no its an example of what we use if we're gonna say transcending, outside, or detach from a 2-A cosmology to be low 1-C then other 2-A verse WHO also has this statements and yet being ignored from the past CRTs to be vague. It's called consistency, and it seems we're ignoring that there are verses the same way you are trying to upgrade and yet got denied before.
It's still about equal though? Since it's just you and Warren that ended up agreeing with Ultima, Matt still disagrees.
Not necessarily, when:
If I may ask: Do you have any concept of "Supporting evidence"? I don't think the Boundary connecting all universes was ever one of the main arguments pushing for Low 1-C, and if it was the only one, then I would have definitely disagreed with the rating from the very start.
It's not really speculation on my part, so much as basic-ass reading interpretation. The wording pretty explicitly says "Beyond there... I could go to another event," which implies that this process would involve reaching beyond some entry point and then traveling to an alternate universe, which makes perfect sense, given how The Boundary explicitly connects to all parallel universes based on the previous scans.
There is absolutely nothing stopping a universe from being higher-dimensional or transcendental in nature, especially given how all-encompassing the term is. So, no, calling the Boundary a parallel universe wouldn't really be the wrong definition, and "the closest definition" doesn't even have to be 100% accurate to reality, so much as it can just be the best approximation one can make in lack of better terms.
You probably shouldn't compare the relation being a spacetime continuum and a space outside of it to something like two buildings that inhabit the same overall location: Spacetime isn't an individual object to be measured; it's the stage in which we do measurements to begin with, so, yeah, a realm that exists in no place or time within it could very much be described as separate.
That's cool, and I disagree with DontTalk, in this case.
Hm? Low 1-C is already an accepted rating in the profiles, and you are the one who is arguing for it to be removed; if I end up successfully countering all of the points made against it (As I am aiming to do here), then I don't exactly know what else you expect me to do. I really don't feel like playing tennis here, but the Burden of Proof does lie with whoever is challenging the status quo, you know.
Considering how the boundary allows one to go to any point in time they desire it seems very plausible that the "i can go to a different event" is referring to the literal actual event. They can go to any point in time, in other words they can go to a certain event in time they want.
That the event could refer to the actual "event" (the point in time of another universe), rather than the universe itself. Considering we have rachel and other things that refer to possibilities as what they actually are "possible future events".
That argument doesn't seem very relevant, given how "every event" is described as drifting within the Boundary, and that very scan would indicate that this includes events from alternate realities as well. Then again, there was no time travel between universes involved, based on what Glass said, so "event" does indeed seem to just refer to the alternate universe itself, as you seemed to be arguing for before doing a 180° turn.
Ah, I remember that thread. Yeah, it just seems like he was arguing that the scene wasn't actually talking about Iihiko having higher-dimensional power, hence why he talked about how it may have been just referring to "The ease of tearing paper, and not a higher-dimensional being seeing lower realities as drawings."
Some scans do clearly state the opposite though. Referring to possibilities as simply future outcomes, hell even outright saying that "possibilities are the reason other worlds exist" rather than "possibilities are universes". So don't we run into some inconsistencies here?
Yeah, I remember you mentioning that as an argument before. Well, I don't see how that's much of an issue, and even the name of the place already seems to point towards an answer: Just look at this drawing and then take the black disk/bean as the multiverse, the circle immediately around it as the Edge, and the outermost ring as the Boundary. It'd be still in-between the multiverse and the Boundary, even though the latter contains both. You even referred to the Edge as the space between universes yourself, no? That seems to further support what I'm saying
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I wouldn't consider Z between X and Y if X contains both of them.
The scans which you've posted, as well as some which are on the blog, just seem to state that each possibility that doesn't come to be in the main universe is instantiated as another spacetime. Based on the scan which I've posted, then, the verse also seems to use these terms interchangeably with "universe", so I don't think there's much point in squabbling over what exactly "possibilities" refers to.
Doesn't that mean that they're not the same thing though? Cus possibilities are what gives birth to other universes rather than the universes themselves?
I mean it creates inconsistencies on what the verse means by "possibilities" and "events".
Check my scans.
He found an issue with how forums reads the links, he's going to fix them.
