Ben 10 Cosmology Downgrades & Other Things (Yes, this is happening again)

[Reiner04]

I am feeling extremely happy that this is a post. It's saying what I should have. Regardless good kukui.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

1.honey is not credible, which is false, considering that she is credible, in addition to what she says, it does not contradict the series at all, saying "infinite dimensions" does not mean that it contradicts something, they simply exist

No offense, but Im seriously getting sick of all these "shes credible, your wrong" counters. EXPLAIN how she's credible please.

1. Shes never studied space-time or any parallel worlds, her field of research does not cover that. She covers nanomachine research, a completely different field.

2. She immediately shot Ben down when he mentioned parallel worlds, calling them a shaky theory. Do you know what a theory is?

3. She isnt a character like Paradox who has actual cosmic awareness and deep understanding of space-time. Claiming infinite worlds exist, after you had just adamantly believed they didn't exist, using simple calculations is extremely weak evidence.

She has no credibility for knowing about parallel worlds and evidence showing this was already posted. So explain how im wrong to claim shes not a valuble source other than "she's smart".

2. I know that twitter has a bad reputation for many things, but even so I don't see why twitter statements should not be used, unless they are of the koyama type, those are not usable

We have a rule on site that bans the use of social media answers. I already linked this in the OP.

3. It was not said in the series that the dimensions were outside the universe or similar, you cannot assume that they are outside, if in the series it was clearly said that they were inside the universe.

This was never said at all. They are ASSUMED to be inside the universe because of a reverse occams razor and assuming they're like the other dimensions that actually had evidence provided for them. This argument uses assumptions.

And I had just recently called this out as these dimensions being pocket dimensions, which may make this problem even bigger.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

I was asked to request your evaluation help for this thread.

 

[Alexander]

No offense, but Im seriously getting sick of all these "shes credible, your wrong" counters. EXPLAIN how she's credible please.

1. Shes never studied space-time or any parallel worlds, her field of research does not cover that. She covers nanomachine research, a completely different field.

2. She immediately shot Ben down when he mentioned parallel worlds, calling them a shaky theory. Do you know what a theory is?

3. She isnt a character like Paradox who has actual cosmic awareness and deep understanding of space-time. Claiming infinite worlds exist, after you had just adamantly believed they didn't exist, using simple calculations is extremely weak evidence.

She has no credibility for knowing about parallel worlds and evidence showing this was already posted. So explain how im wrong to claim shes not a valuble source other than "she's smart".

We have a rule on site that bans the use of social media answers. I already linked this in the OP.

This was never said at all. They are ASSUMED to be inside the universe because of a reverse occams razor and assuming they're like the other dimensions that actually had evidence provided for them. This argument uses assumptions.

And I had just recently called this out as these dimensions being pocket dimensions, which may make this problem even bigger.

1.Again, a scientist has basic knowledge of that, I mean basics in general areas such as mathematics and physics.
2.They already said above that she did it because they literally believed that Ben was an avo, but when she found out that it wasn't, she considered the existence of parallel universes as true, again I don't see why she should contradict what she said.
3.so now azmuth is not credible because he does not have cosmic consciousness? yes I know that azmuth is very intelligent, but according to you, then what he says should not be taken into account either because he does not have AC.
4.So why didn't they remove the bf and gf profiles about hypnosis if twitter is not used? And again, don't bring up the fact that you can't use twitter for that reason, don't debunk cosmology, you're just using the standard that social media cannot be used to ask authors.
5.We do not assume that they are inside the universe, it is directly made explicit and consistent that they are inside the universe, when the characters say it, they do not say outside the universe or similar, they always say universe and including the dimensions.
and again,anything that is outside of the universe is more than the space beyond,which is so big that anything that is the universe is literraly a ''star''in the view of the characters
6.There are about a couple of pocket dimensions, the rest are directly their own dimensions that are not pocket dimensions.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

1.Again, a scientist has basic knowledge of that, I mean basics in general areas such as mathematics and physics.

And?

2.They already said above that she did it because they literally believed that Ben was an avo, but when she found out that it wasn't, she considered the existence of parallel universes as true, again I don't see why she should contradict what she said.

This is pure headcanon and I already debunked this. Ben being an Evo has absolutely nothing to do with her saying parallel worlds are a theory

Otherwise, she would've just said she didn't believe Ben was from a parallel world. Instead, she thought he was lying because she believed parallel worlds were only a shaky theory, as she herself stated.

3.so now azmuth is not credible because he does not have cosmic consciousness? yes I know that azmuth is very intelligent, but according to you, then what he says should not be taken into account either because he does not have AC.

Grossly huge false equivalence, and you know it.

Azmuth is from an alien species who's technological advances and achievements are far more advanced than the nanite technology Holiday specializes in. And unlike her, Azmuth is aware different dimensions exist. But this is still missing the MAIN actual point here.

The point here is that Holiday isnt credible about THIS particular circumstance because this is is a field she is not knowledgeable in and does not study. A character being intelligent is no where close to enough to just take everything they say as a credible statement. This is to be determined on a case by case basis as a character is only considered credible about the things they are knowledgeable about. Anything about nanite research has nothing to do with research done into parallel worlds and space-time.

I don't know how else to explain something that's very simple.

4.So why didn't they remove the bf and gf profiles about hypnosis if twitter is not used? And again, don't bring up the fact that you can't use twitter for that reason, don't debunk cosmology, you're just using the standard that social media cannot be used to ask authors.

What are you referring to here?

5.We do not assume that they are inside the universe, it is directly made explicit and consistent that they are inside the universe, when the characters say it, they do not say outside the universe or similar, they always say universe and including the dimensions.

Which again, goes back to my point on manipulating terms that have always been interchangeable with each other. Which is an assumption.

The only dimensions that were made explicit and consistent to be inside the universe were the Null Void & Ledgerdomain, as they were given proof to be inside the universe. You need to do the same for the rest.

6.There are about a couple of pocket dimensions, the rest are directly their own dimensions that are not pocket dimensions.

So either all of the dimensions inside of the Universe, that are considered these "in-universe" dimensions, are only pocket dimensions

Or only pocket dimensions reside inside of the universe.

 

[Forthegood]

We have a rule on site that bans the use of social media answers. I already linked this in the OP.

I'm tired of seeing this reasoning once again the Author literally states that Twitter is their central for QnA's so this point is moot. It's like arguing against the writer and this time there is no death of the author in this situation.

Lol and even Everything12 said that it's acceptable if the author prohibits that Twitter can be used as a QnA section.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, what are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[Antvasima]

I'm tired of seeing this reasoning once again the Author literally states that Twitter is their central for QnA's so this point is moot. It's like arguing against the writer and this time there is no death of the author in this situation.

Lol and even Everything12 said that it's acceptable if the author prohibits that Twitter can be used as a QnA section.

These are our rules. You are required to read and follow them.

 

[Firestorm808]

I'm tired of seeing this reasoning once again the Author literally states that Twitter is their central for QnA's so this point is moot. It's like arguing against the writer and this time there is no death of the author in this situation.

Lol and even Everything12 said that it's acceptable if the author prohibits that Twitter can be used as a QnA section.

These are our rules. You are required to read and follow them.

They can be used. They just have to be supported by the source material.

 

[Forthegood]

These are our rules. You are required to read and follow them.

So we are just going too ignore the wog aight well it's nice too see clashing statements

 

[RitsuØ1]

So we are just going too ignore the wog aight well it's nice too see clashing statements

WoG aren't always reliable.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'm tired of seeing this reasoning once again the Author literally states that Twitter is their central for QnA's so this point is moot. It's like arguing against the writer and this time there is no death of the author in this situation.

Then make a thread to change the rule to reflect this. Until then, we don't consider this valid to take evidence from their platform.

And yes, we can argue against the writer. What the writer says is not absolute, and the same as this. Especially when one of these said writers, Matt Wayne, literally contradict this by saying only what the show acknowledges is to be taken as valid.

Lol and even Everything12 said that it's acceptable if the author prohibits that Twitter can be used as a QnA section.

Thats not what he said. He said its prohibited unless used in an official setting. Not speaking for him, but im 99% sure he is referring to an actual official medium where the creator is allowed to be asked questions. Aka, an actual interview like the rule points out.

 

[Forthegood]

WoG aren't always reliable.

They are always what are you talking about

 

[Reiner04]

If there's so much context for this, give a proper explanation for this. Again, i''d like to see the evidence used for this if there is any. Where is the evidence for this?

Did you read my previous post or what? There is way more context to it. Just read already.

you have said has convinced me to say these tweets are somehow exceptions to the rule,

I don't care? Why i should convince you? Everyone in my thread got convinced because I convinced them. It's you who have to convince. Don't go around misunderstanding things kukui.

just because the time stream contains alternate timelines does not automatically mean either that infinite is talking about the number of each of those timelines being infinite. That is one interpretation that MAY be true, but so are the other interpretations I mentioned. And im clearly not the only one who feels the same way on this.

Keep this may out of the way.
Just making everything controversial is not the way to DOWNGRADE kukui. If something have context to it then find it. If something can be solved then solve it.
What we have been doing? I don't understand?
Make doctor holiday controversial?
Strawmaning the context of entire crossover to say that those dimensions were referring to universes? Forget about crossover but doctor holiday statement herself?

Regardless the entire episode is dealing with alternate timelines and maltruant has been continuously mentioning the alternate timelines and then suddenly made a infinite timestream statement, so we know where to link it.

And the other people here, including a staff member, who finds the use of these to be suspicious as well?

I don't care about them? Why should I care if someone is ignoring how consistent a statement is and is supported by the show? Regardless a staff member or regardless a regular user. If i know something is wrong then I don't care less about it. Thinking about what someone has to accept and what not is not my problem, all I can do is provide evidence I feel like should be more than enough. And in addition no staff has disagreed with 2A, I already saw them agreed to it off site. If you think otherwise ask them.

Lets use common sense here please. Do you not know what a theory is?

Having theoretical knowledge of something means you are aware of the theory for that particular thing, but do not 100% know for sure on whether it exists or not. That's why its a theory in the first place.

Holiday acknowledging it's a shaky theory means she wasn't aware of whether any parallel universe existing in the first place and DIDN'T KNOW they existed. If you don't know something for sure existed, why would you consider them credible when speaking about it?

Sigh, kukui, yk what? Doctor holiday is one of most knowledgeable character in the series and was aware of that theory and has calculated number of dimensions exist in one go mathematically Why forcing a reliable character with a face value out of job? I don't understand.

A pocket dimension, which is not the same thing as M theory or literally researching entire parallel universes.

Not to mention, Breach was introduced A WHILE before the Ben 10 x Generator Rex crossover even happened.

Breach came into the series in the 8th episode of Season 1 of Generator Rex. The Heroes United crossover is the 10th and 11th episodes of Season 3. And Holiday STILL only believed parallel universes were only a shaky theory at that point. Meaning, even with knowing about Breach, her knowledge up to that point still didn't allow her to know about the existence of parallel worlds.

So either Holiday didn't actually do any research into any space-times, or researching Breach didn't allow for her to gain any real knowledge on parallel worlds. Arguing otherwise uses speculation and headcanon.

Okay? How it being a pocket dimension do anything to the argument? I don't understand, these are all dimensions at the end of the day after all? And her not believing that more Parallel world's exist besides of breach one, then it doesn't matter. The point is that she calculated the number of dimensions exist at that end of the crossover mathematically by her more research and thus the Statement is not random but researched sorry. It's credible.

You havent provided anything like that for Professor Holiday. The field she specializes in has nothing to do with parallel worlds. The character herself proved she isn't knowledgeable on them by calling parallel worlds a shaky theory. If she knew they actually existed, she wouldn't have said that

Can we ignore bit more on that part?

This is exactly the issue I just talked about with you above and im not understanding this line of reasoning at all.

When you say "in-universe" dimensions like the Null Void and Ledgerdomain, wouldn't these just be pocket dimensions? The Null Void, which you here are saying is one of these "in-universe dimensions", is flat out called a pocket dimension in the show. It's not an actual universe. If "in-universe" dimensions is just some fancy or headcanonical way of saying pocket dimensions, then this becomes that much more problematic.

A pocket dimension already lies inside of the universe without being connected to it, this is incredibly basic. Why would all of these pocket dimensions being inside of a universe make it a 2-A structure?

