The One Above All is the Supreme Being of Marvel and master of the nigh omnipotent entity known as the Living Tribunal. He is the only being in the Marvel Omniverse with omnipotence.
So I've been reading quite a few threads that stated that The one above all is only 16th dimensional and that any one above (pre retcon beyonder, nyarlathotep,) could stomp him with zero effort. Is that true? I'm curious for I was thinking of pitting him up against the Glory, The most powerful thing in Doctor who.
Being the writer doesn't really mean anything. If you want to go that route, then any random mook from Umineko or Demon King Daimaou would be TOAA level+ since they can just transcend and use writer abilities.
What's happening to this forum..you need to be 464 trillion-dimensional now to be considered omnipotent. This Dimensional crap has overtaken everything.
@masterofluck123: We use feats for 99.9% of characters. But TOAA and The Presence are exceptions. TOAA has very few feats. Yet no one believes Thor can beat TOAA in a fight.
So I've been reading quite a few threads that stated that The one above all is only 16th dimensional and that any one above (pre retcon beyonder, nyarlathotep,) could stomp him with zero effort. Is that true? I'm curious for I was thinking of pitting him up against the Glory, The most powerful thing in Doctor who.
"Omnipotence" is a logical blackhole. It is just a title, note a feat.
So yes, TOAA is a 16-dimensional god who is stronger then LT who is 16-dimensional too.
Any higher dimensional character who is above 16-dimensional cosmos will stomp TOAA or any other featless "omnipotent" (Eru Illuvatar for example who is universal+ or low multiversal).
Off-topic:
Presence is not omnipotent too. And he alreay confirmed it.
It has been stated that the LT is 16 dimensional, Beyonder said he was infinity dimensional. so I am not sure why anyone would think TOAA is just 16 dimensional.
Let me ask you a question, what is larger, an infinitely large square or an finite cube?
The answer is an finite cube. While the infinitely large square has an infinite surface area, it lacks volume, and as such has zero volume. Therefore, it will always be infinitely lesser than any 3-dimensional object.
The same goes for any comparisons between a 3-dimensional object and an 4-dimensional object.
To explain it better,
A 1-Dimensional (line) object only has length.
A 2-Dimensional (plane) object has length and width. The area of a 2-D object = length x width. The width of any 1-D object = 0, so its area = 0, even if its length = infinity.
This works in the same manner with 3-Dimensional space. The volume of a 3-D object = length x width x height. Since a 2-D object's height = 0, it doesn't matter if its length or width = infinity. Its volume, and mass, will still = 0.
"Hypervolume"/the 4-Dimensional volume analogue = length x weight x height x a fourth dimension. Since a 3-D object's fourth dimension = 0, its "hypervolume" and "hypermass" = 0
For a 5-Dimensional volume analogue = length x width x height x a fourth dimension x a fifth dimension. Since a 4-D object fifth dimension = 0, its 5-D volume analogue, and 5-D mass analogue = 0
Basically, what this means is that, just like an infinitely thin, entirely flat, two-dimensional square has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a three-dimensional cube, the cube also has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a four-dimensional tesseract, which has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a five-dimensional hypercube, and so onwards.
Let me ask you a question, what is larger, an infinitely large square or an finite cube?
The answer is an finite cube. While the infinitely large square has an infinite surface area, it lacks volume, and as such has zero volume. Therefore, it will always be infinitely lesser than any 3-dimensional object.
The same goes for any comparisons between a 3-dimensional object and an 4-dimensional object.
To explain it better,
A 1-Dimensional (line) object only has length.
A 2-Dimensional (plane) object has length and width. The area of a 2-D object = length x width. The width of any 1-D object = 0, so its area = 0, even if its length = infinity.
This works in the same manner with 3-Dimensional space. The volume of a 3-D object = length x width x height. Since a 2-D object's height = 0, it doesn't matter if its length or width = infinity. Its volume, and mass, will still = 0.
"Hypervolume"/the 4-Dimensional volume analogue = length x weight x height x a fourth dimension. Since a 3-D object's fourth dimension = 0, its "hypervolume" and "hypermass" = 0
For a 5-Dimensional volume analogue = length x width x height x a fourth dimension x a fifth dimension. Since a 4-D object fifth dimension = 0, its 5-D volume analogue, and 5-D mass analogue = 0
Basically, what this means is that, just like an infinitely thin, entirely flat, two-dimensional square has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a three-dimensional cube, the cube also has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a four-dimensional tesseract, which has an infinite number of times less volume (and mass) than a five-dimensional hypercube, and so onwards.
Source (for 4-D and 5-D mass equations??) It seems to me like you're applying measurements regarding geometry to infinitely large planes and philosophical concepts that are non-geometric. What I mean is that lines and planes are conceptual; in reality lines and planes do not physically exist, they are patterns. Sentient life does not exist in a 2-D scale, life has never been perceived in 2-D from any sentient POV, it is purely theoretical. Why would an equation for mass exist for an object that will never have mass, or for dimensions which we don't have any proof for yet?
Which units exactly would your equations use for 4-D or for 5-D?
I just wrote paragraphs and realized that it probably won't get me anywhere so I deleted it. I just want to be concise here:
Let me paraphrase: If an object in infinite and omnipotent in 3-D, is it still nothing compared to a 4-D germ? Does dimensionality necessarily imply size, and does size necessarily imply power? Or does it imply something different that we don't understand? I just don't think that a being simply existing in a higher plane of dimensionality necessarily grants it an advantage over an omnipotent being from some lower plane of dimensionality, especially in a vs. battle when adjusted for scale. We generally assume that TOAA exists on whichever dimensional plane his opponent would as well, no?
