Does something as qualify Boundless if it lacks cosmology and feats?

[Davidgumazon]

1. Answer the Title(question). True or False, and why.
To clarify my question: I mean—Does Entity when SFV lacks cosmology and feats, will Entity still qualify as Boundless? True or False, and why.
Context:
Entity = character or idea
SFV = Series/Franchise/Verse
1a. SFV's only portrays Entity's narrative and/or statements, it was claimed from certain support character, whilst the SFV's without narrative of "beyond higher dimensions" and/or "infinite hierarchies" and/or etcetera therefore lacks cosmology.
1b. Cosmology (along with Feats) that I'm referring to is SFV's world building, which means the story portrays a settings, characters and plots. However, when character or something is Boundless whilst the series/franchise without Cosmology, it defines as lacking the portrayal of world building regarding "beyond higher dimensions" and/or "infinite hierarchies" and/or etcetera.

2. There this guy (I decided it will remain anonymous) who I was debating, they're claiming that in VSB, cosmology (along with feats) becomes irrelevant, as long as character/something have narrative and/or statement similar to Totality Embodiment (since Fiction have variants of portraying it) whilst there's a character who's able to reach/access it requiring to give up everything that they had, in order to unite with with it (therefore reachable). The issue was that FSV portrays Totality Embodiment without cosmology (same as 1a/1b situations), does narrative statement alone qualifies it as boundless? Yes or No, and why?

 

[SuperNova55555]

Cosmology has nothing to do with Tier 0

 

[Davidgumazon]

snip

That doesn't answer any of my questions. Just simply saying no or disagreement without elaboration, doesn't satisfy explanation.

If cosmology was irrelevant, then if I had a nickel for every time I see variants of Totality Embodiment from various Series/Franchises/Verse that lacks cosmology happened, I'd be rich.

By that logic, then I can freely put those Entities into Boundless, this includes Apophatic getting Boundless status without the backing of a High 1-A structure.

 

[SuperNova55555]

That doesn't answer any of my questions. Just simply saying no or disagreement without elaboration, doesn't satisfy explanation.

If cosmology was irrelevant, then if I had a nickel for every time I see variants of Totality Embodiment from various Series/Franchises/Verse that lacks cosmology happened, I'd be rich.

By that logic, then I can freely put those Entities into Boundless, this includes Apophatic getting Boundless status without the backing of a High 1-A structure.

Apophaticism has also nothing to do with cosmology because any High 1-A structure can be described positively, so the moment you only attribute God in negation, it’s already beyond all positive affirmations of High 1-A and below qualities

 

[Davidgumazon]

Snip

Your reasoning mischaracterizes the Apophatic, by suggesting that it exist in isolation from the structures that it transcended—due to it often defined by transcendence of typical descriptions, yet this transcendence is intrinsically tied to the cosmological frameworks in which they operate in, by this logic, it overlooks Entity described by negation still operates within a narrative context that frames its existence and power. While it may negate conventional characteristics, but without a cosmological basis, the implications of that negation remain vague and ungrounded, because negation alone becomes a hollow abstraction devoid of substance. It's akin to claiming "Entity's transcendence of literal everything but it can't be define by cosmology that define them" therefore it's conclusion that Entity's Apophatic is contradictory as it necessitates a foundation within SFV to provide meaning and context, thereby undermining the assertion that it exists entirely outside such frameworks. I've some people indeed claims Apophatic doesn't automatically a Tier 0, while Modalities are Tier 0, by their logic, it means Tier 0 = Apophatic ≠ Modalities = Tier 0.

 

[SuperNova55555]

Your reasoning mischaracterizes the Apophatic, by suggesting that it exist in isolation from the structures that it transcended—due to it often defined by transcendence of typical descriptions, yet this transcendence is intrinsically tied to the cosmological frameworks in which they operate in, by this logic, it overlooks Entity described by negation still operates within a narrative context that frames its existence and power. While it may negate conventional characteristics, but without a cosmological basis, the implications of that negation remain vague and ungrounded, because negation alone becomes a hollow abstraction devoid of substance. It's akin to claiming "Entity's transcendence of literal everything but it can't be define by cosmology that define them" therefore it's conclusion that Entity's Apophatic is contradictory as it necessitates a foundation within SFV to provide meaning and context, thereby undermining the assertion that it exists entirely outside such frameworks.

