Mooncell High 1C Revision

[inkownn]

You conclude using a deductive form of inference with inferences that require induction to conclude upon? Deductively invalid

it would be deductively invalid is I didn’t conclude upon an induction. Which I did.
“It is narratively more consistent that the core is a higher dimensional existence to the record universe and near side of the moon. Because that is what it holds “higher dimensional perspective” over.”

There's it's clear subsets that being an 8 dimensional space repeatedly called an additional aspect of its own existence like how a higher dimensional space has lower dimensions as that to embed itself on them to become higher dimensional therefore its most likely the case that it's 9D

you can’t even use this as supporting evidence. As my interpretation, which just says the core is a more complex 8d structure, would also have the barrier as an extension of its memory.

Never said she reached the core became stronger it's higher dimensional me saying she became even more powerful is just an additional inference demonstrating that the core has some superiority over the things it foundate

I don’t think you understand what you are attempting to prove. Later on in this passage you argue that you don’t need to prove your claim is perfect. That you only need to prove it is more probable than the other interpretations. However every single piece of evidence that you attempt to attribute to backing up your claim isn’t proving that your claim is more probable than mine. Since you organized your points for us let’s go to that.

(1) the core is said to be higher dimensional (question is does it include to the barrier too which is what the inference responds to). /True
(2)everything outside of the core is nothing but additional memory subsets of the core itself. /True
(3)Incidently a higher dimensional space has lower dimensional spaces as subsets of itself and has superiority over those subsets even then. /True
(4)the core shows clear superior over everything it foundated. /True
C therefore it is a logical to conclude that the core being higher dimensional is in reference to all that which it governs gaven its nature and how it behaves. /most likely true

The antecedents are all true and imply the logical consequence (you cannot deny an implication not holding using another induction it'll simply mean that there's two implication but one must be more likely true than the other therefore you can't say it doesn't definitively imply it)

We don't need always need certainty to conclude on something if something is more probable than its negation it stands to reason to take it over its negation (laymans terms for preponderance of the evidence)

1. yes the core is stated a higher dimensional existence. However this statement is so vague that it cannot be used because, as you said, we have no idea if this refers to the barrier or not. So then to back up this main point you need to provide supporting points that show it is more likely than not including the core.
2. True, however this doesn’t at all imply the core is higher dimensional to everything it has memory over. Also, the memory that it holds authority over has its own varying levels of quantitative superiority. As the barrier is unreachable to the observable universes. This piece of evidence does not support your claim more than mine, as both of our claims can equally be true even if you factor it in
3. Yes but how does this at all prove your claim is more probable? It also happens that higher dimensional sets can have lower dimensional and equal dimensional, but less complex, subsets. This evidence is very associative and doesn’t at all prove that your claim is more probable due to the fact there is an equally likely scenario that it’s just a higher dimensional set with less complex and lower dimensional subsets.
4. the core does show clear superiority over everything it founds, however it does not show an even superiority. The only regions the core holds a higher dimensional perspective over is the near side and the universe. It clearly doesn’t hold it over the far side despite the far side being apart of its set. And the barrier is unreachable to the observable universe. So this can’t be used as evidence to say it “more likely” refers to everything it governs
In fact, I would actually say it more likely is the opposite. https://tsukinoura.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/entry-143-why-we-cant-win/
This includes Rani’s statement and it is stated in the same scene in which Rin speaks about its higher dimensional perspective over the observable universe. Not about its authority over the entire moon cell. So it is actually more likely, due to context, that Rani’s higher dimensional statement is actually in reference of its higher dimensional perspective. Which is only over two structures that aren’t proven to be 8d.
So I would actually argue my interpretation is more likely.

