sorry to bother you bud, but do my boys count as Eldritch Abominations based on their physical characteristics? they can't bend reality, but their biology is wacked. hope i don't annoy, i don't desire any confusion, ALSO the Superhuman Species page...hmm, i seem to have a problem of confusion i thought it was supposed to mean "species that are super" not VERSE called as such, could it be fixed by my pages deleted from that category alongside clarifying by putting "SE (Verse)? thanks
Parmenides was the one who criticized the Platonic Form in the first place. Not to mention you close the thread without acknowledging the fact that the Platonic View is a theory without firm evidence to proof in the contrary.
Even you should know that to accept Platonic Forms as not absolute truth when they also have been criticized by other people.
Numbers may or may not be Platonic in a Form sense (that's besides the point) but what they are for sure (and what full-blooded platonism in mathematics would tell you) is that they are existent regardless of our associations with them. They are not objects bound to space and time, just as there is a number of dimensionless properties that exist, such as mass and charge. This goes right back to the argument your "older brother," made that 1-A's by their nature must be metaphysical, must be transcendent by their nature, which is simply not true. The fact of the matter is that you're changing nothing and your arguments are missing the point entirely.
But aside from that, Plato's claims that numbers are independent of time and space can be debatable and thus make even your point simply not solid enough to the evidence against the theory of Plato's Forms.
We not gonna go by what Plato say about his theory of Forms simply because to assume that all forms are independent of time and space will included us humans, which quite frankly I see that as absurd.
Forms are the *idea* of something. Platonism is not necessarily taken *literally* in the modern sense in regard to mathematics. For instance, space and time are tangible things that can be experienced. The only experience we have with quantification is the arbitrary metrics we create to define such a thing, but the essence of axiomatic logic exists independently of our association with it.
@Sans, you said that the assumption that numbers are a more fundamental concept than space-time is irrelevant because numbers are used to measure space-time? That is to imply that the concept of numbers gets remade everytime another countable concept exists.
Off topic, but There is already a rule for this back at VS Battle Wiki:
"Please do not expect matches with 1-A characters to be added, and do not create multiple threads for such purposes. Due to the unfathomably high gaps of power between characters within this category, and how hard it is to figure out their relative strengths, it is very rare that these threads end up being discussed for anything beyond casual entertainment."
Those are arbitrary associations, and even if measuring coordinates in a system involves numbers (dimensional complexity), it doesn't change the fact that numbers (as in, quantifiers of something) are likely more fundamental than space-time, under both the Empiricist and Platonic views.
Hmmm the assumption that numbers are more fundamental than space-time seems irrelevant when space and time was quantified by numbers.
Also IIRC doesn't the Platonic and Empiricist Views involves 3D, not 4D stuff? I not even sure where you get that assumpation, but I prefer looking into deep into things that hasn't explored deeply before.
If you don't understand the significance of the associations and concepts I'm introducing, then you honestly (and this isn't meant to offend you) shouldn't comment on them at all.
Space and time being quantified does not put a limitation on the idea of numbers themselves as abstract, Platonic-esque objects.
The Platonic view of numbers compares them to Forms, which are aspatial and atemporal objects that exist independently of associations made around them, and Empiricism takes the same approach but through a different philosophical framework.
In the first link, you referenced an article discussing Kant's views on space and time, which is utterly unrelated to the topic at hand, and the second is pseudoscientific garbage that is, again, utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
hi, i don't want to bother you, but what do you think of my verse and profiles overall? i would love to see your thoughts on each profile, but...i sound like i am demanding too much, which i apologize. but i did like that one comment you made, and i would love to see more like that
Could I use The Nameless Athesis as the supreme being of some of my stories? I'm a fan of that character. And I honestly do not have much ideas for original supreme characters so instead of creating a character similar to yours I ask if I can use him, while promising that I won't change his design in any way as much as I can.
Because as i said: i may run out of ideas for abstract/ supreme characters and using the images you used for the Nameless Antithesis is pointless. That character will not be interesting in any way. Oh and idk, i just like him/her/it. I like the way it is portrayed.
It's more so about a regular freshman named Leo, with his parents out of town he is home alone with his little sister. And one day when it was dark out Leo stayed after school to catch up on some of his classwork. He was walking home until someone was aiming a sniper at him shooting a bullet piercing through his chest. The street was empty.
(Lol that's all I have for now I'm still working on it o.o)