Is this still 2-A or High 2-A?

[Andytrenom]

Dark?

If your arguments on their own could be verified by common logic or had proper proof to back up your claims then I wouldn't have to bring up our current standards or the opinion of someone who's knowledgeable on those standards

But your assessment that a multiverse only exists along 4 dimensions isn't backed up by any source and because the topic isn't simple enough for me just to look at your claims and go "yeah makes sense" I would have no choice but just to take your word for it, if I decide to agree with you

And if I have to take someone's word anyway, then I'd rather take the word of someone who's an authority on this subject here and whose interpretation matches up with every single source regarding this subject I have encountered and fits in what the site goes with currently. If you don't like me trusting other sources over you then provide evidences of your claims and allow me to have some way to verify your claims, so that I don't just have to take your word for it

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

If you actually read the thread you would have noticed that I have pointed out this difference since literally my second post.

And made it explicitly clear on what a multiple universes and a mutliversal structure is and what I'm referring to when I actually use those words. I wasn't, at any point, using a headcanon definition without any further elaboration.

Your second comment does not state that you both were "using different definitions of multiverses". I'm sure you both knew the difference between them, but you had different definitions of multiverse. Granted, you two were not going back and forth during then, but regardless.

 

[Udlmaster]

>Dark?

I misread Donttalk as dark for some reason.

>If your arguments on their own could be verified by common logic or had proper proof to back up your claims then I wouldn't have to bring up our current standards or the opinion of someone who's knowledgeable on those standards

I will note I didn't say "common logic" I said "sound logic". Common logic can be "2+2=5" by popular opinion, but it wouldn't be sound logic.

And my argument is based purely on sound logic, if you don't think it is sound, then debunk it, so far no one has been able to, all I got was "people here do it this way" which is an argument ad populum.

And the rest is an argument from authority, as and I have no reference I won't place any weight in 2nd to 3rd hand knowledge.

>But your assessment that a multiverse only exists along 4 dimensions isn't backed up by any source

Because my argument wasn't based on sources, it was based on logic. This is what is called Apriori and Apostiri, where my argument isn't founded on sources but logic, and to combat my argument, you in turn must use sources to show my logic isn't sound or debunk it using logic.

>And if I have to take someone's word anyway, then I'd rather take the word of someone who's an authority on this subject here and whose interpretation matches up with every single source regarding this subject I have encountered and fits in what the site goes with currently.

Firstly, that's a massive argument from authority, and heavily fallacious as well, and an argument from ignorance too. Just because what you have found lines up with this abstract statement Dont has possibly said to you doesn't mean what he said was of sound logic. And why is Dont an authority on the subject? Does he govern the idea of dimensions themselves? Is he the head scientist who controls the public perception on what dimensions are? If not, then he's not an authority at all.

> If you don't like me trusting other sources over you then provide evidences of your claims and allow me to have some way to verify your claims, so that I don't just have to take your word for it

What other sources? You cannot say "I've seen sources and they agree with me, give me sources to say you're right" when firstly my argument is based on logic, I never stated it had a source outside of basic understanding of dimensions, time and space, which one would expect would be a requirement for someone to come in and debate the subject and secondly; show these abstract sources you're vaguely talking about but not giving any detail on, because I can just say "My sources say you're wrong." with it just being the Green eggs and Ham by Doctor Sauss.

 

[Udlmaster]

Anyway, we can do this another time, most likely if I ever do a CRT for it.

 

[Andytrenom]

The point of an argument from authority is that statements should be separate from person making them and verified on their own merits, if I accept your argument is true just because you said so then that is just as bad as arguing from authority, if not worse since in this case I at least have reason to trust the other person, this wouldn't be the case if it was just an issue of common logic

And this isn't, you argument took the premise "adding infinity along an axis doesn't add a new axis" and used that to conclude "parallel universes are arranged across only 4-D space" when the latter doesn't deduce from the former. Your claim of universes being arranged across 4-D space is only something you asserted not something you proved by logic so I can't verify this unless you actually use better logic or give actual evidence of this being the case

Tho you will probably waste your time debating with me anyway, I have no desire to prove you wrong here nor am I fully confident you are, I only see you trying to convince me of something using unconvincing logic so I point that out, who knows if you're ultimate conclusion is correct or not. If you want to bring actual change, or just want to know more about why the standards are in place argue with someone who's responsible for handling this aspect of the wiki.

 

[FloweryAlex]

Ogbu, you can't say to stop arguing semantics when that's the point.

You are claiming a definition for the word multiverse (universes collected in a higher dimensional space) that is not accepted as default. I explained the default assumption (multiversee is just multiple universes, no higher dimensional spaces).

There is no difference between destroying the multiverse and destroying the universes in the multiverse, unless you can prove it (with in-verse statements and such).