• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Abstract entities can have HDE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thermor said:
Actually thinking about it, it's stated that BDE3 characters can operate on a higher notion of dimensionality. An example is a higher universe inhabitat with "3D humans" having R>F over a lower universe. Large size can still apply probably.
Click to expand...
Hmm, wait, you can have Large Size with BDE2, about 3, probably for 1-A but not above i guess
 
BDE can have size depending on context. AE shouldn't, though, you have to pick one to adhere to any sense of logic.

Their 'avatars' or their 'influence' can have whatever size it wants, though.
 
FinePoint said:
BDE can have size depending on context. AE shouldn't, though, you have to pick one to adhere to any sense of logic.

Their 'avatars' or their 'influence' can have whatever size it wants, though.
Click to expand...
Do you think 1A+ abstract characters should get their large size removed even if they gotten it via R>F? The three I mentioned.
 
Thermor said:
Do you think 1A+ abstract characters should get their large size removed even if they gotten it via R>F? The three I mentioned.
Click to expand...
AE2 can still have large size, but not AE1.

If they have AE1 then either that or large size needs to be removed. The tier doesn't really matter.

As per the BDE page regarding qualitative superiority: "These beings can still operate on a higher notion of dimensionality that is fundamental to their own nature and reality."

That is to say, these kinds of characters presumably do have some sort of concrete presence on some higher order, while a character with AE1 does not.

And none of this is to imply that having AE1 as opposed to BDE, HDE, or Large Size is necessarily a downgrade nor an upgrade, it's just a fundamentally different state of existence that's not logically compatible.
 
What is our staff consensus here so far? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
What is our staff consensus here so far? 🙏
Click to expand...
Right now, everyone is saying different things, and there are many contradictions.

I told them that there is a contradiction—you cannot claim that a concept cannot perceive a higher-dimensional being, because a concept is not related to dimensions or the number of dimensions; rather, it is related to thought itself and is connected to any entity regardless of its existence. Concepts are tied to thought and reality, or in another sense, they encompass all beings, and they have no relation to the number of dimensions a being exists in or its rank of existence within a dimensional system.
 
Reiner04 said:
Vieth seems to disagree with it but i will ping him just so he can clarify himself. @Vietthai96
Click to expand...
Tbh i'm mostly neutral because this field is extremely subjective. Though i remember i mentioned about a situation where fiction can have abstraction possesses dimensional properties which if we goes with abstraction should absolutely possesses no dimensional properties then will need to solves the issues i brought up
 
Vietthai96 said:
Tbh i'm mostly neutral because this field is extremely subjective. Though i remember i mentioned about a situation where fiction can have abstraction possesses dimensional properties which if we goes with abstraction should absolutely possesses no dimensional properties then will need to solves the issues i brought up
Click to expand...
A concept is not related to dimensions. The problem is that others here reject the idea that abstract characters can possess higher-dimensional existence because they consider it contradictory, while at the same time they do not accept that the concept itself has a scope across all possible dimensions, since, according to them, a concept has no relation to dimensions, dimensional properties, or anything of that sort. That is their stance. Therefore, it is not logical to say that a concept cannot perceive a certain entity, because first, you are contradicting yourself and your own argument. You are measuring the concept by a dimensional system, while you already reject the idea that a concept has any dimensional properties or relations in the first place—so how can we measure it using a dimensional system? Only physical entities and objects are measured by dimensions, and since concepts are not related to dimensions and do not possess dimensional properties, as they themselves claim, then you must be consistent and accept that such concepts inherently have a universal scope. They relate to thought, mind, and reality, and affect any entity regardless of its dimensional level of existence, and this is something we all know.

The concept of death applies to any entity regardless of its level of existence, and if there is a character that is the embodiment of death itself and possesses AE1, then it is capable of perceiving all entities in the first place, because concepts are not measured by dimensions, for the reasons I mentioned.

I want an answer now from anyone who claims that a concept is measured by dimensional scope regarding this contradiction, and remember—you are contradicting yourself and your own argument if you say that a concept cannot perceive a higher-dimensional being. Keep that in mind.
 
