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

[ProfectusInfinity]

If not, what depiction would count toward being Qualitatively Superior? What precedent depiction does meet your view?

DDT actually mentioned something similar to this the other day.

RFD was always about seeing a plane of reality as fiction. I don't think giant ball universes floating in a void would indicate that.
If your universe is a book or an apple on a tree or otherwise something that metaphorically represents in a higher world, one can talk if it contextually is maybe RFD. Something very small like atoms could be debatable as well. Depends on if it's more a size thing or a qualitative point.
Of course, the simplest way to have R>F is if it's actually stated to be fictional or just being a story.

 

[Benimōru]

Anyway, it's still a big "No" IMO.

It seems wrong to treat the 5th axis in this big structure as infinite just because we see the 5th axis, whose size we don't know, as a star.

After all, it's very vague to claim that seeing what we "don't know the size of", that is, what we consider to be fundamentally finite, as finite again, is directly at least as big as the "observable universe" or infinite.

 

[omegabronic]

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".

a 2-A structure would include a 5th axis to separate the low 2-C structures that makes it, it would be larger than the 5th axis that exist in the 2-A structures it sees as a faint glow

 

[Benimōru]

a 2-A structure would include a 5th axis to separate the low 2-C structures that makes it, it would be larger than the 5th axis that exist in the 2-A structures it sees as a faint glow

Nah, I thought you were talking about the fifth axis that inside the Space Beyond.

I already answer to that...

I thought he was talking about the axis inside the Beyond Space, not inside the 2-A's.

 

[Firestorm808]

Nah, I thought you were talking about the fifth axis that inside the Space Beyond.

Anyway, it's still a big "No" IMO.

It seems wrong to treat the 5th axis in this big structure as infinite just because we see the 5th axis, whose size we don't know, as a star.

After all, it's very vague to claim that seeing what we "don't know the size of", that is, what we consider to be fundamentally finite, as finite again, is directly at least as big as the "observable universe" or infinite.

The Space Beyond is larger the the following parts: the 5-D space that's between each individual timeline and the 5-D space that's between every 2-A structure.

Per our updated standards, the Space Beyond would meet the requirements for a significant 5-D space.

@Qawsedf234 You said earlier that: "If you're going with Low 1-C due to containing separate 2-A spaces that's fine." Do you have any questions regarding the amount of 5-D space here?

 

[Georredannea15]

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?

It would have the 5th axis, but it wouldn't have the infinite degree of 5th axis, no. A 2-A structure always has 0 axis within the 5th axis in any size, and multiverses do not contact each other in any way, so there is no need for an infinite 5th axis always.


You can have a space with an infinite area, containing 2-A multiverses, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the 5th axis is infinite, it just means that the 4 axes containing the multiverse are infinite, the 5th axis is where they don't touch each other and it becomes an unimportant axis where it remains at 0 axis.

In short, out of contexts and statements, this axis is still an unimportant 5th axis

 

[Benimōru]

the 5-D space that's between each individual timeline and the 5-D space that's between every 2-A structure.

And the size of the 5th axis in all these 2-A's is unknown.

So it's bigger than something of unknown size

 

[Georredannea15]

The Space Beyond is larger the the following parts: the 5-D space that's between each individual timeline and the 5-D space that's between every 2-A structure.

Per our updated standards, the Space Beyond would meet the requirements for a significant 5-D space.

As I said, just because it holds more than one 2-A and is infinite, and separates them from each other, does not mean that this axis is infinite. A trivial 5th axis is enough for this.

Only 4 axes are infinite, and the axis that separates them, where their volume is 0, is unimportant because a structure with a 4th axis cannot reach any 5th axis, no matter how large it is.

 

[Georredannea15]

And the size of the 5th axis in all these 2-A's is unknown.

So it's bigger than something of unknown size

yeah even if you have a 5th axis separating an infinite number of 2-A's, that doesn't mean the 5th axis is infinite, it just means that the 4 axis are infinite to that degree. And 5th axis is unknown or trivial sized whitout more contexts or statements, that's all.

 

[TheShape03]

I don't plan to participate in CRT because I am not an expert in higher dimensional topics, but.

Just because Space Beyond is bigger than infinite 2-A structures doesn't mean it's Low 1-C? (those 2-A structures are universes, of which there are said to be infinite)

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I don't plan to participate in CRT because I am not an expert in higher dimensional topics, but.

