Proving the significance of dimensions

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

As the title implies, I'd like to ask what are the standards regarding proving the significance of dimensions here on the wiki beyond the obvious ones such as blatant statements of infinite size to a 5D structure (for 6D for example, frankly I'm also not sure if there even is any other method beyond this one) so if there isn't then that answers that. However, if there is then what exactly would they be? Statements that the dimensions are spatial/mathematical? Name drops that the dimensions in question are of x number? Does the actual word infinity or boundless actually even need to be used? As usual, a staff reply would be greatly appreciated here, but ofc anyone is free to answer, thanks in advance.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

Honestly not sure if you even need to prove this ngl. Toaru for example is High 1-C and yet it’s literally confirmed that it has compacted dimensions

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Honestly not sure if you even need to prove this ngl. Toaru for example is High 1-C and yet it’s literally confirmed that it has compacted dimensions

That's exactly why I'm asking, there has afaik, never been an actual clear rule or guideline on how exactly you prove the significance of dimensions to/or obtain higher tiers. It also doesn't help that as you said, there are a plethora of examples that seemingly contradict some stances.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
That's exactly why I'm asking, there has afaik, never been an actual clear rule or guideline on how exactly you prove the significance of dimensions to/or obtain higher tiers. It also doesn't help that as you said, there are a plethora of examples that seemingly contradict some stances.

Ye I generally think all you need to do is just prove it refers to spatial dimensions and other stuff is irrelevant lol

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Ye I generally think all you need to do is just prove it refers to spatial dimensions and other stuff is irrelevant lol

I originally thought that's all that was required too, that it refer to spatial/mathematical dimensions. Then I heard you needed proof of said dimension being significant in size, but then there are clear exceptions despite things like string theory allegedly not being accepted on the wiki so idk. The standards are very weird with this so I'm fishing for actual answers rn, worst case scenario this might have to be turned into a staff CRT because it can get a little ridiculous.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
I originally thought that's all that was required too, that it refer to spatial/mathematical dimensions. Then I heard you needed proof of said dimension being significant in size, but then there are clear exceptions despite things like string theory allegedly not being accepted on the wiki so idk. The standards are very weird with this so I'm fishing for actual answers rn, worst case scenario this might have to be turned into a staff CRT because it can get a little ridiculous.

Bulks are also part of string theory and they are of very significant size, only some versions of string theory propose compacted dimensions.

Anyhow, basically any verse which has higher-dimensional objects can qualify for decent dimensions tho, since compacted dimensions are really small

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

The rules on dimensions being significant boils down to
a)Them being geometric
b)Them not being compactified (This can be ignored if the number of dimensions are infinite)
The real issue comes with proving the structure or what have you being having extension in those dimensions to a "significant" (or more specifically, by our standards 46.5 billion light years, aka the diameter of the observable universe, which is kinda arbitrary but it is what it is) degree (once more ignored if you have infinite dimensions).

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Bulks are also part of string theory and they are of very significant size, only some versions of string theory propose compacted dimensions.

Anyhow, basically any verse which has higher-dimensional objects can qualify for decent dimensions tho, since compacted dimensions are really small

Well I'm not super knowledgeable on either of the string theories so I really don't know, but all I do know is that I was verbatim and flat out told that the wiki doesn't accept string theory for higher dimensions. Yet, at the same time I have made a CRT which previously had issues despite blatant evidence that follows the alleged standards.

It really just circles back to things not being clear enough, since even the tiering system FAQ aligns with one stance, yet you see others directly challenge said stance. So it'd be nice to have some transparency here, and if there isn't any then that's of course, problematic.

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Well I'm not super knowledgeable on either of the string theories so I really don't know, but all I do know is that I was verbatim and flat out told that the wiki doesn't accept string theory for higher dimensions. Yet, at the same time I have made a CRT which previously had issues despite blatant evidence that follows the alleged standards.

String theory isn't outright denied, it's the string theories which use compactified dimensions (which are the ones most people use/know about thanks to pop-scifi) that are typically bunk for Low 1-C and up

ByArrow · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Ye I generally think all you need to do is just prove it refers to spatial dimensions and other stuff is irrelevant lol

No. Even if the dimension in question is spatial, you still need to prove that it is infinite in size.