It has been called "pocket dimension", It has been called "alternate dimension", It has been called "parallel world", the issue is I don't know why you are telling me all this???? How the heck it'll affect universe being 2A?

And even with this concern put aside, your only repeating the issue that my thread was made to tackle in the first place. Your using heavy assumption to claim every single one of these dimensions, infinite or not, are exactly the same as a FEW that were the only ones proven to reside inside of the universe. The Null Void, Ledgerdomain, Dimension 12. These dimensions being proven means ONLY THESE dimensions have proof. Why would the others be assumed to be inside the universe as well? This is massive speculation.

And here we go,
You did it, a single statement of doctor holiday about infinite dimensions has been broken down to some of them referring to in-universe dimensions and some of them referring to universes.
is there any extraordinary thing has left to do kukui?
Then being called pocket dimensions. I don't see how it contradicts anything or has to do with anything at all. I am failed to grasp this reasoning of yours. Don't force it.

Like I said above, if the dimensional disruptor can only connect to "in-universe dimensions" like the Null Void, which is a pocket dimension

Then this is saying the disruptor can only connect to pocket dimensions. Which is a matter of insufficient range.

I still can't see any problem with being called pocket dimensions. Man.

How is calling someone not credible about something they don't research or specialize in...an excuse? You're not making any sense

Because they did? They calculated number of dimensions mathematically?

See above.

I need some very good clarification as to what you mean by "in-universe" dimensions. Because if this just means pocket dimensions, then this problem becomes a bigger issue.

I don't see anything notable.

Thanks for taking your time just to tell me nothing.

 

[Reiner04]

These are our rules. You are required to read and follow them.

WoG aren't always reliable.

They can be used. They just have to be supported by the source material.

WOG in this case has been supported by the show and have consistency among their answers and even among themselves shows that they have been answered seriously.

 

[Antvasima]

They can be used. They just have to be supported by the source material.

That is correct, yes.

 

[Forthegood]

Then make a thread to change the rule to reflect this. Until then, we don't consider this valid to take evidence from their platform.

And yes, we can argue against the writer. What the writer says is not absolute, and the same as this. Especially when one of these said writers, Matt Wayne, literally contradict this by saying only what the show acknowledges is to be taken as valid.

I don't think matt Wayne is a writer but I could be wrong or Wikipedia could just be wrong.

In the future sure.

Thats not what he said. He said its prohibited unless used in an official setting. Not speaking for him, but im 99% sure he is referring to an actual official medium where the creator is allowed to be asked questions. Aka, an actual interview like the rule points out.

His saying that in the context of the WOG being asked on Twitter so nah. “Twitter statements should not be used, not unless it is a official setting."

Which goes with what Duncan said

Or I just interpreted it wrong but hey?

 

[Antvasima]

WOG in this case has been supported by the show and have consistency among their answers and even among themselves shows that they have been answered seriously.

Okay. We cannot use statements that are not supported by in-story information or that have been delivered carelessly or through leading questions though.

 

[RitsuØ1]

They are always what are you talking about

Okay. Let's upgrade Dragon Ball to Tier 1 and above via WoG, even though some of them doesn't make sense to the plot.

 

[Reiner04]

Okay. We cannot use statements that are not supported by in-story information or that have been delivered carelessly or through leading questions though.

Yes, accepting any kind of statements that are leading or aren't supported by the show will directly harm the quality of pages.

 

[Reiner04]

Okay. Let's upgrade Dragon Ball to Tier 1 and above via WoG, even though some of them doesn't make sense to the plot.

I'll be informing AKM of this master plan of yours.

 

[Alexander]

Okay. Let's upgrade Dragon Ball to Tier 1 and above via WoG, even though some of them doesn't make sense to the plot.

ok, that's completely false. because first of all, koyama said that everything is his opinion, and those who poke too much are the ones who want to use it to justify their bad scaling, at least with sonic it's much less stupid and less illogical. 2. in the case of ben is supported by the show, that's different.

 

[Forthegood]

Okay. Let's upgrade Dragon Ball to Tier 1 and above via WoG, even though some of them doesn't make sense to the plot.

Aight we should probably stop derailing

 

[Omegabronic]

Because the issue is that YOU are the one pushing the topic onto them to give an answer related to that topic. When you ask them a specific question, you are putting the creator/writer (if thats even them personally using the account) in the position to give an answer related to that topic. Especially if its a fan who is hounding them for that kind of information and doesn't want to be bothered by them.

again, i don't get your point, a question will always have a topic, and all question will put the person being asked in a position to answer, that is simply how questions work, i don't understand what you want, and about that last part you would need to prove that situation for you to use as an argument

If I go on twitter right now and ask Akira Toriyama specifically if Goku can blow a universe up, he would give an answer about the topic on whether he can or not.

no? if he can't give an answer he will simply say "sorry i can't answer this for (insert reasoning)"

But we wouldn't take this as evidence compared to what the show actually demonstrates for Goku, which is the primary level of evidence, no matter what the creator says.

again i don't understand your issue then? this is the same situation

A non leading question would be asking the creator a question that isnt specifically asking about the size of their world (as no creator cares about details like this when writing their series is a much bigger concern), allowing the creator to come to the conclusion themselves without being influenced by specific questions like these.

example please? and considering that the plot of ben 10 ultimate alien and omniverse resolve around this, i would say that they care, since it is a plot point for the story

Yes, but using one piece of evidence to try validating a bunch of random social media answers is not a strong leg of validity to stand on. Especially when that one piece of evidence can be interpreted differently and MAY be 2-A, but also may not be.

except that it can't, the timelines are created based on the possibilities that can ocur within a time frame, if time itself is infinite in length, then there will be infinite timelines, not in the present day, but in totality, again i don't see why only having one matter for this discussion

Like I said, the timestream is the one and only thing in-universe that says infinite and has credibility for it, so it being evidence for 2-A is one possibility. Or another possibility is that when it says infinite, its referring to the "Ad Infintum" remark from Paradox, which is 2-B. Or the Timestream is infinite in that time goes on forever. Just because the timestream has alternate branching timelines doesnt automatically mean that the number of each branch is infinite.

That is my point on this and hence why this thread is for debating it.

