Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

[Ultima_Reality]

There is a question I'd like to make pertaining to the applied additions, actually, so, figure I'd open this thread for a brief period (Especially since the revisions are still pretty fresh)

So, basically, what exactly will be the default way of indexing superiority over spacetime, under the proposals? Say, you have a realm that encompasses and extends beyond a spacetime continuum, and there is no suggestion that it's a Dark Tower situation, where it's just a higher world that's 3-D in a weird sense? Are we going to give that a form of Beyond-Dimensional Existence or something?

 

[Georredannea15]

There is a question I'd like to make pertaining to the applied additions, actually, so, figure I'd open this thread for a brief period (Especially since the revisions are still pretty fresh)

So, basically, what exactly will be the default way of indexing superiority over spacetime, under the proposals? Say, you have a realm that encompasses and extends beyond a spacetime continuum, and there is no suggestion that it's a Dark Tower situation, where it's just a higher world that's 3-D in a weird sense? Are we going to give that a form of Beyond-Dimensional Existence or something?

I have a question, how can a world containing a 4-dimensional space-time and extending beyond it be 3-dimensional? That is, it needs at least 4 geometric/dimensional/motion axes to contain it, and shouldn't it be at least as big? Or am I missing something.

 

[PrinceofPein]

There is a question I'd like to make pertaining to the applied additions, actually, so, figure I'd open this thread for a brief period (Especially since the revisions are still pretty fresh)

So, basically, what exactly will be the default way of indexing superiority over spacetime, under the proposals? Say, you have a realm that encompasses and extends beyond a spacetime continuum, and there is no suggestion that it's a Dark Tower situation, where it's just a higher world that's 3-D in a weird sense? Are we going to give that a form of Beyond-Dimensional Existence or something?

If it is a world that encompasses a space time, that is HDE by default, as to contain 4D, you yourself by default need to be at least 4D.
but for superiority over space time, I will say it is BDE

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Damn.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

BDE Type 2 is currently also being revised to inherit abilities from HDE as they follow under the same logic just that they are beyond their dimensional existence but not beyond enough to be higher level/tier

BDE type 1 is not superiority so it won't grant HDE afaik

 

[Reiner04]

Bump anything left?

 

[Antvasima]

So what currently needs to be evaluated here exactly?

 

[PrinceofPein]

So what currently needs to be evaluated here exactly?

Ultima has a question, that's all that is left to do

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What did he ask about, and has anybody answered him?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Okay. What did he ask about, and has anybody answered him?

He asked how we will handle superiority to space-time based on the passed revision.
To which I answered, it will be treated as BDE or 5D with more context.

 

[Antvasima]

So what currently needs to be evaluated here exactly?

Ultima has a question, that's all that is left to do

Okay. What did he ask about, and has anybody answered him?

He asked how we will handle superiority to space-time based on the passed revision.
To which I answered, it will be treated as BDE or 5D with more context.

Okay.

@Ultima_Reality

Are you willing to take a look here please?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

If it is a world that encompasses a space time, that is HDE by default, as to contain 4D, you yourself by default need to be at least 4D.

So from this I assume we aren't requiring a verse to explicitly say something is higher-dimensional, then. That makes this addition a bit confusing:

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.

It's basically saying "being uncountably infinitely larger than a n-D thing doesn't make you n+1-D." So, under this, being Low 2-C-sized for example doesn't mean you are 4-D by default, and being Low 1-C-sized doesn't mean you are 5-D by default. Thing is, though, being uncountably infinitely larger than a thing does, in fact, mean you are one dimension higher than that thing.

There's stuff like the long line, which in some sense is indeed "uncountably infinitely larger" than the 1-D real line without being 2-D, but that sense is not what we'd consider something that warrants a dimensional jump (Or a "qualitative superiority"), which is what the blurb I quoted is talking about.

 

[PrinceofPein]

So from this I assume we aren't requiring a verse to explicitly say something is higher-dimensional, then. That makes this addition a bit confusing:

It's basically saying "being uncountably infinitely larger than a n-D thing doesn't make you n+1-D." So, under this, being Low 2-C-sized for example doesn't mean you are 4-D by default, and being Low 1-C-sized doesn't mean you are 5-D by default. Thing is, though, being uncountably infinitely larger than a thing does, in fact, mean you are one dimension higher than that thing.

