For most people in the vs community, and even some outside, the question has probably popped up in your mind at least briefly: Well, who is the strongest character that exists in fiction. This blog will attempt to be an analysis on what a fight between the strongest characters in fiction would in reality be like, and moreover what is a relevant feat for the strongest characters in fiction. This blog takes as axiom that the laws of logic do still apply, these being:
A=A
A=/=Not-A
A=True OR A=Not True
This is because any assumption that fictional characters can actually transcend logic not only leads to seeming absurdities (a fictional character can kill a real people in actuality which is obvious nonsense) but also leads to a stalemate where a character can both win and lose a fight without a semantic tric. This is counterproductive to the original question.
So upon broaching this topic I am split between two impulses as a versus debater:
1: Like any plan of reality before the Absolute, my impulse is to analogize. A character that can manipulate absolute space is just like space manipulation but on a higher plane, the absolute rather then the physical. Simple.
2: "Space" is a concept and thus any form of space manipulation should be irrelevant to an absolute form of existence.
Part of the ambiguity here comes from the ambiguity derived from the concept of infinity which is transcended by an absolute entity. Infinity is not a number and can not be treated as such. Even specifiying a cardinality creates a highly counter-intuitive response as demonstrated by Hilbert's Hotel. Take Aleph-Null and substract Aleph-Null and the response can be literally anything from 0 to Aleph-Null.
This is relevant then because if a character with an absolute ability used that on an absolute figure, both being infinitely real, whether the effect is transcended or effects the character is undefined as neither can be more maximally real then the other.
This is getting confusing quick, so let's take a step back and try and define what is going on further.
The conceptual plane of reality, the forms, the patterns, the laws of reality. Those things that are the eternal universals from which particulars are derived. These are well known in fiction to the point that certain things are commonly expected of them. What transcends these?
Well when discussing higher realities, realities more real and fundamental then x the inherent question is what is x and it's traits derived from. Concepts are derived from reality, and reality's nature are what concepts traits are derived from. Thus we can say that transcending the conceptual neccesarily is "Being" itself, or in other words the fabric of existence. I refer to this as the Absolute, though it can be also called Being, existence, or actuality, ie that which is without designation of any traits.
By definition this is maximally real. I have made the argument before that metafictional manipulation should by nature transcend the conceptual in fiction, acting as that fiction's absolute manipulation; simply by the fact that all concepts are still fiction components. That is to say if a character appears in a comic that is an abstract concept another character who can erase the comic panel can still destroy that concept via the same ability.
However a series can have numerous layers of metafiction, and a verse can refer to the absolute without ever introducing a metafictional element. Thus the two should not be conflated per se, just that the metafictional can act as the absolute for a series because for it's existence is fiction by definition and thus prone to fictional manipulation.
From the perspective of characters that have metafictional abilities but are not themselves metafictional, analogizing the fight to the physical should be fairly easy then. Controlling metafictional time, like skipping to the end of a television episode should not be too different from physical time manipulation, with the only notable difference being it's irresibility to characters with only physical time manipulation resistance, and it's ability to affect even conceptual entities.
A fight between two metafictional characters however is...different. As axiom it is clear no fictional character has ever come to the real world or affected it, in reality. Anyone who truly believes that is the case is likely insane. But then how do we interpret feats like for instance Mr. Mxy traveling to the real world.
What seems to be happening is that there exists a metafictional layer above. There exists the base fictional layer of normal narrative, and then transcending is a metafictional layer that views the former as nonexistent fiction. If a character is supposed to exist in or travel to the real world we can interpret that as them simply traveling to a higher metafictional layer viewing the lower level as fiction. This obviously would give complete immunity to non metafictional plane abilities. While this would be odd to discuss, it does seem to be doable using sort of standard versus axioms.
However if that metafictional layer is supposedly absolute, ie the maximally real, that's when we get into difficulty discussing. This is primarily do to the problem that an absolute property meeting another absolute property is inherently undefined.
What is an absolute character? This seems like a good place to start.
An absolute character is neccesarily transcendent of all concepts. Thus most of the strongest abilities in fiction which can be defined as basically transcending x concept is possessed by them. The character would be trans-dual (Above all dualities) by transcending 2. The character would be all forms of immortal by trascending death. The character would be omnipresent and outside spacetime by transcending concepts of space and time.
VS battles wiki holds as axioms that with the strongest characters abilities are no longer meaningful and it's simply about raw power. This seems nonsensical to me as "power" as well as "infinity" and "quantification" are transcended.