Pretty sure this is AI ngl

Anyhow: This doesn’t understand anything about analogical predication of God. You make up this stuff of “vagueness” or whatever the **** but it means nothing because all cosmological structures can be addressed positively, i.e you can determine qualities of theirs with affirmation and cohesion. But for God, that’s not possible. That’s why all High 1-A structures are subsumed within Tier 0 to begin with because they way they are attributed their ontology is inherently lesser than the way used for God.

And Apophaticism ties in with the Great-Making Properties that such a being would have. So an Apophatic God is Good, but it is Good in a way we can’t comprehend. That’s why it’s the zenith of being whilst also you being capable of validly negating Goodness as a predicate of it (obviously including the fact Goodness is it’s essence as well, something High 1-A structures don’t possess). But for something High 1-A, you can just say it’s Good and that’s all. So it cannot be the zenith of being.

 

[Davidgumazon]

Snip

That only qualifies if the context it derives from isn’t fictional (yes, I’m referring to the fact that actual Reality-Fiction Interaction means these Tier 0 Entities inherently cannot interact with Reality (us actual real people)—except: We in Reality can influence how we shape Fiction, whereas the reverse is not true, as the immutable truth is that they're merely created; realistically Modalities and Apophaticism weren't created for Power Scaling, the fact it was included in WIS raises questions on framework application on current site and all other Tiering Systems). The actual context they transcended was fictional, but even if all cosmologies can be considered positive, negating them does not make them real. If cosmology is irrelevant to Apophaticism and Modalities, then the tiering system becomes irrelevant, as anyone or anything below it could potentially reach it in certain conditions—due to the immutable truth of the SFV portraying it as reachable or having variants (it only becomes unreachable if SFV said so). The inherent nature of these Entities is not the same, despite sharing commonalities; however, there are different interpretations, particularly regarding their functionality across various SFVs, therefore Tier 0 becomes unreliable when Entities can transition between various levels (referring to the general tendency of people to classify them as below Tier 0 due to tiering systems) without strict adherence to their SFV—by acknowledging that "it makes all cosmologies irrelevant" consequently qualifies "beyond all positive affirmations of High 1-A". The cosmology becomes irrelevant, which in turn makes the definitions of Apophatic and Modalities irrelevant, given their vagueness and lack of grounding. This is why some people (across various platforms) argue against or in favor of the claim that Apophatic does or does not automatically qualify as Tier 0 while asserting that Modalities are considered Tier 0 without cosmology. For comparison, although not universally accepted, both this two is regarded philosophically as Tier 0. By their logic, this implies that Tier 0 = Apophatic ≠ Modalities = Tier 0, effectively contradicting their own nature when you put all Tier 0 entities into the same story/narrative/crossverse, while some WIS scalers treating "omnipotence" statement in some SFV as mere label, which is not universally accepted (according to including all communities). It remains an immutable truths that “they neither know nor acknowledge each other” and “they can’t interact despite being at the same tier” because “they do not derive from the same SFV” in crossverse scenarios, inevitably that they must NOT contradict their own canonicity, which ironically undermines their nature due to the immutable truths that I mentioned. It's akin to claiming that all Entities (whether Modalities or Apophatic) in all religions are the same, a claim that is logically inconsistent. The point of my argument is to challenge the applicability of concepts like Apophaticism and Modalities when dealing with fictional cosmologies, as it's immutable truth that they exist in Fiction, I'm highlighting the logical inconsistencies that arise in asserting that Tier 0 entities share a commonality, despite their origins in different fictional narratives. So, it creates a debate whether unifying framework for Tier 0 is even feasible, which I doubt it will, as Tier 0 qualifiers was rewritten and creates variants (VSB, CSAP, PSW, Omniversal Battlefield, and etcetera). Does that make Entities a Boundless? It evidently dependent on Tiering System, but if you unify them then it contradicts, so it makes Tier 0 unreliable. The definitions of Entities (referring to my OP's statement: when character or something is Boundless whilst the series/franchise without Cosmology, it defines as lacking the portrayal of world building regarding "beyond higher dimensions" and/or "infinite hierarchies" and/or etcetera.) alone doesn't automatically qualify Tier 0 without further cosmology which is tied to Tiering Systems in general. Boundless label alone lacks ontological grounding, so without in‑world cosmology there's no mechanism showing how Boundlessness operates or what it affects.