I don't understand this aspect of Reality-Fiction Transcendence...

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Wrong, it won't be story B, it would be a subset of story A. You started wrong.

I'm literally talking about two different verses. Like Pokemon vs. Digimon. Try to keep up.

 

[Jinsye]

The Author is Low 1-C because of above. Let's call this Story A.
A character from a separate story is 2-A. Let's call this Story B.

If you pit them against each other, the Low 1-C character loses.

The Low 1-C character does not lose.

1. We are assuming that because the Author sees a tier 2 structure in their world as fiction, they would see all tier 2 structures in every work of fiction as fictional.

This is true. Thus, they would view any tier 2 character as fiction.

2. Quality speaking, An author in Story B can also sees their own stories as fictional too and quality wise, Author in Story A is no different than any author in Story B. Do characters get Low 1-C for telling stories in stories?

No clue what your point here is. If the author in story B also views a tier 2 structure as fiction, then they are Low 1-C. They are of equal Low 1-C in fact to the author of story A, I have no clue what the last part is supposed to mean.

3. There are stories where characters are Low 1-C with simple dimensional scaling, and not any R>F scaling. The lower dimensions in those stories are just as real as the higher dimensions. Are we going to also assume that the Author from Story A, views those lower dimensions as fiction, even though Higher Dimensional Characters view those lower dimensions as real.

It would roughly be the same effect, despite not being exactly similar. Viewing something as spatially flat would be a similar effect to R>F. There is a reason why we generally equalize the two.

4. Under the current standards, if the Author from Story A, entered their fictional world and have no special superiority over the entirety of that world, they are disqualified from Low 1-C. If the author never enters their fictional world, why do we assume that they will have special superiority over the fictional world while in that world?

Because fiction generally cannot affect a real person normally. We assume superiority by default for seeing things as fiction, and the scenario you posited would act as an anti-feat to said superiority.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm literally talking about two different verses. Like Pokemon vs. Digimon. Try to keep up.

You literally said “author” and “character”, it is on your side to clarify from the beginning that you are talking about two different verses.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The Low 1-C character does not lose.

I made a typo. I meant win. I editted it out.

No clue what your point here is. If the author in story B also views a tier 2 structure as fiction, then they are Low 1-C. They are of equal Low 1-C in fact to the author of story A, I have no clue what the last part is supposed to mean.

I mean, that in many works of fictions, there are authors who write stories that are fictional. Are all authors inside fiction fictional stories Low 1-C, since they see their own work as fictional? For example, Sailor Moon exists as a fictional manga in PQ angels, are the characters in PQ angels Low 1-C beings because they see the events of Sailor Moon as fictional. (both stories are from the same author by the way)

It would roughly be the same effect, despite not being exactly similar. Viewing something as spatially flat would be a similar effect to R>F. There is a reason why we generally equalize the two.

Higher dimensional beings don't view lower dimensional beings as flat. They view them as they are. A flat square appears flat in any higher dimensions. A 3D cube appears 3D in any higher dimension. A 4D cube appears 4D in any higher dimensional space. so on and so on.

Because fiction generally cannot affect a real person normally. We assume superiority by default for seeing things as fiction, and the scenario you posited would act as an anti-feat to said superiority.

True. In their own stories. But in vs battle, we take characters from separate stories and place them together in the same arena. If we take, Character A, who is Low 1-C through R>F vs. Character B who is just 2-A, we are making the judgement that Character A is more real than Character B, even though Character B is just as real in their story, as Character A is in theirs. (There is no being or structure to view Character B as fiction in their story).

We are making the unsupported claim that Character B's world would be fiction in Character's A world. There is nothing to support that other than our own standards. It's like pitting the flash against Usain Bolt, and saying the Flash can't reach light speed, because in Usain Bolt's world, nothing is faster than the speed of light.

My point is that, tier Low 1-C should be for characters who affect, destroy, create Low 1-C entire Low 1-C structures. This is objectively measurable and requires zero perception or zero favoring one world over the other.