An absolute character would be comprised of Being itself, or in other word that which all reality is comprised of. They would comprise all of it as they would transcend concepts of limitations. They would neccesarily be formless beings, for no pattern or forms apply to them as they transcend them.
This seems to be functionally identical to omnipotent, however this I disagree with for two reasons:
1: I disagree that a fictional character can be omnipotent by logical contradiction
2: Fiction often has numerous beings comprised of the absolute.
It would also suggest that you could not even discuss who'd be stronger since they'd have the same capacities.
That said a hypothetical omnipotent is still a hypothetical, which means they are fictional and still prone to some weaknesses simply because they are limited by the bounds of fiction and reality.
The thought occurs to me as I write this that there exists beings made of actuality or the absolute but are not themselves so much "transcendent" of all concepts so much as they simply exist outside of it. I think for instance of the Angels in Commedia which are made of pure actuality like God but can not destroy all concepts and existence. This can be analogized to ghosts that are above all matter and can not be affected by it but nontheless can not simply destroy all matter in existence.
Thus we can say the highest plane beings, made out of raw being may still be limited in some sense. It's tempting to just say here that this is based on the nature of the absolute being, for instance a metafictional character can be said to have the properties it does because of it's nature as a metafictional construct made to serve a purpose. While that would make sense with a higher metafictional nature, this can not be with an absolute entity as they don't have a higher plane.
A fight between two absolute entities, can thus be understood as a battle between two beings made of Being itself, or in other words, two maximally real entities whom all concepts and forms of "being" as opposed to "Being", existences that are non absolute can not effect. But how do they affect each other? Here too the ambiguity of absolutes intervenes. A verse can simply say which is greater between absolute entities but without any external reference it can be impossible to apply to another verse.
The best I can understand is that all characters by the fact that they are in true actuality fictional constructs neccesarily some limitations if only by the fact that they are indeed fiction. Thus a fight between two of the strongest characters in fiction is a fight then of determining what the limitations of an entity would be and comparing. As I put it "it's more of a question of what they can't do, rather then what they can"
To debate between two tiers 1 is an analysis on a narrative level of what their limitations are. The problem with that is that they are often written with blunt descriptions of not having any limitations. This is false because they fictional but it's true within the hypothetical itself.
I almost want to think that it's simply a matter of who has shown more anti-feats, who has shown something more akin to a limit. The problem with that is what happens if two characters both have no anti-feats of such.
The next answer as much as it seems to me to not be what I want internally is that if two characters are both truly transcendent over all concepts, and represent the full absolute being then it's simply a matter of which one's "plot" is bigger, ie which one has a more impressive feat. This seems radically unfair since it basically would mean that the length of story would govern more but also doesn't intutively make sense because the characters transcend quantification so things like bigger simply shouldn't make sense.
The most fair way I can do it to understand who would win between two absolute beings, and this might be the case is basically looking at their component parts, breaking it down further and saying "these are parts of the same being, let's compare to see who has more impressive parts". What I mean to say that perhaps for the strongest beings in fiction their feats are simply the characters that are a part of them. This does feel unsatisifying though and also don't really coincedence with the notion that they should be judged by what they can't do rather then what they can and could run afoul of it's logic then. IE you can't really judge a being that great by their pieces because it may simply not reflect their abilities.
However I think you could merge those two and get to what might be more coherent. Let's say you have two absolute beings transcending all things in their verse. You could then say "well this character has 3 aspects all of which can somewhat affect the totality, the absolute being so in a fight they have 3 differnet mechanisms that can affect the other side". However this seems to be assuming the two sides start off even-ish and it seems to take potential limitations of one side as a disadvantage for the other side.
I don't wanna say something like "well it's case by case, you just have to analyze the two strongest characters narratively to guess at who'd win" because that's a cop out and not helpful though I think the way I was going was leading to somewhere fruitful.
On some level I think that a fight between two purely absolute beings is basically just a fight between their two verses if those two verses were actually sentient. Writing that down feels correct. So a proper analysis of if two absolute beings fought is simply a statement of what would happen if the two verse were sentient and united forces that fought. That actually I think would be the most productive and helpful way of analyzing how the strongest beings in fiction fight. The limitations of the characters are then the gaps in the verse, they are the things that they do not have.
Hyper-Gods fight basically by being two realities, clashing together and seeing which reality proves itself more fundamental. This can be seen with weaker Hyper-Gods, absolute entities that are not the god entities of their verse and the strongest beings in fiction.
This is, as you can probably tell, unscripted and just a first time attempt to try and figure out how logically the strongest beings in fiction can be compared.
No comments:
Post a Comment