• 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.
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
If there isn't anything that truly supports these directions/dimensions from being properly tierable (thus, upgrading the base cosmology, as they certainly would be a part of unless there's even more omitted scans here)
Click to expand...
That depends on what you mean by cosmology
 
Greenshifter said:
I mean you can try, I only care about the OF in this thread.
Click to expand...
Okay bro. It was nice knowing u. U will be missed. ☺
vsbattles.com

Ben 10 hyperversal cosmology upgrade.

Credits totally goes to @Greenshifter 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. It extends infinitely in every direction, through every reality, so all...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
LephyrTheRevanchist said:
Edit: I phrased this very weirdly, my apologies. I'm arguing for a "possible 26-D" cosmology, yeah, with the Omniversal Force itself being 26+1-D
Click to expand...
If you yourself accept things like a construct transcending the cosmology, then I don’t really see any disagreement between our stances?
 
My wife just stole my thread, if things become too confusing while I sleep (with the 2 threads), I give permission to temporarily close this thread.
 
Since I apparently need to make like 5 consecutive CRT’s to unfuck Reiner’s cosmology before I can argue what I want to argue. Basically all the weird stuff I said from the previous page doesn’t apply anymore, how fun. I won’t have a lot of time either the coming period (the revision was only supposed to be about the OF which I thought I could manage). I’ll see how the argument continues before I decide whether this thread should be closed as well or not.
 
Last edited:
Swordsaint456 said:
just because there's no contradicting evidence doesn't mean it's true tbf. and we are basically saying it doesnt have enough context, if you want a solid argument we can just argue segans standard due to this lack of evidence. not to mention the statement of the omniverse stretching in all dimensions is skeptical (as qwasfed said) so this is mostly an argument that has been repeated numerous times and rejected numerous times, and goes against the rules
Click to expand...
As I said, you would have to substantiate why the statement isn’t true in this context since it’s not being contradicted, and the context was pretty much already set in stone as other people have said.

Idk why this needed seven pages
 
I legit don't feel like reading 7 pages of this back and forth contest, so could someone just summarize me the arguments for and against 1-B Ben 10?
 
One question, if the OF simply extending infinitely across all directions doesn't automatically mean the spatial dimensions themselves are infinite, isn't this back to square one in proving that the 26 dimensions are significantly sized?
 
MrLuk2000 said:
That doesn't really answer my question
Click to expand...

Argument(s) in favor​

  • 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.
Click to expand...

Arguments against the 26 dimensions being spatial dimensions​

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Arguments against the 26 dimensions being tierable​

While the Omniversal force itself may extend unendingly, attributing that to the directions themselves seems a bit iffy for me. The second clip is explicitly for the size of the Omniversal Force, not these 26 directions which aren't elaborated on at all.
The quote says the Omniversal Force goes through every reality, every dimension and keeps on going unendingly. You are trying to establish now that these directions "have" to be unending too, because the OF is.

"These dimensions are infinite, because the OF which goes beyond and through them is infinite."

That doesn't work here. If you posit that the OF could be 26-D even if these dimensions actually don't have the proper size for the purposes of our tiering system, I completely disagree with such notion. The OF's tier is completely dependent of the size of the cosmology for this to work. So nah, establish the cosmology proper here and deal with scaling elsewhere. There's no alternative here. If the cosmology isn't 26-D, then the OF isn't either. That's what I'm getting at. The only reason the OF would be 1-B is because it also goes through and beyond the 26 directions. If there isn't anything that truly supports these directions/dimensions from being properly tierable (thus, upgrading the base cosmology, as they certainly would be a part of unless there's even more omitted scans here), then the OF wouldn't get the upgrade either for me.
Click to expand...

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.
Contextomy.jpg
Click to expand...
"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, but it's not actually 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.
 
Last edited:
ProfectusInfinity said:
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
Click to expand...
I would also like to point out that my current counterargument to Lephyr stops here, the stuff I said after that doesn't matter anymore as it got settled in the other CRT.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
What were the original arguments for not upgrading using just the 26 dimensional statement?
Click to expand...
Were assumed to be insignificant size.
Qawsedf234 said:
But idk I guess I might just be obstinate. Possibly probably works but a straight upgrade just doesn't have much for it in my view. Especially when it's inevitable going to be used for a bunch of upgrades.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jaakor48 said:
One question, if the OF simply extending infinitely across all directions doesn't automatically mean the spatial dimensions themselves are infinite, isn't this back to square one in proving that the 26 dimensions are significantly sized?
Click to expand...

Yes, the OF proves all the spatial dimensions are infinite.