1 it is talking about the time stream itself, while ad infinitum is talking about alternate timelines, so it can't be refering to that
2 you just agreed with me, time is infinite in length=infinite number of possibilities through out all of it in its totality=infinite number of timelines in the time stream in its totality since that is where they branch to visually

See above.

See above again.

And no, the WoG, according to you, gets corroborated by details in the series, which are questionable. But then you say those questionable in-series details get corroborated by the WoG? You can't take 2 questionable sources and then claim both are valid because they back each other up. If both are questionable, another source of information should be looked at.

no i am saying that they are questionable in the first place, in that answer i was using a rhetorical "if", and in if the statement was questionable in the first place

No they wouldn't. A timeline being born from the choices made is the standard Many Worlds Interpretation of new worlds being born every moment, which is only 2-B as the number only constantly grows but isn't flat out infinite.

which means that with infinite time, there is an infinite amount of choices to be made in the future, which means infinite timelines in its totality for the time stream

See above. This still sounds only 2-B. All we are given by Maltruent is him saying "Infinite Timestream". Talking about the timestream itself is one option, the worlds within said timestream are another. This was also mentioned and talked about in the original 2-A upgrade thread.

see above for why talking about the time stream itself means infinite timelines in the totality of things

Stated. Not shown.

And see above again for what I said on this already.

it is shown in finale of omniverse

It does matter. A one worded answer is uncaring

says who?

and gives 0 depth and explanation, which isn't the standard evidence we take on this site. Extraordinary claims like infinite universes requires extraordinary evidence.

again how do you give "depth" to an yes or no question? the said extraordinary evidence is already there

Them being one worded answers already indicate that, so no, I don't need to prove it. This is a reverse burden of proof.

how so?

Not to mention the fact that only 2 of these tweets I linked in the OP have any depth for them

again, define "depth"

and neither of them confirm infinite universes either. One does the opposite and makes it more questionable.

no answer says the opposite, idk what you are talking about

Id see the logic in this if there was an actual offical statement that twitter is an official medium for them to use, but thats not the case, and an answer to a fan is not convincing either.

this doesn't address what i said, they consider a valid place for answers, you saying that it isn't conving without you giving a reason is not an argument

That and @Maverick_Zero_X also providing us a link to one of the creators even saying that only stuff acknowledged in the show can be taken as legit.

this was his instance, this writter died and the most recent view on this should be used instead of an old one of one writer that isn't with us anymore

An actual explanation put into the answer rather than just giving a quick "yes/no" ?

you didn't answered directly at my point, how can they give an explanation if it is an simple "yes or no" question? if someone asked you "do you have five fingers on each hand?"you would simply say "yes" or "no" there is no explanation required to be given

Either way, the site rule is written as it is. If you want to argue otherwise, then a thread asking for its clarity from other staff members and users should be made.

the standards say nothing of this, this type of evidence can't be used alone, that is all that the rule says, show me the part of the rule that you are saying that makes these answers invalid for use

Thats not what I said. I said, to REINER, that HIS argument acts like word of god statements are absolute (they aren't) and that Death of the Author CAN'T possibly be a thing.

ok, if it is a situation between you and reiner i will not say anything else on this topic

 

[Reiner04]

ok, that's completely false. because first of all, koyama said that everything is his opinion, and those who poke too much are the ones who want to use it to justify their bad scaling, at least with sonic it's much less stupid and less illogical. 2. in the case of ben is supported by the show, that's different.

She was just saying it to the response of the joke that we should use all statements of authors. She is just joking against a joke.

 

[Alexander]

She was just saying it to the response of the joke that we should use all statements of authors. She is just joking against a joke.

Oh sorry, I thought she was serios,considering the person who is making this post is being serios

 

[Antvasima]

Everybody please only post here if you have something genuinely important to say. Unnecessary spam isn't helping the progression of this thread.

 

[Reiner04]

Also kukui, if there is statement about "collection of dimensions" for instance "infinite dimensions" and few of those dimensions shows a common features Then we default all other dimensions in the given statement to have a same feature regardless I think I've already given enough of context and evidences of 2A universe already. here is the Little example.

Someone: there are infinite worlds.
and one of those worlds they visited was a universe, then there is no reason to say other worlds in the same statement will be referring to planets. It's just Quoting things out of context.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT

I was asked to request your evaluation help for this thread.

Just in general or was there some question / argument I am supposed to comment on in particular?

 

[Antvasima]

Just in general regarding this suggested revision I think, unless @ProfessorKukui4Life wants to provide a summary of the arguments so far in this discussion.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Probably my last big response until later / tomorrow as I have work soon.

Did you read my previous post or what? There is way more context to it. Just read already.

"Just read"

Amazing response, but no, you need to supply the evidence here to me. If there is any, provide it please.

I don't care? Why i should convince you? Everyone in my thread got convinced because I convinced them.

Or they were unaware of the rule that prohibits the use of social media answers. Either way, you don't have to convince me, but me being unconvinced will have me challenge their use as evidence.

Regardless the entire episode is dealing with alternate timelines and maltruant has been continuously mentioning the alternate timelines and then suddenly made a infinite timestream statement, so we know where to link it.

Agree to disagree then on this point. I don't agree with the timestream evidence alone being enough for a solid 2-A rating, so it'll come down to whether staff and everyone else feels that alone is enough for it.

I don't care about them? Why should I care if someone is ignoring how consistent a statement is and is supported by the show? Regardless a staff member or regardless a regular user. If i know something is wrong then I don't care less about it. Thinking about what someone has to accept and what not is not my problem, all I can do is provide evidence I feel like should be more than enough. And in addition no staff has disagreed with 2A, I already saw them agreed to it off site. If you think otherwise ask them.

Then have those staff members come here to argue in defense of the rating.

Sigh, kukui, yk what? Doctor holiday is one of most knowledgeable character in the series and was aware of that theory and has calculated number of dimensions exist in one go mathematically Why forcing a reliable character with a face value out of job? I don't understand.

So you refuse to answer the question?

Okay? How it being a pocket dimension do anything to the argument? I don't understand, these are all dimensions at the end of the day after all?

Because a pocket dimension of unquantifiable size is not remotely the same thing as an actual universe-sized structure?

And her not believing that more Parallel world's exist besides of breach one, then it doesn't matter. The point is that she calculated the number of dimensions exist at that end of the crossover mathematically by her more research and thus the Statement is not random but researched sorry. It's credible.

