- 140
- 39
But qawsed said Low 1-A is more suitable for that description.Would either upscaled to High 1-B or Low 1-A depending on what gets accepted.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But qawsed said Low 1-A is more suitable for that description.Would either upscaled to High 1-B or Low 1-A depending on what gets accepted.
He hasn't given any explicit opinion so I'd rather wait for Firestorm who will atleast suggest something.But qawsed said Low 1-A is more suitable for that description.
I will get back to you on that.On a second thought, I'm leaning to agree towards Low 1-A suggestion given by Firestorm.
It would be something like a seperate Universe inside the Space Beyond which is incalculable and unfathomable i.e. it is quantifiable but also greater than uncountably infinite because it defies the limits of space and time. So this would only suggest a Low 1-A Universe existing, which by extension would make 'The Space Beyond/Omniverse' Low 1-A as well.
@Firestorm808 Correct me if I'm wrong
???He hasn't given any explicit opinion so I'd rather wait for Firestorm who will atleast suggest something.
The High 1-B end has never been correct in my view. It's either nothing (which I think it is) or it's Low 1-A.Additional this isn't an attempt at a High 1-B upgrade afaik. If you can't mathematically define it but it's still built upon a lower realm, you're arguing for High 1-B+ or Low 1-A upgrade with the new tiering system.
I mean explicit opinion to accept either High 1-B or Low 1-A, you said its not a feat at all. Thanks for your input btw???
I've been explicit with both. My first comment was this
L1A makes more sense.???
I've been explicit with both. My first comment was this
The High 1-B end has never been correct in my view. It's either nothing (which I think it is) or it's Low 1-A.
Hellformer confirmed it to be via size in his CRT due to in being unperceivable by lower beings.If it's not gonna be H1B then it's gonna be L1A as this space is now supposedly beyond the limitations of spatiotemporality as a whole or smth.
"As a default, statements of being "above dimensions" are set at Low 1-A, and the same is applied to statements indicating superiority over "All of space and time," and similar."
In your view, what would you like the OP to present to give the statements more substance?It's either nothing (which I think it is) or it's Low 1-A.
Keeping his POV aside, what's your own view on this?In your view, what would you like the OP to present to give the statements more substance?
Keeping his POV aside, what's your own view on this?
I will get back to you on that.
Unless you can prove that their home universe has spatial constructs to rely on, I don't see a method to qualify it. If they can't be defined by space and time then they're abstract rather than transcendent.what would you like the OP to present to give the statements more substance?
Or they simply lack spatiotemporality as a whole and are just unperceivable due to pure size similarly to the 26D the Nalgians spoke of. As abstract/non physical beings can still possess dimensionality.Unless you can prove that their home universe has spatial constructs to rely on, I don't see a method to qualify it. If they can't be defined by space and time then they're abstract rather than transcendent.
To clarify, you are asking for examples of higher-d spaces of the "Universe."Unless you can prove that their home universe has spatial constructs to rely on
If the universe they come from has spatial characteristics then they would have it since they don't exist in a abstract or transcendental state to their own reality.To clarify, you are asking for examples of higher-d spaces of the "Universe."
That would mean they're abstract. If they don't occupy a physical space, they can't have dimensional volume.Or they simply lack spatiotemporality as a whole
There is an entire thing called Beyond Dimensional Existence that covers this topic well of having no spatiotemporality and being larger than space time as a whole. If their dimension lacks spatiotemporal coordinates and is supposed unperceivable via sheer sizes as mentioned in Hellformer's CRT then I don't fully understand the the issue here.That would mean they're abstract. If they don't occupy a physical space, they can't have dimensional volume.
I have the same opinion as PlanckI can agree with the cosmology being upgraded to countless 1-B but High 1-B is a stretch. By that same logic, the term "countless", "immeasurable", etc. in any setting with characters that can comprehend an infinite amount of something would automatically be infinite. Which isn't really the case, it's normal to comprehend infinity as a concept while struggling to calculate or visualize technically finite numbers, like TREE(3) for example.
That's my thread before ultima new tiering system. It close due to change of High 1-B - 0 tiering system.
I meanThere is an entire thing called Beyond Dimensional Existence that covers this topic well of having no spatiotemporality and being larger than space time as a whole
Which is what I said. They have no dimensions, meaning they cannot be calculated. Meaning they're abstract and wouldn't be Low 1-A automatically.That is to say: A "beyond-dimensional" character does not take up any volume whatsoever, nor does it occupy a position in spacetime, nor does its continued existence trace a path through it.
Apologies but this makes no sense. BDE characters have no dimensions or position in spacetime and yet they are tierable. They are unperceivable by lower beings just like the 26D the Nalgians mention and as explained in the CRT and surpass the limitations of space and time just like a BDE type 2 being/space due to sheer size as explained on the page. I don't see how them being abstract contradicts this.Which is what I said. They have no dimensions, meaning they cannot be calculated. Meaning they're abstract and wouldn't be Low 1-A automatically.