Take Character A, and Character B, again. This time, let's say that Character A has R>F, transcendence, but also has feats of the destroying a Low 1-C structure. In this fight, we say that Character A and Character B are both as real as they are presented in their stories.

Character A still wins because character A has measurable feat of destroying a structure that is more complex than Character B. There is no need for interpretation one as more real than the other.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Honestly, while I don't personally have much interest in continually debating here, I do have two questions to ask:

1. Do regular 3D humans irl have the ability to destroy 2D space casually? If not, then why do we assume the same sort of destruction can apply to 4D beings and beyond?

2. If a verse has a space that sees a universal space-time as fiction and fulfills all other requirements for qualitative superiority (such as being uncountably infinitely larger than it), but nobody who lives in that space scales to low 1-C, would this disqualify the space itself from being low 1-C?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Can the second question be formulated better? Because I quite frankly don't understand it.

 

[Jinsye]

True. In their own stories. But in vs battle, we take characters from separate stories and place them together in the same arena. If we take, Character A, who is Low 1-C through R>F vs. Character B who is just 2-A, we are making the judgement that Character A is more real than Character B, even though Character B is just as real in their story, as Character A is in theirs. (There is no being or structure to view Character B as fiction in their story).

This entire line of thought makes little sense to me.

If I'm getting what you're saying correct, this is the reason why we have baselines. We treat the world that the story most commonly takes place in as "the baseline". This would also be the world that we uses in VS matches and whatnot, which I will be calling "the baseline".

Character A views "the baseline" as fiction, character B does not. So when we put them in a vs match, character B does not transcend "the baseline" while character A does transcend "the baseline". It makes no sense to say character B and character A are on the same level if one is beyond their baseline world and the other is not.

So basically, Character B is as real as "the baseline" (aka the world they live in), and Character A is more real than "the baseline" (the world they transcend). Thus when you are equalizing worlds, you would make one exist in the baseline and one exist beyond the baseline.

We are making the unsupported claim that Character B's world would be fiction in Character's A world. There is nothing to support that other than our own standards. It's like pitting the flash against Usain Bolt, and saying the Flash can't reach light speed, because in Usain Bolt's world, nothing is faster than the speed of light.

It's not unsupported. That equivalency is false.

If they view one 4-D world as fiction, then they would view another 4-D world as fiction. This is an entirely reasonable assumption. I have no idea where your comparison comes from because I don't see how it's relevant.

My point is that, tier Low 1-C should be for characters who affect, destroy, create Low 1-C entire Low 1-C structures. This is objectively measurable and requires zero perception or zero favoring one world over the other.

I don't see how it's "favoring one world over the other" what? If you are Low 1-C in size then you can affect things on a Low 1-C scale? That's just basic logic. Like there is no way you can argue that existing on a Low 1-C scale is not Low 1-C.

Like, if you are Low 1-C in size, you are a Low 1-C structure. That's just how it is.

Take Character A, and Character B, again. This time, let's say that Character A has R>F, transcendence, but also has feats of the destroying a Low 1-C structure. In this fight, we say that Character A and Character B are both as real as they are presented in their stories.

Character A still wins because character A has measurable feat of destroying a structure that is more complex than Character B. There is no need for interpretation one as more real than the other.

Character B wouldn't be doing anything to Character A regardless. Character A just by existing is a structure that is more complex than character B. They would also be presumably capable of utilizing their own body (thus check off the 'significantly affect' part of the tiering system), so their AP is higher too. I'm not quite sure what's so hard to grasp.

 

[deonment]

I think all of you are misunderstanding his question.

An Author example is the best explanation here. If you are an Author, and you view the Universe you write as fiction, via R > F you qualify to be Low 1-C. However in that Author's World which would be Low 1-C, he's just a normal person and can't effect his entire Low 1-C Structure.

