It does remove all weight from "transcendence" though. Just being "outside" doesn't give a higher dimensional tier. Since there is no more context on the transcendence part, there is pretty much no reason to assume "beyond" when they easily call it "outside". Transcendence can mean both, so at this point we would need proof of "beyond".
Not necessarily, when:
1) You are basically using an unrelated statement which in no way contradicts the disputed claim.
2) The claim in question ("The Boundary transcends [i.e is superior to, and encompasses] the multiverse") would already imply that it's outside of the universe anyway.
3) "Beyond" and "outside" are already effectively synonyms, so trying to base your argument off of some vaguely-defined distinction between the two doesn't really work.
Besides, I don't think anyone ever claimed that just being outside of the multiverse was enough for
Low 1-C, anyway. The main argument was regarding The Boundary completely encompassing all universes, which would in turn corroborate the statements of transcendence over spacetime as referring to actual superiority. But I know you have some problems with this interpretation.
Yes but it is giving another very clear explanation of the "you can go to any universe from it". It doesn't directly say "it's not", but it does say that "it is not an argument for Low 1-C as it can easily be NOT Low 1-C and retain those effects".
If I may ask: Do you have any concept of "Supporting evidence"? I don't think the Boundary connecting all universes was ever one of the main arguments pushing for
Low 1-C, and if it was the only one, then I would have definitely disagreed with the rating from the very start.
It could with some stretch as the last noun used is "the boundary", so "the boundary, beyond there ......". You would need more proof that the "beyond there" is referring to cauldron as the wording directly implies it's for the boundary (or both). So what's the argument for "it only refers to the cauldron even though it mentioned the boundary too".
and some of his answers to my points were heavily based on speculation (like the "beyond the cauldron").
It's not really speculation on my part, so much as basic-ass reading interpretation. The wording pretty explicitly says "Beyond there... I could go to another event," which implies that this process would involve reaching beyond some entry point and
then traveling to an alternate universe, which makes perfect sense, given how The Boundary explicitly connects to all parallel universes based on the previous scans.
Your reading of the text would instead imply that it'd involve reaching into some (As far as I know) unmentioned place beyond The Boundary, and then going to another universe from there, which doesn't seem to be supported by the context of the statement. Therefore, it makes far more sense to take it as basically saying "I am going to step beyond the Cauldron and into the Boundary, and then use the latter to travel to another event," instead of "I am going to step beyond the Boundary and then go to another event from there."
Yes and as i've said your argument is "the closest definition" is practically speaking the furthest one from the truth? A parallel universe can't be the closest definition if we assume that the boundary is Low 1-C cus it is straight up a "wrong definition".
There is absolutely nothing stopping a universe from being higher-dimensional or transcendental in nature, especially given how all-encompassing the term is. So, no, calling the Boundary a parallel universe wouldn't really be the wrong definition, and "the closest definition" doesn't even have to be 100% accurate to reality, so much as it can just be the best approximation one can make in lack of better terms.
It wouldn't be separate if it's contained. It's like saying a house is a separate building from one of the rooms inside it.
You probably shouldn't compare the relation being a spacetime continuum and a space outside of it to something like two buildings that inhabit the same overall location: Spacetime isn't an individual object to be measured; it's the stage in which we do measurements to begin with, so, yeah, a realm that exists in no place or time within it could very much be described as separate.
And DontTalkDT actually used this argument once
That's cool, and I disagree with DontTalk, in this case.
That said, I don't exactly know the context in which he argued for that, so I'll refrain from saying anything too concrete, but it seemed like he was just saying that being stated to be from another dimension doesn't imply that you are from a higher dimension. The same argument doesn't really work when applied backwards: If something is described or otherwise implied to be a higher dimension or a higher plane of existence, then another statement describing it as another dimension doesn't really contradict that.
Ultima never gave any conclusive evidence for Low 1-C
Hm?
Low 1-C is already an accepted rating in the profiles, and you are the one who is arguing for it to be removed; if I end up successfully countering all of the points made against it (As I am aiming to do here), then I don't exactly know what else you expect me to do. I really don't feel like playing tennis here, but the Burden of Proof does lie with whoever is challenging the status quo, you know.
Oh, and, by the way, you still haven't addressed how "events" being just non-physical, informational constructs which the Boundary contains is contradicted by one of the scans which you've posted yourself, which, again, treats them as actual locations that people can travel to: Parallel universes, as you argued there.
