• 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 - Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, just what you said in very start. Bigger than 2A is low 1C like bigger than countable infinity (natural numbers) is uncountable infinity (real numbers). That's it. And I also has been saying the same thing here.
Everything12 said:
The Tier above 2-A is Tier 1-C. So to be a higher Tier than 2-A is Low 1-C. Like being bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity.

But the countable infinite natural numbers is included within the intergers which some would assume to be bigger than them, yet they are also just countably infinite. So you can seem to be bigger than baseline 2-A infinity but you aren't actually any bigger.
Click to expand...
 
Kinda got it the wrong way around, I'm not saying that anything bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C like anything bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. I'm saying that unless your 'bigger' than 2-A in a certain qualitative way then you aren't actually bigger and Low 1-C, like only the real numbers are uncountable infinite while the integers and rationals are just countable infinite.
 
SMH. You were literally trying to say that space beyond is not bigger than universe so that it cannot be low 1C and that's the whole thing was discussed there. Now that each person here is convinced that space beyond is bigger, you changed the track, it's a argument in bad faith? And significantly bigger than 2A is literally low 1C just like bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity as stated in FAQ. And Ultima literally said that significantly bigger than 2A to the point it looks like a star is low 1C. Arguing that space beyond is 2A involves arguing it's of same size of a universe. You are arguing other things on other times all just to get it not low 1C.
 
Also there is nothing between the set of natural numbers and real numbers if CH holds true. Only thing bigger than natural numbers is real number, there is literally nothing between them. So I don't know what you're trying to say or convince.
 
Last edited:
I like to think I'm pretty consitent in my opinion across all the Low 1-C upgrades I'm in. This series I have no particular grievances towards, I just don't think it meets the standards for Low 1-C. That being if you don't have a qualitative difference then you aren't getting it.
 
I am not going to argue over anything that is based off over bad faith anyway.
And being uncountable infinity or bigger than countable infinity is what our FAQ says that is enough for low 1C, either you go against FAQ or stays with it is not my problem.
 
Everything12 said:
We know that the natural numbers are countable infinite.

We know that despite having additional elements, that the integers and rational numbers are not greater than the natural numbers and are also countable infinity.

We know that the real numbers are greater than countable infinity; uncountable infinity.

We know that the real numbers are every number on the number line including decimals; giving them a size like infinity ^ infinity, because their is a whole lot of decimal numbers between even 0 and 1.

Thus uncountable infinity equals a value equal to the real numbers. That is the logic the wiki uses.


True that infinity ^ infinity is a value so great that it's hard to grasp it, but we have a vague idea of what it means, and that vague idea is close to our understanding of how big the real numbers are. So that's what we use. That's just what you got to deal with when you got something as large as uncountable infinity.
Click to expand...
Everything12 said:
Well it is 0 and 0.1 and 0.01 and 0.001 and 0.0001 and 0.00001 and 0.000001 and 0.0000001... then we got 0.11 and 0.111 and 0.1101 and 0.11001... and somewhere after that we have 0.2 and all the stuff that comes after that, until we get to 1 and then we do the same thing for every decimal between 1 and 2, and then their all the decimal place between all the other countably infinite natural number, then we include all the countable infinite negative numbers and the decimals between them as well.

So while we don't have a concrete list of how large the real numbers and all it's decimals are, no one has the time or brainpower for that, we do at least have an idea.

Said idea is close to what we think infinity ^ infinity would be. So that's the comparison we use. And as the real numbers are uncountably infinite, that's what we use as the value you need to be equal to be considered uncountable infinite.
Click to expand...
This is uncountable infinite, this is bigger than countable infinite. You don't equal this them you aren't uncountable infinity.
 
Uncountable infinity is just larger than countable infinity is just all is known and if you know anything between them. Feel free to tell us.

2A is countable infinity, space beyond that is bigger than it is uncountable infinity. We meet this and thus.
 
Reiner said:
Then there is no thread going on with the topic this thread using as premise, everything that is being used as premise are preconcluded. There is no need of further derailment.
Click to expand...
And that doesn’t matter. Either the old thread can be re opened to be continued (which as I said, doesn’t necessarily have to happen) or I’ll make a new one to continue the points Zamasu brought up. Or I’ll point them out in this thread to save trouble.

Pointing out arguments that went unfinished and unmoderated is not derailment. ESPECIALLY when your argument for Low 1-C is completely dependent on the idea that every universe in the verse contains infinite universes, which Zamasu brought counters forth to question. So it’s very on topic here.
 
