The scan doesn't seem to say that. Can you elaborate on this?
I explained in the OP why only "dimension" as in "the concept of dimensionality" is the only correct interpretation due to grammar. Simply saying something akin to "um actually, these other interpretations are still valid because, um, uh, well, I said so" (which you're doing) isnt a good argument.
I think this statement is more of a conclusion based on the other statements. I'll remove it for now.
What makes you iffy about it? I've shown how it's the only interpretation that makes sense.
Transcendent technology means nothing on its own as we know.
As well, and "transcend" can even go as in their position in cosmology rather than complexity.
"Higher" wouldn't even mean anything w/o the further context above that explicitly makes it don't mean anything, "connecting to all the timelines" would be great if we knew this was as in, they are all inside here due to being infinitely small, but it takes very little imagination to think how would any reality connect to infinite more realities w/o that, they simply need portals, tunnels or the like.
Then it is a connection as in a form of travel connecting above to many routes leading to universes, it's not that the universes are inside and are infinitely small, they just have means of Dimensional Travel to get to them all from there.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything as it depends of what what does "6th dimension" mean in this context. For our tiering we use 1 meaning and theory, it's a misconception that fiction always does the same.
They are the start of a highway that leads to them all and have crazy tech, why wouldn't they see them like that.
Yes they do.
The context of this could be anything. It seems more like a "it hasn't happened yet due to our tech but it could happen" situation.
Sure.
Hell is so big and powerful it sort of eats/fuses with other universes. There are still spaces between those universes, which are those pathways,
Hax.
Hell is another dimension, even other universes are said to be other dimensions here.
Ok.
Covered before.
This could refer to how they travel across the cosmology of their verse rather than Hell itself, but referring to Hell is ok too.
This makes perfect sense.
It is.
It wouldn't matter on its own and we can give ourselves an idea of this being the positioning explained before.
Ok.
They want to be higher.
This is a mistake to take literally. The writing is imprecise and giving little context of what we know it says, it could be poetic in reference to his dominance or well at absolute best he's the size of the multiverse.
So would you say "Possibly Low 1-C" could be used?
i mean there is also a 1-A verse that only have massively hypersonic if i remember right
That doesn't really make any sense. Doesn't being 1-A automatically grant immeasurable speed?
Possibly? The point of the thread is solid 1-C, and I've already addressed counterarguments to that.
I disagree with it, all the points for Low 1-C are wrong.
You've only responded to arguments other people have made for low 1-C Hell. You havent responded to my argument (regarding Hell being "unbound by boundaries of space, time, or dimension") at all except for an argument that entirely ignores the original post of this thread and completely unintelligible ramblings. What does ""Or" accomplishes the same in any take" even mean?
That doesn't mean anything Low 1-C wise unless proven, it can refer to a number of things that are not Low 1-C like their space, time and dimension being different. We also know Hell is located below the universe, universes in DOOM are called dimensions too, so this can simply refer to that positioning, as in a reality that is bound "by boundaries of space, time, or dimension" is in the positioning the universe is, but Hell is below all that and so it isn't bound by it. Needless to say, this is a way of talking that exists in fiction likes this, "I'm not bound by [things]" can mean being outside of them to take effect or different and what those "things" are can be said in a redundant manner.
Sure. Hell being bellow the universe doesn't make it more complex, so Urdak being above the universe doesn't make it more complex.
It's easier for me to say it that way because it would be misleading to say "that doesn't mean Low 1-C". As in, say "He's very powerful" or "Beyond strength" can refer to a character being 5-A, but not on its own, and it wouldn't on its own; Same here, I'm saying that our standards don't make it Low 1-C, not that "maybe it could be and maybe it couldn't".
I already proved in this thread all the way back in the original post that grammatically, "dimension" in the quote must be referring to the very concept of dimensionality and not separate realms and such. This is categorically not an issue of "positioning." Due to all of this, "possibly low 1-C" would not be an appropriate tiering for those who scale to Hell since the alternative (whatever grammatically and contextually-incorrect interpretation Eficiente is advocating for) is simply not reasonable at all; rather, only a solid rating of "Low 1-C" would be valid.
Why??, why it must be the concept of dimensionality and not other ways of interpreting. Gramatically??, no grammatically dimension have a very broad meaning, you can't say your interpretation of the text is correct why others is not
Again like above, why it is inappropriate??, you said contextually it is wrong, but i all see is your personal interpretation of the text itself, all the contexts given so far leave a big hole for all kind of interpretation
I can't say I follow what is used to support Hell being a parallel 4-D Structure.
It does fit the standards, and as said above, the only argument really against it is basically "it can mean [x other thing]", which doesn't actually discredit the scaling. I think Low 1-C DOOM is achievable, as a possibly.
I am referring to the second option, yes, which for the matter I don't see as being different from the first one whatsoever, with how closely linked they are.
That's a pretty large amount of inference from such a vague statement, and a very large stretch of the definition of "boundary" overall, which a quick search on Google can already tell us the meaning of in most contexts: "a line that marks the limits of an area; a dividing line." "Dimension" being used as an uncountable noun here also doesn't mean anything when uncountable nouns don't even necessarily refer to abstract things; "There is wood here" is a sentence that makes use of an uncountable noun (Wood), for instance, and yet it's obviously not talking about the concept of wood.
Space and dimension are themselves synonymous, so I think that's pretty clearly just the text being redundant.
Much of this seems pretty weak insofar as evidence for Low 1-C goes. You can refer to my previous response on that matter.
