Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

[PrinceofPein]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

I think that he is very busy, but will try again.

@DontTalkDT

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think that he is very busy, but will try again.

@DontTalkDT

I think it is just better to tag other staff members at this point, the ones knowledgeable about HDE and high tiers in general

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think it is just better to tag other staff members at this point, the ones knowledgeable about HDE and high tiers in general

bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Everything12 @Planck69 @Ovy7 @TheUnshakableOne @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Abstractions @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Maverick_Zero_X
@DarkGrath @Moritzva @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx

Do any of you have any thoughts regarding this topic?

 

[Agnaa]

Our HDE page are for those who are higher dimensioned in the word sense. i.e. those with an extra geometry axis
so we should add this notes to the HDE page

These changes seem largely fine, but may need cleanup on the grammar side. And I haven't read previous posts in the thread which may have presented arguments against these changes.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Do you have the time to investigate further and possibly clean up the draft text's grammar and structure then?

 

[Agnaa]

Not right now, perhaps in a few days.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I already have pointed this out.

The term "Higher-Dimensional Existence" refers to objects and entities that exist in more than the regular 3-dimensional space, with at least one additional dimension. It is important to note that certain criteria must be met for an object or entity to be considered Higher-Dimensional.

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.
• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extra dimensional axis.
• Being larger than or containing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs does not necessarily mean an object or entity is Higher-Dimensional. While fictions may portray something as infinitely larger than a 3-dimensional construct, this does not necessarily mean it has an extra-dimensional axis. Without further context, it should be regarded as a qualitative superiority
• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extra-dimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.
• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extra-dimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.
• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extra-dimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object

I fixed her draft but she does not take any criticism, I assume.

 

[Agnaa]

Dread's draft looks great!

 

[Antvasima]

It seems to make sense to me as well.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I already have pointed this out.

I fixed her draft but she does not take any criticism, I assume.

I said your draft removed some points in my proposals not that I do not take criticism, please understand the difference, as it is really annoying when someone assumes and accuses you because you do not see things their way.
Let me point out the points your draft removed

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.

you removed the "more real" part, which is the only difference between R>F, meaning it is an important part of it.

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extra dimensional axis.

this is okay but "or more" should be added after "3-dimensional"

• Being larger than or containing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs does not necessarily mean an object or entity is Higher-Dimensional. While fictions may portray something as infinitely larger than a 3-dimensional construct, this does not necessarily mean it has an extra-dimensional axis. Without further context, it should be regarded as a qualitative superiority

Infinitely larger than 3-D is not qualitative difference over it, but it is "uncountable infinite" larger, which is the point you removed hence this whole post is wrong.
the point of the post is

• infinitely larger does not mean extra axis or qualitative superiority
• uncountable infinite larger means qualitative superiority but without further context will not mean they have an extra dimensional axis

So you kind of butchered up the points there

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extra-dimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

this is okay

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extra-dimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

okay

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extra-dimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object

this should not be "or" but rather something that explains more that Transcending space, time, objects or entities does not mean it does in terms of geometry or an extra axis without further context

I also literally told you this already

Read your draft in contrast to mine and it losts a lot of important contexts, so I will go with mine and edit the grammar when the thread is done.

and you said

You mean a lot of redundancy and the unnecessary usage of words? Ya, I agree

So you should really stop saying people do not take criticism
I am still annoyed you claimed I did not take criticism, when you mistranslated my points, what you claimed you wanted to do was Grammar clean up but instead of just fixing the grammar errors, you changed some points.
That is why I did not agree with your post.

 

[Agnaa]

I think Dread's changes were mostly fine.

you removed the "more real" part, which is the only difference between R>F, meaning it is an important part of it.

That kinda emphasis isn't actually necessary to get the point across.

this is okay but "or more" should be added after "3-dimensional"

I guess you could, but that makes it more clunky, and the intention is still obvious. I don't really care either way.

