Tier Possibly 2-A to Possibly Tier 1 Sonic Cosmology

[The_Smashor]

Solaris uses the same power source as Super Sonic so the scaling on power and speed should not be an issue period.

I don't have it on hand, but I saw a scan once that said Memphis Tennessee only used the Emeralds to merge with Iblis.

Although surviving hits from them is still enough

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Ehhhhh, modal realism has different views and each of these are strictly axiomatic schemas for different structures. Modal realism can have a Necessitarian view, a Possiblism view, an Actual view so on and so forth. And as far as I understood from the OP, you were using modal realism to assume the existence of other higher dimensions despite..not existing. So, yeah I’m only explaining how the basis of Lewis’s view worked which still holds against the compatibility. And for the record, no one is rejecting the idea of the multiverse, but there’s no implication each possible world should extend to what you say, because well, it’s not shown. And by spatial-temporal isolation, I meant that it implies the cosmoses are parallel but separate from each other which contradicts a multiverse theory like MWI. So anyway like I said, not substantive for higher dimensions.




Hamiltonian systems are dynamic systems meaning they measure the evolutionary process (state) of a quantum structure, so being infinite dimensional for that implies an infinite amount of possible states the system would undergo transformation. The phase space is what implies spatial axis (I think it’s compatible with temporal dimensions too).

I already agreed it’s higher dimensional but by functionality it cannot be infinite dimensional, structures of this nature require a specifically stated amount of axes to perform geometric rotations on. So like I said, if we assume, which I’m fine with, one path being a four dimensional analogue, the entire space would be five dimensional by necessity due to how tessellation is generalized on higher dimensions. But there is no indicative ramifications of infinite spatial axis as the space is cyclical and has a pattern that fills gaps.

Basically it’s one really big tower that uses spatial warping shift around them, hence, folds back on itself and grows [expansively] infinitely. The maze itself has no association with any other axes except the clear tesseract.


(It’s usually mentioned as a standard in tier 1 threads, umineko is one of those R>F examples, which is Im pretty sure what he meant.)

Dude lets not do semantics Modal Realism is possibilism view by default and any other interpretation would have to be proven I mean it’s even right in David Lewis’ quotes

“I believe, and so do you, that things could have been different in countless ways. But what does this mean? Ordinary language permits the paraphrase: there are many ways things could have been besides the way they actually are. I believe that things could have been different in countless ways; I believe permissible paraphrases of what I believe; taking the paraphrase at its face value, I therefore believe in the existence of entities that might be called ‘ways things could have been.’ I prefer to call them ‘possible worlds.”

And this does not extend to just concrete objects but abstract objects and entities as well, in fact David has compared Modal Realism to the Platonism of Mathematics

David K. Lewis on Abstractness - Dictionary of Arguments

V 20<br /> Abstract entities/possible world/Lewis: abstract entities do not live in certain possible worlds. They exist simultaneously in all of them

www.philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com

Possible Worlds are simply things that could’ve been and that easily extends to what I’m proposing here and considering Ian himself has agreed that Sonic’s World is compatible with Modal Realism and even elaborated as to how Sonic Prime relates to that:



So his shouldn’t be denied.

According to Max Tegmark’s multiverse levels separate parallel universes wouldn’t discontinue a multiverse theory like MWI.

Or measurements of energy

Hamiltonian function | Classical Mechanics, Lagrangian Formalism & Variational Principle

Hamiltonian function, mathematical definition introduced in 1835 by Sir William Rowan Hamilton to express the rate of change in time of the condition of a dynamic physical system—one regarded as a set of moving particles. The Hamiltonian of a system specifies its total energy—i.e., the sum of its

www.britannica.com

Anyways it kind of implies it’s spatial extent in its totality is infinite based on the information I’m gathering.

No it doesn’t what you want is something that’s not really necessary, plus it was already confirmed by Ian and the existence of Hypercubes imply it’s not just Higher Dimensional but n-Dimensional meaning it can have any number of dimensions. I’m not going any further with this.

Yeah but there’s the fact that it’s not really reality>fiction, it’s an existence transcendence that uses fiction as an expression to describe how something is in comparison to another. Me viewing Superman on paper is the same as another 3D object looking at another 3D object, that transcendence should hypothetically only apply when the world itself has made the law that an object on paper or fiction is a lower existence than the being viewing it otherwise it’s a moot argument.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Dude lets not do semantics Modal Realism is possibilism view by default and any other interpretation would have to be proven I mean it’s even right in David Lewis’ quotes

The philosophical view of modal realism is built on semantics though, that’s an inherently unsubstantiated viewpoint. The fact we distinguish just what axioms and laws of logic a world need in order to define what system of modal realism we’re using proves that it isn’t inherently Possiblism, it’s just one view that is preferred by philosophers.

Possibilism is the view that every proposition is possible and is to be contrasted with the view known as necessitarianism: the view that there is at least one impossible proposition.

“I believe, and so do you, that things could have been different in countless ways. But what does this mean? Ordinary language permits the paraphrase: there are many ways things could have been besides the way they actually are. I believe that things could have been different in countless ways; I believe permissible paraphrases of what I believe; taking the paraphrase at its face value, I therefore believe in the existence of entities that might be called ‘ways things could have been.’ I prefer to call them ‘possible worlds.”

And this does not extend to just concrete objects but abstract objects and entities as well, in fact David has compared Modal Realism to the Platonism of Mathematics

I know….there’s logically possible and physically possible worlds, no one is going against that notion, however by the view of Possiblism it will infer a problem as we know that reducto ad abursdum will deny a proposition if it implies inconsistency. Propositions require evidence or reasoning that does not fall short of the claim. And in this there is no evidence to support that these possible worlds will have infinite higher dimensions. That’s not how it works. Plus, the question in the video literally alludes to different timelines considering it mentions “multiple paths” that are actual, which makes me doubt the foundation of modal realism in sonic to begin with. Like I’ve explained to people before, if you’re going to argue something has modal realism and align that view to its highest degree you have to introduce more than just “compatibility” you have explore whether or not the laws of logic in other worlds hold the same way, etc etc. The honest truth, is that it is a debate of semantics.

According to Max Tegmark’s multiverse levels separate parallel universes wouldn’t discontinue a multiverse theory like MWI.

Except this isn’t “All logically possible mathematical systems”, so.

Anyways it kind of implies it’s spatial extent in its totality is infinite based on the information I’m gathering.

No it doesn’t what you want is something that’s not really necessary, plus it was already confirmed by Ian and the existence of Hypercubes imply it’s not just Higher Dimensional but n-Dimensional meaning it can have any number of dimensions. I’m not going any further with this.

It’s not n-dimensional unless it’s stated to be, if you want to generalize a system of mathematics you have to go beyond the simplicity and assume MUH and ERH. I don’t really see how my idea of how this works is “unnecessary” to be honest, we’ve never treated a verse in the wiki this way, we go off what we know and what is shown, and we see that is could be an infinite sized space, given it is an endless and cyclical maze with simulated realities. It is not shown to have an infinite-dimensional nature because we don’t see or get told there are infinite directions/axes of space, it’s as simple as that. The fact all of this is a tower (which clearly is limited on the outside) too implies it’s much more likely to be a pocket dimension that has altered laws and it’s own mechanisms eggman can control.

I don’t care about the R>F’s anymore, you’re not really looking at why he said it so I’ve lost the interest in it.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

The philosophical view of modal realism is built on semantics though, that’s an inherently unsubstantiated viewpoint. The fact we distinguish just what axioms and laws of logic a world need in order to define what system of modal realism we’re using proves that it isn’t inherently Possiblism, it’s just one view that is preferred by philosophers.



I know….there’s logically possible and physically possible worlds, no one is going against that notion, however by the view of Possiblism it will infer a problem as we know that reducto ad abursdum will deny a proposition if it implies inconsistency. Propositions require evidence or reasoning that does not fall short of the claim. And in this there is no evidence to support that these possible worlds will have infinite higher dimensions. That’s not how it works. Plus, the question in the video literally alludes to different timelines considering it mentions “multiple paths” that are actual, which makes me doubt the foundation of modal realism in sonic to begin with. Like I’ve explained to people before, if you’re going to argue something has modal realism and align that view to its highest degree you have to introduce more than just “compatibility” you have explore whether or not the laws of logic in other worlds hold the same way, etc etc. The honest truth, is that it is a debate of semantics.



Except this isn’t “All logically possible mathematical systems”, so.

It’s not n-dimensional unless it’s stated to be, if you want to generalize a system of mathematics you have to go beyond the simplicity and assume MUH and ERH. I don’t really see how my idea of how this works is “unnecessary” to be honest, we’ve never treated a verse in the wiki this way, we go off what we know and what is shown, and we see that is could be an infinite sized space, given it is an endless and cyclical maze with simulated realities. It is not shown to have an infinite-dimensional nature because we don’t see or get told there are infinite directions/axes of space, it’s as simple as that. The fact all of this is a tower (which clearly is limited on the outside) too implies it’s much more likely to be a pocket dimension that has altered laws and it’s own mechanisms eggman can control.

I don’t care about the R>F’s anymore, you’re not really looking at why he said it so I’ve lost the interest in it.

What we use it for and what it is meant for are two different things

There’s no inconsistency because possibilism implies infinite dimensional worlds exists, modal realism is used to argue Trivialism by saying there’s a possible world where Trivialism is real.

Paul Kabay has argued for trivialism in "On the Plenitude of Truth" from the following:

1. Possibilism is true [premise]
2. If possibilism is true, then there is a world (either possible or impossible or both), w, in which trivialism is true [premise]
3. w is a possible world [premise]
4. It is true in w that w is identical to the actual world, A [2]
5. If it is true that there is a world, w, and w is a possible world, and it is true in w that w is identical to A, then trivialism is true [premise]
6. Trivialism is true [1–5][2][4]

Above, possibilism (modal realism; related to possible worlds) is the oft-debated theory that every proposition is possible. With this assumed to be true, trivialism can be assumed to be true as well according to Kabay.

That’s not the Multiverse I’m talking about, the “all logically possible mathematical systems” is the level 4 multiverse, what I’m insinuating is level 3, the quantum multiverse.

It contains Hypercubes which are n-dimensional structures

“In geometry, a hypercube is an n-dimensional analogue of a square and a cube. It is a closed, compact, convex figure whose 1-skeleton consists of groups of opposite parallel line segments aligned in each of the space's dimensions, perpendicular to each other and of the same length.”

