A Major Concern with current Reality-Fiction Transcendence page:

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This all makes me wonder how many characters are Low 1-C and have no destruction feats?

 

[Ss3micah]

I’ll say nth more regarding this cause we’re gonna be arguing in circles
If you want just call staff here and so that this can be put to rest

In all honesty, They’ll either just disagree with the OP as so many of us who know what the obvious can indicate and close the thread or just make it clear that affecting or being a 5-D structure that sees a 4-D structure as fictional to itself qualifies for Low 1-C Tier just the same and then close the thread anyways.

Your entitled to your opinions and beliefs but trust me when I say that all this will go no further than simply making the obvious accepted requirements somehow more clearer than it already is and that will be the end of that

 

[Tarang123]

Read it again. The space must be infinitely greater. Not the object or beings.


Characters or objects that can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)”

The pronoun, whose, is refering to spaces.

Well, I mean, if you could prove that the space is indeed qualitatively superior to a tier 2 space or something, then even something like a pebble that exists in this world would be qualitatively superior to that tier 2 space. Therefore, even something as simple as destroying a 5D pebble would count as tier 1. Unless I'm misinterpreting something. The system isn't saying you have to be able to destroy a 5D universe or something. Any amount of space on a higher level of reality would likely qualify for tier 1

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I’ll say nth more regarding this cause we’re gonna be arguing in circles
If you want just call staff here and so that this can be put to rest

In all honesty, They’ll either just disagree with the OP as so many of us who know what the obvious can indicate and close the thread or just make it clear that affecting or being a 5-D structure that sees a 4-D structure as fictional to itself qualifies for Low 1-C Tier just the same and then close the thread anyways.

Your entitled to your opinions and beliefs but trust me when I say that all this will go no further than simply making the obvious accepted requirements somehow more clearer than it already is and that will be the end of that

You should also note that by structure, you mean any 5D object from a pencil to infinite space. And I mean specifically, 5D space.

 

[Ss3micah]

You should also note that by structure, you mean any 5D object from a pencil to infinite space. And I mean specifically, 5D space.

Yup
A Pencil that’s INFINITELY larger and far more complex than a 4-D structure to the point that 4-D structures are fictional in comparison to that 5-D Pencil

Yup
Completely Agree that affecting that Pencil is 5-D and the Pencil itself is 5-D object that has 5-D structure

Cause clearly you have never seen DC THE WRITERS profile before

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Well, I mean, if you could prove that the space is indeed qualitatively superior to a tier 2 space or something, then even something like a pebble that exists in this world would be qualitatively superior to that tier 2 space. Therefore, even something as simple as destroying a 5D pebble would count as tier 1.

Again, higher dimensional objects are not superior to lower dimensional objects. They are affected by the same energy, measured by the same units of length, travel by the same speed, etc. A 3D moon is bigger than a 5D peddle in three dimensions. The only difference between the 3D moon and 5D pebble is that the moon has no depth in 2 extra dimensions.

Unless I'm misinterpreting something. The system isn't saying you have to be able to destroy a 5D universe or something. Any amount of space on a higher level of reality would likely qualify for tier 1

The tier page says:

Characters or objects that can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

Meaning the entire 5D space.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Yup
A Pencil that’s INFINITELY larger and far more complex than a 4-D structure to the point that 4-D structures are fictional in comparison to that 5-D Pencil

Yup
Completely Agree that affecting that Pencil is 5-D and the Pencil itself is 5-D object that has 5-D structure

Cause clearly you have never seen DC THE WRITERS profile before

A 5D pencil is not infinitely larger than 3D pencil. This is made up pseudoscience.

Again, higher dimensional objects are not superior to lower dimensional objects. They are affected by the same energy, measured by the same units of length, travel by the same speed, etc.

 

[Tarang123]

Again, higher dimensional objects are not superior to lower dimensional objects. They are affected by the same energy, measured by the same units of length, travel by the same speed, etc. A 3D moon is bigger than a 5D peddle in three dimensions. The only difference between the 3D moon and 5D pebble is that the moon has no depth in 2 extra dimensions.

Would it, though? Cause higher dimensions are so much greater that a lower dimension is complete fiction to them. By all means, everything in a higher dimension would scale to that standard as well, meaning destroying anything from a higher dimension should get that kind of tier.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Would it, though? Cause higher dimensions are so much greater that a lower dimension is complete fiction to them. By all means, everything in a higher dimension would scale to that standard as well, meaning destroying anything from a higher dimension should get that kind of tier.

No. A higher dimension is composed of the lower dimensions.

If 2D space is length and width.
then 3D space is length and width, and height,
then 4d space is length, and widht, and height, x-measurement.
then 5D space is length, and width, and height, x-measurement, y-measurement

and so on and so on.

A object that has 50 meters in length and width. will have 50 meters in length and width, in any number of higher dimension. It will be the same object, the same size.

the superiority comes from the space it self. You can't turn a 3D space into a 4D space by any method. No amount of twisting it, making it bigger, smaller, over lapping it, times it by infinity, etc. etc. will add another direction to a 3D space. The difference between a 3D space and 4D space is immeasurable. That's why I am adamant that you get Low 1-C for destroy/affecting/creating 5D space, not just simply existing in it.

 

[Ss3micah]

A 5D pencil is not infinitely larger than 3D pencil. This is made up pseudoscience.

Again, higher dimensional objects are not superior to lower dimensional objects. They are affected by the same energy, measured by the same units of length, travel by the same speed, etc.

What the actual $&@! Sir
You CANT BE SERIOUS

So an 11-D object would not be superior to a 3-D object?

An object from a more Mathematically complexed World that’s Numerous Infinities Higher and Larger than the 3-D universe would be equivalent to a 3-D object?

The Writer’s Profile Literally Existing says all the points your making are completely false

You know what I’m done
Call staff because this point you have made is so unspeakably shockingly bad that I’m genuinely surprised you take it seriously

 

[Maitreya12]

This false. You can literally draw a 2D plane on 3D graph. A 3D cube is made of 2D faces.

My dude you’re saying a 2 dimensional object can exist normally in a 3 dimensional space. That’s the thing that’s false. In our 3 dimensional space can you name me a single 2 dimensional object?

Again, higher dimensional objects are not superior to lower dimensional objects. They are affected by the same energy, measured by the same units of length, travel by the same speed, etc. A 3D moon is bigger than a 5D peddle in three dimensions. The only difference between the 3D moon and 5D pebble is that the moon has no depth in 2 extra dimensions.

Yes they are by default. A 3D moon is not bigger than a 5D peddle “in three dimensions” because that pebble encompasses more than 3 dimensions. That 3D moon becomes a literal 0 compared to that 5D pebble. For the same reason, if you have a 2D line that is infinitely long and infinitely wide, it’s still a literal zero compared to any 3D object of any size whatsoever. That’s because no matter how long or wide that object is, if it has a “0” for height then the whole thing becomes a 0 in comparison to that higher dimensional object.

infinity x infinity x 0= 0. Meanwhile 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

 

[Ss3micah]

My dude you’re saying a 2 dimensional object can exist normally in a 3 dimensional space. That’s the thing that’s false. In our 3 dimensional space can you name me a single 2 dimensional object?

The fact this is not obvious to him shocks me to no end

 

[Tarang123]

A object that has 50 meters in length and width. will have 50 meters in length and width, in any number of higher dimension. It will be the same object, the same size.

Doesn't that ignore that a 5D object also has two extra dimensions to it? As well as that, you're referring to layers of existence in the OP, which I believe should be treated differently than geometric dimensions, so using terms from geometric dimensions doesn't seem like the best direction to take. But I could be wrong here. Really, it seems like a good idea to get the staff involved considering that this is a pretty important revision.

the superiority comes from the space it self. You can't turn a 3D space into a 4D space by any method. No amount of twisting it, making it bigger, smaller, over lapping it, times it by infinity, etc. etc. will add another direction to a 3D space. The difference between a 3D space and 4D space is immeasurable. That's why I am adamant that you get Low 1-C for destroy/affecting/creating 5D space, not just simply existing in it.

Yes, but affecting anything in 5D space, or any amount of 5D space would qualify, no? Or are you saying you'd have to destroy the entirety of a 5D space in order to scale to that level.

 

[Ss3micah]

Yes, but affecting anything in 5D space, or any amount of 5D space would qualify, no? Or are you saying you'd have to destroy the entirety of a 5D space in order to scale to that level.

That’s basically what he wants
He is effectively saying that to get Low 1-C AP
Affecting a 5-D structure of any size or being a literal 5-D structure should not qualify but destroying an entire 5-D space should

 

[Tarang123]

That’s basically what he wants
He is effectively saying that to get Low 1-C AP
Affecting a 5-D structure of any size or being a literal 5-D structure should not qualify but destroying an entire 5-D space should

Then I'm gonna have to disagree with that. While I agree that simply getting into a higher dimension isn't enough, scaling to even the smallest thing in it should (if we assume that it does behave like how higher dimensions on the wiki do)

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

What the actual $&@! Sir
You CANT BE SERIOUS

So an 11-D object would not be superior to a 3-D object?

An object from a more Mathematically complexed World that’s Numerous Infinities Higher and Larger than the 3-D universe would be equivalent to a 3-D object?

The Writer’s Profile Literally Existing says all the points your making are completely false

You know what I’m done
Call staff because this point you have made is so unspeakably shockingly bad that I’m genuinely surprised you take it seriously

Explain to me how a cube whose dimensions: are 3 Meters in length, 3 meters in width, and 3 meters in height is infinitely bigger than a square that is 3 meters in length and 3 meters width?

My dude you’re saying a 2 dimensional object can exist normally in a 3 dimensional space. That’s the thing that’s false. In our 3 dimensional space can you name me a single 2 dimensional object?

What a silly statement. 2 dimensional objects and higher dimensional objects do not exist. 2 dimensional space and higher dimensional space doesn't exist. I can only go by theory, and theoretical, you can describe a 2D object in 3D space. This is like talking about soul manipulation and your rebuttal is to ask me to show you a soul in real life.

Yes they are by default. A 3D moon is not bigger than a 5D peddle “in three dimensions” because that pebble encompasses more than 3 dimensions. That 3D moon becomes a literal 0 compared to that 5D pebble. For the same reason, if you have a 2D line that is infinitely long and infinitely wide, it’s still a literal zero compared to any 3D object of any size whatsoever. That’s because no matter how long or wide that object is, if it has a “0” for height then the whole thing becomes a 0 in comparison to that higher dimensional object.

What are you talking about? A square that is 10 meters in length and width, is bigger than a cube that's 3 meters in length, width, and height, in regards to length and width.

An object having 0 depth in any dimension does not negate it's size in the dimensions it has depth in.

infinity x infinity x 0= 0. Meanwhile 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

Again, what are you talking about? 3D objects do not have infinite dimensions. And yes, in terms of volume a square has 0 volume, but a square can have greater surface area than a cube.

Are you going to claim that an object is infinitely bigger than an object with greater surface area?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Then I'm gonna have to disagree with that. While I agree that simply getting into a higher dimension isn't enough, scaling to even the smallest thing in it should (if we assume that it does behave like how higher dimensions on the wiki do)

Let me ask you an honest question.

Knowing that higher dimensional space is composed of lower dimensional spaces, and that lower dimensional objects can exist normally in higher dimensional space.
Knowing that energy, speed, and measurement is the same unit and quality in any dimension.

Why would someone who scaled to the smallest thing in their 5Duniverse (a grain of sand for example), be in the same tier as someone who can destroy all the space in the 5Duniverse?

 

[CloverDragon03]

Explain to me how a cube whose dimensions: are 3 Meters in length, 3 meters in width, and 3 meters in height is infinitely bigger than a square that is 3 meters in length and 3 meters width?

Because the square has absolutely no height. As such, height = 0 and any number, including infinity, multiplied by 0 will become 0, so even multiplying the nonexistent height by infinity won't make it no longer nonexistent

 

[Tarang123]

Why would someone who scaled to the smallest thing in their 5Duniverse (a grain of sand for example), be in the same tier as someone who can destroy all the space in the 5Duniverse?

Because they both scale qualitatively above 3D worlds. Sure, according to feats the character that destroys the entire 5D world would scale higher, but they'd still be tier 1

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Because the square has absolutely no height. As such, height = 0 and any number, including infinity, multiplied by 0 will become 0, so even multiplying the nonexistent height by infinity won't make it no longer nonexistent

So you're saying that a cube that has a surface area of 54 square meters is infinitely bigger than a square with a surface area of 9 meters?