Ignoring the above post as if it doesn't exist.
Everything12 said:
@Ultima_Reality
We need your knowledge on uncountable infinity.
Click to expand...
since 2-A is in itself a tier indicating a structure whose (4-dimensional) volume is already ∞, and so there is really no such thing as being finitely or countably infinitely bigger than it, as the current standards on affecting multiple infinite multiverses attest to. The difference needs to be uncountable, one way or another. "At least 2-A" would be the absolute least you could choose. SAID BY ULTIMA IN, Post in thread 'Blazblue CRT' https://vsbattles.com/threads/blazblue-crt.108824/post-3433108

And so only thing bigger than 2A is uncountable infinity
 
Reiner said:
Ignoring the above post as if it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Ignoring posts you don’t want to address just because it ties in against what you want to argue for? Not a wise move.

Either way, I’ll be making a new thread to continue the old one or present Zamasus arguments here in this one, so expect that to be coming soon.
 
I'm asking Ultima to come here for their knowledge on uncountable infinite and real numbers to discuss what you are stating on the topic. Not on their opinion on how it relates to the cosmology of this fictional series.

From my knowledge of uncountable infinity, and my experience with fictional series and their cosmology, and all evidence presented in thread, my opinion dumbed down to the simplest way it can be described, is that the evidence presented isn't impressive enough for Tier 1. Slightly less dumbed down is that a 2-A structure appearing as a glowing light in a vast blackness isn't indicative of a qualitative difference without having lax standards.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Ignoring posts you don’t want to address just because it ties in against what you want to argue for? Not a wise move.

Either way, I’ll be making a new thread to continue the old one or present Zamasus arguments here in this one, so expect that to be coming soon.
Click to expand...
he is ignoring it because it has nothing to do with this thread, don't derail please it is already long the way it is
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Ignoring posts you don’t want to address just because it ties in against what you want to argue for? Not a wise move.

Either way, I’ll be making a new thread to continue the old one or present Zamasus arguments here in this one, so expect that to be coming soon.
Click to expand...
He is correct. You, instead of explaining why the basis of this thread's argument is incorrect, you're merely throwing promises of how you found the reasoning of another thread's member to be valid against this thread. If the intention is not to derail this one just argue why this one is wrong, don't keep promising all the time that this one is wrong because of something that you trust is right because it was not properly evaluated before this one.
 
Alonik said:
He is correct. You, instead of explaining why the basis of this thread's argument is incorrect, you're merely throwing promises of how you found the reasoning of another thread's member to be valid against this thread. If the intention is not to derail this one just argue why this one is wrong, don't keep promising all the time that this one is wrong because of something that you trust is right because it was not properly evaluated before this one.
Click to expand...
In order to argue why this upgrade is wrong, im required to go into why the very thing the upgrade relies on is wrong. Hence why I said it's on topic to bring up here rather than ignore.

That said, you are right that it shouldn't derail this thread. Im in the process of making my own separate thread at the moment so it doesn't clog this one up.
 
GyroNutz said:
Can you expand more on the black space being infinitesimal in comparison to the timestream?
Click to expand...
Nothing of the material universe exists outside the Time Stream Structure.

The Time Stream is a cylindrical structure that contains the Space Beyond.

The Space Beyond is perceived as flat within the wall of the Time Stream at this level of reality.
 
I think everyone is missing the point regarding the FAQ.

Whether or not the number of universes in the Space Beyond is 2-A, the question is if the Space Beyond is qualitatively superior to a Tier 2 Structure in general.

In addition, the title of the OP is about the Time Stream Structure.

Can we reach a verdict on the Time Stream Structure first and return to the Space Beyond afterward?
 
Firestorm808 said:
Nothing of the material universe exists outside the Time Stream Structure.

The Time Stream is a cylindrical structure that contains the Space Beyond.

The Space Beyond is perceived as flat within the wall of the Time Stream at this level of reality.
Click to expand...
You do know something appearing as a flat image is not actually evidence of a reality-fiction relationship or of a 2D-to-3D-like relationship. You got to have actually statements that expand on the idea and clarify that this isn't just portraying the ability to see other universes/points in time.

Solely visual-based evidence without statements to clarify is subjective and up to interpretation, what may seem unquestionable evidence to others is just one questionable interpretation to others.
 
Last edited:
Everything12 said:
You do know something appearing as a flat image is not actually evidence of a reality-fiction relationship or of a 2D-to-3D-like relationship. You got to have actually statements that expand on the idea and clarify that this isn't just portraying the ability to see other universes/points in time.

Solely visual-based evidence without statements to clarify is subjective and up to interpretation, what may seem unquestionable evidence to others is just one questionable interpretation to others.
Click to expand...
No one suggested a reality-fiction relationship.

Having the Space Beyond that already contains Tier 2 structures be reduced to the flat wall of the Time Stream fits the description of a 2D-to-3D-like relationship.

We already have confirmation that the Time Stream is beyond the Space Beyond per Paradox.
 
Last edited:
Okay then to summarise the argument for space beyond in short and one single post whether ultima come or not is here:-

The idea behind the thread (and has been used previously for many verses), Natural numbers contains even numbers and odd numbers but yet aren't bigger than them but equal as we aren't jumping any higher but just adding more elements in the same size of space and it's even mentioned in The FAQ:
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
Click to expand...

