A new Tiering System FAQ page in the wiki

[Antvasima]

Please elaborate regarding what you mean.

 

[Eficiente]

I like most of it but disagree on how it uses higher-dimensions and higher-dimensional beings as that always using the theory of it it gives, as opposed to it only being the case when proven. Any random verse having some being from the 7th dimension or the like doesn't mean the being or that dimension are larger than the regular 3rd dimension, the standard thing for everybody to think is that the writers may not know sh*t about things like that and the 7th dimension may be just another universe, but weeeird or with gimmicks to it.

 

[Shadyboi0]

Are Spatiotemporal dimensions infinitely bigger than the last?

 

[Agnaa]

@Eficiente I already responded to that; I think it's sufficiently tackled.

Saying that beings with a larger number of spatiotemporal dimensions are bigger is not saying that we automatically take every usage of "dimension" as talking about spatiotemporal dimensions when context clearly points to "dimension" meaning "timeline/universe/realm".

Beings in Rick and Morty's "Dimension C-197" will not be treated as having a C-197 amount of dimensions.

@Shadyboi0 No, a being that exists on the 4th, 5th, and 6th dimensions but not the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd isn't infinitely larger than a being that only exists on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensions.

Hell, it doesn't even make sense to number dimensions like this. All that matters is the total count of dimensions.

 

[Eficiente]

That's not true, we don't say that our use of dimensions are spatiotemporal dimensions like it, we just use the word dimension and dimensions and that's it. Anyone can from there inherently believe that any use of dimension/s in fiction refers to it, especially when having the common sense to figure that that's wrong isn't a requirement we have for anyone to participate in the wiki.

 

[First_Witch]

I... Really don't understand the problem right now. The very first paragraph explains what the requirement are for dimensions to count for anything. When Dimensions are used to refer to, for example, parallel worlds instead of higher infinites, they obviously dont fulfil the requirements to be anything tierable. Why do we have to define such a simple notion when the FAQ already defines the word in painstaking detail?

 

[Eficiente]

It already starts by taking dimensions as in higher infinites when this is inherently not the case, it legit lies about the use of dimensions to simplify things up. You know how dimensions can go as in other realities and higher infinites, this isn't taught properly to normal people and upon reading this they will only see dimensions as in higher infinites, they having to know on their own that they can also be other realities. We have no reason to lie, we can just say that dimensions can go as in both things and that if it goes as in higher infinites then start the rest of what the page talks about. By the logic we have now people will need to figure things up on their own to tell that maybe some verse using dimensions as in higher infinites actually have it as in other realities, with this page only hindering that and the process of knowing why a verse's stats are fishy and what's really wrong with it taking an unfriendly amount of time by itself. And if it's not very clear which use of dimension a verse may be using then anyone may get away with saying they're higher infinites, after all that's seemingly what we go as a standard take as it's the only thing we claim when that should obviously not be the case.

It's as simple as we not being precise when needing to be so, or did we all forgot how strong headed certain users can be about matters of common sense that we don't explain properly?

 

[Agnaa]

I guess a brief explanation that "Sometimes the word 'dimension' simply refers to another realm, and not spatio-temporal dimensions" could be placed under the first question.

 

[First_Witch]

The first couple paragraphs literally defines what is required for dimensions to be higher infinites on a mathematical basis. Yes, people can still be clueless about synonymous terms, but the FAQ is one gigantic definition of the word. Im sorry but if someone reads the FAQ (And actually understands it, something you simply cant guarantee no matter how precise and indepth you are), debates a verse that defines its usage of dimensions differently (parallel universes) and still insist on them being interchangeable then i doubt a simple 2 liner of "They are not the same" will help much.

Point is, if a argument does not follow our standards, regardless of what ones believe, its not going to be accepted. And the FAQ has established said standard painstakingly clear. We cant babysit what people learn about.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Okay, I’m very sorry if this is Staff Only because I feel if there’s one thing that needs to be in this new FAQ, it’s this: a properly defined definition Reality-Fiction Transcendence, and examples of it in fiction.

Because, after this thread, I’m starting to lose the definition of it.

 

[Antvasima]

I guess a brief explanation that "Sometimes the word 'dimension' simply refers to another realm, and not spatio-temporal dimensions" could be placed under the first question.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this (based on Eficiente's comments above)?

Okay, I’m very sorry if this is Staff Only because I feel if there’s one thing that needs to be in this new FAQ, it’s this: a properly defined definition Reality-Fiction Transcendence, and examples of it in fiction.

Because, after this thread, I’m starting to lose the definition of it.

This might be useful as well. @Sera_EX would you be willing to help out in this regard as well?

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

From my minor knowledge (gotten from Ultima), I’m willing to help write it & list an example for other verses to follow, but I feel this would truly help a lot of people.

