IS THIS COUNTED AS AN BEYOND DIMENSIONAL EXISTENCE?

[HakutoRei000]

"The place is very large but complex in simple terms. When 'He' entered the place in question, the native beings there said, 'Here, there are no directions—no up, down, left, right, or any direction that indicates orientation or location. We use anchors to determine direction and location in our place.'"

 

[Kubo423]

It seems to only lack spatial features, so I guess there is no BDE here.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Type 1 BDE.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

"The place is very large but complex in simple terms. When 'He' entered the place in question, the native beings there said, 'Here, there are no directions—no up, down, left, right, or any direction that indicates orientation or location. We use anchors to determine direction and location in our place.'"

Yes.

At Ieast BDE1, but I can sIightIy see BDE from the Very Iarge and determine Iocation in our pIace. The term Iocation can onIy be aIIocated to something that can contain coordinates, aka, that can contain dimensions.

A BDE1 construct is just so smaII that, it is smaIIer then even 0-DimensionaI things, strictIy speaking of quaIitative sense, of course. Thus, from the perspective of a, Iets say, X-DimensionaI being where X is not 1-A or has BDE1 himseIf, the BDE1 pIace wouId exactIy be Nothing, so smaII that it doesnt even exist, which wouId mean it aIso cannot contain any Iocation or pIace per say, as it is quaIitativeIy smaIIer then those aspects.

And if we extend the very Iarge part enough, might just be BDE2.

Furthermore, keep in mind that Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence (In particular the latter variant) is not simply a combination of a non-dimensional state of existence and greater raw power than all dimensional structures in a cosmology – Though that is a necessary condition to qualify for it, it is not a sufficient one. Instead, the non-dimensional state of existence must be the direct cause of the character/realm's superiority over dimensions. A simple example being voids of nothingness that lack space, time and physicality entirely, but are nonetheless "vaster" than physical reality in some way, with common imagery being the universe as a small object encompassed in such a backdrop.

Edit note : Tho it wouId be best if you have more proof for it being dimension-Iess, since no up, down and direction part can be fIowery Ianguage and just a character's Iimited perspective. Since weII, for a normaI empty space, we wouIdnt be abIe to define what is up, Ieft, right, down etc in a concrete way as there is no base for any of the directions to be referenced to.

 

[Eclipso]

"The place is very large but complex in simple terms. When 'He' entered the place in question, the native beings there said, 'Here, there are no directions—no up, down, left, right, or any direction that indicates orientation or location. We use anchors to determine direction and location in our place.'"

In any sufficiently odd topological space(say, the cofinite topology on R.), there isn’t really in general a notion of direction(nor position, if there isn’t an origin). Tons of spaces would satisfy this criteria and still have dimensions.

 

[Eclipso]

At Ieast BDE1, but I can sIightIy see BDE from the Very Iarge and determine Iocation in our pIace. The term Iocation can onIy be aIIocated to something that can contain coordinates, aka, that can contain dimensions.

If a space doesn’t have a specific origin, there wouldn’t be any associated coordinates. Even if you did have an origin point, you’d need a metric on it too to define them, and some notion for angles, which not all spaces have. And this is presupposing that there is, in fact, a metric that can even be applied to it. Non-metrizable spaces don’t have any associated metric, and it wouldn’t make sense to apply one.

Non-metrizable spaces do have an associated notion of dimensions, by the way. You don’t need coordinates for that.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

If a space doesn’t have a specific origin, there wouldn’t be any associated coordinates. Even if you did have an origin point, you’d need a metric on it too to define them, and some notion for angles, which not all spaces have. And this is presupposing that there is, in fact, a metric that can even be applied to it. Non-metrizable spaces don’t have any associated metric, and it wouldn’t make sense to apply one.

Non-metrizable spaces do have an associated notion of dimensions, by the way. You don’t need coordinates for that.

Im not much of a math nerd, so Im not sure about the part reIated to non-metrizabIe spaces.

But to my Iimited knowIedge, at Ieast Non-BDE constructs, shouId have Space that can represent coordinates. I mean, that is what space is, a set of spatiaI dimensions/axis, with coordinates being a part of said spatiaI axis/dimensions. A coordinate-Iess space wouId not have spatiaI dimensions either, it wouId just be a space in name, and in truth a non-space.

 

[HakutoRei000]

Yes.

At Ieast BDE1, but I can sIightIy see BDE from the Very Iarge and determine Iocation in our pIace. The term Iocation can onIy be aIIocated to something that can contain coordinates, aka, that can contain dimensions.

A BDE1 construct is just so smaII that, it is smaIIer then even 0-DimensionaI things, strictIy speaking of quaIitative sense, of course. Thus, from the perspective of a, Iets say, X-DimensionaI being where X is not 1-A or has BDE1 himseIf, the BDE1 pIace wouId exactIy be Nothing, so smaII that it doesnt even exist, which wouId mean it aIso cannot contain any Iocation or pIace per say, as it is quaIitativeIy smaIIer then those aspects.

And if we extend the very Iarge part enough, might just be BDE2.


Edit note : Tho it wouId be best if you have more proof for it being dimension-Iess, since no up, down and direction part can be fIowery Ianguage and just a character's Iimited perspective. Since weII, for a normaI empty space, we wouIdnt be abIe to define what is up, Ieft, right, down etc in a concrete way as there is no base for any of the directions to be referenced to.

How about this.


The Joymaker stated that 'they are beings from a realm beyond our conventional understanding of space and time, creating Anchors as markers for their spatial coordinates. However, there was a calculation failure that caused the Anchor to tear through the dimensional hole and enter our lower dimension.'"

.......However, now we know that what The Joymaker said wasn't the truth. The beings it encountered are called Xygorzh, aggressive creatures originating from a dimension that treats our 3-dimensional world as merely one dimension and views time only as numerical figures. Their goal is to use lower dimensions, such as ours, as a source of energy for their own planet's sustenance. They plan to do this by enclosing our world with transparent dimensional walls, akin to a miniature city encased in glass. Then, they'll drain all the energy from our world until it's depleted, reverting it to a state before the big bang.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

How about this.


The Joymaker stated that 'they are beings from a realm beyond our conventional understanding of space and time, creating Anchors as markers for their spatial coordinates. However, there was a calculation failure that caused the Anchor to tear through the dimensional hole and enter our lower dimension.'"

.......However, now we know that what The Joymaker said wasn't the truth. The beings it encountered are called Xygorzh, aggressive creatures originating from a dimension that treats our 3-dimensional world as merely one dimension and views time only as numerical figures. Their goal is to use lower dimensions, such as ours, as a source of energy for their own planet's sustenance. They plan to do this by enclosing our world with transparent dimensional walls, akin to a miniature city encased in glass. Then, they'll drain all the energy from our world until it's depleted, reverting it to a state before the big bang.

Yeah that just seems pretty much just a dimensionaI difference, the fact that

• They can enter the Iower dimension
• They use the energy of the Iower dimension to sustain their higher dimension
• they view it as 1-dimensionaI
• and view time as numericaI vaIues

Just seems to make it cut-cIear of a dimensionaI difference. At best, you couId argue that its a 2 or more DimensionaI jump instead since they view the Iower dimension as a point, a 0-DimensionaI thing, instead of viewing it as a 2-DimensionaI pIane, but that seems to be the Iimit. There are too many disquaIifiers that prevent it from being even near an RF transcendence

 

[Eclipso]

A coordinate-Iess space wouId not have spatiaI dimensions either, it wouId just be a space in name, and in truth a non-space.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this, but a non-metrizable space is certainly a space, and has well-defined dimensionality. The informal notion of “number of coordinates needed to specify a point” is informal for good reason. It’s not accurate(nor coherent, in fact), neither is the informal(not even sure if it’s common, as I haven’t seen it elsewhere) notion that a space is a set of points and axes or dimensions(dimensions aren’t elements of a space, dimensionality is any one of various different properties of different kinds of space that usually agree for well-behaved spaces)

If you take “1-dimensional” to mean “you can specify every point in the space uniquely with only one real number”, then 2D spaces are necessarily, by this definition, 1D. There is a bijection from Rx2 to R. In fact, there’s various ones(I won’t be listing any in particular, but if you want to find one, it’s relatively easy to google one)

Take some bijection from Rx2 to R, let’s denote it by F

Then, take some space X, such that every point is of the form (x, y) for real numbers x and y

Then, there is a way of uniquely identifying each point of X with ONE real number z, e.g. it’s, by the previous definition, 1-dimensional.

Take F((x, y)). Since F is injective, F((x, y)) is unique, and, since it’s a function, it takes any value (x, y) for real x and y. Hence, F((x, y)) is the desired real number uniquely associated to that point in space.


You can do the exact same thing with 3-dimensional, 4-dimensional, etc.

 

[Eclipso]

"The place is very large but complex in simple terms. When 'He' entered the place in question, the native beings there said, 'Here, there are no directions—no up, down, left, right, or any direction that indicates orientation or location. We use anchors to determine direction and location in our place.'"

In case you want to see some examples of such spaces that satisfy that(assuming the no direction thing is in a more literal sense and not like, outer space), a space with a notion of angles or directions(and hence length of vectors and a metric and a topology) is called an inner product space, where <v, w> denotes the inner product between v and w, where the angle between two vectors is defined via the inner product.

Any vector space(or, in fact, any topological space) which doesn’t have an associated inner product(or cannot, for example, a non-metrizable space) wouldn’t necessarily have angles or directions and whatnot.

If you want a more geometrical example, affine geometry is essentially geometry without angles or distances, although I don’t know much about it.