• 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.

False R>F

Vietthai96 said:
Just saying that i disagree with a +1D cap for False R > F, it could be +1D, +2D or even Low 1-A depends on contexts. Better not putting a limit on what False R > F could achieve. 1-A is a different category entirely so it is not count

For example, Honkaiverse have textbook False R > F which using R > F as metaphor to describe dimensional transcendence
Click to expand...
Understood. Also, if an R>F is described as a mathematical dimension, then it would be "False R>F" as I mentioned here, right?

If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being infinitely large, uncountable lower reality, or considering lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering lower reality as merely a stream of thought, or a page of a book), then it will not qualify for transcendental qualitativeness and will not have the standard 'R>F'.
Click to expand...
 
If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being infinitely large, uncountable lower reality, or considering lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering lower reality as merely a stream of thought, or a page of a book), then it will not qualify for transcendental qualitativeness and will not have the standard 'R>F'
Click to expand...
Either it is quantitative or qualitative transcendence, can't be both at the same time, in which, depend entirely on in-verse context, we can't be definitely say because there is mathematical dimensional transcendence make qualitative transcendence invalid, because 1-A does not mean it is not possess any physicality, just that it have higher concept of physicality than the lower one.
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
Do you know a word that might be able to replace it?
Click to expand...
Oh, it's not that I have any specific issues with the phrase, just that it has unfortunate baggage.

ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
So, like a bullet point of examples of real R > F examples versus false ones?
Click to expand...
Yeah, something like that I think would be useful for potential readers to help them understand.
 
Last edited:
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
What I meant is that, once the R>F gap has already been invalidated, statements like “more real” cannot be used by themselves to justify an unconditional higher-tier or dimensional leap. At that point, the claim has already been proven either false, flowery, or metaphoric. So, unless there's some other context, “more real” alone would not be enough.
Click to expand...
In all honesty we might as well come down more strictly on statements of the "X is more real than Y" kind. Generally what we want the connotation to be with these statements is that X is in a state so superior to Y that Y is, as if, in a Nonexistent Physiology-like state compared to it. That's not necessarily what every verse might mean with that sort of thing even if there are technically no anti-showings that militate against that interpretation. Even in some IRL ontologies (e.g. the tradition of classical realism starting with Plato through Aristotle and the like) you'll see claims like "living things have more reality than inanimate things", which in that case obviously has a different (if adjacent) meaning to what we have in mind with this stuff for our tiers. Throw it in the "Requires Context™" bin, in which case.

Thanganimator said:
Understood. Also, if an R>F is described as a mathematical dimension, then it would be "False R>F" as I mentioned here, right?
Click to expand...
That might be misleading. Nothing stops a place that gets 1-A off genuine R>F from having its own internal mathematics or dimensionality, or whatever. What can't be the case is that it's related to the lower plane by mathematical (or more specifically, quantitative) differences. So less "If it possesses mathematical properties" and more "If it's described as something quantitative even relative to the lower realm, and not just internally."

Otherwise this turned out less problematic than I initially expected. Unless I miss something here, I suppose this is mostly fine. (Though I'd prefer a different name than "False R>F").
 
If all of our staff members here agree, yes, I think so. 🙏
 
DontTalkDT said:
Gotta expand on which anti-feats are aforementioned. Also maybe try to formulate it without the term "anti-feats" for an official page. I think "Quantitative R>F" or similar would also work better than "false" for the name, if we give it a name.
Click to expand...
DonTalkTD, all the staff in this thread have agreed, including Antvasima. Could you please add this term to the Reality-Fiction Transcedence page?
 
I've been asked to follow up on this thread. The notion of adding this note to the page seems to have been accepted, but the specifics such as wording still seem to be unclear.

What needs to be done with this page?
 
Random-Helper323 said:
I've been asked to follow up on this thread. The notion of adding this note to the page seems to have been accepted, but the specifics such as wording still seem to be unclear.

What needs to be done with this page?
Click to expand...
ActuallySpaceMan42 proposed this regarding False R>F:

Not every case that resembles Reality-Fiction Transcendence will qualify as a genuine Reality-Fiction gap. However, failing to qualify as Reality-Fiction Transcendence does not necessarily mean that the showing has no tiering relevance. In some cases, the same evidence may still support a different kind of superiority, provided that the verse gives sufficient context for a genuine structural, quantitative, or dimensional difference rather than merely using reality-fiction language as a metaphor.
Click to expand...

For instance, if an entire lower space-time continuum is contained within the pages of a book, a screen, a painting, or another medium in a higher reality, but the lower world is still shown to possess tangible existence relative to that higher reality, then this would not be true Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Nevertheless, the showing may still be evaluated under other tiering standards if the higher reality’s relationship to the lower one demonstrates more than simple containment, size difference, or perspective.
Click to expand...

Examples may include the lower reality being consistently treated as infinitesimal, or spatially inferior structure; the higher realm encompassing the lower continuum in a way that implies an uncountably infinite or otherwise quantitative difference; or the lower world functioning as a physically embedded subset or cross-section the higher world. Likewise, a character viewing lower beings, objects, universes, or space-time structures as flat, paper-like, screen-like, two-dimensional, or otherwise negligible in comparison to themselves can be relevant evidence if the portrayal is literal and consistent.
Click to expand...

That said, such cases should be evaluated carefully. A failed Reality-Fiction Transcendence claim should not be upgraded by default. Merely being weaker, smaller, contained or viewed through a medium, or called “less real” is not enough. Likewise, statements that something is a “higher plane,” “higher world,” “more real,” “outside the story,” or “beyond space-time” are insufficient on their own unless supported by context showing what kind of superiority is actually being described.
Click to expand...

And Udlmaster further proposed a comparison between True R>F and False R>F:

I think we should discuss it in positive terms (I.E what makes something R>F) as well as negative terms (what is isn't). Something like:

For something to qualify for Reality-Fiction transcendence it must be established within the series as ontologically superior to another, such that the lower reality is treated as if it were fiction. In these cases, the higher reality is not merely larger, stronger, older or more spatially expansive but instead is fundamentally superior such that no constituent parts of the lower reality can equate the higher reality.
Click to expand...

The ways in which this can be demonstrated by the lower reality being treated as (though not limited to) a fictional setting, simulation, dream, drawing, or other authored medium while the Higher reality is treated as the "real" world by comparison. The key factor here is that the lower world is not merely contained or within the higher one but is ontologically dependent upon, subordinate to or fictional from the perspective of said Higher reality.
Click to expand...

Key supporting evidence for true Reality-Fiction transcendence may include characters editing, rewriting, observing and or interacting with the lower world as a narrative project or created work or is otherwise governed by beings and entities from the Higher World (or simply the Higher World) by an author, reader, player or other external viewer. Likewise, if beings from the higher level can treat entire lower continuums, histories, characters, and cosmologies as mere fictional content, this may support a genuine reality-fiction distinction.
Click to expand...

Then insert what isn't R>F afterwards or any edits you like.
 
Udlmaster said:
I think perhaps selecting some exemplar verses which display it so there'd be a good check point to refer back to, a kind of "Is it like this?"
Click to expand...
Maybe we should do it in another CRT? Like apply this first, and then make an examples CRT, since hunting for examples of False R > F might be a bit difficult. especially without False R > F actually being applied.
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
Maybe we should do it in another CRT? Like apply this first, and then make an examples CRT, since hunting for examples of False R > F might be a bit difficult. especially without False R > F actually being applied.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, we've applied False R>F a few times before, as I illustrated in the example above, but yeah, it's better to save those examples for later when working on a different CRT.
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
Maybe we should do it in another CRT? Like apply this first, and then make an examples CRT, since hunting for examples of False R > F might be a bit difficult. especially without False R > F actually being applied.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it should be done carefully since we don't want to mislead people on what should be the "Exemplar" or Ideal to aim for.

Likewise, I think some examples (as in series) that also show very clear Psuedo Reality-Fiction differences too.
 
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
I guess this is what the page would look like. I still need to add some comparative examples; https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:ActuallySpaceMan42/RF
Click to expand...
This looks ok.
ActuallySpaceMan42 said:
Maybe we should do it in another CRT? Like apply this first, and then make an examples CRT, since hunting for examples of False R > F might be a bit difficult. especially without False R > F actually being applied.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, Looney Toons have a false r>f.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R>F transcendence
Replies
4
Views
743
Reiner04
Reiner04
Mbpoops
Does false R>F need significant size?
Replies
2
Views
227
Mbpoops
Mbpoops
Jockey-1337
  • Locked
R>F may be useless; it is not different from normal reality warping.
Replies
22
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Helios776
Question about R>F transcendence
Replies
1
Views
818
Ciel_Trinity439
Ciel_Trinity439
Question about R>F Transcendence.
Replies
1
Views
605
OMsHanT69
OMsHanT69
Back
Top