Hypercube - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

A tesseract is a 4-dimensional hypercube

Tesseract | Brilliant Math & Science Wiki

A tesseract, also known as a hypercube, is a four-dimensional cube, or, alternately, it is the extension of the idea of a square to a four-dimensional space in the same way that a cube is the extension of the idea of a square to a three-dimensional space. Above, we can see a projection of a...

brilliant.org

Eitaro Toyoda (who looks over the IDW comics and translates it) confirmed that what Sonic was seeing was a Hypercube.

Ian Flynn agreed that Eggman’s space stacked infinitely and was a infinite dimensional space.

So either it’s an infinite dimensional or? it’s n-dimensional (which would include infinite dimensions lol)

It’s not a tower, it’s shown have an entire environment outside of the tower. The whole point of that space was for it to grow enough to the point it could contain Sonic and prevent him from escaping.

You’re right because it’s a ridiculous argument.

 

[SonicBayo1999]

I don't have it on hand, but I saw a scan once that said Memphis Tennessee only used the Emeralds to merge with Iblis.

Although surviving hits from them is still enough

If he needed the Emeralds in order to become a stronger being, the scale still works. It just adds more over-explanation of what we already know as we play through the game's story.

 

[Alexander]

If he needed the Emeralds in order to become a stronger being, the scale still works. It just adds more over-explanation of what we already know as we play through the game's story.

It's like using a power crystal that gives you the ability to merge powers.

 

[TheKingStrategist13]

Only really here cause of the whole Solaris argument I see

The fact that the Super Trio can take hits from Solaris indicates that they should scale to it's AP. Likewise, they can harm Solaris to a limited extent- Though admittedly, the "Body" of Solaris should have higher durability than what they can feasibly harm at that point in time.

And I believe I saw earlier some guy was talking about needing 3 Super Forms to beat him, and while that's technically true, that's only because there is a version of Solaris in the past, in the present, and in the Future. Each Super Form is able to keep up with a single Solaris individually, and all were able to harm the "Consciousness" that which made up Solaris's existence (Though admittedly, this consciousness was supposedly bound to a lower Dimensionality, or something along those lines, than usual.). All of that is to say, it's not quite 100% accurate to say they don't scale because of teamwork- Cause realistically, they were each fighting their own battle.

Including the fact that, once again, they can take hits, at minimum scaling to Solaris's tier isn't the most out of this world idea.

Hope that my input, which was not asked for, helps in some way.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

What we use it for and what it is meant for are two different things

Not really though, those are two relatively connected things, if we don’t use systems the way they’re meant to be used, it’s not virtuously that system. A rough example that comes to mind is the application of platonic forms, like if a person says “Oh yeah this verse has concepts that shape reality so it’s platonism” but has no bearing of how Forms work (universals, transcendent etc) it’s not a form, it’s just a concept. And that’s sort of the point I’m trying to make here, “other possible worlds is compatible with modal realism so it should be infinite dimensional” isn’t exactly a mutual ‘If P then Q’ statement.

Conversely I’m familiar with what Possiblism entails but apparently in sonic prime, Shadow in this latest episode states at the very end that their universe doesn’t exist anymore because of sonic having shattered reality, and I want to make a point with this, if a universes existence was contingent due to the paradox prism, that means there’s worlds that have a law that is a necessity. Meaning if our model was supposed to entail possibilism we can throw that out of the window, because we have seen a paradox, which is what happens when an absurdity is present. And this probably seems like a disingenuous argument but it shouldn’t be, it’s just a confirmation that the worlds are bound to specific laws and goes against two main ideas of modal realism: Universes are casually related as in cosmos A he caused reality to collapse which ended up creating cosmos B and well every other universe, and the fact that the orderliness of universes is specifically reliant on the nature of the the prism and it’s shards. So I can actually infer that modal realism is not compatible and we shouldn’t use it to argue.

That’s not the Multiverse I’m talking about, the “all logically possible mathematical systems” is the level 4 multiverse, what I’m insinuating is level 3, the quantum multiverse.

Except this relies on a wholly different subject and type of multiverse, and it’s probably not the wrong one but back to the main topic.

It contains Hypercubes which are n-dimensional structures and other things

I have believed for the longest time that demonstration matters, and I think most of the scaling on the wiki is compliant with that. If we use the twitter statement as a confirmation to your question, then I strictly think he meant hypercube as a classification of shape given you specified it was a tesseract. So if he did confirm it, the applicable context is the four dimensional analog.

Ian Flynn agreed that Eggman’s space stacked infinitely and was a infinite dimensional space.

I’m hesitant on using his statements and this is a view I’ve always held explicitly because the explanation in the material takes precedence, the space is clearly not told or displayed as stacked and is in fact depicted as a flat labyrinth which is said to fold back on itself which in another literary phrase also means to “come full circle” which seemingly makes the endless loop interpretation more viable because evidently, we aren’t told there’s infinite dimensions, it does not showcase an infinite number of directions or possible perceptions of space etc. Also due to how tessellated spaces work, and remember this is if he take the tesseract at face value, it would require the pattern to be structured as tesseracts that do not overlap which sadly also means “stacking” is an inadequate indexical.

It’s not a tower, it’s shown have an entire environment outside of the tower. The whole point of that space was for it to grow enough to the point it could contain Sonic and prevent him from escaping.

I’ll explain it chronologically, the team breaks into the tower, they head into the maze which is said to shift around them, the maze is shown to extend into the pocket space (mind you connected to the tower), then they go into the portal into the model of the imperfect world, they fall onto the tesseract, then eggman simulates the reality. After that, he explains that the tower is the labyrinth which grows expansively and loops. He can do this all thanks to bending laws of physics, so it’s not out of question the maze can still be in the tower and grow if he can ignore “spatial laws” since well spatial manipulation can let you do this kind of thing.


All in all, I don’t think infinite dimensional is supported so the Ian Flynn statement means very little for the most part. I’m sick and I have a sore throat so sadly I won’t be able to reply actively but if anyone wants to call admins or mods to evaluate what we have so far that seems okay.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Not really though, those are two relatively connected things, if we don’t use systems the way they’re meant to be used, it’s not virtuously that system. A rough example that comes to mind is the application of platonic forms, like if a person says “Oh yeah this verse has concepts that shape reality so it’s platonism” but has no bearing of how Forms work (universals, transcendent etc) it’s not a form, it’s just a concept. And that’s sort of the point I’m trying to make here, “other possible worlds is compatible with modal realism so it should be infinite dimensional” isn’t exactly a mutual ‘If P then Q’ statement.

Conversely I’m familiar with what Possiblism entails but apparently in sonic prime, Shadow in this latest episode states at the very end that their universe doesn’t exist anymore because of sonic having shattered reality, and I want to make a point with this, if a universes existence was contingent due to the paradox prism, that means there’s worlds that have a law that is a necessity. Meaning if our model was supposed to entail possibilism we can throw that out of the window, because we have seen a paradox, which is what happens when an absurdity is present. And this probably seems like a disingenuous argument but it shouldn’t be, it’s just a confirmation that the worlds are bound to specific laws and goes against two main ideas of modal realism: Universes are casually related as in cosmos A he caused reality to collapse which ended up creating cosmos B and well every other universe, and the fact that the orderliness of universes is specifically reliant on the nature of the the prism and it’s shards. So I can actually infer that modal realism is not compatible and we shouldn’t use it to argue.


Except this relies on a wholly different subject and type of multiverse, and it’s probably not the wrong one but back to the main topic.

I have believed for the longest time that demonstration matters, and I think most of the scaling on the wiki is compliant with that. If we use the twitter statement as a confirmation to your question, then I strictly think he meant hypercube as a classification of shape given you specified it was a tesseract. So if he did confirm it, the applicable context is the four dimensional analog.

I’m hesitant on using his statements and this is a view I’ve always held explicitly because the explanation in the material takes precedence, the space is clearly not told or displayed as stacked and is in fact depicted as a flat labyrinth which is said to fold back on itself which in another literary phrase also means to “come full circle” which seemingly makes the endless loop interpretation more viable because evidently, we aren’t told there’s infinite dimensions, it does not showcase an infinite number of directions or possible perceptions of space etc. Also due to how tessellated spaces work, and remember this is if he take the tesseract at face value, it would require the pattern to be structured as tesseracts that do not overlap which sadly also means “stacking” is an inadequate indexical.



I’ll explain it chronologically, the team breaks into the tower, they head into the maze which is said to shift around them, the maze is shown to extend into the pocket space (mind you connected to the tower), then they go into the portal into the model of the imperfect world, they fall onto the tesseract, then eggman simulates the reality. After that, he explains that the tower is the labyrinth which grows expansively and loops. He can do this all thanks to bending laws of physics, so it’s not out of question the maze can still be in the tower and grow if he can ignore “spatial laws” since well spatial manipulation can let you do this kind of thing.


All in all, I don’t think infinite dimensional is supported so the Ian Flynn statement means very little for the most part. I’m sick and I have a sore throat so sadly I won’t be able to reply actively but if anyone wants to call admins or mods to evaluate what we have so far that seems okay.

Concepts that shape reality aren’t really Platonism, Aristotle already discussed different types of Form and Matter through the different kinds of substances there’s also similar concepts in different forms of idealism. I’m not saying all possible worlds are infinite dimensional but I am saying that some would be infinite dimensional due to how possible worlds work and the fact dimensions of reality (basically the closest thing to SpatioTemporal dimensions in Sonic) are possibilities as well.

No. The paradox prism wasn’t necessary for the universe to exist, it was just responsible for its destruction, if the paradox prism was necessary for the possibility of that world then other worlds that are connected would also be destroyed. Also there’s multiple ways worlds can be possible. It’s possible there are worlds where its existence is contingent on a single piece of glass not breaking, so just because one has that law does that mean every other possible world has that law? Nope.

No it doesn’t, I’m just talking about the quantum multiverse not the ultimate ensemble multiverse.

If he just meant tesseract he would’ve just said tesseract, he’s saying that the concepts of Hypercubes exist in Sonic’s world and that they exist in Eggman’s space.

The explanation in the material either supports it or doesn’t go against it so… yeah. The labyrinth isn’t flat, Eggman references his space in Sonic Frontiers at 1:59 of

Even if that were true (it’s not a pocket space, it’s an expansive space) there’s still an entire environment outside the tower.

It does mean more than a little considering he’s a writer for IDW Sonic and Eitaro Toyoda practically agrees with what he’s saying but I digress.