But as there is no way to reach any higher or bigger than the countable infinite by the methods I mentioned above like multiplying, divide or what not. We use the idea in Set theory of Power set of set is greater than the set. That said infinities uses the same method to jump higher over countable infinite and reach another infinite uncountable infinite (aleph1). So very first thing that is bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinite which is low 1C when is over a 2A structure. The point that space beyond sees those structures just as tiny stars basically fits the discription.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com

There is really no such thing as finitely or countable infinite bigger than 2A and so difference is uncountable which is Low 1C as per standards, said by Ultima:

That comparision doesn't really work here, because if you considered a "transcendence" descriptor as actually indicating some form of superiority in size that is capable of being given the same tier as the space being transcended, then you could as well just give it Low 1-C, since 2-A is in itself a tier indicating a structure whose (4-dimensional) volume is already ∞, and so there is really no such thing as being finitely or countably infinitely bigger than it, as the current standards on affecting multiple infinite multiverses attest to. The difference needs to be uncountable, one way or another. "At least 2-A" would be the absolute least you could choose. ~said by ultima This thread
Click to expand...

Also proceeding further,

Kevin: Where are we? There is nothing on my instruments.

Professor paradox: There is nothing outside either, Do you see that thin glow?

Gwen: A star?

Professor paradox: Actually, it's the universe. We are in the space beyond.

This entire conversation supports that universes are insignificant comparison to space beyond that professor paradox just straight out said there is nothing outside but when goes a bit in conversation, said that there is but just too small to notice or mention normally, space beyond is largely empty and by far bigger than those universes and it is supported by the visuals as well.
 
Robo said:
He’s saying space beyond coz they’re so far away from the universe 🗿🗿🗿🗿
Click to expand...
So what you want me to do about it? 🗿
Seeing a infinite structure as anything other than infinite directly means the space beyond is bigger given that they're compared to star is just hamering the heated sword.
 
Also for the God's sake read the FAQ once in a life time.
In the same vein a space being qualitatively superior to another space, means that destroying that space would land you on a higher level of infinity in the Tiering System than destroying the space it is superior to.
In rough terms it means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size". -FAQ

Our FAQ clearly says that being bigger than countable infinite times in size is a proof of Qualitative superiority. Which clearly space beyond is, as 2A multiverse or countable infinite times multiverse is equal in size (said by the same FAQ and ultima above in another thread).

Bigger than 2A is low 1C. FAQ is screaming in my head for it. Given that 2A structure is just star. I am done. I don't know why even we need ultima for something as straightforward as this written all over FAQ but whatever.
 
Last edited:
Yeah agree with the space beyond, there are literally statement that prove it is bigger than the universe (2A structure)

And for the timestream, i dont think image is enough for prove the space beyond is infinitesinall portion of it
 
Reiner said:
Bigger than 2A is low 1C. FAQ is screaming in my head for it. Given that 2A structure is just star. I am done. I don't know why even we need ultima for something as straightforward as this written all over FAQ but whatever.
Click to expand...
With this reasoning i must disagree "bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C". As I recommended earlier, this is not what it is about, and folks may misunderstand and think it is about that, when the situation is about a structure either Low 2-C or 2-A, both statements being usual spacetime continuum are being seen with finite mass in the realm called "space beyond", where there is nothing but several cluster of infinite sized, being seen as finite projections. Which comes in as qualitative superiority, to quote the Tiering System FAQ:
Qualitative superiority, also sometimes called being qualitatively greater, is a term colloquially used to mean that something is superior to an extend that it justifies being on a higher tier of infinity in terms of our Tiering System than the thing they are superior to. That means a character qualitatively superior to the usual spacetime continuum would, for example, be Low Complex Multiverse level (Tier Low 1-C) at the level represented by the R^5.
Click to expand...
 
Alonik said:
With this reasoning i must disagree "bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C". As I recommended earlier, this is not what it is about, and folks may misunderstand and think it is about that, when the situation is about a structure either Low 2-C or 2-A, both statements being usual spacetime continuum are being seen with finite mass in the realm called "space beyond", where there is nothing but several cluster of infinite sized, being seen as finite projections. Which comes in as qualitative superiority, to quote the Tiering System FAQ:
Click to expand...
The statement I Quoted is also from the same FAQ tho.
Being bigger in size than countable infinite times a structure is a qualitative superiority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hellformer
Ben 10: Minor Additions/Upgrade
Replies
39
Views
2K
Hellformer
Hellformer
Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10: Re-justification of Low 1-C.
2 3
Replies
91
Views
8K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10: Crosstime Possibly Low 1-C re-justification.
6 7 8
Replies
284
Views
18K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Ghengiroo115
Ben 10: Low 5-B downgrade/reinterpretation
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
omegabronic
omegabronic
REX9097
  • Locked
Ben 10 Cosmology Upgrade
Replies
19
Views
1K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Back
Top