• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Ben 10 - Re-evaluation of the Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fixxed said:
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
Click to expand...
My brother rejects basic math. If there is an object and we want to find the size of an object 2 cm bigger than it, we use the x+2 cm operation.
Being infinitely greater than infinity is just infinity + infinity I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
The reason why Aleph 1 is the smallest thing bigger than Aleph 0 is that even operations like infinite.infinite are still equal to infinity, so we need the infinite^infinite operation.
How many times do I have to repeat this?
Your argument is "don't use this logic" but we have no reason not to use this logic.
Be logical and objective.
 
Larssx said:
My brother rejects basic math. If there is an object and we want to find the size of an object 2 cm bigger than it, we use the x+2 cm operation.
Being infinitely greater than infinity is just infinity + infinity I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
The reason why Aleph 1 is the smallest thing bigger than Aleph 0 is that even operations like infinite.infinite are still equal to infinity, so we need the infinite^infinite operation.
How many times do I have to repeat this?
Your argument is "don't use this logic" but we have no reason not to use this logic.
Be logical and objective.
Click to expand...
My bro dont want to stop. And he think finite logic is same with infinite logic
 
Fixxed said:
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

If that infinity is not same in size it mean higher infinity

Bruh like what i say to geor previously, just search in google
Click to expand...
The problem is, are these what site standards say? There are a thousand different theories out there for how infinities and higher dimensions work, but this site uses only a few of them. The real question you should be asking is whether continuum hypothesis allows Ben 10’s InfinityXInfinity to be recognized as a higher infinity, and I’m going to assume continuum hypothesis says otherwise based on OP’s numerous statements from staff about how being infinitely larger than a given set (even an infinite one) doesn’t warrant a higher infinity. I think even our tiering system pages have a couple statements about how infinite multipliers don’t qualify for higher levels of infinity.

Anyways, this thread is getting derailed a bit with set theory technicalities. Everyone should be arguing based off what standards and precedents say only. The problem is that like I said, a space between timelines is only Low 1-C if either its multiverse is Infinity^Infinity (hence why the MCU is Low 1-C), space-time is stated to be volumetrically “zero” rather than vaguely flat/small/finite, or the space itself is stated to be infinite (hence why Kingdom Hearts is Low 1-C). Ben 10’s multiverse is only InfinityXInfinity, and the Space Beyond has no direct statements for being infinite in size, so I don’t think it meets the standards.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
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.

If you're going with Low 1-C due to containing seperate 2-A spaces that's fine. But you still wouldn't get there through Aleph-1 Cardinal Sets.
Click to expand...
Anyway, leaving all this Set theory aside, Qawsedf did agreed for low 1-C space beyond due to containing separate 2-A structures in a space of significant size. So he don't really disagree with low 1-C but not just disagree with the set theory approach of it.
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
The problem is, are these what site standards say? There are a thousand different theories out there for how infinities and higher dimensions work, but this site uses only a few of them. The real question you should be asking is whether continuum hypothesis allows Ben 10’s InfinityXInfinity to be recognized as a higher infinity, and I’m going to assume continuum hypothesis says otherwise based on OP’s numerous statements from staff about how being infinitely larger than a given set (even an infinite one) doesn’t warrant a higher infinity. I think even our tiering system pages have a couple statements about how infinite multipliers don’t qualify for higher levels of infinity.

Anyways, this thread is getting derailed a bit with set theory technicalities. Everyone should be arguing based off what standards and precedents say only. The problem is that like I said, a space between timelines is only Low 1-C if either its multiverse is Infinity^Infinity (hence why the MCU is Low 1-C), or the space itself is stated to be infinite (hence why Kingdom Hearts is Low 1-C). Ben 10’s multiverse is only InfinityXInfinity, and the Space Beyond has no direct statements for being infinite in size, so I don’t think it meets the standards.
Click to expand...
KH has extra temporal axis and QS (I'm not exactly sure, I'll check that too)

MCU, on the other hand, contains an uncountable infinite number of 2-A. That's why these are different, yes.
 
Reiner said:
Anyway, leaving all this Set theory aside, Qawsedf did agreed for low 1-C space beyond due to containing separate 2-A structures in a space of significant size. So he don't really disagree with low 1-C but not just disagree with the set theory approach of it.
Click to expand...
I can add him to disagree if he wants to.

