Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

[ImmortalDread]

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.

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

 

[Arnoldstone18]

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

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

These have nothing to do with being higher dimensional according to what you are proposing

 

[Eficiente]

So, Infinata the fifth dimensional being will have the ability removed or not?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

So, Infinata the fifth dimensional being will have the ability removed or not?

Need more info on how Infinata got their dimensionality.

 

[Eficiente]

As in,

• literally, or
• it will be removed because that's all the info and it's too little. Meaning that similar characters will have that removed too.

If it's the latter then, took a while.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

As in,

• literally, or
• it will be removed because that's all the info and it's too little. Meaning that similar characters will have that removed too.

If it's the latter then, took a while.

like why does Infinita have HDE? The page doesn’t say anything other than what dimension it exist in. No link to a scan whatsoever.

 

[Eficiente]

I complained about it at the time and people didn't have a clear idea on what the standards were for the HDE page, so that was that.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

it should be removed then. Regardless of wether or not this thread passes.

 

[PrinceofPein]

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

All those you mentioned are actual higher dimensions not the way fiction does it, also to nitpick, only a part of the cube is infinitely larger than the square not the entire thing since I will use it to explain down the line.

Also, you should be the one to proof why it should be so as it is weird to proof a negative, I will do it anyway using a few examples.

A way someone can be higher D in lots of verses is R>F
A cube is higher dimensional to the square but it does not see the square has fiction.
You are higher dimensional to a square but you don’t see the square like it’s fictional since it is not, the only difference is you have an extra geometry axis called heights.
Now your thoughts are fictional, you can read a book and the thoughts that you form from that book is the characters you are reading are 3 dimensional, does that make you 4D? Absolutely not, you are only more real than they are that is all.
Tldr: your thoughts are fictional and you can view 3 dimensional as fictional even though you yourself are simply still 3D just more real.

Second example, the issue of ontology or infinitely more powerful, no explanation needed energy or power is not a measure of dimension, energy is dimensionless

issue of size, while this is actually something I believe is enough for higher D only when it is said to contain an infinite version of the object as a subset of itself but simply containing something without it being a subset of it, is not enough as there are many other ways you can contain something that does not mean you have an extra geometry axis.

Anyway all this like I said especially R>F, Transcendence, ontology e.t.c will not mean another geometry axis in any form, the size with more context will mean higher D

These have nothing to do with being higher dimensional according to what you are proposing

Yes they have nothing to do with an extra geometry axis

So, Infinata the fifth dimensional being will have the ability removed or not?

Yes, no information on the profile, should not be there to begin with and the page would be fixed or deleted altogether

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Yes they have nothing to do with an extra geometry axis

I’m seriously concerned about what your thought process is in these responses.

You said there are many number of ways a character can obtain higher dimensionality. You proceeded to list the things you consider invalid. Then you proceed to agree they are invalid in this reply.

It’s either you are intentionally wasting everyone’s time or you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Assuming it’s the latter, you are proposing that there is no way to determine higher dimensionality unless the work of fiction explicitly claims said character or structure exist with additional geometric axis.

 

[ImmortalDread]

it should be removed then. Regardless of wether or not this thread passes.

I hold a contrary opinion. The justification provided is indeed sufficient. While it is understandable that you point out the absence of a scan or reference, I disagree with the statement that the context is unclear.

In my view, the information provided is more than adequate to establish the necessary context.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I hold a contrary opinion. The justification provided is indeed sufficient. While it is understandable that you point out the absence of a scan or reference, I disagree with the statement that the context is unclear.

In my view, the information provided is more than adequate to establish the necessary context.

Dread all it says is “this is a fifth dimensional being”.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Which is enough for HDE

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Which is enough for HDE

It simply states something is higher dimensional. Which is literally against the OP.

• 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.

I mean the actual supporters may have good evidence but from someone like me looking at that page and what we are adding. I’d be confused.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It simply states something is higher dimensional. Which is literally against the OP.