And making this claim of infinite universes off of random calculations is no where close to solid evidence. NO ONE on this site gets to 2-A off of such weak evidence like this.

It has been called "pocket dimension", It has been called "alternate dimension", It has been called "parallel world", the issue is I don't know why you are telling me all this???? How the heck it'll affect universe being 2A?

See above. A pocket dimension is not a universe.

I still can't see any problem with being called pocket dimensions. Man.

See above.

Because they did? They calculated number of dimensions mathematically?

And since when does math allow you to grasp the existence of infinite dimensions? What says this is correct without any doubt?

Also kukui, if there is statement about "collection of dimensions" for instance "infinite dimensions" and few of those dimensions shows a common features Then we default all other dimensions in the given statement to have a same feature regardless I think I've already given enough of context and evidences of 2A universe already.

Okay and where is this said statement for Ben 10? I have yet to see something like this provided for a universe being a 2-A structure. On top of that, these "common features" you mention being shared between these dimensions has little backing to that.

For dimensions like the Null Void and Ledgerdomain? Sure, because they are pocket dimensions and are not full-scale universes. And as I explained, a pocket dimension residing inside of a universe, but not being connected to it, is extremely common in fiction.

IS Rex's universe a pocket dimension all of a sudden?

here is the Little example.

Someone: there are infinite worlds.
and one of those worlds they visited was a universe, then there is no reason to say other worlds in the same statement will be referring to planets. It's just Quoting things out of context.

This is a bad comparison when a planet is just a celestial body and a universe is an entire space-time continuum.

The issue is that pocket dimensions are not the same thing as regular universes, but are still considered "space-times".

again, i don't get your point, a question will always have a topic, and all question will put the person being asked in a position to answer, that is simply how questions work, i don't understand what you want, and about that last part you would need to prove that situation for you to use as an argument

The point is, the writer is being put into the position to give an answer specifically in relation to the topic, one they more than likely don't care about as something like this, especially if in response to a battleboarding question like these, isn't of concern to them and they don't have to answer truthfully with having the context of their series in mind when delivering an answer, but giving an answer to fans to get them to stop asking them questions like that. Aka, throwing them a bone.

Since your side is the side that wants to use these social media answers as legitimate evidence, you are the one with the burden of proof proving they can be taken seriously and are not just some random, uncaringly made answers.

example please?

An example I can think of is Pokemon's case. There is a full on interview between one of the franchise creators, Junichi Masuda, and an interviewer when being asked questions about the Gen 4 Pokemon games, Diamond and Pearl.

In that interview (which is already a better source as, unlike social media, an interview allows for the creator to be asked questions, so it's permitted), Masuda was never asked anything about the size of the Pokemon world or how big the cosmology is. Despite that, he gave a well clarified and detailed answer about what "the ultimate" was for Pokemon games, and spoke about what he tried conveying in the storyline for the Gen 4 games that involved the introduction of Space-Time to the series, where time and space were both infinite and that the deities (The Lake Trio, Dialga, and Palkia) were made to give balance.

That is an example as he came to that conclusion himself without being asked anything specific about the cosmology and it was well clarified.

and considering that the plot of ben 10 ultimate alien and omniverse resolve around this, i would say that they care, since it is a plot point for the story

This would then assume that Duncan and the other creators had the context of the series and it's storyline in mind when giving these answers on twitter, something that there's no evidence for. But it's interesting you bring this up, so let's play devils advocate for a moment.

Look at one of Duncan's responses to a fan that I linked in the OP:

Notice how this answer to a fan is the ONLY answer Duncan gives, out of all the ones posted, that is actually clarified and thought is attempted to be put in the answer and isn't just some one quick vague "yes/no" answer. This could be argued to be allowed as it actually goes deeper than the others do.

But then also notice how this answer, unlike the one worded ones, is actually less clear and does the opposite? His answer here, unlike the others, speaks about physicist's having different ideas about the scope of the multiverse, where there could be infinite worlds but also be as low as only 12. This answer doesn't give any confirmation either way.

If you want an argument beyond me just referring our site rule, then heres this. What's stopping me from arguing Duncan is unreliable because of his answers contradicting each other? Or how his only clarified answer out of them all doesn't give confirmation?

Duncan's not the only one either. We can look at Joe Kelly's response to, which doesn't even speak about any number of universes. Then with Derrick giving a one worded infinite answer.

All these creators giving different answers that don't line up with each other.

except that it can't, the timelines are created based on the possibilities that can ocur within a time frame, if time itself is infinite in length, then there will be infinite timelines, not in the present day, but in totality, again i don't see why only having one matter for this discussion

Not unless "infinite" is referring to "Ad Infinitum", which is 2-B. Time being infinite would be time going on forever.

1 it is talking about the time stream itself, while ad infinitum is talking about alternate timelines, so it can't be refering to that

See above. And if Ad Infinitum speaks about alternate timelines, that makes my above interpretation even more of a possibility, that it goes on forever and each possibility is being born forever as it goes on, but does not reach infinite in number.

This also kind of goes back to what Paradox says too when explaining the multiverse to Ben and NW Ben. Why would Paradox say "many Ben Tennysons" and "Many universes" and "Many timelines" if there are supposed to be infinite ones?

which means that with infinite time, there is an infinite amount of choices to be made in the future, which means infinite timelines in its totality for the time stream

No. You can't reach infinity flat out by stacking a bunch of choices on top of each other.

says who?

Says the answer? If the answer was serious, more than a word would be said.

again how do you give "depth" to an yes or no question? the said extraordinary evidence is already there

A proper answer is a well explained one. And I don't think I need to explain how saying yes or no is not an explanation.

Plus, you can refer to the answer Duncan gave thats beyond a simple "yep"

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Just in general or was there some question / argument I am supposed to comment on in particular?

Just the general thread. Here's my original post with my arguments so you can read what I had to say.

Good afternoon y'all. It's been a while since I done one of these, but back at it again here, so you already know where this is heading. We're back with another Ben 10 thread. And yes. we are going to go through this yet again. I've witnessed some of the changes that it's been through recently, and have a lot of problems with how they've been passed, so im tackling them here in this new thread. Or rather, continuing from where @Zamasu_Chan left off earlier. So without further a due, let's get on to it.

The Purpose of This Thread​

So some months ago recently, the Ben 10 verse has went through some pretty significant changes, both in the Cosmology and how characters like Alien X scale to it. You can refer to these threads on where these upgrades happened.

Previous Approved Threads​

1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-timelines-and-dimensions-structure-proposal-accepted.142279/
2. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-other-space-times-in-the-universe-accepted.142789/
3. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-canonicity-of-comic-hero-two-times-discussion-thread.142450/
4. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-tier-2-universe-structure-proposal-accepted.142864/
5. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-discrediting-the-downgrade-of-2019-accepted.143385/
   1. https://vsbattles.com/threads/celestialsapien-upgrade-scaled-to-chrono-navigator.63024/
6. https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-tier-2-a-cosmology-proposal-accepted.143443/

Relevant Blogs From Threads​

• https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Firestorm808/Ben_10_-_Cosmology
• https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U..._10_-_Alien_X_Feats,_Statements,_and_Scalings

Before leaving the wikia recently (as I just found out), Zamasu made a downgrade thread for both Alien X and the Ben 10 Cosmology, where the discussion for that was then moved back to this old thread to continue it there, before it eventually got closed due to Zamasu's inactivity with it. While the discussion itself ceased with Zamasu not responding back to it, the points and arguments that he brought up in it I found to be reasonable and were not fully addressed, only concluding because of one side not coming back. This thread of mine will pretty much just be piggy-backing off Zamasu's arguments to continue them, with my own 2 cents added.

So the purpose of this thread will be to address my concerns and the concerns Zamasu had with the state of Ben 10's Cosmology as it's currently being treated here. Alien X, while apart of Zamasu's original downgrade, is being saved for another thread of mine, and will have little to nothing to do with this one. The primary focus here is discussing the Cosmology.

The Problems with the Cosmology

Problem 1: The Cosmology Being 2-A

First things first, explaining why the current Cosmology is an issue for (us) me. I don't really agree with Ben 10's multiverse being infinite. At least, not in the way that it's treated as of right now anyway. Much of the evidence that was used to justify it's 2-A standing, from the recent threads I've looked over so far, is extremely flimsy, built on assumptions, and some even being reused after having already been deemed unreliable several times in the past, and it being explained why it was unreliable over and over again. Let's get into why this evidence isn't as ironclad as people think.

Evidence 1: Professor Holiday's Statement on Infinite Dimensions

This overused statement is one of the evidences brought up the most, so i'll address this one first. In the Generator Rex & Ben 10 crossover episode, we have a statement provided to us by Professor Holiday about there being theoretically infinite dimensions in existence.




Since Generator Rex and Ben 10 are canon to each other, it's easy to see how this results in being 2-A at first, right? Except, that's not actually the case. Concerns of one sided canonicity put aside, Holiday's infinite dimension statement shouldn't be considered reliable to use as evidence for the Cosmology at all. There have been multiple past threads and discussions it was brought up in, and every time it was brought up, an explanation as to why it was problematic was provided in those discussions, so it begs the question as to why it's still being used to this day.

Holiday isn't a credible character that can be taken seriously when speaking about the structure of the cosmology. She only comes to this conclusion about infinite dimensions existing through simple math and calculations, implied by her comment on "math not working" in Rex's favor when he asked if he'd see Ben again. She isn't like Professor Paradox, where in his case, he has an actual deep understanding of space-time and credible level of knowledge and research done into the existence of alternate worlds, a concept that Generator Rex as a whole never deals with in their series, outside of this crossover episode. I know what other verses do on here shouldn't have an effect on what another verse does, but for this particular situation, if something like this was really enough to get to 2-A, a lot more series here would be upgraded just the same, and would have been for a while. But this isn't even the biggest issue with Holiday's statement actually.

What's even more damning here about the unreliability of the statement is that Holiday herself originally believed that parallel worlds didn't even exist in the first place. That the existence of any parallel world was only a theory, and a shaky one at that. Ben mentions himself traveling to parallel worlds all the time and she immediately shoots him down.




Yet, shes then suddenly aware that infinite dimensions exist? If she doubted the idea of another universe even existing to begin with, why are we taking her word as fact when she says there are then infinite? See what I mean?

2-A as a whole is not something that should be this easily accessible based off evidence like this, especially shaky evidence that shoots itself in the mouth like this does. Our site has very high standards when it comes to the territory of granting 2-A upgrades for a reason, and something like this most definitely shouldn't be meeting those said standards. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Not to mention, as a bonus point if you really wanted to take this issue further, we can look at the context behind this statement and what it's being aimed at. There doesn't literally need to be infinite dimensions in order for Holidays statement to answer Rex's concern. The point here is that Rex wondered if he and Ben would ever cross paths again after Ben goes back to his own world, but Holiday intervenes, saying the math isn't in his favor of that being a likelihood because there are supposedly infinite worlds. At the end of the day, we know that the Ben 10 Multiverse is filled with a ridiculous number of universes and dimensions, whether it's infinite or not. So when going off of Holiday's answer to Rex's concern, there doesn't need to be literally infinite dimensions in order to simply say the likelihood of Rex and Ben meeting again isn't in Rex's favor. In other words, this infinite dimensions statement can just be argued to be a flowery, fancy way of saying that Rex and Ben will most likely not cross paths again because of the ridiculously large amount of parallel worlds there are, so it doesn't necessarily need to be literally infinite dimensions exactly. Especially since Generator Rex as a show doesn't dive into the concept of parallel universes and space-times outside of this crossover, and Holiday's initial doubt on different worlds being in existence only being a shaky theory, making this a plausible assertion to make. But even with being generous, stronger points against this statement were made.

Between her lack of credible knowledge and the fact she initially doubted the existence of parallel worlds, Holiday suddenly coming to the conclusion there is then an infinite number of them and claiming that shouldn't be taken seriously in any capacity, and should be removed as evidence for this.

Evidence 2: The use of "Word of God" Twitter Statements

This also comes up very often when concerning Ben 10 revisions, despite how often it's been explained to not be permitted to be used, so im addressing this part next.

This part of the evidence used for 2-A comes from comments made on Twitter to answer fan questions asking about the scope of the Cosmology. "Word of God" comments in other words.