Is that your final answer?

Because they both scale qualitatively above 3D worlds. Sure, according to feats the character that destroys the entire 5D world would scale higher, but they'd still be tier 1

So they both get to be the same tier because they exist in the same space?

So will a 3D object get to be the same tier if it was teleported to the same space?

 

[Jinsye]

Let me ask you an honest question.

Knowing that higher dimensional space is composed of lower dimensional spaces, and that lower dimensional objects can exist normally in higher dimensional space.
Knowing that energy, speed, and measurement is the same unit and quality in any dimension.

Why would someone who scaled to the smallest thing in their 5Duniverse (a grain of sand for example), be in the same tier as someone who can destroy all the space in the 5Duniverse?

Because R>F and Dimensions literally aren't the same thing, it shouldn't be that hard to understand. The only thing they are equivalent to is the level of infinity they scale to, stop trying to apply shit from 'dimensions' to "r>f layers".

The tiering system FAQ already differentiates R>F and Dimensions already.

The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference. Another typical example is reality-fiction differences. Those are cases like viewing a plane of reality as mere fiction, like for example writing on a sheet of paper or a dream. They are assumed to imply superiority of a similar scale.

They are not the same thing. Just because a 5-D rock isn't necessarily superior to a 3-D rock, doesn't mean the same standards apply to R>F. Different standards apply to different things because R>F doesn't work the same as dimensions.

 

[Ss3micah]

Knowing that higher dimensional space is composed of lower dimensional spaces, and that lower dimensional objects can exist normally in higher dimensional space.
Knowing that energy, speed, and measurement is the same unit and quality in any dimension.

Where exactly does this logic originate from Sir?
Last Time I checked, as per the rules of R>F, a 5-D object with 5-D structure INFINITELY DRAWFS the size of a 4-D space-time continuum. How the actual hell is a 3-D object the same measurement as a 5-D object.

And by what standards on our Wiki do we accept that Lower Dimensional Objects exist in higher dimensional space? Its different to say they are CONTAINED by a higher dimensional space as 4-D timelines are CONTAINED by a 5-D space as our wiki accepts. But to say Lower Dimensional objects naturally exists in higher dimensions? WTF does this logic comes from?

Why would someone who scaled to the smallest thing in their 5Duniverse (a grain of sand for example), be in the same tier as someone who can destroy all the space in the 5Duniverse?

The same way how a character that is wall level and high universe level is still 3-D
The character that can affect on entire 5-D space will simply scale higher into 5-D than the one that can destroy a 5-D pencil. That DOES not stop them from being 5-D regardless because they are still a 5-D structure and can affect over 5-D structures thats still infinitely above 4-D structures

 

[CloverDragon03]

So you're saying that a cube that has a surface area of 54 square meters is infinitely bigger than a square with a surface area of 9 meters?

Is that your final answer?

Area is meters squared, which doesn't fully capture the size of a 3-D object. Try measuring a 2-D object in 3-D terms and it will be infinitely smaller than measuring a 3-D object in 3-D terms. Even a cube of volume 1 meter^3 is infinitely larger than a square, as a square will always be 0 meters^3.

You don't try getting the full size of an object by using units of a lower dimensionality, because then you're not actually getting the full size.

 

[Tarang123]

So you're saying that a cube that has a surface area of 54 square meters is infinitely bigger than a square with a surface area of 9 meters?

Is that your final answer?

If it has an entirely different dimension, then yes the overall size is infinitely larger. Using surface area ignores the extra dimension that the cube inhabits, which doesn't feel like the best argument to take. Everything in a 5D world would have two extra dimensions in comparison to a 3D world, so to discard that fact doesn't work in my opinion

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Because R>F and Dimensions literally aren't the same thing, it shouldn't be that hard to understand. The only thing they are equivalent to is the level of infinity they scale to, stop trying to apply shit from 'dimensions' to "r>f layers".

The tiering system FAQ already differentiates R>F and Dimensions already.


They are not the same thing. Just because a 5-D rock isn't necessarily superior to a 3-D rock, doesn't mean the same standards apply to R>F. Different standards apply to different things because R>F doesn't work the same as dimensions.

