Dimensionality Question: The Difference Between Qualitative Superiority & Superiority

[Peptocoptr27]

The Tiering System FAQ says the following: "However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is outright superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions."
Later on, it says: "Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."

Just to be sure, I looked up other dimensionality related questions on the Wiki, and the answers consistently say that being superior to the concepts of space and time is enough for Low 1-C. Naturally, the same would apply for physical dimensions (as long as they at least go all the way up to 4D). This holds up with what the FAQ says (as seen above), with both even pointing out that no further context is required as long it's outright superior to those concepts.
My question goes as follows: Why am I suddenly seeing a big deal being made out of the difference between qualitative superiority and superiority when the difference between the two is so vague and arbitrary? Especially when the latter was seemingly always considered enough for tier 1 until now. What is it that I missed?

Bonus Question: Are infinite speed or immeasurable characters automatically immune to time stop? Based on what I've seen that seems to be the case, but even if so, there must be exceptions. I wonder what they are.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Qualitative just means a non-negligeable diff tbh.

And no. People somehow got the idea that since time slow is less effective the faster you are, time stop would just be the same with infinite speed.
But it stops all possible movement from being made to begin with, so reaching these speed isn't enough by itself.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Qualitative just means a non-negligeable diff tbh.

How do you determine if a difference is negligible or not? I guess context might help, but what kind of context? I know that a reality-fiction difference works, but everything else is kind of vague or overly specific, and even then, reality-fiction stuff doesn't seem to have any real concrete requirements. It's more of a case by case kind of thing, which is always confusing.

And no. People somehow got the idea that since time slow is less effective the faster you are, time stop would just be the same with infinite speed.
But it stops all possible movement from being made to begin with, so reaching these speed isn't enough by itself.

Thanks

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Qualitative superiority just means a much more thorough and or profound superiority.
It's the difference between two apples, a quantitative superiority, and the concept of an apple, or an apple existing in some more profound level of existence, such as a higher spatial dimension.

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

Bonus Question: Are infinite speed or immeasurable characters automatically immune to time stop? Based on what I've seen that seems to be the case, but even if so, there must be exceptions. I wonder what they are.

I guess the idea of your question is, because Infinite speed sees something around like like a pseudo-time stop and Immeasurable speed is supposed to above linear time, right?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Time Stop is a subset of Time Manipulation, Immeasurable speed doesn't warrant an immunity to it since it is just an ability that allows one to travel between different time periods with sheer speed. The best example is, us 3D beings, are capable to move around 3-dimensional axes (or 3D space in layman's terms), back-forth left-right up-down, but that doesn't mean that we are capable to resist any sort of space distortion/manipulation or something alike. Immeasurable speed on a very similar case, opens a new line of dimension to be explored, the time dimension, that's why a person with said speed is able to run on different points of time with speed alone, and that's why said speed could move on a temporal dimension just like in spatial dimensions. Immeasurable speed is beyond the linear time on speed-context only, but ultimately still be bounded by it, this works on Infinite speed too since Immeasurable speed is > Infinite speed.

With very rough explanation, both Infinite and Immeasurable speeds are moving on the timeframes of 0 and them that cannot be measured, respectively, but still are intacted with the time dimension, which what's the Time Stop stopped to flow.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

also, on the topic of the bonus question:

Infinite speed, probably not, I've heard some examples where it's dubious but that's because it's a more realistic depiction of infinite speed which is incredibly literal.

Immeasurable, technically yes but it wouldn't matter, as the person would have already moved and done stuff in the past before time was stopped.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Qualitative superiority just means a much more thorough and or profound superiority.
It's the difference between two apples, a quantitative superiority, and the concept of an apple, or an apple existing in some more profound level of existence, such as a higher spatial dimension.

Which means that being superior to space-time or dimensions (in relation to a 4D cosmology) is enough for Low 1-C as long as said superiority is over those concepts, am I getting this right?

Thank you both for your answers to the bonus question. They contradict each other in some ways, but they've given me food for thought

 

[Peptocoptr27]

I'd still like to have staff input to be sure. Mostly on the main question. (Elizhaa, are you there?)

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Which means that being superior to space-time or dimensions (in relation to a 4D cosmology) is enough for Low 1-C as long as said superiority is over those concepts, am I getting this right?

Thank you both for your answers to the bonus question. They contradict each other in some ways, but they've given me food for thought

It should be enough whether it's conceptual or qualitative, although a conceptual difference can result in a higher tier depending on things in-universe work. For example, evaluating platonic concepts, as described in real life, using our system would produce a 1-A result, even though we have no proof of a High 1-B structure existing IRL.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Why am I suddenly seeing a big deal being made out of the difference between qualitative superiority and superiority when the difference between the two is so vague and arbitrary? Especially when the latter was seemingly always considered enough for tier 1 until now. What is it that I missed?

