• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Er-gen verse, 1-A downgrade discussion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthew Schroeder said:
I find it hard to believe in Nep's clarification since just from these threads I've seen more than enough points where Dimensional Spaces clearly don't mean spatial dimensions.
Click to expand...
Look, I asked you several times. Could you please qoute and bold the part you mean?

I could argue with you in a proper manner if you did that.
 
I agree. This does seem like it's obviously 1-B and the context is about higher dimensions. Nothing I've seen so far suggests parallel universes other than a one-off quote.

If dding 1 thread is similar to making a circle into a sphere, and there are countless threads alongside countless dimensional spaces in the same sentence, context heavily infers it's about higher-dimensions.
 
Andytrenom said:
The "countless dimensions of space having different sizes" is one thing that feels odd if it was spatial dimension, since parameters of measurement cannot exactly have distinct measurements. But maybe that's just a minor thing
How threads manage to be geometric dimensions which would technically be an abstract thing instead of a physical object also would demand some answers, since there should be inuniverse explanations that make sense of such a thing

Just to clarify I'm not trying to refute 1-B, I just want doubts cleared up about certain things regarding the evidence for it.
Click to expand...
I think it's a minor thing, since we saw their properties : the quote states that by adding one thread it is analogue to making a circle into a sphere, so the context with the "countless dimensional spaces" statement does seem like it's talking about Higher-Dimensions, since they mention countless threads in the same sentence.

Thanks for your input :)
 
Andytrenom said:
The "countless dimensions of space having different sizes" is one thing that feels odd if it was spatial dimension, since parameters of measurement cannot exactly have distinct measurements. But maybe that's just a minor thing

How threads manage to be geometric dimensions which would technically be an abstract thing instead of a physical object also would demand some answers, since there should be inuniverse explanations that make sense of such a thing

Just to clarify I'm not trying to refute 1-B, I just want doubts cleared up about certain things regarding the evidence for it.
Click to expand...
This is literally how we treat dimensions though.

We treat Universal 5-D objects as having infinitely more volume than 4-D objects, and that automatically means 5-D objects are infinitely larger, since volume = size
 
But that isn't how it happens in the fraking verse. And we are actually dropping the dimensional tiering system dunno where you checked.
 
Well then, we can always wait till a new system comes and we tier this again, since all our efforts(opposing and defending side) would be rendered null with you dropping the dimensional tiering system.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
But that isn't how it happens in the fraking verse. And we are actually dropping the dimensional tiering system dunno where you checked.
Click to expand...
Once that happens it happens. And wasn't there supposed to still be a proper tier where dimension actually mean a(n infinitely) qualitative superiority? Even if not, our arguments aren't rendered null by that until it's aplied, and wasn't that already pushed back for nearly a year?
 
But again, please give me that damned qoute with the bolded part of what debunks me. I asked for this a lot of times now, and I don't think it's a difficult request.
 
quote states that 2D + 1 thread = 3D

ok

but somehow 3D + 1 = 4D being mathematically impossible and illogical in real life stops it from being accepted, despite the fact that the same thing applies to 2D + 1 yet it literally happens in the story

We have transcended paradoxes.
 
ParadoxIndifferent said:
quote states that 2D + 1 thread = 3D

ok

but somehow 3D + 1 = 4D being mathematically impossible and illogical in real life stops it from being accepted, despite the fact that the same thing applies to 2D + 1 yet it literally happens in the story

We have transcended paradoxes.
Click to expand...
The exact thing I told him, but apparently we are the ones that are stupid xD
 
Also, things being mathematically impossible shouldn't be too much of a factor. Anyone trancsending to a higher D should be impossible. It still happens.


But I'm going to work in about five minutes. So if you respond, for the love of god, give me that qoute.

I'm starting to think that you don't have it (in which case you are an unrelenting asshole for not admitting that "the qoute was a fluke, sorry, but your argument still doesn't hold up" or some shit), because I think you are not so dumb to decide to go through a hundred comment argument instead of just CRTL+C a qoute and then bolding it out. By all mean, prove me wrong tough. I couldn't be happier if you did.
 
RatherClueless said:
ParadoxIndifferent said:
quote states that 2D + 1 thread = 3D

ok

but somehow 3D + 1 = 4D being mathematically impossible and illogical in real life stops it from being accepted, despite the fact that the same thing applies to 2D + 1 yet it literally happens in the story

We have transcended paradoxes.
Click to expand...
The exact thing I told him, but apparently we are the ones that are stupid xD
Click to expand...
Mock me all you want, but like I explained. If 3D space is composed of one thread, simply adding another thread won't create 4D space. Dimensions are additive.
 
Also, "Doesn't matter if it's impossible it happens" is a hilarious false-equivalence. You're trying to argue for an upgrade based on something that factually ignores and contradicts basic math, so you can upgrade characters on a Tiering System based around geometry.