As well as this, this, and this. There's probably more, but you get the picture at this point.

I really don't have to say much as to why this evidence is extremely faulty, as it'll just be repeating what has already been said in the past. But, to be perfectly blunt, this will go to show how extremely unmoderated these revisions for the verse are if evidence like this are allowed to be passed again and again without any questions being raised. In any event, these "word of god" answers are not allowed to be used as evidence, in any way, shape or form.

We literally have it written in our Editing Rules page that any answers to fan questions that seemingly come from the writer/creator directly on social media are to be generally disregarded, as they are made in uncaring and unserious manners, and that only answers from proper, serious and actual interviews are to be taken as evidence for revisions here.

"Regarding direct information from the author/creator of a character: We do not use statements from them that are phrased in an uncertain, uncaring, and/or unspecific manner, such as "Could be", "Maybe", "Probably", "Possibly" etcetera. Brief or vague answers to fan-questions via social media are also generally disregarded, whereas more elaborate explanations in serious interviews are usually considered more reliable."

Something that none of these twitter responses meet the standards of in any capacity when it comes to this rule. Even if you wanted to stretch it with the last 2 twitter answers, where they have at least some amount of depth put in to their answer as opposed to just being a one worded one, they still aren't sufficient evidence for upgrading the Cosmology. One doesn't even mention anything about infinite universes, and the other talks about physicists having different ideas and perspectives about the concept of parallel worlds, where there could be as many as infinite ones to as low as 12, giving no explicit confirmation as to which is the actual case for the scope of the multiverse. Either way, using these twitter responses as evidence to allow the Cosmology to be upgraded breaks our sites editing rules, there's no validity or reliability to them at all as there isn't with any social media response, and they should be removed as evidence as well.

Evidence 3: Hero Two Times Comic Statement

This next evidence comes from the Hero Two Times comic, another crossover between Generator Rex and Ben 10 (or the same crossover with expanded details that the cartoon show's crossover didn't show). In this crossover, Ben makes a statement to Rex about how there are millions of dimensions.

Now, this isn't as much of a problem as the previous evidences I talked about. In fact, the statement in and of itself is fine for the most part. You could question whether or not Ben's word on this is reliable enough to take it literally, but that's not the main problem with this.

The issue I have with this is the canonicity of the comic itself. In the thread where determining the canonicity of the action pack comic took place, none of the reasons given where deemed sufficient enough to accept the comic as canon, except for one. Duncan's answer to a fan asking if the action pack comics were canon was the only reason the Hero Two Times comic was accepted as canon for this statement to be used (shown by @Eficiente accepting it's canon status when seeing this, but not having done this before then).

Notice a familiar issue? It's as I already went into before about the use of social media answers, only this time here its about the canon of a source instead of the scope of the cosmology. But I wont go too much into this, as the statement itself isn't much of a problem and even if the comic is canon, this at best only supports 2-B.

Evidence 4: The Infinite Timestream

Lastly, this last piece of evidence I found for supporting 2-A from the given threads recently, that may also be worth something, is the timestream being stated to be infinite as it was used in this previous thread. And here's the clip for it as well.




As I said, the timestream being stated infinite may be worth something towards 2-A, but with the other evidences that were used in tandem with this being put into question, this by itself may not be enough as was mentioned in the 2-A thread to be up for interpretation in regards to it's context. But i'll be holding off on this for now as well and tackle this later in the discussion, as I want to tackle the next problem with the Cosmology currently as was previously brought up that should be mentioned again.

Problem 2: Every Universe Containing Infinite "In-Universe" Dimensions

This one is the bigger issue at hand that definitely needs to be addressed. While I explained above why a lot of the evidence justifying the Cosmology being 2-A shouldn't hold, we can play devils advocate here and say without a doubt that the Multiverse is indeed infinite. Even if that indeed is the case, the claim that every universe in this said multiverse contains another infinite amount of dimensions residing inside themselves, therefore making the Prime universe and every other universe a sort of Multiversal Macrocosm, is an argument that goes extremely unsupported, and uses a lot of assumptions, without a shred of evidence proving this is legit. Zamasu went a lot into bringing this up already, so i'll just quote what he had to say about this earlier.







The point should be clear, and Zamasu's downgrade thread is linked here at the beginning so you can go back to read the discussions in full if you want to. As far as dimensions like the Null Void & Ledgerdomain go, and maybe Dimension 12, they were given sufficient to solid evidence to prove they reside within the Prime universe. So it being a 2-C sized structure is fine. Zamasu himself agreed with this too.

But everything else? The Prime Universe containing infinite dimensions inside of itself? This being the case in the Ben 10 multiverse is something never once proven, in any capacity, in any of these recent revisions. Not a scan, databook entry, a statement, anything like that is given. The only reason given for having infinite dimensions residing within the Prime Universe here was "there is no reason to think they aren't". Occams Razor, with assuming an infinite amount are in a universe simply because 2 or 3 dimensions mentioned earlier were specifically proven to.

To be perfectly blunt, this is straight up ridiculous, something we don't do anywhere on this site and is absolutely not acceptable under our standards. It's like I mentioned before, 2-A upgrades like this one have high standards here for a reason, the bigger the claims you make, the bigger the requirement of evidence becomes. This is a massive reverse burden of proof being done, simply assuming something on such a scale like this is happening only because a couple dimensions in particular were given proof reaches gigantic levels of speculation and reverses the Occam's razor. Far more than this is needed to prove a universe contains infinite other dimensions, and the fact this went through with no one questioning this raises a lot of issues.

And on that note, another issue with this that is worth bringing up too is that this also takes crazy manipulation of the words "universe", "timeline", and "dimension", terms that everyone here knows are used interchangeably all the time. Zamasu goes at great length to explain this for Ben 10's case as well:



I think what I quoted speaks for itself. These terms are very interchangeably used, extremely often both in fiction and in Ben 10. For us to assume that every universe, like the Prime Universe, contains an infinite amount of dimensions inside of themselves to be considered 2-A structures contained within the multiverse, all because they're called dimensions, is something we shouldn't be doing without a significant amount of evidence and context being given proving this is legitimately the case. And as of now, none of the provided threads where these upgrades were accepted make an attempt at doing this.