That is precisely the reason I still hold reservations about it from certain angles. Insisting on more context can sometimes lead to the omission of important contextual details.

While it is understandable that you point out the absence of a scan or reference, I disagree with the statement that the context is unclear.

My disagreement does not stem from the absence of evidence. Rather, it lies in the insufficiency of your interpretation of justification in relation to HDE.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

That is precisely the reason I still hold reservations about it from certain angles. Insisting on more context can sometimes lead to the omission of important contextual details.

My disagreement does not stem from the absence of evidence. Rather, it lies in the insufficiency of your interpretation of justification in relation to HDE.

Oh kay,

Well I only said it should be deleted cuz there was no evidence in the first place not that the context was unclear. I don’t mind the justification, I only cared about wether or not that justification actually existed to begin with.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So yes, it is about the absence of evidence. The justification itself is fine and would be eligable for HDE.

 

[CloverDragon03]

All those you mentioned are actual higher dimensions not the way fiction does it, also to nitpick, only a part of the cube is infinitely larger than the square not the entire thing since I will use it to explain down the line.

This isn't true. A cube's volume is length * width * height. If one of these components is 0 (as is the case with a square), the entire volume is 0. Whereas a cube will have a nonzero value for each of these, making its volume a nonzero value, making it infinitely larger.

Also, you should be the one to proof why it should be so as it is weird to proof a negative, I will do it anyway using a few examples.

Not necessarily. You're asserting there are other ways, so I'm asking for these other ways, rather than the conjectural "well it could be something else"

A way someone can be higher D in lots of verses is R>F
A cube is higher dimensional to the square but it does not see the square has fiction.
You are higher dimensional to a square but you don’t see the square like it’s fictional since it is not, the only difference is you have an extra geometry axis called heights.
Now your thoughts are fictional, you can read a book and the thoughts that you form from that book is the characters you are reading are 3 dimensional, does that make you 4D? Absolutely not, you are only more real than they are that is all.
Tldr: your thoughts are fictional and you can view 3 dimensional as fictional even though you yourself are simply still 3D just more real.

But... a square is fictional to a cube. Think about it. In the real world, there is no such thing as a true square. Even the thinnest sheets of paper, for instance, have a width that is close to but never 0. So no matter what, any square-looking object in the real world is actually a cube, no matter how small its width is, since it never reaches 0.

The concept of a true square doesn't actually exist in the real world. It only exists in a plane that is fictional from our perspective. Everything in the real world has dimensions of length, width, and height. The concept of an object with only length and width, for instance, is purely fictional. And in the same way for a higher dimension, we as 3-D beings cannot comprehend the concept of an object with a 4th geometrical axis. We can attempt to represent it, but such representations will be limited to our 3-D plane.

Also, with the book example... My thoughts don't actually exist in the real world. All that exists in the real world are the signals sent to my brain. The thoughts themselves are wholly fictional.

Second example, the issue of ontology or infinitely more powerful, no explanation needed energy or power is not a measure of dimension, energy is dimensionless

I'll be upfront on the fact that I don't know much on ontology stuff but fair enough on the whole "infinitely more powerful" thing. If someone else shares my thoughts and understands this concept better they could probably explain it better.

issue of size, while this is actually something I believe is enough for higher D only when it is said to contain an infinite version of the object as a subset of itself but simply containing something without it being a subset of it, is not enough as there are many other ways you can contain something that does not mean you have an extra geometry axis.

You mean something like this?

Anyway all this like I said especially R>F, Transcendence, ontology e.t.c will not mean another geometry axis in any form, the size with more context will mean higher D

There hasn't really been any elaboration on the transcendence point, and imo it's the point we're most strict on (not just with HDE but with tiering stuff in general) because the concept of transcendence, by definition, implies a trivialization of all below it

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I'll be upfront on the fact that I don't know much on ontology stuff but fair enough on the whole "infinitely more powerful" thing. If someone else shares my thoughts and understands this concept better they could probably explain it better.

