The number of dimensions is not specified in any book. However, considering the ontological difference between the levels/universes, I think this is appropriate for High 1-B+. What do you think? Please also state your final opinion, and after other users share their comments, this content revision can be closed.
Like I said, the quantity of dimensions would need to be High 1-B for the “+” modifier. That way you can have a level of infinity on top of more levels of infinity to invoke a High 1-B+ since that's where the scaling is and you can do it without infinite spatial dimension, but your example is simply High 1-B, in my opinion.
To be honest, the topic of High 1-B+ was brought up by Qawsedf234. If they want to offer an explanation for it, they can; otherwise, whether it's High 1-B or High 1-B+ isn't particularly important to me. I think I'll leave after Qawsedf234 states their final opinion.
Disagree about High 1-B+ same reasons for Goofy but other, yeah they're blanked
The idea for High 1-B+ was from Qawsedf234. Whether you agree or not doesn't change anything; Antvasima and the others found Qawsedf234's terms acceptable. (At least regarding High 1-B+, even if the others besides Goofy didn’t give a clear explanation.)
They agreed with his overall proposal. I can take a gander at the specifics I don't agree with, as such with High 1-B+.
Yes, I noted that in parentheses as "they haven't made a clear statement yet." If Qawsedf234 changes their mind, they can comment here again. And as I said, the topic of High 1-B or High 1-B+ is completely meaningless because there are almost no characters in DT who can scale to Short-Time hierarchies. However, if the issue is about a misinterpretation of the situation, for me, the discussion about High 1-B and High 1-B+ is closed. (Because I find it somewhat baseless, and after disappearing for a while regarding High 1-A+ matters, I will stop chasing after these kinds of discussions.)
Actually, I was only going to touch on the High 1-A+ topic in the next CRT, but even though I didn't want to discuss the High 1-B+ topic, I still don't fully understand why it was rejected. I thought that the macrocosms, described as "infinite number of infinities," and the macrocosmic extensions of Short-Time hierarchies would be suitable for uncountable infinity. The hierarchy I gave as High 1-B exists only in one of these macrocosms, where each macrocosm is High 1-B (we can refer to these macrocosms as capsules), and the macrocosms are defined as an infinite number of infinities as atoms on a leaf.
There's no real hierarchy there. From what I've read it talks more about the numerous amounts of universes being in each level. As such Low 2-C being superseded by a structure of an uncountable infinity is Low 1-C and the chain starts from there.
I'm not sure if this context will satisfy you, but transcendence between worlds (which directly includes all the worlds within the macrocosms) is mentioned by Jack Sawyer.
You’re right it doesn't satisfy me. I see it as if the universe within that macrocosms at the lowest level, I see it as Low 2-C. If there's an infinity of that or infinity of branching 4-dimensional space then it's 2-A. So the only way I see it as High 1-B+ is either: there's infinite spatial dimension in one of the layers or the hierarchy of quantitative superiority has an infinity above the regular infinity(uncountable or inaccessible amount of levels).
Yes, the second one. However, this only means a single macrocosm. To be honest, since no difference between macrocosms has been specified, the High 1-B+ topic can be put on hold. (In fact, in the first book, macrocosms containing infinite worlds are referred to as universes or capsules instead of macrocosms, and the difference between these universes is implied to be 'infinitely small,' so I think it's a very weak context and insufficient for High 1-B+. Therefore, presenting more arguments would result in an endless, unproductive discussion. For now, High 1-B looks good.)
I said High 1-B under the assumption that the mirages and the layered steps of reality work up infinitely until you get to the Dark Tower
If there aren't infinite floors or if they're referring to the Dark Tower, then it's more like Low 1-C to 1-C rather than High 1-B or better.
If the mirages work from the Macrocosmos up to the Tower. Then it would be High 1-B+ and the rest would falter a tier. So, the Beam Guardian and the rest would be 1-A.
Yes, second reason.
I suppose you are assuming that the Tower and the universe/short-time levels are quantitatively connected structures based on this text. The situation can be explained as follows: Although the Short-Time Levels are initially described as lower levels connected to the same building, it is clear that this definition does not imply an absolute dependency. Above them lie the Long-Time Levels, which are higher layers of reality located within the Tower. However, in my scale, universe hierarchies classified as High 1-B are not directly dependent on the Tower. This is because the land where the Tower stands exists within a plane of existence where the laws of space and time do not function. Therefore, it cannot be considered within a physical or quantitative hierarchy.
I explained the consistent hierarchical connection between the infinite layers and universes with the levels on the cosmology page.
Can you quote that about the Short-Time Levels occupying a plane of existence separate from the things in the Tower, so we know they're not interconnected?
If this were stated directly in a single quote, I probably would. I'm tired of repeating myself.
The phrase 'connected floors of the same building' mentioned in the sentence is a metaphor that was made more comprehensible in the context of the hospital building where Lachesis and Clotho are located, since beings living on lower planes cannot perceive the higher levels. Even the Tower referred to here may not necessarily be the Dark Tower that connects the universes—it could still be talking about the hospital building they’re in. On the other hand, even if the Tower mentioned here is indeed the Dark Tower we’re familiar with, there is sufficient evidence suggesting that the universes revolve around it (around it, not within it):
This definition of 'connected floors of the same building' is also consistent with the unifying nature of the Dark Tower. In other words, these 'connected floors' align more with the clusters of universes held together by the Dark Tower, rather than representing a quantitative structure:
And there are texts in which the place where the Dark Tower exists is outside of reality, in a realm where the laws of space and time do not apply.
If the universes and the Dark Tower were truly intertwined structures, then Roland’s central goal of reaching the Tower—the very foundation of the entire Dark Tower series—would lose its meaning. The concept of 'reaching the Tower' assumes that it exists outside of, separate from, and at the center of all universes. If the Tower were already present within every universe, Roland’s journey toward it would lack both physical and metaphysical significance, rendering his quest meaningless.
That kind of explains why they are interconnected. They can be located in the Tower while seen as outside of it because the universes themselves(as in the inside) wouldn't look like they are within it.
Are you saying that the universes inside the Tower and those outside of it are essentially governed by the same system, but exist in different locations within the same hierarchy?
Yeah, you can have a structure containing all worlds call it a “nexus of realities” which we can reference as the Tower. While this “nexus” contains all things, when you go into these universes you won't really even know they're part of something. After all, the Tower was described as the juncture of all time, space, and dimensions, and it containing everything that must be that all worlds are within albeit in hierarchies depending on what layer they occupy.
In fact, that's precisely what the Short-Time and Long-Time levels are for. On the cosmology page, I connected the Short-Time levels to the universes and the Long-Time levels to the layered pocket realities within the Dark Tower. It has also been mentioned that although the pocket worlds inside the Tower may reflect each other, they are not the same.
I see High 1-B+ on that accord.
Except for the Tower and Macroverse?
The Tower in its totality, Low 1-A. Everything else is 1-A outside of it.
We've discussed the whole point of the Tower layering being High 1-B+. That tiering was the previous when I agreed that those universes aren't within the Tower at all. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
To be honest, that was my opinion. And you didn’t provide a valid response to the last argument I made. Your entire reasoning relies on your belief that the universes within the Tower share a common plane with the ones outside of it. However, in my last text, I already stated that the universes outside the Tower are separate, distinct worlds from those within. That text is already presented by the fictional Stephen King within the fictional universe itself.
The way to get 1-A+ even by this logic is by:
That's the situation. The outer worlds revolve around the axis, while the pocket worlds are located in Keystone. Frankly, the act of perceiving all worlds connected to the Tower (both those revolving around the axis and those contained within) as fictional narratives brings forth the idea that the Tower itself resembles a kind of story machine. I won't delve any further into the relationship between the land the Tower stands on and space-time—I've already repeated that topic enough.
I guess we can wait for Ultima.
So can we apply the staff consensus conclusions here now? I doubt that anything will happen here otherwise.
If Qawsedf234's initial offer is still valid, I believe this content revision is nearing its end.
@Qawsedf234
I'm still leaning towards the universes not being directly part of the Dark Tower. So i haven't fully changed my mind.
As I mentioned, Goofy’s view is that the universes inside the Tower and those outside of it are essentially the same. However, I’ve shared a passage that directly states this is not the case. So to speak, that’s why the Short-Time and Long-Time levels are defined as “short” and “long.”