So yes, he views the Universe as fiction and has control over it, however he can't effect his own reality, which is Low 1-C according to the wiki.

You don't have to affect a structure to qualify, what the tiering system asks for is the ability to do so.
The author's figure would be 5D at minimum as they would by necessity exceed the totality of an infinite 4D structure, which would be 5D under our system.
It does not matter that they do not affect a world of that size, since the tiering system does not require that characters in their medium have affected that structure, but that they can. There is a stark difference in practice between the two, one of them means everything that gets a tier via state of being (which is like 90% of tier 1 and up, and probably a large quantity of tier 2) does not get their tiering and instead probably gets a big fat unknown because they do **** all in verse, and the other means most of our characters won't end up in unknown.
I will once again iterate this, the tiering system says CAN, not HAVE.

Honestly, while I don't personally have much interest in continually debating here, I do have two questions to ask:

1. Do regular 3D humans irl have the ability to destroy 2D space casually? If not, then why do we assume the same sort of destruction can apply to 4D beings and beyond?

2. If a verse has a space that sees a universal space-time as fiction and fulfills all other requirements for qualitative superiority (such as being uncountably infinitely larger than it), but nobody who lives in that space scales to low 1-C, would this disqualify the space itself from being low 1-C?

1) No they don't, in the same manner, that you can't destroy an atom when it is very low into 10-C, it is just too small.
2) What, the people in that space would be low 1-C anyways, but even for some reason unfathomable to me that R>F + having a hypervolume and density on a 5D + other stuff would not let those beings be Low 1-C from even just moving or existing, the space itself would still be low 1-C in degree yes.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This entire line of thought makes little sense to me.

If I'm getting what you're saying correct, this is the reason why we have baselines. We treat the world that the story most commonly takes place in as "the baseline". This would also be the world that we uses in VS matches and whatnot, which I will be calling "the baseline".

Character A views "the baseline" as fiction, character B does not. So when we put them in a vs match, character B does not transcend "the baseline" while character A does transcend "the baseline". It makes no sense to say character B and character A are on the same level if one is beyond their baseline world and the other is not.

So basically, Character B is as real as "the baseline" (aka the world they live in), and Character A is more real than "the baseline" (the world they transcend). Thus when you are equalizing worlds, you would make one exist in the baseline and one exist beyond the baseline.

Well this makes sense, you decide what is the baseline of the story, and from there you figure out the tier of the verse.

It's not unsupported. That equivalency is false.

If they view one 4-D world as fiction, then they would view another 4-D world as fiction. This is an entirely reasonable assumption. I have no idea where your comparison comes from because I don't see how it's relevant.

It being a reasonable assumption is subjective. I don't think it's reasonable to declare a separate verse as being fiction.

With your statement of baseline, we would compare the baselines, rather than deciding which one is more real or more fictional.

I don't see how it's "favoring one world over the other" what? If you are Low 1-C in size then you can affect things on a Low 1-C scale? That's just basic logic. Like there is no way you can argue that existing on a Low 1-C scale is not Low 1-C.

Like, if you are Low 1-C in size, you are a Low 1-C structure. That's just how it is.

Well it has nothing to do with size and is another assumption that doesn't make sense.

Fictional things don't have sizes. A fictional planet in my mind doesn't have any size. It's not bigger or smaller than anything.

But that also has to do with the commonly wrong idea that I have seen people on here, claim that higher dimensional objects are infinitely bigger than lower dimensional ones and that's just not true. (a topic for another day)

 

[Jinsye]

Fictional things don't have sizes. A fictional planet in my mind doesn't have any size. It's not bigger or smaller than anything.

You are by definition bigger than the fictional image of the planet in your mind. That's what we're going off of.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

You are by definition bigger than the fictional image of the planet in your mind. That's what we're going off of.

The fictional image in my head has no size. It makes no sense to say it's bigger or smaller than anything. Conceptual things are not concrete.