He’s half right. Ontological difference are usually a measure of power which has nothing to do with physiological/structural existence.

 

[CloverDragon03]

He’s half right. It’s typically a measure of power which has nothing to do with physiological/structural existence.

That point from Pein is probably fine then

 

[Arnoldstone18]

That point from Pein is probably fine then

Yeah but I’m wondering why ontological differences in size doesn’t count. Being uncountably infinitely greater than something in size is an example of ontological difference but that effectively means parts of you must exist in another axis to that something’s dimensions.

hence why I said he’s half right but I’ll ask Ultima for confirmation before fully conceding to his point and get back to you here/ or just tag you in the server.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I’m seriously concerned about what your thought process is in these responses.

You said there are many number of ways a character can obtain higher dimensionality. You proceeded to list the things you consider invalid. Then you proceed to agree they are invalid in this reply.

It’s either you are intentionally wasting everyone’s time or you actually have no idea what you’re talking about. Assuming it’s the latter, you are proposing that there is no way to determine higher dimensionality unless the work of fiction explicitly claims said character or structure exist with additional geometric axis.

I feel like you keep on taking my words out of context on purpose and I am getting tired of telling you the same thing since it is not my fault you do not understand what I have been saying.
Again.
There are numbers of was a character can be higher dimensional on fiction which does not mean an extra geometry axis.
I.e. you are called higher dimensional but not in the sense of the real world/word (another geometry axis). For example in Magi, Sinbad is considered higher dimensional because he is the author of the lower world but he is portrayed as still 3D without another geometry he is portrayed as so simply because he views them as fiction.
So no I am not wasting anyone's time and I am sure as hell know what I am talking about, not my fault you do not understand and you have been strawmanning me and it is starting to getting annoying.

This isn't true. A cube's volume is length * width * height. If one of these components is 0 (as is the case with a square), the entire volume is 0. Whereas a cube will have a nonzero value for each of these, making its volume a nonzero value, making it infinitely larger.

See it this way, a line with infinite length and a plane with infinite length and breadth and a cube with infinite length, breadth and height.
The length of all of them are of the same size, the breadth of the cube and plane are the same size, the only thing a cube will be used to be bigger than the plane is the height so no it does not completely trivialize it like you are claiming.

Not necessarily. You're asserting there are other ways, so I'm asking for these other ways, rather than the conjectural "well it could be something else"

I literally listed the other ways and explained them

But... a square is fictional to a cube. Think about it. In the real world, there is no such thing as a true square. Even the thinnest sheets of paper, for instance, have a width that is close to but never 0. So no matter what, any square-looking object in the real world is actually a cube, no matter how small its width is, since it never reaches 0.

No I do not know where you are seeing this but a square is not fictional to the cube and neither is it to you not in our real world physics or any physics text book I have ever read and I have read a lot.

The concept of a true square doesn't actually exist in the real world. It only exists in a plane that is fictional from our perspective. Everything in the real world has dimensions of length, width, and height. The concept of an object with only length and width, for instance, is purely fictional. And in the same way for a higher dimension, we as 3-D beings cannot comprehend the concept of an object with a 4th geometrical axis. We can attempt to represent it, but such representations will be limited to our 3-D plane.

While it is true that our physical reality is three-dimensional, it does not mean that 2D representations are inherently fictional. Fictional content refers to something that is imagined or created, while 2D representations are simply a different mode of visual representation. And certainly line and width exists, you are the proof of that.
I can keep going about the application of your so called fiction to our real world but I will not since it is pointless, we literally use 2D models to study lots of scenarios so as to simplify things.
In maths these are referred to the representation as coordinates (x,y,z), x and y are not fiction
Fundamental laws, such as Newton's laws of motion, electromagnetism, and conservation laws, remain consistent regardless of the number of geometry dimensions.

arguing that 2D representations are fictional based solely on the premise that our physical world is three-dimensional overlooks the mathematical and physical significance of lower-dimensional systems.