Infinitely larger than 3-D is not qualitative difference over it, but it is "uncountable infinite" larger, which is the point you removed hence this whole post is wrong.
the point of the post is

• infinitely larger does not mean extra axis or qualitative superiority
• uncountable infinite larger means qualitative superiority but without further context will not mean they have an extra dimensional axis

So you kind of butchered up the points there

Meh, uncountably infinite is still infinite, but yeah, that extra word should be added to make it clear.

this should not be "or" but rather something that explains more that Transcending space, time, objects or entities does not mean it does in terms of geometry or an extra axis without further context

I don't think that's necessary; your post didn't seem to include more substantive information there.

I also literally told you this already

So you should really stop saying people do not take criticism

Seems like neither of you really communicated well previously, but this recent post is a very good step in terms of communication.

I think that with the small changes I okayed, it should be perfect.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@ImmortalDread check my posts and Agnaa's correction of it, and the draft is okay to be applied

 

[ImmortalDread]

I rarely did not change anything significantly but seems you got a point. I need to adjust it to make it more "Battle boarding language" but its fun to tease you <3

 

[ImmortalDread]

The term "Higher-Dimensional Existence" refers to objects and entities that exist in more than the regular 3-dimensional space, with at least one additional dimension. It is important to note that certain criteria must be met for an object or entity to be considered Higher-Dimensional.

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

• Being infinitely larger than or containing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extradimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object.

 

[PrinceofPein]

The term "Higher-Dimensional Existence" refers to objects and entities that exist in more than the regular 3-dimensional space, with at least one additional dimension. It is important to note that certain criteria must be met for an object or entity to be considered Higher-Dimensional.

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

• Being infinitely larger than or containing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

"or containing infinite 3-dimensional............." that should be the correct one
unless the structure you are containing is infinite being larger than a tea spoon infinitely just makes you infinite in size to it not uncountable infinite.

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extradimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object.

everything else looks good

 

[PrinceofPein]

It seems to make sense to me as well.

updated the OP now you can call in more staffs to look at it and we can get this one behind us

 

[ImmortalDread]

give credits sis

 

[PrinceofPein]

give credits sis

Sure I will
You should be grateful your existence was meaningful here and I gave you purpose, you ask for too much

 

[ImmortalDread]

Damn I guess I am nonexistent being after all, only exists if I have purpose

 

[Reiner04]

@ImmortalDread begged I should give credit so I am giving a small one to her for helping change a word or two

Pathetic.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extradimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object.

Im sorry what?

Is there actually any requirement? Cuz you simply wrote up non qualifying factors, expecting us to know what qualifies.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Honestly on second thought. The tiering system FAQ covers the OP and the requirements in detail. So I personally don’t see this addition necessary.

If this must be added, the tiering system FAQ should be linked somewhere in there. However do note that there is already a link at the very bottom of the page.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Honestly on second thought. The tiering system FAQ covers the OP and the requirements in detail. So I personally don’t see this addition necessary.

please do show where the requirements are covered in the FAQ in reference to what qualifies and does not qualify to HDE

If this must be added, the tiering system FAQ should be linked somewhere in there. However do note that there is already a link at the very bottom of the page.

the page already links to the FAQ

 

[Arnoldstone18]

please do show where the requirements are covered in the FAQ in reference to what qualifies and does not qualify to HDE

Okay.

Infact some of these proposal contradict the FAQ page.

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.

According to the FAQ:

Q. How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

This little bit here can stand as a requirement and it contradicts your proposal. maybe its something @DontTalkDT should also take a look at.

---

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

Please rather than "ontological differences", use words like "qualitative superiority" and link the word to the Tiering System FAQ here. We should aim to dumb things down for people like me. Our pages are supposed to educate the masses and not math nerds like you. We should aim to use vocabulary that is as easy to understand as possible.

According to the FAQ:

Q. What is qualitative superiority?

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.
Of course, the same levels of superiority can also be reached via sufficiently explicit quantitative statements, such as when cardinalities above countably infinite get involved in a manner that implies a corresponding difference in power/size.

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

This section of the FAQ page covers the physiology aspect of it. It also implies that ontological differences don't always relate to power but to size as well.

---

• Being infinitely larger than or containing infinite 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

According to the FAQ:

Q. Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely larger than lower-dimensional equivalents?

