Originally posted by carver9
If you said A writer wrote the Mary Poppins book, I would think one person wrote the Mary Poppins book. If you said a monkey wrote a book of infinite pages, I would think A monkey wrote the book of infinite pages, (one monkey, one writer). The context you're using about the batmobile doesn't fly with what's being discussed here. If you said a mechanic fixed the batmobile, you're talking about a single mechanic working on the batmobile, not 2 or 3.
You don't know what Astner and I are debating.
Originally posted by Youma
one of the reasons why I joined this forum is because of the good debates thats been going on in here lately. who are the master debaters of this forum?
Originally posted by Astner
monkeys
Originally posted by Endless Mike
monkeys
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
monkey
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
monkey
Originally posted by carver9
monkey
Facepalm myself into oblivion
Originally posted by Magnon
My construction does not introduce any unnecessary objects, it is a concise realization of a book with infinite pages featuring a final page. Occam is satisfied.
Furthermore, Occam's razor cuts down all explanations with the exception for the best explanation with the fewest assumptions. And because you disregard the original sequence of the pages it's not even a good enough explanaiton.
The explanation that you're contending against is "infinity was used figuratively," which is the only assumption made, and it's just as good as "infinity was used literally," in a vacuum.
Originally posted by Magnon
The physical order of pages in a book does not have to follow their order of writing. The page that lies last in the book, perhaps describing the final moments of the multiverse, might very well have been written first (or whenever).My construction for the infinite book easily allows for any page to be placed in the final page slot.
On top of that, this is all disproved by the fact that there was a final (sequential) page in the final script presented in Animal Man.
Originally posted by h1a8
It seems as if you are now arguing to win and not to ascertain the truth.It was meant literally because EVERYONE who read the comic thought it was meant literally. Basically writer's intent is clear. If the writer meant for them to not be infinite then he would have clarified to the reader so that the reader doesn't get misinformed.
So your argument is that there wasn't an infinite number of universes because the writer was using figurative language. Well that doesn't hold because his intent was that they were infinite in number.
Lastly, you can't discredit showings because of the sole reason "they violate science". If that was the case then ALL feats are discredited. That's the slippery slope Galan was talking about. Rather we can ignore the inconsistences with science in favor of writers intent.
On top of that I've seen both you and Galan disimiss the author's intent when made explicit on social media platforms.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
[B]We didn't see infinite Earths, though. We just saw the Anti-Monitor in a child/dwarf form sitting in a white void (what happened to his classic form?
I guess they changed it because it would look silly if he was talking to Batman while at his full size, and shrinking him down but keeping the classic form would also look silly).
I guess you haven't read the comic because it's explained pretty throughly.
And why did Darkseid in the alternate Final Crisis world have horns? I don't remember that from the original FC.
That's because he won Final Crisis and ruled the reality till he became an old god.
I don't think we can just assume there were multiverses involved in each of them.
We are not assuming, it's the very foundations of each of the crisis.
I would say it does, as if she was getting energy from 3 infinite multiverses, conquering one multiverse of 52 universes wouldn't be taking so long.
That's not how comics work and you know it.
There was also the fact that Wonder Woman was trying to tell SBP that if he helped them, they could create a new multiverse that was truly infinite, and SBP at first didn't like the idea, because it meant there could be other universes that would threaten his. So that implies that, in universe he was in at the time, there wasn't an infinite multiverse.
Nah, it doesn't means that at all. Please read the comic again.
Originally posted by Astner
A topological space with a direction isomorphic to real numbers, variable page widths with conserved mass, a locally weighted space; these are all fairly elaborate unnecessary assumptions.
Originally posted by Astner
Furthermore, Occam's razor cuts down all explanations with the exception for the best explanation with the fewest assumptions. And because you disregard the original sequence of the pages it's not even a good enough explanaiton.
Originally posted by Astner
The explanation that you're contending against is "infinity was used figuratively," which is the only assumption made, and it's just as good as "infinity was used literally," in a vacuum.