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Finally got amoxicillin for my tonsilitis so I will be able to respond later today

 

[CraigTucker]

Dear god no. I will explain later the problem with this argument

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Dear god no. I will explain later the problem with this argument

You're going to say something that doesn't address the argument (let alone debunk it), we've went through this already on my message wall you just keep repeating yourself and shout "appeal to authority!" without showing why it's wrong so don't go "dear god no" like you have better arguments than what Guardian Doge presented.

 

[CraigTucker]

Adimensional/Beyond Dimensional Existence

This is the only argument I disagree but everything regarding sonic timeline being 2-A is accurate but not High 1-B

The idea that "aspatial" and "atemporal" are used to describe concepts or realms that are not bound by space and time, respectively. This ideal realms do not necessiarly imply the existance of addtional dimension beyond the existance of what we understand. To determine whether a concept or realm is higher-dimensional, additional context and information would be necessary to find out Weither its infinitely above. I believe this wiki explained that "Transcended" means nothing without context.

It's also worth noting the fact words can be manipulated by fiction or the author tone. If I said sure in a sarcastic manner, I am not agreeing with you but more disagreeing with you. So no point in using Ian words when he doesn't know the things people ask. So yea I'm fine with 2-A timelines.

Yea and that statement towards Solaris being unaffected by time is a complete condraiction because solaris exists across different time periods, the past, present, and future demonstrates a direct involvement and interaction with the concept of time. Being present in different time periods implies a connection to the temporal dimension and indicates that Solaris is indeed affected by time.

 

[CraigTucker]

You're going to say something that doesn't address the argument (let alone debunk it), we've went through this already on my message wall you just keep repeating yourself and shout "appeal to authority!" without showing why it's wrong so don't go "dear god no" like you have better arguments than what Guardian Doge presented.

Sounds abit mature from you but I did made my final point going in dept towards my reason but you deleted it

 

[ThatBusyDude]

This is the only argument I disagree but everything regarding sonic timeline being 2-A is accurate but not High 1-B

The idea that "aspatial" and "atemporal" are used to describe concepts or realms that are not bound by space and time, respectively. This ideal realms do not necessiarly imply the existance of addtional dimension beyond the existance of what we understand. To determine whether a concept or realm is higher-dimensional, additional context and information would be necessary to find out Weither its infinitely above. I believe this wiki explained that "Transcended" means nothing without context.

It's also worth noting the fact words can be manipulated by fiction or the author tone. If I said sure in a sarcastic manner, I am not agreeing with you but more disagreeing with you. So no point in using Ian words when he doesn't know the things people ask. So yea I'm fine with 2-A timelines

Do you not know the definition of aspatial and atemporal? aspatial means nothing spatial, and aspatial means nothing temporal and the fact that it contains dimensions proves it can't be inferior to them and we can understand an infinite number of dimensions, there's also no evidence it's not infinitely above, if we went by this logic 4-D wouldn't automatically be infinitely above 3D in fiction because further context and information would be need "necessary." In fact you should prove that the dimensions are not infinitely above each other or at least not different or superior existences.

He didn't say "sure" in a sarcastic manner and Ian Flynn has went on to confirm when he says "sure" he means yes I can get the link, a yes is a yes unless he retracts his statement.

 

[Gasper]

This is still opened? I disagree for the reasons i made months ago

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Sounds abit mature from you but I did made my final point going in dept towards my reason but you deleted it

Don't derail the post with what happened between us outside the thread it's irrelevant plus you didn't go in depth you simply repeated yourself. I notice this trend with you when I look at debates you participate in, it's constant ad nauseam. It's not immature either.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

This is still opened? I disagree for the reasons i made months ago

I'm surprised it's still open yeah.

 

[CraigTucker]

Do you not know the definition of aspatial and atemporal? aspatial means nothing spatial, and aspatial means nothing temporal and the fact that it contains dimensions proves it can't be inferior to them and we can understand an infinite number of dimensions, there's also no evidence it's not infinitely above, if we went by this logic 4-D wouldn't automatically be infinitely above 3D in fiction because further context and information would be need "necessary." In fact you should prove that the dimensions are not infinitely above each other or at least not different or superior existences.

He didn't say "sure" in a sarcastic manner and Ian Flynn has went on to confirm when he says "sure" he means yes I can get the link, a yes is a yes unless he retracts his statement.

Yea your right aspatial refers to the absence of spatial characteristics and "atemporal" refers to the absence of temporal characteristics. But the mere presence of dimensions does not necessarily indicate superiority or inferiority. In scientific frameworks, dimensions refer to axes that help define our physical reality, and additional dimensions beyond the ones we commonly experience are theoretical concepts. But again we can't relay on defination to determine that x would be equivelent to y. That's appeal to dictionary as fiction can completely mean something different than what we understand. Your asking me a negative claim while I procced to ask to prove a positive claim?. Do you not understand that context and information is needed to determine what is being used?

I didn't said he said it in a sarcastic way I give an anolgy towards words can be change from tone. Your completely strawmen my words and manipulating it to fit your narritive

 

[CraigTucker]

Don't derail the post with what happened between us outside the thread it's irrelevant plus you didn't go in depth you simply repeated yourself. I notice this trend with you when I look at debates you participate in, it's constant ad nauseam. It's not immature either.

Saying "Don't derail the post" is hypocritical from your side because the fact you yourself brought irrelevent things like " we've went through this already on my message wall' shows how you in no possesion telling people what to do. Also you started this by bringing up the message wall discussion we had. Stop

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Saying "Don't derail the post" is hypocritical from your side because the fact you yourself brought irrelevent things like " we've went through this already on my message wall' shows how you in no possesion telling people what to do

How is mentioning something that we already discussed that uses essentially the same bases used in this post irrelevant to the thread? What are you even talking about? You brought in something irrelevant to this discussion by saying "well I made my final point but you deleted it," it wasn't your final point, if I chose to respond to that paraphrase you would've responded again with the same point used in different words let's not act like you had any intention of stopping if I continued to respond and not end the discussion there. The irrelevant part was you saying "but my response was deleted" as if me deleting something is relevant to this current discussion. .

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Yea your right aspatial refers to the absence of spatial characteristics and "atemporal" refers to the absence of temporal characteristics. But the mere presence of dimensions does not necessarily indicate superiority or inferiority. In scientific frameworks, dimensions refer to axes that help define our physical reality, and additional dimensions beyond the ones we commonly experience are theoretical concepts. But again we can't relay on defination to determine that x would be equivelent to y. That's appeal to dictionary as fiction can completely mean something different than what we understand. Your asking me a negative claim while I procced to ask to prove a positive claim?. Do you not understand that context and information is needed to determine what is being used?

I didn't said he said it in a sarcastic way I give an anolgy towards words can be change from tone. Your completely strawmen my words and manipulating it to fit your narritive

I never said being aspatial and atmporal meant automatically referring to superiority to spatial and temporal dimensions but the fact that white space shows no inferiority to dimensions and even contains it while also having no spatial and temporal characteristics implies it's above dimensions. Uh no, have you heard of R^n? Dimensions beyond the 4th are very much a real thing, what's theoretical is how many dimensions our universe has. Why would we not use the definition of something to determine what something means? This is an illogical premise, you use the definition of meat to determine that chicken is meat, you use the definition of a reptile to determine a lizard is a reptile and so on, give a reason as to why the definition wouldn't apply. Negative claims are bound by reason, if a negative claim has no reason justifying it then it's null, specific negative claims can be proven anyhow

"You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk."- https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialscie...u can prove a specific,top drawer of the desk.

So provide the contradictory evidence to your pretty specific negative claim.

Don't use an analogy where it doesn't fit, Ian said yes there's no if or buts about it.

 

[CraigTucker]

How is mentioning something that we already discussed that uses essentially the same bases used in this post irrelevant to the thread? What are you even talking about? You brought in something irrelevant to this discussion by saying "well I made my final point but you deleted it," it wasn't your final point, if I chose to respond to that paraphrase you would've responded again with the same point used in different words let's not act like you had any intention of stopping if I continued to respond and not end the discussion there. The irrelevant part was you saying "but my response was deleted" as if me deleting something is relevant to this current discussion. .

Holy big mac. Dude I said "Oh god I will explain later why this is wrong" and you respond with " we've went through this already on my message wall you just keep repeating yourself and shout "appeal to authority!" without showing why it's wrong so don't go "dear god no" like you have better arguments than what Guardian Doge presented." is completely irrelevent because your talking about what we had discuss in message wall vs what we are going to discuss now in this thread. You bringing up the message wall was a derail as well. If you didn't said that I wouldn't respond to you infact would have stayed and argue why the argument for high 1-B is wrong.

You bought an irrelevant message about me and you having a debate in your message wall. Thats derailment in the context of this thread. There is no point in bringing that here to use it to insult me. Bringing up previous discussions or accusing me of repeating arguments without addressing the specific points being presented in this current thread is divert in this conversation. Walking hypocrite and again I said that after you brought that up so please stop lying here

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Holy big mac. Dude I said "Oh god I will explain later why this is wrong" and you respond with " we've went through this already on my message wall you just keep repeating yourself and shout "appeal to authority!" without showing why it's wrong so don't go "dear god no" like you have better arguments than what Guardian Doge presented." is completely irrelevent because your talking about what we had discuss in message wall vs what we are going to discuss now in this thread. You bringing up the message wall was a derail as well. If you didn't said that I wouldn't respond to you infact would have stayed and argue why the argument for high 1-B is wrong.

You bought an irrelevant message about me and you having a debate in your message wall. Thats derailment in the context of this thread. There is no point in bringing that here to use it to insult me. Bringing up previous discussions or accusing me of repeating arguments without addressing the specific points being presented in this current thread is divert in this conversation. Walking hypocrite and again I said that after you brought that up so please stop lying here

Yes, all I said was we went through this already, that wasn't at all irrelevant to the thread considering this post uses some of the same points made on that message wall, I didn't mention anything on that message wall that was irrelevant to this post.

That wasn't irrelevant at all, some of the points in this post were brought up in that message wall and you said "appeal to authority" as if that invalidated the evidence. Except the problem with that accusation is I'm currently responding to you on the current topic and you are currently failing to address the points I've made.

If this is such a problem then stop responding to this post and get onto the main replies of this post, whether I'm a "hypocrite" doesn't change the fact you're derailing the thread. Okay I'm a hypocrite, happy? Now respond to the actual topic and stop derailing the thread.