In a way, yes, though not how most would think when using this word. Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on.

One may think of it as a multiplication between sets: For instance, the unit square [0,1]² may be expressed as the product of two unit intervals [0,1] x [0,1], which itself can be visualized as taking "copies" of the first interval and lining them up along each point of the second interval, of which there are uncountably infinitely-many, thus forming a square out of infinite line segments.

This portion of the FAQ page coveres and dives into the fact that being infinitely larger signifies and uncountably infinite difference. It also implies the existence of an extradimensional axis must be present.

---

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

According to the FAQ:

Q. How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?

"Transcendence" is a vague term which can be used in several contexts, many of which do not at all align with how it is normally used in our forums, as it simply means "to go beyond the ordinary", first and foremost. For example, statements of "transcending space and time" can refer to things like time travel, dimensional travel, or even agelessness in some cases. Hence, it is very preferable to ascertain the meaning of statements involving this term from background context (If there is any), being especially careful around flowery language or purple prose.

Now, one of the most common scenarios where this question might arise is when dealing with cosmologies involving "higher planes of existence" or similar structures. In such cases, it's very important to note what exactly being a "higher plane" entails in the context of the setting: For instance, it's very common for Heaven and Hell to be defined as higher and lower planes of existence respectively in relation to the normal universe, in which case, "higher" and "lower" tends to simply indicate their position in a cosmology, as opposed to any kind of existential status, which is obviously not enough for anything remotely Tier 1.

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

This section already talks about statements similar to "Higher plane", "Higher Existence". It covers what doesn't count including an actual requirement. Of course its more detailed.

---

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

This is a similar situation to the point I outlined directly above. ("Extradimensional" statments in the context that people will use it implie a statement similar to "higher plane" statements. Any other context is simply irrelevant to higher dimensional topic. soin my opinion I don't really see this addition as necessary but I don't mind.)

---

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extradimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object.

According to the FAQ:

Q. What tier is transcending space and time?

As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for a statement like transcending space and time to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitatively superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this.

It should also be noted that simply existing in some alternate state of existence that lacks time and/or space is not really grounds for any tier in particular, as lacking such things does not translate to being superior to them, and would most often overlap with abilities like Acausality or Nonexistent Physiology. A good example of a case like this is Dormammu (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who is stated to exist in a realm "far beyond time," yet never actually displays any superiority over it, and is in fact vulnerable to time-based abilities due to his timeless nature.

The entirety of the answer to this question answers what the requirements are and what are not applicable. it also goes in depth on other things that are important but not even outlined in your proposal.

---

Conclusion

Our Tiering system FAQ already covers the Dos and Don'ts of the Higher Dimensional Page. The proposal in the OP is merely a very brief overview of the "Don'ts" and it doesn't discuss what counts towards HDE.

I don't think this is a necessary addition to our Higher Dimensional Existence page. It will be more helpful to link our Tiering System FAQ for anyone who has any question for what the requirements are which is already been done (though in an area of the page that isn't easily noticeable, I would suggest we move it up the page for ease of acess).

Alternatively,

If this must be added, we need more staff opinion on these changes asides @DontTalkDT because there are one or two things that seem contradictory to what our standards are and how we have always done things. I recommend we involve @Ultima_Reality in this.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

@Ultima_Reality largly agrees with everything except your 4th point btw.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I read your reply and it is you not getting the premise of this thread, the purpose of this thread is not to determine what is higher dimensional but to determine what has an extra axis compared to 3-Dimensions,

Q. How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

This little bit here can stand as a requirement and it contradicts your proposal. maybe its something

Viewing something as fiction means you are transcendent, this thread now says it does not mean you have an extra geometry axis hence the first point

Please rather than "ontological differences", use words like "qualitative superiority" and link the word to the Tiering System FAQ here. We should aim to dumb things down for people like me. Our pages are supposed to educate the masses and not math nerds like you. We should aim to use vocabulary that is as easy to understand as possible.

ontology and QS are not equated as the same in the sense that Ontology here means infinitely more powerful.
QS can be achieved by various means, size, ontology, R>F, Transcendence e.t.c.

