^ In American Gothic, it threatened to destroy Heaven during the instability of the spiritual realms in the wake of Crisis on Infintie Earths. It's best on-panel feat I guess is chewing up Spectre and spitting him out. Literally. Then after Swamp Thing kinda gave it a new perspective on the nature of good and evil, it shook the Presence's hand.
I feel that a lot of subsequent characters who supposedly embody the darkness/oblivion/nothingness before the light/creation completely aped the concept from Moore.
Originally posted by Galan007
I don't quite understand what you're asking for here?If you are refusing to accept on-panel sources that refer to the omniverse as infinite, then what exactly do you need to see? An artist [impossibly] drawing an infinite amount of universes/multiverses on-panel, in an [impossible] one-shot issue?
What's being done is effectively what's was done with the One-Above-All when he was interpreted to be omnipotent. It was assumed based off the use of the word rather than a proper explanation outlining the characteristics of omnipotence. In hindsight it was the wrong way to go about things and because of it it was cemented to the point where people even now will deny the legitimacy of the counter-evidence.
Originally posted by Galan007
I understand your "infinity could just be an exaggeration" point, but unless we are given a legitimate, on-panel reason to assume the omniverse is sub-infinite or w/e, then I don't see why the scans should be taken at anything less than face value..? Not because of a single blurb from a guidebook, surely?
More on point, the contexts in which the word "infinite" is presented allows for either a figurative or a literal reading. By deciding on a literal interpretation you're assuming more than necessary, and an interpretation that primarily hinges on assumptions is a bad interpretation.
Originally posted by Galan007
I'd also argue that there is a difference between characters who are stated to be infinite, and cosmology that is stated to be infinite. With the former, it's easy enough to deduce if they *actually* wield infinite power, based on their showings(ie. does anyone surpass them? Have they shown limits? etc.)... But with the latter, we kind of just have to go by what the comics say, for obvious reasons(ie. an artist cannot possibly draw an infinite amount of anythings in a comic book, so they have to convey scope/scale through dialogue alone.)
In the case of the Beyonders there's an effort made to enforce a literal interpretation, e.g. because of their powers they're able to overthrow the creators if need be, a varied, unconventional vocabulary is used e.g. "non-finite," and the limitations of their powers are explained through limited proxy bodies, etc.
Is this a seamless case for the Beyonders being literally infinite? No. But the context clearly promotes a literal interpretation over a figurative one.
Originally posted by Smurph
also, while we're talking about the basics of interpreting everything in contextno, it's not automatically racist to simply refer to someone's nationality and profession
yes, it's plainly racist to say "This is what I get for arguing with" someone of that nationality
denying the racism by playing dumb does nothing to hide the racism, but successfully makes you look dumb 馃憜
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
.....The Beyonders are clearly shown to have limits, NOT due to their limited proxy bodies, but by their very nature as linear beings.
Which is an element that factors into this, and makes quite clear they are finite.
While this is a limitation in a technical sense (and an odd caveat if nothing else) it doesn't mean that the powers they're able to exert has to be finite. Infinite power does not imply omnipotence after all.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
My point with Astner is that he's more accepting for one side but more distrustful of the other, even though the proofs and evidences are pretty similar.
Is it perfect? No. But it doesn't have to be. All it has to do is dispute a figurative reading of the term infinity with the context provided.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85So was Chaos King, Knull, Pralaya, Oblivion, zopzop's Set...
Don't think so; it's one of those 'it has always existed!' type deals. No beginning and no end blah blah blah.My point with Astner is that he's more accepting for one side but more distrustful of the other, even though the proofs and evidences are pretty similar.
I haven't tracked the conversation closely enough. So I guess my only comment is that going around in circles about which infinity is greater seems like an exercise in semantics. Maybe just bear down on the actual characters? Beyonders non-linearity doesn't prevent them from knowing what will happen.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
How is it a far better case?They use the term 'they were created without limits' once.
So the story, as told, doesn't make sense if you interpret infinity figuratively here.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then a scant few pages later, show clearly defined limits. Fears and inabilities to do things.
@ODG: Pretty much. I agree with your post; just focus on the characters themselves.
I don't even know how this non linearity works. Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter?
Originally posted by Astner
There's also the context the multiverse being infinite, them using varying and unconventional vocabulary to describe their infinite condition, and most importantly they taking on finite forms to interact with the Defenders, and the damaging of these forms have no significant impact on their beings.So the story, as told, doesn't make sense if you interpret infinity figuratively here.
All in the same issue.
Galactus takes on limited forms too. He's not infinite. Unconventional language is just your term for 'flowery language '.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I don't even know how this non linearity works.
In mathematics linearity simply means that f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(c⋅x) = c⋅f(x) are satisfied.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Then they fear a threat they view as unstoppable (which, come on now, do we really believe the heroes won't stop??) And can't even risk drawing the attention of a non-linear being.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Galactus takes on limited forms too. He's not infinite. Unconventional language is just your term for 'flowery language '.
Originally posted by Astner
Linearity was just a stupid term they used in Time Runs Out to explain that the Beyonders couldn't time travel. Time is linear, they're linear, therefore they can't go back in time and prevent Dr. Doom from carrying out his plan.In mathematics linearity simply means that f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) and f(c⋅x) = c⋅f(x) are satisfied.
I don't recall if the destruction of the individual universes also destroyed their timelines or if it was ever clarified. So maybe?
They're the custodians of the multiverse, it's not about non-linear beings posing a threat to them.
That's because there are clear contradictions in the premise of Galactus having infinite power.
Did the comic not have the Beyonders agreeing there were unstoppable threats?
Unstoppable sounds suspiciously like they're unable to do something. Like they have limits.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85Well... time travel shenanigans orchestrated by Doom and Molecule Man still resulted in the Seventh Cosmos iteration of the Marvel Multiverse being destroyed anyway. So it's not like time travel = auto-win. Maybe at best a pyrrhic victory if we go by on-panel feats?
@ODG: Pretty much. I agree with your post; just focus on the characters themselves.I don't even know how this non linearity works. Would Flash going back in time defeat them? Is Zoom untouchable to them? Rip Hunter?
Either way, is time travel even a consideration if it's GEB fighting them?
Originally posted by Smurph
lol, kplease keep explaining about how to interpret words based on their context
Grow some thicker skin and move on with your life.