Please hold off on that train of thought for now. It can be addressed later.Apologies but this makes no sense. BDE characters have no dimensions or position in spacetime and yet they are tierable. They are unperceivable by lower beings just like the 26D the Nalgians mention and as explained in the CRT and surpass the limitations of space and time just like a BDE type 2 being/space due to sheer size as explained on the page. I don't see how them being abstract contradicts this.
Each universe following counterintuitive physics. We do know that physics requires spatial characteristics for measurement right?@Hellformer
Do you have anything to address the earlier request?
"If the universe they come from has spatial characteristics then they would have it."
@Firestorm808 Are you convinced with this?Each universe following counterintuitive physics. We do know that physics requires spatial characteristics for measurement right?
And since it has already been established that Universes inside space beyond lack spatio-temporal features at some time unless and Annihilarrgh is activated to create spatial and temporal structures, I don't see any reason to assume that the Universe of these aliens would lack it.
Also from the comic itself, those aliens say that their final destination lies on a blue planet in this star system and their main aim was to search the most powerful weapon of Ben's dimension. In order to determine this from their Universe, their tech must be able to detect position which is again a spatial characteristic.
To my understanding of the OP, the proposal is the following:If the universe they come from has spatial characteristics then they would have it since they don't exist in a abstract or transcendental state to their own reality.
What scale will they get. High 1-B, Low 1-A or 1-A. I'm so confusing right now.To my understanding of the OP, the proposal is the following:
The aliens use a transdimensional vessel to go from their incalculable/unfathomable/incomprehensible Universe to Ben's Home Dimension.
Typically, the standard assumption for something transdimensional is between parallel dimensions. However, we are given more context in this case. We know that the aliens come from a higher and more complex dimension than Earth's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question you posit is: Does the Alien's Universe use quantitative or qualitative spatial characteristics?
The low-end assumption of a transdimensional vessel would be that the start and end destinations would be of the same dimensional type, transporting from one spacial dimension to another. The starting point is at one N-D spatial dimension, then transporting to a different 3-D spatial dimension.
Otherwise, the implication is that they are moving from one "qualitative" (1-A) higher dimension to a lower "quantitative" 3-D spacial dimension.
The lower-end interpretation would be that both ends are quantitative spatial dimensions.
This makes sense to me. Can you ask DDM and Planck69 if they agree with this?To my understanding of the OP, the proposal is the following:
The aliens use a transdimensional vessel to go from their incalculable/unfathomable/incomprehensible Universe to Ben's Home Dimension.
Typically, the standard assumption for something transdimensional is between parallel dimensions. However, we are given more context in this case. We know that the aliens come from a higher and more complex dimension than Earth's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the question you posit is: Does the Alien's Universe use quantitative or qualitative spatial characteristics?
The low-end assumption of a transdimensional vessel would be that the start and end destinations would be of the same dimensional type, transporting from one spacial dimension to another. The starting point is at one N-D spatial dimension, then transporting to a different 3-D spatial dimension.
Otherwise, the implication is that they are moving from one "qualitative" (1-A) higher dimension to a lower "quantitative" 3-D spacial dimension.
The lower-end interpretation would be that both ends are quantitative spatial dimensions.
Low 1-AWhat scale will they get. High 1-B, Low 1-A or 1-A. I'm so confusing right now.
Firestorm is waiting for Qawsedf's responseHmmm, why isn't there action?
Kindly wait for Firestorm and Qawsedf to discuss this and reach a conclusion after which you can get a clear answerYes, it is neutral for High 1-B, but if this goes towards Low 1-A, I can give a clearer answer. Is there a structure/collection that affects all possible dimensional spaces (accessible or inaccessible)? Can you show me these? What does he mean by every space-time? This information is not solid enough. These need to be explained in more detail.
I will be waiting but h1b level seems more suitable at best.Kindly wait for Firestorm and Qawsedf to discuss this and reach a conclusion after which you can get a clear answer
Kindly read question 1 of the CRTHang on bro you say "incalculable = infinity"
As I said, I won't get involved in h1b or 1b (countless) stuff. Even if some parts of it seem illogical. Whatever you want. But Low 1-A... man, that would be really bad.Kindly read question 1 of the CRT
As I said, wait for qawsedf to reply Firestorm's comment and clear things up, so need to rush anything.As I said, I won't get involved in h1b or 1b (uncountable) stuff. Even if some parts of it seem illogical. Whatever you want. But Low 1-A... man, that would be really bad.
Good Lucky my broAs I said, wait for qawsedf to reply Firestorm's comment and clear things up, so need to rush anything.
The dimensions can't be qualitative, since they're built on a lower structure. The fact you can rise "up" the ladder to a higher state automatically prevents it from being 1-A, since you require a complete separation there.Otherwise, the implication is that they are moving from one "qualitative" (1-A) higher dimension to a lower "quantitative" 3-D spacial dimension.
Doesn't this also sound good ?Otherwise, the implication is that they are moving from one "qualitative" (1-A) higher dimension to a lower "quantitative" 3-D spacial dimension.
KSo I agree with Quawsfed, the statement either gives a low 1-A rating, via being incalculable/unfathonable to lower life forms or no rating at all. But in no way does the statement imply the universe is infinite dimensional, or even relates to dimensionality.