According to the FAQ:

Q. What is qualitative superiority?

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.
Of course, the same levels of superiority can also be reached via sufficiently explicit quantitative statements, such as when cardinalities above countably infinite get involved in a manner that implies a corresponding difference in power/size.

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

This section of the FAQ page covers the physiology aspect of it. It also implies that ontological differences don't always relate to power but to size as well.

This is just the various means in which QS can be gotten and nothing here addresses the fact that infinitely more powerful does not mean you have an extra axis

According to the FAQ:

Q. Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely larger than lower-dimensional equivalents?

In a way, yes, though not how most would think when using this word. Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on.

One may think of it as a multiplication between sets: For instance, the unit square [0,1]² may be expressed as the product of two unit intervals [0,1] x [0,1], which itself can be visualized as taking "copies" of the first interval and lining them up along each point of the second interval, of which there are uncountably infinitely-many, thus forming a square out of infinite line segments.

This portion of the FAQ page coveres and dives into the fact that being infinitely larger signifies and uncountably infinite difference. It also implies the existence of an extradimensional axis must be present.

There are a number of ways in which a being can be infinitely larger than something in fiction that does not involve having an extra dimensional axis, which the premise of the point, something that is not stated here.
Yes higher dimensional being are infinitely larger than lower-dimensional being that is not the dispute here, it is the +1D which is not always the case in fiction.

Q. How do I determine if something is "transcendent"?

"Transcendence" is a vague term which can be used in several contexts, many of which do not at all align with how it is normally used in our forums, as it simply means "to go beyond the ordinary", first and foremost. For example, statements of "transcending space and time" can refer to things like time travel, dimensional travel, or even agelessness in some cases. Hence, it is very preferable to ascertain the meaning of statements involving this term from background context (If there is any), being especially careful around flowery language or purple prose.

Now, one of the most common scenarios where this question might arise is when dealing with cosmologies involving "higher planes of existence" or similar structures. In such cases, it's very important to note what exactly being a "higher plane" entails in the context of the setting: For instance, it's very common for Heaven and Hell to be defined as higher and lower planes of existence respectively in relation to the normal universe, in which case, "higher" and "lower" tends to simply indicate their position in a cosmology, as opposed to any kind of existential status, which is obviously not enough for anything remotely Tier 1.

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

This section already talks about statements similar to "Higher plane", "Higher Existence". It covers what doesn't count including an actual requirement. Of course its more detailed.

You did not get the premise of the thread, it is not to determine what is higher D or not, but what grants an extra axis and what does not

• 
  Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

This is a similar situation to the point I outlined directly above. ("Extradimensional" statments in the context that people will use it implie a statement similar to "higher plane" statements. Any other context is simply irrelevant to higher dimensional topic. soin my opinion I don't really see this addition as necessary but I don't mind.)

Being Extradimensional can mean Higher dimensional sometimes with contexts to support it, but it does not automatically mean an extra axis.
The premise of this thread is "extra axis to 3D"

According to the FAQ:

Q. What tier is transcending space and time?

As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for a statement like transcending space and time to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitatively superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this.

It should also be noted that simply existing in some alternate state of existence that lacks time and/or space is not really grounds for any tier in particular, as lacking such things does not translate to being superior to them, and would most often overlap with abilities like Acausality or Nonexistent Physiology. A good example of a case like this is Dormammu (Marvel Cinematic Universe), who is stated to exist in a realm "far beyond time," yet never actually displays any superiority over it, and is in fact vulnerable to time-based abilities due to his timeless nature.

The entirety of the answer to this question answers what the requirements are and what are not applicable. it also goes in depth on other things that are important but not even outlined in your proposal.

Same as I have said over again, I am sounding like a broken record at this point.
Having QS over Space and time means you are low 1-C, but it does not mean you have an extra axis geometry wise.

Conclusion

Our Tiering system FAQ already covers the Dos and Don'ts of the Higher Dimensional Page. The proposal in the OP is merely a very brief overview of the "Don'ts" and it doesn't discuss what counts towards HDE.