From a technical point of view considering parts of yourself as fictional is a weird argument.
Maths and physics wise we are not fictional to 4D and neither are lower D to us.

While these are short summary, if you want I can give in depth explanations

Also, with the book example... My thoughts don't actually exist in the real world. All that exists in the real world are the signals sent to my brain. The thoughts themselves are wholly fictional.

Which supports my point you can still consider 3D fiction while being 3D

I'll be upfront on the fact that I don't know much on ontology stuff but fair enough on the whole "infinitely more powerful" thing. If someone else shares my thoughts and understands this concept better they could probably explain it better.

You mean something like this?

Not that, to draw something is not possible right now, but a cube and a square will be a subset that is still part of the cube.

There hasn't really been any elaboration on the transcendence point, and imo it's the point we're most strict on (not just with HDE but with tiering stuff in general) because the concept of transcendence, by definition, implies a trivialization of all below it

Which doesn't mean another geometry axis

 

[CloverDragon03]

See it this way, a line with infinite length and a plane with infinite length and breadth and a cube with infinite length, breadth and height.
The length of all of them are of the same size, the breadth of the cube and plane are the same size, the only thing a cube will be used to be bigger than the plane is the height so no it does not completely trivialize it like you are claiming.

It quite literally does though... That one difference in itself makes the cube infinitely larger because it has a whole other dimensional axis that the square lacks

No I do not know where you are seeing this but a square is not fictional to the cube and neither is it to you not in our real world physics or any physics text book I have ever read and I have read a lot.

Again, you're not explaining why, you're just saying "no" and that's it. I've taken several physics classes, including some at a college level so it's not as if I don't know what I'm talking about, much like how you mentioned how you've read many physics textbooks. A true square can only exist on a plane that is wholly fictional to us. As mentioned before, even the thinnest of widths, such that it looks like a square, is still a cube. It may be an incredibly thin width, but it isn't zero.

A true square, that being a "cube" with a width of 0, cannot exist in our real world.

While it is true that our physical reality is three-dimensional, it does not mean that 2D representations are inherently fictional. Fictional content refers to something that is imagined or created, while 2D representations are simply a different mode of visual representation. And certainly line and width exists, you are the proof of that.
I can keep going about the application of your so called fiction to our real world but I will not since it is pointless, we literally use 2D models to study lots of scenarios so as to simplify things.
In maths these are referred to the representation as coordinates (x,y,z), x and y are not fiction
Fundamental laws, such as Newton's laws of motion, electromagnetism, and conservation laws, remain consistent regardless of the number of geometry dimensions.

arguing that 2D representations are fictional based solely on the premise that our physical world is three-dimensional overlooks the mathematical and physical significance of lower-dimensional systems.

From a technical point of view considering parts of yourself as fictional is a weird argument.
Maths and physics wise we are not fictional to 4D and neither are lower D to us.

While these are short summary, if you want I can give in depth explanations

2-D representations are imagined and/or created as well, you know that right? Also no, we don't use 2-D models, that's not something that exists. Models are 3-D by default.

Also I don't get what the point of your fundamental laws point is. Like yeah, the things you mentioned are constant throughout any number of geometrical dimensions. That doesn't change anything and quite frankly is irrelevant to the argument. Obviously constructs of 1 or 2 dimensions would be forced to abide by the same laws as those binding 3 dimensions.

Overall this point just seems largely conjectural without much true substance...

Which supports my point you can still consider 3D fiction while being 3D

Not necessarily. I'm saying that thoughts themselves aren't 3-D. They don't exist in our real world. The only thing that's 3-D (because it actually exists in our world) are the signals sent to the brain.

It doesn't support your point. It goes very much against it.

