Higher dimensions

[SubaruN2000]

So to my knowledge, the main reason higher dimensions are no longer considered is that lower dimensional objects can have more or equal mass than higher ones, and that mass is undimensioned. However, if those higher dimensional spaces embed lower ones, then they are allowed. Why does this condition allow higher dimensional spaces to qualify and imply that they have more mass?

If mass is undimensioned, wouldn't the maximum mass either can have just be infinite (i.e. equal)?

Fully- sized dimensions are also allowed, so again, why do those qualify?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

The main reason is actually because finite compositions of additional vectors doesn’t imply qualitative superiority as the scale isn’t infinite. Scalar quantities though, are also on a scale of 0 to ♾ in which that is why the FAQ question is only in reference power strictly and not necessarily layers of reality. And even then, this whole topic would date back to dimensional tiering which was removed long ago and is not implemented.

If I didn’t answer the question, you likely have to rephrase what you’re asking.

 

[SubaruN2000]

Yea but why are higher dimensional spaces that embed lower ones or fully sized higher dimensional spaces valid. Like why wouldn't the same logic for why dimensions are invalid apply in those cases?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

The FAQ is only in reference to the strength of higher and lower dimensional beings, not their tier, so I guess the answer would be it’s valid because that’s how we show the trivialization of size and dimensions of space.

 

[SubaruN2000]

I'm still confused on in what way they would trivialize lower spaces, though. If its because of size, then haven't we already established that higher dimensional objects in general are uncountably infinitely larger than lower ones? I'm not really seeing what difference embedding lower dimensional spaces or having infinite sized axes makes.

Especially if mass and energy are undimensioned. At that point, wouldn't having an ontological difference be the only real way for dimensions to get a higher tier?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The only way to gain a higher tier via dimensions is to destroy a space with multiple dimensions. For example, a character will not get Low-1-C for being 5 dimensional being or for existing in a fifth dimensional space. But if that character can create a fifth dimensional space or destroy one, then they can warrant the Low 1-C rating.

 

[SubaruN2000]

I dont believe thats exactly true, to my knowledge the only way to qualify for higher tiers via dimensions is either having ones that are explicitly stated to qualitatively/ontologically above lower ones or by affecting higher dimensional universes whose dimensions extend infinitely in all directions (fully sized) or ones that embed lower dimensional universes in them.

So that leaves me to the bulk of my question:

I'm still confused on in what way they would trivialize lower spaces, though. If its because of size, then haven't we already established that higher dimensional objects in general are uncountably infinitely larger than lower ones? I'm not really seeing what difference embedding lower dimensional spaces or having infinite sized axes makes.

Especially if mass and energy are undimensioned. At that point, wouldn't having an ontological difference be the only real way for dimensions to get a higher tier?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Well

then haven't we already established that higher dimensional objects in general are uncountably infinitely larger than lower ones

That seems to be the first problem, we don't really assume that. Having another axis isn't inherently meaningful anyway since it's only inaccessible because of displacement not because it's infinitely greater.

I think you're misunderstanding the idea of mass and energy, sure in brane cosmology, technically lower dimensional branes have leakage of gravitons and the like onto the bulk, but that's strictly speaking of how cosmological constants and the hierarchy problem works. Since we use orders of infinity (i.e R^3, R^4 etc) that's why we assume if they're "fully-sized" like you describe are superior. However, scalars are strictly undimensioned because their value really only changes in density and property (i.e Einstien's field and mass equations of curvature proving a fourth spatial dimension).

Ontological layers are evidently much easier to use a qualification though.

 

[SubaruN2000]

I'm still don't really understand why embedding lower dimensional spaces or having fully sized dimensions solves the mass and energy can be the same in higher and lower dimensional spaces though. Like whats stopping a higher dimensional space that embeds lower ones from having equal mass to that lower dimensional universe it embeds, since mass is undimensioned and only goes as high as infinity? Unless higher dimensional spaces embedding lower dimensional spaces implies an ontological difference?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

I stiiiiiiilll feel like you don’t necessarily understand the purpose of scalars which is a value or property that spans area rather than just a direction. Energy (mass), has to transform under vibrational sensations in order to create higher physical dimensions anyway (superstring theory) which is inclusive to geometric ones so when they are not compactified or localized, the relationship between physical dimensions and their higher are interrelated with qualitatively larger spatial structures that necessarily make less constraint to the values and properties of dimensional constant. You can read the idea further in these scans.

And just to make sure we’re on the same page the reason this system considers R^n (and its values) as the basis is because that’s how our real life system and models of dimensions are described. So, embedding implies the basic premise of higher dimensions.

 

[SubaruN2000]

If I'm understanding correctly, basically the mass in a space with large extra dimensions would be less constrained compared to a lower dimensional one, meaning it would require more energy to destroy? Is that right?

Also, higher dimensional spaces embedding lower ones would not be an ontological difference then, correct? They would be on the same level of existence but with the higher dimensional one qualitatively larger?

 

[Guardian_Doge]

Is that right?

Yes, mostly, or at least the energy needs to be accommodated to that additive part of reality.

Also, higher dimensional spaces embedding lower ones would not be an ontological difference then, correct? They would be on the same level of existence but with the higher dimensional one qualitatively larger?

Yeah, they're not strictly ontological so they belong to the same framework of dimensions.

 

[SubaruN2000]

Thanks for the help!

Just one more question

Yeah, they're not strictly ontological so they belong to the same framework of dimensions.

In what cases would higher dimensional universes embedding lower dimensional universes be considered an ontological difference? Or would they always just be on the same level of existence but have a size difference?