Because through dimensionality a character has to destroy the entire 5D space to become Low 1-C.

In R>F the character just has to perceive another world as fiction to get Low 1-C. Why aren't R>F characters required to destroy the entire space they are in, like how characters are in terms of dimensionality?

 

[Maitreya12]

What a silly statement. 2 dimensional objects and higher dimensional objects do not exist. 2 dimensional space and higher dimensional space doesn't exist. I can only go by theory, and theoretical, you can describe a 2D object in 3D space. This is like talking about soul manipulation and your rebuttal is to ask me to show you a soul in real life.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think a 2 dimensional object cannot exist in a 3d space? You can describe something 2d in a 3d space sure but a 2d object cannot exist in a 3d space. Things can only be described as 2d in a 3d space because a 3d space is volume and something that has a “0” in volume literally cannot exist.

What are you talking about? A square that is 10 meters in length and width, is bigger than a cube that's 3 meters in length, width, and height, in regards to length and width.

But you’re not just talking about length and width. There’s height to that cube as well and the fact that it has height means that the square’s size becomes a zero in a 3 dimensional space.

listen the 2 dimension is not length and width. It is length multiplied by width. The third dimension is length multiplied by width multiplied by height. Ok? It is the total culmination of those measurements rather than them individually as you are treating them. The third dimension is volume. In other words if you are to try and compare a 2d object to a 3d object. That 2d object is always a 0 to that 3d object because it has no volume.

It makes the length and width of that 2d object irrelevant to that 3d object because it’s always a 0 compared to that 3d object.

An object having 0 depth in any dimension does not negate it's size in the dimensions it has depth in.

But it does negate its size in the dimensions above them. That’s the thing. So when comparing a 3d object to a 2d object. That 2d object always becomes a 0 in a 3d space. Because a 3d space is volume.

Again, what are you talking about? 3D objects do not have infinite dimensions. And yes, in terms of volume a square has 0 volume, but a square can have greater surface area than a cube.

The third dimension is not surface area. It’s volume. Surface area is a 2 dimensional measurement. A square has a higher surface area than another square. What you’re measuring in surface area is the “surface” of the object. Not the entire object.

A circle can have a higher surface area than a circle on the cylinder. But you’re not measuring the cylinder. You’re measuring the “face” or “surface” of that cylinder. Not the cylinder. Because you can’t in terms of surface area. You’re bringing the object down to 2 dimensional measurements. You’re not letting it remain as 3d. But when a 2 dimensional object is brought up into 3 dimension. It becomes a zero always at all points no matter what values the length and width are. They become irrelevant in terms of 3d measurements.

Are you going to claim that an object is infinitely bigger than an object with greater surface area?

Yes something that has volume is infinitely bigger than something that just has surface area. Because of the presence of volume in of itself.

 

[Tarang123]

In a sense, there are 2D things in 3D space. For example, the surface of the Earth is 2D as it only has 2 actual coordinates (longitude and latitude), but in actuality, there's nothing actually 2D in our universe. It's all varying sizes into 3D, which has an extra coordinate axis to 2D, and therefore is unimaginably larger than a 2D object because of this.

But this is talking about geometric dimensions rather than levels of existence (where R>F usually applies), so Idk if this really applies

 

[Jinsye]

In R>F the character just has to perceive another world as fiction to get Low 1-C. Why aren't R>F characters required to destroy the entire space they are in, like how characters are in terms of dimensionality?

Because they work differently.

When you're transcendent over something via R>F, you are qualitatively superior in nature to whatever you transcend. It's not like dimensions where mass and energy can carry over without much change.

Dimensions have a ton of stipulations that make it so X-dimensional doesn't grant you a tier, R>F doesn't. You obtain qualitative superiority by default because that's the nature of your existence.

 

[Ss3micah]

Because they work differently.

When you're transcendent over something via R>F, you are qualitatively superior in nature to whatever you transcend. It's not like dimensions where mass and energy can carry over without much change.

Dimensions have a ton of stipulations that make it so X-dimensional doesn't grant you a tier, R>F doesn't. You obtain qualitative superiority by default because that's the nature of your existence.