Correcting misconceptions

1. BB gaining a higher dimensional perspective by the way doesn't entail that she didn't have it beforehand
2. When they demonstrate she has it by making a reference to her viewing time as a lower dimensional equivalent isn't necessarily a guarantee that she didn't have that, I can be 8D and view time of a 7th dimensional world with its combination with spatial dimensions (say time governing a 6 dimensional world) as lower dimensional equivalent but can't view time of a 8th dimensional world time governing a 7th dimensional world with its combination of spatial dimensions because the information becomes infinitely more complex than my current senses
(e.g I have 8 dimensional senses I gain even higher dimensional senses)

-they claim I gained higher dimensional senses and then they explain the nature of it higher dimensions senses using the nature of time/the magnitude of time requires the magnitude of spatial dimensions in explaining information about the world itself not just the temporal dimension alone so to say "they make a reference to time therefore 4th dimensional worlds infers she didn't have that before" doesn't work

They merely said she can handle the past and future simultaneously I don't think a 4th dimensional entity that can handle past and future simultaneously due to being higher dimensional can handle the same temporal dimensions existing in 8 dimensional worlds not in the manner of the temporal dimension itself but it's combination with the spatial dimension due to the information of the higher dimensional world generally being infinitely more complex than the 4th dimensional world

So the mention of her handling the past and future isn't doesn't entail that she couldn't view 4th dimensional worlds as lower dimensional equivalents because time is not always just on that magnitude not individually even tho individually works too but mostly with its combination with the spatial dimensions themselves

None of these would matter, you are just arguing for the sake of it. The original point was that the core is higher dimensional because she only obtained the higher dimensional perspective after merging with the core. Implying that the barrier wasn’t higher dimensional over the rest of the moon cell. The problem with that is that higher dimensional beings don’t necessarily have higher dimensional sight. You can be 8d and not able to view the entire 7th dimensional plane as a scroll. This argument becomes even more irrelevant when you factor in that the higher dimensional perspective doesn’t even view the barrier anyway.

You conclude on the basis of deduction as form but your argument relies on induction your argument is deductively invalid

I’m concluding based on what rin said.
“but the real world and the near side of the moon are both operated as this observed universe.”
“On the other hand, the laws of the recorded universe are different. The perception of the recorded universe is over many dimensions…think of it as a higher dimensional existence. From this higher dimension, the third dimension looks like a flat scroll. Er, if the three-dimensional world is a world drawn in a book, and then if you jumped inside the book and came out outside the book, something like that? And then you’re able to look down on any point in your past, present, and future from when you were inside the book, as a record — that’s the higher dimensional perspective.”

she’s stating that the higher dimensional perspective BB holds is over the near side and the universe. As the near side and record universe are the lower dimensional observable universes. Unlike the far side, which doesn’t have a similar higher dimensional perspective over it from the core.
“There’s no past or future. It’s the same as that. This is imaginary number space, a higher dimensional information space made from light. The far side of the moon is fundamentally operated according to the laws of the recorded universe, not the observed universe.”

We can assume anything to say
"the statement is vague therefore mine holds" doesn't justify yours holding /baseless

To say "mine is a leap in logic" doesn't justify "mine being a leap in logic"/baseless

I’ve justified both of these statements earlier

 

[Maxeez]

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Me after Seeing this threads comments

 

[Robo432343]

 

[Maxeez]

When I said that it will be going in circles, I wasn’t joking. Please, can someone remake the thread with the relevant arguments and more clarity ? Or at least stop replying and remaking the same arguments, so that staff members can sort things out .

 

[Ubdon]

When I said that it will be going in circles, I wasn’t joking. Please, can someone remake the thread with the relevant arguments and more clarity ? Or at least stop replying and remaking the same arguments, so that staff members can sort things out .

how about no

 

[Maxeez]

how about no

Then just let it die ?

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Moon cell threads are bad civilization

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Also this thread triggered both pokemonfan’s 2nd and third personalities

 

[inkownn]

Is there any better way to get mods to see this other than just @ing them? And if not, how many have we @‘d?

 

[Maxeez]

Is there any better way to get mods to see this other than just @ing them? And if not, how many have we @‘d?

Either messaging them on their wall or remaking this thread entirely seem to be the only solutions.

 

[1Nairove]

Friends, I wrote to the admins, for now, only 1 came, be patient

 

[Maxeez]

Friends, I wrote to the admins, for now, only 1 came, be patient

Aight.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

it would be deductively invalid is I didn’t conclude upon an induction. Which I did.

