Ben 10 - Re-evaluation of the Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

[Tanin_iver]

I will prepare a proper response in a few hours to Tanin, but this is not what he is trying to say.

The fact that each universe contains infinite timelines means that there is a 5th axis in "unknown size" separating them. And since there are infinitely many of these universes, this means there are infinitely many 2-A structures, so infinitely many 5D spaces, and since Timestream contains them and is said to be infinite, he says that the Timestream is a infinite 5D structure, hence L1-C.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. You have grasped a bit of what I meant.
Also, just a correction, I am not saying infinitely many 5D spaces at all, there is only one continuous 5D space in which these infinite 2-A structures are embedded and it is space beyond, but we don't know its size, but we know that the Timestream is infinite and from what I could gather it should encompass the 5D space beyond too, so it should atleast be infinite in all 5 dimensional axes, not just 4, like the universes.

 

[Georredannea15]

I will prepare a proper response in a few hours to Tanin, but this is not what he is trying to say.

The fact that each universe contains infinite timelines means that there is a 5th axis in "unknown size" separating them. And since there are infinitely many of these universes, this means there are infinitely many 2-A structures, so infinitely many 5D spaces, and since Timestream contains them and is said to be infinite, he says that the Timestream is a infinite 5D structure, hence L1-C.

But I don't think it's that simple.

He thought wrong then, no. An infinite number of 2-A multiverses all exist in the same vertical 5th axis in 0 volume, there are no different 5th axis for each, and there is no such thing as infinite number of 5th axis.

Even the infinite number of universes extend only along a single 4th axis; there is no separate axis for each universe. The situation is the same. The only difference is that there is no evidence that the 5th axis is infinite or significantly large.

 

[Georredannea15]

Thank you very much for pointing this out. You have grasped a bit of what I meant.
Also, just a correction, I am not saying infinitely many 5D spaces at all, there is only one continuous 5D space in which these infinite 2-A structures are embedded and it is space beyond, but we don't know its size, but we know that the Timestream is infinite and from what I could gather it should encompass the 5D space beyond too, so it should atleast be infinite in all 5 dimensional axes, not just 4 like the universes.

Hmmmm... so you're saying that since the Timestream covers this trivial 5th axis and is infinite, it must have infinite 5th axis. But the infinite portion of space it covers is only 4-D, so the region where it is infinite must also be 4-D. Its status on the 5th axis will still be unknown.

But it's a good thought

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

The most I see with the new standards is a possibly Low 1-C justification. Otherwise I think it's just higher into 2-A.

Can you clarify whether or not you agree with possibly Low 1-C? And is this rating for the Realm of the Space Beyond or the Realm of the Timestream (Realm that contains the Space Beyond)?

 

[Fixxed]

A statement that does not exist cannot be false or vague

There is no statement here where we can make an idea that "what if this place can never be filled with these 2-A structures".

You are just trying to put your own interpretation on something that doesn't exist and give it a possibly rating.

Like, I can say that "what if this structure is infinite (spatial) dimensional?" to any structure I want without any statement and get "Possibly H1-B" rating with your logic. Because in both cases there is "NO" proof.

Edit: I will reply to Tanin when I can, probably tonight

The one that not exist is just statement that "cant be filled or cannot" not it entirely not exist at all. But it have other vague proof that in the visual it seems the infinite 2A structures not filled the bigger structures, there are some empty space that are not be filled

I dont even thing your example is relevant to this, when this is vague but still have proof, and your example is vague and not have proof at all

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Bump

 

[ShionAH]

Good cook.

Agree FRA on 2-A

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I have yet to see any valid justification for Low 1-C, so I'm currently in favor of 2-A.

 

[Brogeefrong]

Bump

 

[Benimōru]

Sorry for the late update, but I haven't had much free time atm so I haven't been able to get back to this. I'll reply in a day or two

 

[Benimōru]

And before I go, you two still haven't specified why "possibly" rating would work.

Snip

Snip

What you claim is just an interpretation based on an image. You need some support to even prove that your interpretation is possible. That's why we call it "possibly" rating.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Sorry for the late update, but I haven't had much free time atm so I haven't been able to get back to this. I'll reply in a day or two

Do u have any particular counter response to my comment, I am just curious. I may have missed something out so, criticism would be good.

 

[Benimōru]

Do u have any particular counter response to my comment, I am just curious.

Yes, I have. I think you missed a couple of things I wanted to point out (or something like that, I guess). I will address that in my response later

 

[Fixxed]

.

.

.

Bump... i think the staff agree with possibly low 1C

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Bump... i think the staff agree with possibly low 1C

I'm not 100% sure if Ant and Qawsedf agree, but if they do, then the current vote for possibly Low 1-C is 3-1.

