Ben 10 - Universe Size High 3-A Proposal (Accepted)

[Eficiente]

I do get from where Ayewale is coming from, I might have been rushed in agreeing in a yes solely when "possibly infinite" has more merit to it. More staff should see.

 

[Ayewale]

Can we not use flowery language as a “refute”? You can say that for every statement, making statements entirely pointless.

If we didn't have this rule the amount of verses that get bumped up to 3-A by default would be pretty high since now suddenly a lot of deserts and oceans are 'endless' or 'infinite'.

Also, just because it can be said about anything doesn't mean the statement is pointless...that is an odd thing to say. You can say any feat is an outlier, but that doesn't make the term outlier obsolete, does it? Not everything is an outlier and not everything is flowery language. 'He was a being as large as a planet' is not flowery language. 'To us, he may as well been a planet' is.

You have been changing your statements as this discussion goes on.
At first you were saying to disregard your statement if this comic is actually canon.
"Disregard this post if the novels are canon btw, I couldn't find anything online saying they were (didn't even know they existed until now, which is telling). "
Then you tend to be focused on argument that it is maybe flowery, proceeded to say that it is 100% fowery.
Anyway,
You are suggesting to prove that it's not flowery which is shouldn't be asked in the first place. rather a statement should be observed and matched with a Statement from the other settings to find if it's flowery or not.
This statement of infinite star system suggesting universe is infinite is as well supported by the statement of the novel Plumber helpers that nullvoid is endless, which is further supported by the episode Back with a vengeance which is further supported by the statement of WOG.
U suggesting that it's 100% flowery need proof, the burden is on you as the Statement is backed up and supported by other settings as well as outside of setting.

I've been changing my mind on things because I've been thinking about it more. Is that wrong?

My point is that assuming that is flowery is far more reasonable than assuming the opposite. The burden of proof is on you guys to suggest that it isn't.
Again, if someone said "an ocean is endless because it was described as such", seeing as most statements of that nature are metaphorical (something that no one has disagreed with), you should provide a reason why that is the exception. So far the only reason given for why it isn't flowery is "well it's not".

"What's the proof that it's flowery?" The fact that describing something vast as 'infinite' or 'endless' as a metaphor is extremely common, especially in fiction, especially for space.

The Back with a Vengeance quote is actually fair, though, since that's a very literal statement from a knowledgeable character. Back with a vengeance + the writer's statement is enough for me to say that the universe is infinite (and since the null void novelization supports back with a vengeance, that counts too). But my points still stand since there hasn't been anything suggesting that the almost-always-hyperbolic-description wasn't hyperbolic, beyond "well it wasn't".

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Context matters, space being infinite is far more plausible then ocean or desert.
It matters what is being called infinite. Something pertaining to astronomical context has no reason to be considered flowery unless proven otherwise. So the burden of proof is on you

 

[Reiner04]

My point is that assuming that is flowery is far more reasonable than assuming the opposite. The burden of proof is on you guys to suggest that it isn't.
Again, if someone said "an ocean is endless because it was described as such", seeing as most statements of that nature are metaphorical (something that no one has disagreed with), you should provide a reason why that is the exception. So far the only reason given for why it isn't flowery is "well it's not".

We know that describing ocean as endless is metaphorical because we know that ocean is limited and we do not consider infinite, endless or whatever stuff always as an metaphorical as it's also depends on the one making that statement that if he can really perceive infinite or have knowledge over universe or dimension to make it, if not then it is being considered that the statement may very well is hyperbole, metaphor, there are countless words in the dictionary used as metaphor, the way of writing can be used as metaphor.
But your only point to suggest it's metaphor is that it has used infinite ? I don't find it reasonable enough, and you are keep on asking to prove something negative, it can only be observed that if the setting has used metaphor or fact, considering how consistent it is with show, wog, novel I don't see any reason to call it metaphor.
Also universe can either be endless or limited, so the former is suggested consistently and hence it is.
And it's burden of proof fallacy considering firestorm has not suggested anything over just one statement but on contrary shown the consistency of it and proved that why it's reliable.
You on the other hand claimed it to be 100% flowery while you can already seen the how supported it is and give wierd example as ocean.

The fallacies you have committed .

1. Argument from self belief.
2. Appeal to tradition.
3. Proof by examples.
4. Burden of proof fallacy.
5. Genetic fallacy.

 

[Reiner04]

The Back with a Vengeance quote is actually fair, though, since that's a very literal statement from a knowledgeable character. Back with a vengeance + the writer's statement is enough for me to say that the universe is infinite (and since the null void novelization supports back with a vengeance, that counts too)

Then it's good.