What are you even saying you're confusing yourself

“It is narratively more consistent that the core is a higher dimensional existence to the record universe and near side of the moon. Because that is what it holds “higher dimensional perspective” over.”

"It is" is an implication of deduction cause the conclusion implies certainty which implies deduction not induction which the inference itself is deductively invalid

you can’t even use this as supporting evidence.

I can it's called induction for a reason

As my interpretation, which just says the core is a more complex 8d structure, would also have the barrier as an extension of its memory.

This is not a direct refutation to the inference because you're not using deduction to attack what I say it's induction therefore you can't attack any inference you can only form your own inference which is supposed to be more probable than mine

Judging from your response you must not be confident that you can do that

I don’t think you understand what you are attempting to prove.

Not a refutation

Later on in this passage you argue that you don’t need to prove your claim is perfect. That you only need to prove it is more probable than the other interpretations.

It's called induction for a reason yes

However every single piece of evidence that you attempt to attribute to backing up your claim isn’t proving that your claim is more probable than mine

Saying it doesn't, doesn't justify your claim I've said all that was required you still fail to address it

yes the core is stated a higher dimensional existence. However this statement is so vague that it cannot be used because, as you said, we have no idea if this refers to the barrier or not.

Doesn't attack my inference again I said it's higher dimensional which is true simple I do not care as to whether its vague the conclusion is predicated from an inductively appealing argument with true antecedents which consequently makes the conclusion itself probable all you've been doin is rambling on ab insignificant things

it cannot be used because, as you said, we have no idea if this refers to the barrier or not.

What? You're confusing yourself lmao do you not know what an induction is

True, however this doesn’t at all imply the core is higher dimensional to everything it has memory over.

Idc for more context you said true that's all that matters additional context like further skepticism is not a direct attack to the inference

Also, the memory that it holds authority over has its own varying levels of quantitative superiority.

That's not a refutation you're just rambling again

This piece of evidence does not support your claim more than mine, as both of our claims can equally be true even if you factor it in

Still haven't attacked the inference yet

equally be true even if you factor it in

Saying that doesn't justify that being the case

Yes but how does this at all prove your claim is more probable?

The antecedents are true and the consequence is inferred from the antecedents through induction making it more probable as true more so than its negation I don't have to repeat myself

It also happens that higher dimensional sets can have lower dimensional and equal dimensional, but less complex, subsets.

Those subsets aren't referred to as higher dimensions which is a proposition you still can't attack because that's the one being supported

This evidence is very associative and doesn’t at all prove that your claim is more probable

The antecedents are all true and the consequence which is inferred from the antecedents must likely be true you still haven't attacked the inference you still ramble again

equally likely scenario that it’s just a higher dimensional set with less complex and lower dimensional subsets.

Saying it's equally likely doesn't justify it being equally likely considering that your inferences aren't even valid therefore can't be any truth value assigned to them if the validity isn't addressed not even probabilistic truth values

the core does show clear superiority over everything it founds, however it does not show an even superiority

I don't know what you're saying I don't think you know what you're saying too

The only regions the core holds a higher dimensional perspective over is the near side and the universe.

Using deduction as form with a deductively invalid argument once again we'll dismiss this nonsense again

It clearly doesn’t hold it over the far side despite the far side being apart of its set.

Using deduction again which is deductively invalid we'll dismiss this

And the barrier is unreachable to the observable universe

Not a refutation

So this can’t be used as evidence to say it “more likely” refers to everything it governs
In fact, I would actually say it more likely is the opposite.

The antecedents are all true and are inferred from one another the form is valid and the consequence is inferred from the truth value of the antecedents this isn't a refutation

This includes Rani’s statement and it is stated in the same scene in which Rin speaks about its higher dimensional perspective over the observable universe

Uhhh okay?

So it is actually more likely, due to context, that Rani’s

So rani speaks about the core rin speaks about the difference between recorded universe and observable universe that doesn't work they speak about two different things so what context are you referring to?