 

[CraigTucker]

I never said being aspatial and atmporal meant automatically referring to superiority to spatial and temporal dimensions but the fact that white space shows no inferiority to dimensions and even contains it while also having no spatial and temporal characteristics implies it's above dimensions. Uh no, have you heard of R^n? Dimensions beyond the 4th are very much a real thing, what's theoretical is how many dimensions our universe has. Why would we not use the definition of something to determine what something means? This is an illogical premise, you use the definition of meat to determine that chicken is meat, you use the definition of a reptile to determine a lizard is a reptile and so on, give a reason as to why the definition wouldn't apply. Negative claims are bound by reason, if a negative claim has no reason justifying it then it's null, specific negative claims can be proven anyhow

"You can prove a specific negative claim by providing contradictory evidence. An example of a proof of a rather specific negative claim by contradictory evidence would be if someone were to claim that the one and only watch that you own is in the top drawer of the desk."- https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=You can prove a specific,top drawer of the desk.

So provide the contradictory evidence to your pretty specific negative claim.

Don't use an analogy where it doesn't fit, Ian said yes there's no if or buts about it.

Yea I see the problem here in this point, you don't understand what is bein argued or presented and believe I am talking about you when I am not. It's like explaining a point and your saying "I never said that". But just because the white space doesn't have no spatial and temporal doesn't mean it's beyond dimensions. If we assume it refers to a space beyond dimensions, the absence of inferiority does not necessarily indicate superiority. It simply suggests an absence of hierarchical comparison.

Because the defination are not the sole factor in determining the nature or characteristics of a specific concept or entity.? Words are determine by the following: Context, interpertation and understanding, Nuance and complexity and Evolving knowledge and understanding.

That's entirely inaccurate. Providing contradictory evidence can challenge a specific claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a negative claim.

In the example you provided, let's say someone claims that the one and only watch you own is in the top drawer of the desk. If you search the top drawer of the desk and don't find the watch, you have provided evidence that contradicts the claim. However, this evidence alone does not prove that you don't own a watch or that the watch is not in another location.

Doesn't matter because he was uncertain on what he said, don't tell people what to do but again saying sure doesn't necissarly an agreement, I can say "sure......" that doesnt mean I agree with you. The word "sure" can be used in different ways depending on context, tone of voice, and other factors.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Yea I see the problem here in this point, you don't understand what is bein argued or presented and believe I am talking about you when I am not. It's like explaining a point and your saying "I never said that". But just because the white space doesn't have no spatial and temporal doesn't mean it's beyond dimensions. If we assume it refers to a space beyond dimensions, the absence of inferiority does not necessarily indicate superiority. It simply suggests an absence of hierarchical comparison.

Because the defination are not the sole factor in determining the nature or characteristics of a specific concept or entity.? Words are determine by the following: Context, interpertation and understanding, Nuance and complexity and Evolving knowledge and understanding.

That's entirely inaccurate. Providing contradictory evidence can challenge a specific claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a negative claim.

In the example you provided, let's say someone claims that the one and only watch you own is in the top drawer of the desk. If you search the top drawer of the desk and don't find the watch, you have provided evidence that contradicts the claim. However, this evidence alone does not prove that you don't own a watch or that the watch is not in another location.

Doesn't matter because he was uncertain on what he said, don't tell people what to do but again saying sure doesn't necissarly an agreement, I can say "sure......" that doesnt mean I agree with you. The word "sure" can be used in different ways depending on context, tone of voice, and other factors.

I just addressed this, the fact that White Space contains dimensions and isn't shown in any way inferior them (especially since they contain them) is proof it's also beyond dimensions or contains them

https://www.sonicstadium.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Sonic-Generations-Comic-Strip.jpg

Umm.. yes it is, when you're determining what's a mammal you use the definition of a mammal and see what matches with what to see if a particular is common to that or if something is different from that definition to determine if something isn't the case.

This came from an official source, it doesn't really matter if contradictory evidence doesn't necessarily prove a negative claim it's required to rebuke the view that something is true, which you cannot provide.

That just means you don't have the watch with you, the idea that someone doesn't have something because they don't have it with them at all times is a non sequitur.

Can you prove he was uncertain or that he didn't mean "yes?", 1:58:06 Ian confirms he means yes when he says "sure" or "yeah" so it means yes unless he specifically says otherwise.

 

[CraigTucker]

I just addressed this, the fact that White Space contains dimensions and isn't shown in any way inferior them (especially since they contain them) is proof it's also beyond dimensions or contains them

https://www.sonicstadium.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Sonic-Generations-Comic-Strip.jpg

Umm.. yes it is, when you're determining what's a mammal you use the definition of a mammal and see what matches with what to see if a particular is common to that or if something is different from that definition to determine if something isn't the case.

This came from an official source, it doesn't really matter if contradictory evidence doesn't necessarily prove a negative claim it's required to rebuke the view that something is true, which you cannot provide.

That just means you don't have the watch with you, the idea that someone doesn't have something because they don't have it with them at all times is a non sequitur.

Can you prove he was uncertain or that he didn't mean "yes?", 1:58:06 Ian confirms he means yes when he says "sure" or "yeah" so it means yes unless he specifically says otherwise.

If the white space contains dimensions it does not inherently imply that it is superior or beyond them. Dimensions are frameworks or coordinate systems that define the spatial and temporal aspects of our reality. They provide a structure within which objects and events exist and interact. Being in possession of or encompassing dimensions does not automatically confer superiority or transcendence over those dimensions. It is not soley determined by the presence or absence of dimensions. The fact that something contains or encompasses dimensions does not necessarily mean it is above or superior to them.

Let's consider an analogy: Imagine a box that can contain objects of different sizes. The box itself may be larger in size compared to the objects it holds, but that does not make the box superior to or above those objects. The box is simply a container for the objects within it.

The dictionary doesn't capture the nuanced or specialized meanings that can arise within the idea of fiction. Like for example, if a dictionary define time as only measurments while theory such as theory of relativity goes far beyond the concept of time. My point is words are subjective in meaning and needs context to determine what is being use. Your limiting the idea that because the dictionary says this than the word is that when its not always true.

It does not automatically make the claim true or exempt it from scrutiny. Critical evaluation, logical reasoning, and examining the evidence presented are essential in assessing the validity of any claim, regardless of its source, Even official sources can contain errors, biases, or outdated information. Simply stating that contradictory evidence is required to rebuke a view does not absolve the burden of proof for the original claim. If a claim is presented, the burden of proof generally falls on the one making the claim to provide evidence or reasoning to support it. Without such evidence, it is not automatically assumed to be true. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim.

Dude you can cleary seen he was laughing what Geburah ask, Laughing at a question and saying "yes" can have different interpretations depending on the context and the individual's intention. "yes" may be a way for someone to express irony, sarcasm, or disbelief. He even repeat the question. Lol

 

[ThatBusyDude]

If the white space contains dimensions it does not inherently imply that it is superior or beyond them. Dimensions are frameworks or coordinate systems that define the spatial and temporal aspects of our reality. They provide a structure within which objects and events exist and interact. Being in possession of or encompassing dimensions does not automatically confer superiority or transcendence over those dimensions. It is not soley determined by the presence or absence of dimensions. The fact that something contains or encompasses dimensions does not necessarily mean it is above or superior to them.

Let's consider an analogy: Imagine a box that can contain objects of different sizes. The box itself may be larger in size compared to the objects it holds, but that does not make the box superior to or above those objects. The box is simply a container for the objects within it.

The dictionary doesn't capture the nuanced or specialized meanings that can arise within the idea of fiction. Like for example, if a dictionary define time as only measurments while theory such as theory of relativity goes far beyond the concept of time. My point is words are subjective in meaning and needs context to determine what is being use. Your limiting the idea that because the dictionary says this than the word is that when its not always true.

It does not automatically make the claim true or exempt it from scrutiny. Critical evaluation, logical reasoning, and examining the evidence presented are essential in assessing the validity of any claim, regardless of its source, Even official sources can contain errors, biases, or outdated information. Simply stating that contradictory evidence is required to rebuke a view does not absolve the burden of proof for the original claim. If a claim is presented, the burden of proof generally falls on the one making the claim to provide evidence or reasoning to support it. Without such evidence, it is not automatically assumed to be true. It is not the responsibility of others to disprove the claim.

Dude you can cleary seen he was laughing what Geburah ask, Laughing at a question and saying "yes" can have different interpretations depending on the context and the individual's intention. "yes" may be a way for someone to express irony, sarcasm, or disbelief. He even repeat the question. Lol

Uhh if I contain a hamster in a cage that fits in my hand then I am beyond that hamster in size and/or scope. Actually "To break it down, dimensions are simply the different facets of what we perceive to be reality." - https://phys.org/news/2014-12-unive... it down, dimensions,and z axes, respectively). So containing realities would be containing dimensions by default. It does here since white space isn't affected by things that utterly destroyed those dimensions or erased them and it has to be larger than them since it contains them.

Yeah because containing something in context of that box is a finite transcendence meaning with enough effort you can break through it meanwhile white space is a realm containing infinite sized worlds. The problem is also the fact that the white space shows no inferior durability to the things it contains so you can't assert that it has less durability.

Can you prove that the definition in the fiction is in any way different from the definition used in our world? You need to prove that with certainty instead of just assuming that.

What are you trying to say? You used an example that simply doesn't work at all in which the absence of object x doesn't prove point y, you can scrutinize it however you want but there's a difference between scrutiny and proving something, the watch not being in the location doesn't prove even prove that he doesn't own the watch in fact it has no effect on whether he owns it or not. The original claim has evidence here, you're simply saying that something doesn't exist without good reason, it's a failure to rebuke the claim, not all negative claims are even counters to the positive claim as like here "A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim." - https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/3658...claim is the,counterpoint to a previous claim.

Yeah it sounded like a stupid question to him, he said yes and that's all that matters, he can laugh, dilly dally and all of that but it doesn't change that he said yes and confirmed something, if you want to say that him saying "sure" isn't saying yes then post evidence of Ian saying "sure" doesn't mean yes otherwise no one is going to entertain this, Ian's intention was to say yes, a laugh doesn't invalidate that so make all of the interpretations you want it changes nothing about the valid interpretation that is he said yes to the question on if he means yes when he responds with "sure."

 

[CraigTucker]

Uhh if I contain a hamster in a cage that fits in my hand then I am beyond that hamster in size and/or scope. Actually "To break it down, dimensions are simply the different facets of what we perceive to be reality." - https://phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.html#:~:text=To break it down, dimensions,and z axes, respectively). So containing realities would be containing dimensions by default. It does here since white space isn't affected by things that utterly destroyed those dimensions or erased them and it has to be larger than them since it contains them.

