Just stopping here to add that this is not necessarily the case, at all. It doesn't follow that some abstraction of "dimension" encompasses all extrapolations of any object that falls under it, and nor is it incoherent for this abstraction to be something that is immanent within reality and only encompasses what currently exists (i.e What instantiates it).
That's a whole school of thought in philosophy, so treating your claim as if it was the only logical option is, plain and simple, just dishonest.
Very bad opening statement exposing a clear
confirmation bias, given that your argument is based on two obvious fallacies, which the first is
an appeal to authority that actually does not bear any relevancy, since, if your was "honest", you would have know that a school of thought is:
An opinion subscribed to by some connected or arbitrary group.
Key words: "an opinion"
en.wiktionary.org
Using a school of thought, even philosophical, as the basis of your argument will not help your case. Since a school of thought is just an opinion held by a group of people in a given time and place, that same opinion has no more importance than mine or some users of this wiki, disagreeing with this thread using the redundant 'NLF' argument. In other words, this argument is not different from "It's just my word against yours" situation. Using an opinion agaisnt another one as if it was valaditing your case, what a joke low-class argument.
Second, if you were consistent with your framework (opinion vs. opinion), you would have also acknowledged
all schools of thought that also disagree with yours, instead of
cherry-picking one that aligns with your view. This means that you can't dismiss all opinion just beceause they don't go your way, since you are still required to consider and address mine "opinion", only if you were consistent, which clearly you are not. Rather ironic for someone making any comment on "honnesty". You can always
try to make up for your mistakes as the debate progresses.
At the end of the day, we'll always have to default to something, and if the higher option is not necessarily the only conclusion you can draw from a statement, usually you go with the more conservative one, which often tends to be lower.
That's common sense, and it has not been put into questioned, in fact, it has been used agaisnt "NLF arguments". Again, you should have rather consider everything I said on this thread, instead of stopping at one post.
Similarly, we'd naturally default to an immanent interpretation of concepts (Or, more accurately, Universals), where for instance making the concept of space in a setting containing objects of up to 5 dimensions would be Low 1-C.
"Naturally" only by assuming the basis on which your argument is based is true, instead of being just "an opinion" as I've adressed on my first point, leading to a "non sequitir" (as this subpoint follows from the first one)
In addition to all this, this example shows once again
the confirmation bias on which your arguments are based, since it is easy to predefine conditions so that in the end everything matches an expected result. Putting this exemple in another context to expose how "dishonest" it actually is: It is not a surprise to say that if you put a single ball into a lottery machine, regardless if it's numbered 1 , 2 , 3, etc. you will only get that ball out
every time. Using the same exemple, but instead of just one, the lotto machine has many balls of different numbers; it is less "natural" contrary to what you think to say now that it will be the same ball that will come out of the lotto machine as in the first experiment, since you have reduced the probability by adding more balls of different numbers.
Point is, your example is another evidence of confirmation bias beceause you have already presumed the number of dimensions that will result when a character creates the concept of space, and hence why you are able to tier this as "Low 1-C" in the first place. In this case, the character did not create any concept, but a simple universe of specifc dimensions, as some Universal characters are able to create a three dimensional space (they can't create any space beyond their own dimensionality for obvious reason).
Certainly you can argue that statements like "Transcends dimensions!" Or "beyond space!" can have a good baseline that doesn't skyrocket up to 0 depending on the verse
Again, that's common sense.
(Since the gap between n dimensions and n+1-dimensions, for all n, is the same, (Since the gap between n dimensions and n+1-dimensions, for all n, is the same, and it's not terribly hard to picture a case where the difference between Realm X and Realm Y may be greater than this value),
Unless I'm misunderstanding, if you're trying to equate "n dimensions" with "n+1 dimensions", there's a subtle difference you're clearly missing. In the first case, a character that is > n dimensions means that, no matter how high the number can get, the character will remain out of reach for an n-dimensional character. Whereas, the method "n+1d" ,
wrongly adopted by some users in this thread, does not lead to the same understanding, especially if you are taking as an exemple infinite-dimensional character for n to better understand why : As a matter of fact, adding 1 to inifinity is still
infinity. Explained in this way, there is clear gap in understanding, leading to a gap in power (for the character above > n in both situations) .
but this is not really something that has much of an impact in a case (i.e This one) where we're arguing about a generalized, contextless hypothetical.
Waiting for a
better reply.
