Hello. I have a question: could a 4D space contain universe-sized spacetime continuums within itself?
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.
What do you think about granting Space-Time Manipulation to erasure or rather, destruction of empty spaces, plus those of Tier 2 and above?
There are three choices right now.
1. Keep the same 7.5x gap. We'll have to come up with reasoning on why we're using that number.
2. Changing it to a 5x gap. The 7.5x gap came from the gap between baseline Human level (60 Joules) and Street level (300 Joules), which is currently a 5x gap.
3. Changing it to a 14x gap. This is the energy needed to fragment a human skull compared to baseline Human level.
This is incorrect. Firstly because a null set is closed only under countable unions, and not under uncountable ones. This is to say that the union of even countably infinitely many null sets is, itself, a null set, but the union of uncountably infinite null sets is not necessarily null. You can see an example of that in the real line: Each of the 0-dimensional points composing it are null sets, yet nevertheless their union produces a non-null set.However, this line of argumentation causes a large problem considering a statement made later by Ultima, that being that "the square has 0 volume." Unlike what Ultima later said about a cube actually being the sum of infinite squares, a cube (which inherently has non-zero volume) CANNOT be formed from infinite squares (each of which is said to have zero volume). Ultima says in his post that "the principles behind operations on the empty set do not apply to it ["it" referring to the null set of the square]", but this just isn't true. It still holds for the null set of the square that multiplication of infinite zeros (zero volume) does not and cannot add up to a non-zero quantity (cube with non-zero volume)
I don't view this as a problem, indeed. That said, the concept of "A character who is treated as inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings due to being dimensional in nature" is something that, rather, would make me question how exactly the hypothetical verse in question sees aspatial beings.Now take a character who is dimensional as opposed to being aspatial. This second character is treated as being inaccessibly superior to all aspatial beings in power due to their dimensionality. This in and of itself should not be a problem by Ultima's standards.
I've thought over that point myself in the past, yeah. In that case, you're saying "The verse with R>F simply operates on a weaker conception of reality that admits of degrees, while the verse with no R>F can be said to operate on a more stable and robust notion of it that supports no such thing." With that said, I think it's easily answered simply by saying "You can say the verse with R>F is moreso questioning the idea that our notion of reality is the maximally real at all," which I think is a fair assessment of most such cases. Especially with regards to cases where the "R>F" is less based on metafiction and more on concepts you'd find while studying metaphysics.However, there is still a problem with the approach to reality-fiction transcendence. In a verse where RF transcendence happens with RF-inferior beings are treated as zero, the RF-inferior humans for example are literally zero/nothingness. However, in verses where there is no RF transcendence, the human baseline of the verse is NOT zero. With Ultima's approach, the "zero-humans" would be viewed as equivalent to the "nonzero humans." It's arbitrary and quite ridiculous from a certain point of view to equate humans that are literally zero/nothingness to humans that are NOT zero and actually exist within the verse. We can equate them with our own arbitrary standards for the sake of having a fun matchup, but we should acknowledge that it is just as valid to simply equate RF-superior humans that actually exist in one verse to humans from another verse that does not have any form of RF transcendence, since they are both beings that actually exist and are non-zero within the verse rather than being zero (if the RF-superior beings aren't literal zero compared to even more RF-superior beings, that is). Ideally, this should be signified on the actual tier of the profile. For example: "0 if you use the RF-inferior beings as a baseline, 7-B if you use the RF-superior beings as a baseline" I can understand if this is too much of a hassle, but we should affirm the fact that it is just as valid to use the most RF-superior beings within a verse as the baseline as it is to use the beings that the story focuses on as the baseline.
I don't particularly mind the idea of stricter standards for R>F. Largely, what I mind is when said "stricter standards" turn into something ridiculous like "You NEED to have infinite dimensions (or some insinuation thereof) for your verse to be 1-A." That sort of stuff is just extremely silly to me.Additionally, if this approach to RF transcendence really was to be taken, the standards for what is considered to be RF transcendence need to be MUCH stricter, along with the burden of proof being to actually prove that the allegedly RF-superior beings literally view the allegedly RF-inferior beings as zero/nothingness.
I'll give my thoughts on the rest later, but that's pretty interesting. That seems to maybe disqualify the idea of compactification explaining why some higher dimensions don't have infinite superiority over lower dimensions in fiction though, doesn't it? Because with compactification a higher dimensional being seems to have an infinitesimal extension in its extra dimension(s), whereas a lower dimensional being would have zero extension whatsoever. And an infinitesimal is still a lot greater than zero to the point where you can add zero countably infinitely many times while still not getting to an infinitesimal quantity, so this doesn't explain why some higher dimensional beings in fiction don't have any infinite superiority. How would you explain higher dimensional beings that do not have infinite superiority? Or am I misunderstanding compactification? Can a compactified dimension actually have an extent of zero? I have some other ideas, but I'm wondering what you think about this. Should we actually treat higher dimensional beings as infinitely superior to lower dimensional beings by default?This is incorrect. Firstly because a null set is closed only under countable unions, and not under uncountable ones. This is to say that the union of even countably infinitely many null sets is, itself, a null set, but the union of uncountably infinite null sets is not necessarily null. You can see an example of that in the real line: Each of the 0-dimensional points composing it are null sets, yet nevertheless their union produces a non-null set.
Bro woke up and decided to tell the biggest lie of the 21st century.Anyway: I really hate making long posts like this, but some things need to be explained and clarified
Technically, R>F and dimensional tiering should be on two separate power axis. Both being 5D and seeing a universe as fiction are being infinitely superior to it, but without feats neither should be able to affect the other. The 5D character can't punch something more real than it and the R>F character doesn't cover 5D space as part of the cosmology it transcends. I will say that, as usual, I consider assumptions that R>F should just be able to cover the dimensions because in real life dimensions don't matter for a writer as overextrapolation. It's too much enforcing our views on fictional verses.
The main purpose of this forum is to discuss how to properly index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises.