Hellformer
He/Him- 1,180
- 834
- Thread starter
- #241
I wouldn't mind to wait but eventually the result is going to be the sameYou don't want the other staff to formalize an agreement?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I wouldn't mind to wait but eventually the result is going to be the sameYou don't want the other staff to formalize an agreement?
The premise of the OP focuses on the application of "incalculable."Plank has agreed on 1B(CountlessD) and DarkModeus stated to agree with anything Firestorm808 says. And Ultima and Q have pretty much left. So we have one for 1B and one for 1C. Can we convince you to agree with 1B(CountlessD) due to dimensions and universes implying to be seperate things?
Yes that's why I think High 1-B makes more sense in this contextThe premise of the OP focuses on the application of "incalculable."
The OP presents examples of what is "calculable" within the setting. Technology such as the Anlg and the CTB are used to show that the quantity of infinity is "calculable."
It proposes that "incalculable" should refer to a quantity at least "infinite."
In turn, they posit their home universe is an "at least infinite dimension."
"I'll here from @Firestorm808 first" does not mean "i'll agree with anything Firestorm says"and DarkModeus stated to agree with anything Firestorm808 says.
More like the number of dimensions are incalculable to primitive minds of 3-D beingsSummary
The statements:
- "We are beings from an incalculable dimension that defies the limits of space and time."
- To reiterate, it's not stated that the aliens themselves are incalculable.
Their Universe
- "A glorious universe unfathomable to a primitive mind such as yours"
- To reiterate, it's not stated that the aliens themselves are unfathomable.
Incomprehensible to 3-D beings in general
- "My formal denomination and the breadth of my functionality are incomprehensible to a lower life from"
- The complexity of the AI's technology is what's incomprehensible to Ben and company.
Yes
Plain misunderstanding by Qawsedf from what exactly was being proposed. More like fallacious reasoning but I wouldn't care about this since the thread initially didn't focus on Low 1-A.Qaws requested the following:
- Spatial Characteristics
- Unless you can prove that their home universe has spatial constructs to rely on, I don't see a method to qualify it. If they can't be defined by space and time then they're abstract rather than transcendent.
- If the universe they come from has spatial characteristics then they would have it since they don't exist in a abstract or transcendental state to their own reality.
- Disproving the possibility of being "Abstract" or "BDE"
- The word "incalculable" could just mean that they are abstract in nature, which would also prevent them from being mathematically proven or comprehended by people like Ben.
- Conceptually BDE exist already in Ben 10, with people like Paradox being accepted as having that as an ability
- Incalculable means it can't be mathematically calculated and the explanation being that they lack aspects of space/time
- Then being imperceivable can be explained with BDE rather than being uncountable infinite-D
- For the above to go from abstract to having a principal foundation of a Von Neumann Hierarchy would mean that you'd have to show that their nature is ultimately bound and quantified by a set theory. Which is a bigger logical leap to me then just "They're abstract due to lacking these characteristics in a franchise where we accept that characters can lack these characteristics."
Hasn't spatial characteristics already been given?Qaws requested the following:
- Spatial Characteristics
- Unless you can prove that their home universe has spatial constructs to rely on, I don't see a method to qualify it. If they can't be defined by space and time then they're abstract rather than transcendent.
- If the universe they come from has spatial characteristics then they would have it since they don't exist in a abstract or transcendental state to their own reality.
- Disproving the possibility of being "Abstract" or "BDE"
- The word "incalculable" could just mean that they are abstract in nature, which would also prevent them from being mathematically proven or comprehended by people like Ben.
- Conceptually BDE exist already in Ben 10, with people like Paradox being accepted as having that as an ability
- Incalculable means it can't be mathematically calculated and the explanation being that they lack aspects of space/time
- Then being imperceivable can be explained with BDE rather than being uncountable infinite-D
- For the above to go from abstract to having a principal foundation of a Von Neumann Hierarchy would mean that you'd have to show that their nature is ultimately bound and quantified by a set theory. Which is a bigger logical leap to me then just "They're abstract due to lacking these characteristics in a franchise where we accept that characters can lack these characteristics."
It's also consistent with beings like the Contumelia, who's forms are unperceivable and Nalgains, who claim that 26D to be unperceivable by lower beings.Each universe following counterintuitive physics. We do know that physics requires spatial characteristics for measurement right?
And since it has already been established that Universes inside space beyond lack spatio-temporal features at some time unless and Annihilarrgh is activated to create spatial and temporal structures, I don't see any reason to assume that the Universe of these aliens would lack it.
Also from the comic itself, those aliens say that their final destination lies on a blue planet in this star system and their main aim was to search the most powerful weapon of Ben's dimension. In order to determine this from their Universe, their tech must be able to detect "position" which is again a spatial characteristic.
The point is narrowing the scope of how "incalculable" should be applied. Even for High 1-B, you need examples of it being spatial and not abstract.Plain misunderstanding by Qawsedf from what exactly was being proposed. More like fallacious reasoning but I wouldn't care about this since the thread initially didn't focus on Low 1-A.
I think I had explained this in the CRT but instead of trying to counter that, he ended up twisting the proposalThe point is narrowing the scope of how "incalculable" should be applied
I tried my best to convey this point, but I wouldn't mind it getting rejected.. Even for High 1-B, you need examples of it being spatial and not abstract.