a similar argument was used for DC's low 1-A section recently to lend precedence, and it also fits the sites definition of Low 1-A. I agree with Low 1-A, or at the very least it should be considered "at least High 1-B, likely Low 1-A".
This is a weak argument, we don't consider the white void the same as the space-beyond iirc.
Link is dead, but I agree with 1-A Space Beyond.
Here is it
Not to pivot, purely for establishing precedence, but we can compare your own thread for low 1-A material realms in DC with this one.
First you establish the existence of a dimensional hierarchy, then you establish the existence of a "limit" to space and time within the verse, and then prove certain planes exist outside the confines of space and time. [A] Ben 10 already has an accepted dimensional hierarchy (not infinite, so maybe you believe that's the characterising distinction here but the on-site rule here is that H1-B isn't needed for 1-A scaling so you'd be alone on this front), (B) this thread establishes an inverse limit to time and space, and [C] then establishes the existence of planes which exist outside and beyond that paradigm.
This seems to contend with the proof of (B) on the basis that "incalculable dimensions" seems vague, i.e. could just be about universes, but it's accepted on site that Ben 10 consistently distinguishes between the terms "universe" and "dimension" - to such an extent the wording difference is our basis for certain areas of the cosmology being where they are - and further the context of the panel goes on to discuss attributes like breadth which lends credence to it because about the actual dimensions of these characters.
This is apples to oranges comparison. I, rather, not compare verses and use “A got it because it had this and B is somewhat similar so it must have it as well” type stick. How about we do an inverse overhaul to get the tiers rather than cosmological comparison.
“Dimensions” in my threads aren't spatial, they refer to existence beyond the baseline level of existence. They would have 1-A due to clear R>F, but I was being conservative with the tiers since we don't want inconsistencies.
This was already brought up in the other threads and what you're bringing up doesn't really seem to be answered by the scans and your adding context where it wasn't intended in those scans. So equvication and hasty generalization.
This isn't what we are saying, we are saying that "If X is universal standard and got applied to A due to being universal standard, it should also apply to B"
Didn't I already pointed out why was it wrong?
Yeah, but a positive can be converted into two negatives by taking them separately/ out of context
You complain about things being out of context, but fail to realize that we tier based on what the cosmology entails. Last I checked DC and Ben 10 aren't the same thing and the way they achieve the tiers is based on the context of the setting of the verse.
There isn't really much context here, really.
But higher dimensions aren't incalculable as per FAQ page so it isn't HDE
Yeah, but for High 1-B mainly and like I mentioned a thousand times before that no one tried to even argued low 1-A because it wasn't main topic and debunk Ultima made to low 1-A was by taking "Incalculable" and "Defying limits of spacetime" as seperate statments because those were mentioned as different causes of "meta qualitative superiority" as Firestorm proposed it as :
And the debunk Ultima made by saying that dimension here is refering to universe was for High 1-B (that Incalculable dimension is incalculable universe not an incalculable layered spatiotemporal hirarchy or dimensionality) so stop appealing to that by taking things out of context.
Sometimes staff likes to see that any verse got upgraded by as same reason as mentioned in the CRT under discussion, so it's a normal thing (and context necessary enough is provided here)
Ok so:
Except the FAQ is heavily reliant that dimensions in question are pertaining to spatial dimensions, not universe synonyms.
No. Ultima made a good point based on reading comprehension. There wasn't a good rebuttal against his claim or else the thread would have went through.
? It wouldn't get Low 1-A on a poor basis of being at the “limit of time and space.” It’s not a compelling argument at all.
So you resort to making a bad comparison, huh?
Though would this even be higher in 1-B? As I said above, it more seems like that the aliens are in a universe that is outside the normal space-time, thus being incomprehensible for normal humans, it does not need to be Higher-D.
And what do you conclude from my explainations? My explaination is simple:
My argument isn't "not calculated in terms of universe synonyms of dimensions", but is "incalculable in terms of spatial dimensions as it is beyond limits of spacetime'' (this even provides a mechanism for "Beyond Spacetime" argument to be literal)
My argument is that :
I didn't said "Ultima didn't make a good debunk" but rather "scale itself wasn't as proper as this" and I even quoted scale mentioned by firestorm to match it with my scale
My scale which is used here :
So kindly stop appealing to "Ultima rejected it" by ignoring that scales were elaborated on different scales (the way previous scale was mentioned was actually vague and all terms could be taken as separate but this scale links that whole statement's all parts and provides full context)
Nothing in these scans refers to dimensionality at all beyond pointless technobabble.
Nothing of that sort was mentioned in the scan. It’s quite evident that you're making ghastly interpretations here. This circular reasoning has got to stop as being beyond “spacetime” is automatically assumed to be greater than 4D, only with context would it supplement a Low 1-A view but that's hardly there since dimension and Universe are used as synonyms in that statement.
I don't know why you're using my thread as an example but it holds a High 1-B structure at the edge of the Multiverse and is beyond time and space itself mentioned in several scans.
Your premise literally is using what was already rejected and not just by Ultima. You're literally filling in your own headcanon on the subject matter and nothing of the sort is implying Low 1-A, much less 1-A.
My very honest reaction:
Okay.@Firestorm808 @VeryGoofyToddler2
Can somebody provide summarised explanations for each side of the arguments here please?
All I seen from the OP is just adding nonsensical context that has nothing to do with the source.
I am literally supporting you lmao
Sorry, I mixed up your profiles. I thought you were the guy. No wonder why it sounded a bit iffy since the whole thing goes against what he was saying. I was genuinely confused about why he was making the quote then I realized you were a different person.
NP.
SUMMARY OF LOW 1-A ARGUMENT (FROM SUPPORTING SIDE POV)@Firestorm808 @VeryGoofyToddler2
Can somebody provide summarised explanations for each side of the arguments here please?
(Reading his entire message with what he quoted will be excellent)
And Ultima replied to it :
As the Low 1-A argument wasn't main argument back then and it was just an opinion so no one argued it and we continued later on with arguing High 1-B but it was also debunked by ultima on basis of "Incalculable dimension refering to superior universe nothing infinite'th dimensions" (and low 1-A was rejected because it wasn't even argued properly but now I gave some context and arguements behind this). People are also getting confused of High 1-B Ghost ship's rejection's reason (which was different from what we proposed for Low 1-A)
Sorry to say but it's a big misinformation because all these points were part of previous high 1-B CRT (no ones claiming high 1-B ghost ship anymore)
I hate to say this but if it wasn't accepted as High 1-B then it most likely wouldn't be for Low 1-A.
With no context you randomly made this ludicrous notion. I shouldn't have to explain why this is inherently wrong. Also, the font is nauseating just type in normal font.
Would you please like to read sentence right above this paragraph you quoted? You'll get the answer that from where I concluded this
The comic: We are aliens from a dimension beyond the confines of space-time that's beyond your mortal understanding.
If one verse is given 1-A based on one reasoning and another verse has the same reasoning then we, as a site, ought to hold ourselves to a consistent standard, idk how you could possibly disagree with this a principle or suggest it's fallacious to want consistency.
In your thread you evidently do imply they're spatial ("stretches to possible infinity (possibly infinite spatial dimensions)"), but even ignoring that if you want to claim dimensions just relate to something vague like "levels of existence" wherein they're neither treated as spatial dimensions nor outerversal levels then idk how they make at all a difference.
Then we're in agreement that the dimensionality of a verse is irrelevant for 1-A scaling, so the point of whether or not Ben 10 and DC's dimensional scaling is comparable isn't relevant to whether or not the justification for 1-A is.
A thread has never been made for 1-A scaling using this specific evidence, though, so it necessarily IS a "new" argument just using the same scans other threads may have used (given we haven't gotten new Ben 10 content in years lmfao).
You don't need those for low 1-A, evident by how your basis for low 1-A material realms in DC doesn't relate to either of these metrics but comes from an argument of certain realms going beyond the limits of spatiality.
How does it not? Ben 10, even on site, makes a consistent and explicit effort to distinguish dimension from universe and so the full quote cannot be equating their incalculable dimension with a far off universe (the two statements reference different things) and we have supporting evidence from the contextual statements about the species in the issue that "dimension" is spatial. How is it therefore a hasty generalisation to infer this?
Like what you say here. The use of the word "dimension" here ISN'T a 'universe synonym' because Ben 10 (again, accepted on site as the justification for other cosmology related scaling) consistently doesn't allow for these words to be used as synonyms. So I'm bringing up concrete, relevant context to attack your arguments against this, let's just not ignore that and throw out the names of fallacies, please.
You already have me for disagree. I don't see the point of going any further, especially how you interpret a statement like that without the validity of the scan actually supporting your claim.
