• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iiliminal said:
correct me if im wrong but aren’t the extra dimensions in bosonic string theory compactified anyway
Click to expand...
Imo, since Ben 10 uses quantum mechanics and MWI, it's plausible to say that the infinite mathematical dimensions mentioned by doctor holiday in generator rex can be considered a referenced to it. Funny enough, MWI can't exist w/o infinite dimensions as well so it's should be high 1-B.

You know what I meant here. Tryna apply irl thrings that hasn't been briefly described in fiction, neither was stated to had any relation with dimensions of the cosmos, but just randomly name dropped shouldn't be over used for it downgrade, if anything, use of MWI makes more sense and is more described but whatever.
 
Reiner04 said:
You know what I meant here. Tryna apply irl thrings that hasn't been briefly described in fiction, neither was stated to had any relation with dimensions of the cosmos, but just randomly name dropped shouldn't be over used for it downgrade, if anything, use of MWI makes more sense and is more described but whatever.
Click to expand...
High hyper upgrade lets go
 
Imo, since Ben 10 uses quantum mechanics and MWI, it's plausible to say that the infinite mathematical dimensions mentioned by doctor holiday in generator rex can be considered a referenced to it. Funny enough, MWI can't exist w/o infinite dimensions as well so it's should be high 1-B.
Click to expand...
Ben 10 doesn't run off mwi. Mwi would need infinite timelines to brach from a superposition, which never happens in Ben 10 or stated as such, and paradoxes statement is far to vague for mwi. And mwi doesn't need infinite dimensions to exist In the way your thinking. Your reffering to a hilberts space which doesn't qualify for high 1-B due to a few reasons.
 
Honestly, i don't find any reasons to disagree with this, the statement is pretty straight forward in my view. And even if you argue that there is no evidences for the dimensions to be significant in size, i can simply argue backward that there is no evidences that they aren't significant, we all argued in a grey deadlock area, which still give room for a possibly/likely rating

Also, if we look at the statement, the character say 26 that is matter with before that she say....eh......human?? can only perceive 3 and Ben asked about it, which pretty much she?? (I don't know the name lol) said the following line, which pretty much implied the significant nature of these dimensions, so i don't see the reason to not at lesst give possibly/likely rating
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
Nah. We currently have 3 staff agrees, one of which is for a possibly rating, and 3 disagrees. Someone correct me on this, but do we need one more full agree, or two more full agrees for a solid rating? Either way, I'd rather aim for the whole thing rather than possibly at this point.
Click to expand...
Eh.....staff is also varies between thread moderator and admin, so eh....what is actually vote tally. But obviously more staff votes is needed. And yeah i agree with solid rating, but i also mean that with the current evidences at hand, these is no reason to at least not give possibly/likely rating even if you try to.......interpreting the statement in a very different way
 
 
Last edited:
PrinceofPein said:
Did Qawswdf agree?
Click to expand...
Already.
Reiner04 said:
Were assumed to be insignificant size.

Considering the constant backnforth over validity of 26 spatiotemporal dimensions, would it be plausible to go with solid rating for Low 1-C multiverse even if rest of dimensions are having possibly rating? considering we by default takes them being insignificant 5D unless evidence. Now that we know all directions extends to infinity, they're significant and that they already were almost empty despite containing infinite universes.
Click to expand...
Here I asked him if he is fine with full rating upto 5D tho, he has not answered on it.
 
I see, you should wait for him to clarify since it seems like what he supports is a "possibly" rating, where he then went ahead and mention it 'iffiness'
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
It was mainly agreeing with Everything12's take.
Click to expand...

I see,

What do you think of a likely/possibly rating since the Naljians are basically saying they can see more than length breadth and height/depth. And even if seeing more than 3 dimensions isn't enough, we know that each dimensions are spatial and infinite sized to contain the omniversal force.

Wanting further elaboration than what has been provided doesn't have to mean a full disagreement right? It can be a full disagreement if you think they are wrong but could you conclusively prove that they are wrong too? A possibly/likely would be a fair stance.
 
Greenshifter said:
The Naljians state that reality is composed of at least 26 (maybe 27) spatio-temporal dimensions which should scale them (sike, they’re fodder) the Omniversal Force to hyperversal.
"But then you are remarkably unintelligent."

"I've been hearing that all day."

"I did not mean to offend. It's just that you are such a young species. You only perceive three dimensions. Is that right?"

"Yeah. How many are there?"

"Only 26 that matter. You'll work it out soon, I'm sure."

"We were on an afternoon excursion to the lower dimensions, and she must have dropped it out of her carriage."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Isnt we take the most make sense and close and minimal interpretation for evaluate something???

I just think "26" is refer to how much dimension they have, because the context behind that is they're talking about dimension

Saying "we dont exactly know or understand what the number 26 is for" is like ignoring the context behind that, and take a far and far and far interpretation
 
Antvasima said:
@Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Ovy7 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

Also, if somebody knowledgeable is willing to explain the arguments for and against here in an easily understood manner, in order to help them out, that would be very appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
ProfectusInfinity said:

Argument(s) in favor​


Arguments against the 26 dimensions being spatial dimensions​




Arguments against the 26 dimensions being tierable​


My thoughts on the counters​

I don't know if it's frowned upon to make summary posts non-neutral and respond to arguments from either side, but I'll just give my opinion on the opposition anyway.

RE: Arguments against the 26 dimensions being spatial dimensions​

In general, I believe the arguments against the 26 dimensions being spatial are unreliable and depend on contextomy, as someone else put it.