Yeah because containing something in context of that box is a finite transcendence meaning with enough effort you can break through it meanwhile white space is a realm containing infinite sized worlds. The problem is also the fact that the white space shows no inferior durability to the things it contains so you can't assert that it has less durability.

Can you prove that the definition in the fiction is in any way different from the definition used in our world? You need to prove that with certainty instead of just assuming that.

What are you trying to say? You used an example that simply doesn't work at all in which the absence of object x doesn't prove point y, you can scrutinize it however you want but there's a difference between scrutiny and proving something, the watch not being in the location doesn't prove even prove that he doesn't own the watch in fact it has no effect on whether he owns it or not. The original claim has evidence here, you're simply saying that something doesn't exist without good reason, it's a failure to rebuke the claim, not all negative claims are even counters to the positive claim as like here "A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim." - https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36589#:~:text=A negative claim is the,counterpoint to a previous claim.

Yeah it sounded like a stupid question to him, he said yes and that's all that matters, he can laugh, dilly dally and all of that but it doesn't change that he said yes and confirmed something, if you want to say that him saying "sure" isn't saying yes then post evidence of Ian saying "sure" doesn't mean yes otherwise no one is going to entertain this, Ian's intention was to say yes, a laugh doesn't invalidate that so make all of the interpretations you want it changes nothing about the valid interpretation that is he said yes to the question on if he means yes when he responds with "sure."

Just because white space contains dimensions and remains unaffected by their destruction does not necessarily mean it is superior or above them. Your argument completely assumes that because white space contains dimensions, it must be larger or superior to them. Merely containing something does not inherently make the container larger or superior. Superiority would require additional evidence or reasoning to support such a claim. Anywho, that anology is just wrong because it oversimplifies the relationship between containment and superiority. The hamster is physically smaller than the cage, and the cage has the ability to enclose and restrict the hamster's movement. However, this does not imply that the person holding the cage is superior to the hamster in size or scope. The person's size and scope are independent of the act of containing the hamster.

The purpose of a box is to provide a designated space for holding objects. It does not inherently imply superiority or dominance over the objects inside. When we look at the white space containing dimensions, the role of white space is to provide a framework or environment for the existence of those dimensions. Your assuming that because white space shows no inferior durability to the things it contains, it must be superior to them. thats not true, durability alone does not determine superiority or being above something.


He didn't said "yes" did you not watch your own source? Laughing while saying "yes" can introduce some ambiguity, as laughter can have different meanings and does not necessarily imply agreement. Dude the problem here is the tone is using. This is just unknown if he agrees or not just let it go

 

[ThatBusyDude]

Just because white space contains dimensions and remains unaffected by their destruction does not necessarily mean it is superior or above them. Your argument completely assumes that because white space contains dimensions, it must be larger or superior to them. Merely containing something does not inherently make the container larger or superior. Superiority would require additional evidence or reasoning to support such a claim. Anywho, that anology is just wrong because it oversimplifies the relationship between containment and superiority. The hamster is physically smaller than the cage, and the cage has the ability to enclose and restrict the hamster's movement. However, this does not imply that the person holding the cage is superior to the hamster in size or scope. The person's size and scope are independent of the act of containing the hamster.

The purpose of a box is to provide a designated space for holding objects. It does not inherently imply superiority or dominance over the objects inside. When we look at the white space containing dimensions, the role of white space is to provide a framework or environment for the existence of those dimensions. Your assuming that because white space shows no inferior durability to the things it contains, it must be superior to them. thats not true, durability alone does not determine superiority or being above something.


He didn't said "yes" did you not watch your own source? Laughing while saying "yes" can introduce some ambiguity, as laughter can have different meanings and does not necessarily imply agreement. Dude the problem here is the tone is using. This is just unknown if he agrees or not just let it go

Do you have proof it's not above them because being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority. And there's something wrong with the assertion that containing something means it's larger than what is contained? A house isn't bigger than me if I can't fit in it, I can go in the house then the house is bigger than me and it contains me. Superiority is self evident if something contains another thing and is unfazed by the activities of the contained thing no matter how destructive. I'm oversimplifying but even if I was it wouldn't invalidate the analogy, just because something is put in baby terms doesn't mean it didn't explain its nature correctly. The person is obviously bigger than the cage if the cage can fit in his hand.

So if something can clearly contain something it's not larger than that something, it's in no way superior to it in any way? Flawed logic. The dimensions don't have an existence they were stated to have been erased, they were given back existence by Sonic, the white space is clearly the background for dimensions while it itself has no spatial or temporal dimensionality. Durability does determine superiority, it means someone or something has a higher grade of resistance to damage which means superior resistance to damage and the power yield to create or destroy it is greater than the ap required to destroy dimensions.

I don't know why you're lying he says yes here

He said yes and then said sure what are you talking about? That doesn't mean yes has another meaning, you have to prove that, you have to prove he didn't mean yes. It's not my burden, why don't you go on the bumblekast and ask him if he meant yes or no, it's pretty clear he agrees laughing doesn't invalidate that the point is you don't have the evidence to debunk his affirmation to sure being equated to yes so why don't you let it go? Oh because maybe all of the statements where he says "sure" will put Sonic's world over and beyond. The point is Ian didn't say "yes" with any sarcasm, he laughed with shock to the question because he thought it was funny and answered yes stop dodging this. Laughing isn't invalidation it's just a form of amusement, he was amused by the question that's all it means.

 

[CraigTucker]

Do you have proof it's not above them because being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority. And there's something wrong with the assertion that containing something means it's larger than what is contained? A house isn't bigger than me if I can't fit in it, I can go in the house then the house is bigger than me and it contains me. Superiority is self evident if something contains another thing and is unfazed by the activities of the contained thing no matter how destructive. I'm oversimplifying but even if I was it wouldn't invalidate the analogy, just because something is put in baby terms doesn't mean it didn't explain its nature correctly. The person is obviously bigger than the cage if the cage can fit in his hand.

So if something can clearly contain something it's not larger than that something, it's in no way superior to it in any way? Flawed logic. The dimensions don't have an existence they were stated to have been erased, they were given back existence by Sonic, the white space is clearly the background for dimensions while it itself has no spatial or temporal dimensionality. Durability does determine superiority, it means someone or something has a higher grade of resistance to damage which means superior resistance to damage and the power yield to create or destroy it is greater than the ap required to destroy dimensions.

I don't know why you're lying he says yes here

He said yes and then said sure what are you talking about? That doesn't mean yes has another meaning, you have to prove that, you have to prove he didn't mean yes. It's not my burden, why don't you go on the bumblekast and ask him if he meant yes or no, it's pretty clear he agrees laughing doesn't invalidate that the point is you don't have the evidence to debunk his affirmation to sure being equated to yes so why don't you let it go? Oh because maybe all of the statements where he says "sure" will put Sonic's world over and beyond. The point is Ian didn't say "yes" with any sarcasm, he laughed with shock to the question because he thought it was funny and answered yes stop dodging this. Laughing isn't invalidation it's just a form of amusement, he was amused by the question that's all it means.

"being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority." Size and survival alone do not necessarily equate to superiority. Superiority requires additional evidence or reasoning beyond just containment and size. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim of superiority to provide substantial evidence to support it which is you. And also thanks for proving my point and the fact you said this condraict yourself pretty bad here. Superiority cannot be solely determined by the act of containment and being unaffected by the activities of the contained thing. The size of the cage in comparison to the person's hand does not directly indicate that the person is bigger than the cage. It simply shows that the cage is small enough to fit within the person's hand. The comparison of physical sizes alone does not provide sufficient evidence to establish superiority. If an analogy oversimplifies a complex concept or fails to accurately represent the situation being discussed, it can weaken its validity and impact. It can lead to misleading or incorrect conclusions.


You claim that the dimensions don't have an existence and were erased. On the other hand, you stated that the dimensions were given back existence by Sonic. This contradiction arises from conflicting statements about the existence of dimensions. If the dimensions were erased and didn't have an existence, it would be contradictory to claim that they were given back existence by Sonic. The assertion that something was erased implies its nonexistence, so it cannot simultaneously be given existence again. If the white space is described as the background for dimensions, it would imply that it exists within a spatial and temporal framework. However, stating that it has no spatial or temporal dimensionality contradicts this notion. . Superiority is a complex concept that encompasses various factors beyond just durability. Merely having higher durability or resistance to damage does not automatically make something superior in all aspects. For example, a durable object may be resistant to damage but may lack other qualities that make it superior in a given context.

Watch it again he said yes twice and laugh even more and no Laughing while saying "yes" can introduce some ambiguity, as laughter can have different meanings and does not necessarily imply agreement. If I laugh at you and said "yes" I'm not neccisarly agreeing with you thats why I said words are subjective and relys on context. And even things like sure, yes or ect can be manipulated in different ways. Funny and even than I explain how that statement about Ian words regarding solaris being condraicted in the games

 

[ThatBusyDude]

"being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority." Size and survival alone do not necessarily equate to superiority. Superiority requires additional evidence or reasoning beyond just containment and size. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim of superiority to provide substantial evidence to support it which is you. And also thanks for proving my point and the fact you said this condraict yourself pretty bad here. Superiority cannot be solely determined by the act of containment and being unaffected by the activities of the contained thing. The size of the cage in comparison to the person's hand does not directly indicate that the person is bigger than the cage. It simply shows that the cage is small enough to fit within the person's hand. The comparison of physical sizes alone does not provide sufficient evidence to establish superiority. If an analogy oversimplifies a complex concept or fails to accurately represent the situation being discussed, it can weaken its validity and impact. It can lead to misleading or incorrect conclusions.


You claim that the dimensions don't have an existence and were erased. On the other hand, you stated that the dimensions were given back existence by Sonic. This contradiction arises from conflicting statements about the existence of dimensions. If the dimensions were erased and didn't have an existence, it would be contradictory to claim that they were given back existence by Sonic. The assertion that something was erased implies its nonexistence, so it cannot simultaneously be given existence again. If the white space is described as the background for dimensions, it would imply that it exists within a spatial and temporal framework. However, stating that it has no spatial or temporal dimensionality contradicts this notion. . Superiority is a complex concept that encompasses various factors beyond just durability. Merely having higher durability or resistance to damage does not automatically make something superior in all aspects. For example, a durable object may be resistant to damage but may lack other qualities that make it superior in a given context.

Watch it again he said yes twice and laugh even more and no Laughing while saying "yes" can introduce some ambiguity, as laughter can have different meanings and does not necessarily imply agreement. If I laugh at you and said "yes" I'm not neccisarly agreeing with you thats why I said words are subjective and relys on context. And even things like sure, yes or ect can be manipulated in different ways. Funny

See? You're repeating yourself, if someone has a greater size and they survive what the other person couldn't that implies superiority as that person has more advantageous characteristics. Nope,
burden of proof

phrase of burden
1. the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion, you're making the assertion that white space isn't superior to dimensions so prove it, show contradictory evidence. I didn't contradict myself at all what? Yes it does, if something that contains a thing can't be harmed by destruction feats that destroys the contained thing that implies a higher yield of power is required to destroy it hence implying superiority, that's like saying the universe isn't superior to the earth. What? If the cage is smaller than someone's hand that means the person is bigger than the cage as the hand is just one part of the person. E = mc^2, having higher physical size would mean having higher energy. You didn't prove it wasn't accurately represented, you just said it was an oversimplification and failed to represent the relationship and how, you're acting like this is a complex topic and needs a complex analogy to work which is an example of complexity bias.

Because that's exactly what happened? If you didn't play the game or watch the cutscenes you should not be here and I'm starting to doubt that you have the knowledge to participate in this thread because you are saying things that contradict the story if you're saying that the dimensions weren't erased then you need to go back and watch all of the cutscenes because they were erased and then given back existence by Sonic when he ran through them. Actually it can, for example in Dragon Ball Super Zeno erased the other universes in the tournament of power, then it's shown that Super Shenron brought them back into existence, but by your logic since they were brought back that implies they weren't erased in the first place, the double standards here are crazy. That wouldn't imply it exists in a spatial or temporal framework at all since it's specifically stated to have no space or time. Actually an aspatial and atemporal realm can contain spatial and temporal realms as things below itself.

No it's not, superiority:
su·pe·ri·or·i·ty
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwinkeqQ0Zv_AhX_D1kFHfPnCAoQ3eEDegQIFBAI
noun
the state of being superior.

and superior:
su·pe·ri·or
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwju8p7H0Zv_AhXAEGIAHbMhDXkQ3eEDegQIEBAI
adjective
higher in rank, status, or quality.


It just means being greater, being more durable means you're greater than someone at maintaining yourself even after sustaining damage or interference that's being superior. The problem is Time Eater's raw ap is what destroys those dimensions yet it can't do that to the white space even though it can rip through it implying it's the white space as a realm that's keeping it from being destroyed and it must be larger than dimensions since it contains them but let's play your game, prove with evidence it's not superior to those dimensions, tell me how a smaller object can contain inferior objects.

That doesn't invalidate him saying yes and that doesn't introduce ambiguity. It doesn't work that way because you have given enough evidence that you don't agree with me that's where things end: right there, Ian gave no signs of denial and laughing isn't inherently a sign of denial actually it's never a sign of denial, not on its own, the problem is you give no proof of him not meaning yes when saying "sure" and "sure" does mean yes https://www.google.com/search?q=sur...CDYxOTVqMWo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sure and Sure is an informal way of saying `yes' or `all right. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/sure#:~:text=Sure is an informal way,yes' or `all right.

The definition of sure and Ian Flynn's admission to it meaning yes despite the laughter leans heavily to the view that he means yes whenever he says sure while the idea that he doesn't mean yes is based off an assumption that he doesn't mean yes because he laughed which is unreliable and isn't based on a certain logical foundation while my assertion is based on deductive reasoning and data.

So prove he doesn't mean yes with a direct statement from Ian Flynn to be certain or I'll take it that you don't have the proof to back up your claim.

 

[CraigTucker]

See? You're repeating yourself, if someone has a greater size and they survive what the other person couldn't that implies superiority as that person has more advantageous characteristics. Nope,
burden of proof

phrase of burden
1. the obligation to prove one's assertion.

Burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion, you're making the assertion that white space isn't superior to dimensions so prove it, show contradictory evidence. I didn't contradict myself at all what? Yes it does, if something that contains a thing can't be harmed by destruction feats that destroys the contained thing that implies a higher yield of power is required to destroy it hence implying superiority, that's like saying the universe isn't superior to the earth. What? If the cage is smaller than someone's hand that means the person is bigger than the cage as the hand is just one part of the person. E = mc^2, having higher physical size would mean having higher energy. You didn't prove it wasn't accurately represented, you just said it was an oversimplification and failed to represent the relationship and how, you're acting like this is a complex topic and needs a complex analogy to work which is an example of complexity bias.

Because that's exactly what happened? If you didn't play the game or watch the cutscenes you should not be here and I'm starting to doubt that you have the knowledge to participate in this thread because you are saying things that contradict the story if you're saying that the dimensions weren't erased then you need to go back and watch all of the cutscenes because they were erased and then given back existence by Sonic when he ran through them. Actually it can, for example in Dragon Ball Super Zeno erased the other universes in the tournament of power, then it's shown that Super Shenron brought them back into existence, but by your logic since they were brought back that implies they weren't erased in the first place, the double standards here are crazy. That wouldn't imply it exists in a spatial or temporal framework at all since it's specifically stated to have no space or time. Actually an aspatial and atemporal realm can contain spatial and temporal realms as things below itself.

No it's not, superiority:
su·pe·ri·or·i·ty
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwinkeqQ0Zv_AhX_D1kFHfPnCAoQ3eEDegQIFBAI
noun
the state of being superior.

and superior:
su·pe·ri·or
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwju8p7H0Zv_AhXAEGIAHbMhDXkQ3eEDegQIEBAI
adjective
higher in rank, status, or quality.


It just means being greater, being more durable means you're greater than someone at maintaining yourself even after sustaining damage or interference that's being superior. The problem is Time Eater's raw ap is what destroys those dimensions yet it can't do that to the white space even though it can rip through it implying it's the white space as a realm that's keeping it from being destroyed and it must be larger than dimensions since it contains them but let's play your game, prove with evidence it's not superior to those dimensions, tell me how a smaller object can contain inferior objects.

That doesn't invalidate him saying yes and that doesn't introduce ambiguity. It doesn't work that way because you have given enough evidence that you don't agree with me that's where things end: right there, Ian gave no signs of denial and laughing isn't inherently a sign of denial actually it's never a sign of denial, not on its own, the problem is you give no proof of him not meaning yes when saying "sure" and "sure" does mean yes https://www.google.com/search?q=sur...CDYxOTVqMWo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sure and Sure is an informal way of saying `yes' or `all right. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/sure#:~:text=Sure is an informal way,yes' or `all right.

The definition of sure and Ian Flynn's admission to it meaning yes despite the laughter leans heavily to the view that he means yes whenever he says sure while the idea that he doesn't mean yes is based off an assumption that he doesn't mean yes because he laughed which is unreliable and isn't based on a certain logical foundation while my assertion is based on deductive reasoning and data.

So prove he doesn't mean yes with a direct statement from Ian Flynn to be certain or I'll take it that you don't have the proof to back up your claim.

That's just flawed, Being larger in physical size does not necessarily make someone superior, Survival in a specific situation does not automatically confer superiority. It may indicate adaptability or resilience, but it does not encompass all the qualities that define superiority. You said it yourself "being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority." In a discussion or debate, the burden of proof generally falls on the person making a positive claim or assertion. In this case, if someone is asserting that white space is superior to dimensions, they would be responsible for providing evidence and reasoning to support that claim. if someone is asserting that white space is superior, they would need to present evidence, logical reasoning, or examples that demonstrate the superiority of white space in a clear and convincing manner. It's not the responsibility of the opposing party to disprove this claim unless they are making a counter-claim of their own. Using the example of the universe and the Earth, it is not accurate to say that the universe is superior to the Earth solely based on its ability to contain and be unaffected by the Earth's destruction. The concept of superiority between the universe and Earth is not based on containment alone, but rather on the vastness, complexity, and diverse phenomena that exist within the universe. Size comparison alone does not determine the relative size or superiority of two entities. The size of an object or body part does not directly correlate with the overall size or superiority of an individual. What?.
The equation E = mc^2, known as the mass-energy equivalence, relates energy (E) to mass (m) and the speed of light (c). However, it does not imply that having higher physical size automatically translates to higher energy or superiority. Energy and size are separate concepts, and superiority cannot be solely determined by physical size or energy.



No that'a not my point, your arguing that the white space contains these dimensions yet your saying time eater erased it? Scratch that misunderstand that but still this alone doesn't support the white space is supuiroty to the dimensions inside of it. You said that the white space has dimensions in it yet If the white space lacks spatial and temporal characteristics, it raises questions about how it can contain dimensions that inherently rely on space and time. The concept of dimensions existing within an aspatial and atemporal realm requires further clarification and explanation to resolve this contradiction. Without a simple clear explanation of how dimensions can exist within a realm that lacks spatial and temporal attributes, this argument remains inconsistent.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

That's just flawed, Being larger in physical size does not necessarily make someone superior, Survival in a specific situation does not automatically confer superiority. It may indicate adaptability or resilience, but it does not encompass all the qualities that define superiority. You said it yourself "being larger than something and surviving forces that the things contained couldn't implies superiority." In a discussion or debate, the burden of proof generally falls on the person making a positive claim or assertion. In this case, if someone is asserting that white space is superior to dimensions, they would be responsible for providing evidence and reasoning to support that claim. if someone is asserting that white space is superior, they would need to present evidence, logical reasoning, or examples that demonstrate the superiority of white space in a clear and convincing manner. It's not the responsibility of the opposing party to disprove this claim unless they are making a counter-claim of their own. Using the example of the universe and the Earth, it is not accurate to say that the universe is superior to the Earth solely based on its ability to contain and be unaffected by the Earth's destruction. The concept of superiority between the universe and Earth is not based on containment alone, but rather on the vastness, complexity, and diverse phenomena that exist within the universe. Size comparison alone does not determine the relative size or superiority of two entities. The size of an object or body part does not directly correlate with the overall size or superiority of an individual. What?.
The equation E = mc^2, known as the mass-energy equivalence, relates energy (E) to mass (m) and the speed of light (c). However, it does not imply that having higher physical size automatically translates to higher energy or superiority. Energy and size are separate concepts, and superiority cannot be solely determined by physical size or energy.



