A new dimensional tiering page

[Antvasima]

Hello.

As you may be aware, the Higher-Dimensional Manipulation page used to explain the basis for part of our system to visitors, which I think was inappropriate, as it is technically a powers & abilities page.

As such, I asked DontTalkDT if he was willing to improve and expand on the explanation to include the mathematical foundation in a separate Dimensional Tiering page, and he was kind enough to help out.

I have updated the front page and Tiering System links to this new page instead, and removed the now unnecessary explanation sectio from the higher-dimensional manipulation page.

I hope that this will reduce some of the scorn that we tend to receive for our system.

However, an "infinity in projective geometry" explanation section was not included, as it is not within DontTalkDT's area of expertise, so I wonder if somebody in the staff is knowledgeable enough to write such a section, or if we should simply remove the mention from the tiering system page.

The principle was that higher-dimensional objects turn infinitely large when projected on lower dimensions. Although I think that I learned about this by reading a very old version of a Wikipedia page, so it may have been a mistake on my part, but I would nevertheless greatly appreciate if somebody knowledgeable in the staff could investigate further.

NOTE: STAFF ONLY (Unless a regular member has something genuinely useful and constructive to contribute with here)

 

[Antvasima]

JackJoyce linked me to the following video about higher dimensions via my message wall. It may or may not be useful: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ciM6wigZK0w&feature=youtu.be#

 

[SomebodyData]

Imma wait for more people before putting any more thoughts, but seems like an alright suggestion (regaridng op), neutral about video.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Same, I'll also wait for more input.

 

[DarkLK]

In general, it looks good.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It looks good, but now the Higher-Dimensional Manipulation page is barebones.

 

[Antvasima]

@SomebodyData

I didn't mean that we should include the video in the page. I just meant that it may or may not be useful for the staff to inform themselves.

@Matthew

Yes. I would appreciate if somebody could expand a bit on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I would appreciate input about if we should include an infinity in projective geometry section, or simply remove the mention from the tiering system page.

 

[Aeyu]

I fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of Hausdorff geometry, if translated to spatio-temporal dimensionality = infinite sizes as opposed to abstract geometrical distances. Physics still occur the same way within higher dimensions as they do within lower ones, and net energy does not necessarily increase (though this is semantics).

However, I think the new page seems rather informative and well-thought out.

On the topic, I am still interested in proposing what we discussed a month or two ago in defining the distances as Cantor spaces and making specific note that we quantify dimensions in the manner which is typically associated with many fictional works, that being large extra dimensions that serve as a higher level of being, as opposed to spatio-temporal dimensionality being merely another axis of movement/temporal complexity.

...If that seems like something that would still be helpful, that is.

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

seems fine to me

 

[Antvasima]

@Aeyu

It is probably best if you discuss such issues, regarding modifying the current page explanation, directly with DontTalkDT. I am not well-informed about the subject.

 

[Sera_EX]

This is good. We need to separate higher dimensional beings from beings with higher dimensional power. It's very common for people to say things like "Goku is a four-dimensional being" because he is Low 2-C here at VSBW. That is blatantly false, he is Low 2-C via having 4D power (universe+ buster) but he's still a three-dimensional being.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I fundamentally disagree with the interpretation of Hausdorff geometry, if translated to spatio-temporal dimensionality = infinite sizes

Why? I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that the Hausdorff measure induces the correct definition of size.

as opposed to abstract geometrical distances.

What do you mean with abstract geometrical distances? Please link me a script of some lecture on the topic, so I can have a look at the details of what you are suggesting.

Physics still occur the same way within higher dimensions as they do within lower ones, and net energy does not necessarily increase (though this is semantics).

As I argued on the page no theory that is correct in physics goes above infinite energy/force, hence debating about physics in this classifications is pointless.

On the topic, I am still interested in proposing what we discussed a month or two ago in defining the distances as Cantor spaces

Distance and Cantor space are not things I would expect to appear in this debate. How do you plan to define a distance as a cantor space and… why?

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Its a pretty good page, but perhaps some reference should be made to non euclidian space or some of the types of higher dimenaional structures. It may give it more grounding

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Think this is fine.

 

[Aeyu]

@DontTalk

1. First, because essentially, it's arguing that 1 is infinite compared to zero. While that's technically true (extensions of decimal points don't ever quite reach the next number), it's misleading, because within our system this leads to the assumption that within science, higher-dimensional objects are infinitely larger or can generate infinitely more energy than lower dimensional ones, which is absolutely not the case - it's more just that the lower-dimensional space does not have the higher-dimensional axis/direction of movement. It's just my opinion, but it leads to misunderstandings. That being said, I really do like the page, it's just an issue I have with dimensional tiering at its core.

2. I'll find one of sufficient merit and get back to you, promise.

3. Well, the fact is that we can gauge physical interactions in higher dimensions, with equations. Things like kinetic energy, for instance, should more or less stay the same.

4. It's based on something I proposed a couple months back that Ant requested I send to DarkLK; essentially it would detail considering higher dimensions, as they are perceived in many fictions, most notably Umineko and the Cthulhu Mythos (as well as DC and Marvel) to be like degrees of cardinality in topological Cantor spaces. High 2-A to 1-B's lower limit would cover countable degrees of cardinality, with the higher end of 1-B and High 1-B describing uncountable cardinality. 1-A could then be defined as being inaccessible to any replacement of the aforementioned Cantor spaces (as it is already sort-of defined as), and High 1-A and 0 would then align with a "set of all sets", similar to what is currently defined by Tier 0, that being an extension of the "Absolute Infinite" proposed by Cantor. This would align with how we treat higher-dimensional things when they don't prove to be higher infinites, as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I would personally much prefer to not mess with the fundamental principles that build our system.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Aeyu is not doing that, tho?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, perhaps I misunderstood point #4.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Aeyu

I'm pretty sure that we have already acknowledged that dimensions as we treat them don't behave the way they do in real life.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalk
1. it's misleading, because within our system this leads to the assumption that within science, higher-dimensional objects are infinitely larger or can generate infinitely more energy than lower dimensional ones, which is absolutely not the case

Nobody said anything about energy. As said as the levels we apply this energy as a classification concept is not relevant.

And higher-dimensional objects are infintely larger, which is exactly what I argued in the explanation. Really that isn't a debatable interpretation, but a factual consequence from intuitive size.

And I really mean consequence. Under the criteria for intuitive classification of size I presented (which nobody would disagree with, I believe) this way to classify size is the only way to classify size. (That's a mathematical theorem)

@DontTalk

3. Well, the fact is that we can gauge physical interactions in higher dimensions, with equations. Things like kinetic energy, for instance, should more or less stay the same.

You can define yourself an analogon kinetic energy on any metric space to which you add something like time. (And a metric space can be pretty much anyting)

As said, either you end at High 3-A or you accept that a classification other than energy is used in which case you will have to live with it not fitting physics.

Consider for example that in physics destroying the multiverse takes at most as much energy as destroying an infinite universe in an explosion. So any system which ranks multiverse level and universe level as different has exactly the physical interaction problem you are talking about.


To 4. Ehhh... Everyting except 11-C is not countable. Up to 1-B would be equal to the cardinality of the real numbers. High 1-B would be that and any higher cardinality.


No idea what "inaccessible to any replacement of the aforementioned Cantor spaces" is supposed to mean. On one hand because I still wonder why you focus specifically on cantor spaces, if you just want to talk about cardinality. And on the other hand because every set has a cardinality, but you still are talking about sets?


Let's leave the "set of all sets", Absolute Infinite and other things that don't exist out of this. It's a bad habit to argue using non-existent things.


In any case I don't really see what change you are suggesting. Cardinality already is inexplicitely incorporated in the system like that as it has mathematical implications on the dimensions. I wouldn't write it in the explanation page, as it is just one of many possible criteria that are very rarely used and doesn't relate to the main point at all.