Which doesn't mean another geometry axis

Then what does it mean? That's my big problem. Everyone just says "oh well it doesn't necessarily mean this, it could mean something else" and then refuses to elaborate on what it could possibly mean.

It's giving very "just trust me bro" vibes

 

[PrinceofPein]

It quite literally does though... That one difference in itself makes the cube infinitely larger because it has a whole other dimensional axis that the square lacks

You claimed it trivalize it on every point and I just pointed out that it does not

Again, you're not explaining why, you're just saying "no" and that's it. I've taken several physics classes, including some at a college level so it's not as if I don't know what I'm talking about, much like how you mentioned how you've read many physics textbooks. A true square can only exist on a plane that is wholly fictional to us. As mentioned before, even the thinnest of widths, such that it looks like a square, is still a cube. It may be an incredibly thin width, but it isn't zero.

I will like you to show me a single source that supports your claim that 2D is fictional

A true square, that being a "cube" with a width of 0, cannot exist in our real world.

Does not make length and width fictional, they are incorporated into our reality

2-D representations are imagined and/or created as well, you know that right? Also no, we don't use 2-D models, that's not something that exists. Models are 3-D by default.

I mean for calculations and such,
things such has calculating something as simple as trajectory, we use 2D models and drawing for it

Also I don't get what the point of your fundamental laws point is. Like yeah, the things you mentioned are constant throughout any number of geometrical dimensions. That doesn't change anything and quite frankly is irrelevant to the argument. Obviously constructs of 1 or 2 dimensions would be forced to abide by the same laws as those binding 3 dimensions.

it means they are not fictional, or thought up like you are claiming, I am starting to think you do not get the meaning of viewing something as fiction

Not necessarily. I'm saying that thoughts themselves aren't 3-D. They don't exist in our real world. The only thing that's 3-D (because it actually exists in our world) are the signals sent to the brain.

I am thinking of a hot man right now, is the man 2D or 1D?
he is still 3D, I am just more real than he is, since he does not exist anywhere but as fiction.

It doesn't support your point. It goes very much against it.

you literally said "my thoughts are fictional"
And my point is you can think up and make up 3D objects in your mind but they are still fictional
how does it go against it

Then what does it mean? That's my big problem. Everyone just says "oh well it doesn't necessarily mean this, it could mean something else" and then refuses to elaborate on what it could possibly mean.

at this point since it just seems like you are wasting my time on purpose
viewing something as fiction does not grant an extra number of geometry axis difference, if you think it does prove it

It's giving very "just trust me bro" vibes

No it is not, proof it gives an extra axis of geometry, I do know it gives transcendence and qualitative superiority but it does not give an extra geometry axis
If you think otherwise proof it.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I will like you to show me a single source that supports your claim that 2D is fictional

Tell me this: Does a truly 2-D object exist in our world? If so, tell me what it is.

It's legitimately basic logic

Does not make length and width fictional, they are incorporated into our reality

The concepts themselves aren't, no, but I never claimed as such. I claimed that objects that only have length and width (without a 3rd dimensional axis) are fictional, as they cannot exist in our real world.

I mean for calculations and such,
things such has calculating something as simple as trajectory, we use 2D models and drawing for it

it means they are not fictional, or thought up like you are claiming, I am starting to think you do not get the meaning of viewing something as fiction

Me disagreeing = me not understanding. Crazy

What I don't understand is this point you're making here. You can make a 2-D representation of an event occurring on a 3-D plane, but the representation will be fictional. It was imagined. Created. Doesn't mean the event itself is fictional. It's just the representation that is.

I am thinking of a hot man right now, is the man 2D or 1D?
he is still 3D, I am just more real than he is, since he does not exist anywhere but as fiction.

you literally said "my thoughts are fictional"
And my point is you can think up and make up 3D objects in your mind but they are still fictional
how does it go against it

Homie's got their priorities straightened out thinking of a hot man

Well, that depends on if the hot man is one that already exists in this world. If he does, then yes he is still 3-D, but my point is still supported because the thought itself is fictional. If he doesn't exist to begin with, then both the thought and the hot man are fictional.