But I think it is better to keep him in the agree section as it is the "set theory" part which is the main topic of the OP and the Cosmology Blog
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
The problem is, are these what site standards say? There are a thousand different theories out there for how infinities and higher dimensions work, but this site uses only a few of them.
Click to expand...
Well bruh i know if the higher dimensional is have different way to work, but infinities??? I think no, i just never see any math theory about infinity that work different

And just stop this, i dont want to being report because derailing
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
The problem is, are these what site standards say? There are a thousand different theories
Click to expand...
I assure you, as one who tried to explain this stuff and turned my upgrade thread into set theory thread. This is funnily, not theory. It's a general maths. Yeah, "generally", just like + adds things, - subtract, bigger than countable infinite is uncountable infinite. Going against it is simply breaking rules.
 
Reiner said:
Anyway, leaving all this Set theory aside, Qawsedf did agreed for low 1-C space beyond due to containing separate 2-A structures in a space of significant size. So he don't really disagree with low 1-C but not just disagree with the set theory approach of it.
Click to expand...
Ehhhh no? Because you only have gaps between the 2-A structures, you also need that they will not intersect with each other parallelly on any angular axis.
and you must prove that 2-A structures have 0 volume.( I talked about this with qawsedf before in a thread, and yeah that's the case)


For example, inside a 1D line, you can line up smaller 1D lines with space between them.

This doesn't require extra volume and axis, you would need statements and contexts that these multiverses will not intersect at any angular axis to prove that there is extra volume. Only this way you get a higher dimensional plane.

This is already explained on the page.

4-dimensional, separate universes either exist in a larger 4-dimensional space or are embedded in the extra vertical axis of with volume 0. But for this you must prove with concrete statements and contexts that this universes exist on the same plane and also don't intersect an any angular axis.

A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and “gluing” them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces
Click to expand...
As you can see here, according to topology, uncountable infinite number of line segments are lined up side by side, and this line is always larger than a countably infinite line, but the entire line and the smaller lines within the line and the space itself is also 1-dimensional.

They still don't gain any extra axes.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Ehhhh no? Because you only have gaps between the 2-A structures, you also need that they will not intersect with each other parallelly on any angular axis.
and you must prove that 2-A structures have 0 volume.( I talked about this with qawsedf before in a thread, and yeah that's the case)
Click to expand...
They are parallel Universes, done? They can be seen to not interact with each other in space beyond. Anything else, take it with Qawsedf and firestorm as they said it's fine. I am not obligated to explain or convince anyone. Repeating myself is of no use anyway, everything has been said by me. Nothing here to gain.
 
Georredannea15 said:
4-dimensional, separate universes either exist in a larger 4-dimensional space or are embedded in the extra vertical axis of with volume 0. But for this you must prove with concrete statements and contexts that this universes exist on the same plane and also don't intersect an any angular axis.
Click to expand...
Actually, since I was under the impression that similarly dimensioned objects require higher dimensional planes to exist in parallel, I have two gripes with this explanation.

1. If the universes or timelines are called “parallel” at any point, would this be enough to prove that the space that contains them forces them into non-intersectionality in a higher dimension?

2. A space that contains 4-dimensional objects can’t be 3-D obviously, and in the context of space-time, it can’t be 4-D since the 4th dimension is time-like while the space containing them is a space-like dimension, no? Would this not require said space to be at least insignificantly 5-D?
 
Reiner said:
They are parallel Universes, done? They can be seen to not interact with each other in space beyond. Anything else, take it with Qawsedf and firestorm as they said it's fine. I am not obligated to explain or convince anyone. Repeating myself is of no use anyway, everything has been said by me. Nothing here to gain.
Click to expand...
ProfectusInfinity said:
Actually, since I was under the impression that similarly dimensioned objects require higher dimensional planes to exist in parallel, I have two gripes with this explanation.

1. If the universes or timelines are called “parallel” at any point, would this be enough to prove that the space that contains them forces them into non-intersectionality in a higher dimension?

2. A space that contains 4-dimensional objects can’t be 3-D obviously, and in the context of space-time, it can’t be 4-D since the 4th dimension is time-like while the space containing them is a space-like dimension, no? Would this not require said space to be at least insignificantly 5-D?
Click to expand...
The "shadow plane" phenomenon that Qawsedf often illustrates shows that we do not always assume this.