 

[Georredannea15]

At least an statement is required for it to be 'possibly'; it cannot even be 'possibly' scale without any reference.

 

[Fixxed]

I'm not 100% sure if Ant and Qawsedf agree, but if they do, then the current vote for possibly Low 1-C is 3-1.

Qaw literally say possibly low 1C, and ant??? I think he just wait for fire and qaw and he will agree with that

At least an statement is required for it to be 'possibly'; it cannot even be 'possibly' scale without any reference.

Because this not have statement and we give this possibly rating, this just vague

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Okay. That is probably fine, but what are both of your reasons for it, in summary?

Also, what do other staff members here think, if there are any?

Well, I recurrently use the phrasing "I think that what is suggested makes sense", or a variant thereof, which means the same thing as saying "I agree". I hope that our staff will not be required to always make the same standardised robotic responses.

At the very least, it looks like Ant and Firestorm agree with possibly Low 1-C, but we might need Qawsedf to clarify his stance.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I would at least like for them to clarify why they support possibly Low 1-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

I would at least like for them to clarify why they support possibly Low 1-C.

I'm pretty sure Qawsedf said it was 2-A. Firestorm was only agreed with Low 1-C.

I don't understand why Low 1-C is still being tried even though we rejected that this is already Low 1-C in the thread about tier 1 standards.

 

[Fixxed]

At the very least, it looks like Ant and Firestorm agree with possibly Low 1-C, but we might need Qawsedf to clarify his stance.

And both of these statements are just 2A. Infinite timelines in an infinite timestream is just a 2-A structure.


I can see the Space Beyond being possibly Low 1-C then.

 

[Georredannea15]

Because this not have statement and we give this possibly rating, this just vague

possibly rating= There is an explanation here but it is not completely sufficient and not safe.

There is only stardust statements and such statements do not provide tier 1, this has already been said and it is still tier 2. (and the funny thing is that the statement stardust does not even have any state of existence; even if the statement reference to existence, still not enough alone, and is not a reference to existence anyway)


A "possibly" rating without any reference is meaningless.

 

[Georredannea15]

The most I see with the new standards is a possibly Low 1-C justification. Otherwise I think it's just higher into 2-A.

 

[Fixxed]

possibly rating= There is an explanation here but it is not completely sufficient and not safe.

There is only stardust statements and such statements do not provide tier 1, this has already been said and it is still tier 2. (and the funny thing is that the statement stardust does not even have any state of existence; even if the statement reference to existence, still not enough alone, and is not a reference to existence anyway)


A "possibly" rating without any reference is meaningless.

You think it not have explanation??? I literally say it just vague not completely not have any proof

 

[Georredannea15]

You think it not have explanation??? I literally say it just vague not completely not have any proof

Well, it was already the explanation that we wanted for 4 pages, and where is it so far?


Anyway, there will be no going back and forth like that, just wait.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I'm in favor of 2-A for both. I don’t see the evidence fulfilling the Low 1-C standards.

 

[Qawsedf234]

You have said that it is not known whether these 2-As will fill this space or not, so it should be "possibly", but you have not provide any statement that refer to or imply that it cannot be filled.

If the image of the various different multiverses in the void isn't enough, then there's nothing for a Low 1-C rating without assuming things that the work doesn't specify.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

If the image of the various different multiverses in the void isn't enough

I don't believe it is.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Maverick_Zero_X

@Qawsedf234

To reiterate my the previous point about the larger Realm B.

• We have an infinite-sized Realm A (Space Beyond) that contains infinite multiverses and the insignificant 5-D space between them.
• Realm A exists as a significantly smaller tube within an even larger Realm B.

Per @Ultima_Reality and @Elizhaa: "If the 2-Digit layer was infinitely large (From its own point of view) and yet was contained inside of a finite box to 1-Digits, then that's certainly be a slam dunk on the matter of proving qualitative transcendence is at play here." "the cosmology contained in the box is infinitely large (the infinite multiverses, and etc), so they would qualify for Low 1-C on that merit alone at least."
Ultima and Elizaa agree that just being a smaller size is enough for superiority to take place.

Per @Qawsedf234: "If there's an infinite number of 2-A spaces contained within a fraction of a [larger] space, that would require a 5-D space to contain them."

Qaws later amends his statement: "It'd not just a small space, it has to be infinitesimal (or the space has to be called infinite in comparison)."

From a practical application, the assertion for Realm B needing to be infinite in comparison to Realm A would only conclude with Realm B being both superior and infinite-sized. Being superior isn't mutually exclusive to being infinite in size.