Originally posted by Astner
No one is arguing that you can't map all of the elements of a contable set to some of the elements of an uncountable set. But that's not what we're looking for, we're looking for a map that preserves the order of the pages: And the existence of such a map is easy to disprove, you just take the definition of continuity and then show that the preimages of that map doesn't exist because there is no final element.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Plus, this is comics, where we have an alien jesus who broke the bonds of infinity...by accelerating himself from a finite number start-point in a few panelsAgain, I'm completely in agreement that the word "infinite" in these scenes probably doesn't hold as much credit as in real life. Same like one million decibels or something.
However, I think Morrison's intention when he used "infinite" in that scene is literally. As Galan pointed out there are many instinctive clues indicate such. Just infinity often is shit in fiction due to most writers don't take a look at the implication of such word
I'd agree that the intent was for the book to be literally infinite, but I already explained why I don't accept lifting it as an infinite strength feat.
Originally posted by abhilegend
That was because Anti Monitor won COIE, destroyed multiverse and devolved himself back so that in the end he ceases to exist too.
But he still did exist, even after he had supposedly 'won'. It was directly stated that the parameters of each crisis were different, so I see no need to involve a multiverse there without more direct evidence.
I guess you haven't read the comic because it's explained pretty throughly.
I read it. I just don't like the dwarf form.
That's because he won Final Crisis and ruled the reality till he became an old god.
And Old Gods have horns by default? If you become one, you grow them? And how long is that supposed to take? Secondly, 'becoming an Old God' just by ruling for a long time doesn't really make sense, since the Old Gods were the original race of gods whose deaths created the New Gods. Darkseid could rule for an infinite time but he'd still have been born after the Old Gods fell, so he wouldn't be one of them.
We are not assuming, it's the very foundations of each of the crisis.
But all of these crises are different. They are not the originals, but recreations, with different scenarios and circumstances.
That's not how comics work and you know it.
I don't see what you're saying. Any way you look at it, it's an inconsistency.
Nah, it doesn't means that at all. Please read the comic again.
I read it. I'm not saying that it's impossible that there was a multiverse for each of the recreated crises, but I don't see sufficient evidence for it.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Do you not suspend belief when reading comics? Where do you draw the line?
When it gets too convoluted and requires too many breaks in logic. Admittedly, that's kind of subjective. But if you are lifting an infinite weight, what are you lifting it against? How come it's not pulling everything else around it in with its own gravity?
I already said I can suspend my disbelief and go with the explanation that the physics in Limbo are different and can allow for these things, but that also means you can't use traditional physics to claim that they used infinite strength to lift it. That's a sword that cuts both ways.
Same with the Hulk vs. Ironclad. Force spread to infinite dimensions would be infinite, but why is it separated so far instead of just destroying everything immediately around them? I believe the intent there was that since they were in a place that connected to infinite dimensions, their clash would spread power into all of them. The writer just didn't consider that dividing up that power would make it infinitesimal. Or maybe it was infinitesimal in most of the dimensions it reached, just doing some actual damage in a few of them.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
I'd agree that the intent was for the book to be literally infinite, but I already explained why I don't accept lifting it as an infinite strength feat.
Well, we basically are in agreement.
But for me, it more like Superman lifts the heavens. Sounds cool. Doesn't make him literally have infinite strength, but at least we can cross that one off the "things Superman hasn't lifted yet" list now.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
When it gets too convoluted and requires too many breaks in logic. Admittedly, that's kind of subjective. But if you are lifting an infinite weight, what are you lifting it [b]against? How come it's not pulling everything else around it in with its own gravity?I already said I can suspend my disbelief and go with the explanation that the physics in Limbo are different and can allow for these things, but that also means you can't use traditional physics to claim that they used infinite strength to lift it. That's a sword that cuts both ways.
