- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #41
Your disagreement due to lack of further elaboration from the Naljians is noted. Let’s see what other staff members think.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Ben 10 Hyperversal upgrade
- Thread starter Greenshifter
- Start date
- Status
- 9,982
- 10,821
- 5,313
- 6,052
The only problem here worth discussing would be if the statement given about the omniverse would apply to 26-D statement which then gives a tier.
- 7,142
- 4,658
No Occam's razor would be they talk about perceiving more than three dimensions, then them saying that there are 26 when asked how many there are means that they perceive 26 dimensions that matter. It does not mean anything more, that is you using the fact that the three dimensions that humans perceive are all spatial and expanding it to all 26 without actually evidence that this was what they were talking about.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Agree to disagree.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #47
Knowledge claim on Albedo’s part you mean?
- 5,313
- 6,052
"26 dimensions that matter" are vague yes but the closest reference is spatial dimensions so it's more likely for them to be spatial dimensions (and dimensions that matter seem to be the spatial dimensions). With the new statement alongside the 26-D statement it should be enough to atleast give a possibly rating if that is the problem.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Welp, considering how Albedo went from explaining "Not Universal, multiversal, but omniversal" makes it clear that he was being precise with his statement. Also that Omniverse is all there's in the verse, so he is talking about everything collectively, so it applies to all directions there's.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #50
He also has the knowledge of Azmuth in that clip, who’s smarter than Professor Paradox who has a device that can destroy all of existence.
TWILIGHT-OP
He/Him- 2,935
- 1,584
I think @Qawsedf234 can help here.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Think u should add why Albedo is reliable while making statement about cosmology in the OP bruh.
.
- 9,982
- 10,821
Everything that scales to cosmology will. And all new directions (such as multiversal directions) will get qualitative superiority.I don't have much knowledge about tier 1 but I can ask if this thread is accepted, will Alien X be able to reach tier 1-B because of scaling through cosmology?
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #55
His page?
Fine, I’ll add that stuff later.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #56
It will? Discuss it in another thread, I have some possible contentions/questions.
*quantitative, technically
- 9,982
- 10,821
Stop derailing my thread.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #58
Man, take my like, that just made my day. Learned from the best I see.
- 5,313
- 6,052
What kind of dimensions would they be, for them to be similar enough to 3-D to be mentioned in this context, yet different to the point where they can't be scaled from, like temporal or spatial dimensions
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
Weird question tbh. But ig having such question would fall into contextomy fallacy? Question is weird so not sure what answer would be babe.
- 5,313
- 6,052
Stop derailing my thread.
- 2,151
- 2,107
I am honestly a little dumbfounded on how this is an argument. If the Naljians clearly describe 26 other dimensions alongside the 3-dimensions that people perceive, then it is, indeed, intended to be spatial in nature. That entire scene falls apart when we don't interpret it as being spatial dimensions, assuming they are a reference for realms, just as an example, implies that the cast are continuously viewing 3 realms at the same time, which isn't true.
Also, saying it's a "different type of dimension" needs to be proven especially when the 3-dimensional perception of humans (x, y, z) is mentioned as "lower dimensions" here, until then, Hitchens razor is applicable.
Also, saying it's a "different type of dimension" needs to be proven especially when the 3-dimensional perception of humans (x, y, z) is mentioned as "lower dimensions" here, until then, Hitchens razor is applicable.
- 7,142
- 4,658
They mention they can perceive more dimensions than humans, Ben asks how many there are, they say 26 that matters. So to answer the link between the three dimensions and 26, its perception, as for what that tells us about the dimensions. Not much, we have no idea how the unknown alien beings perceive things and what the extent of their perception is beyond extending beyond three dimensions. It's just this Wiki's need to tie everything into an attempt to make character's stronger that leads you to all think that the three dimensions that humans perceive happening to be spatial means that all of the 26 are also spatial-temporal and thus applicable for a tier upgrade.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #65
- 12,179
- 6,115
Well, I'm changing my mind about disagreeing, after so many things I agree.
- 9,982
- 10,821
I, since was kid, is an example.
Swordsaint456
He/Him- 272
- 83
dissagree FRA
- 1,754
- 1,066
Move this to the fun and games section
Swordsaint456
He/Him- 272
- 83
real
- 1,407
- 3,535
All right, so here are my rough thoughts.
- This post doesn't seem to break the discussion rule, as it uses a new line of reasoning.
- A spatial dimension is simply defined as a measure of spatial extent in a distinct direction, nothing more.
- Not only were the 26 dimensions contrasted with the 3 standard dimensions, but "26 dimensions" is a direct reference to bosonic string theory, so we know the dimensions in question are directions/axes and not universes.
- The omniversal force is stated to work on a scale beyond multiversal, extending infinitely in every direction of every reality: confirming that the axes of the cosmology all hold significant size.
- 1,754
- 1,066
real
- 303
- 185
It doesn't look bad, but it still has a lot of shortcomings and, as Everything said, there are uncertainties. Put me on Neutral for now.
- 7,142
- 4,658
Not how this works, mention the theory by name or give a detailed description that fits the theory, don't just give out the number of dimensions that are used in a theory and not expand on it.
They weren't contrasted with three spatial dimensions, they were contrasted by the three dimensions we can perceive, try and ignore this distinction all you like it is still their and serves as a fundamental flaw in this line of arguments.
- 5,313
- 6,052
I'm sorry but this is just a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and get around the problem. They are spatial dimensions and currently there is literally nothing else they can be. 26 dimensions similar enough to be brought up in comparison to 3 dimensions of space heavily suggest so and there is literally nothing else you can say they are besides just adding unknown variables. It's not wiki tier brainrot it's just you unwilling to accept the conclusion
TWILIGHT-OP
He/Him- 2,935
- 1,584
This is rn a serious thread, so no can't be move there.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #77
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
Brother, even having spatial dimensions is not enough to scale in a sense. What matters is the nature of these dimensions.
I don't like to mention different verses but Ultima asked this in several different verses like Yan-Sen. If the nature is unknown, having spatial dimensions is not enough and it doesn't scale. And we don't even know if there is a QS.
- 10,398
- 4,564
- Thread starter
- #79
Qualitative transcendence is a R > F thing, which is not what I’m arguing here. I’m arguing a quantitative transcendence.
- Status