Only accepting superior spaces if they are infinite ignores the existence of finite superior spaces. IE: an infinite 6D space can exist inside a finite 7D space.

Where do we draw the line for determining finite and infinite-sized superior spaces?

 

[Georredannea15]

@Maverick_Zero_X

@Qawsedf234

To reiterate my the previous point about the larger Realm B.

• We have an infinite-sized Realm A (Space Beyond) that contains infinite multiverses and the insignificant 5-D space between them.
• Realm A exists as a significantly smaller tube within an even larger Realm B.

Per @Ultima_Reality and @Elizhaa: "If the 2-Digit layer was infinitely large (From its own point of view) and yet was contained inside of a finite box to 1-Digits, then that's certainly be a slam dunk on the matter of proving qualitative transcendence is at play here."
Ultima and Elizaa agree that just being a smaller size is enough.

From what I see, the situation Ultima is talking about here has a different context than the one found here, basically here contexts talks about story and other stuff. And yeah, this post is old, standards have changed.

I felt the need to write

 

[Firestorm808]

From what I see, the situation Ultima is talking about here has a different context than the one found here, basically here contexts talks about story and other stuff. And yeah, this post is old, standards have changed.

I felt the need to write

Ultima talks about the the size difference between two different spaces/realms. Standards for this has not changed, AFAIK.

The recent revision is in regard to Timelines and the space around/between them.

 

[Georredannea15]

Ultima talks about the the size difference between two different spaces/realms. Standards for this has not changed, AFAIK.

The recent revision is in regard to Timelines and the space around/between them.

The mention of "tales" is excessively vague and doesn't on its own suggest any kind of transcendence. You'd need evidence that this descriptor is to be taken 100% literally for it fly as such. As for the other bits: Containing the whole layer in which 2-Digits exist inside a box (Provided that's literal) is fairly promising insofar as evidence goes.

As you can see, it basically doesn't just do it with this size comparison statement(size different between two scapes), it just uses this as support and it works here, but now, the case is different.

Also yes, the standards on this topic have changed with the last thread. Even Ultima expressed here that he doubts that such things will work anymore since standards have changed, that's why he didn't support it.

 

[Firestorm808]

As you can see, it basically doesn't just do it with this size comparison statement(size different between two scapes), it just uses this as support and it works here, but now, the case is different.

Also yes, the standards on this topic have changed with the last thread. Even Ultima expressed here that he doubts that such things will work anymore since standards have changed, that's why he didn't support it.

Per Ultima in the same post: "the cosmology contained in the box is infinitely large (the infinite multiverses, and etc), so they would qualify for Low 1-C on that merit alone at least."

The DMC discussion you are referring to is comparing a Low 2-C Timeline to the Demon World. It's not about comparing two different spaces.

 

[Georredannea15]

Per Ultima in the same post: "the cosmology contained in the box is infinitely large (the infinite multiverses, and etc), so they would qualify for Low 1-C on that merit alone at least."

This was already the tier 1 arguments that Ultima no longer supports because the standard has changed. He already stated that he was not sure because the standards had changed and did not support it, in the DMC thread he already stated this.

The DMC discussion you are referring to is comparing a Low 2-C Timeline to the Demon World around it. It's not about comparing two different spaces.

Not only that, also being infinitely larger than the Low 2-C structure and seeing it as a small piece. There was a size comparison statement between HW and DW, but it still was downgraded.
Edit : I will reply to the answers given tomorrow.

 

[Benimōru]

What I am talking about is the Timestream being an infinite sized 5D structure, not the 4D Universes, because it is supposed to encompass the Space Beyond which should logically be a continuous 5D space to keep the infinite number of infinite sized 4D Universes(which are themselves a 2-A structure) spatio-temporally separate. So the Timestream is encompassing all 5 dimensional axes not just 4 dimensions and that structure is stated to be infinite in size, so logically, it should apply for infinite extent in all 5 dimensions, just like how the Universes stated to be infinite applied to all 4 dimensions.
U can't avoid the Timestream being a 5D structure, and just exclude one dimension out of it and only consider it infinite in only 4D extent.

1. No one denies that Timestream is a 5D structure (at least I don't). I am just saying that the size of this 5th axis is not infinite

2. We both agree that Space Beyond has a fifth axis of unknown size. Therefore, we call it 2-A instead of L1-C. So, the 5th axis covered by Timestream is unknown. And if you think that keeping these 5D structures separate will enlarge the 5th axis, then that means you're wrong. Separating 5D structures (with unknown size) perfectly, just as those 5D structures separate 4D structures, only gives this structure a new axis of unknown size. This does NOT enlarge the 5th axis. So, if that's what you claim, Timestream will only have a 5th and 6th axis of unknown size and 4 axes of infinite size according to your logic.

Edit: I would like to point out that Timestream does not perfectly separate Space Beyond either. It just contains it. So, it only has a 5th axis of unknown size.

3. And as pointed out by DT, you cannot consider all the axes it contains as infinite since the structure is called infinite. As the structure containing a 2-A structure would already be infinite in size. So, that statement would only include those first 4 axes.

if the image of the various different multiverses in the void isn't enough

I am sure this will not be enough. It was stated by DT in the previous revision that such pictures would not qualify for L1-C in any way without additional evidence. And apart from that, even our interpretation based on a picture alone should not be enough for a "possibly" rating. Even for the "possibly" rating, we must have a statement that implies what we are claiming, even if it is vague.

+ I will touch on Firestorm's post later

 

[Tanin_iver]

3. And as pointed out by DT, you cannot consider all the axes it contains as infinite since the structure is called infinite. As the structure containing a 2-A structure would already be infinite in size. So, that statement would only include those first 4 axes.

The infinite statements for the first 4 axes is handled by this section as I have already explained.

• The universes are multiverses (something that is already accepted here, but I say it just in case).
• In these universes other dimensions branch out.
• It was declared that there are infinite dimensions.
• WoG also stated that the universe is infinite, here.
• And here Paradox says that the number of dimensions is ad-infinitum (Ad-Infinitum = to infinity, that is, the number of dimensions extends to infinity, some dictionaries also say that "Ad Infinitum" means without end/without limit).
• There are an infinite number of universes.

2. We both agree that Space Beyond has a fifth axis of unknown size. Therefore, we call it 2-A instead of L1-C. So, the 5th axis covered by Timestream is unknown. And if you think that keeping these 5D structures separate will enlarge the 5th axis, then that means you're wrong. Separating 5D structures (with unknown size) perfectly, just as those 5D structures separate 4D structures, only gives this structure a new axis of unknown size. This does NOT enlarge the 5th axis. So, if that's what you claim, Timestream will only have a 5th and 6th axis of unknown size and 4 axes of infinite size according to your logic.

Edit: I would like to point out that Timestream does not perfectly separate Space Beyond either. It just contains it. So, it only has a 5th axis of unknown size.

So the Timestream is encompassing all 5 dimensional axes not just 4 dimensions and that structure is stated to be infinite in size, so logically, it should apply for infinite extent in all 5 dimensions, just like how the Universes stated to be infinite applied to all 4 dimensions, for whose particular context I have explained in the section above.
U can't avoid the Timestream being a 5D structure, and just exclude one dimension out of it and only consider it infinite in only 4D extent when that part is already handled by the other statements, this statement is particularly talking about encompassing of all existence(5D, because of having Space Beyond), and infinite sized would mean infinite in all 5 axes. At this point its just needless pedantry that it will only talk about those 4 dimensions in every statement.

 

[Benimōru]

Tanin, what is the purpose of quoting again what I have already answered?

Just because something (the first 4 axes) has been proven to be infinite by other things, you cannot directly treat calling that structure infinite as if it includes all axes. Because what already contains 2-A will be infinite. And there will be nothing that this statement additionally proves.

+ DT specifically stated that it must be proved that the 5th axis is included in that statement.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Tanin, what is the purpose of quoting again what I have already answered?

Beacuse, you are straw-manning me.

Just because something (the first 4 axes) has been proven to be infinite by other things, you cannot directly treat calling that structure infinite as if it includes all axes.

I did not, I said that the Universe(which is specifically a 2-A structure) is called or alluded to being infinite numerous times so infinite in that case would only mean for the 2-A aspect (4D) and we both agree on that.

+ DT specifically stated that it must be proved that the 5th axis is included in that statement.

And I am talking about the Timestream, not just the 2-A Universe(collection of 4D universes), which has the 5th axis(cos it is a continuous 5D space not a collection 4D universes, this is the major difference) included which is called infinite in size. You are intentionally blending them both to be the same context when the other statements for infinite have been for the Universes and this statement in particular has been for the Timestream.

Your refutation is merely being pedantic that it will always only mean for the first 4 axes regardless of the differences between two different structures and what they represent.

So, from what I can see, this will go nowhere. Let's just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Benimōru]

Your refutation is merely being pedantic that it will always only mean for the first 4 axes regardless of the differences between two different structures and what they represent.

If that's what you infer from what I said, so be it.

Let's just agree to disagree at this point.

Fair

 

[Benimōru]

Bump
Ump
Mp
P