AlipheeseXIV said:
As the title implies, I'd like to ask what are the standards regarding proving the significance of dimensions here on the wiki beyond the obvious ones such as blatant statements of infinite size to a 5D structure (for 6D for example, frankly I'm also not sure if there even is any other method beyond this one) so if there isn't then that answers that. However, if there is then what exactly would they be?

If the dimension in question contains an uncountable infinite number of universes, it would qualify for Low 1-C (5-D)

Similarly, if it contains an uncountably infinite number of 5-D structures, it qualifies for 1-C (6-D)

AlipheeseXIV said:
Statements that the dimensions are spatial/mathematical?

This isn’t enough.

AlipheeseXIV said:
Name drops that the dimensions in question are of x number?

Again this isn’t enough.

AlipheeseXIV said:
Does the actual word infinity or boundless actually even need to be used?

It's not a necessity, but it makes things a lot easier.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Well I'm not super knowledgeable on either of the string theories so I really don't know, but all I do know is that I was verbatim and flat out told that the wiki doesn't accept string theory for higher dimensions. Yet, at the same time I have made a CRT which previously had issues despite blatant evidence that follows the alleged standards.

It really just circles back to things not being clear enough, since even the tiering system FAQ aligns with one stance, yet you see others directly challenge said stance. So it'd be nice to have some transparency here, and if there isn't any then that's of course, problematic.

Standards are constantly contradicted here so it is what it is

Time to downgrade Toaru though !!

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
The rules on dimensions being significant boils down to
a)Them being geometric
b)Them not being compactified (This can be ignored if the number of dimensions are infinite)
The real issue comes with proving the structure or what have you being having extension in those dimensions to a "significant" (or more specifically, by our standards 46.5 billion light years, aka the diameter of the observable universe, which is kinda arbitrary but it is what it is) degree (once more ignored if you have infinite dimensions).

Then why are there cases where despite said dimensions being bigger than the observable universe there have still been disagreements? Also, on another note then. Let's say a collection of spatial dimensions aren't infinite but close to infinite (like countless) what tier would be given? Sure they may not be infinite but they are, of course, still vastly significant to something that's numbered. Similarly to how an infinite number of dimensions would supersede the rule, wouldn't it only be logical they be above something numbered like H1C for example?

Deonment said:
String theory isn't outright denied, it's the string theories which use compactified dimensions (which are the ones most people use/know about thanks to pop-scifi) that are typically bunk for Low 1-C and up

Then that begs a bigger question, which string theories are, and are not denied? Like, I don't recall this ever being formally stated anywhere outside of some arbitrary staff message from x months or years ago, which of course the large majority of people wouldn't know about.

ByArrow · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
The real issue comes with proving the structure or what have you being having extension in those dimensions to a "significant" (or more specifically, by our standards 46.5 billion light years, aka the diameter of the observable universe, which is kinda arbitrary but it is what it is) degree (once more ignored if you have infinite dimensions

No. If it is not infinite, it is not suitable for Tier 1. Even if it is millions of times larger than the diameter of the universe.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Then that begs a bigger question, which string theories are, and are not denied? Like, I don't recall this ever being formally stated anywhere outside of some arbitrary staff message from x months or years ago, which of course the large majority of people wouldn't know about.

This one is valid for dimensions.

Anything you see here is not.

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

ByArrow said:
Similarly, if it contains an uncountably infinite number of 5-D structures, it qualifies for 1-C (6-D)

It's funny, because you don't even strictly need this to qualify for 1C. Some of these things I mentioned were rhetorical, I'm really just picking people's brains to see what standards are and are not contradicted honestly.

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
This one is valid for dimensions.

Anything you see here is not.

I'll give these a look.

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
It's funny, because you don't even strictly need this to qualify for 1C. Some of these things I mentioned were rhetorical, I'm really just picking people's brains to see what standards are and are not contradicted honestly.

Btw, the standard he’s referring to is incoherent irl. The difference between dimensions being an Aleph 1 jump is just something VSBW made up. Both infinite 4D and finite 4D have the same identical cardinal difference in comparison to 3D and below.

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Btw, the standard he’s referring to is incoherent irl. The difference between dimensions being an Aleph 1 jump is just something VSBW made up. Both infinite 4D and finite 4D have the same identical cardinal difference in comparison to 3D and below.

Well that's fine, I'm mostly focusing on VSBW and their madeup stuff here.

ByArrow · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Then why are there cases where despite said dimensions being bigger than the observable universe there have still been disagreements

As I said the dimension have to be infinite.

AlipheeseXIV said:
Also, on another note then. Let's say a collection of spatial dimensions aren't infinite but close to infinite, what tier would be given?

You cannot be close to infinity.

What kind of collection are you referring to here?

If you're talking about a universe having many extra geometric dimensions, it won't be tier 1 unless you prove that these extra geometric dimensions are infinite.

If this extra infinite number of dimensions is not infinite, the most you can get is an extra 1 infinity.

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

ByArrow said:
As I said the dimension have to be infinite.

Yeah, except even if the dimensions are infinite and verbatim stated to be such this doesn't actually change what I said, sadly. Still disagreements.

ByArrow said:
You cannot be close to infinity.

Well yeah not in the literal sense, but countless is the next best thing to being infinite, it is a set of numbers too large to be described by something like a million, a billion, a trillion, etc which is what I was referring to.

ByArrow said:
If you're talking about a universe having many extra geometric dimensions, it won't be tier 1 unless you prove that these extra geometric dimensions are infinite.

I'm not talking about a universe, this thread is focusing specifically on spatial/mathematical dimensions.

SweetDao · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Btw, the standard he’s referring to is incoherent irl. The difference between dimensions being an Aleph 1 jump is just something VSBW made up. Both infinite 4D and finite 4D have the same identical cardinal difference in comparison to 3D and below.

I mean technically speaking, they don't really have any difference in the first place right? It's just that the 4th axis goes into a perpendicular direction that isn't covered by the rest. The way I see it, it's more a matter of range rather than "higher infinite output".

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

SweetDao said:
I mean technically speaking, they don't really have any difference in the first place right? It's just that the 4th axis goes into a perpendicular direction that isn't covered by the rest. The way I see it, it's more a matter of range rather than "higher infinite output".

It’s a qualitative difference. It only ever matters if we’re talking about Aleph 2 and above but that’s just High 1-B at that point

SweetDao · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
It’s a qualitative difference. It only ever matters if we’re talking about Aleph 2 and above but that’s just High 1-B at that point

Fair enough

ByArrow · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Yeah, except even if the dimensions are infinite and verbatim stated to be such this doesn't actually change what I said, sadly. Still disagreements.

You asked why dimensions larger than the universe still have disagreements about being tier 1, and I gave you the answer. Because they are not infinite.

You can disagree all you want, but that's how the wiki works.

AlipheeseXIV said:
Well yeah not in the literal sense, but countless is the next best thing to being infinite, it is a set of numbers too large to be described by something like a million, a billion, a trillion, etc which is what I was referring to

Countless is not close to infinity. The difference between countless and infinity is the same as the difference between 1 and infinity.

AlipheeseXIV said:
I'm not talking about a universe, this thread is focusing specifically on spatial/mathematical dimensions.

A universe is a structure with three spatial and one temporal dimension.

What I said still holds true. A structure having an extra 5 or 20 spatial dimensions is not Tier 1 unless those dimensions are infinite.

And if a structure has infinite extra spatial dimensions but these dimensions are not infinite, the most you can get is just one extra infinity for the sum of all these dimensions.

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

ByArrow said:
No. If it is not infinite, it is not suitable for Tier 1. Even if it is millions of times larger than the diameter of the universe.

That's just wrong. The standard has always been the diameter of the universe, even back before the tiering system revisions, we use the diameter of the universe as a baseline to say that the structure in question in "significant" to not go into the debates about how even structures that extend across 5 dimensions even to 1cm should be low 1-C. Things with infinite 5D hypervolume are "above baseline", but they are not the baseline, something with 2.1740262e+53 Light years^5 hypervolume is the baseline. (This also assumes that the default for dimensions isn't that they're infinite, which is wrong, the default is that the dimensions are infinite but the things within aren't)

AlipheeseXIV said:
Then why are there cases where despite said dimensions being bigger than the observable universe there have still been disagreements? Also, on another note then. Let's say a collection of spatial dimensions aren't infinite but close to infinite, what tier would be given? Sure they may not be infinite but they are, of course, still vastly significant to something that's numbered. Similarly to how an infinite number of dimensions would supersede the rule, wouldn't it only be logical they be above something numbered like H1C for example?

Close to infinite is a silly statement, but if you mean the number of dimensions is close to infinity, 1-B, countless D or what have you, if you mean the extension something has close to infinite lengths in all of the dimensions that exist in the verse, then yeah, a tier equal to however many dimensions the verse has

Super_Nova said:
Btw, the standard he’s referring to is incoherent irl. The difference between dimensions being an Aleph 1 jump is just something VSBW made up. Both infinite 4D and finite 4D have the same identical cardinal difference in comparison to 3D and below.

Well, no, the thing VSBW is using is that the total volume of a space with n dimensions is R^n, and thus each new dimension has adds "uncountably infinite" volume to a space, ergo 4D is R^4 or R*R*R*R, 5D is R*R*R*R*R, and infinite D is R^N (and thus aleph 2 sized)
We give it AP for the same reason we don't just have every tier from 0D to Ad Infinium D to one tier, because just because they have the same cardinality doesn't mean the spaces have an identical "volume", and thus if you affect a markedly larger volume, you get a larger tier

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
Well, no, the thing VSBW is using is that the total volume of a space with n dimensions is R^n, and thus each new dimension has adds "uncountably infinite" volume to a space, ergo 4D is R^4 or R*R*R*R, 5D is R*R*R*R*R, and infinite D is R^N (and thus aleph 2 sized)
We give it AP for the same reason we don't just have every tier from 0D to Ad Infinium D to one tier, because just because they have the same cardinality doesn't mean the spaces have an identical "volume", and thus if you affect a markedly larger volume, you get a larger tier

These are all underpinned by the quality of their dimensions.

The distinction in volumes between 3-dimensional objects has nothing to do with their cardinal difference to 2-dimensional ones, as they’re all equal in cardinality. So it can’t be that the same doesn’t apply for 4-dimensional objects, as every hypercube is different in hypervolume even if they’re all identical to R^4 (which is identical to R^1, R^2 etc.); which at this point we’ve already thrown away cardinality and are talking about a completely separate thing (which is the hypervolume underpinned by the quality of being 4-dimensional)

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

Mind you, this also implies a flatland-esque view of dimensionality (lower-dimensional slices) but genuine dimensions are as intangible as shadows (as they lack the higher-dimensional volume, rather than being infinitely small)

ByArrow · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
That's just wrong. The standard has always been the diameter of the universe, even back before the tiering system revisions, we use the diameter of the universe as a baseline to say that the structure in question in "significant" to not go into the debates about how even structures that extend across 5 dimensions even to 1cm should be low 1-C. Things with infinite 5D hypervolume are "above baseline", but they are not the baseline, something with 2.1740262e+53 Light years^5 hypervolume is the baseline. (This also assumes that the default for dimensions isn't that they're infinite, which is wrong, the default is that the dimensions are infinite but the things within aren't)

Tier 1: Higher Infinity
Characters whose degree of power extends to cosmological constructs beyond those above. This varies from higher-dimensional constructs infinitely exceeding those of 4 dimensions, to characters who transcend the conventional notion of numerical dimensions, both countably and uncountably infinite, up to characters who wholly surpass quantitative differences in size.

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level
Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are one uncountably infinite level above Low 2-C structures. In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to R^5 (5-dimensional real coordinate space).

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
These are all underpinned by the quality of their dimensions.

The distinction in volumes between 3-dimensional objects has nothing to do with their cardinal difference to 2-dimensional ones, as they’re all equal in cardinality. So it can’t be that the same doesn’t apply for 4-dimensional objects, as every hypercube is different in hypervolume even if they’re all identical to R^4; which at this point we’ve already thrown away cardinality and are talking about a completely separate thing (which is the quality of being 4-dimensional)

I mean, yeah, we don't really care about cardinality in that way until high 1-B and up (and by that I mean high 1-B+ loll), before that it's just notions of physics and volume

SuperNova55555 · Dec 25, 2025

@ByArrow
That is talking about cardinal differences between dimensions; not the volume of those dimensions.

Deonment said:
I mean, yeah, we don't really care about cardinality in that way until high 1-B and up (and by that I mean high 1-B+ loll), before that it's just notions of physics and volume

Yea but a lot of verses nowadays are using Aleph-1 differences as qualifiers for higher dimensions; even though this is only relevant for the distinction between discrete and indiscrete timelines

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

Super_Nova said:
@ByArrow
That is talking about cardinal differences between dimensions; not the volume of those dimensions.

Yea but a lot of verses nowadays are using Aleph-1 differences as qualifiers for higher dimensions; even though this is only relevant for the distinction between discrete and indiscrete timelines

shrug
It's just the difference between layman vs the nitty gritty that doesn't (and it hasn't, and shouldn't doesn't really have an impact on how we apply our tiers), they are technically right in saying that it's "larger" to an aleph 1 degree, just not right in what that larger actually is

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

It's genuinely sad how people can get like this over a QnA thread, but well this arrow guys reaction just helps prove my point.

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
Close to infinite is a silly statement, but if you mean the number of dimensions is close to infinity, 1-B, countless D or what have you, if you mean the extension something has close to infinite lengths in all of the dimensions that exist in the verse, then yeah,

Close to infinite is a silly statement but close to infinity is not? Maybe I'm just not really cut out for this mumbo jumbo shit, anyways not to derail too hard but yeah, this is generally what I was referring to.

Deonment said:
a tier equal to however many dimensions the verse has

And what if the verse is not actually clear about it's exact number of dimensions? How do we proceed in such a scenario?

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
Close to infinite is a silly statement but close to infinity is not? Maybe I'm just not really cut out for this mumbo jumbo shit, anyways not to derail too hard but yeah, this is generally what I was referring to.

It's a silly statement, but I was taking it as literally as I could (while still being reasonable), not that it wasn't silly to begin with

AlipheeseXIV said:
And what if the verse is not actually clear about it's exact number of dimensions? How do we proceed in such a scenario?

Estimate, if it has no statements of higher dimensions, then it's just tier 2, if it has statements of higher dimensions (not quantified) then either 5D if it just says "higher dimensional space" or smth along those lines, 6D if it says "higher dimensions" (from a lowball regarding the fact that dimensions is plural, and thus assuming 2 dimensions in addition to the typical four)

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
Estimate, if it has no statements of higher dimensions, then it's just tier 2, if it has statements of higher dimensions (not quantified) then either 5D if it just says "higher dimensional space" or smth along those lines, 6D if it says "higher dimensions" (from a lowball regarding the fact that dimensions is plural, and thus assuming 2 dimensions in addition to the typical four)

What if it already has multiple dimensions proven? Also, if there is a significant higher dimensional space beyond even that does it count towards anything beyond a n+1 increase in particular? I realize this is a tad off topic, but I could use this information.

On another note, to go back to the root here there basically doesn't seem to be an actual true consensus for what exactly does and strictly does not apply which comes off as somewhat contradictory. Yes significance is an integral aspect of tier 1 and beyond, but there's clearly exceptions, other aspects in which verses are qualifying for tier 1 as nova said, and more.

Deonment · Dec 25, 2025

AlipheeseXIV said:
What if it already has multiple dimensions proven? Also, if there is a significant higher dimensional space beyond even that does it count towards anything beyond a n+1 increase in particular? I realize this is a tad off topic, but I could use this information.

On another note, to go back to the root here there basically doesn't seem to be an actual true consensus for what exactly does and strictly does not apply which comes off as somewhat contradictory. Yes significance is an integral aspect of tier 1 and beyond, but there's clearly exceptions, other aspects in which verses are qualifying for tier 1 as nova said, and more.

The dimensions would be significant, an object could be significant if they have full extension across it; the space beyond them could either be considered just the same size as the highest dimensional object, or depending on the context possibly pointing towards it, a single dimension beyond that (note for both of these, objects/spaces being being affected are what get tiered, not pure dimensions/axi, you can have a 3D object displaced across 8D space without it necessarily being 8D, all that would give is smurf range)

I mean, there is, the thing with significance is that those exceptions (at least that I personally know of) have to do with being infinitely dimensional, which is more a property of infinite dimensions (and the fact that the resulting hypervolume of something with extension in all those dimensions is infinite, even if they or the object that existed across them only had extension equal to the planck length) than an "issue" with compact dimensions or what have you. People not applying the standards correctly is a different matter

AlipheeseXIV · Dec 25, 2025

Deonment said:
The dimensions would be significant, an object could be significant if they have full extension across it; the space beyond them could either be considered just the same size as the highest dimensional object, or depending on the context possibly pointing towards it, a single dimension beyond that (note for both of these, objects/spaces being being affected are what get tiered, not pure dimensions/axi, you can have a 3D object displaced across 8D space without it necessarily being 8D, all that would give is smurf range)

I see, well yeah that makes sense. I feel like the latter half there is somewhat rarer in most fictions that tend to stress about higher dimensions but...well...

Deonment said:
People not applying the standards correctly is a different matter

Or them just not understanding the standards enough...it's difficult, maybe if you could pick people's brain about it in private you could do that but there's too much of a demand and not enough supply of knowledgeable members for that. I'm kind of derailing here though, regardless as just a normal member I don't understand the difference between a dimension and the hypervolume or whatever you guys are talking about. I really only have surface level knowledge on all this stuff.

Churronzon · Dec 26, 2025

Super_Nova said:
Toaru for example is High 1-C and yet it’s literally confirmed that it has compacted dimensions

That's because the compactified dimensions were only recently revealed in a spinoff earlier this year. It's not because the site ignored it or was being contradictory on purpose in this instance; the evidence just hadn't existed. It's also more complicated since there's also an unknown amount of uncompactified dimensions Curtana cuts and which subsequently produces relatively large 3-dimensional debris from their cross-sections (this is what was originally used to prove the dimensions were of "non-insignificant size"). But either way, now it would mean Toaru can't scale to 11 dimensions specifically since those are compactified (probably just 4-5 spatial ones).

Super_Nova said:
Time to downgrade Toaru though !!

Yeah I'm workin on that.

Flashlight237 · Dec 26, 2025

Generally, the simplest answer is "We can't." The current theories of dimensionality, the Superstring Theory (the original 10-Dimensions Theory, basically a lengthy explanation on how our universe has 10 dimensions) and the M-Theory (the one the wiki uses, which pretty much just adds an eleventh dimension), are both just hypotheticals without a way to exactly "prove" either of them. With fictional media, if dimensionality comes into play (or rather, if the writers care about that stuff), it can pretty much go either way. A Duck Dodgers comic had Duck Dodgers grabbing superstrings, which under the Superstring Theory are 10-Dimensional objects, albeit at a fundamental level.

I do think the logic of dimensionality on the wiki is a little off at times, like sometimes it's just a matter of higher-tier space constructs. A good example of this is Cookie Clicker. There, our universe can be connected to other universes via portals, and it itself is a dimension of a higher universe still. Depending on whether you view the "line" as our universe or any one of the connections it made, we're essentially looking at a 5D or 6D space. But then, with Idleverses, you have all this wack crap that ends up turning the cosmology into a 6D or 7D space: https://cookieclicker.wiki.gg/wiki/Idleverse

And after all that, you still have to worry about Gurren Lagaan's universe being 11D despite Super Tengan Toppa Gurren Lagaan having an actual official size of 60% the size of the Observable Universe, which somehow being a higher dimensional universe is more powerful than a multiverse is, which... How?????? Like, any other Vs Debating platform would immediately tell you that multiverse>universe, so...

SuperNova55555 · Dec 26, 2025

Churronzon said:
That's because the compactified dimensions were only recently revealed in a spinoff earlier this year. It's not because the site ignored it or was being contradictory on purpose in this instance; the evidence just hadn't existed. It's also more complicated since there's also an unknown amount of uncompactified dimensions Curtana cuts and which subsequently produces relatively large 3-dimensional debris from their cross-sections (this is what was originally used to prove the dimensions were of "non-insignificant size"). But either way, now it would mean Toaru can't scale to 11 dimensions specifically since those are compactified (probably just 4-5 spatial ones).

Yeah I'm workin on that.

If Toaru didn't have fake Ein Soph, it could've been Tier 0

Proving the significance of dimensions

Part-Time Truth Seeker

Part-Time Truth Seeker

Tier 1: Higher Infinity​

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level​

Similar threads

Tier 1: Higher Infinity

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level