Just because Space Beyond is bigger than infinite 2-A structures doesn't mean it's Low 1-C? (those 2-A structures are universes, of which there are said to be infinite)

You don't have permission.

 

[Larssx]

@Larssx Under the new rules, what's your stance on this issue?

My stance is still same, it doesn't matter how big you look next to a 2-A structure, it will still make you a 2-A.
In fact, such situations that appear to be greater than 2-A are not greater than 2-A, equal to it.
However you can say "well then why don't they stand equally term of size on stage?".
For this, I can give the simplest example of the set of integers, which contains all the elements of the set of natural numbers, and by using negative numbers you can create an new infinite that extends somewhere else and make it look big appearance, but its infinity level is equal to the natural numbers.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You said earlier that: "If you're going with Low 1-C due to containing separate 2-A spaces that's fine." Do you have any questions regarding the amount of 5-D space here?

New standards mean that a Low 1-C space without a statement has to be a greater than infinite amount larger. The Ben 10 stuff doesn't fit that criteria.

 

[Firestorm808]

New standards mean that a Low 1-C space without a statement has to be a greater than infinite amount larger.

So in this case, the space containing the infinite multiverses would still be a higher degree of 2-A.

@DontTalkDT

With that in mind, the realm of the timestream should still be Low 1-C, right?

It is a realm where the realm of multiverses (Space Beyond) is a smaller tube inside of it.

This larger space should be qualitatively superior, right?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So in this case, the space containing the infinite multiverses would still be a higher degree of 2-A.

With that in mind, the realm of the timestream should still be Low 1-C, right?

It is a realm where the higher degree 2-A realm of multiverses (Space Beyond) is a smaller tube to the larger space.

This larger space should be qualitatively superior, right?

I don't see how being superior to a higher degree of 2-A justifies Low 1-C.

 

[Firestorm808]

I don't see how being superior to a higher degree of 2-A justifies Low 1-C.

Isn't that an accepted form of qualitative superiority?

 

[Benimōru]

It is a realm where the realm of multiverses (Space Beyond) is a smaller tube inside of it.

This larger space should be qualitatively superior, right?

Well, it's no different from what you just accepted as the higher degree of 2-A.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Isn't that a form of qualitative superiority?

No? If one structure scales above the baseline for 2-A and another structure upscales from that structure, the second structure would just be treated as upscaling to a higher degree of above baseline 2-A than the first.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

So in this case, the space containing the infinite multiverses would still be a higher degree of 2-A.

@DontTalkDT

With that in mind, the realm of the timestream should still be Low 1-C, right?

It is a realm where the realm of multiverses (Space Beyond) is a smaller tube inside of it.

This larger space should be qualitatively superior, right?

DDT seems to disagree with this notion. I think that both he and Qawsedf have mentioned that such visuals could suffice as supporting evidence in certain cases, but that's in scenarios where space-time is the size of an atom or a universe is a casual object like an apple or coin. I think we should call Qawsedf or DontTalk over to explain [with specific examples] when a lower dimensional object is considered "embedded" in a higher dimension in a way that qualifies for qualitative superiority.

And like I explained before, an overarching timeline doesn't need to form a cosmology of 2 temporal dimensions. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't need to introduce new time axes, and the higher time dimension can be a single one that services all of space-time. For it to be considered a higher time dimension, you need statements that any of the lesser space-times hold their own time dimension/time axis. I think Kingdom Hearts got Low 1-C after confirmation that the realms of the multiverse held their own "time axes," and God of War got something similar due to a statement that another world was "a different time dimension" or "different dimension of time."

.

.

.

Sorry to bother you, but you guys are the main supporters besides Firestorm. Any statements like the ones I mentioned for the Time Stream, or anything else for the Space Beyond?

 

[Firestorm808]

No? If one structure scales above the baseline for 2-A and another structure upscales from that structure, the second structure would just be treated as upscaling to a higher degree of above baseline 2-A than the first.

Per Elizhaa in the earlier thread, if an infinitely large space (The Space Beyond) is contained inside of a finite box (The Tube), then qualitative transcendence is at play here. We meet this criteria.

 

[Benimōru]

snip

Before we get into the Timestream part in detail, did you agree that the Space Beyond is higher degree of 2-A?

I will add you to the "agree" section based on that.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Per Elizhaa in the earlier thread, if an infinitely large space (The Space Beyond) is contained inside of a finite box (The Tube), then qualitative transcendence is at play here. We meet this criteria.

Please elaborate.

 

[Firestorm808]

Before we get into the Timestream part in detail, did you agree that the Space Beyond is higher degree of 2-A?

I will add you to the "agree" section based on that.

If that's the updated standard, it is what it is.

 

[Benimōru]

If that's the updated standard, it is what it is.

Aight, counted

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Per Elizhaa in the earlier thread, if an infinitely large space (The Space Beyond) is contained inside of a finite box (The Tube), then qualitative transcendence is at play here. We meet this criteria.

Can you quote them? I think a qualitative gap would be more akin to seeing something infinite as zero rather than finite. Are there any statements for how the Time Stream views the rest of space-time in terms of size, shape, or volume?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Aight, counted

Count me for that too.

 

[Firestorm808]

Please elaborate.

Elizaa referred to a previous example from Ultima. In another verse, If the 2-Digit layer was infinitely large (From its own point of view) and yet was contained inside of a finite box to 1-Digits, then that's certainly be a slam dunk on the matter of proving qualitative transcendence is at play here.

@Elizhaa

We have an infinite-sized Realm A that contains infinite multiverses. This realm exists as a finite tube within an even larger Realm B. The larger Realm B can be called qualitatively superior, yes?

In addition and per the FAQ, [existance] above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context.

Your input in appreciated.

 

[Benimōru]

Count me for that too.

Done

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Elizaa referred to a previous example from Ultima. In another verse, If the 2-Digit layer was infinitely large (From its own point of view) and yet was contained inside of a finite box to 1-Digits, then that's certainly be a slam dunk on the matter of proving qualitative transcendence is at play here.

I'm not particularly interested in debating this, so I'll leave this as an issue for the others to settle.

 

[Reiner04]

Okay, since I'm busy because of which I'm keep on requesting ban thread timing is not good for me.
I can't really participate in the thread much but yeah space beyond, as of standard we have now, is not Low 1-C but I'm just gonna clear up some stuff regarding new standard and agreed upon things in previous thread.

No? If one structure scales above the baseline for 2-A and another structure upscales from that structure, the second structure would just be treated as upscaling to a higher degree of above baseline 2-A than the first.

Not really, even after current standards change, there is still no such thing as bigger than 2-A, it was never a thing ever since last revision happened regarding this (in 2020 or smth i don't remember dates), but only way to reach higher digree of 2-A Tier is by upscaling from character who has performed 2-A feats.

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.

(We all know containing infinity is not same as being bigger than it, right?)
Yeah, so, no bigger than 2-A structure exist and we have not got anything but to just keep treating it as anamoly but can be used as supporting evidence for Low 1-C, as i remind:

For 2-A to Low 1-C one could say that Low 1-C could contain a higher cardinality of universes than the countably infinite that make up 2-A. But it is probably better to just say something along the lines of Low 1-C structures being more than (countably) infinite times larger than infinite universes or something like that.

so, yeah one could argue that bigger than 2-A is low 1-C theoretically but we don't have it because.. reasons? Not 100% maths based standard line possibly.

Also;

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.

We have it in standard while already knowing that infinite*2-A = single 2-A in size as already written as well:

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.

So technically bigger than 2-A = being bigger than infinite*2-A since size difference. But yeah, that's just a loop hole we got and no point in it since it's just a anamoly but it can be used as supportive evidence for timestream yeah.

Snip.

Nice PFP, no?

That's all I'd to say.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Not really, even after current standards change, there is still no such thing as bigger than 2-A, it was never a thing ever since last revision happened regarding this (in 2020 or smth i don't remember dates), but only way to reach higher digree of 2-A Tier is by upscaling from character who has performed 2-A feats.

That's not really what I meant, and I apologize for my poor wording. I don't care enough about this revision enough to debate here, though.

 

[Elizhaa]

Elizaa referred to a previous example from Ultima. In another verse, If the 2-Digit layer was infinitely large (From its own point of view) and yet was contained inside of a finite box to 1-Digits, then that's certainly be a slam dunk on the matter of proving qualitative transcendence is at play here.