 

[Eficiente]

@First_Witch It's as wrong as giving 1 definition of a word without saying that there's another, the page starts by claiming that higher dimensions are (always) infinitely larger than lower ones and that yet this doesn't matter, meaning that anyone reading it can wrongly take that we believe dimensions to always do that despite it not necessarily being the case with uses of dimensions with numbers and high or low positions to them. As those aren't infinitely larger as we claimed they always are then that hits our reliability and that of the whole matter of higher dimensions, worst so if anyone believes in those cases the dimensions to be infinitely larger because of we when that's not the case.

It's not babysitting, just not being wrong.

 

[First_Witch]

Look, no offense, an honest question because i dont know you personally: Do you study any fields in a university? You dont have to answer that, i just dont want to assume anything. It is in fact, common practice to only define terms with field relevant definitions, because any other synonymous definition is irelevant to the subject at hand. A paper written on dimension theory dosnt open up with "Btw, Dimension can mean parallel worlds too but im not reffering to them in this paper" because youre writing a definition, which OBVIOUSLY dosnt correlate to a different field. Its the whole point of the paper, the same way this FAQ serves as a definition/requirement for the term "Higher Dimension". This FAQ is not a linguistic lexicon, we are not required to teach english to people.

Are we actually reading the same page? The FAQ literally says that higher dimensions needs to fulfil multiple requirements to be considered higher infinites, which is required to be tierable. If anyone reads out of the FAQ that we believe that Higher D= Higher infinite then they are flat out reading the FAQ wrong, because that is no where stated to be the case.

 

[Sera_EX]

First Witch is correct, but that also dives into a deeper problem to be addressed at a later time.

 

[Sera_EX]

Okay, I’m very sorry if this is Staff Only because I feel if there’s one thing that needs to be in this new FAQ, it’s this: a properly defined definition Reality-Fiction Transcendence, and examples of it in fiction.

Because, after this thread, I’m starting to lose the definition of it.

The difference between reality and fiction within a fictional world is not objective, it can't be solidly defined as if it were a metric. It can mean a myriad of things.

On one end it can be a relationship between different kinds of universes like in DC, whereas in something like Umineko it is the relationship between higher and lower dimensions or entire mini cosmologies in some sort of composite hierarchy. It can just be a certain perspective with no relation to power, as well.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

The difference between reality and fiction within a fictional world is not objective, it can't be solidly defined as if it were a metric. It can mean a myriad of things.

On one end it can be a relationship between different kinds of universes like in DC, whereas in something like Umineko it is the relationship between higher and lower dimensions or entire mini cosmologies in some sort of composite hierarchy. It can just be a certain perspective with no relation to power, as well.

You make a frustratingly good point. I hope this wouldn’t mean Low 1-C will have to be evaluated again.

 

[Sera_EX]

Not the tier itself, no.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera_EX

Does our Reality - Fiction Interaction page need to be fleshed out with additional information about this?

 

[Eficiente]

Look, no offense, an honest question because i dont know you personally: Do you study any fields in a university? You dont have to answer that, i just dont want to assume anything. It is in fact, common practice to only define terms with field relevant definitions, because any other synonymous definition is irelevant to the subject at hand. A paper written on dimension theory dosnt open up with "Btw, Dimension can mean parallel worlds too but im not reffering to them in this paper" because youre writing a definition, which OBVIOUSLY dosnt correlate to a different field. Its the whole point of the paper, the same way this FAQ serves as a definition/requirement for the term "Higher Dimension". This FAQ is not a linguistic lexicon, we are not required to teach english to people.

Are we actually reading the same page? The FAQ literally says that higher dimensions needs to fulfil multiple requirements to be considered higher infinites, which is required to be tierable. If anyone reads out of the FAQ that we believe that Higher D= Higher infinite then they are flat out reading the FAQ wrong, because that is no where stated to be the case.

Fields in a university have standards we lack as anyone's able to propose whatever they want and agree with whoever they want to, and insist to no end on disagreement. We have to be more of a dictionary or a guide for anyone to read at any time and get everything right with no possible and completely foreseeable misunderstandings, otherwise we're being negligent. The fact remains that we are stating something that's not true, not only can dimensions refer to other realities but this can also be the case when they're in-verse referred to with numbers or with higher or lower positions and anyone can equivocally believe that those are higher dimensions as in infinitely larger dimensions as that's the only thing we claim them to be, especially if they're ill defined and unlike a regular universe.

In size, not power.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The fact remains that we are stating something that's not true, not only can dimensions refer to other realities but this can also be the case when they're in-verse referred to with numbers or with higher or lower positions and anyone can equivocally believe that those are higher dimensions as in infinitely larger dimensions as that's the only thing we claim them to be, especially if they're ill defined and unlike a regular universe.

I don't see how this is relevant. The FAQ page already makes it very clear that it's talking about "dimensions" in the sense of axes of movement, which is the correct meaning of the word, and so, the only verses that it addresses are the ones that also refer to dimensions in this manner. Series that refer to alternate realms as "dimensions" are simply not talking about actual dimensions to begin with, and are thus irrelevant here. It just seems like you're complaining about basic semantics that anyone with half a brain cell can figure out.