Which is only over two structures that aren’t proven to be 8d.

My inference doesn't require those two structures neither did I reference them this is not a refutation

So I would actually argue my interpretation is more likely.

Saying it's more likely doesn't justify it being more likely

The original point was that the core is higher dimensional because she only obtained the higher dimensional perspective after merging with the core.

Okay? Considering she could still break through an 8 dimensional wall your point doesn't hold because it doesn't necessitate that she didn't have that prior to merging with the core considering she could break down a higher dimensional barrier either way and she could describe its nature aswell you can describe that which you can't perceive

Implying that the barrier wasn’t higher dimensional over the rest of the moon cell.

Huh

The problem with that is that higher dimensional beings don’t necessarily have higher dimensional sight. You can be 8d and not able to view the entire 7th dimensional plane as a scroll.

Did they teach you Walmart n-dimensional spaces and Walmart Euclidean geometrical spaces? Like seriously where does this come from

This argument becomes even more irrelevant when you factor in that the higher dimensional perspective doesn’t even view the barrier anyway.

You said it most likely doesn't not it does your argument relies on induction but you still conclude on deduction, deductively invalid

she’s stating that the higher dimensional perspective BB holds is over the near side and the universe. As the near side and record universe are the lower dimensional observable universes. Unlike the far side, which doesn’t have a similar higher dimensional perspective over it from the core.

P⇔(B ∨ Q) ⇒T
P=you can destroy and describe an 8 dimensional construct (true)
B=you can perceive it (true)
Q=you have the ability to destroy it (true)
T=bb can destroy it (True) by necessity

You can only destroy and simultaneously describe an 8 dimensional construct if and only if you can perceive it and have the ability to destroy.

BB can perceive it and describe it
BB can destroy it
BB already had 8 dimensional senses with her imaginary number of space manipulation prior to that than having gained a even greater higher dimensional perspective as they say she gained it implying she gained an even higher one she became 9D this isn't a refutation truth by deduction only works to my favor

I’ve justified both of these statements earlier

You justified them through self justification and deductively invalid inferences? Talk ab leap in logic so far you've only been rambling and you haven't even directly attacked my inductively valid inference and now I'll help you sleep well with a deductively valid inference

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Friends, I wrote to the admins, for now, only 1 came, be patient

Oh ight I think this will be my last response then I've finished up everything now ima head out and smoke

 

[inkownn]

What are you even saying you're confusing yourself

"It is" is an implication of deduction cause the conclusion implies certainty which implies deduction not induction which the inference itself is deductively invalid

I can it's called induction for a reason

This is not a direct refutation to the inference because you're not using deduction to attack what I say it's induction therefore you can't attack any inference you can only form your own inference which is supposed to be more probable than mine

Judging from your response you must not be confident that you can do that

Not a refutation

It's called induction for a reason yes

Saying it doesn't, doesn't justify your claim I've said all that was required you still fail to address it

Doesn't attack my inference again I said it's higher dimensional which is true simple I do not care as to whether its vague the conclusion is predicated from an inductively appealing argument with true antecedents which consequently makes the conclusion itself probable all you've been doin is rambling on ab insignificant things

What? You're confusing yourself lmao do you not know what an induction is

Idc for more context you said true that's all that matters additional context like further skepticism is not a direct attack to the inference

That's not a refutation you're just rambling again

Still haven't attacked the inference yet

Saying that doesn't justify that being the case

The antecedents are true and the consequence is inferred from the antecedents through induction making it more probable as true more so than its negation I don't have to repeat myself

Those subsets aren't referred to as higher dimensions which is a proposition you still can't attack because that's the one being supported

The antecedents are all true and the consequence which is inferred from the antecedents must likely be true you still haven't attacked the inference you still ramble again

Saying it's equally likely doesn't justify it being equally likely considering that your inferences aren't even valid therefore can't be any truth value assigned to them if the validity isn't addressed not even probabilistic truth values

I don't know what you're saying I don't think you know what you're saying too

Using deduction as form with a deductively invalid argument once again we'll dismiss this nonsense again

Using deduction again which is deductively invalid we'll dismiss this

Not a refutation

The antecedents are all true and are inferred from one another the form is valid and the consequence is inferred from the truth value of the antecedents this isn't a refutation

Uhhh okay?

So rani speaks about the core rin speaks about the difference between recorded universe and observable universe that doesn't work they speak about two different things so what context are you referring to?

My inference doesn't require those two structures neither did I reference them this is not a refutation

Saying it's more likely doesn't justify it being more likely

Okay? Considering she could still break through an 8 dimensional wall your point doesn't hold because it doesn't necessitate that she didn't have that prior to merging with the core considering she could break down a higher dimensional barrier either way and she could describe its nature aswell you can describe that which you can't perceive

Huh

Did they teach you Walmart n-dimensional spaces and Walmart Euclidean geometrical spaces? Like seriously where does this come from

You said it most likely doesn't not it does your argument relies on induction but you still conclude on deduction, deductively invalid

P⇔(B ∨ Q) ⇒T
P=you can destroy and describe an 8 dimensional construct (true)
B=you can perceive it (true)
Q=you have the ability to destroy it (true)
T=bb can destroy it (True) by necessity

You can only destroy and simultaneously describe an 8 dimensional construct if and only if you can perceive it and have the ability to destroy.

BB can perceive it and describe it
BB can destroy it
BB already had 8 dimensional senses with her imaginary number of space manipulation prior to that than having gained a even greater higher dimensional perspective as they say she gained it implying she gained an even higher one she became 9D this isn't a refutation truth by deduction only works to my favor



You justified them through self justification and deductively invalid inferences? Talk ab leap in logic so far you've only been rambling and you haven't even directly attacked my inductively valid inference and now I'll help you sleep well with a deductively valid inference

We’re annoying the other people, I’m not gonna respond to this.

 

[Maxeez]

Dawg Theoretical I agree with you but please .

Or at least stop replying and remaking the same arguments, so that staff members can sort things out .

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Dawg Theoretical I agree with you but please .

Mb mb

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

smoke

smoking is bad for you though

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

smoking is bad for you though

Ye ik but it helps me pass some time when I get bored

 

[Artorimachi_Meteoraft]

Ye ik but it helps me pass some time when I get bored

I’m just concerned for your health.

 

[God243]

guys but the mods? Dante vs Gilgamesh is waiting

 

[Deagonx]

First of all, the mooncell barrier is in an 8D structure

Mooncell's core, on the other hand, is implicitly in a higher dimension, transforming it into a 9D structure

I don't believe this logic follows. I'm not persuaded from the evidence that the core being higher dimensional means it must be 9D if a barrier is 8D. I am also iffy on whether or not "cuts through 8 dimensions" actually makes it 8-D spatially or if it's meaning is different from that.

this side of the universe has been described as "undetectable or observable by the current laws of physics

https://r.resimlink.com/M6uC9cKqy.webp
This will increase it to 10D and raise this structure

I do not follow why this would increase it to 10-D.

 

[Maxeez]

I don't believe this logic follows. I'm not persuaded from the evidence that the core being higher dimensional means it must be 9D if a barrier is 8D. I am also iffy on whether or not "cuts through 8 dimensions" actually makes it 8-D spatially or if it's meaning is different from that.

We later explained in details why it is, check the last two pages of this thread.
About the 8D stuff, it has already been accepted a long time ago anyways, and various translations say "cuts up to the eight dimension". Regarding the context, it is clear cut 8D.

 

[Deagonx]

We later explained in details why it is, check the last two pages of this thread.

You're going to need to link me because this thread is a catastrophe of off-topic comments.

About the 8D stuff, it has already been accepted a long time ago anyways, and various translations say "cuts up to the eight dimension". Regarding the context, it is clear cut 8D.

Okay. I am not one of those people that accepted it a long time ago, though.

 

[Maxeez]

You're going to need to link me because this thread is a catastrophe of off-topic comments.

