I will try to reply tomorrow.
-
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.
VS Battles Wiki Forum
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
1: How can one be superior to 4D structures, but not be 5D to begin with? How does one finitely surpass infinite concepts and what does that imply tier wise? I've seen many people say that a realm being established as superior to space and time isn't enough for them to be 5D, so Is 4.5D suddenly a thing now? I don't understand.
- How can one be superior to 4D structures, but not be 5D to begin with?
- I am not sure if one is referring to a person or place. Assuming it is about a place, the place can be larger than the other structures. Assuming it is a person, then that person can create larger structures or destroy such structures/larger ones with no significant effort.
- How does one finitely surpass infinite concepts and what does that imply tier wise?
- I think the context of infinite concepts has to exist in verse. I guess it could be at 1-A or higher with good contexts like transcending concepts of dimension. Just being superior without more context sounds vague.
- I've seen many people say that a realm being established as superior to space and time isn't enough for them to be 5D, so Is 4.5D suddenly a thing now?
- It depends on the context. My first point about place explains this. The tier update should be fine if the context is solid enough without being ambiguous to the tiering system.
- Also, even 4.5 D needs more contexts than just superior to space and time.
- When it comes to someone or something existing above the established dimensions of a series, are the standards the same as for surpassing space and time?
- There is more scrutiny for dimension cases. First dimensions got to be valid higher dimension/dimension. The tiering faq goes more in-depth for clarifications.
- As in, it needs to be proven to be unquantifiable above said dimensions instead of simply being superior to them?
- Being unquantifiable is not even the standard. Unquantifiable is more being used to reject such tiering upgrade if the evidence is vague or not solid enough. The actual case is more on a higher infinite like tiering system explanation states.
- If so, that brings up the same confusing premise as the first question, but to an even higher degree.
- I guess my point above explains it is not so.
Causalist
"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions."
Especially when so many verses don't need any mention of infinity or a reality-fiction interaction in order to qualify? Is a mere "higher plane" statement enough context for an upgrade like this (in conjunction with an implication of superiority, of course)? It sure seemed to be the case for Archie Sonic It's weird because I've never seen a single tier tier 1 verse explicitly establish a realm to be infinitely superior to those concepts. Every time, they just say stuff that implies a basic superiority, and that's it. A lot of them qualify for Low 1-C even on the Wiki. The list of context clues that are viable for tier 1 need to be outlined more clearly, because by your logic, the only reliable way to qualify is with reality-fiction superiority.
"As a result, it is not at all feasible to take any statements involving a character existing "beyond dimensions" at face value, as this would lead to extremely inflated ratings largely dependent on No-Limits Fallacies.
So if the context if referring to a place superior to the space-time continuum, you're saying that said place would simply be a space-time continuum that's longer in all of its dimensional axes? It would simply be a regular timeline big enough to contain another one?
What I was trying to say is that time is already an infinite concept relative to space, hence why a timeline contains infinite copies of the 3D universe within itself and why time can generally be considered superior to 3D space. So how can a place be superior to 4D time without being a of a higher infinite in the same way? (Especially if it's also established as superior to the concept of space) Sorry if I asked my question poorly initially.
When you say context, you're referring to proof of an infinite superiority or a reality-fiction difference, right? Then why does the Tiering System FAQ say the following?:
"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions."
Especially when so many verses don't need any mention of infinity or a reality-fiction interaction in order to qualify? Is a mere "higher plane" statement enough context for an upgrade like this (in conjunction with an implication of superiority, of course)? It sure seemed to be the case for Archie Sonic It's weird because I've never seen a single tier tier 1 verse explicitly establish a realm to be infinitely superior to those concepts. Every time, they just say stuff that implies a basic superiority, and that's it. A lot of them qualify for Low 1-C even on the Wiki. The list of context clues that are viable for tier 1 need to be outlined more clearly, because by your logic, the only reliable way to qualify is with reality-fiction superiority.
So 4.5D is a thing on this site after all? I literally just made that up. How does that make sense?
Again, the FAQ says:
"As a result, it is not at all feasible to take any statements involving a character existing "beyond dimensions" at face value, as this would lead to extremely inflated ratings largely dependent on No-Limits Fallacies.
Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be [B]Low 1-C[/B] with no further context.[/ICODE[I]][/I]" [/I][/FONT]
When you say "valid higher dimensions", you mean that the statement needs to be about mathematical dimension and not the "worlds" or "universes" kind of dimensions, right? That's the only requirement as far as those are concerned?
[QUOTE]
[LIST]
[*]Being unquantifiable is not even the standard. Unquantifiable is more being used to reject such tiering upgrade if the evidence is vague or not solid enough. The actual case is more on a higher infinite like [URL='https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System#Explanation']tiering system explanation[/URL] states.
[/LIST]
[/QUOTE]
When I said "unquantifiable", I meant "qualitative", but it's such a specific term that it seems like a buzzword used to avoid saying "infinite". Like I said though, I can't think of a single verse that feels the need to point out a higher realm or dimension is [U]infinitely[/U] superior to a lower one.
Causalist
Bump?
Elizhaa
Mathematically, even time intervals of seconds contained uncountably infinite snapshots of spatial universes.
Low 2-C is from destroying or creating uncountably infinite snapshots of the spatial universe.
Going the system of countable ordinals or infinite and their tiering system application, one could make an argument that one can have a greater range without reaching the uncountable infinite gap. Like two universes are larger than one, or a place is larger than a tier 2 cosmology could still be superior without being Tier 1, without more contexts.
It depends on the context is what I am saying; without elaboration, it could be the case. Simply being stated to superior to a space-time continuum without more elaboration won't give Tier 1 and up.
Time is 1-D. A normal timeline is 4-D ( 3-D space + 1-D time). Timeline got uncountable infinite snapshots of spatial universes. Uncountable infinite would be more than infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite... (repeated infinitely), from my talk with Aeyu, who is working on the tiering system; infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite repeated to an infinite number of times is a countable ordinal (infinite), Epsilon naught. All countable infinites are the same size; though, they might vary in range.
Mathematically, even time intervals of seconds contained uncountably infinite snapshots of spatial universes.
Low 2-C is from destroying or creating uncountably infinite snapshots of the spatial universe.
Going the system of countable ordinals or infinite and their tiering system application, one could make an argument that one can have a greater range without reaching the uncountable infinite gap. Like two universes are larger than one, or a place is larger than a tier 2 cosmology could still be superior without being Tier 1, without more contexts.
No; what I was saying is the context should not be vague or ambiguous. If the context is solid, I am cool with the changes transcendence, depending on the case.
Not sure; though, from what evidences 4.5D dimension could be a thing on a cosmology. It would have to follow the same principle of a valid higher dimension to be accepted.
Qualitative superiority needs to be proven or valid supporting evidence at least to the definition of the tiering system. I think the tiering system explanation page goes more in-depth regarding things like infinitive.
Causalist
It should be enough to consider it a 4D space though, right?
I know that time by itself is 1D. That's why being superior to space also matters in this case. Being superior to both means you're bigger than a structure which is already uncountably infinite. How do you achieve that without being an even higher uncountable infinite?
How do you decide if a context is solid? Based on what you've told me so far, the only way to qualify is to have a reality/fiction difference over the lower realm or to have a statement in-universe that specifies higher dimensions means infinitely more powerful. The former makes sense, but it's not like all higher dimensions work like that. The latter is so specific that it's really unfair to any higher realm that doesn't operate on reality-fiction interactions. That's why I'm asking what kind of context do you really need to qualify? Do you have any examples? Based on the Archie thread, some "Higher realm" statements seem to be enough, and Blazblue can somehow get by with even less. It's really weird that a realm stated to be superior to the dimensionality of space and time doesn't qualify while so many others do for so much less.
Elizhaa
If the world'ss position got contradicting explanations, I think there should be more scrutinies needed for the evaluations.
Yes.
I think more contexts are needed regarding the word superior since it tends to be nebulous in fiction, in general.
Things like a world being a proper higher world couple with a transcendence tiering statement could work for me; I am fine with what works in the tiering system and the faq.
If the world'ss position got contradicting explanations, I think there should be more scrutinies needed for the evaluations.
Causalist
Then why does the FAQ say: "However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions." and "Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."?
How do you define a "proper" higher world then? Shouldn't one which is stated to be superior to spatio-temporal dimensions qualify? The whole reason our standards deny worlds "beyond space and time" or "beyond dimensions" a Low 1-C ranking is because of how vague the words "beyond" and "dimensions" can be. If they outright specify that they're referring to mathematical dimensions (or dimensional axes) rather than parallel worlds, it should be adequate, right?
Yeah. Everything12 said as much. He wants to change the FAQ but wasn't so clear as to how.
Elizhaa
Something that matches the tiering system and/or its faq explanation, with low ambiguity or inconsistencies.
Shouldn't one which is stated to be superior to spatio-temporal dimensions qualify?
If something is just stated to be something like superior to space and time, without more context; I think the term is nebulous it could be mean time travel or immeasurable speed depending on the context; such cases happened in fiction. I am writing this point from the perspective of this evidence being argued. Like I said, if all check in the tiering system and its faq, I am largely fine assuming low ambiguity and low inconsistencies.
More context is needed, in my view.
Something that matches the tiering system and/or its faq explanation, with low ambiguity or inconsistencies.
Shouldn't one which is stated to be superior to spatio-temporal dimensions qualify?
- Not without more contexts since the term can be nebulous.
- Assuming no ambiguity and valid Statements Option, it could be.
Noted.