You can't do that. The logic that is proposed proves that it is impossible and thus space having more than 3 dimensions in-verse is factually wrong.
 
It's... composed of three threads, not one. He adds an extra thread to the already existing threads that compose a 2-D circle, making it a 3D sphere.

Also, I shall go to work now. I will come back in an hour to prove why my favourite character playing Ayatori means that he soloes your verse and your waifu is trash.
 
And like I pointed out, if 2D space is composed of one thread or two threads, going by raw mathematics, adding another one wouldn't make it 3D. Yet we're literally told that this happened in the story.

Even so, nothing implies that 3D space = 1 thread. 3D space = 3 threads
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Also, "Doesn't matter if it's impossible it happens" is a hilarious false-equivalence. You're trying to argue for an upgrade based on something that factually ignores and contradicts basic math, so you can upgrade characters on a Tiering System based around geometry.
Click to expand...
Okay, so you are saying the story itself is wrong and that we shouldn't trust anything that is ever stated because it explicitly tells us 2D + 1 thread = 3D, which is also similarly impossible if you were to just go by raw math?

Nothing implies equality between each thread that is added anyway, so this is all irrelevant...
 
Everything implies. All of which you people are doing is being illogical and as such the subject of threads should just be dropped.

How about a single shred of evidence of higher-dimensional space be shown? We are at the 638th post of this series of threads and I still haven't seen any.
 
We gave you proof that a single thread made a 2D construct 3D. We gave you proof that there are countless threads, each with a different "size", and we gave you proof that this threads can make something higher dimensional, or lower dimensional.
 
he fourth dimension isn't time in Er Gen's work, so I don't see why you are surprised that he can't describe it like he does with the three dimensions we know.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Everything implies. All of which you people are doing is being illogical and as such the subject of threads should just be dropped.
Click to expand...
Everything, except everything. No quotes imply this. Telling people to drop it without any evidence whatsoever is just desperation.

In the other hand tho, I ca provide quotes that debunk this without needing to simply say one is wrong;

  • - "With an additional thread, it is no longer a circle, but a sphere.."
 
@Paradox We don't. Objects possessing a certain number of dimensions can have distinct sizes but the dimensions themselves cannot. Would you describe length, breadth and height to each have different sizes? No because they measure sizes, not get measured to have sizes.
 
Also this:

So if you respond, for the love of god, give me that qoute.
I'm starting to think that you don't have it (in which case you are an unrelenting asshole for not admitting that "the quote was a fluke, sorry, but your argument still doesn't hold up" or some shit), because I think you are not so dumb to decide to go through a hundred comment argument instead of just CRTL+C a qoute and then bolding it out. By all mean, prove me wrong tough. I couldn't be happier if you did.

I won't stop asking until you either admit you don't have one, or show me what you've got
 
> @Paradox We don't. Objects possessing a certain number of dimensions can have distinct sizes but the dimensions themselves cannot.

This literally makes absolutely no sense as there's absolutely no difference, in terms of stature, between a higher dimension and an object that encompasses all of it. Objects are just manifestations within the physical dimension.
 
This isn't the dimension itself we are talking about. This is the essence of dimension.

So the embodiment of a higher dimension being larger than the embodiment of a lower one? That makes sense in my book.

But I still think it's just Er Gen's way to say that each dimension is different. After all, we know for a fact that not each alternate universe is of a different size, the opposite in-fact, so if the statement was about "alternate universe" type dimension it wouldn't work.
 
Well this whole issue is what one gets when one chooses to ignore the basic cosomology behind a verse. Anyway.

It was shown that by adding one thread to 2D, it became a 3D world. I don't see why one would ignore this.

2D + 1 = 3D

3D + 1 = whould be the Ergenverse's 4D.

4D+ 1 = Er gen verse's 5D.

etc.
 
Also, Akm, the quote isn't about the dimensions themselves in the literal sense, just manifestations, so this is irrelevant to the whole picture anyway.
 
Also, I shall go to work now. I will come back in an hour to prove why my favourite character playing Ayatori means that he soloes your verse and your waifu is trash.

For real this time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Georredannea15
  • Locked
Ergen Verse possible Type 2 Transduality for 4th step cultivators
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
SweetDao
SweetDao
Coston
  • Locked
Ergenverse: Get It Right Edition
2
Replies
49
Views
10K
Planck69
Planck69
Larssx
  • Locked
Er Gen, Nep nature type 3 for 4th step cultivators.
2 3 4
Replies
129
Views
6K
Planck69
Planck69
Pedonar
I Get Stronger the More I Eat Possible layer CRT
Replies
2
Views
456
Pedonar
Pedonar
Hellformer
Ben 10: Space beyond (Low 1-C upgrade)
2 3
Replies
114
Views
5K
Hellformer
Hellformer
Back
Top