• 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.

Can someone have Transduality Type 2 while being a Concept at the same time?

You can be abstract but I'm not sure about being a specific concept.
 
From Plato's republic. Why do you think they're 1-A if they don't transcend all concepts?
1. That "Plato=1-A" stuff is getting nuked.

2. They're supposedly 1-A via transcending every possible manifestation of space-time. This actually would be a 1-A feat.

3. Transcending "all concepts" isn't 1-A.
 
1. That "Plato=1-A" stuff is getting nuked.

2. They're supposedly 1-A via transcending every possible manifestation of space-time. This actually would be a 1-A feat.

3. Transcending "all concepts" isn't 1-A.
1. No it isn't
2. They literally transcend all conceptual dualities
3. Transcending all concepts includes concept of duality, non dualism, dimension, space and time

Have you read plato's republic?
 
1. No it isn't
2. They literally transcend all conceptual dualities
3. Transcending all concepts includes concept of duality, non dualism, dimension, space and time

Have you read plato's republic?
1. It is. There's an ongoing CRT as we speak that's already agreed to merge Type 1 and 2 concepts and remove the 1-A tiering.

2. Which isn't a 1-A feat.

3. Which isn't a 1-A feat. Unless the dimensionality in question is proven to be extra-large spatial dimensions, that's just Low 1-C.

Not really but I do know the Tiering System and have a decent enough (if rudimentary) grasp of Platonic Forms. Them being automatically 1-A isn't really a thing.
 
1. It is. There's an ongoing CRT as we speak that's already agreed to merge Type 1 and 2 concepts and remove the 1-A tiering.

2. Which isn't a 1-A feat.

3. Which isn't a 1-A feat. Unless the dimensionality in question is proven to be extra-large spatial dimensions, that's just Low 1-C.

Not really but I do know the Tiering System and have a decent enough (if rudimentary) grasp of Platonic Forms. Them being automatically 1-A isn't really a thing.
normally being portrayed as entirely external abstractions that lie outside of the applications of spatiotemporal dimensionality as a constant defined by physics on any level, even compared to infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions, usually by perceiving them as akin to fiction or something similarly insignificant.

However, do note that a character can qualify for this rating even if their verse does not have an infinitely-layered or equivalent cosmology, as long as it is either stated, shown or left very obvious that the character in question already bypasses the very nature of such structures altogether, in a way that simply "stacking" more of them logically would not allow one to reach their level of power / size.[

The concept of dimensions dictates dimensionality as a whole and transcending it would be outerversal. Infinite dimensions aren't needed
 
What's the point of that post? If something proves the above then its 1-A, whether it's a concept, a horse or pie.

Just being called a Platonic Form isn't proof of the above.
 
What's the point of that post? If something proves the above then its 1-A, whether it's a concept, a horse or pie.

Just being called a Platonic Form isn't proof of the above.
Im talking about true platonic forms, and you would have to prove that a platonic form statement to be false platonic if you made the claim, but on this wiki its the opposite
 
Back
Top