No that'a not my point, your arguing that the white space contains these dimensions yet your saying time eater erased it? Scratch that misunderstand that but still this alone doesn't support the white space is supuiroty to the dimensions inside of it. You said that the white space has dimensions in it yet If the white space lacks spatial and temporal characteristics, it raises questions about how it can contain dimensions that inherently rely on space and time. The concept of dimensions existing within an aspatial and atemporal realm requires further clarification and explanation to resolve this contradiction. Without a simple clear explanation of how dimensions can exist within a realm that lacks spatial and temporal attributes, this argument remains inconsistent.

The fact is it's a general idea that something with larger physical size is superior to someone lacking in physical size. Yes it does lmao, if you're greater than someone you're superior to someone. Nope, people are responsible for proving their assertion with proof whether it's positive or negative
A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11] of this. You have no proof of the evidence of absence so you're burden of proof is unfulfilled.

In the book attacking faulty reasoning it's stated that the burden of proof applies to those who make an assertion whether it's positive or negative

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position. Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always challenged to defend our claims. But if the claimant is asked “Why?” or “How do you know that is true?” he or she is logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim. An exception to this rule is a situation in which the claim in question is well established or uncontroversial. In such a case, the burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes to challenge that claim. Many opinions, of course, are shared by the parties involved and thus require no defense in a particular context. If one had to defend not only the conclusion but also each of the premises, each of the statements in support of the premises, and each of the statements in support of the statements of support, one would be involved in an infinite chain of proofs—an obviously impractical task. But one at least has the responsibility to provide evidence for one’s conclusion and for any questionable premise, if asked to do so. This is as it should be. Indeed, we follow this procedure in our basic social institutions. If a pharmaceutical firm wishes to market a new drug, it has the burden of proving to the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective. what is an argument? 15 Our legal system places the burden of proof in a criminal case on the person who does the accusing, the prosecutor. We would permit neither the drug manufacturer nor the prosecutor to get by with simply expressing an opinion on the matter at issue. Neither should we allow others to get by without defending their opinions, especially about important or controversial issues. To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of “arguing from ignorance,” for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all. Indeed, you are basing the claim on the absence of evidence, that is, on ignorance. You can see the absurdity of such a move by taking any highly questionable claim and arguing that the claim is true in the absence of any counterevidence. For example, you could argue that it is true that your great-grandfather died of AIDS unless someone can prove otherwise, or that it is true that pornography causes sex crimes, unless someone can prove that it doesn’t. In this way you fail to take responsibility for your own claims and even attempt to get your opponents to do your work for you. Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are attempting to set yourself up for a “win” by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument given in support of it. You should therefore accept willingly and not begrudgingly the burden of proof when asked and support the conclusion and any questionable premise of your argument—and expect others to do likewise with theirs. We do not want to give the impression, of course, that a good discussion must be carried on in the formal style of the courtroom. When the mutual interest of the parties is in finding the truth or the best solution to a problem, it is not unusual for all participants to assume the task of both defending and evaluating any claim presented. This approach is sometimes a good one, because it is more natural and often saves time, but no one should act as if the burden of proof therefore no longer rests on the shoulders of those who make controversial claims, nor that it can be shifted without blame to others. It should perhaps be pointed out that “proof,” in the context in which it is being used here, does not mean absolute, knockdown proof. It does not mean, for example, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as required of the prosecutor in a criminal trial. When an automobile industry spokesman recently argued that “they have not yet proven any connection between carbon emissions and global warning,” I presume that he was using the term “proven” to mean “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Such proof, however, is not likely to be found for most of the empirical claims typically encountered in informal discussion. To satisfy the burden of proof required by the principle is to try to present what appears to be a good, or fallacy-free, argument on behalf of a claim. In most contexts, this kind of proof would probably resemble the kind of proof offered not in criminal courts but in civil courts. In other words, the argument would not have to prove the claim “beyond a reasonable doubt” but try to meet the burden of proof with what is called the preponderance of the evidence. If the argument is a good one, it should at least do that. In some contexts, practical considerations allow for a legitimate way of avoiding the burden of proof. For example, if you have no reason to believe that a particular 16 chapter 2 claim is true, you may say just that—or even that you do not believe it to be true. However, if you say that you have no reason to believe that a claim is true, and then go on to claim that it is therefore false, you have actually made a claim for which you now have the burden of proof—a task for which you might not be presently inclined or prepared. There is, then, an important distinction between asserting that “I have no reason to believe that X is true” and asserting that “X is false.” The first does not entail the second. The first one, the agnostic option, explains why one is not prepared to affirm or deny the claim; the second, the denial option, is a negative claim for which one must assume the burden of proof. For example, you may not be prepared to prove that ghosts do not exist; but if on the basis of the available evidence, you do not believe that they do, you may escape the burden of proof by taking the agnostic option and say that you have no reason to believe that ghosts exist, rather than to deny that they exist and thereby assume the burden of proof.

Burden Of Proof applies to negative assertions as well

Download Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments PDF by T. Edward Damer

Read & Download PDF Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer, Update the latest version with high-quality. Try NOW!

pdfdrive.to

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1112896237851656302/image.png

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1112896238141059242/image.png

You're making an assertion so prove it otherwise I'm dismissing it entirely, I don't like how you guys goon and say "it's a negative tho!" to dodge responsibility of proving an assertion also if you're not making a counter claim then you're not arguing with me and are avoiding the dialect. The problem is I did present the evidence and logical reasoning as to why white space would be superior, you outright ignored it and tried saying it's not superior with no justification as to why that's the case 1. it can sustain what each dimension cannot. 2. the dimensions are infinite so white space containing multiple infinities would mean it's a higher infinity or those infinities are less in comparison to its size. OOOOOOOOOOOOOH re you saying that the white space isn't more vast and more complex than the dimensions despite those dimensions being infinite? Okay so let me debunk that real quick

Eitaro Toyoda states Sonic’s world has a scale and potential similar to the Arabian Nights.





There's nothing contradicting this

In fact the Arabian nights is an isekai

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/823056393665904651/1043674314328789022/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/823056393665904651/1043674314593026118/image.png

Now the arabian nights contains infinite realms such as the night palace

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1061853172534087700/IMG_3824.png

Now since Sonic's world has the same scale and potential as the Arabian nights this would mean that Sonic's world is infinite in size, now all of those dimensions that are shown in generations are different points in time of Sonic's world (which is infinite) making each dimension infinite in size so in order for something to contain something larger than that it would logically have to be more vast and complex than that wouldn't it? Yes, I'm glad you understand so white space is more vast than dimensions. Size comparisons compare the size of objects or people so if something is bigger there would be superiority in relative size, just not a vast difference.

In other words 1. there is no evidence that white space is inferior to the dimensions in it. 2. it has to be bigger than those dimensions since it contains them and 3. it has to be infinitely bigger than them by multiple times since each of those dimensions are infinite. So white space is superior to those dimensions unless otherwise contradicted and since it is superior to those dimensions and it has no limitations of space and time (it has none) it has to be beyond dimensions.

It's a realm with no spatial and temporal attributes but not in the sense it has no size or is less than everything that's how it can contain dimensions.

 

[CraigTucker]

The fact is it's a general idea that something with larger physical size is superior to someone lacking in physical size. Yes it does lmao, if you're greater than someone you're superior to someone. Nope, people are responsible for proving their assertion with proof whether it's positive or negative
A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.[10][11] of this. You have no proof of the evidence of absence so you're burden of proof is unfulfilled.

In the book attacking faulty reasoning it's stated that the burden of proof applies to those who make an assertion whether it's positive or negative

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position. Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof. In many cases, of course, one does not have to supply such proof, for we are not always challenged to defend our claims. But if the claimant is asked “Why?” or “How do you know that is true?” he or she is logically obligated to produce reasons on behalf of the claim. An exception to this rule is a situation in which the claim in question is well established or uncontroversial. In such a case, the burden of proof might rest on the one who wishes to challenge that claim. Many opinions, of course, are shared by the parties involved and thus require no defense in a particular context. If one had to defend not only the conclusion but also each of the premises, each of the statements in support of the premises, and each of the statements in support of the statements of support, one would be involved in an infinite chain of proofs—an obviously impractical task. But one at least has the responsibility to provide evidence for one’s conclusion and for any questionable premise, if asked to do so. This is as it should be. Indeed, we follow this procedure in our basic social institutions. If a pharmaceutical firm wishes to market a new drug, it has the burden of proving to the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective. what is an argument? 15 Our legal system places the burden of proof in a criminal case on the person who does the accusing, the prosecutor. We would permit neither the drug manufacturer nor the prosecutor to get by with simply expressing an opinion on the matter at issue. Neither should we allow others to get by without defending their opinions, especially about important or controversial issues. To ask others to accept your claim without any support, or to shift the burden of proof to them by suggesting that your position is true unless they can prove otherwise, is to commit the fallacy of “arguing from ignorance,” for you are, in this way, making a claim based on no evidence at all. Indeed, you are basing the claim on the absence of evidence, that is, on ignorance. You can see the absurdity of such a move by taking any highly questionable claim and arguing that the claim is true in the absence of any counterevidence. For example, you could argue that it is true that your great-grandfather died of AIDS unless someone can prove otherwise, or that it is true that pornography causes sex crimes, unless someone can prove that it doesn’t. In this way you fail to take responsibility for your own claims and even attempt to get your opponents to do your work for you. Moreover, since negative claims are notoriously difficult to establish, you are attempting to set yourself up for a “win” by default. But in the argument game, there are no wins by default, for the merit of any position is only as good as the argument given in support of it. You should therefore accept willingly and not begrudgingly the burden of proof when asked and support the conclusion and any questionable premise of your argument—and expect others to do likewise with theirs. We do not want to give the impression, of course, that a good discussion must be carried on in the formal style of the courtroom. When the mutual interest of the parties is in finding the truth or the best solution to a problem, it is not unusual for all participants to assume the task of both defending and evaluating any claim presented. This approach is sometimes a good one, because it is more natural and often saves time, but no one should act as if the burden of proof therefore no longer rests on the shoulders of those who make controversial claims, nor that it can be shifted without blame to others. It should perhaps be pointed out that “proof,” in the context in which it is being used here, does not mean absolute, knockdown proof. It does not mean, for example, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as required of the prosecutor in a criminal trial. When an automobile industry spokesman recently argued that “they have not yet proven any connection between carbon emissions and global warning,” I presume that he was using the term “proven” to mean “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Such proof, however, is not likely to be found for most of the empirical claims typically encountered in informal discussion. To satisfy the burden of proof required by the principle is to try to present what appears to be a good, or fallacy-free, argument on behalf of a claim. In most contexts, this kind of proof would probably resemble the kind of proof offered not in criminal courts but in civil courts. In other words, the argument would not have to prove the claim “beyond a reasonable doubt” but try to meet the burden of proof with what is called the preponderance of the evidence. If the argument is a good one, it should at least do that. In some contexts, practical considerations allow for a legitimate way of avoiding the burden of proof. For example, if you have no reason to believe that a particular 16 chapter 2 claim is true, you may say just that—or even that you do not believe it to be true. However, if you say that you have no reason to believe that a claim is true, and then go on to claim that it is therefore false, you have actually made a claim for which you now have the burden of proof—a task for which you might not be presently inclined or prepared. There is, then, an important distinction between asserting that “I have no reason to believe that X is true” and asserting that “X is false.” The first does not entail the second. The first one, the agnostic option, explains why one is not prepared to affirm or deny the claim; the second, the denial option, is a negative claim for which one must assume the burden of proof. For example, you may not be prepared to prove that ghosts do not exist; but if on the basis of the available evidence, you do not believe that they do, you may escape the burden of proof by taking the agnostic option and say that you have no reason to believe that ghosts exist, rather than to deny that they exist and thereby assume the burden of proof.

