reconsider parts of the CRT since it has scans, direct author quotes, and a coherent structure. Big difference from just asserting interpretations as fact without backup. Thanks.

Just saying, expecting some type of empirical proof for an interpretation misses the point of what an interpretation is. An Interpretation is not the same as a baseless opinion. Interpretation, especially in literature, is just one’s ability to extract meaning from what they’ve read. It’s something everyone does on a daily basis.

For example, you right now are engaging in interpretation as you read my comment, because your brain is trying to understand or formulate some type of meaning on what I’ve written. So if you were to reply to me, you’d be also expressing your interpretation of my comment.

So to engage in any meaningful conversation or reading of literature, we have to start by presupposing our own understanding of what we’re going to discuss, otherwise we wouldn’t have any knowledge to converse with. So there is no required evidence for an interpretation here. At best we could say that in literary analysis, the text being interpreted is the evidence of the interpretation, but I really don’t think that’s necessary. So unless someone references something outside of the text, there shouldn’t need to be any further evidence.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I believe asking for proof isn't a claim. I'm sorry you think that was the case. You said the following beforehand:

You've asserted it by agreeing with the OP, you've also put your thoughts on the matter here:

Given how the new tiering system defines 1-A, especially the importance of qualitative difference over just scale or perception, I can see why this would be questioned. It's not that the Monitor Sphere isn’t higher, since it clearly is, but whether it's truly beyond in the ontological sense that 1-A requires. So far, the scans in the OP speak for themselves, IMO. (Also, I did read this issue yesterday, and I did find it weird that they traveled to and from a supposedly 1-A world with technology.

Unless you're trying to play ignorant. You are claiming that it isn't 1-A, so that's something that can be addressed by me.

This, in my opinion, is arguing author's intent, which you failed to prove so far. (E.g., an interview with the author regarding his thoughts on the usage of "infinitesimal," or anything else that would let this be interpreted as qualitative difference.)

The intent wasn't the topic alone. The comparison between the Overvoid and Multiverse was used as an example of why “infinitemsal” isn't used as a quantifiable thing, in this case, not a measure. You've literally missed this point and you keep overlooking it which is something that wouldn’t happen if you write your own response.

So, for all intents and purposes, it is used as a quantitative gap as mentioned in the OP until proven otherwise. I hope you won't mistake me asking questions and for clarifications as arguments, again. I believe I made my stance clear since the beginning:

Yeah, it’s not only irrelevant, but your questions has been addressed, but you stone-wall everything by repeating the same motif.

As for using the story, you haven't exactly made a compelling argument that it aligns with your view. But, if you believe you have, I guess I should take your word for it, right? So should everyone who reads DC pages and asks questions, right?

This is a horrible contrast. I don't need to give you anything because you're arguing that something isn't 1-A because if you claim it then that's your burden of proof. I don't need to affirm a point when you're the one to make it and dismiss anything that goes against your notion.

As for you saying I'm using double standard in regard to the Overvoid and the Multiverse, not really, no. Even if the Overvoid is infinite, describing the Multiverse as “infinitesimal” doesn’t automatically imply a qualitative superiority, since it can still be a quantitative comparison. (E.g., an infinite 10-D space could see its inhabitants as infinitesimal, without that implying full transcendence.)

Yeah, the comparison isn't even great.

The argument surrounding the terminology “infinitesimal” is based on comparing/contrasting, not on a quantifiable scale. So what exactly do you get by telling us what infinitesimal means when the context of the story doesn't differentiate infinite/infinitesimal that's why we can't just index verses base on accurary of words unless it is clearly meant to used incorrectly, which in this case, the infinitesimal isn't a scale of quantity.

The rest of that response is you going in circles, which, funnily enough, you accused me of earlier. Also, I'm not pitying you, I was concerned for your well-being, since it’s the first time I’ve met someone who gets nauseated over power scaling. One last thing: Asking for evidence of author intent instead of accepting personal interpretation isn’t stonewalling.

You're repeating what I said which is exactly is why you're stone-walling. Also, I don't need your mockery about my “well-being.” You can't argue with which is very true from this response that is just a mental gymnastic.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

So to engage in any meaningful conversation or reading of literature, we have to start by presupposing our own understanding of what we’re going to discuss, otherwise we wouldn’t have any knowledge to converse with. So there is no required evidence for an interpretation here. At best we could say that in literary analysis, the text being interpreted is the evidence of the interpretation, but I really don’t think that’s necessary. So unless someone references something outside of the text, there shouldn’t need to be any further evidence.

No point trying to argue with someone who uses AI to write for them. Some of the responses I got had nothing to do with my points.

The responses after I propagated the analysis were not attacking my analysis but repeating notions that context-based text are required of “evidence” which they're not or else that kind throws the scrutiny of interpretation.

That—-and the stone-walling which I don't know why he's trying to ignore but since he's not writing these response, it’s quite clear he couldn't control not doing it.

 

[Xearesay]

No point trying to argue with someone who uses AI to write for them. Some of the responses I got had nothing to do with my points.

The responses after I propagated the analysis were not attacking my analysis but repeating notions that context-based text are required of “evidence” which they're not or else that kind throws the scrutiny of interpretation.

That—-and the stone-walling which I don't know why he's trying to ignore but since he's not writing these response, it’s quite clear he couldn't control not doing it.

Lowkey, I suspected that some of their comments were written by an AI but I didn’t want to say anything.

 

[Robo432343]

bro using AI

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Is the argument for him using A.I. seriously that he 'sounds weird' by saying "154k bytes" (since you directly mentioned off-site that the phrase is what 'tipped you off' to the presence of A.I. text)? Bytes is basic computer terminology and anyone in under 20 seconds could look up the DC Cosmology blog and see that it is indeed, 154,000 bytes long. It comes off as a poor attempt to derail the thread.

I guess dead internet theory is real, this whole damn site is full of bots who dare know what a megabyte or gigabyte is!