Late to the party:
The 'starry skies only proves 4-A at most' and similar arguments/points are an inherently fallacious argument. Saying we can 'only observe' a certain amount of a given spacetime (yes, spacetime. More on that later), and therefore we can only assume as much as we can observe is literally an
argument from ignorance. And given this could apply to literally any series that hasn't shown
literally the entirety of its universe and/or time, I think we should put this specific argument to bed forever.
Here's a couple facts about our
own universe:
On that, and because of these facts, for 'universe' levels, this wiki recognizes:
- 3-A (Universe level) as: "Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time." (more on this soon)
- High 3-A (High Universe level) as: "Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier."
- And Low 2-C (Universe+) as: "Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting,[1] creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
This has already been discussed and established in numerous threads, but
even by the admission of this initial post:
Dreams contain space
and time in this verse.
This immediately means any given dream is an entire spacetime, making it more than just any 'observable universe' and at the very least
High Universe sized by the rules of the wiki.
But we're talking about more than one dream. Lots of dreams, even. The cosmology isn't one 'big dream' or something. No amount of 'well we only see x amount' changes this fact.
Tl;dr: Thread starter is unsound: Founded upon an inherently
fallacious argument from ignorance. Literally using the wiki's primary example of this fallacy as its structure: "There is no evidence of A, so A cannot possibly be true." But there is evidence, provided within this thread starter of all places, and that can be found otherwise discussed on this wiki. We're literally running so far back in terms of what's seemingly acceptable evidence from the series and concepts within it that we're stagnating at pre-
Super Mario Bros 2 and
it's dreamworld with its own distinct spacetime in it in terms of the information this post is suggesting we can know, accept, or use
for a series that's been around for 40+ years.
Disagree. Don't call boiling water while stoned on thc cough syrup 'cooking. '