I don't think this is a necessary addition to our Higher Dimensional Existence page. It will be more helpful to link our Tiering System FAQ for anyone who has any question for what the requirements are which is already been done (though in an area of the page that isn't easily noticeable, I would suggest we move it up the page for ease of acess).

I am sure you are the one who did not understand the premise behind this thread like I already explained, this is not explained in our FAQ.

If this must be added, we need more staff opinion on these changes asides @DontTalkDT because there are one or two things that seem contradictory to what our standards are and how we have always done things. I recommend we involve @Ultima_Reality in this.

Your reply to the points being already covered in the FAQ are untrue, as none of those implies the premise of this thread

@Ultima_Reality largly agrees with everything except your 4th point btw.

He is free to give his reasons

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I read your reply and it is you not getting the premise of this thread, the purpose of this thread is not to determine what is higher dimensional but to determine what has an extra axis compared to 3-Dimensions

What’s the difference?

 

[CloverDragon03]

What’s the difference?

I don't think there is a difference... A higher dimension means an extra axis

 

[PrinceofPein]

What’s the difference?

I don't think there is a difference... A higher dimension means an extra axis

It is what is in my OP
In fiction many things are considered higher dimensional but they do not mean an extra axis, viewing something as fiction means you are considered hiher D but it does not mean you have an extra axis among other things, hence these points and the premise of the thread

The term "Higher-Dimensional Existence" refers to objects and entities that exist in more than the regular 3-dimensional space, with at least one additional dimension. It is important to note that certain criteria must be met for an object or entity to be considered Higher-Dimensional.

• Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

• Being infinitely larger than or containing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

• Simply stating that something is Higher Dimensional or from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects.

• Stating that something is Extra-Dimensional simply means it comes from outside of the regular 3-dimensional space. It does not necessarily mean that it has an extradimensional axis in contrast to 3-dimensional objects, without further context.

• Stating that something transcends space or space and time does not necessarily imply that it has an extradimensional axis or that it pertains to the geometry of the object.

 

[CloverDragon03]

You're basically expecting it to be explicitly said "this being has an extradimensional axis"

Do you realize how unreasonable that is?

 

[PrinceofPein]

You're basically expecting it to be explicitly said "this being has an extradimensional axis"

Do you realize how unreasonable that is?

it is not unreasonable though, like I said there are numbers of ways in which a character can be Higher D that does not involve an extra geometry axis.
This thread is just to determine when we will consider them to have an extra geometry axis

 

[ImmortalDread]

Many numbers of ways? Can you list them?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Many numbers of ways? Can you list them?

You edited the drafts, are they not what are in my draft? I am confused

1. R>F
2. Ontology
3. Transcendence
4. Size

 

[CloverDragon03]

it is not unreasonable though, like I said there are numbers of ways in which a character can be Higher D that does not involve an extra geometry axis.
This thread is just to determine when we will consider them to have an extra geometry axis

What's the difference?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What's the difference?

The number of geometry axis i.e. more than 3 geometry axis

 

[CloverDragon03]

The number of geometry axis i.e. more than 3 geometry axis

A higher dimension is indicative of another geometrical axis though. Take a square for instance, compared to a cube. That's a 2-D object compared to a 3-D one. The cube is of a higher dimension compared to the square, and it also has an extra geometrical axis compared to the square.

So a higher dimension is equivalent to an extra geometrical axis.

If you wanna go further down the rabbit hole, the cube would also be infinitely larger than the square, as the square would always have a width of 0 due to width not being a dimension in 2-D, making its volume 0, whereas a cube would have a nonzero volume. When you compare a nonzero volume to a volume of 0, the difference is infinite, as multiplying any finite number by 0 would still result in 0.

So basically, "infinitely larger" is a facet of being of a higher dimension, and higher dimension = extra geometrical axis

I'm very much opposed to this "oh it doesn't necessarily mean this" because my question in response is: "What does it mean then?" And this is a question that I feel is never answered, despite it being asserted that it means something else.

Anyways, rant over. My point is that I'm very much opposed with the needless scrutiny this is given. I understand avoiding a very liberal use of this stuff but to me, this is too much in the opposite direction