Burden Of Proof applies to negative assertions as well

Download Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments PDF by T. Edward Damer

Read & Download PDF Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments by T. Edward Damer, Update the latest version with high-quality. Try NOW!

pdfdrive.to

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1112896237851656302/image.png

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1112896238141059242/image.png

You're making an assertion so prove it otherwise I'm dismissing it entirely, I don't like how you guys goon and say "it's a negative tho!" to dodge responsibility of proving an assertion also if you're not making a counter claim then you're not arguing with me and are avoiding the dialect. The problem is I did present the evidence and logical reasoning as to why white space would be superior, you outright ignored it and tried saying it's not superior with no justification as to why that's the case 1. it can sustain what each dimension cannot. 2. the dimensions are infinite so white space containing multiple infinities would mean it's a higher infinity or those infinities are less in comparison to its size. OOOOOOOOOOOOOH re you saying that the white space isn't more vast and more complex than the dimensions despite those dimensions being infinite? Okay so let me debunk that real quick

Eitaro Toyoda states Sonic’s world has a scale and potential similar to the Arabian Nights.





There's nothing contradicting this

In fact the Arabian nights is an isekai

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/823056393665904651/1043674314328789022/image.png

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/823056393665904651/1043674314593026118/image.png

Now the arabian nights contains infinite realms such as the night palace

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/664653902742028300/1061853172534087700/IMG_3824.png

Now since Sonic's world has the same scale and potential as the Arabian nights this would mean that Sonic's world is infinite in size, now all of those dimensions that are shown in generations are different points in time of Sonic's world (which is infinite) making each dimension infinite in size so in order for something to contain something larger than that it would logically have to be more vast and complex than that wouldn't it? Yes, I'm glad you understand so white space is more vast than dimensions. Size comparisons compare the size of objects or people so if something is bigger there would be superiority in relative size, just not a vast difference.

In other words 1. there is no evidence that white space is inferior to the dimensions in it. 2. it has to be bigger than those dimensions since it contains them and 3. it has to be infinitely bigger than them by multiple times since each of those dimensions are infinite. So white space is superior to those dimensions unless otherwise contradicted and since it is superior to those dimensions and it has no limitations of space and time (it has none) it has to be beyond dimensions.

It's a realm with no spatial and temporal attributes but not in the sense it has no size or is less than everything that's how it can contain dimensions.

This is an oversimplification because it reduces the concept of superiority to a single fac tor, which is physical size. Superiority is a multifaceted concept that encompasses a wide range of attributes, qualities, and achievements. Your right here but you should understand how is the BOP is being use in context, In a debate or argument, the burden of proof typically falls on the person making the positive claim or assertion. This means that if someone asserts that something exists or is true, they are responsible for providing evidence and arguments to support their claim. In the case of the discussion about superiority between white space and dimensions, the burden of proof would typically be on the person making the claim that white space is superior. If they assert that white space is superior, they would need to provide evidence and reasoning to support that claim.

When someone makes a positive claim, they are asserting that something exists, is true, or has occurred. In such cases, it is expected that they provide evidence and arguments to support their claim. The burden of proof rests on them because they are making a positive assertion that requires validation. On the other hand, a negative assertion typically involves claiming that something does not exist, is not true, or has not occurred. Proving a negative claim can be challenging because it would require demonstrating the absence of evidence or the nonexistence of something, which can be difficult or even impossible in some cases.

I am not denying the BOP can be use in a negative claim but I'm pointing out in a debate or discussion sense form it would be the positive side to prove their claim.

I am not saying the white space isn't more vast and more complex than the dimensions despite those dimensions being infinite. No I am saying if the white space lacks time and space yet has dimensions in it than it's quite frankly inconcistint here.

This is what I am disagreeing "it has to be bigger than those dimensions since it contains them"
The concept of size becomes less straightforward when dealing with different dimensions. Dimensions can have different properties and characteristics that are not solely determined by their size. For example, a higher-dimensional space can contain lower-dimensional objects without being physically larger in the same sense. The relationship between containment and size becomes more complex in such cases. Just because something is contained within another object does not automatically mean that the container object is physically larger.

 

[CraigTucker]

This is the only thing I disagree here the: "Adimensional/Beyond Dimensional Existence" Everything else is fine. 2-A is fine not high 1-B because it assumes a lot of thing with the white space

 

[Eseseso]

Can we get a list of agree vs disagree?

 

[CraigTucker]

Can we get a list of agree vs disagree?

2-A should be irrelevent since we already agree with that

 

[ThatBusyDude]

This is an oversimplification because it reduces the concept of superiority to a single fac tor, which is physical size. Superiority is a multifaceted concept that encompasses a wide range of attributes, qualities, and achievements. Your right here but you should understand how is the BOP is being use in context, In a debate or argument, the burden of proof typically falls on the person making the positive claim or assertion. This means that if someone asserts that something exists or is true, they are responsible for providing evidence and arguments to support their claim. In the case of the discussion about superiority between white space and dimensions, the burden of proof would typically be on the person making the claim that white space is superior. If they assert that white space is superior, they would need to provide evidence and reasoning to support that claim.

When someone makes a positive claim, they are asserting that something exists, is true, or has occurred. In such cases, it is expected that they provide evidence and arguments to support their claim. The burden of proof rests on them because they are making a positive assertion that requires validation. On the other hand, a negative assertion typically involves claiming that something does not exist, is not true, or has not occurred. Proving a negative claim can be challenging because it would require demonstrating the absence of evidence or the nonexistence of something, which can be difficult or even impossible in some cases.

I am not denying the BOP can be use in a negative claim but I'm pointing out in a debate or discussion sense form it would be the positive side to prove their claim.

I am not saying the white space isn't more vast and more complex than the dimensions despite those dimensions being infinite. No I am saying if the white space lacks time and space yet has dimensions in it than it's quite frankly inconcistint here.

This is what I am disagreeing "it has to be bigger than those dimensions since it contains them"
The concept of size becomes less straightforward when dealing with different dimensions. Dimensions can have different properties and characteristics that are not solely determined by their size. For example, a higher-dimensional space can contain lower-dimensional objects without being physically larger in the same sense. The relationship between containment and size becomes more complex in such cases. Just because something is contained within another object does not automatically mean that the container object is physically larger.

It being simplified to a single factor doesn't invalidate it rofl. Source? No, stop arguing this nonsense I've debunked the idea that the burden of proof only hits the person making the positive claim, it is a myth and a lie that the burden of proof only falls on the positive asserter. I can say the EXACT SAME about the person making the assertion that something doesn't exist, you are required to show contradictory evidence or evidence that goes against the evidence that something is true or exists, the idea that negative asserters aren't bound by the rules of reason is wrong because many books and sources showcase that you can show proof for a negative by proof of absence, now you're going circular like I expect you would.

It doesn't matter if someone makes a positive claim that is none of your concern, your concern should be to prove that something doesn't exist or isn't true by proof of absence, there's a reason why absence of evidence isn't accepted in most debates and definitely not in court as that isn't evidence of absence. Burden of proof rests on anyone making an assertion: positive and negative no exceptions, negative assertions are subject to reason and scrutiny just like positive claims are, negative claims can be proven by evidence of absence and not by demonstrating absence of evidence and no it's not impossible in this case because all you would have to do is show contradictory evidence that something isn't the case, making the claim that something isn't the case because of lack of evidence without a complete knowledge base would be a fallacious argument from ignorance and it's consequence would be immediate so there's no defense for it.

That's the same exact thing, you want me to singlehandedly argue for myself and also argue for you and find the proof you don't have, if you cannot prove your assertion then you concede or? You have no point and you have no right to deny my arguments unless you have likely or certain proof against it so at that point I would suggest giving up. You're free to disagree but don't challenge something you cannot bring evidence against.

It holds dimensions within it, but it itself isn't spatiotemporal as in it doesn't belong to time and space, what is so hard about understanding that?

If you hold something within yourself you're bigger than it, the concept of size isn't completely physical since the the concept of dimensions isn't completely physical. Yeah so I want a source for this and a proof that this is the case for Sonic or I'm ignoring this. It certainly means that 99% of the time, if a mother contains a baby, the baby is smaller than the mother, when the earth is contained in the universe, the earth is smaller than the universe, when people are contained within a building, the group of people are less than that of the building. Overall this argument you cooked up is goofy lmao, that's why I said don't go "dear god no" like you have an argument that immediately shuts down the op's post (me) when you don't, your argument hinges on hiding behind negative assertions and hoping the opponent doesn't call you out on it as I did. I have proof that white space contains dimensions while itself not being spatiotemporal which is grounds enough to think that it is superior, you're saying it's not because containing something doesn't mean it's bigger when something big enough to contain an infinity must be a bigger infinity?

I didn't want to have to bring this up but you do know that set theory exists in Sonic right?

I also like how your reply doesn't address the source and your reply admits I'm right but still try to defend shifting burden to the positive asserter.

If you don't have a point then just leave this thread, no one is forcing you to drop by here.

 

[ThatBusyDude]

2-A should be irrelevent since we already agree with that

My main goal was 2-A (which went through).

I have bigger plans than this post.