Thank you that clears up my confusion. I saw so many different points being argued it made things unclear to me
My original points for my disagreement still stands
I kindly ask you to read carefully the arguments that the op brought, as I said before Japanese grammar is a migraine
They are insignificant at a certain point, but if you want to demonstrate greater dimensionality, you must demonstrate that there are not things like that, it is not the same that your AP is 5D, to that your 3D existence can interact with a 5D, that's why I also disagree.
Not how that works. Also don't know why you pinged me because I was debunking the notion of any sort of travel being an anti-feat, which it isn't given the teleportation abilities the characters use to do it.
Answer by removing the translation, you must first undo the translation, and then answer
Well, he just doesn't interact with his whole being and so on? In the same way that we have examples of 4D characters going down to 3D realms and continuing to move in 4 axes, we can have 3D characters in 4D realms and only being able to move in 3 dimensions, nothing out of the ordinary.
I know it's dimensional travel, but the fact that I can interact there, being alive already discredits it a lot.
Can you show a scan where it is mentioned that this place has more Coordinates, apart from being a "Higher Dimension"?
Why? How? For both of those assertions, how do they 'discredit' OP, because I haven't really seen the argument as to why or how they discredit been made yet.
Japanese Grammar
As I said, argument's pointless regardless since it assumes the Afterlife being 5-D makes everything in it also 5-D, which hasn't been the case for years.
It wouldn't hurt you to listen to what others are saying, because it seems like you're not properly listening us.
No, this argument is insignificant in every single point.
I paste it here in case you did not understand it twice.
And well, what I am trying to say is that it is not mentioned or demonstrated to have more coordinates, since both as an additional axis both spatial and temporal, they demonstrate it, that is what I am trying to say, and therefore, in disagreement.
I think you are mistaking Heaven with Afterlife there (the former is a subset of the latter)
You are confusing afterlife with heaven,heaven is the size of living universe and is infinite afterlife is the one that contains heaven and is said to be dimensionaly transcendent
I mean we do, but isn't still the one that composites the cosmology/is outdated? Unless i missed something, which is very possible
The only thing that would be 'oudated' is this scaling to Super. Otherwise the information itself isn't any less true and accurate
All dimensional objects have infinite temporal points though this is proven by a axiom and hypertime. Plus if we go by Gr we have to uphold the field equation of 3D+1D dimensional manifold not just a 3D manifold in non Euclidean geometry.
Are you telling me that a place that is timeless according to you has time? Since when?
It may serve as the main argument, but it is not the only thing to take into account, and by the way, update the disagreements.
Also maybe please add onto OP on what has already been talked about in 6 PAGES
Are there any outstanding arguments The for side needs to reply to?
Not really the only arguments present were how the scan doesn't actually mean dimensionaly transcendent which already had been answered
There was another one that I think someone countered
The only other argument was whether the statement was proof enough alone. I don't think that's really counterable though, that's simply up to interpretation.
I suppose that is true
Reading only the OP, the only evidence that could count in my mind is the transcendence statement which I don't see as being enough at face value. The OP proves the word "超越した" and the only evidence presented is the affirmation that it's transcendence in the literal sense. Looking up a Japanese-English dictionary its "transcend" or "supremacy" with the example sentence being metaphorical:
It also gives examples of what the OP is talking about:
I do want to note 2 separate people from the translation team said the translation he used was correct
Here is the translation.