@avatar_of_green: Infinity is a relative term. Infinity is based on perspective.
Dimensions are a real life concept. Of course they have a meaning. Sentience in 2 dimensional space is irrelevant here. If you are arguing that just because it is a concept, so it shouldn't be applied, we might as well abandon everything that is multiversal, because the multiverse is just a concept as well. Heck, we can abandon everything, because everything is conceptual in nature, including emotions, science, math etc.
If you exist on a higher dimensional space, your opponent can't do anything at all to harm you. Its like a drawing within a paper trying to touch you. It does not grant you any special power whatsoever, your opponent just doesn't have the means to touch you.
Omnipotence by itself is impossible to prove or debunk. That is why I only subscribe to questionable omnipotence, not absolute omnipotence. An "absolutely omnipotent" being would have to do everything possible and impossible on-panel which is clearly impossible.
It has been stated that the LT is 16 dimensional, Beyonder said he was infinity dimensional. so I am not sure why anyone would think TOAA is just 16 dimensional.
TOAA is just 16 dimensional. PR Beyonder was before TOAA.
@avatar_of_green: Infinity is a relative term. Infinity is based on perspective.
Dimensions are a real life concept. Of course they have a meaning. Sentience in 2 dimensional space is irrelevant here. If you are arguing that just because it is a concept, so it shouldn't be applied, we might as well abandon everything that is multiversal, because the multiverse is just a concept as well. Heck, we can abandon everything, because everything is conceptual in nature, including emotions, science, math etc.
If you exist on a higher dimensional space, your opponent can't do anything at all to harm you. Its like a drawing within a paper trying to touch you. It does not grant you any special power whatsoever, your opponent just doesn't have the means to touch you.
Omnipotence by itself is impossible to prove or debunk. That is why I only subscribe to questionable omnipotence, not absolute omnipotence. An "absolutely omnipotent" being would have to do everything possible and impossible on-panel which is clearly impossible.
I miss the time when CV had actuall debaters who actually read comics and actually had common sense........
I've never read comics (I'm trying to now though) or had common sense i taught myself by researching characters on this site and reading through the battle threads.
So I've been reading quite a few threads that stated that The one above all is only 16th dimensional and that any one above (pre retcon beyonder, nyarlathotep,) could stomp him with zero effort. Is that true? I'm curious for I was thinking of pitting him up against the Glory, The most powerful thing in Doctor who.
Off-topic:
Presence is not omnipotent too. And he alreay confirmed it.
It's funny that you left out the part of the dialogue where he stated that he was Omnipotent, but gave his Omnipotence to Belloc. Selective statement showing at it's finest.
@masterofluck123: Having writer-like abilities in-universe and being the writer of the story out of universe are different things. The verses within may be described with as many dimensions as they like but they are still essentially drawings to us.
Featherine can control the plot because she is the avatar of the author, but she is still subjected to the their whim, as she is basically a projection of a greater power.
So I've been reading quite a few threads that stated that The one above all is only 16th dimensional and that any one above (pre retcon beyonder, nyarlathotep,) could stomp him with zero effort. Is that true? I'm curious for I was thinking of pitting him up against the Glory, The most powerful thing in Doctor who.
Off-topic:
Presence is not omnipotent too. And he alreay confirmed it.
It's funny that you left out the part of the dialogue where he stated that he was Omnipotent, but gave his Omnipotence to Belloc. Selective statement showing at it's finest.
And what? Obviously, it is a hype. Primal Monitor is strongest force of DC. PM is stronger than Presence/Yahweh.
And "omnipotence" as the ability cannot be proved anyway. So no one could be omnipotent.
@gurban:TOAA is omnipotent because he is the Creator God of Marvel. Just like Azathoth is the omnipotent creator-deity within Lovecraft's works and Eru-Iluvatar occupies that role within LOTR. He isn't just stronger than LT, he is above everything in the setting and is not bound by its rules.
Of course real people are not fictional characters, but Jack Kirby is the one responsible for bringing the marvel universe to life, in other words he is the creator of the marvel universe and therefore its god. That's why TOAA looks like him.
Strictly speaking in-universe TOAA is the abrahmic god reinterpreted within the setting, while out of universe TOAA represents the will of the writers as they are those who hold absolute power over the setting and the characters within.
@batmanwithprep: TOAA is a character representing God, he would still be that in another setting. As would be Eru-Iluvatar. It's the reason you cannot make battles with omnipotents as two cannot coexist.
@batmanwithprep: TOAA is a character representing God, he would still be that in another setting. As would be Eru-Iluvatar. It's the reason you cannot make battles with omnipotents as two cannot coexist.
@batmanwithprep: TOAA Is the representation of the creative principle and the abrahamic god within the marvel universe, he would still represent that outside of Marvel. He is Stan Lee in the sense that he and Jack Kirby are the progenitors of marvel, he isn't literally Kirby.
@gurban: What do you mean "and?", you said Yahweh confirmed that he is not Omnipotent while he in fact confirmed the opposite.
1) It was a hype.
2) Yahweh's/Presence's omnipotence was debunked by existence of Primal Monitor who is strongest force in DC. Two Omnipotents cannot exist in one fiction. It is simple.
@gurban: What do you mean "and?", you said Yahweh confirmed that he is not Omnipotent while he in fact confirmed the opposite.
1) It was a hype.
2) Yahweh's/Presence's omnipotence was debunked by existence of Primal Monitor who is strongest force in DC. Two Omnipotents cannot exist in one fiction. It is simple.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment