1-A Clarification

[Ultima_Reality]

I didn't expected ultima to remove this entire section but was best choice indeed.

Never said I'd remove it. I said I'd expand it and the ones adjacent, given its lackluster state. It is still feasible for a verse without infinite dimensions or infinite layers to qualify for 1-A and etc. "Created the concept of space" and similar just so happens to not necessarily fall under such a qualifier, for the reasons I said above.

 

[Reiner04]

Never said I'd remove it. I said I'd expand it and the ones adjacent. It is still feasible for a verse without infinite dimensions or infinite layers to qualify for 1-A. "Created the concept of space" and similar just so happens to not necessarily fall under such a qualifier, for the reasons I said above.

Oh I thought to look at it but didn't find it so I thought it's removed, my bad. It'll obviously take time to revise.
Edit :- Entirely my fault I missed it. It's still there

 

[Kuuzo7]

Back.

 

[Kuuzo7]

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"

school of thought - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

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.

 

[Kuuzo7]

As soon as I wrap up my debate with @Ultima_Reality , I will address any objections made during my absence.
Good luck.

 

[Vietthai96]

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).

Tell me why the character did not create any concept of space even though the verse itself directly stated said character actually create the concept of space, in the verse?????

 

[Kuuzo7]

Tell me why the character did not create any concept of space even though the verse itself directly stated said character actually create the concept of space, in the verse?????

Do I have a to really to tell why just because an exemple; paper, etc. uses terms related to a subject does not mean that it perfectly describes/uses what the term refers to. The exemple given is not different from this feats:

https://***************.li/Comic/Captain-Atom-1987/Issue-54?id=61336

Last time I reply outside of my ongoing debate.

 

[Vietthai96]

Do I have a to really to tell why just because an exemple; paper, etc. uses terms related to a subject does not mean that it perfectly describes what the term refers to. The exemple given is not different from this feats:

https://***************.li/Comic/Captain-Atom-1987/Issue-54?id=61336

Last time I reply outside of my ongoing debate.

You still not really answer my question, instead bring a scan from DC Comic and treat it like all other verses are the same. Not all verse are the same, again could you answer why said character did not create any concept of space despite the fact that the verse said character come from actually treat it as "actual abstract concept of space that define physical space"??

 

[Antvasima]

I was asked to close this thread. Should I do so?

Also, please discuss this issue with DontTalkDT before you make any significant changes to our explanation pages, Ultima.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, please discuss this issue with DontTalkDT before you make any significant changes to our explanation pages, Ultima.

@Ultima_Reality

 

[Reiner04]

@Ultima_Reality

It wasn't any significant change, ultima just made the lines of specified question in faq more clearer and easy to understand. Everything else is same.

 

[KingPin0422]

It wasn't any significant change, ultima just made the lines of specified question in faq more clearer and easy to understand. Everything else is same.

He actually hasn't done that yet, it seems.

 

[Reiner04]

He actually hasn't done that yet, it seems.

Uh oh, but isn't this one newly added? Or it existed before? Been long since I read faq page once again so not sure.

Q: Is predating the concepts of space and time an 1-A feat?​

A: No. As said above, predating a certain concept does not necessarily imply any form of superiority over it, especially not to the degree where it warrants an 1-A rating​

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Also, please discuss this issue with DontTalkDT before you make any significant changes to our explanation pages, Ultima.

Noted.

 

[Kuuzo7]

Uh oh, but isn't this one newly added? Or it existed before? Been long since I read faq page once again so not sure.

Q: Is predating the concepts of space and time an 1-A feat?​

A: No. As said above, predating a certain concept does not necessarily imply any form of superiority over it, especially not to the degree where it warrants an 1-A rating​

Irrelevant to the context of this thread.

 

[Kuuzo7]

I was asked to close this thread. Should I do so?

Obviously no, lol.
Perhaps when someone will be able to properly address everything I said, and not just dismiss it because it does no go their way.

 

[Darksmash]

I agree this thread should be closed.

 

[Reiner04]

I agree this thread should be closed.

Fra I also.

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this thread then.

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.