Going to be responding to peoples comments now.
Reiner
That's literal strawmanning entire thing I've said. No one said that dimensions here is “in-universe” dimensions because they're called so. But there is so big God Damn context.
I've read the original downgrade thread and the threads for these revisions.
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?
I don't see anything like that in the rules? RRegardless in general. Not always. It has everything to be fine in this case.
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.
Especially the one worded answers which are precisely the "uncaringly" made answers our rule is aimed at. You want these answers to be allowed? Get the rule clarified to your specifications.
Entire episode is concerned with alternate timelines, idk why it'll suddenly refer to the sky when the ground is all there is to do. Supported by various author statements and consistency with adinfinity.
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 as I said, 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.
Who is "we" here? I don't see anyone having problem with how consistent it is. Talk about yourself.
And the other people here, including a staff member, who finds the use of these to be suspicious as well?
Oh man this is just GOD Damn not listening and putting a blind eye to everything.
How calculating something mathematically and having theoretical knowledge of something = not being reliable? I am listening such thing as first time.
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?
And I am saying there are several theories in which we have calculated number of dimensions theoretically and believe so because, w/o that to be those numbers our theories will break off.
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.
So im going to ask this again. What is your point here?
Prove yourself she is not knowledgeable when she can calculate number of dimensions mathematically.
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.
YOU are the one claiming Holiday is knowledgeable about parallel universes.
YOU need to prove she is knowledgeable.
YOU need to prove the positive, not me proving the negative.
And really, I don't have to do anything as I've already done it for you. Her believing parallel universes to only exist as a theory proves she doesn't know what shes talking about. You still haven't provided any actual counter argument against this.
How is calling someone not credible about something they don't research or specialize in...an excuse? You're not making any sense.
she has literal dealing with breach dimension
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.
and calculated number of dimensions theoretically and just disregarded a statement from a character who has face value of top knowledgeable characters in the verse
And as I said, this doesn't matter. She is a knowledgeable character about nanomachines. A field she specializes in.
She does not specialize in researching space time or alternate universes. What Holiday researches in one field doesn't have anything to do with another field.
Being a knowledgeable character doesn't mean you take their word about anything they say. This is grossly over estimating their value.
is not something wiki does with any verse. She is not spouting non sense because people want her to.
You may want to recheck what this site does, because this is something we absolutely do here.
If I want to upgrade a verse to 2-B based on a statement from a character, im absolutely going to need to prove that character is credible and knows what they are talking about. So I would show evidence that they have intellectual feats of cosmic awareness, knowing they have an actual understanding of space-time and how parallel worlds work.
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.
Let's ignore the entire context and things I have said and say that dimensions are referring to universes by doctor holiday out of no where When the entire c crossover has n nothing to do with universes each time dimensions has been used were referring to in universe dimensions.
And this is what im asking evidence for. All this stuff your saying about "in-universe dimensions", I want evidence for please.
In fact, how do we know that this whole "in-universe dimensions" case is not simply talking about pocket dimensions? The Null Void is an "in-universe" dimension, and it's literally directly called a pocket dimension in the show.
IF there has been only 3 dimensions then Rex would have been able to go there given that there is no device That can connect universes present there but doctor holiday said you won't be able to ever.
See above.
Dimensional disruptor cannot connect universes. They can only connect in-universe dimensions, if they're just 3 dimensions, then Doctor holiday wouldn't have concerned or talked about infinite dimensions when she told rex that he cannot because there are infinite dimensions when they have no way to going to. It doesn't makes any sense.
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.
Why are you assuming these dimensions have to be inside the universe when a smaller and more reasonable assertion is that the disruptor can only connect to pocket dimensions?
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?
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?
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.
- 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
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.
- 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.
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.
Omegabronic
how is asking about the size of the multiverse leading? to extract an specific information is the whole point of a question so idk what you consider a "non leading" question, if it wasn't infinite they would say "no"
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.
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. 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.
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.
and even then they were not used alone as proof, but used along with what is shown in the series with the likes of the time stream, that it is infinite and with realities branching from it, which makes the answers about the topic and the series consistent to one another
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.
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.
it bans "generally" aka it depends on how is it used, and i never said "not contradicted = supported", in this case it IS supported via the infinite time stream, so it is perfectly usable, we can't use them alone without anything else, but if the series corroborates with it then there is no problem to use them to support what it is shown in the series
See above.
1 how is this up for interpretation?
2 even if it was questionable, WoG would support the interpretation of infinite universes
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.
if time is infinite then it would support infinite timelines as well, since they branch based on the choices made, infinite time=infinite universes,
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.
about the worlds, maltruant is talking about the time stream itself, not the worlds in it so i don't see the logic, the argument is that if the time stream is infinite, and throughout it the timelines branch of, then and infinite time stream would have infinite realities branching along with it
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.
i don't understand your point? they are consistent with what was shown in the show, don't see how having only one in universe disqualify the clarification that the authors gave
Stated. Not shown.
And see above again for what I said on this already.
1 the amount of words shouldn't matter, specially with question of "yes or no"
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.
2 you need to prove that they are made in an "uncaring manners" because nothing indicates that they are
Them being one worded answers already indicate that, so no, I don't need to prove it. This is a reverse burden of proof.
Not to mention the fact that only 2 of these tweets I linked in the OP have any depth for them, and neither of them confirm infinite universes either. One does the opposite and makes it
more questionable.
, that and duncan himself saying that twitter answers are a valid way for him to give information about the series
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.
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.
define "depth", it is not an complicated answer, why would it need "depth"? you didn't gave any logical reason for the other answers to not be valid, first explain your "depth" point
An actual explanation put into the answer rather than just giving a quick "yes/no" ?
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.
except i already did? the infinite time stream, it supports what they said, plus you said that it contradicted them by implying death of the author without showing the said contradiction
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.
ImmortalDread
The OP appears to be disregarding the fact that other Twitter statements may not contradict each other, making the argument based on a single statement appear weak.
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.
Furthermore, utilizing the guidelines of VsBattle Wiki to support one's argument may not be a sufficient approach, as the primary principle of this wiki is to consider the context before adhering to guidelines.
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.
And to be real, this isn't the first time people in Ben 10 revisions have tried spam using the use of social media answers in order to give the series upgrades like this, upgrades that otherwise we normally require a lot stronger evidence elsewhere on the site.
Firestorm
Currently away from home.
I will be going over the OP when I get home. For now, let me just re-iterate the current argument for the 2-A Universe Cluster in the Ben 10 Cosmology.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
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.