You can make up a representation of a 3-D object in your mind, but the representation itself is fictional.

at this point since it just seems like you are wasting my time on purpose
viewing something as fiction does not grant an extra number of geometry axis difference, if you think it does prove it

That's what I've been doing this whole time...

Just because you don't like what someone's saying, doesn't mean they're "wasting your time on purpose." It's very condescending for no reason

No it is not, proof it gives an extra axis of geometry, I do know it gives transcendence and qualitative superiority but it does not give an extra geometry axis
If you think otherwise proof it.

Transcendence doesn't even give qualitative superiority by our standards which I'm still very much against tbh

The way I see it, transcendence indicates a trivialization of all below it. The definition of "transcend" is "to be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division)." In the case of dimensionality (such as the frequent statements of "transcending space-time"), what else could this mean beyond a higher dimension? I get responses of "oh, well it's just unquantifiably superior," when that is literally something that is just made up for the sake of not granting a higher dimension to the thing in question.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I feel like you keep on taking my words out of context on purpose and I am getting tired of telling you the same thing since it is not my fault you do not understand what I have been saying.
Again.
There are numbers of was a character can be higher dimensional on fiction which does not mean an extra geometry axis.
I.e. you are called higher dimensional but not in the sense of the real world/word (another geometry axis). For example in Magi, Sinbad is considered higher dimensional because he is the author of the lower world but he is portrayed as still 3D without another geometry he is portrayed as so simply because he views them as fiction.
So no I am not wasting anyone's time and I am sure as hell know what I am talking about, not my fault you do not understand and you have been strawmanning me and it is starting to getting annoying.

What are you talking about? I am not taking your words out of context. It is you who are not understanding what you are doing or the implications of it. There is no other definition of the phrase "higher dimension." This site and DT has made it clear what dimensions are: They are geometrical axes.

• Things like R>F will no longer exist.
• Things like transcending (being uncountably infinitely greater than) something in size will no longer grant an additional axis.

Statements will be ignored unless they are hyper-specific.

I heavily disagree with these notions because they make ZERO sense, but you so readily conceded to claims made by DT and created this delusion of different ideas about the word "higher dimension". If you believe something is wrong, correct it, no matter who says it. People can be mistaken. No matter how high their ranking is on site or anywherere, they can still be mistaken. Stand your ground.

• R>F suggests a higher dimensional axis (in my opinion it should be even greater)
• Type 9 and above large size suggests an Axis.
• A statement of higher-dimensional existence suggests higher dimensional existence.
• A statement of transcending space and time, depending on the context, suggest higher dimensional existence.

These things suggest that an object is CLEARLY uncountably infinitely greater in size than the things they transcends, which means another greater axis must be involved to accommodate these beings. Otherwise, it means being dimensionless, which is the pinnacle of nonesense.

In your example, Sinbad has Higher Dimensional Existence because the heirarchy of realities below him are viewed as fictional. He exists on an plane that is uncountably infinitely greater than the lower realities. No matter how much those in the lower worlds try to reach him, they simply can't. Ultimately, to accomodate for this transcendent realm Sinbad inhabits, there must be an additional axis since the realm has spatial dimensions of its own. Do not remove HDE from his or any page based on this thread's faulty logic.

 

[CloverDragon03]

If you believe something is wrong, correct it, no matter who says it. People can be mistaken. No matter how high their ranking is on site or anywherere, they can still be mistaken. Stand your ground.

Relax Asta

 

[Arnoldstone18]

bruh

 

[PrinceofPein]

Tell me this: Does a truly 2-D object exist in our world? If so, tell me what it is.

