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.
Yeah, put that way, I don't have an issue with it.
Hm, I think this probably springs from us having different ideas of what NEP entails all-in-all.
Strictly speaking, the law of exluded middle is broken when you start messing up with contradictories, e.g. "This guy is neither red, nor...
As said, I've no issue with conceding the issue for the moment, yeah. Hardly to do with these revisions either way.
They can create something that punches, or cause effects that functionally amount to force, but their, uh, """physiology""" makes it kinda nonsensical for them to punch anything...
Yeah, right then. Seems like the list includes everything still hanging.
@DarkGrath @Qawsedf234 @DarkDragonMedeus @Elizhaa @Planck69 @Deagonx @DontTalkDT @Everything12
Hi all. I'd appreciate your input on the list of pending things here.
Ballin
Is there anything left to do here? I imagine we could ping the people who've given their input here before to take a look at the list up there, or somesuch.
...IV Multiverse to be High 1-A+ depending on how a verse describes it. For instance Manifold associates it with "all logically possible universes".* I don't think a verse happening to include broad logical laws as part of the conditions for the instantiation of a universe is that wild.
* I'm...
Timelines and dimensional levels aren't really equivalent at all, so that's a pretty faulty comparison.
Yeah I'll pick up the work. Would rather get this done with as soon as is reasonably possible.
You all can expect a last post from me later today.
Side-note: Like I told you in private, I already added everything we agreed on to the sandbox pages (And also a couple other things that ended up being removed by carelessness on my part, like the "Predating spacetime isn't 1-A" section in the FAQ and etc). When can I expect you to write that...
Yeah, and I agree, hence my point was never about a single extra dimension. The crux of the matter is whether what I described above is actually properly described as "A single extra dimension."
I don't think the "different hierarchy" business goes that hard in the new Tiering System anymore, since a "hierarchy" is really just "A set of inferior and superior levels all defined by the same basic attribute." In that sense you really only get a different hierarchy in any meaningful sense...
Never denied that, obviously. The relevant test-case for the matter is moreso "An infinite-dimensional space and then an even higher-order realm that's above and beyond it, but not above physicality/dimensionality/composition," or equivalently, "The layer of a hierarchy of dimensional spaces...
You can be truly infinite-dimensional without there being an endpoint to the series of embedded higher-dimensional spaces, which is what High 1-B+ would entail there.
Also I did this:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:Ultima_Reality/non...
If that part is taken out of the way, then the rest of the point collapses as well, since the crux of the matter is precisely that (1,1,1,1...) is simply not contained in countably infinite-dimensional space to begin with. Encompassing the axes (1,0,0,0,...), (1,1,0,0,...), (1,1,1,0,...), and...
I'd deny the premise of that argument. For there to be a similar proportion between each layer (That is, X > Y if X dimensionally transcends Y), it would have to be meaningfully larger, and so the equality of gaps that you describe can't exist to begin with. Otherwise it wouldn't be a legitimate...
That depends wholly on what "meaningfully larger" is said with respect to. You can't be meaningfully larger than a line by being a square in terms of cardinality, but you can be meaningfully larger than it in terms of measure.
Now, with regards to this specific case, we would expect each layer...
The example given is already justification enough, and it's been sufficiently expounded on, already. More on that down below.
I don't know what you mean with that first paragraph at all.
This hypothetical sounds like it goes:
Infinite Layers < Layer ω < Layer ω+1.
In which case, I'd rate the...
Shit gets weird in infinite dimensions. That's really all there is to it. I mean, you'd certainly think R^N (The space of all sequences) would have only countably-many dimensions, but that is just not the case.
In more practical wiki terms, this should be intuitively obvious, too. A space...
Not really what I've said, no. There is a difference between "Take an infinite-dimensional space and then try to add a single new axis to it" and "Take an infinite-dimensional space and then have a space of an even higher order encompassing it." That's why I've been speaking not in terms of...
Infinite. And would also fall under the same boat as (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....).
I wonder if the issue is that you're thinking of it in terms of adding axes to a space, so that you're thinking I'm saying infinite dimensions + 1 dimension is High 1-B+. Is this it?
It does have an ω-th element. Obviously, in the set of sequences, (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to a coordinate in 1-dimensional space, (1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 2-dimensional space, (1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....)...
That's not how I would put it, no. To draw from the earlier comparison: A High 1-B character would just be something that simultaneously exists across an entire hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces, but one in which there is no ωth level to it. A character who exists across all these...
Not quite, no. DT's already explained it at length here, but in summary: The space of all finite sequences has no sequence of coordinates that goes on infinitely, as said, and so a being that occupies the coordinates (planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck...
Meeeeeeeh. Too much work for little benefit, I think. Especially given that some of the pages (Creation, Omnipresence and Omniscience, namely) are so barebones they could also use more general touch-ups than "Include a type exclusive to 0s in the page," whereas Acausality already accounts for...
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The point is that High 1-B is a space in which there is an infinite number of sequences of coordinates, but no sequence that actually goes on forever. Meanwhile, the space in which there are such infinitely-long sequences has uncountably infinite...
True.
That's a pretty incoherent point. The hypothetical being rare doesn't mean it's not worth to note it down somewhere. Seeing as you're not even contesting the validity of it being a valid example of High 1-B+, I see no reason to remove it.
I'd say so? Since then the verse would shift the...
Happy to discuss that in the main thread. Ordinarily, I'd agree, but this bit of information seemed to be way too tightly bound-up with something that falls under the general concept of BDE to not note it down on that page. If nothing else, I'd feature it both in it and in the generic pages...
Part of it was also given in the new Beyond-Dimensional Existence page. The example being that if a realm/character/whatever is aspatial and atemporal and yet simultaneously shown to dwarf normal reality by some size analogue (The Void from Lucifer is probably one of the best examples), it fits...
Needs to specifically involve the technical terminology necessary to get to those tiers. So, for instance, High 1-A+ would need to decently expound on logical possibilities and related concepts. And even then the context would need to be pretty exact, since people aren't always using these words...
Yeah, I can see a use for the page, then. I'm not opposed to a rewritten version of it on that basis. Though I'd define the latter case-scenarios a bit more precisely; for example, a verse emphatically stating a void is aspatial, atemporal, etc, but also depicting it through spatial imagery...
That doesn't really change what I said. Think back to the example I gave: Is the 2-dimensional object in question only infinite "in comparison with a 1-D object"? Perhaps in some respect, but it's also infinite in-and-of-itself because of its extension in the x-axis. Same can apply here.
The page itself seems to exclusively refer to the "metaphysically superior" kind of cosmological layer when it talks about hierarchies. With physical and metaphysical differences being separated, you'd have to do a complete rewrite of the page for it to fit in.
I don't know how worth it that...
As it stands, none of this suffices, no. The Demon World would ultimately end up falling under the "significant size" caveat, and a description identifying it as infinite doesn't do much to appease that. Mostly because it is obviously possible to be finite with respect to one axis, but not...
By the way, I ignored them because I don't take umbrage at any of the insinuations above, really. I class myself as just scaling wherever my reasoning leads me, but I am obviously not infallible, and I have no problem with the idea of there being other people around to keep my biases in check...