 

[Eficiente]

We know that describing ocean as endless is metaphorical because we know that ocean is limited and we do not consider infinite, endless or whatever stuff always as an metaphorical as it's also depends on the one making that statement that if he can really perceive infinite or have knowledge over universe or dimension to make it, if not then it is being considered that the statement may very well is hyperbole, metaphor, there are countless words in the dictionary used as metaphor, the way of writing can be used as metaphor.
But your only point to suggest it's metaphor is that it has used infinite ? I don't find it reasonable enough, and you are keep on asking to prove something negative, it can only be observed that if the setting has used metaphor or fact, considering how consistent it is with show, wog, novel I don't see any reason to call it metaphor.
Also universe can either be endless or limited, so the former is suggested consistently and hence it is.
And it's burden of proof fallacy considering firestorm has not suggested anything over just one statement but on contrary shown the consistency of it and proved that why it's reliable.
You on the other hand claimed it to be 100% flowery while you can already seen the how supported it is and give wierd example as ocean.

The fallacies you have committed .

1. Argument from self belief.
2. Appeal to tradition.
3. Proof by examples.
4. Burden of proof fallacy.
5. Genetic fallacy.

Infinite is one of the most common hyperboles there is, to say that that's an appeal to tradition is not wrong, but it has far, far less credit to it than what you may think. It also doesn't need to be a metaphor, infinite can go as in something limited being ever increasing in its limits, hence being limitless in a way yet not infinite in the other take of the word.

 

[DemonicDude]

All the information that have been posted here was actually something years ago Duncan Rouleau Ben 10 creator already confirmed on his Twitter (and yes Twitter statements are not allowed but, Now with this storyboard evidence it fits perfectly)

 

[Reiner04]

infinite can go as in something limited being ever increasing its limits, hence being limitless in a way yet not infinite in the other take of the word.

I can see that your point is that it can may imply towards ever expanding space which in a way can be said to have no end as it's not fixed but dislocalised, also not limited as it's eternal expansion. But you yourself has suggested that infinite and ever expanding are not same but their synonymous are the only thing to connect them, not the literal words.
Synonyms are as well have basic diff btw each other.
Coming to the point, novel suggestion is not about the space itself but the quantity of the star system, nebulae and worlds which cannot be described by ever expanding space.
Also I'm not standing over just one statement but many other to make my point of the universe being infinite.
Inside the setting of show and novel as well as outside of show by WOG.
And yeah, appeal to tradition can be ignored. Also it's not discredit his argument, I just meant that he shouldn't use endless ocean, 100% flowery kinds of arguments.

 

[Reiner04]

Also, I do agree with your saying that infinite, omnipotent, invincible are the most common hyperboles there is but it doesn't mean we can call out all the statements which includes infinite to be hyperbole, we should give some reasons or basis to it that why it has to be a hyperbole like contradicting something or not making any sense, etc.
Calling universe being infinite is far more reasonable than calling forest, ocean, or sky being infinite, also the case of the universe is if there is not one than it has to be other way around fits best, given that it's supported by other settings.

 

[KingTempest]

Source 1 & 2 are potentially heavily hyperbolic
3 & 4 is blatant.

So I agree

 

[Antvasima]

Source 1 & 2 are potentially heavily hyperbolic
3 & 4 is blatant.

So I agree

Thank you for helping out. Do we have sufficient staff agreements here to apply this change now then?

 

[KingTempest]

Thank you for helping out. Do we have sufficient staff agreements here to apply this change now then?

yeah

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

If we didn't have this rule the amount of verses that get bumped up to 3-A by default would be pretty high since now suddenly a lot of deserts and oceans are 'endless' or 'infinite'.

It’s not a rule we have. It's straight up a get out of jail card for people who want to discredit statements. "Flowery language" is a positive claim that requires assumptions. More assumptions = more proof.

I shouldn't even have to explain this.

 

[Antvasima]

yeah

Okay. That is probably fine then.

It’s not a rule we have. It's straight up a get out of jail card for people who want to discredit statements. "Flowery language" is a positive claim that requires assumptions. More assumptions = more proof.

I shouldn't even have to explain this.

We cannot assume that all phrasings for fictional storytelling, which is recurrently filled with allegories, and does not work in a hard facts scientific manner, should be taken absolutely literally.

However, otherwise uncertain statements can obviously be used in conjunction with more reliable evidence to make it more credible.

 

[Firestorm808]

Thank you, everyone, for your input. I'll start drafting the next thread for calcs and feats influenced by this and close this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, thank you to everybody who helped out here.