Same with the Hulk vs. Ironclad. Force spread to infinite dimensions would be infinite, but why is it separated so far instead of just destroying everything immediately around them? I believe the intent there was that since they were in a place that connected to infinite dimensions, their clash would spread power into all of them. The writer just didn't consider that dividing up that power would make it infinitesimal. Or maybe it was infinitesimal in most of the dimensions it reached, just doing some actual damage in a few of them. [/B]
But then, how does Hulk not sink into the ground when the 100or so tons he lifts is transferred to his feet?
How doe Bucky's shoulder not explode when he punches with superstrength?
How does Quicksilver gain enough energy to run at his speeds?
How does a mutation in your DNA enable you to control the weather?
How does Batman become an Olympic weightlifter (and world record at that), sprinter, marathon runner, gymnast and martial artist, whilst holding multiple degrees in advanced fields, whilst learning several languages to a sufficient fluency to pass as a native, whilst learning escape artistry and stagecraft and magic, whilst partying hard enough to give the reputation as a himbo?
How does Captain America's shield simultaneously absorb all impact (this protecting Cap) and yet, be able to bounce around like a ping pong ball?
That's just off the top of my head. You name a superhero, I'll pick fundamental holes in it - which would negate the majority of their feats.
Comics fall over to anyone who has a modicum of scientific knowledge, be it biology, physics or chemistry.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But then, how does Hulk not sink into the ground when the 100or so tons he lifts is transferred to his feet?How doe Bucky's shoulder not explode when he punches with superstrength?
How does Quicksilver gain enough energy to run at his speeds?
How does a mutation in your DNA enable you to control the weather?
How does Batman become an Olympic weightlifter (and world record at that), sprinter, marathon runner, gymnast and martial artist, whilst holding multiple degrees in advanced fields, whilst learning several languages to a sufficient fluency to pass as a native, whilst learning escape artistry and stagecraft and magic, whilst partying hard enough to give the reputation as a himbo?
How does Captain America's shield simultaneously absorb all impact (this protecting Cap) and yet, be able to bounce around like a ping pong ball?
That's just off the top of my head. You name a superhero, I'll pick fundamental holes in it - which would negate the majority of their feats.
Comics fall over to anyone who has a modicum of scientific knowledge, be it biology, physics or chemistry.
Like I said, you can suspend your disbelief, but it's not an all - or - nothing proposition. There's a breaking point, and suggesting that those Superman and Hulk feats imply literally infinite physical strength goes beyond mine.
I still listed them though.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
Like I said, you can suspend your disbelief, but it's not an all - or - nothing proposition. There's a breaking point, and suggesting that those Superman and Hulk feats imply literally infinite physical strength goes beyond mine.I still listed them though.
Which is why I asked, where do you draw the line. I mean, even with Superman benching the mass of the Earth (which you're ok with) - Superman doesn't sink into the ground, nor does this gigantic mass (on Earth, I believe) start messing with the gravitational field of Earth (tides etc).
I mean, either it has mass, in which it exerts a gigantic pull on Earth, or it doesn't.
You questioned the infinite book - what are you lifting it against (and even emboldened your word).
So when Hulk lifts a simple 100tons, what is he lifting it against?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which is why I asked, where do you draw the line. I mean, even with Superman benching the mass of the Earth (which you're ok with) - Superman doesn't sink into the ground, nor does this gigantic mass (on Earth, I believe) start messing with the gravitational field of Earth (tides etc).I mean, either it has mass, in which it exerts a gigantic pull on Earth, or it doesn't.
You questioned the infinite book - what are you lifting it against (and even emboldened your word).So when Hulk lifts a simple 100tons, what is he lifting it against?
He's lifting it against the gravity of the Earth, or whatever planet/moon he's on.
Why he doesn't sink into the ground is narrative convenience.
But if you claimed he was lifting infinity tons, that wouldn't work.
Originally posted by Endless Mike
He's lifting it against the gravity of the Earth, or whatever planet/moon he's on.Why he doesn't sink into the ground is narrative convenience.
But if you claimed he was lifting infinity tons, that wouldn't work.
Yes, but something with that much mass will exert a noticeable pull on its surroundings.
Narrative convenience also then works with infinite strength.