"Qualitative," as the name suggests, comes from the word "quality," as contrasted with "quantitative," which derives from "quantity." An example of a quantitative superiority over something would be some random object being, say, 4 cubic meters larger than another object. The quantity at play here obviously being m³, and you can generalize this to any other: For instance, you can say a 4-dimensional object has smaller hypervolume than another 4-dimensional object.

An example of a qualitative superiority, on the other hand, can probably be found in any verse that establishes Reality-Fiction relationships as part of its cosmology, or something similar to that, like settings where the universe is likened to an "illusion" concealing a greater, "true" reality beyond it, or where some higher plane is defined as "more real" than a lower one. In those cases, the superiority doesn't come from a relationship of size, exactly; you can't really say a dream, story or illusion is "smaller" than reality when speaking in technical terms. It'd come from the fact that, while one side is "Reality," the other is "Fiction," which are both just qualities of being.

Of course, Reality-Fiction differences aren't always the crux of Tier 2/1/0, and the difference between each level of those tiers would be more accurately summed up as "uncountably infinite," if you want to be as general as possible, based off the fact that an object of any given number of dimensions can be represented as the union of uncountably-many objects of one dimension lower.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Which means that the answer directly above you is true when it comes to Low 1-C verses that don't operate on reality-fiction differences?

 

[Elizhaa]

I think Ultima gave an overarching answer regarding the first question.
Ultima's answer regarding uncountable infinite should apply for Low 1-C verses that don't operate on reality-fiction differences.

Immunity needs more clarifications according to the resistance page; so, in this case, there would be more clarifications needed to prove something like time is inapplicable to them.:

• Qualifying for Immunity is difficult, as no simple show of resistance is enough, and statements could easily be hyperbole or only apply in-verse. Immunity should only be given when the user in question entirely lacks what would normally be affected. An inorganic being, for example, has no biological components to manipulate, and an entity without a soul won't be harmed by Soul Manipulation.

Infinite speed characters generally have no resistance or let alone immunity to Time Stop, a lot of from fictional showings.
Immeasurable characters still acting before time stop was applied seems feasible like Hl3 or bust pointed out; the Speed page seems to suggest immeasurable characters are unaffected by movement at the end of time so time stop might not be a factor.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

I think Ultima gave an overarching answer regarding the first question.
Ultima's answer regarding uncountable infinite should apply for Low 1-C verses that don't operate on reality-fiction differences.

I wasn't satisfied with Ultima's answer because he completely dodged my follow up question. The one just above your post.

Another problem with his response is that when analyzing Low 1-C verses which don't operate on reality-fiction interactions, almost none of them specify that the higher dimensions in it are infinitely superior to the lower ones. Asking them to outright say it in order to qualify is pretty pedantic when you consider the fact that there exists other evidence from which a qualitative superiority can be derived from. For example, I asked on your message wall if being superior to 4D dimensions would qualify for Low 1-C as long as those dimensions are specified to be mathematical rather than a synonym of "universe" or "world". Based on what's said right here in the FAQ, it REALLY seems like it should, but you just said that it could without elaborating.

Thanks for your answer to the bonus question but I'm more than satisfied with it for now. We can just focus on the main one.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Which means that being superior to space-time or dimensions (in relation to a 4D cosmology) is enough for Low 1-C as long as said superiority is over those concepts, am I getting this right?

Being an existence superior to the very concepts of space and time is Low 1-C, yeah. You don't necessarily need to hold superiority over the concepts themselves, mind you, but the feat itself makes things far less ambiguous than an usual "I am beyond space and time" statement, unless you have some serious counter-context showcasing that the aforementioned superiority isn't AP-related.

Another problem with his response is that when analyzing Low 1-C verses which don't operate on reality-fiction interactions, almost none of them specify that the higher dimensions in it are infinitely superior to the lower ones. Asking them to outright say it in order to qualify is pretty pedantic when you consider the fact that there exists other evidence from which a qualitative superiority can be derived from.

Not too sure if I understand the question here? Can you rephrase it?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Not too sure if I understand the question here? Can you rephrase it?

He's asking how do you know if it's an uncountably infinite superior dimension without using R>F as a specification. (because most verses don't say exactly it's a qualitive superior dimension.)

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Pretty much, yeah. And please don't tell me the typical "it's a case by case scenario" response without elaborating. Using examples could help.

