Confusion on Note 2 of Tiering system page.

[Tom_Do]

How can you exist in a higher dimensional plane if you are not of the same or higher dimension? Like even paper is technically 3-D and so are pixels on a screen. According to math you literally cant exist in a 3d plane if you are 2d unless you are a mathematical representation of data and functions on graphs and such.

I am a square with side length of 4 in 2d space : 4 x 4 is 16, I exist and take up space

I am a square with side length of 4 in 3d space : 4 x 4 x 0 is 0. I dont exist so therefore I dont take up space.

Of course this logic does not work for higher dimensions like for the characters who are beyond dimensional concept.

 

[Reppuzan]

@Tom Do

Pixels don't have mass and are therefore not three-dimensional.

Neither do the shapes we perceive on a page. Of course the ink/graphite does, but not the shape itself. Therefore they are also not three-dimensional.

 

[Tom_Do]

@Reppuzan

\. This is very very subjective then.
First off depending on how you look at it Pixels do have mass according to the energy momentum relation as well as Mass energy equivalence.

Second, even when you say that the "shapes themselves" on the page are 2d, whether they exist in our 3d world is up to subjective view.

For example you need to express 2d and 1d objects such as lines and squares on paper, even though such shapes can never possibly exist in real life techically, we just draw them with 3d graphite to represent them for the purpose of mathematics.

However if you are arguing that those "shapes that will never ever exist in our 3d world but they are being represented by 3d things" are 2d then that is not a solid definition.

 

[Reppuzan]

@Tom Do

Geometrically, a square cannot be 3-D since it is only a single plane. There's no ifs-ands-or-buts about it. A square is a 2-D shape.

Similarly, a 4-D Being will always being infinitely more complex and thus more powerful than a 3-D being.

 

[Tom_Do]

@ Reppuzan

Ok, geometrically a square cannot be 3-D, that is obvious. But can it exist in 3d space? Or can it only be represented and imagined?

And yes, by convention a 4-D being is infinitely more powerful than 3-D unless you are a 3-D being who has tools to defeat a 4-D being such as altering the space-time contiuum which can be done without necessarily unlimited "3D power".

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

@ Reppuzan

Yes, but that won't change its dimensional status.

And yes, by convention a 4-D being is infinitely more powerful than 3-D unless you are a 3-D being who has tools to defeat a 4-D being such as altering the space-time contiuum which can be done without necessarily unlimited "3D power".

4D power on a significant scale>unlimited 3D power.

 

[Tom_Do]

4D power on a significant scale>unlimited 3D power.

Did I ever disagree?

@TheMightyRegulator

"Yes, but that won't change its dimensional status."

How? Ok, let us take a step back. How do you "define exist"? Like do you mean exist as in comprehendible or exist as in actually physically exist?

 

[Antvasima]

Tom, fiction does not always make sense concerning these issues, and lower-dimensional characters have recurrently entered higher-dimensional space within it (and vice versa). We are just attempting to use a workable scale system for evaluating it.

 

[Tom_Do]

Tom, fiction does not always make sense concerning these issues, and lower-dimensional characters have recurrently entered higher-dimensional space within it (and vice versa). We are just attempting to use a workable scale system for evaluating it.

Thanks dude. Now I understand.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.