Reiner04 said:
  • Plancks, Finepoint and I agree that AE1 beings shouldn't have HDE.
  • Vieth seems to disagree with it but i will ping him just so he can clarify himself. @Vietthai96
  • DontTalks answer was bit vague so plancks asked for clarification but he yet haven't replied.
Click to expand...
Vietthai96 said:
Tbh i'm mostly neutral because this field is extremely subjective. Though i remember i mentioned about a situation where fiction can have abstraction possesses dimensional properties which if we goes with abstraction should absolutely possesses no dimensional properties then will need to solves the issues i brought up
Click to expand...
Thank you for helping out.

So should we apply the consensus here then? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Thank you for helping out.

So should we apply the consensus here then? 🙏
Click to expand...
I think its better if @DontTalkDT first clarify his 3rd point before we proceed to any changes:
DontTalkDT said:
If they have an avatar that can have HDE.
If they have an aspect for which having a concept of dimensionality makes sense (e.g. some depiction of information), then it works, too.
If you want to claim they are a universal in traditional sense or something along those lines, then you have to choose between either having that or having HDE.
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
Sorry, could you elaborate on the "universal in a traditional sense"? As in, a Type 1/2 concept or something else?
Click to expand...
 
Vietthai96 said:
Tbh i'm mostly neutral because this field is extremely subjective. Though i remember i mentioned about a situation where fiction can have abstraction possesses dimensional properties which if we goes with abstraction should absolutely possesses no dimensional properties then will need to solves the issues i brought up
Click to expand...
I think if that's stated we either assume it's an avatar or that they're not truly abstract.

We don't always take the author at face-value for our purposes since we can define terms very differently.
 
Reiner04 said:
I think its better if @DontTalkDT first clarify his 3rd point before we proceed to any changes:
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to help out here please? 🙏
Click to expand...
DontTalk being lazy again i guess
but anyway his points is

1. If they have avatar, HDE for avatar is oke

2. If they have some weird concept of dimensionality then having HDE is oke since the concept is involving mathematical dimensions

3. Universals in traditional sense means Universal Metaphysics. In which Universals are abstract, the quality of something, while their particulars (which we commonly knows on our site as "things" defined and governed by the abstract concept) are concrete, defined by the Universals. So the Universals must strictly do not have HDE, if they have HDE then they aren't Universals.

Well, some will questioning the line in which the wikipedia page i have linked
However, universals are not necessarily abstract and particulars are not necessarily concrete.
Click to expand...
However this case is rare and not a default thing, and it also belong to the second point which i already explained, weird Universals that involving physical things like dimensionality and numbers, maths which can be both abstract and concrete
 
Last edited:
Reiner04 said:
I think its better if @DontTalkDT first clarify his 3rd point before we proceed to any changes:
Click to expand...
The types of concepts aren't aligned in the way to serve as qualifiers here, even if Type 1 are likely candidates.
To say the obvious, the type of concept that would be technically a 1-A thing would have a problem with the notion of someone being just that concept (i.e. without avatar) having HDE.
More generally, concepts that are abstract in a sense which implies them not being tied into spacetime, which is a traditional view on the subject.
 
DontTalkDT said:
The types of concepts aren't aligned in the way to serve as qualifiers here, even if Type 1 are likely candidates.
To say the obvious, the type of concept that would be technically a 1-A thing would have a problem with the notion of someone being just that concept (i.e. without avatar) having HDE.
More generally, concepts that are abstract in a sense which implies them not being tied into spacetime, which is a traditional view on the subject.
Click to expand...
I see, Do you have any draft in mind that can be put on the profiles? I tried compliling all that was said but i don't know if it's good enuf:

Abstract Existence Type 1 does not normally possess HDE, since having dimensional properties would contradict its abstract nature. Entities classified as Abstract Type 1 are meant to be completely incorporeal and abstract, and therefore should not have physical attributes such as dimensions. Exceptions can exist in certain cases. For example, if such an entity manifests through a dimensional avatar, then that avatar can possess dimensionality. Similarly, if the abstract entity directly represents, or can be reasonably argued to directly entail or encompass dimensional aspects alongside its abstract nature, then dimensional properties may be considered applicable (for example, a concept of dimensions, spacetime, or similar constructs). However, if these entities are Universals in the traditional metaphysical sense, meaning they are not part of spacetime, they cannot possess HDE. If fiction portrays them as having dimensional properties regardless, then it is more accurate to conclude that they were not truly Universals to begin with.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Are any of you willing to help out here please? 🙏
Click to expand...
Sure. Here's my thought to add to each of the pages or a FAQ:

Abstract Existence, Beyond Dimensional Existence, and Higher Dimensional Existence​

Higher-dimensional existence is fundamentally a way to define a space a character, being, or structure occupies with four or more spatial axes. This can be four, all the way up to ever-expanding infinite number sets. But all of this still comes down to the object in question can be "defined" as occupying a space through a coordinate system. An object existing purely as an abstract concept (Type 1 Abstract Existence), with no definitive size or spatial occupation within a cosmology, would not qualify for HDE. As there's no higher space it occupies, but rather it exists in a conceptualized state. However, an avatar of a Type 1 Abstract being that occupies reality as a physical form can qualify for HDE, as they can now be defined by a coordinate system.

By a similar notion, Beyond Dimensional Existence (Type 1) exist in a state in which they cannot be quantified by a spatial axis, while not being inherently superior to them in a fashion of qualitative superiority. Because they cannot be defined by a higher-dimensional coordinate system, they would also not qualify for an HDE rating, as there's no way to plot their existence within a spatial coordinate system. BDE Type 2 is slightly different, as those beings have a large relative size beyond spatial constructs, such as being a void that a cosmology is suspended in, but this means that their size inherently does not translate to a spatial coordinate system. Instead, they occupy a relatively larger area of cosmology, which happens to have a subset within itself that is defined by spatial coordinates.

There are possible exceptions to this standard, however. For example, if an Abstract Being occupies the concept whose information can be expressed or defined through spatial coordinates, such as the physical concept of space, then they can have both Abstract Existence and Higher Dimensional Existence at the same time.
Click to expand...
Does this work?
 
Azertyhuuh said:
However, there are characters that possess Type 1 Abstract Existence and are still able to exist in higher dimensions, perceive them, and even control an entire dimension, reaching new axes of motion and attacking higher-dimensional characters.

How do you explain this?
Click to expand...
There are possible exceptions to this standard, however. For example, if an Abstract Being occupies the concept whose information can be expressed or defined through spatial coordinates, such as the physical concept of space, then they can have both Abstract Existence and Higher Dimensional Existence at the same time.
Click to expand...
Azertyhuuh said:
If they do not have Higher-Dimensional Existence, then how did they reach a higher-dimensional being, exist everywhere within its space, and still manage to attack?
Click to expand...
Destroying a pure abstract requires reality warping or conceptual manipulation in either capacity. Just punching them won't work.
Azertyhuuh said:
Would you say it cannot reach them, coexist with them, or attack them simply because it does not possess Higher-Dimensional Existence? That would be a contradiction.
Click to expand...
Yes. If you occupy the idea of love, you cannot spatially define love. You'd have to attack it on the conceptual level, though the avatar of the Abstract could be punched.
Azertyhuuh said:
So how is the range of a Type 1 Abstract Existence measured?
Click to expand...
The range of the Abstract is what Concept level it embodies and how it relates to the cosmology. If you're the concept of Blue Jeans and Blue Jeans exist across the multiverse, then the range will be multiversal but the Abstract entity is still ultimately just an idea with no physical form.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Alright, but is the end even a concept in the first place
Click to expand...
Entropy is a concept yes. The death/end of everything is something that's been explored plenty in fiction.
Azertyhuuh said:
All concepts and possible things do not go beyond the end, because everything is still capable of ending and ceasing to exist, and there is nothing after the end itself.
Click to expand...
???

I have no idea what you're on about now.

Azertyhuuh said:
asked someone here, and they told me that nothingness is not a concept.
Click to expand...
Was this someone a mod? We have multiple profiles that are Type 1 Abstract concepts of nothing

Azertyhuuh said:
Can the end be considered a concept at all? It might be something more void-like than ordinary nothingness itself, since even nothingness can be destroyed or cease, which would make the end prior even to nothingness.
Click to expand...
This sounds like you had a verse-specific experience with something. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Characters as you're describing would be Non-Existence Physiology, Abstract Existence, and maybe BDE. But they would not qualify for HDE if they can't be spatially defined.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
Alright, but is the end even a concept in the first place? I think that nothingness is not a concept, and likewise “the end” is not a concept. The end, in itself, represents the utmost limit that can be reached—and reaching it implies everything, regardless of its nature. Nothing can surpass the end. All concepts and possible things do not go beyond the end, because everything is still capable of ending and ceasing to exist, and there is nothing after the end itself.

I asked someone here, and they told me that nothingness is not a concept.

