- 2,783
- 2,534
I'm happy with even just the idea of 1-A LotR.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dimensions are not hierarchical in the first place, 4D being bigger than 3D doesn't imply a hierarchy, it's just bigger because there are more dimensionsI almost completely agree with ultima's proposal for R>F and Beyond Dimensional Existence having such a grand tier... But let's be real, not all authors are well aware of such concepts such as a hierarchy dimensions, so simply making a character whom claims to be 'beyond all dimensions' Tier 1-A simply because it is stated to be beyond dimensions doesn't make sense.
Let's take for example:
If a character in SpongeBob is quoted to be beyond dimensions, we are not sure as to what the authors mean by that, he(it) would simply fall under the Unknown or a Low 2-C Tier.
Why?
Because the authors had never given prior notice or even given an example of what a dimension means in the verse. It could mean anything really, like alternate realities or alternate spaces. We cannot jump to conclusions that it is a higher dimension.
So, in what way would R>F and Beyond Dimensional Existence qualify for Ultima's proposal?
At the minimum, a verse should have explicits statements of higher dimensions, or planes that trivializes the last.
An Example:
The DC Multiverse. Explicit statements about the 1st to the 6th dimension, the DC multiverse would qualify for Beyond Dimensional Existence. Simply because it has been shown that the authors have a minimum understanding as to what the hierarchy of dimensions entails.
Not convinced?
Many may not be convinced, but let's think of it like this: suppose an author (that understand dimensionality) says the character he had created is beyond all dimensions, this shows that he(or she) intends to tell the viewer or reader, that the character transcends the very concept of dimensionality in total. That is no matter how many dimensions, infinite and beyond, said character completely and utterly transcends it.
Literally no, hierarchical means order of rank. The 3rd and 4th of the dimensions makes that pretty self-evident.Dimensions are not hierarchical in the first place, 4D being bigger than 3D doesn't imply a hierarchy, it's just bigger because there are more dimensions
Pretty confident in my verse at least. The difference is pretty qualitative.All these people saying this verse will be 1-A that verse will be 1-A when majority of those actually breach a requirement that would render their R>F not qualified for the R>F Ultima is proposing
Dimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other. You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.Literally no, hierarchical means order of rank. The 3rd and 4th of the dimensions makes that pretty self-evident.
Yes dimensions in a vacuum aren't ordinal without ordering them in sequence first, but their still composed of vectors coordinates in premise which in Ultima's proposal the new 1-A should be above all vector coordinate spaces as a axiomDimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other. You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.
Yes, I agree with that (minus the weird "vacuum" part)... but I'm confused, were you not just arguing for them being ordinal? They can't be hierarchal without an "order" to them. Did I misunderstand or something?Yes dimensions in a vacuum aren't ordinal without ordering them in sequence first, but their still composed of vectors coordinates in premise which in Ultima's proposal the new 1-A should be above all vector coordinate spaces as a axiom
Yes, ordinals was my argument until I realized that dimensions regardless if their ordinal or not would still be bound by the premise of being at least compromised of vectors.Yes, I agree with that (minus the weird "vacuum" part)... but I'm confused, were you not just arguing for them being ordinal? They can't be hierarchal without an "order" to them. Did I misunderstand or something?
So if I understand this correctly the important part is how many dimensions a character has,not which dimensions they have.Dimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other.
Both objects in this example are 3D since they have a total of 3 dimensions.You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.
There are some contexts where dimensions can be made ordinal but when we think of things in the sense of 4D, 5D, etc... it's usually cardinal. There are a lot of verses that like to assume a sort of ordinal placement with them (Like DC, I guess, but frankly I think it's weird that the Fifth Dimension in DC is considered Low 1-C anyway) but that's usually just a verse-specific thing. That's also why you don't tend to see things like -1-dimensional or 3.5-dimensional without redefining some things.So if I understand this correctly the important part is how many dimensions a character has,not which dimensions they have.
An 8th dimensional character is 8D not because they exist in the "8th dimension" but because they exist in a total of 8 dimensions.
Both objects in this example are 3D since they have a total of 3 dimensions.
Even though they exist within different dimensions,they are still equivalent to eachother in dimensionality.
Dimensions not being inherently ordinal seems to be one of the reasons why Ultima came to the conclusion of R>F being above dimensionality in the first place.
Who exactly is your question meant for? Anyone in particular? Regardless of who you're asking, I want to offer my input. Strictly speaking, size and dimensionality are not the same things, but when speaking about them in a spatial sense they correlate a lot, and for tiering, they might as well be the same. I think this post from askdifference.com sums it up nicely.I have a question! Will size and dimensionality still be equated after this?
This does beg the question though: What about similarly related concepts, like distance, direction, magnitude, space, etc? They aren't the same things as dimensionality either, but they're all deeply connected in a certain sense. It shouldn't be hard to see the similarities between these things.Understanding the size of an object often requires knowing its dimensions, but dimensions alone do not describe the size. Size can imply overall space occupancy or capacity, while dimensions provide the detailed measurements of each aspect of an object's shape.
It's for anyone really. And yes, as you mention, size and dimensionality aren't the same thing. But in the current system:Who exactly is your question meant for? Anyone in particular?
Nothing below High 1-B is changing, so yes.It's for anyone really. And yes, as you mention, size and dimensionality aren't the same thing. But in the current system:
1.having 5 dimensions,
2. being uncountably bigger than a universe
3. having uncountably infinite amount of universes
Are equated. They're all quantitative standards, so will they still be equated?
This is just HDE, as far as the wiki is conerned.1.having 5 dimensions,
Liar.12/02/23: As an update on the above: Yeah, I'm late. Going through a move and all, so, been occupied with helping that out for the past few days. The response itself is nearly done, so, expect it to be thrown here sometime tomorrow.
Liar.
I haven't forgotten, obviously. Moving just turned out to be a far, far lengthier thing than I expected. I'll probably go back to doing wiki things sometime within this weekend.
See you guys in April
Dammit DT.
What? When? I only see Ultima not being able to reply because he's busy.This discussion seems to be at it's end?
Ultima literally said that he's working on a reply, but that he's been held up on a move. I have no idea where you got the assumption that it was over. Ultima hasn't even had a chance to talk things out with Agnaa yet.This discussion seems to be at it's end?
I'm literally a CSAP staff member and I have no idea what you mean by "concept scaling".i think it is better to just make what csap do with it's system,bring back concept scaling and that it is
oh,hello ben,i was reffering to the...wait,oh...well,sorry,i already kicked my head myself and notice itI'm literally a CSAP staff member and I have no idea what you mean by "concept scaling".
I pretty much agree, yeah. Hence I said that, for a computer simulation to actually be R>F, the simulation and the thing it's simulating would have to be distinct. As I pointed out, if you treat the two as one and the same, it's quite literally not even an infinite difference at all. So using that as some counterexample to the notion that R>F is 1-A is just bizarre.simulations are still different from the stories the letters are telling IMO
because simulations simulate things as reality upon their limited capacity. to qualify a simulation to somehow be considered R>F
one would need to portray the simulation as the story rather than the simulation being simulated