The likelihood of Ben 10's Multiverse being considered 2-A is already lowered as I explained in the first section, but even with the benefit of the doubt and we take it as 2-A, the scale of 2-A it's currently at needs major revising.

TL;DR

The Ben 10 Cosmology uses a lot of flimsy evidence and speculation for its current standing. It's evidence for 2-A stands on little legs with only one thing possibly going for it, and the scale of it's 2-A level where infinite dimensions reside inside every universe like the Prime Universe has no evidence whatsoever and uses pure speculation. One way or another, the justifications used to support the verse's current standing, for the reasons given here, are wrong and need to be fixed.

 

[Reiner04]

I'll write one single post that includes all major evidences that all those infinite dimensions are inside the universe. After that if someone think it's not enough go ahead and do whatever you want.

• Dozens of those infinite dimensions are already "in-universe" Dimensions that includes legerdomain, nullvoid, ben's dimension, Rex dimension, Dimension 12, breach dimension, trans spatial bladder dimensions, etc. It's very illogical to say that few of those infinite dimensions are referring to "in-universe" dimensions while other are referring to universes. A simple formulation is that all those infinite dimensions are referring to same kind of dimensions rather than having formulation of infinite - 9 is referring to universes and 9 is referring to "in-universe" dimensions, since when we started to have such a complex thinking for a scan?
• Doctor holiday wouldn't have mentioned infinite dimensions if there is just 9 dimensions in the universe as they have no such devices that can connect universes but only device that can connect "in- universe" dimensions. The statement doesn't makes sense when they cannot even travel to seprate universes
• There is no brought up of universes at all in the entire crossover, each time Dimensions has been mentioned they were only referring to "Dimensions inside universes". We are Quoting single statement out of context of entire crossover.

OP hasn't provided any reasoning or evidences that they're referring to universes at all. Entire crossover contradict such reasoning unless we we Quote things out of context of even this single statement.

Heck even the context of infinite dimensions statement already was referring to "in-universe" dimensions because it already includes Rex dimension and Ben's dimension and nullvoid legerdomain etc. I am way out of way that why the single statement is being broken down to refer to 2 seprate things???

This is more than enough in my eyes. If anything. Provide evidence and reasoning for those dimensions to be universes, which there is non.

Or they were unaware of the rule that prohibits the use of social media answers. Either way, you don't have to convince me, but me being unconvinced will have me challenge their use as evidence.

I don't mind, I've convinced everyone and that's is my job.

Agree to disagree then on this point. I don't agree with the timestream evidence alone being enough for a solid 2-A rating, so it'll come down to whether staff and everyone else feels that alone is enough for it.

Basically everyone was convinced with this statement when I presented as Gyronutz asked me if there is any context this can be referring to.

Then have those staff members come here to argue in defense of the rating.

I don't understand what it means.

So you refuse to answer the question?

There cannot be any better answer than that imo.

Because a pocket dimension of unquantifiable size is not remotely the same thing as an actual universe-sized structure?

Sorry? A pocket dimension in Ben 10 is infinite in size. So it'll not affect the rating.

See above. A pocket dimension is not a universe.

It's fine.

And since when does math allow you to grasp the existence of infinite dimensions? What says this is correct without any doubt?

Unless proven wrong mathematics are default to correct kukui.

For dimensions like the Null Void and Ledgerdomain? Sure, because they are pocket dimensions and are not full-scale universes. And as I explained, a pocket dimension residing inside of a universe, but not being connected to it, is extremely common

Kukui, didn't i said if they shown to have something in common?
If there is a collection of dimensions they don't have to be exactly same, for instance "collection of planets" few planets can be habitual, can be deserted but they'll are planets.
That's all there is to it. They can have differences but something common among the known dimensions will default to all other In the given statement unless stated otherwise.

This is a bad comparison when a planet is just a celestial body and a universe is an entire space-time continuum.

The issue is that pocket dimensions are not the same thing as regular universes, but are still considered "space-times".

I still find myself unable to grasp this argument.

 

[Nierre]

I recall Dread sending a twitter post that asks the author about the amount of universes without leading the author on, and iirc he gives the same answer as he had with the other questions. So is that not good enough for support?

 

[Antvasima]

I recall Dread sending a twitter post that asks the author about the amount of universes without leading the author on, and iirc he gives the same answer as he had with the other questions. So is that not good enough for support?

I am not informed about the context regarding what was asked and what the answer was. Can you elaborate please?

 

[Nierre]

I recall Dread sending a twitter post that asks the author about the amount of universes without leading the author on, and iirc he gives the same answer as he had with the other questions. So is that not good enough for support?

I am not informed abot the context regarding what was asked and what the answer was. Can you elaborate please?

Here it is.

I'm not sure if this is a real tweet or w/e, cause I jsut got it from Dread's post. But this isn't leading at all, so shouldn't this support the scientist's theory in the crossover episode?

 

[Reiner04]

I am not informed abot the context regarding what was asked and what the answer was. Can you elaborate please?

@ImmortalDread sent a WOG statement in which someone asked from djw that how big is ben 10 multiverse?
Answer: infinite.

 

[Reiner04]

In my crt this statement in the support with maltruant statement of infinite timestream and there was context to it that it is referring to alternate timelines and professor paradox statement. So it was get accepted. Because there were other author statements with the same answer and weren't leading supported by the show.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

My last response until later when free.

I recall Dread sending a twitter post that asks the author about the amount of universes without leading the author on, and iirc he gives the same answer as he had with the other questions. So is that not good enough for support?

Derrick wasn't the one who answered the other questions, it was Duncan, a different creator. And those answers from Duncan differ from one where he answers that there are as many universes as there are ones in the multiverse, where different physicsts have different views on the multiverse, and that there could be as many as infinite to as low as 12. This one answer is the only answer from him that has any depth to it and this one doesnt give any confirmation of which is the case.

We then have another answer from one of the other creators apart of Man of Action, Joe Kelly, that doesnt mention anything about infinite universes.

These authors give different answers from each other that don't line up.

 

[Antvasima]

Here it is.

I'm not sure if this is a real tweet or w/e, cause I jsut got it from Dread's post. But this isn't leading at all, so shouldn't this support the scientist's theory in the crossover episode?

Probably, yes, but what is the other evidence from within the stories themselves?