 

[Jinsye]

Regardless, I bring up size because it's a decently similar concept. Being larger than a timeline would be Low 1-C.

Though that could be derailiny

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Regardless, I bring up size because it's a decently similar concept. Being larger than a timeline would be Low 1-C.

Though that could be derailiny

What do you mean?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Can the second question be formulated better? Because I quite frankly don't understand it.

If a space is low 1-C for R > F transcendence, but the people who live there are portrayed as regular 3D 10-B humans, would the space be disqualified for low 1-C because of that?

 

[deonment]

If a space is low 1-C for R > F transcendence, but the people who live there are portrayed as regular 3D 10-B humans, would the space be disqualified for low 1-C because of that?

No, what.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

No, what.

Idk, the recent update to the R > F page confused me with stuff like this:

Earth-33 from DC Comics: A realm that only sees the superheroes of other worlds and the worlds they live in as fiction. However, they have no demonstrated sense of transcendence and the world's inhabitants are treated as equally 'real' to the superheroes they see as fiction as they are both within the same multiverse.

Which kind of implies that the denizens of a space with R > F difference have to scale to that superiority themselves or else it's viewed as an anti-feat.

Though it's good to have confirmation that that isn't the case.

 

[deonment]

Idk, the recent update to the R > F page confused me with stuff like this:

Earth-33 from DC Comics: A realm that only sees the superheroes of other worlds and the worlds they live in as fiction. However, they have no demonstrated sense of transcendence and the world's inhabitants are treated as equally 'real' to the superheroes they see as fiction as they are both within the same multiverse.

Which kind of implies that the denizens of a space with R > F difference have to scale to that superiority themselves or else it's viewed as an anti-feat.

Though it's good to have confirmation that that isn't the case.

That is because Earth-33 is an alternate reality rather than a higher plane of being.

 

[Vietthai96]

Honestly, I have no problem with that. It should added if that's the case. (but doesn't the existence of the time ring negate this, as Goku Black needed the time ring to remain immune to timeline changes? So the characters are affected by time changes)

hmm, no, iirc, Beerus stated if he hakai Zamasu, then the timeline will not branching out, or simply put, Beerus power as a god ignore branching timeline mechanic of the verse, which mean if he can ignore timeline mechanic, Future Zamasu, or rather Black will fade out of existence, that why he need Time Ring to counter

 

[ImmortalDread]

If a space is low 1-C for R > F transcendence, but the people who live there are portrayed as regular 3D 10-B humans, would the space be disqualified for low 1-C because of that?

No. It won't. Don't confuse HDE with cosmological size. Both are handled here differently.

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

I don't see the contradiction here tbh. We, as 3D beings, are infinitely superior to any 2D being, it doesn't matter if you can only destroy a rock, a grain of salt, or if you can destroy a planet: you're always infinitely superior to 2D beings and can treat them like nothing.

For you to be higher dimensional compared to something, you don't have to destroy the entire universal construct that forms your dimension. You can be low 2-C (infinitely superior to any 3D being) by destroying a tessaract, yet being unable to destroy an universal-sized 4D space, such as how you can be 3D (infinitely superior to any 2D being) by destroying a cube, yet being unable to destroy the matter of an entire universe.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I don't see the contradiction here tbh. We, as 3D beings, are infinitely superior to any 2D being, it doesn't matter if you can only destroy a rock, a grain of salt, or if you can destroy a planet: you're always infinitely superior to 2D beings and can treat them like nothing.

For you to be higher dimensional compared to something, you don't have to destroy the entire universal construct that forms your dimension. You can be low 2-C (infinitely superior to any 3D being) by destroying a tessaract, yet being unable to destroy an universal-sized 4D space, such as how you can be 3D (infinitely superior to any 2D being) by destroying a cube, yet being unable to destroy the matter of an entire universe.

Not true at all.

First of all 2 dimensional beings don’t exist and we have never observed 2D space and can only go off theories.

Second of all, 2D objects are just objects without depth. They still have length and width.