They're not the same? I'm not going to explain it any further, I suggest you read carefully on why it was given that tier specifically. You have one scan and it works off the most vague statement and you go for the highest interpretation for said scan.
The whole thread clarified it was states of existence. I just never bothered removing it because I had other sections to work on and more so than that, it just escaped me.
Except for the fact nothing is remotely 1-A and what evidence has been presented so far is subpar.
I don't see any relevance of this when the verse in question doesn't remotely touch the topic. “Limit of spatiality” at best would be what’s been accepted for Ben 10 cosmology so far which was 26 the last time I counted.
I don't know how you read things, but that scan is literally referring to the same topic “where they came from” which was described by both terms: dimension and universe. I think the problem lies in reading comprehension.
You saying it doesn't make it any less true. I don't see any consistency, I just see vagueness or just plain horrible interpretation of a scan.
The main counter argument I've seen is that the reasoning, i.e. "this cosmology structure is beyond the limits of spatiality and therefore 1-A", isn't an acceptable argument for 1-A on-site so I brought up how DC had its material realms upgraded to low 1-A on that same argument, which has now devolved into arguing whether or not Ben 10 fits the same criteria. The argument for why it doesn't is the claim that the statement "an incalculable dimension that defies the limits of space and time" is just using a synonym for universe to say that it's a realm outside the universe, or at best of a higher dimensionality to the universe, as the same quote goes on to say "an unfathomable universe" (or something along those lines).@Firestorm808 @VeryGoofyToddler2
Can somebody provide summarised explanations for each side of the arguments here please?
I can take your word on that, point is though the comparison between DC and Ben 10's spatial dimensional hierarchy is irrelevant to a 1-A rating by your own omission.
That's what's in contention right now.
Anyone could say the same thing about the material realms statements about going beyond the limits of space and time, but that was accepted as Low 1-A.
Except Ben 10 doesn't treat them as synonymous terms, so no they're not the same terms and are relating to two separate things.
To quote: "My counter is that it's accepted reasoning on site for cosmology scaling that Ben 10 distinguishes the terms "universe" and "dimension", and so the use of dimension here cannot be equated to the use of universe and must either (a) be referring to something akin to a inter-universal pocket reality like the null void - the way the term is traditionally used in Ben 10 - or (b) relating to spatial dimensions. It can't be (a) as we know from the statement that they're of a different universe and thus it cannot simply be a pocket reality inside or outside the universe and it's likely (b) as the contextual statements relate this "incalculable dimension" to spatial properties like "breadth" in the surrounding panels."
Your counter argument is CONTINGENT on dimension = universe as an interpretation, how does me proving dimension != universe not "make it any less true"? Let's not be dishonest here, stop trying to appeal to vague comebacks like "no reading comprehension lol" and give actual critical engagement.
The 1-A rating in question barely having grounds and is supplemented by rather weak evidence then, yes, it certainly is irrelevant. Though, I'll preface the point that DC and Ben 10’s “spatial hierarchy” are not the same for the former there isn't at spatial hierarchy as I already mentioned, and I don't know where it goes for the latter since you keep drawing blank comparisons.
Not really, my original intent was the plicate gets Low 1-A, but it sounded weird since a Low 1-A hierarchy was nonsensical. I settled for a High 1-B instead in replacement with the very final and highest layer being the every edge of existence.
Ok. If you say so.
Yeah, I'm honed in for disagreeing but you can interpret it how you like. Stop using “this verse got this, so that means this verse can as well.” If you can formulate something without making a nonsensical comparison then I’ll see to it. If not then I, rather, not be dragged into never-ending segments of disagreements.
That's what's in contention right now.
I'm not comparing Ben 10 and DC's spatial hierarchy, my whole point was that spatial hierarchy's are irrelevant for 1-A scaling.
The reasoning for the edge of existence being low 1-A given is that it's beyond the limits of space and time, which is the same reasoning you're arguing shouldn't be used for 1-A scaling on site.
We can formulate something without making comparison, the point is you're attacking the validity of the reasoning "something beyond the limits of space can be 1-A" and so I'm offering precedence for the site accepting that reasoning, with an example that YOU YOURSELF made the CRT for, and so it's incredibly relevant. Your whole argument rests on this type of argument being irrelevant to 1-A yet it's the argument which you used to get your own verse to 1-A. You can claim the reasoning doesn't hold the same level of evidence for Ben 10, again that's what's in contention right now, but to try and dismiss the act of comparison altogether is absurd.
Bro cooked him up lol