@Elizhaa

We have an infinite-sized Realm A that contains infinite multiverses. This realm exists as a finite tube within an even larger Realm B. The larger Realm B can be called qualitatively superior, yes?

In addition and per the FAQ, [existance] above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context.

Your input in appreciated.

I think yes.

 

[Fixxed]

I have no stake in this fight, but these are the standards agreed upon for Low 1-C spaces.

@Benimōru @Firestorm808 @Georredannea15 @TheGreatJedi13 @Qawsedf234 @Fixxed @Larssx @Maverick_Zero_X @ProfectusInfinity Under the new rules, what's your stance on this issue?

It depends on is space beyond superior to the 2A structure or just "larger". The space beyond at least must be consider as "higher world" in the verse, something that make the universe is just as apple on a tree

RFD was always about seeing a plane of reality as fiction. I don't think giant ball universes floating in a void would indicate that.
If your universe is a book or an apple on a tree or otherwise something that metaphorically represents in a higher world, one can talk if it contextually is maybe RFD. Something very small like atoms could be debatable as well. Depends on if it's more a size thing or a qualitative point.
Of course, the simplest way to have R>F is if it's actually stated to be fictional or just being a story.

 

[Fixxed]

It depends on is space beyond superior to the 2A structure or just "larger". The space beyond at least must be consider as "higher world" in the verse, something that make the universe is just as apple on a tree

But with other argument baside this "bigger than 2A" argument i think space beyond can be low 1C because it already a 5D insignificant space. It just need to be very large compare to the universe for be low 1C or yeah the space beyond is need to be infinity in size

 

[Georredannea15]

But with other argument baside this "bigger than 2A" argument i think space beyond can be low 1C because it already a 5D insignificant space. It just need to be very large compare to the universe for be low 1C or yeah the space beyond is need to be infinity in size

It would have the 5th axis, but it wouldn't have the infinite degree of 5th axis, no. A 2-A structure always has 0 axis within the 5th axis in any size, and multiverses do not contact each other in any way, so there is no need for an infinite 5th axis always.


You can have a space with an infinite area, containing 2-A multiverses, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the 5th axis is infinite, it just means that the 4 axes containing the multiverse are infinite, the 5th axis is where they don't touch each other and it becomes an unimportant axis where it remains at 0 axis.

In short, out of contexts and statements, this axis is still an unimportant 5th axis

yeah even if you have a 5th axis separating an infinite number of 2-A's, that doesn't mean the 5th axis is infinite, it just means that the 4 axis are infinite to that degree. And 5th axis is unknown or trivial sized whitout more contexts or statements, that's all.

These are enough, and I will not answer any further.

 

[Fixxed]

These are enough, and I will not answer any further.

I dont even know why do you answer me

I say space beyond just need to be very large or infinity in size to be significant

 

[Georredannea15]

I dont even know why do you answer me

I say space beyond just need to be very large or infinity in size to be significant

But with other argument baside this "bigger than 2A" argument i think space beyond can be low 1C because it already a 5D insignificant space. It just need to be very large compare to the universe for be low 1C or yeah the space beyond is need to be infinity in size

I basically answered this. But my bad, I should stated more clear about what I'm responding to.

 

[Fixxed]

I basically answered this. But my bad, I should have stated more clearly

Yeah as i as it can be low 1C, it just need some proof of infinity in size

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Do note that the example DT made is that when saying something is bigger in a way that there are more 2-A up to countably infinite of them it wouldn't qualify.

now the case of being bigger in a way that they are bigger that isn't mentioned above would need a bit more evaluation.

the visual depiction of Ben 10 clearly shows its not about multiple 2-A but rather just 1 compared to the emptiness of Space Beyond

Sure this can be taken as smaller but the idea of Timestream and the White Nothingness and the mention of Fifth dimension alongside continumuella gives it more support than simply saying bigger than 2-A

Spacebeyond may likely not be low 1-C and I don't see it qualify IMO
But Timestream, white nothingness and Continumeula are a different one and I believe those can still qualify

 

[Benimōru]

I don't know if you mind me asking this, but can someone put together all the arguments for Timestream and post it?

At least it will be easier for everyone to give their opinion.