Yup, that star as well was mentioned by paradox to be faint or thin glow is a Universe (2-A structure). It's been supported both, visually and by statement which should be enough to say that space beyond dwarfs 2-A structure to a insignificant size which is what Low 1-C is.
But we see the glow ourselves and it's clearly more that just a dot. She just thinks it's a star. Taking up a small space also isn't the same as taking up an infinitesimal space. One is infinitely smaller than the other.
I wouldn't object if there was QS evidence, but that's all they have, and as you'll see from the things I've quoted many times above, things like that and being infinitely larger than 2-A multiverses are not QS. Qawsedf touched on this above.
So, is seeing something like a star from a far a really reference to existence? I don't think so, we see the stars as a point "from far away" but we still share the same axis.
As for this, I've mentioned it before but I'll say it again. This require concrete evidence and contexts that "these universes do not intersect on any angular axis and that the 2-A multiverse has 0 volume within this space."
I mean, that's fine since it being low 1-C is not that of main concern currently (from my view since Low 1-C is generally accepted from one way or another for space beyond) but what I'm concerned about is that there is split in opinions about "How space beyond is low 1-C". As per Ultima, Low 1-C can be achieved from cardinality due to being bigger than 2-A which he has confirmed in the previous statement in my thread (we were waiting for him just to confirm if it's fine). Same with several posts of DT can be seen where he has said that bigger than 2-A in a way it constitutes to real size difference is Low 1-C. And that's how general mathematics is proceeds. I believe unless there is proper consensus about "bigger than 2-A structure" among staffs, the cosmology blog not be revised which was made after 7-3 consensus among staffs. But obviously, that's not smth this thread deals with but closely tied with, since it'll change the explanation of cosmology blog either way if not tier. That's why first a proper consensus should be done on another thread about standards.
That's my point, they visibly take you space and you can see both from incredible distances away.
Both are true statements. Ultima is talking about Alephs while DT is talking about embedding and superiority. Either can get you Low 1-C if you can prove it.
He said it generally, it was brought up as an argument by @Everything12 (I don't know why I can't tag him, edit: tag worked nvm) that just bigger than 2-A is not enough for low 1-C, there has to be a statement that bigger space is of uncountable size and etc, but my argument was that just being bigger inherently means you're of uncountable infinite size, there is no other size in between, i and Dread (who was against low 1-C upgrade) asked ultima off-site if just bigger than 2-A generally in the way it shows actual size difference and dwarfs the 2-A structure to be smaller for instance space beyond is low 1-C, he replied yes, it's low 1-C, there is no need for uncountable or Alephs to be mentioned if there is evidence that the other structure is bigger (bigger not in the sense of "more" but actual size difference"), which he also confirmed in my thread that he has already started his opinion, as per what visuals depicts, it's low 1-C. So I'm not sure if all the senior staffs does really have same opinion on what "bigger than 2-A should be".
Yeah, that's what I meant, basically things like "being infinitely larger" than multiverses like this weren't QS,( So, necessery needed QS statements and contexts) so it's just like infinity x infinity, even though it's infinitely larger, it's still the same infinity. For tier 1, with QS references and concrete evidence, contexts are required.
Any prove of QS?
We got over it in the upgrade thread made in January when it was brought up by E12, bigger than 2-A inherently accounts for uncountable infinite difference because there is no other size possible btw aleph 1 and aleph 0.
I still don't think it's safe to use this as sufficient evidence for QS. Especially after new things. Now size and other things have gone to the background.
I'm not really for that method. For a tiering jump without dimensions you need either QS or some evidence of layers. The example in the OP I'm not seeing either.
I'm not really against it or with it either, infact before ben ten got upgraded, maou verse got upgraded to low 1-C with the same logic that it has bigger structure than 2-A, it was approved by Ultima as well. Maou currently don't exist (it's deleted and fresh started from officially translated volumes but that's non of this thread concern). I do realise that there can be other explanations as you and firestorm suggested for low 1-C but what I want is if the change may occuring for some reasons than it'll be better for things to be clear. Entire wiki has a very foggy opinion and thoughts for "bigger than 2-A is ow 1-C" standard. @Planck69 says I'm neutral over it (I asked, yeah), @Ultima_Reality says i agree as long as fiction Don't contradicts. @DontTalkDT made it clear smth like "bigger than 2-A breaks rules and needs explicit statement". I'm not trying to impose what I think is right, since I'm not of any opinion regarding it but rather that the standards can get clear and we don't have future arguments of "Ben 10 don't get upgraded and so it's not valid" as no one cares about ben ten but what's seniors staffs votes says which again will be same as maou or ben 10, got upgraded and then will come to blurry area.
Yeah and according to the new stuff these are no longer tier 1.