The universes and hierarchies in the shadow plane are parallel to each other and have gaps between them, but these universes are only in a parallel state in the plane they are on, with gaps between them along the same axis, and this shadow plane is still 4 dimensional because these universes "will not intersect on any angular axis and have 0 volume relative to plane"There is no explanation or concrete evidence that they are."


So yes, we do not actually assume that the spaces containing parallel universes are higher dimensional. Page also says it's "either a larger 4-dimensional space or a higher dimensional space."

So, we not always assume that. Ahhh yes, also QS between space and multiverses still needs to be proven. Even if this were to happen, it would be an insignificantly 5-D space
 
Okay, I made a thread to remove it as everyone wanted so it can be done for ever.
vsbattles.com

Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification

Ah well, as obvious as it is, the "Bigger than 2-A" standard has been a blurry thing for more than a year. I don't really see any proper staff consensus on it. At many places some knowledgeable staff and members have said it's Low 1-C and that bigger than 2-A while still being 2-A is impossible...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
I think this thread can stay open. Unless you have the courage to open it again. 🗿

Also for this topic, I will ask to DT and Ultima which cases being infinitely larger than the 2-A, and 4-D infinite structures gives Low 1-C, because obviously it does not give Low 1-C(not enough), more context is needed.

Because I saw Ultima say that from a structure with infinite volume, having an infinitely larger volume gives an extra axis, but the same does not apply to "size".

Therefore, it is useful to clarify the difference between "size" and "volume" here.
 
I have no stake in this fight, but these are the standards agreed upon for Low 1-C spaces.
Q: Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.
Click to expand...
@Benimōru @Firestorm808 @Georredannea15 @TheGreatJedi13 @Qawsedf234 @Fixxed @Larssx @Maverick_Zero_X @ProfectusInfinity Under the new rules, what's your stance on this issue?
 
If the other thread passes, the requirement for "qualitative superiority" to obtain Low 1-C will be removed. What now?
 
Going by DT's explanation and as of the latest changes, yeah, the 2-A multiverse being simply a small star compared to space beyond wouldn't qualify anymore.
KLOL506 said:
If the other thread passes, the requirement for "qualitative superiority" to obtain Low 1-C will be removed. What now?
Click to expand...
The what thread now? is there another one?
 
Georredannea15 said:
It has nothing to do with this, it's basically for H1-B, 1-A and above, but the dimensional layers are still the same.
Click to expand...
Yes, but dimensional layers would just rely on "quantitative superiority" than "qualitative superiority" so the current standard would have to be tweaked on that front.

Basically, it'd make obtaining Low 1-C in general a wee bit easier.
 
KLOL506 said:
Yes, but dimensional layers would just rely on "quantitative superiority" than "qualitative superiority" so the current standard would have to be tweaked on that front.

Basically, it'd make obtaining Low 1-C in general a wee bit easier.
Click to expand...
No, everything is the same, only the name will be quantitative superiority instead of qualitative superiority, (of course, whether it will pass, that is a big doubt because thread is very doubtful) anyway, let's not go off the rails.
 
Georredannea15 said:
No, everything is the same, only the name will be quantitative superiority instead of qualitative superiority, (of course, whether it will pass, that is a big doubt because thread is very doubtful) anyway, let's not go off the rails.
Click to expand...
It's written by Ultima and endorsed by Ant, so it has a good chance of passing. However, it's not particularly relevant here, as it mostly only tackles 1-A and above.
 
So we're back on? Anyways...

Why I disagree with Low 1-C Space Beyond​

The Space Beyond is an infinite black void that extends past the boundaries of the universe and encompasses an infinite number of them, dwarfing them to mere being a insignificant tiny stars or a faint glow.[4] This space separates Universes from each other and isn't accessible via general dimension crossing devices except by for the Map of infinity and the Chrono Navigator. Due to the Space Beyond being bigger than the Universe which is an aleph null structure containing infinite dimensions/realms, the Space beyond can be deduced mathematically to at least be an Aleph 1 structure.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, the new standards:
Q: Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.
Click to expand...
1. Being larger than an infinite multiverse isn't Low 1-C in and of itself.

2. Only an uncountably infinitely large multiverse makes the space containing it Low 1-C by default, hence why the MCU (which was frequently brought up as an example of a cosmology "similar to Ben 10") is Low 1-C. Infinite multiverses is the same cardinality as infinite universes too.

3. Visuals such as viewing space-times as "specks" will no longer serve as supporting evidence of Low 1-C. It would be different if space-time was embedded to the point where a universe is seen as something like a coin or apple in a higher dimension.

