About "imaginary spaces"

[Furudo_Erika]

Would a higher-dimensional space comprised of imaginary axes be HDE or BDE 1, or both?

The imaginary space would lack spatiotemporal axes, instead having a different "type" of axes that is different in nature to spatiotemporal ones; imaginary axes (So it isn't defined by them, but isn't superior (and is in fact equal to them as the set of imaginary numbers is equal to the set of real numbers mathematically), which sounds like BDE 1 for sure (especially because BDE only ever mentions spatiotemporal dimensions and never any other type of dimension such as imaginary ones).

Though an imaginary space can still be considered to be a "higher dimension" in addition to this, it just uses a different type of axis to achieve it, but it can still be defined by dimensions...just not spatiotemporally. So HDE may still be possible alongside BDE 1.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

bump

 

[Furudo_Erika]

bump

 

[DonkeySlayer06]

I think it is more suitable for HDE because it can be found in abstract form even if there is no spatial or temporal axis. If it is called Imaginary space and is described as being in a higher dimension, we cannot call it BDE. My personal opinion is that it is HDE

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I think it is more suitable for HDE because it can be found in abstract form even if there is no spatial or temporal axis. If it is called Imaginary space and is described as being in a higher dimension, we cannot call it BDE. My personal opinion is that it is HDE

Even if it lacks geometry completely?

As in, nothing "physical" can exist in the space as it cannot accommodate geometry inside it due to lacking "space". If something were to, it would be crushed beyond the zeroth dimension, as not even a zeroth dimension could exist in it, since the 0th dimension is still spatial in nature.

And an imaginary space would still operate outside of any spatial dimensions due to not being defined by them in the first place; being "alien" in nature to them. You cannot exactly apply the concept of space to an imaginary space due to this, as it doesn't exactly participate in it to begin with.

Though while an imaginary space could have time, this imaginary space in specific doesn't participate in the concept of time either, and it even encompasses all of time in fact. So it doesn't participate in the concept of spatiotemporality as a whole.

So even if it isn't actually BDE 1, it would more than likely have the applications of a BDE 1 space.

 

[Everything12]

That would be an anti-feat to Higher-Dimensional, as it is crushing them because it is effectively "smaller" or lesser than a zero dimension, while to be Higher require being bigger.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

That would be an anti-feat to Higher or Beyond-Dimensional, as it is crushing them because it is effectively "smaller" or lesser than a zero dimension, while to be Higher or Beyond Dimensional require being bigger or superior. Beyond-Dimensional isn't just lacking dimensions, it is being beyond; being superior, to dimensions.

Not BDE 1:
Characters whose nature is defined by lacking spatiotemporal features without necessarily being superior to any of them. As a result they aren't limited to existing within spatiotemporal realms and are often unaffected by Spatial Manipulation and Time Manipulation or can at least defend against it by leaving spacetime at will. They are usually Acausal (Type 1) as a result of being outside of regular time.

You can just lack spatiotemporal features to be Type 1, and not be superior or beyond them (which is exactly what an imaginary space would be like). Only in Type 2 do you have to be superior.

 

[Everything12]

The superior is in reference to qualitative superiority, not any general superiority. But I'm not quite sure what it is, it's basically Zero-Dimensionality, but not.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The superior is in reference to qualitative superiority, not any general superiority. But I'm not quite sure what it is, it's basically Zero-Dimensionality, but not.

Again, Type 1 doesn't have ANY mention of being superior to quality. You just have to lack spatiotemporal features in general according to what it says.

In fact, it even says "without necessarily being superior to any of them." So it explicitly says that you DO NOT have to be superior to them for BDE 1.

I'm just going off of what it says.
By lacking/not being defined by spatiotemporality, it should be BDE 1, according to what BDE 1 says on its page.

 

[Everything12]

They're lacking, but not lacking as in their smaller. That would be Zero-Dimensionality, not Beyond-DImensionilty, but as this is smaller than a Zero Dimension I'm not sure if that would apply or if we would treat as a a special form of Zero-Dimesnionality that is a bit of a misnomer and greater (lesser?) to normal Zero-Dimensionality.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

They're lacking, but not lacking as in their smaller. That would be Zero-Dimensionality, not Beyond-DImensionilty, but as this is smaller than a Zero Dimension I'm not sure if that would apply or if we would treat as a a special form of Zero-Dimesnionality that is a bit of a misnomer and greater (lesser?) to normal Zero-Dimensionality.

"Dimensionless Existence" would probably be the best way to describe it then.

Not being "beyond" them, but just simply lacking dimensions.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Though BDE 1 states it lacks spatiotemporal features.

If it lacks space, then the topic of size should be completely irrelevant, as you need space to contain size (even 0th dimensional size). Shouldn't matter if it is larger or smaller than any amount of dimensional size.

So "being smaller than the 0th dimension" shouldn't be a disqualification for Type 1.

Especially if you introduce the geometric concept of negative dimensions. A -1D thing is "smaller" than a 0D thing, but it would still be geometric/spatial in nature.
So not even negative-dimensional objects could exist in an imaginary space, as they are still spatial.

But what's a bit funny, is that the set of imaginary numbers is equal to the set of real numbers.
So, an imaginary space could be Low 2-C through cardinality alone by being equal to the set of real numbers: Aleph-1 (or Low 1-C if the imaginary space does have a temporal axis).
And the set of complex numbers (C) embeds both real and imaginary sets (being equal to Aleph-2), so a complex space could be Low 1-C through cardinality alone.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Bump

 

[DonkeySlayer06]

Even if it lacks geometry completely?

As in, nothing "physical" can exist in the space as it cannot accommodate geometry inside it due to lacking "space". If something were to, it would be crushed beyond the zeroth dimension, as not even a zeroth dimension could exist in it, since the 0th dimension is still spatial in nature.

And an imaginary space would still operate outside of any spatial dimensions due to not being defined by them in the first place; being "alien" in nature to them. You cannot exactly apply the concept of space to an imaginary space due to this, as it doesn't exactly participate in it to begin with.

Though while an imaginary space could have time, this imaginary space in specific doesn't participate in the concept of time either, and it even encompasses all of time in fact. So it doesn't participate in the concept of spatiotemporality as a whole.

So even if it isn't actually BDE 1, it would more than likely have the applications of a BDE 1 space.

I understand what you mean, but I doubt I know enough to answer it. The set of imaginary numbers can exist abstractly within spatial dimension axes, so it would be a bit absurd to call them devoid of Space and Time axes. Even though the 0th dimension, which is qualitatively superior to a -1D structured dimension like the example you gave above, is perceived as not existing, it is actually present in an abstract form within the clusters and axes. I personally would prefer to call it HDE.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

The set of imaginary numbers can exist abstractly within spatial dimension axes

This is true, but it tells nothing about the nature of imaginary space. Abstract things can exist in spatial dimensions, but not vice versa.

Take the human mind for example...it is abstract, yet exists in the space we are in. However, you can't "fit" anything with size inside it, as the mind lacks space altogether being an "abstract thing"; the mind is aspatial, lacking any form of spatial geometry.

You can fit abstract things in space/size, but cannot fit space/size into an abstract object, such as the mind. You could theoretically store data in the mind, but data isn't exactly a "physical" thing either.

So yes, abstract things (such as the imaginary) can exist in real spaces, but not the other way around.