Can you not bring up GOW not getting accepted as low 1-C by ultima but ben 10 did some other time? If ben 10 got upgraded then it is valid and if GOW not then it's invalid and lacks stuff that ben ten don't. I'm not of "GOW not get upgraded = ben 10 was wrong" mentality. Ultima is aware of Ben 10 and he knows how it has got upgraded. Please keep the GOW shit out of it when you do not understand what they meant. Ultima don't get mood swings, either he stands wrong or right and he hasn't stated anything about "I was wrong about this standard" ever or a downgrade thread has been made about it.
Just dont use finite number logic to infinite
This isn't just about GoW. Apart from this, the comments made by DT and Ultima, and even all of the comments I quoted above, were made independently of GoW, as are the statements made by E12 and Qawsedf above. So this is not something specific to one verse.
What you are saying is incoherent, you are saying to use logic only in finite numbers to reject logic.
Well the GoW case it is because GoW not have 2A structure to began with. Because of that in that thread i try for make the branch of yggdrasil a 2A structure
Is i saying dont use logic on infinite??? I saying dont use finite number logic to infinite
Yes, because they all can be mapping to the infinite.
The problem here is that the MCU multiverse has uncountably infinite timelines, hence why the culmination of 5th dimensional spaces between them would warrant Low 1-C. Ben 10 has an InfinityXInfinity sized multiverse on the other hand, which is still countably infinite.
The problem here is that from my understanding, both Kingdom Hearts and Chronoverse have statements for the space between timelines being infinite in size, which is drastically different from containing an infinite multiverse as it confirms that the 5th dimension itself is filled with no gaps or missing points, and therefore a significant higher axis. I don't think Ben 10's Space Beyond has any statements for being infinite in size? Nothing about the mutliverse being infinite or infinitely beyond infinite, just the space itself being infinite.
One special characteristic of the Space Beyond is how it views the multiverses as finite 3-dimensional objects visually, and both Ultima and DDT agree that "above baseline 2-A" doesn't exist. However, between their comments here and cited elsewhere throughout the thread on whether or not being "infinitely larger" counts as a higher infinity, the consensus doesn't seem all that clear. Nevertheless, it more or less looks like "seeing something infinite as 3-D and small" doesn't suffice by site standards, as you'd have to view something infinite as infinitesimal or volumetrically "zero" to qualify for a higher infinity.Ultima reality in my January thread after bothering him for more than weeks:
"Anyway, this particularly bothersome thing left aside: I'll say I'm neutral with regards to whether or not "the space beyond" is Low 1-C. As I've expressed to some of the thread's participants off-site, I think this largely depends on whether we consider inherently finite visual representations (In this case, a universe being mistaken for a star when seen from the space beyond it) to mean anything when it comes to infinitely large objects and spaces. Although I will say that being finitely, or more generally, countably, larger than a 2-A space is not a thing, no, unless the verse makes clear that such a thing is possible, in which case we're obviously forced to roll with it. As a default, though, we don't do that."
And I don't need to mention he replied it to everything 12 who was repeatedly saying that "uncountable infinite difference is needed to be mentioned " contrary to what I was saying that being bigger inherently means uncountable infinite difference as countably larger than 2-A doesn't exist unless stated (fiction can be illogical).
Here's DT's statement as well saying one needs a explicit statement for smth that breaks the rules, same as what ultima said about being bigger than 2-A:
Also, DontTalkDT explained this before, but an overarching timeline isn't inherently Low 1-C. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce a new time dimension, and a single time axis can service a multiverse, the space between timelines, and practically everything. This is because time is a non-physical independent parameter that is not confined to a 4th dimension, but can apply to any dimensioned space. The only way you can prove that an overarching timeline demontrates a cosmology with two temporal dimensions is if you can prove that the lesser timelines have their own time dimensions distinct from the rest of the multiverse as well as the space between timelines. The easiest way to show this is via direct statements for any of the universes or multiverses having a time axis, which means the overarching timeline would have to introduce an additional time dimension.
You can mapping one to one the real number to the integers. So now the set of integers and the set of real number is equal??
Are you serious?
No, i just say that about the mapping thing
Yeah?
Hah?? Bruh the set of real is not equal to integers because it have diffetent cardinality or size, therefore it cannot be mapped one to one
I never said that lol.
This is how math works, it is not enough to say "don't use this logic".
Dont cut my comment bruh
Bruh... if we use finite number logic to infinite it will mean infinite+infinite is bigger infinity or it not have same degree of infinite
“Size” is of no use here. What matters is volume and degree of infinity.
Yeah i will stop. But this is connect to ben10 i think because in the cosmology is talking aleph 1, but yeah it must have different threadHAHAHAHAHA BRO PLEASE STOP
This is Ben 10 thread, not set theory. Go talk somewhere else