 

[Aeyu]

Respectfully, truly so, I must disagree with you on many of these points.

According to an actual physicist, kinetic energy shouldn't have anything to do with dimensionality, so the assumption that higher dimensions TRANSCEND energy to any degree is scientifically erroneous.

It is debatable when you consider that spatio-temporality does not necessarily have to be defined by Hausdorff dimensionality within physics.

I also disagree with dimensionality being the only way to classify sizes larger than the infinite. Even within the study of multiverses higher-order multiverses than can be described by simply infinite planes are a valid topic of discussion, like holographic/simulation multiverses and string vacua.

2. Not all multiverses are built the same. You're essentially comparing an infinite universe to an infinite Type I or II multiverse, which can be valid to some degree (less so for Type 2) but as stated, not all multiverses are defined by embedding within an infinite space.

4. It was a proposal to better define the tiers as having specific aleph number-like cardinalities, as this would be in line with the concept of dimensions being higher infinites, whereas in physics as we understand them, I will vehemently argue that this is absolutely not the case. However, I know that the system as defined by DarkLK was based primarily off the way Umineko, Cthulhu Mythos and the like treat dimensions, and I have stated that I have no intention to try and change this. Inaccessible would be representing 1-A as like an inaccessible cardinal in relation to aleph cardinality, which it technically is because no replacement/extension to size at a High 1-B level is enough to reach it. This could even work within the consideration of dimensions to be represented like how they are in Hausdorff maths as well, imo.

Absolute Infinity is what Tier 0 is literally defined as right now within our Tiering System; the name was changed from the former "True Infinity".

All that I am saying is perhaps we should be more descriptive about our tiers and define WHY we classify them how we do. It doesn't need to be *absolutely literal*, just like we don't take statements with "higher layers" or the like any less seriously when talking about higher tiers, just like "Absolute Infinity" is so named due to equivalency and not due to being a literal truth (I know it's improvable).

@Ant

You and I literally talked about this a month or two ago. I have repeatedly stated I have no intention to try and fundamentally take apart the system, I am very honestly only trying to help improve our standards.

@Kep

I'm aware of this, as well. I have no intention to change anything, only better define the tiers so that we have less confusion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Respectfully, I must disagree with you on many of these points.
According to an actual physicist, kinetic energy shouldn't have anything to do with dimensionality, so the assumption that higher dimensions TRANSCEND energy to any degree is scientifically erroneous.

I have never claimed anything about transcendence, that is just you.

Point is that literally no system has "transcendence" of infinite energy in physics. You can define kinetic energy in a space with any given cardinality and it will never be "transcendend" to what destroying an infinite universe takes.

Basically either you use a system which has no higher levels than High 3-A or you learn to forget about physics after a certain degree.


I will get to the rest tomorrow or whenever I find time (so probably not tomorrow). If I have a lot of time you can expect me to write you a, a few pages long, proof about how the hausdorff measure is the only intuitive quantification of size.

 

[Golden_Void]

This topic is giving me an aneurysm.

 

[Kepekley23]

I believe DontTalk makes good sense here.

 

[Fllflourine]

I agree with Rice Khan

 

[Aeyu]

@DontTalk

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm saying is that through defining the dimensions as aleph levels instead of just axes in a physical system (Cantor spaces), you're able to define higher infinities much easier. Thus circumventing the need to define infinites - You can simply state these spaces operate under "Higher-order" physics.

I just think that trying to rationalize dimensions themselves as being equivalent to higher infinites is confusing when this isn't how they operate in physics. I get that we don't necessarily accept this, as Kep said, but it *does* cause confusion, many people think this is exactly how they operate within physics in many different communities when in reality it is an arbitrary system we have created that operates around the functionalities of fiction.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Kepekley

You're right. We gravitate towards the more simplified geometric version of the term and not the fully in depth definition described in physics. So I think DontTalk incorporating Hausforff dimensions to be appropriate, for explanation purposes.

Not all dimensions are portrayed equally.