Sure :

Well, for Mooncell, 11D was rotten, but most people argued that 9D would be accepted, if I summarize the scale briefly, the core for the 8D barrier is higher in size, which indirectly gives it 9D. Read the scale at the beginning of the CRT for evidence.

well, isn't the kernel already a structure that manages the barrier? If the barrier in logic consists of 8D or 8 Spatial Dimensions, and in a structure that manages them in the core, the logic is higher dimensional than the 8D barrier, which should give it 9D

The statements are a bit confusing that's for sure. I personally think that the most logical reasoning would be that the barrier (which cuts through said 8 dimensions) lies within the 8 dimensional space, which is what it's supposed to cut through. Considering this, it would be weird to call the core a "higher dimensional existence" only for it to de dimensionally equal to the 8th dimensional space. Also, the statement specifying that the Core is higher dimensional has been made well after the "eight dimensions" statement, so it would make sense that it meant higher dimensional compared to the eight dimensional space, I guess.

That's in question there's no conclusion on this rn

That is also in question if it's more narrative consistent that way your justifications for it being that is a deductively invalid argument?

Didn't we already agree that bb could break the 8d wall with her own power yet still became unfathomably more powerful after merging with the core how is it hard to argue the cores superiority to that which it foundated
X is unreachable to P
T is also unreachable to P
Doesn't entail that T is necessarily not superior to X

Unless I'm misinterpreting something but the arguments against it seem evidently deductively invalid so I don't why you wrote that like it's definitively conclusive

I still think it wouldn’t make sense, really. The barrier is what’s defending the core but isn’t a part of it. And BB specifically obtained a higher dimensional perspective when merging with the Core itself, being in the same 8D space which the barrier cuts before merging (when she was describing it in Entry 129). In fact, BB had to bring down the barrier/wall (which is cutting through the 8 dimensions of the space in which it is) and then went inside and merged with the core (which specifically is a higher dimensional existence, not a space), thus granting her with a higher dimensional perspective.

Yet, she became exponentially more powerful than before (specifically, higher dimensional perspective) and that « before » includes the fact that she brought down the wall that already had 1-C power because of the eight dimensions cutting stuff.$

There's it's clear subsets that being an 8 dimensional space repeatedly called an additional aspect of its own existence like how a higher dimensional space has lower dimensions as that to embed itself on them to become higher dimensional therefore its most likely the case that it's 9D

Never said she reached the core became stronger it's higher dimensional me saying she became even more powerful is just an additional inference demonstrating that the core has some superiority over the things it foundate

BB already had 8 dimensional senses with her imaginary number of space manipulation prior to that than having gained a even greater higher dimensional perspective as they say she gained it implying she gained an even higher one she became 9D this isn't a refutation truth by deduction only works to my favor

Among others.

Okay. I am not one of those people that accepted it a long time ago, though.

I know, but the basic premise of this thread lies on an accepted scaling. It's presupposating that the space the barrier cuts is 8D without questioning it whatsoever. Anyways, the 8D point has also been addressed for a bit in this thread. If you want to look in details, here is this thread.

 

[Deagonx]

Yeah, having looked at the scans I don't think there is enough to say that the "higher-dimensional existence" can't be from the perspective of the speakers rather than this 8-D wall, but I admit that it is hard to understand what some of these comments are saying.

 

[Maxeez]

Yeah, having looked at the scans I don't think there is enough to say that the "higher-dimensional existence" can't be from the perspective of the speakers rather than this 8-D wall, but I admit that it is hard to understand what some of these comments are saying.

The barrier in itself isn't what the 8D comes from. In fact, it cuts up to the eight dimensions meaning the space in which it lies is already 8D. Now, the core is inside the walls and is referred to (specifically after mentioning the barrier) as a higher dimensional existence which later grants BB with exponentially higher power level and a higher dimensional perspective (so after she brought down the wall to reach into the structure and merge with the core). This is why I believe the 9-D stuff is fine.

 

[Deagonx]

This is why I believe the 9-D stuff is fine.

I understand the reasoning, I just don't think the evidence is solid enough to reach that conclusion, so I have to disagree.

 

[Maxeez]

I understand the reasoning, I just don't think the evidence is solid enough to reach that conclusion, so I have to disagree.