26-D don't need to be proven to be significantly sized if they are in reference to 3-D perception and especially if Omniversal Force stretches infinitely in every direction through every reality which all includes the 26 dimensions. If the directions were not infinite in size to accommodate the Omniversal Force, the 3-D + 26-D will not be able to contain it, hence contradicting the statement about Omniversal Force.

So put my name down for agree cuz i wanna be with the cool kids
 
Shadowbeast said:
I think the main argument was because those dimensions didn't had a significant size.
Click to expand...
Reiner04 said:
Were assumed to be insignificant size.
Click to expand...
Lord_Farquaad69420 said:
Use of unreliable wog or no evidence for qualitative superiority
Click to expand...

So does the new evidence satisfy this by proving they are of significant size.

It sounds like in the previous attempts, these 26 dimensions were understood to be spatial in nature. Can anyone pull up statements from previous staff members showing this?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
So does the new evidence satisfy this by proving they are of significant size.
Click to expand...
Welp, omniversal force continues forever in every direction/omni-directional through every reality does proves it to be of significant size. Also that for naljians lower dimensions were nothing but a place of picnic does speaks more to that sense as well either way.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
It sounds like in the previous attempts, these 26 dimensions were understood to be spatial in nature. Can anyone pull up statements from previous staff members showing this?
Click to expand...
Discussion on these dimensions are all over the place in past to get any specific but any read of previous discussions makes it clear that they were treated as spatial but just not of significant size.
 
If the omniversal force continues forever in every direction, then all directions must be infinite/nigh-infinite for it to do so.

Also the arguments on why these dimensions are not spatial dimensions lack good substance. Generally speaking, in English-speaking fiction, dimensions are used in mostly two ways: other spaces/pocket universe OR dimensional axes. Considering the 26 dimensions were being compared to Ben's 3 dimensions, then we know that it is not other spaces/pocket universes. Plus, we know for a fact, that when people mention 3 dimensions of our world we mean axes.

No one has given an argument as to what exactly these dimensions are if they are not axes or other spaces. The argument of "it can be anything" doesn't sit well with me, because anything can be anything.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if this has been covered before in this thread, but doesn't Ben 10 work with string theory? Like, due to the fact that Nalijian mentions the exact number of dimensions of the Bosonic String Theory he could be making a reference for it
 
Accelerated_Evolution said:
I don't know if this has been covered before in this thread, but doesn't Ben 10 work with string theory? Like, due to the fact that Nalijian mentions the exact number of dimensions of the Bosonic String Theory he could be making a reference for it
Click to expand...
Well, the fact that naljians are way bigger than dimensions of string theory makes it pretty clear that it's not a reference. Naljians are bigger than plancks length after all. Also that any higher dimension has been represented as in relation to 3D and along same kind of dimensions, so they gotta be of same size, string theory and quantum mechanics both uses different types of dimensions and both exist in Ben 10 but ig it's far stretched to hold any theory completely true or beyond it has been elaborated upon in said fiction, that said, it was never elaborated that those 26D has any relation to string theory and contradictory to that as well.
 
Accelerated_Evolution said:
I don't know if this has been covered before in this thread, but doesn't Ben 10 work with string theory? Like, due to the fact that Nalijian mentions the exact number of dimensions of the Bosonic String Theory he could be making a reference for it
Click to expand...
They came down from a higher dimension, and paradox was likely using string theory + mwi as examples of alternate universe theory's, not confirming that it works on both

edit: Also iirc wog confirmed paradox was referring to m-theory
 
Reiner04 said:
Well, the fact that naljians are way bigger than dimensions of string theory makes it pretty clear that it's not a reference. Naljians are bigger than plancks length after all. Also that any higher dimension has been represented as in relation to 3D and along same kind of dimensions, so they gotta be of same size, string theory and quantum mechanics both uses different types of dimensions and both exist in Ben 10 but ig it's far stretched to hold any theory completely true or beyond it has been elaborated upon in said fiction, that said, it was never elaborated that those 26D has any relation to string theory and contradictory to that as well.
Click to expand...
Lord_Farquaad69420 said:
They came down from a higher dimension, and paradox was likely using string theory + mwi as examples of alternate universe theory's, not confirming that it works on both

edit: Also iirc wog confirmed paradox was referring to m-theory
Click to expand...
Ok then
 
correct me if im wrong but aren’t the extra dimensions in bosonic string theory compactified anyway
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Hellformer
  • Locked
Ben 10: 26-D Discussion rule
Replies
17
Views
2K
henryzx900ruly
henryzx900ruly
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
12K
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
Back
Top