According to Iamunanimousinthat

Even if the nature of your existence is superior and transcends all things 4-D, because the Tiering Page said that characters of this Tier CAN destroy 5-D spaces, any being that transcends over a 4-D cosmology but has no direct feats of destroying 5-D spaces should not be Low 1-C

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

According to Iamunanimousinthat

Even if the nature of your existence is superior and transcends all things 4-D, because the Tiering Page said that characters of this Tier CAN destroy 5-D spaces, any being that transcends over a 4-D cosmology but has no direct feats of destroying 5-D spaces should not be Low 1-C

The tier page says it directly. And you yourself said that it would have to be changed to include, 5D beings who have no destructive feats.

 

[Ss3micah]

The tier page says it directly. And you yourself said that it would have to be changed to include, 5D beings who have no destructive feats.

Yeah
And I stand by what I say

I agree that if it aint obvious enough as it already is then absolutely
We should change the description to fit in that characters can qualify for this Tier be being able to create, manipulate and destroy 5-D structures as well as 5-D spaces that are infinitely above the structure of 4-D structures to the point they are infinitesimal to them or perceive them as fiction

 

[Tarang123]

At this point, it may be a good idea to bring in staff members to look at this.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Because they work differently.

When you're transcendent over something via R>F, you are qualitatively superior in nature to whatever you transcend. It's not like dimensions where mass and energy can carry over without much change.

Dimensions have a ton of stipulations that make it so X-dimensional doesn't grant you a tier, R>F doesn't. You obtain qualitative superiority by default because that's the nature of your existence.

Let's ignore the X-dimensional stuff. And focus purely on R>F then.

If a character views a world as fictional, it warrants a tier because of "qualitative superiority". That's the current standard on the R>F page.

Can you explain to me, in your own words what exactly is that qualitative superiority?

 

[Tarang123]

Can you explain to me, in your own words what exactly is that qualitative superiority?

The way I interpret it is being above something to the point that no amount of qualitative jumps will reach that level of existence or power.

Now, I actually want to ask you something. If you take destroying an entire 5D space (finite or not) as enough to qualify for tier 1 (on the basis that this space would qualify for tier 1), then wouldn't destroying any percentage of this space also qualify as being unfathomably above something in a lower level of reality?

 

[Jinsye]

Can you explain to me, in your own words what exactly is that qualitative superiority?

Being superior to something else in a way where the gap is qualitative, not quantitative.

To compare, a quantitative gap is something like, "I am 10 times stronger", "I am 50 times stronger", or "I am infinitely more powerful" than something. This is our standard measure for AP feats.

Qualitative gaps cannot be quantified by basic numbers, and are generally justified by your nature. In this case, the quality you are superior in is that you are more "real" than something, thus you have that over it. You can be infinitely stronger than a 2-A multiverse, but a person with qualitative superiority goes beyond basic numbers (1 to infinity).

TLDR: No matter how infinitely powerful you may be, the gap between you and someone who views you as fiction is beyond that.

The exact VSBW definition is:

Qualitative superiority, also sometimes called being qualitatively greater, is a term colloquially used to mean that something is superior to an extend that it justifies being on a higher tier of infinity in terms of our Tiering System than the thing they are superior to. That means a character qualitatively superior to the usual spacetime continuum would, for example, be Low Complex Multiverse level (Tier Low 1-C) at the level represented by the R^5. Someone qualitatively superior to that would have the same tier, but on the higher level of infinity represented by the R^6 and someone qualitatively superior to that level would be baseline Complex Multiverse level (Tier 1-C).
In the same vein a space being qualitatively superior to another space, means that destroying that space would land you on a higher level of infinity in the Tiering System than destroying the space it is superior to.
In rough terms it means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size".

The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference. Another typical example is reality-fiction differences. Those are cases like viewing a plane of reality as mere fiction, like for example writing on a sheet of paper or a dream. They are assumed to imply superiority of a similar scale.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The way I interpret it is being above something to the point that no amount of qualitative jumps will reach that level of existence or power.

See my answer below.

Now, I actually want to ask you something. If you take destroying an entire 5D space (finite or not) as enough to qualify for tier 1 (on the basis that this space would qualify for tier 1), then wouldn't destroying any percentage of this space also qualify as being unfathomably above something in a lower level of reality?

It would be unquantifiable, just as destroying partial space in a universe, doesn't give Low 2-C, it just gives you the hax of destroying spacetime.

To compare, a quantitative gap is something like, "I am 10 times stronger", "I am 50 times stronger", or "I am infinitely more powerful" than something. This is our standard measure for AP feats.

Qualitative gaps cannot be quantified by basic numbers, and are generally justified by your nature. In this case, the quality you are superior in is that you are more "real" than something, thus you have that over it. You can be infinitely stronger than a 2-A multiverse, but a person with qualitative superiority goes beyond basic numbers (1 to infinity).

TLDR: No matter how infinitely powerful you may be, the gap between you and someone who views you as fiction is beyond that.

But here is my thing, we stop measuring our AP tier in terms of energy after High 3-A. We then switch to cardinality, specifically how many universes you can destroy.

A character that can only destroy one universe will only be Low 2-C until they have destroyed two universes. No amount multiplier, or even stacking infinities will get a Low 2-C to be 2-C. Do we claim that 2-C is qualitatively superior?

Then we have 2C to 2B. These are tiers for destroying any finite amount of universes. And of course 2A for destroying an infinite amount of universe.

Now, to get from 2A to Low 1-C, no amount of multiplication, infinites, stacking, etc. will get you from 2A to Low 1-C. The only way to reach that tier is destroy a space that is one level of infinity higher than the 2A, or 5D in terms of dimensionality.

So we have Character A, who is 2A, never reaching tier Low 1-C, no matter how stronger he gets, until he destroys a space that has one level of infinity or higher, or 5D space.

Then we have Character B. Character B views a world as fiction, and because they view that world as fiction, they are tier Low 1-C.

I don't think these are equivalents. And let me explain why.

Character A had to gain a tier by specifically destroying something. Same for a character that is Low 2-C. They can only gain the next tier by specifically destroying more than one universe. I cannot except a character gaining a tier without the need for destruction. (or creation/affecting the whole area)

And the reasoning doesn't make sense. Yes, a fictional being cannot reach a real being with no amount of multipliers or additions or anything. However, that has nothing to do with power levels. It has everything to do with the nature of fiction and the nature of reality.

A physical character will never be able to reach or harm an abstract being no matter how many multipliers or infinities you stack. They will only be able to affect abstract beings the moment the story shows them to be able to. Should Abstract beings be given Low 1-C too?

An existent being will never be able to reach or harm a nonexistent being not matter how many multipliers or infinites you stack. They will only be able to affect that nonexistent the moment the story shows them to be able to. Should Nonexistent beings be given Low 1-C too?

I think R>F transcendence is a good way to establish a space as being an equivalent to a 5D world (because not all stories use dimensionality). But characters should only get Low 1-C for being able to destroy that space that has been established as such. Not by simply existing in it.

 

[Tarang123]

It would be unquantifiable, just as destroying partial space in a universe, doesn't give Low 2-C, it just gives you the hax of destroying spacetime.

Wouldn't a 5D space be something that views 3D as fiction, meaning it would be disconnected by nature. Our rules regarding tier 2 regard space-time continuums which are tied to the universe's structure. Idk if it's the same case.

 

[StekFence]

It is absurd to argue that a being by virtue of being just 5D (or in this case viewing a Tier 2 structure as fiction) can harm and fight a character who can destroy an entire 5D structure

I disagree. A author character who is 5d can peel a skin cell off himself, and that’s a 5d feat. Likely a bottom of the barrel feat, but a cell is a structure which in this context would be 5D.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Wouldn't a 5D space be something that views 3D as fiction, meaning it would be disconnected by nature. Our rules regarding tier 2 regard space-time continuums which are tied to the universe's structure. Idk if it's the same case.

No. A 5D space is just space that has 5 directions. A 3D object can fit perfectly fine inside a 5D space an be just as real as a 5D object. The only difference is the 3D object will have 0 depth in 4th and 5th dimension.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I disagree. A author character who is 5d can peel a skin cell off himself, and that’s a 5d feat. Likely a bottom of the barrel feat, but a cell is a structure which in this context would be 5D.

A 2D square can slice 5D character in half. Is the 2D square 5D now?

Also, by structure, I mean a 5D space.