You are right, the uncountable infinite part needs to go.
The point should be changed to something along the line "infinitely larger than 3-D objects does not grant HDE, unless uncountably infinite so"

In that case how can we treat larger than an infinite structure?
I mean you can be larger without n+1D or uncountable infinite difference between the two

So the point can be revised to

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

 

[Georredannea15]

So from this I assume we aren't requiring a verse to explicitly say something is higher-dimensional, then. That makes this addition a bit confusing:



It's basically saying "being uncountably infinitely larger than a n-D thing doesn't make you n+1-D." So, under this, being Low 2-C-sized for example doesn't mean you are 4-D by default, and being Low 1-C-sized doesn't mean you are 5-D by default. Thing is, though, being uncountably infinitely larger than a thing does, in fact, mean you are one dimension higher than that thing.

There's stuff like the long line, which in some sense is indeed "uncountably infinitely larger" than the 1-D real line without being 2-D, but that sense is not what we'd consider something that warrants a dimensional jump (Or a "qualitative superiority"), which is what the blurb I quoted is talking about.

I have a question, don't characters with Large size Type 10 (characters that are as large as 5-D/ Low 1-C structures in short) or large size Type 9 because they are as large as a multiverse qualify for HDE by default?

I mean, why wouldn't a character with a low 1-C size qualify for HDE by default? Or am I missing something?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Well it definitely should qualify cuz I mean being that large ultimately requires the body to extend into other axes. The body is literally uncountably infinitely greater in size than what it “should” occupy when instead, by default, it definitely needs uncountably infinitely greater space to occupy

Although there are one or two cases of being larger than space times not necessarily granting HDE, but those are very specific cases and in my opinion for one of them, it’s more so usually a case of space times being that small in comparison to regular sized observers. Could be wrong, haven’t read dark tower.

edit: honestly it should be treated as an exception.

 

[Georredannea15]

I think so too, after all, if you have a body large enough to cover a Low 1-C structure, that is, if you have a Low 1-C size, you should also cover that axis, in short, you should be 5-dimensional.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

In that case how can we treat larger than an infinite structure?
I mean you can be larger without n+1D or uncountable infinite difference between the two

Generally speaking, you can't, no. At least volume-wise. I am sure such a thing can exist in fiction, since fiction can break as many rules as it likes, but I don't think assuming that fiction is breaking rules as the default position is something we'd like to do here.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Generally speaking, you can't, no. At least volume-wise. I am sure such a thing can exist in fiction, since fiction can break as many rules as it likes, but I don't think assuming that fiction is breaking rules as the default position is something we'd like to do here.

I will say it depends on how the structure is treated, as infinities can be subsets of another infinity.
In terms of volume, that is not possible without a context in the verse, which I agree with.
Do you mind tagging DT here? He had an argument about how that may not be so in fiction so I think he can comment.

I am in agreement that larger than an infinite structure in terms of volume should give HDE

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I agree with the following but I have an issue with how it’s worded.

• 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.

Beings of ontological superiority often have a level of existence incomprehensible to 3-D objects, entities or constructs. So I’d like for this to be reworded to something like, or something similar to:

Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs are often a measure of power and could possess a transcendent level of existence. However, none of these indicate the presence of an extra-dimensional axis

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I will say it depends on how the structure is treated, as infinities can be subsets of another infinity.
In terms of volume, that is not possible without a context in the verse, which I agree with.
Do you mind tagging DT here? He had an argument about how that may not be so in fiction so I think he can comment.

I am in agreement that larger than an infinite structure in terms of volume should give HDE

I agree with the following but I have an issue with how it’s worded.


Beings of ontological superiority often have a level of existence incomprehensible to 3-D objects, entities or constructs. So I’d like for this to be reworded to something like, or something similar to:

@DontTalkDT

 

[Deagonx]

We should make one minor change. The HDE page has this line:

Simply stating that something is 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. Statements that something is Higher Dimensional also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

It appears to be causing some confusion/misconception. Particularly the word figuratively. I propose the following rewriting.

