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.