 

[Panpanpanjeidj]

Bump

 

[Ultima_Reality]

He's asking how do you know if it's an uncountably infinite superior dimension without using R>F as a specification. (because most verses don't say exactly it's a qualitive superior dimension.)

Pretty much, yeah. And please don't tell me the typical "it's a case by case scenario" response without elaborating. Using examples could help.

Well, if the space in question is explicitly stated to be a higher-dimensional space, then it embedding lower-dimensional ones within itself is a good start. For instance, a 5-dimensional universe of which our 4-D spacetime is just a subset would in principle hold it as just one out of uncountably infinite cross-sections that comprise it, and so it'd naturally be Low 1-C.

Now, if it's not explicitly described as a higher dimension, but just something that you infer is similar to one, then this branches off a bit. If a Space A is contained in a larger Space B, then this isn't evidence for there being an uncountably infinite difference between the two on its own, since the latter could just be argued as equivalent to a bigger n-dimensional volume.

But if Space A is infinite, and Space B is directly stated to be larger than it, then that can serve as evidence, since there is no such thing as being larger than a space which already has infinite volume and still remaining in the same dimensional space. For instance, take R^3, which in simple terms is just the set of all points that can be represented by a coordinate with three real-numbered values. This is basically 3-dimensional space as a whole (Since, as you probably know, the simplest definition of the "dimension" of an object is "the number of values needed to specify any point of it"), and by definition no 3-dimensional thing defined over the real numbers can be larger than it; the same size, yes, but nothing beyond that. For a real-valued space to be meaningfully "bigger," it needs to be 4-D, or, in a fictional context, something roughly equivalent.

A great example of a cosmology like that is The Dark Tower, where each universe is infinite both in space and in time, and yet can be contained inside of a single atom of a larger universe.

Then there's the option of just being outright stated to be an existence superior in nature to the concepts of space and time. Like I said above, you don't need to be above the concepts themselves (Provided there's any difference in-verse, that is), but unless you have some serious countercontext to that superiority being AP-related, a feat like that would be way less ambiguous than your standard "beyond space and time" statement.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

But if Space A is infinite, and Space B is directly stated to be larger than it, then that can serve as evidence, since there is no such thing as being larger than a space which already has infinite volume and still remaining in the same dimensional space. For instance, take R^3, which in simple terms is just the set of all points that can be represented by a coordinate with three real-numbered values. This is basically 3-dimensional space as a whole (Since, as you probably know, the simplest definition of the "dimension" of an object is "the number of values needed to specify any point of it"), and by definition no 3-dimensional thing defined over the real numbers can be larger than it; the same size, yes, but nothing beyond that. For a real-valued space to be meaningfully "bigger," it needs to be 4-D, or, in a fictional context, something roughly equivalent.

So a cosmology having infinite universes does matter to a Low 1-C ranking after all? Since when? The FAQ only mentions a qualitative superiority over one timeline. In the Kirby cosmology thread I made, you also said that infinite universes were irrelevant since they merely acted as extensions to every other sub-tier in tier 2. This made sense to me since it's already possible to upscale from 2-A without being Low 1-C. Based on this same logic, it seems to me that Dark Tower should just be MUCH higher into 2-A rather than Low 1-C. But perhaps I'm missing some essential context. If I'm not, then wouldn't something like perceiving timelines as flat pictures be on the same level of legitimacy?

Then there's the option of just being outright stated to be an existence superior in nature to the concepts of space and time. Like I said above, you don't need to be above the concepts themselves (Provided there's any difference in-verse, that is), but unless you have some serious countercontext to that superiority being AP-related, a feat like that would be way less ambiguous than your standard "beyond space and time" statement.

Alright. Since you don't need to be above the concepts as a whole, perhaps being superior to dimensions would be enough as long as they specify they're referring to mathematical dimensions?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Post in thread 'All of Dragon Ball Cosmology revision (STAFF ONLY)'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/all-of-dragon-ball-cosmology-revision-staff-only.115556/post-3721566
Just to post this.
Overall I staying out of this.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

This is confusing and interesting at the same time.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

This is confusing and interesting at the same time.

Late reply and a bit of a bump, but basically aside from using the FAQ page (which is likely in need of a revision ).

Basically we have applied certain multiverse theories that involved hyper timelines ie. Timelines that extended beyond that of a single universe and can been simply 4D without further context.

Not to mention the tiering system was based on mathematics and science, specifically theoretical side of things plus philosophy. Something that can been easily overlooked given how the tiering system itself has been revised over the years and the threads that contribute to refining the tiering system especially for Tier 1s.