Can the end be considered a concept at all? It might be something more void-like than ordinary nothingness itself, since even nothingness can be destroyed or cease, which would make the end prior even to nothingness.
Click to expand...
This is staff thread and to deal with power and abilities in general, not to discuss whether specific verse's characters should qualify or not.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
I am discussing the concept of the end itself; this has nothing to do with characters or fictional works. In my view, the concepts of the end and nothingness are similar, and that is what I am analyzing now. Both nothingness and the end should be classified with the same level of value due to their void-like nature.
Click to expand...
This is very obviously about Instant Death. Please save this for a specific CRT, not here.
 
Azertyhuuh said:
short, I see the end and nothingness as very similar in nature. Nothingness is the opposite of existence, while the end is the termination of existence—and it can persist even after existence itself ends. It represents the final point and is void-like by nature.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the CRT. The concept of Entropy exists IRL and the idea of an end is not something that can be defined spatially. If you have a question regarding how the concept of Ending things take it to a QnA board. Otherwise stay on topic.

For your question "The End" has no tangiblity. It's an idea and therefore does not qualify for HDE.
Planck69 said:
This is very obviously about Instant Death. Please save this for a specific CRT, not here.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then they need to stop talking about it. I'm removing their comments regarding this from this point on and thread banning if they don't take this elsewhere.

Aolphl said:
Like, I got a specific character for a example; this character is a self-aware sentient multiverse and this character is embodiment of living beings' thoughs/dreams and this character has abilities required by Abstract Existence (Immortality/Regeneration). It's states that everything, like everything is that exist in "Mental Nature" for the abstraction idea. Is this character would be Type 2 or 1?
Click to expand...
This is a thread about HDE vs Abstract Existence. Your question is solely about what Abstract Type they qualify for. This question doesn't belong here.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
This is a thread about HDE vs Abstract Existence. Your question is solely about what Abstract Type they qualify for. This question doesn't belong here.
Click to expand...
I assume that I had respond this. I mean, the reason why I asked this because this character has Higher Dimensional Existence due existing as Multiverse, and have abstraction due existing as completely "thoughs" and this is exactly about HDE vs Abstract Existence
 
Vietthai96 said:
Ehmm, why strictly spartial axes?. Temporal axis is also physical axis?
Click to expand...
A temporal axis is the the series of physical states a universe can exist in within a Space-Time continuum. But time itself is not a spatial dimension and doesn't have a volume in the same why a geometric dimensions does.

Having like fifty time axis isn't what makes reality bigger, its the series of cosmic physical states that results in a large space-time container to hold the variations that is actually a higher dimensional volume that's measurable.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
A temporal axis is the the series of physical states a universe can exist in within a Space-Time continuum. But time itself is not a spatial dimension and doesn't have a volume in the same why a geometric dimensions does.

Having like fifty time axis isn't what makes reality bigger, its the series of cosmic physical states that results in a large space-time container to hold the variations that is actually a higher dimensional volume that's measurable.
Click to expand...
i think this is based on how we treat different theories regarding time. In some theories time is considered as a physical dimension, while others are not. And different verses can adopt different theories in their setting

So personally I think we better change your current phrase into:
four or more physical dimensions
Click to expand...
in order to better accommodate more verse's setting
 
Vietthai96 said:
think this is based on how we treat different theories regarding time
Click to expand...
All time theories involve the state in which the universe is in. Like Building Block Theory and Eternalism both treat time the same, the difference between the two is the length of the temporal axis .

What you're talking about is a work treating a temporal dimension as a spatial dimension, which would still be handled as a spatial dimension for the process of HDE like it is now.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
All time theories involve the state in which the universe is in. Like Building Block Theory and Eternalism both treat time the same, the difference between the two is the length of the temporal axis .

What you're talking about is a work treating a temporal dimension as a spatial dimension, which would still be handled as a spatial dimension for the process of HDE like it is now.
Click to expand...
Well then, so should we do this in HDE page too???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SweetDao
Regarding Abstract Existence (as a whole) and HDE.
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
MSahla
Is this potential HDE?
Replies
7
Views
429
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Thanganimator
Abstract Existence question
Replies
5
Views
626
Thanganimator
Thanganimator
ItsMeat
Higher planes of existence
Replies
4
Views
759
KLOL506
KLOL506
Lycoris4812
HDE Questions
Replies
4
Views
931
Arkenis
Arkenis
Back
Top