Ben 10 - At least 2-B, Possibly 2-A Universe Structure Proposal

[Reiner04]

Here in this CRT, I'll be proposing at least 2-B to possibly 2-A structure for the universe itself. This CRT is based on the conclusion of my following accepted CRTs:

• Universe has more than one spacetime continuum.
• Rex Dimension, dimension 12, and Legerdomain are part of "the universe".
• "Hero two times" comic is Canon.

From the first two CRTs, it is concluded that "the universe" can contain many spacetime continua's within it, and all the dimensions they were dealing with in the crossover Generator Rex hero's United were "in-universe" dimensions, not another universe or outside universe.

The universe has millions of or possibly infinite dimensions/separate spacetime continuums.
According to Doctor Holiday, there are theoretically infinite dimensions like Ben's, Rex and the null void Dimension.
Source:


In the Comic "Hero two times," it is further supported by Ben's statement when Ben said to Rex that there are "Millions of dimensions."

There is no reason to assume they are referring to outside universe dimensions or another universe as its headcanon. All the dimensions involved in the crossover are "in-universe" dimensions, and they have no way to travel outside of universes.

That's it. This CRT can't be longer than this as it's just concluded result of all the previous CRTs.

NOTE:

• please refrain from discussing Alien X.
• Please refrain from discussing Topics that exist in already accepted CRTs. If you think something is wrong with them, then make your CRT and be done with that.
• Please, no derailing from the OP topic.
• Please do not attempt to upgrade the universe to 2-A from the Doctor Holiday statement, as it was stated to be infinite only once, and she became aware of all these dimensions not too long ago. Still, it can possibly be 2-A, as it's not contradicted by any means. A 2-A discussion will take place later with more scans.

These notes are necessary so that the CRT does not get messed up.

Only staff member agreements or disagreements have been mentioned.
Order of Thread Publish Date

1. Other space-time in the Universe
   1. Agree: @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Dereck03 @KLOL506 @Firestorm808 @LordGriffin1000
   2. Disagree: @Emirp sumitpo
2. At least 2-B, possibly 2-A
   1. Agree: @LordGriffin1000 @DarkDragonMedeus @KingTempest @FinePoint @Firestorm808
   2. Disagree: @Maverick_Zero_X
3. 2-A
   1. Agree: @LordGriffin1000 @Firestorm808 @DarkDragonMedeus @ElixirBlue @Elizhaa

 

[Lovemovies14]

I agree here.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

This is odd, she said Infinite, Ben said millions. Ben's statement is 2-B, while Holiday's would be 2-A.

Who's more credible?

 

[Reiner04]

This is odd, she said Infinite, Ben said millions. Ben's statement is 2-B, while Holiday's would be 2-A.

Who's more credible?

Infinite can be seen as hyperbolic statement for too many dimensions to be counted, "millions of dimensions" as well refers to that one. So ig both are equally credible but Ben has more dealing with it so ben.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Infinite can be seen as hyperbolic statement for too many dimensions to be counted, "millions of dimensions" as well refers to that one. So ig both are equally credible but Ben has more dealing with it so ben.

Then I guess 2-B is fine.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Infinite can be seen as hyperbolic statement for too many dimensions to be counted

With this logic we downgrade every 2-A verse.

 

[Reiner04]

With this logic we downgrade every 2-A verse.

I realise it that it can be seen as 2A but as it has another statement of more qualified character I am going with safe zone.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I realise it that it can be seen as 2A but as it has another statement of more qualified character I am going with safe zone.

Millions don't contradict infinite given it doesn't say the cosmology caps at such.

So, again, prove me that said statement contradicts infinite.

 

[Bobsican]

If anything just go with "likely 2-A" or something.

 

[Pikaman]

With this logic we downgrade every 2-A verse.

Not really, here infinite meaning just very large allows both statements from Ben and Holiday to co-exist. If we take infinite literally, they contradict each other. So considering infinite from Holiday to be a hyperbolic statement when she really means “very/uncountably large” causes far less issues than taking it literally

 

[Reiner04]

Millions don't contradict infinite given it doesn't say the cosmology caps at such.

So, again, prove me that said statement contradicts infinite.

It's not about it being wrong neither about contradictory, I never intended for it but my point is "infinite" can be seen as support for "millions", but it cannot be other way around. It may not be contradictory but it's about just not concluding things on one statement.

 

[Aachintya31]

With this logic we downgrade every 2-A verse.

The fact its a hyperbole since she learned about parallel worlds a while ago so to denote something large she said infinite

 

[StrymULTRA]

Not really, here infinite meaning just very large allows both statements from Ben and Holiday to co-exist. If we take infinite literally, they contradict each other. So considering infinite from Holiday to be a hyperbolic statement when she really means “very/uncountably large” causes far less issues than taking it literally

Infinite is also “very/uncountably large”, so?

Is not that Ben said "millions" as the absolute peak, he just said millions in a general term. Why would he contradict that?

It's not about it being wrong neither about contradictory, I never intended for it but my point is "infinite" can be seen as support for "millions", but it cannot be other way around. It may not be contradictory but it's about just not concluding things on one statement.

Countless can be used as a support for Infinite here. I don't know from where this standard comes from.

From how Ben said it, he could perfectly mean "among the infinite universes there are millions we can use" in that context.

 

[Bobsican]

If the concern is that giving a finite value to infinite contradicts it, and it seems better to just take the infinite thing as hyperbole, then I have to disagree.
I know a verse where something similar happens, it's plausible the character saying millions and whatever simply can't fully see the whole thing, or in other words what Strym said.