That's probably why a few people proposed a "possibly" rating with the 9-D scaling I guess. Anyways, we'll just wait for some more input from staff members before reaching a definitive conclusion.

 

[1Nairove]

bump

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I’m just concerned for your health.

I'll be ight

You're going to need to link me because this thread is a catastrophe of off-topic comments

Dawg the first thing you did was go off-topic by questioning it being 8D that's already accepted this is about 9D

Yeah, having looked at the scans I don't think there is enough to say that the "higher-dimensional existence" can't be from the perspective of the speakers rather than this 8-D wall

Any reason in particular why you think the evidence isn't enough?

but I admit that it is hard to understand what some of these comments are saying.

Ahhh you're questioning what you don't understand?

I understand the reasoning, I just don't think the evidence is solid enough to reach that conclusion, so I have to disagree.

What's the reasoning? I'd understand if you disagree with some sort of reasoning for it but just to say it's not solid without a reason seems iffy but hey that's just me

bump

Honestly

 

[Deagonx]

Dawg the first thing you did was go off-topic by questioning it being 8D

Seems pretty crucial to the topic but okay.

Any reason in particular why you think the evidence isn't enough?

It doesn't seem to indicate what is being proposed in a clear and concrete way.

What's the reasoning?

The scans don't say what's being proposed, and I do not believe the circumstances (the 8-D barrier) necessitate the proposed interpretation (that "higher dimensional" must be a level of infinity above the 8-D barrier) because the speaker saying this would still refer to it as higher dimensional either way.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Seems pretty crucial to the topic but okay.

No its not cause it was accepted

It doesn't seem to indicate what is being proposed in a clear and concrete way.

Who's reasoning? If it's me then you should know me mentioning inductive reasoning is a "clear" implication that I am not saying that but the deduction made later on is clear and necessarily true even if you say it's not concrete

The scans don't say what's being proposed, and I do not believe the circumstances (the 8-D barrier) necessitate the proposed interpretation (that "higher dimensional" must be a level of infinity above the 8-D barrier) because the speaker saying this would still refer to it as higher dimensional either way.

So you disagree because you don't understand what I said? because I didn't say this, idk which argument did you read that actually says this but if it's mine you just took it out of context to conclude that it doesn't say that, that makes no sense

The induction doesn't have to have everything pertaining to the scan the scan is already used premise 1 from there the inference is built on that and the basic nature of higher dimensions

Deduction on the other hand everything said there is based on how actual scans and how higher dimensions work within the nasuverse and even outside of it
(which r>F is already accepted in the nasuverse)
And because it's a deduction this time the antecedents being true makes the consequence necessarily true in all possible worlds therefore is concrete

 

[inkownn]

No its not cause it was accepted

Who's reasoning? If it's me then you should know me mentioning inductive reasoning is a "clear" implication that I am not saying that but the deduction made later on is clear and necessarily true even if you say it's not concrete

So you disagree because you don't understand what I said? because I didn't say this, idk which argument did you read that actually says this but if it's mine you just took it out of context to conclude that it doesn't say that, that makes no sense

The induction doesn't have to have everything pertaining to the scan the scan is already used premise 1 from there the inference is built on that and the basic nature of higher dimensions

Deduction on the other hand everything said there is based on how actual scans and how higher dimensions work within the nasuverse and even outside of it
(which r>F is already accepted in the nasuverse)
And because it's a deduction this time the antecedents being true makes the consequence necessarily true in all possible worlds therefore is concrete

He’s referring to the original proposal. At the start. The first message sent.

 

[Robo432343]

where is the agree to disagree tally
im neutral for 9D

 

[Deagonx]

No its not cause it was accepted

Previously accepted things can be challenged in CRTs which depend on them. The status quo is always changing.

Who's reasoning? If it's me

So you disagree because you don't understand what I said? because I didn't say this

No. The OP.

 

[God243]

bump

Bro the admins are death

 

[Robo432343]

bro where the staff at

 

[Robo432343]

oh someone can call antvasima