 

[Bobsican]

Sorry for asking, and I know I'm not staff and all to just comment here, but I've found something that would surely be worth a clarification on:
On the question over 2-A AP being the same even if multiple infinite multiverses are involved, I would like to ask if this applies to range as well, as in, that if affecting multiple infinite multiverses is as impressive range wise as doing so to a single infinite multiverse.
This has been something that recently became a factor with the recent Pokémon upgrades and so on for versus thread purposes, hence why I'm asking.

 

[Eficiente]

The meaning of the word and its use are completely warped, there can be a 5th dimension in some verse that is weird and alien but just another universe in practice and anyone reading the FQA can believe it to have the regular properties of a higher dimension when this may not be the case at all, for a normal person with more than half a brain cell said dimension may be using the correct meaning of the word dimension simply because it has a number to it, is weird and not a parallel universe. A decent amount of people using dimensions as in other realities may also believe that's the correct use of the word, it should be no surprise how many also try to implement acting as if this realities were in fact higher or lower dimensions like real dimensions, the more awareness we show to this fact the easlier anyone will be able to deal with messes regular users may create based on it in the future. That is all.

 

[First_Witch]

You are making no sense at this point, no offence.

"Fields in a university have standards we lack as anyone's able to propose whatever they want and agree with whoever they want to, and insist to no end on disagreement."

We. Have. A. Standard. In. Form. Of. The. FAQ. Anyone, as an individual, can believe and say what they want. It wont change what will fly on this wiki and what will not. If they insist on being wrong (As of our standard) then they are not worth entertaining anymore.

"We have to be more of a dictionary or a guide for anyone to read at any time and get everything right with no possible and completely foreseeable misunderstandings, otherwise we're being negligent."

Look, let me give you an example. In German, the word "Decke" has 2 prominent synonymous meanings, namely ceiling, as in ceiling of a building/room and blanket, the one you use to sleep. If you are talking about "Decke" in the context of architectur, you dont have to point out at the beginning of the ones training that "Oh btw, we dont mean blankets", because context and subject field BY DEFAULT eliminates any other definition that do not fall in the field at hand. Because its selfevident. We are not supposed to take responsibility for the inabilities of others to understand a detailed and beginner friendly page, be it because of language barrier or mental age.

"The fact remains that we are stating something that's not true"

Geez, guess Google is flat out lying to its users too by not listing every miniscule and irellevant definition of the word. To elaborate:

"not only can dimensions refer to other realities but this can also be the case when they're in-verse referred to with numbers or with higher or lower positions and anyone can equivocally believe that those are higher dimensions as in infinitely larger dimensions as that's the only thing we claim them to be, especially if they're ill defined and unlike a regular universe."

Yes, thats true. Yes, Fiction does sometimes do that. No, it dosnt matter, because the definition you have described there does not fulfil the requirements of the FAQ and no, the FAQ still does not claim that Higher D = Higher infinite automaticly.

"In size, not power."

Sweet merciful jesus living in all of us, do i really have to go through the FAQ one by one for you now or what...

Literally the first thing you will read when opening the FAQ:

Dispelling the first intuitivly sounding but wrong notion:

Dispelling the second intuitivly sounding but wrong notion (Pay attention to what i have outlined Efficiente and read again what you have wrote):

And MOST importantly; When are higher dimensions VALID:

Again, i dont know how often i have to stress this but the page has given us a detailed definition of what we understand by higher dimensions and detailed requirements that needs to be fulfilled in order to count as anything tierable. Multiple of your claims were flat out wrong and as i have proven here, non-issues.
Again, i repeat: If someone has read AND comprehended the FAQ, debates a verse that does use a definition of dimensions NOT comform with those outlined in the FAQ but INSIST on them being the same term, then they are simply not worth entertaining (Nicely said, you can add all kinds of ad-hominem buzzwords instead).

Its the same as writing "1+1=2 but importantly its not 1+1=3 or 1+1=4 etc." Realise how silly this is?

 

[Antvasima]

Please try to be polite and patient. Eficiente means well, and simply wants us to be as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As far as I am concerned we can simply add a short sentence like "Dimensions need to be dimensions in the sense explained above the be of relevance for any dimensional tiering related considerations." at the end of the "Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely larger than lower-dimensional equivalents?" section.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT's suggestion seems fine to me. The wording should probably be cleaned up a bit though.

 

[First_Witch]

Please try to be polite and patient. Eficiente means well, and simply wants us to be as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings.

I guess my annoyance came through a bit too much on my last post. Ultimately, i find that to be pointless (See my 1+1 analogy) but i wont throw a fit if we decide to add it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Sera_EX

Does our Reality - Fiction Interaction page need to be fleshed out with additional information about this?

It wouldn't hurt.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Would you be willing to write a draft text please?

 

[Sera_EX]

If I have time, yes.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. Tell us here when you are done.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT's suggestion seems fine to me. The wording should probably be cleaned up a bit though.

Anyway...