4. The Space Beyond was never called infinite in the video linked. Besides, although Ultima would interpret a space containing a multiverse being described as "infinite" as proof that said higher dimension was significant enough in size to be tiered, DontTalk disagreed. He said that all dimensioned entities are technically infinite, and such a space being "infinite" could only refer to its 4th axis being infinite (hence why 2-A constructs aren't Low 1-C, despite being the culmination of infinite insignificant 5-D spaces between dimensions: because only the 4th dimension would be infinite). You'd need confirmation that an infinite size statement is referring to the 5th dimension specifically: like a statement that a certain timeline is infinitley spaced away.

Why I disagree with Low 1-C Time Stream​

This realm is the highest level of creation. The Timestream is a system that bounds all of existence with a system of cause and effect[6] (All timelines, all alternate realities, all of existence, including the space beyond[7]) in the form of a fabric. The Timestream is a kind of super imposing Time that orders all of creation Post-Annihilargh events from beginning to End. The Timestream is an infinite structure.[3] The rainbow and black void which orders all of existence trivializes everything as nothing more than insignificant fabric or paper, including the space beyond.
Click to expand...
1. Any overarching timeline will be expected to bind all lesser timelines into a single system of causality, so this factor isn't significant.

2. Time is infinite by default (extending infinitely to encompass past/present/future), so this factor isn't significant either.
It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length, unless evidence to the contrary is provided. Hence, unless otherwise indicated, the destruction of timelines that branch off from one another and never merge would still be ranked between 2-C and 2-A (depending on the number).
Click to expand...
3. As explained by DontTalkDT here, and Ultima here, an overarching timeline isn't inherently Low 1-C. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new time dimensions/axes, which means you don't need to model an overarching timeline as a construction of 2 temporal dimensions. Instead, you could assume that a single time dimension (that of the overarching timeline) is servicing all of space-time. In order to prove that an overarching timeline makes a cosmology Low 1-C, you need evidence that any of the lesser timelines harbor their own time dimensions (which as I said, can't be achieved by basic evidence of spatiotemporal separation).
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
It's written by Ultima and endorsed by Ant, so it has a good chance of passing. However, it's not particularly relevant here, as it mostly only tackles 1-A and above.
Click to expand...
Well.... that's why we are waiting for the DT and other staffs, of course I was planning to make a few points. But that's not the point right now
 
In accordance to the recent staff thread, we have the following:

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

For the Space Beyond, not only is a 2-A structure a faint glowing star in the distance, the Space Beyond is larger than an infinite number of these and the infinite 5th-dimensional axis separating individual timelines.

To clarify, you propose that the Space Beyond being larger than the infinite 5th-dimensional axis separating the structures does not count toward being Qualitatively Superior?

If not, what depiction would count toward being Qualitatively Superior? What precedent depiction does meet your view?
 
Firestorm808 said:
To clarify, you propose that the Space Beyond being larger than the infinite 5th-dimensional axis separating the 2-A structures does not count toward being Qualitatively Superior?
Click to expand...
Space Beyond is not infinitely larger than the 5th axis that separates these 2-A's. It only sees these 2-As as stars.

Again you are claiming things for which there is "no evidence".
 
Benimōru said:
Space Beyond is not infinitely larger than the 5th axis that separates these 2-A's. It only sees these 2-As as stars.

Again you are claiming things for which there is "no evidence".
Click to expand...
It's currently agreed that Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them.
In turn, a single 2-A structure would have some infinite degree of a 5th dimensional axis across it. Do you disagree with this?
 
Firestorm808 said:
It's currently agreed that Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's what you're talking about.

Firestorm808 said:
In turn, a single 2-A structure would have some infinite degree of a 5th dimensional axis across it
Click to expand...
Nah, I thought you were talking about the fifth axis that inside the Space Beyond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reiner04
Bigger than 2-A structures feat
Replies
23
Views
3K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10: Re-justification of Low 1-C.
2 3
Replies
91
Views
8K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
Reiner04
  • Locked
Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification
2 3
Replies
115
Views
21K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Ghengiroo115
Ben 10: Feedback absorption additions
2 3
Replies
84
Views
3K
Hellformer
Hellformer
REX9097
  • Locked
Ben 10 Cosmology Upgrade
Replies
19
Views
1K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Back
Top