the infinite time stream, with multiple timelines branching from it "ad infinitum", and since the total length of the stream is infinite, then it would be infinite universes along with it
Pain believe me or look yourself, you can find Dozens of things in the OP but won't find a single reasoning or evidence for why universe is not 2A.
Don't bump until after 12 hours or so. Plus this thread has only recently began and people have their own thing to do. It's not gonna die out so quick.
If you are making responses than better have evidences or reasoning inside them. Reading a long essay and not find anything is not a response.
Rude tbh I doubt Kukui made this thread for the lols.
Don't doubt, read the OP, it's right here. He said my thread was wrong and based of no evidences, what else can be a response to that? Especially when I myself cannot find any evidence at all. How one treats should be prepared to be treated same way.
I am kind of literal blind to see that point in the OP.
Okay idm.
Zamasu’s OP did it better.
I can agree to this and the fact is that zamasu himself did better is a another thing to note as well.
Yeah there are too many B10 threads happening at the same time.
I've read the original downgrade thread and the threads for these revisions.
Then its you interpreting the rule as you see it and going off of a technicality. If a different thread needs to be made to clarify this rule, so be it, but as of now, nothing you have said has convinced me to say these tweets are somehow exceptions to the rule, and we aren't giving a series special treatment.
And those "various author statements" are on the chopping block of being invalid. Once again, something parroting what something else says by coincidence doesn't automatically make it a valid source.
And the other people here, including a staff member, who finds the use of these to be suspicious as well?
Lets use common sense here please. Do you not know what a theory is?
Okay? And? This has nothing to do with somehow proving Holiday is a credible person when the whole point is that going off of theories means she has no actual clue what she is talking about because she can't prove she knows what shes talking about. Thats what a theory is. Something you BELIEVE. Not something you know for a fact.
You are, once again, reversing the burden of proof back to me without having yet met it in the first place. This isn't how a debate works.
How is calling someone not credible about something they don't research or specialize in...an excuse? You're not making any sense.
A pocket dimension, which is not the same thing as M theory or literally researching entire parallel universes.
And as I said, this doesn't matter. She is a knowledgeable character about nanomachines. A field she specializes in.
You may want to recheck what this site does, because this is something we absolutely do here.
And this is what im asking evidence for. All this stuff your saying about "in-universe dimensions", I want evidence for please.
See above.
See above again. If the Dimensional Disruptor can't connect to actual universes, but can connect to things like the Null Void, then what's stopping me from again saying this is an issue of range and a limit on the Disruptor itself? The Null Void, something the disruptor can connect to, is only a pocket dimension.
Like I said above, if the dimensional disruptor can only connect to "in-universe dimensions" like the Null Void, which is a pocket dimension
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.
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.
See above.
See above again.
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.
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.
Stated. Not shown.
It does matter. A one worded answer is uncaring 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.
Them being one worded answers already indicate that, so no, I don't need to prove it. This is a reverse burden of proof.
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.
An actual explanation put into the answer rather than just giving a quick "yes/no" ?
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.
Theres a difference between disregarding them and not considering them as increasing consistency. The latter is what im doing because that's not how this site works. The primary evidence that we take for revisions is from the series itself, not the number of answers given on a social media platform.
Im not understanding this point here. We use our sites guidelines in arguments here all the time as to whether or not something being done here fits within whats acceptable and whats not acceptable on this site. Im using our rule on the use of social media answers in my argument because I don't agree with them, in this case, being acceptable. As others don't.
Appreciate the input Firestorm, and no offense, but this is only reiterating the summaries of why stuff in the earlier revisions got accepted. I know that's what you said your doing for now, but the starting issue with this is what I would like explained context for a lot of this as to why things like Rex's dimension is considered the same thing as the Null Void and such.