 

[Reiner04]

Countless can be used as a support for Infinite here. I don't know from where this standard comes from.

Countless can but millions can't, they don't contradict I know but it's about me arguing with two statements of one with experience and one who just learnt rather than just one, I don't disagree with you but I am sure many will raise this concern that How can I conclude stuff on just one statement. If anyone I want 2a to be accepted but I know things here aren't that easy.

 

[Reiner04]

I know a verse where something similar happens, it's plausible the character saying millions and whatever simply can't fully see the whole thing, or in other words what Strym said

I also know, but they have consistent statements of those being infinite with wording in "countless","millions" but how am I supposed to argue with one statement who just learnt about dimensions?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Countless can but millions can't, they don't contradict I know but it's about me arguing with two statements of one with experience and one who just learnt rather than just one, I don't disagree with you but I am sure many will raise this concern that How can I conclude stuff on just one statement. If anyone I want 2a to be accepted but I know things here aren't that easy.

If said 2-A is a random claim of someone who had legit no idea of parallel universes before, you should prove that and write a note for users to not make an attempt to upgrade it to 2-A as the statement is just a random and baseless assumption (linking proofs and links in said note, obviously).

 

[Reiner04]

If said 2-A is a random claim of someone who had legit no idea of parallel universes before, you should prove that and write a note for users to not make an attempt to upgrade it to 2-A as the statement is just a random and baseless assumption (linking proofs and links in said note, obviously).

Ok, I'll add note, she had idea over it but she became aware of it being real quite late.

 

[StrymULTRA]

This also means that the statement should not be used as a proof for 2-B in the 1st place, btw, as it generates confusion otherwise.

 

[Reiner04]

This also means that the statement should not be used as a proof for 2-B in the 1st place, btw, as it generates confusion otherwise.

Is Ben 10 verse 26d? No. The reason is obv and hence for same reason it's not 2a but 2b and as it's supported by ben then it can be used.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Is Ben 10 verse 26d? No. The reason is obv and hence for same reason it's not 2a but 2b and as it's supported by ben then it can be used.

I don't really see how it counters. A character saying "there is infinite stuff" is never taken lightly in indexing, this is the confusion part I talk about.

 

[Reiner04]

I don't really see how it counters. A character saying "there is infinite stuff" is never taken lightly in indexing, this is the confusion part I talk about.

Because naljians statement has been not accepted for the same reason you are proposing and I don't see just one statement "infinite" as proof of it being infinite when it's common term for hyperbole unless consistent which this one is not.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I don't see just one statement "infinite" as proof of it being infinite when it's common term for hyperbole unless consistent

You don't, the wiki does. We can downgrade almost all 2-A verses now.

Amount of universes if not the same as power lmao.

Because naljians statement has been not accepted for the same reason you are proposing

It was because "dimensions" were not reffering to higher ones without proof.

 

[Aachintya31]

You don't, the wiki does. We can downgrade almost all 2-A verses now.

Most 2A verses have multiple statements or one statement from a very knowledgeable character.

 

[Reiner04]

You don't, the wiki does. We can downgrade almost all 2-A verses now.

Amount of universes if not the same as power lmao

Even wiki don't conclude over just one statement bruh, high 3a universe proposal is clear cut example.

 

[Reiner04]

You don't, the wiki does. We can downgrade almost all 2-A verses now.

Amount of universes if not the same as power lmao.

And yeah if you want to upgrade it to 2a make your crt. You can leave from here saying you see 2a be more reasonable than 2b. Infact I'll make a vote wait.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Even wiki don't conclude over just one statement bruh, high 3a universe proposal is clear cut example.

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't use "infinite" as support for "millions" if the former is straight up wrong, as it clearly contradicts and generates confusions.

 

[StrymULTRA]

And yeah if you want to upgrade it to 2a make your crt. You can leave from here saying you see 2a be more reasonable than 2b. Infact I'll make a vote wait.

I never said that...?

 

[Reiner04]

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't use "infinite" as support for "millions" if the former is straight up wrong, as it clearly contradicts and generates confusions.

It doesn't contradict? Check the dictionary bruh, it can be used for too many.

 

[Reiner04]

I never said that...?

Ok then good for both we are done here.

 

[StrymULTRA]

It doesn't contradict? Check the dictionary bruh, it can be used for too many.

I mean, people tend to take things literally here

 

[Reiner04]

I mean, people tend to take things literally here

Check firestorm crt on high 3a universe in Ben 10, you thought will change.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Check firestorm crt on high 3a universe, you thought will change.

I am aware of High 3-A stuff being flowery most of the time, only that is weird arguing it against 2-A instead lol.

 

[Reiner04]

And please no more useless talks, infinite can mean and can be used for very great number so unless you want 2a, please do not attempt to make mess.

 

[Sus]

What about "at least 2-B, possibly 2-A"?

 

[Reiner04]

I am aware of High 3-A stuff being flowery most of the time, only that is weird arguing it against 2-A instead lol.

It doesn't contradict and that is what needed, that's enough. We have already talked on unrelated stuff.

 

[Reiner04]

What about "at least 2-B, possibly 2-A"?

Ok I'll add it

 

[Reiner04]

What about "at least 2-B, possibly 2-A"?

Also do you agree with the proposal? Or neutral, disagree?

 

[Lovemovies14]

I support 2-A actually move me there.

 

[Sus]

Also do you agree with the proposal? Or neutral, disagree?

If i disagreed, I wouldn't purpose this

What about "at least 2-B, possibly 2-A"?

I obviously agree