• 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 - Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
So if the visuals meet the requirements/definition of the word, but if the actual word isn't used, it doesn't apply?
That's the question of the thread and vsbattle standards, and that's why I am begging for DT to come and clarify it as in rules, it nothing suggests it otherwise, but yet people who disagree based “on this nonexistent standard.”
 
So if the visuals meet the requirements/definition of the word, but if the actual word isn't used, it doesn't apply?
In my previous thread, it was stated that if visuals are supported by statements represent such behaviour then it's valid.
 
DT said it depends on the context. If the universe is 3D and outside is also in the same dimension then we can say that entire space+universe is a universe as per our standards.
 
So I think it's fine to say universe is small? Or there is anything else that is left?
We can proceed from here on.
 
Screenshot_2023_0105_074659.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He accepts inherently that universe is small as I thought it was obvious. The only thing he talked about is scaling which is not in question here.
 
Where he said this?
If DT didn't answered any further will it be fine by you what he has already answered? Because literally no one is asking or questioning if Universe is small and just going over other stuff aside from size. It has been left pretty obv smh.
 
Last edited:
Opinion unchanged.
Exiting a universe into the space beyond being visualised as light in a large black space is not definitive evidence that the Universe is a microcosm or the the black space is infinite in comparison to the structures it contains (holding an infinite number of those structures is not the same as being infinitely larger than the structures; not every structure thatt contains a 2-A or 2-A × 2 number of universes is Low 1-C)
At the moment, we are using these sections of the FAQ.


Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?

"A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc."

Q: How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.


On the Black Space's level of existence, the 4-D spaces it contains have been reduced to dots.

On the Time Stream's level of existence, the Black Space's level of existence is infinitesimal in comparison.

Would it be agreeable that the Time Stream's level of existence is qualitatively superior to that of the 4-D Spaces?
 
While I could certainly see the argument for Low 1C from this, there's also the flip side where you could just argue that they're so far away from the multiverse, that it appears to be nothing more than a faint glow, especially from a place outside the multiverse. As well as that, I'm not entirely sure you can reach tier 1 without viewing stuff from tier 2 as infinitesimal, to which this would probably just remain at 2A.
Being far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.
 
Being far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.
Yeah, in retrospect, this makes sense. I'll agree for now
 
idg, it is like saying a star is ant-size, because it is faraway to me, same as saying the universe is ant-sized cause it is far away to them. or which part is the infinitesmal from again?
 
idg, it is like saying a star is ant-size, because it is faraway to me, same as saying the universe is ant-sized cause it is far away to them. or which part is the infinitesmal from again?
Being far away has nothing to do with it being smaller than space beyond. Stars in our universe are far away from us and thus looks small and they're in compared to universe we live in. Universe is not literally dot or ant here, it's all about if it is smaller to Dot or ant compared to space beyond which it is, regardless if it's far away or near won't change it's as big as universe but still smaller than space beyond. So I don't see how it changes anything.
 
Except you are using the way it looks to justify the infinitesimal part, and that's because it is far away.
Yes the universe is smaller than the space beyond, as it contains the universe but you have no proof it is small in a infinitesimal way.
Also you have not even shown the way these spaces behaves when compared to each other.
The universe space will not become higher D just because it contains the stars or 3-D ants also.
I see nothing here that proofs ontological other than Kevin pointing to a faraway universe and referring to it as a star, yes a 4-D construct can contain a smaller 4-D construct.
Mark me as disagree here
 
Except you are using the way it looks to justify the infinitesimal part, and that's because it is far away.
Yes the universe is smaller than the space beyond, as it contains the universe but you have no proof it is small in a infinitesimal way.
Also you have not even shown the way these spaces behaves when compared to each other.
The universe space will not become higher D just because it contains the stars or 3-D ants also.
I see nothing here that proofs ontological other than Kevin pointing to a faraway universe and referring to it as a star, yes a 4-D construct can contain a smaller 4-D construct.
Mark me as disagree here
Eh? Universe is 2A here actually and idg what you mean by all this, universe can never become ant because it is not, only thing matters if it is ant compared to space beyond. Stars are ant no microscopic no, insignificant compared to entire universe not that stars are literally ant. Space beyond dwarfs the entire 2A structure to ant size in comparison and thus qualifies if visuals are correct. And i asked ultima regarding this already he also said if visuals are correct then it qualifies.

Screenshot_2023_0104_133335.png

Screenshot_2023_0104_133403.png
 
So, from what I understand, a single Universe is a 2-A structure which are nothing more than stars in the Time Stream. Considering that there are an infinite amount of Universe, I suppose all of them are contained in the Time Stream, correct? Because if that's the case, this would already prove that a single Universe (2-A structure) is infinitesimally smaller than the Time Stream regardless of them being even star-size, considering that otherwise it wouldn't be able to contains an infinite amount of Universes. A star compared to an infinite dimension will still be infinitesimal compared to the totality of the infinite space.
I will admit that I am not that knowlogeable about Ben 10, but the proposal makes sense from a standard prospective so I agree.
 
So, from what I understand, a single Universe is a 2-A structure which are nothing more than stars in the Time Stream. Considering that there are an infinite amount of Universe, I suppose all of them are contained in the Time Stream, correct? Because if that's the case, this would already prove that a single Universe (2-A structure) is infinitesimally smaller than the Time Stream regardless of them being even star-size, considering that otherwise it wouldn't be able to contains an infinite amount of Universes. A star compared to an infinite dimension will still be infinitesimal compared to the totality of the infinite space.
I will admit that I am not that knowlogeable about Ben 10, but the proposal makes sense from a standard prospective so I agree.
Yes this explanation is accurate
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top