Got permission to post here from ByAsura.
All right so... at first I had strongly disagreed with the downgrade, but after hearing all the arguments, my stance would have to be neutral, leaning on agreeing.
From what I see of Ben 10's cosmology, the space beyond holds an InfinityXInfinity sized multiverse. A space that holds timelines has to be 5-D by nature, because similarly dimensioned objects can only exist in parallel when displaced across a higher dimensional plane, the same way lines need an X/Y coordinate plane to exhibit parallelism. The problem is, such a space requires a certain degree of significance to warrant Low 1-C. A multiverse being infinite is not evidence enough, as it only confirms that the 4th axis is infinite.
By this logic, all infinite multiverses would be Low 1-C for hosting infinite 5-dimensional spaces.
The problem here is that the MCU multiverse has uncountably infinite timelines, hence why the culmination of 5th dimensional spaces between them would warrant Low 1-C. Ben 10 has an InfinityXInfinity sized multiverse on the other hand, which is still countably infinite.
I'm not aware of any existing precedent regarding this sort of application of the Qualitative Superiority standards, especially for spaces containing an infinite number of 2-A structures.
I found the CRT for the Kingdom Hearts verse, and we have the following senior staff statement agreeing for Low 1-C space outside a single 2-A structure.
The same goes for Chronoverse:
The problem here is that from my understanding, both Kingdom Hearts and Chronoverse have statements for the space between timelines being infinite in size, which is drastically different from containing an infinite multiverse as it confirms that the 5th dimension itself is filled with no gaps or missing points, and therefore a significant higher axis. I don't think Ben 10's Space Beyond has any statements for being infinite in size? Nothing about the mutliverse being infinite or infinitely beyond infinite, just
the space itself being infinite.
In summary, in order for a space between timelines to qualify for Low 1-C, either the multiverse should be uncountably infinite, or the space itself should have statements for being infinite. Ben 10's multiverse is InfinityXInfinity, which is countably infinite, and the Space Beyond has no direct statements for being infinite in size, so it can't fulfill that requirement either.
However, there's one thing that still bothers me.
Ultima reality in my January thread after bothering him for more than weeks:
"Anyway, this particularly bothersome thing left aside: I'll say I'm neutral with regards to whether or not "the space beyond" is Low 1-C. As I've expressed to some of the thread's participants off-site, I think this largely depends on whether we consider inherently finite visual representations (In this case, a universe being mistaken for a star when seen from the space beyond it) to mean anything when it comes to infinitely large objects and spaces.
Although I will say that being finitely, or more generally, countably, larger than a 2-A space is not a thing, no, unless the verse makes clear that such a thing is possible, in which case we're obviously forced to roll with it. As a default, though, we don't do that."
And I don't need to mention he replied it to everything 12 who was repeatedly saying that "uncountable infinite difference is needed to be mentioned " contrary to what I was saying that being bigger inherently means uncountable infinite difference as countably larger than 2-A doesn't exist unless stated (fiction can be illogical).
Here's DT's statement as well saying one needs a explicit statement for smth that breaks the rules, same as what ultima said about being bigger than 2-A:
One special characteristic of the Space Beyond is how it views the multiverses as finite 3-dimensional objects visually, and both Ultima and DDT agree that "above baseline 2-A" doesn't exist. However, between their comments here and cited elsewhere throughout the thread on whether or not being "infinitely larger" counts as a higher infinity, the consensus doesn't seem all that clear. Nevertheless, it more or less looks like "seeing something infinite as 3-D and small" doesn't suffice by site standards, as you'd have to view something infinite as infinitesimal or volumetrically "zero" to qualify for a higher infinity.
Nobody's mentioned the time stream, so I'll start up a conversation on that.
First off, I agree with OP that viewing everything as 2-D doesn't mean the time stream is a higher infinity. That's not only for the reasons mentioned right above, but also for this excerpt from the tiering system FAQ:
Furthermore, higher-dimensional entities can also qualify for higher tiers when the verse which they are from explicitly defines them as being infinitely above lower-dimensional ones in power and/or existential status. An example of this being verses such as
Umineko no Naku Koro ni. However,
lower-dimensional beings being stated to be "flat" in comparision to higher-dimensional aliens is not necessarily grounds for assuming the latter has infinitely more power (For reasons outlined in the answer above), and thus, such scenarios must also be analyzed case-by-case.
Also, DontTalkDT explained this before, but
an overarching timeline isn't inherently Low 1-C. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce a new time dimension, and a single time axis can service a multiverse, the space between timelines, and practically everything. This is because time is a non-physical independent parameter that is not confined to a 4th dimension, but can apply to any dimensioned space. The only way you can prove that an overarching timeline demontrates a cosmology with two temporal dimensions is if you can prove that the lesser timelines have their own time dimensions distinct from the rest of the multiverse as well as the space between timelines. The easiest way to show this is via direct statements for any of the universes or multiverses having a time axis, which means the overarching timeline would
have to introduce an additional time dimension.
Anyway, just to clarify, I remain neutral, but I lean on agreeing with the downgrades. Can any supporters or dissidents give thoughts on my reasoning?