"26 dimensions" is a very explicit reference to bosonic string theory. It's surely not referring to universes considering the 2-A minimum cosmology, the fact that there's no precedent for 26 universes in Ben 10, and the matter of how string theory is literally the primary and only other context in which the concept of "26 dimensions" could be introduced in a vacuum. It's like the notion of space-time. Even without statements like "Einsteinian space-time" or "Minkowski space-time," we know the context under which "space-time" is mentioned pertains to a model of space as it's interlinked with a dimension of time. This is all in all, very straightforward inductive reasoning. The 26 dimensions are referencing string theory, they're introduced under the context of 3 dimensional space, literally what more do we need to prove that the dimensions in question are axial/directional dimensions?

There's also the argument that "we don't know anything about their perception across these 26 dimensions," but I don't see how that's relevant when the purpose of this thread isn't to revise the Naljians and their higher dimensional existence.

There's also the argument that "you can't be saying 26 dimensions being juxtaposed with 3 dimensions means all 26 dimensions are tierable for an upgrade," but that's utterly misconstruing our side. At no point did the OP or supporters state that the first scene alone was the basis for 26 significantly large dimensions (we acknowledge multiple times that it's untierable on its own), hence the whole reason this CRT was created in spite of the discussion rule is due to the new statements in scene 2.

Lastly, there is the argument that "just because they mentioned 3 spatial dimensions, and elaborated that there are 26 dimensions in total, doesn't mean all 26 dimensions are spatial," and I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. This isn't even a hasty generalization on our part, assuming that all 26 dimensions are spatial in the same sense the first 3 are is very straightforward reasoning. So what... if we see a statement from now on saying "In one universe, you could've died, in another, you could've survived, and there are infinite variations of this," the cosmology wouldn't be 2-A for some reason? In a case like this, I could assume that not all the "variations" are universal space-times, and others might be 3-D universal spaces or something? I... look, I don't even know.

RE: Arguments against the 26 dimensions being tierable​

So our argument is that the omniversal force extends infinitely in every direction of the cosmology, giving the omniversal force 1-B scaling for being infinitely large in 26 dimensions. Then by proxy, the 26 dimensions would significantly large. The counter is that this is a sort of backwards reasoning and we should establish that the 26 dimensions are tierable, which would lead to the omniversal force having 26 tierable dimensions, and not the other way around. The response is that the omniversal force can just be 1-B while the cosmology remains insignificantly 26-D, but the counter is that the size of the omniversal force is dependent on the size of the cosmology, and you can't separate the two.

I can absolutely see the logic behind these counters from Lephyr, but I must respectfully disagree. Firstly, I think I should organize this conversation better.
  • The omniversal force encompasses the whole cosmology, extending infinitely through every direction of it in every reality, which means the 26 dimensions are infinitely large in each axis by proxy.
  • The statement from scene 2 pertained only to the omniversal force, not the 26 dimensions of vague nature, so attributing the former to the latter is iffy. That's backwards reasoning. It's better to establish that the 26 dimensions are significantly large first, then grant qualitative superiority to the omniversal force.
  • In that case, we can say that that just the omniversal force is significantly 26-D while the cosmology remains insignificantly 26-D.
  • You can't have your cake and eat it too, the size of the omniversal force is dependent on the size of the cosmology, and there's no logical way to argue that 26 axes are insignificant while having something extend infinitely through them. Either they're both significantly 26-D, or neither of them are.
In discussions like this, it's necessary to grasp the fundamental point of disagreement, and I must say that I disagree with the notion that it's backwards reasoning to conclude that if the omniversal force is infinite under every axis of the cosmology, then the 26 dimensions must logically have an infinite extent. One of the foundations behind this disagreement is the notion that we can't tie the 26-D statement into anything else because it's a one-off, but that comes off like an appeal to apprehension. If it's a primary canon statement, I see no reason to dismiss it. Is there any evidence of this statement being retconned (e.g. an anti-feat statement like "the omniverse is 11-dimensional)?

Returning to the main point, I don't see why we must establish first that the 26 dimensions are significant before scaling the omniversal force to it, and we can't make inferences to their size. A dimensional space is distinguished by the properties needed to determine how an object is displaced in a given space. It's not a jump in logic to conclude that if an object is displaced infinitely far in x direction, then x direction is infinitely large. Even Planck and DT were discussing the other day how something extending infinitely through a certain axis is grounds for tier 1. As you can see in point two, the contention arises under the belief that there's something preventing us from using the size of the omniversal force to gauge that size of the rest of the cosmology, and it's not explained what that something is beyond "they're two different statements."

Those should be all the counterarguments, and the best responses I could provide against them.
Click to expand...
Here profectus has put everything just exactly right. The point of debate has mostly been if dimensions mentioned by naljians were spatiotemporal or not and division of votes on that is basically as far as what one think true hold is. For most, it's straightforward since they mentioned it in relation to "3D perceived by humans", and for rest, it can be doubted.
 
Antvasima said:
@Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Ovy7 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

Also, if somebody knowledgeable is willing to explain the arguments for and against here in an easily understood manner, in order to help them out, that would be very appreciated. 🙏
Click to expand...
I think few more other staffs should be contacted (as some thread mods), since I've already asked the following staff members but they don't seems to be interested and we have been yet waiting.
 
Bump.
images_14_11.jpeg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Greenshifter
  • Locked
Ben 10 Hyperversal Scaling Thread
5 6 7
Replies
257
Views
25K
Spilxson2
RigelBR7
  • Locked
Ben 10 Cosmology donwgrade to 6D/7D
2 3
Replies
111
Views
7K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
Reiner04
  • Locked
Ben 10 hyperversal cosmology upgrade.
Replies
20
Views
3K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Krazydog050
  • Locked
Alien X is High Hyperversal!
2
Replies
54
Views
10K
TheShape03
TheShape03
REX9097
Ben 10 Cosmology simple Upgrade
2 3
Replies
83
Views
5K
Celestial_Scaler25
Celestial_Scaler25
Back
Top