It's legitimately basic logic

The concepts themselves aren't, no, but I never claimed as such. I claimed that objects that only have length and width (without a 3rd dimensional axis) are fictional, as they cannot exist in our real world.

Me disagreeing = me not understanding. Crazy

What I don't understand is this point you're making here. You can make a 2-D representation of an event occurring on a 3-D plane, but the representation will be fictional. It was imagined. Created. Doesn't mean the event itself is fictional. It's just the representation that is.

Homie's got their priorities straightened out thinking of a hot man

Well, that depends on if the hot man is one that already exists in this world. If he does, then yes he is still 3-D, but my point is still supported because the thought itself is fictional. If he doesn't exist to begin with, then both the thought and the hot man are fictional.

You can make up a representation of a 3-D object in your mind, but the representation itself is fictional.

That's what I've been doing this whole time...

Just because you don't like what someone's saying, doesn't mean they're "wasting your time on purpose." It's very condescending for no reason

Transcendence doesn't even give qualitative superiority by our standards which I'm still very much against tbh

The way I see it, transcendence indicates a trivialization of all below it. The definition of "transcend" is "to be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division)." In the case of dimensionality (such as the frequent statements of "transcending space-time"), what else could this mean beyond a higher dimension? I get responses of "oh, well it's just unquantifiably superior," when that is literally something that is just made up for the sake of not granting a higher dimension to the thing in question.

This is going round in circles at this point and I cannot be bothered to try and keep on with the arguments that are likely not going to be fruitful, so are you going to send prove that we view 2D(line and width) as fiction in the real world like you claim? or I can just move on and wait for further staff inputs since none of your post here remotely brought the said proof. And yes you are wasting my time and you clearly do not understand, if what you have said so far has no standing in real world and just your own thought on how it should be and that is even neglecting the fact that you claiming that we view 2D as fiction is an height of funny things I have heard in a while. Send some source or citation


@Arnoldstone18 you should probably read the thread again, addressed it all and also the first purpose is to find things that equates to higher D and not things that have an additional geometry axis so I do not know what you are talking about.

 

[CloverDragon03]

And yes you are wasting my time and you clearly do not understand, if what you have said so far has no standing in real world and just your own thought on how it should be and that is even neglecting the fact that you claiming that we view 2D as fiction is an height of funny things I have heard in a while.

Is it this hard for you to... Not be condescending? Like you continue to phrase your arguments with stuff like "you don't understand," "you're wasting my time," "I know better," and stuff of the sort. Is it so hard to just... not do that?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Is it this hard for you to... Not be condescending? Like you continue to phrase your arguments with stuff like "you don't understand," "you're wasting my time," "I know better," and stuff of the sort. Is it so hard to just... not do that?

You did say something egregious, calling you out on it makes me condescending?
I really do not understand how me saying you are wasting my time due to the roundabout arguments also condescending just saying things the way I see it
Anyway if you view it that way I apologize
I still stand by the claim so as not to waste each other's time please provide the necessary citations and sources

 

[CloverDragon03]

Idk if I'll do that soon, I frankly don't have much stake in this thread so idk why I stuck my nose into it so much. I've got other revisions and such that require my attention more. Apologies

 

[PrinceofPein]

That is fine, if the thread is still going on when you have time, feel free to drop them

 

[Antvasima]

What are the conclusions here so far, and what is the current staff tally here?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What are the conclusions here so far, and what is the current staff tally here?

Aside DT thoughts in the first page which he agrees he has not seen my draft
Agna agrees with this.
Clover disagrees with R>F but has not substantiated his claim in relation to it

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. DontTalk is very busy. I suppose that we will likely have to wait for him for quite a while then.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

I am slowly losing it 'bump'

Edit: seems like DT will not be showing up, someone with some tagging rights should please tag other staffs like @Qawsedf234, @Elizhaa, @Executor_N0, @Planck69, @LordGriffin1000, @efficiente, @Theglassman12 e.t.c.