Simply stating that something is from a Higher Plane, Higher Dimension, or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects. Statements that something is Higher Dimensional need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term in ways that do not refer to spatial dimensions.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It appears to be causing some confusion/misconception

What confusion has it caused?

 

[Deagonx]

What confusion has it caused?

Im in a discussion where a user is focusing on the word "figurative" to mean "not actually a higher dimension." And in so doing, believes that because a higher realm (that doesn't appear to have any evidence of having increased spatiality) is called a higher dimension, and isn't "figurative" then HDE applies. The intent of the criteria is to explain that HDE only applies to increased spatiality, and the word figurative doesn't appear to be capturing that effectively.

 

[Georredannea15]

Im in a discussion where a user is focusing on the word "figurative" to mean "not actually a higher dimension." And in so doing, believes that because a higher realm (that doesn't appear to have any evidence of having increased spatiality) is called a higher dimension, and isn't "figurative" then HDE applies. The intent of the criteria is to explain that HDE only applies to increased spatiality, and the word figurative doesn't appear to be capturing that effectively.

I think you are referring to me here but I did not express that lol. I only said that R>F is not a qualitative transcendence, it just means "more real" and so would not qualify for HDE.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Given those issues, I suppose we can amend it to the following:

Simply stating that something is 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. Statements that something is "higher-dimensional" also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

Additionally, usages of "Higher Dimension" should be treated with scrutiny, as "Dimension" is oftentimes used to refer to places, and not directions in space, and as such the term can easily be used in the same sense as "Higher Realm/Plane" and similar verbiage. Context should be used to determine whether it truly refers to increased dimensionality.

We can probably place an example of something being called "higher-dimensional" in a metaphorical sense to complement the first paragraph. To my knowledge, Bleach is a fairly prominent instance of this.

 

[Deagonx]

I think you are referring to me here

I'm not.

 

[Deagonx]

Given those issues, I suppose we can amend it to the following:

That looks fine.

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm not.

Uhh... Actually, I'm pretty sure it was me, but you might not remember. I was just talking about someone who equates the plane of existence to the plane of existence of that spatial dimension and transcends the lower dimensions and worlds also that spatial dimension transcends the lower worlds and dimension, it's quality for HDE. And at the same time I answered those who said that R>F is a qualitative superiority.

But sorry if I misunderstood man

 

[Deagonx]

I am referring to a different discussion entirely, not R>F.

 

[Georredannea15]

I am referring to a different discussion entirely, not R>F.

Uhhh sorry man. For the reasons I wrote above, I thought you were discussing with me because I had discussed you before. I'm sorry i misunderstood

 

[PrinceofPein]

Higher plane and higher existence has been removed from the point, we are leaving it as an unwritten rule?
I am saying this cause while I am fine with Ultima's edit, I have been in too many arguments about unwritten rules here

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ya, those two terms needs to be added as written rules. They are not sufficient to grant HDE and in fact they are most used interpretations/justifications.

 

[Georredannea15]

Higher plane and higher existence has been removed from the point, we are leaving it as an unwritten rule?
I am saying this cause while I am fine with Ultima's edit, I have been in too many arguments about unwritten rules here

DT and Ultima have already explained that these statement will not give HDE without further context and reference to a higher dimensional plane/ existence. In short, only with context.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is not Pain's point.

 

[Georredannea15]

This is not Pain's point.

Can you explain if you have time? If the point is to add this rule to the page, it can be written that statements such as "without reference to a higher dimensional plane" or "without context", higher existence or high plane are not sufficient for HDE or higher dimensional plane. But if there is context and proof in the verse, it will.

 

[Reiner04]

Bump. Uncountable infinity size = HDE?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Yeah

it means the object transcends what it’s current axis can hold, therefore develops a new axis. But I’m sure you already know that.

 

[Reiner04]

Actually bump again.

 

[Reiner04]

Mmm. Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Higher plane and higher existence has been removed from the point, we are leaving it as an unwritten rule?
I am saying this cause while I am fine with Ultima's edit, I have been in too many arguments about unwritten rules here

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically?