1-A Clarification

[Furudo_Erika]

Which refers they exist independently BECAUSE they transcend it entirely.

"whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions PRESENT on the setting". So if they transcend how many dimensions are PRESENT in the setting (which includes 4D as well) entirely, it is 1-A.

But I ask, what exactly does "transcend" mean? That word gets tossed around a whole lot with a crap ton of different meanings.

Note how it doesn't just say "exists independently", but also something about that being by transcending physical space entirely, regardless of how many dimensions would come into play.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Also, how can you describe "transcending physical space entirely, regardless of how many dimensions would come into play" without hinting at infinite dimensions at all?

As, according to others' logic here: transcending all space ONLY APPLIES TO WHAT IS SHOWN IN VERSE, which is only like Low 1-C at max without further context.

Even though, this EXPLICITLY says 1-A is reachable by transcending "how many layers/dimensions are PRESENT in the setting" entirely.

So please, explain. As it seems everyone is contradicting what is EXPLICITLY stated in the FAQ page.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Oh, and not to mention: "if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely" is also a part of it.

And if this follows "how many layers/dimensions are PRESENT in the setting", then it doesn't matter how many dimensions are affected if one is beyond the concept of dimensions, finite or not.

Existing "beyond the concept of dimensions" would entail that they don't even participate in it, let alone be affected by any alteration of them; being removed, added, or altered. It shouldn't even apply to them since they don't participate in them in the first place, thus they are unaffected entirely due to it.

And if the argument of "it is only Low 1-C because it is 4D spacetime"...again, the FAQ page EXPLICITLY states that it affects how many dimensions are PRESENT in the setting. It doesn't matter if it is 4D, 11D, 27D, 42069D, or ∞D, and it isn't me saying this. It's the literal FAQ page.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The FAQ page should re-edited. I assume

 

[Antvasima]

No because without further feats concepts aren't assumed to apply to anything bigger than the reality they have been shown to apply to (doing so would be a NLF) and, for that matter, because the existence of a concept doesn't imply the existence or possibility of creation of every possible instance of that concept.
E.g. We have a concept of a paradox, but paradoxes can't necessarily happens and a creator of a concept paradox isn't necessarily omnipotent despite that also being a paradoxical state.
In real life we also have a concept of cardinals, but nothing large enough to have anything of a larger cardinality actually exist. (or is known to exist with any likelihood)

To that comes that fiction plenty of times contradicted that.

I strongly agree with DontTalkDT. Should we close this thread?

 

[Kuuzo7]

It does add up yes. We are ranking fictional characters in a neutral tiering system. We aren't structuring a tiering system out of fictional characters.

The two statements are not in conflict with each other.

"Do your own research because I don't have any arguments"

Better I don't ovherwhelm you with two burden of proofs, you can hardly prove one at least.

You made the claim that the concept of space is a thing in fiction, the burden of proof is on you.

What I said above.

Maybe it's time to stop making pathetic deflects in the name of "arguments"?

I would even say to review your basics for your case.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The FAQ page should re-edited. I assume

No, it's just someone misinterpreting the page and not understanding what people say after he has been cleared multiple times.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I strongly agree with DontTalkDT. Should we close this thread?

There's still a big contradiction in the FAQ page.

 

[Kuuzo7]

I strongly agree with DontTalkDT. Should we close this thread?

Based on? Using the arguments that there are concepts that can't exist in reality is not a good argument to refute that they do in their own frameworks.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

No, it's just someone misinterpreting the page and not understanding what people say after he has been cleared multiple times.

Then pray tell, EXPLAIN what is explicitly meant by "transcendence", also the fact it EXPLICITLY states that said transcendence over dimensions that IS PRESENT in the verse, is 1-A.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

It doesn't matter the number; only what is present.

 

[PrinceofPein]

There's still a big contradiction in the FAQ page.

No there is not, it has been explained to you so many times if you will only calm.down and read it.

Again your transcend the concept of space needs more context or it is just within the limit of your verse settings

If you stated not to participate in the concept of space in a 4D world with no further context, that is Low 1-C

you need to not participate and be conceptually above, something like apophatic theory in a verse that has one or two higher dimensions with R>F, would qualify actually.
A space with no coordinates with some other proves obviously. Would also qualify for 1-A

 

[PrinceofPein]

Based on? Using the arguments that there are concepts that can't exist is not a good argument to refute that they do in their own frameworks.

Ajimu created the concept of space in her verse and the world was a 3D world with 3-D character and all. Would you say she is 1-A? Even though she predates the concept of space?

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, it's just someone misinterpreting the page and not understanding what people say after he has been cleared multiple times.

But a clarification should be added regardless. I don't see an issue for not adding it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

But a clarification should be added regardless. I don't see an issue for not adding it.

Redundant
It cannot get any clearer than that.
Just someone who wants to misinterpret it would see something else.
It's simple for a verse without infinite D you need to show that the said character is above dimensions conceptually such that adding or removing any number of dimensions won't matter to them.

It does not get clearer than that

 

[Furudo_Erika]

...and being beyond the concept of dimensions is kinda that entirely.

If their very nature is above the literal concept of dimensions, then that would show that they are conceptually above it.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

And if you have something else to say...
Then explain.

"What is the difference between being "above the concept of dimensions" and being "conceptually above dimensions". They sure as hell sound like the exact same thing; both show superiority over the concept of dimensions.

 

[PrinceofPein]

...and being beyond the concept of dimensions is kinda that entirely.

If their very nature is above the literal concept of dimensions, then that would show that they are conceptually above it.

No one is saying that is wrong, but it all depends on the context like I have already said.
In some context it means nothing, in some it does mean 1-A

And if you have something else to say...
Then explain.

"What is the difference between being "above the concept of dimensions" and being "conceptually above dimensions". They sure as hell sound like the exact same thing; both show superiority over the concept of dimensions.

Above the concept of dimensions can simply means dimensions in the verse.

Above dimensions conceptually means what we will call 1-A.

Yes they sound like same thing but context matters.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Above the concept of dimensions can simply means dimensions in the verse.

And do I have to remind you that the FAQ page EXPLICITLY lists 1-A is achievable by "transcendence over dimensions that are PRESENT in the setting"?

That's the key word here: "The number of dimensions PRESENT".

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Above dimensions conceptually means what we will call 1-A.

And how does this relate any differently to the number of dimensions in the verse?

Reminder, that there ARE 1-A numbers of dimensions. What about those?

 

[Kuuzo7]

Didn't you unfollow the thread?

Pain_to12 said:
Ajimu created the concept of space in her verse and the world was a 3D world with 3-D character and all. Would you say she is 1-A? Even though she predates the concept of space?

Scans.
But if had to argue logically: would it even matter if it was a four dimensional world? A Five dimensional world? I likely doubt you would not have try to constantly move up the goalpost to fit your narrative that the character did not create the concept of space.

As a matter of fact, like I already provided 2 times in this thread, all of space was expending shortly after the 'Big Bang' but only 3 dimensions were fully sized and is the space we are currently living. So the number of dimension is irrelevant if the character is the very origin of the dimensionality of the verse he created.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Definitely agree with Pain here

 

[Antvasima]

There's still a big contradiction in the FAQ page.

Please explain further, so I can ask DontTalk and Ultima about it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

And do I have to remind you that the FAQ page EXPLICITLY lists 1-A is achievable by "transcendence over dimensions that are PRESENT in the setting"?

That's the key word here: "The number of dimensions PRESENT".

I feel like you are being dumb on this subject on purpose cause.
"existing completely independent" that was what was used not "Transcendence".
The place where "Transcendence" was used was in hand with physical space as an example. not as the standard, the standard is "completeley independent of" the example was "if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely"
Do you understand the difference now?
Transcendence is used so many times in fiction that it has lost meaning at this point, which is why we take the use of word transcendence, contexts by contexts.
Context A - "God transcends space and time"- This is not 1-A, it is by our standard N+1, essentially low 1-C or some sort of time shenanigans
Literally on the FAQ page that you missed

Q: What tier is transcending space and time?​

A: As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. 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 qualitatively 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. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for a statement like transcending space and time to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitatively superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this.

It should also be noted that simply existing in some alternate state of existence that lacks time and/or space is not really grounds for any tier in particular, as lacking such things does not translate to being superior to them, and would most often overlap with abilities like Acausality or Nonexistent Physiology. A good example of a case like this is Dormammu (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who is stated to exist in a realm "far beyond time," yet never actually displays any superiority over it, and is in fact vulnerable to time-based abilities due to his timeless nature.

Context B - "God is the plain paper upon which entire setting is painted, and upon which everything is built, everything originates from God and returns to God, God is in control of everything and also disconnected from everything" (Inspiration from Masadaverse)
That up above is 1-A.
Do you see the difference or you still don't? If you are stated to transcend, you need further context not just that.

No clarification is needed, you don't understand that's on you at this point, I have tried enough.

And how does this relate any differently to the number of dimensions in the verse?

"Exist completely independent of"

Also even if your verse already establish that you have 1-A dimensions, and you were shown/stated to "exist independent of those dimensions" you become High 1-A, hence this little note in the FAQ "This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well."

Scans.

Ajimu's page

But if had to argue logically: would it even matter if it was a four dimensional world? A Five dimensional world? I likely doubt you would not have try to constantly move up the goalpost to fit your narrative that the character did not create the concept of space.

You can't read?
when did I say she did not create the concept of space? I said creating the concept of space does not make you 1-A, it is in the context and limit of what you were shown to create. Read properly there is no narrative here just contexts

As a matter of fact, like I already provided 2 times in this thread, all of space was expending shortly after the 'Big Bang' but only 3 dimensions were fully sized and is the space we are currently living. So the number of dimension is irrelevant if the character is the very origin of the dimensionality of the verse he created.

First the entire thing called "Higher dimensions" "M-Theory", "String theory" anything about Higher Ds are just theories, meaning there is no definite proof, so come back from the future to the present. Creating Big bang itself is a theory, how about that?
Literally there is no definitive proof of anything you are claiming so they cannot be the law.
Also generally Big bang is the expansion of 3-D space. so I don't know what you are saying as there are so many theories about BigBang and any could be right.

 

[Antvasima]

This seems like a pointlessly timewasting discussion.

Is there anything constructive that can be done based on it, @Pain_to12 ? If so, I can ask DontTalk about it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This seems like a pointlessly timewasting discussion.

Yes actually, since this is just a misinterpretation of the FAQ page

Is there anything constructive that can be done based on it, @Pain_to12 ? If so, I can ask DontTalk about it.

He does not seem interested in it, as he was here and just gave brief replies saying same thing but they keep asking the same question and honestly the only thing that can be done is to move this to QnA, as that is what it is instead of Staff Discussions.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have moved this thread, but it still seems unfair to force you to continue to have to deal with this for a prolonged period of time.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Well, I have moved this thread, but it still seems unfair to force you to continue to have to deal with this for a prolonged period of time.

Well if it gets to a point when I can no longer deal with it, I will unfollow properly

 

[Kuuzo7]

You can't read?
when did I say she did not create the concept of space?

Tell this for yourself given this response.

I said creating the concept of space does not make you 1-A, it is in the context and limit of what you were shown to create.

It does obviously. You have no demonstrated the contrary.

Read properly there is no narrative here just contexts

Says the person who should applied his own advice.

First the entire thing called "Higher dimensions" "M-Theory", "String theory" anything about Higher Ds are just theories, meaning there is no definite proof,

That's a poor understanding of what theory stands for in such domain:

Theory
A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory.

WMAP Glossary - Technical Terms

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

Learn what a word means before getting further educated on it. Einstein's general relativity and special relaitivity are as also theories, but this does not mean there "there is no definite proof" as your poorly defines it. Theory in science in is not synonmous with "fake", let's put this say.

so come back from the future to the present.

Indeed for someone like you still stuck in stone age.

Creating Big bang itself is a theory, how about that?

Make it sense, again.

Literally there is no definitive proof of anything you are claiming so they cannot be the law."

LOl at this pure ignorant claim.

Also generally Big bang is the expansion of 3-D space. so I don't know what you are saying as there are so many theories about BigBang and any could be right.

The current standard cosmology model that is generally accepted is clear on the following point: space and time itself came into existence as a result of the "Big Bang".
Don't forget to finish your homeworks.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I feel like you are being dumb on this subject on purpose cause.
"existing completely independent" that was what was used not "Transcendence".
The place where "Transcendence" was used was in hand with physical space as an example. not as the standard, the standard is "completeley independent of" the example was "if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely"
Do you understand the difference now?
Transcendence is used so many times in fiction that it has lost meaning at this point, which is why we take the use of word transcendence, contexts by contexts.
Context A - "God transcends space and time"- This is not 1-A, it is by our standard N+1, essentially low 1-C or some sort of time shenanigans
Literally on the FAQ page that you missed

Context B - "God is the plain paper upon which entire setting is painted, and upon which everything is built, everything originates from God and returns to God, God is in control of everything and also disconnected from everything" (Inspiration from Masadaverse)
That up above is 1-A.
Do you see the difference or you still don't? If you are stated to transcend, you need further context not just that.

No clarification is needed, you don't understand that's on you at this point, I have tried enough.

"Exist completely independent of"

Also even if your verse already establish that you have 1-A dimensions, and you were shown/stated to "exist independent of those dimensions" you become High 1-A, hence this little note in the FAQ "This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well."

Ajimu's page

You can't read?
when did I say she did not create the concept of space? I said creating the concept of space does not make you 1-A, it is in the context and limit of what you were shown to create. Read properly there is no narrative here just contexts

First the entire thing called "Higher dimensions" "M-Theory", "String theory" anything about Higher Ds are just theories, meaning there is no definite proof, so come back from the future to the present. Creating Big bang itself is a theory, how about that?
Literally there is no definitive proof of anything you are claiming so they cannot be the law.
Also generally Big bang is the expansion of 3-D space. so I don't know what you are saying as there are so many theories about BigBang and any could be right.

But if you exist beyond the concept of dimensions, you are still unbound by them. You would not be affected by any being added, removed, or deleted since they don't apply to you.

You literally "exist independently" from them.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Actually, not just them, but the literal concept of them.

Not just in a physical sense, but metaphysically as well.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

So even if a character "adds a higher dimension", you would still not be affected as the notion of "being bound by dimensions" doesn't even apply to you in the first place.

 

[Kuuzo7]

Btw, the fact that CERN is actually looking for extra dimensions thanks to the LHC; does not mean that "extra dimensions" are not already acknowledge in the domain of sci-fiction. As a matter of fact, this thread focuses on a unspecified, yet fictional character.

Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes

home.cern

 

[Kuuzo7]

Well, I have moved this thread, but it still seems unfair to force you to continue to have to deal with this for a prolonged period of time.

Still waiting for one valid reason disproving everything said , btw.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Pain makes sense here.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

And I'm still waiting on a detailed explanation between "being above the concept of dimensions" and "being conceptually above dimensions" as, APPARENTLY, they are treated as different things.

Yet they sound and behave pretty much identically

 

[Kuuzo7]

Pain makes sense here.

• "n+1D"

-> Good to luck to reconcile this with all characters who are shown to be obviously above all characters part of the verse they created.

• "there is no definite proof"

-> Misusage of the word "theory"

• "You can't read?"

-> Is ironically the one in need to learn how to read
and I forget some.
"Makes sense" lol

 

[ImmortalDread]

all this just to upgrade DB Comic to 1-A. Prove me wrong

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The what now?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Tell this for yourself given this response.

It does obviously. You have no demonstrated the contrary.

Says the person who should applied his own advice.

That's a poor understanding of what theory stands for in such domain:

WMAP Glossary - Technical Terms

Public access site for The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and associated information about cosmology.

wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov

Learn what a word means before getting further educated on it. Einstein's general relativity and special relaitivity are as also theories, but this does not mean there "there is no definite proof" as your poorly defines it. Theory in science in is not synonmous with "fake", let's put this say.



Indeed for someone like you still stuck in stone age.


Make it sense, again.


LOl at this pure ignorant claim.


The current standard cosmology model that is generally accepted is clear on the following point: space and time itself came into existence as a result of the "Big Bang".
Don't forget to finish your homeworks.

Theories are not definite.
Facts are.
Theories can be disproved, facts cannot be.
Simple as that.
Big bang - theory
M theory
string Theories

There are so many theories and like i said all of them are theories, not facts and what makes it beautiful is that most of this theories are dissonant together
Anyway we are straying away.
Creating big bang is not 1-A.
Creating concept of space just within what you do
Cope

But if you exist beyond the concept of dimensions, you are still unbound by them. You would not be affected by any being added, removed, or deleted since they don't apply to you.

You literally "exist independently" from them.

If that was what was shown in your verse then yes you do.
Anything else you would like to ask?