Alright, let this be my last shot on this (hopefully)
Yeah, I'm honestly iffy on this. Not every writer uses the world Universe/Multiverse to describe the entire cosmology of Marvel's Infinite-D hierarchy. I'm not going to pretend to be some super expert on the series, but I recall Zark mentioning just because some authors mention some tier 1 cosmic structures doesn't mean we suddenly assume the next author agreed with it when the same terms were mentioned in their work. Not to mention, even if it were consistent for some structures, the strong likelihood of outliers still needs to be considered.
Well, Marvel Comics is an inconsistent and incoherent complete mess in sum total. What else is new?
If we all agree on this premise, then why cant we use that exact logic for the opposite?
Not every writer uses every dimension in the universe when displaying “Universe affecting" feats.
Why
should we assume that every universal destruction is referring to the full scope of 616, with it being a reference to every cosmological structure inside the timeline across Marvel comics history? And not just what the Characters/Authors of the comic believe “their world" as.
Especially with the fact that other structures inside 616 are regularly referred to as universes too
And with the fact that some characters interpret the 3D universe to be its own world disconnected from higher dimensions as regularly shown in Blackwulf (1994)
Simply enough, a character destroys a universe, it will be interpreted as a regular 3D space unless proven otherwise,
if shown to be encompassing the full universe, if it's completely inconsistent then we dismiss the feat, simple as that
Literally the safest option we can take instead of blatantly dismissing a fact.
After all, Marvel Comics is
80+ Years old, of course authors will simply interpret the universe as what a universe is commonly interpreted as
The way I see it the universe might have different interpretations not only for the writers but also in the way that specific characters know about the universe/multiverse. The fact that one character stated that the universe had more than 3 dimensions is an example of that character having a certain understanding of the cosmology and he calls that a universe, different characters might have different understandings that could work to expand the overall structure (I remember things like the Negative Zone and Subspace, or worlds within worlds as having different explanations depending on the era, that not only could talk about what different authors thoughts, but also what the characters themselves were thinking at the time).
Of course, when a random character talks about destroying the universe in any random comic it wouldn't necessarily mean that they think of the universe as having more than 4 dimensions or any other pocket/beyond realms that can still be called to be "within the universe" by certain characters, it would depend on what the character knows and the overall context. In the end there's nothing wrong to say something like "the universe has more than three dimensions" if the context is right, it's something that impacts the overall structure, but isn't something that is going to be the basis for literally every character when they are talking about the universe, context will always matter.
Yeah thats about it, i am unfortunately certain this thread will be rejected, even though i think its very good evidence of Subspace being High 1-B and an already High 1-B structure existing inside the NZ, as well as the statement that implies that the NZ literally controls dimensionality as a whole