A 2D square can be as big as a planet and you wouldn’t be able to do anything to it.

This is just using psuedoscience to pad up powers.

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

You don't need to do anything to a 2D square as big as a planet to be more strong and durable than it is, bruh.

A 3D object is infinitely bigger than a 2D object by default. Let's suppse you have a square of the size of our planet: of a side of 6000km, it's volume is still 0 because it still has no 3rd dimension. So even a grain of salt has infinitely more volume than the square of the size you proposed, that's not pseudoscience, that's just maths

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

You don't need to do anything to a 2D square as big as a planet to be more strong and durable than it is, bruh.

A 3D object is infinitely bigger than a 2D object by default. Let's suppse you have a square of the size of our planet: of a side of 6000km, it's volume is still 0 because it still has no 3rd dimension. So even a grain of salt has infinitely more volume than the square of the size you proposed, that's not pseudoscience, that's just maths

What are you talking about?

A 2D object has no volume, but the volume of a grain of salt, isn’t infinitely more volume.

This is like saying 100 is infinitely bigger than 0.

again, psuedo science

 

[ImmortalDread]

What are you talking about?

A 2D object has no volume, but the volume of a grain of salt, isn’t infinitely more volume.

This is like saying 100 is infinitely bigger than 0.

again, psuedo science

Bruh? A salt has more volume than a 2-D planet object. What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Bruh? A salt has more volume than a 2-D planet object. What the hell are you talking about?

Maybe read what I said before commenting.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If the volume is 0, then you are infinitely more than 0 if you are number 1.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

If the volume is 0, then you are infinitely more than 0 if you are number 1.

The difference between 1 and zero isn’t infinity.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Wtf. There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are in the infinite set of integers 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Wtf. There are more real numbers between 0 and 1 than there are in the infinite set of integers 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on.

Okay then something with volume of 2 is infinitely greater than 1 if you’re counting all the real numbers in between.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Nvm, he also said it wrong, give me a minute

 

[ImmortalDread]

His statement is erroneous (I just did not read it properly, you are right)

A two-dimensional object does not have a volume because it lacks the third dimension of depth. However, a three-dimensional object does have a volume, and it is possible to compare the volumes of different objects.

It is not exact to say that a three-dimensional object is infinitely bigger than a two-dimensional object by default.

Additionally, it is not accurate to say that the volume of a three-dimensional object is always infinitely greater than the volume of a two-dimensional object of the same size.

For example, if we have a square that is one meter on each side, and we create a cube by giving the square a third dimension of one meter, the volume of the cube will be 1 cubic meter, which is not infinitely greater than the area of the square, which is 1 square meter.

But this does not even matter here, since reality>fiction transcendence is not the same as dimensions. It is convenient to consider the two-dimensional and three-dimensional versions of an object as being equivalent, but they are not actually the same thing. Viewing the universe as fictional or illusory is a completely different concept from having one or more dimensions.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

But this does not even matter here, since reality>fiction transcendence is not the same as dimensions. It is convenient to consider the two-dimensional and three-dimensional versions of an object as being equivalent, but they are not actually the same thing. Viewing the universe as fictional or illusory is a completely different concept from having one or more dimensions.

Except the site standards equates, R>F transcendence to being able to affect higher dimensional structures.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Rephrase your sentence once again if you don't mind

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is also fundamental to keep in mind that this is a fictional concept and does not necessarily reflect any real-world concepts or phenomena. It is not accurate to say that a being that views a world as fiction is necessarily more “real” or superior to that world in any objective sense.

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

What are you talking about?

A 2D object has no volume, but the volume of a grain of salt, isn’t infinitely more volume.

This is like saying 100 is infinitely bigger than 0.

again, psuedo science

Any positive number is infinitely bigger than 0. Try to add 0 a finite number of times to get 1 and tell me how many times you added it

It is not exact to say that a three-dimensional object is infinitely bigger than a two-dimensional object by default.

I mean, even if you have an infinite*infinite square then you divide it into infinite parts, each one of 1 square meter; and finally you put each part next to the last one, even if you put an infinite amount of 1m² squares, their 3rd dimension is still 0, because even if you add 0 infinite times, it'd still be 0.

Even if you bend such infinite object infinitely, increasing it's thickness with each bend, as it's original thickness is 0, it doesn't matter how many times you bend it, 0 times 2 will always be 0.

Meanwhile, a cube with 1m³ volume has 1, which is infinitely more volume than any 2D object (0)

Okay then something with volume of 2 is infinitely greater than 1 if you’re counting all the real numbers in between.

False equivalence. 2 is twice 1 (2÷1 is 2, bruh)

For example, if we have a square that is one meter on each side, and we create a cube by giving the square a third dimension of one meter, the volume of the cube will be 1 cubic meter, which is not infinitely greater than the area of the square, which is 1 square meter.

But... it is? If you have a square whose dimensions are {1, 1, 0} and you transform it into a cube whose dimensions are {1, 1, 1}, cube's z dimension is infinitely bigger than square's, because no matter how many times you add up 0, even infinite, you won't reach 1.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Any positive number is infinitely bigger than 0. Try to add 0 a finite number of times to get 1 and tell me how many times you added it

Dude. No. Stop saying that. It’s just wrong.

I mean, even if you have an infinite*infinite square then you divide it into infinite parts, each one of 1 square meter; and finally you put each part next to the last one, even if you put an infinite amount of 1m² squares, their 3rd dimension is still 0, because even if you add 0 infinite times, it'd still be 0.

Even if you bend such infinite object infinitely, increasing it's thickness with each bend, as it's original thickness is 0, it doesn't matter how many times you bend it, 0 times 2 will always be 0.

Meanwhile, a cube with 1m³ volume has 1, which is infinitely more volume than any 2D object (0)

Dude you can literally take any 2D object and fold it in 3D space to make into a hollow 3D object and you can then measure the volume of that object.

False equivalence. 2 is twice 1 (2÷1 is 2, bruh)

????
The difference between 1 and zero and between 1 and 2 is equal.

you’re wrong.

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

Dude you can literally take any 2D object and fold it in 3D space to make into a hollow 3D object and you can then measure the volume of that object.

No you can't? The best think you can do is make it look like the shape of a cube, but each face has, in fact, 2 dimensions.

If you have a square: {1, 1, 0} you create another equal square and you turn it around 90 degrees, the one you turned around would have dimensions of {0, 1, 1}.

Even if you do the same with other 4 squares to create a cube, the cube itself would be formed by 2D bended object: it still has no mass, nor their faces have 3 dimensions. Unlike if, for example, you bend a paper to form a cube

????
The difference between 1 and zero and between 1 and 2 is equal.

you’re wrong.

Ok, so: 1*2=2
You're saying 0*2=1? That's what's wrong

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

No you can't? The best think you can do is make it look like the shape of a cube, but each face has, in fact, 2 dimensions.

If you have a square: {1, 1, 0} you create another equal square and you turn it around 90 degrees, the one you turned around would have dimensions of {0, 1, 1}.

Even if you do the same with other 4 squares to create a cube, the cube itself would be formed by 2D bended object: it still has no mass, nor their faces have 3 dimensions. Unlike if, for example, you bend a paper to form a cube

Every single 3D object has 2 dimensional faces. They do not have 3D faces. 4D objects have 3D faces. And so on and so on.

A 3D object does not need to have mass to be 3D. You can turn a 2D object into 3D by just folding it in 3D space. It will have a volume that you can measure.

 

[JustANormalPerson01]

Every single 3D object has 2 dimensional faces. They do not have 3D faces. 4D objects have 3D faces. And so on and so on.

Every 3D object can be divided in infinite 2 dimensional parts (infinite parts with {x, y, 0}, for example). Meanwhile, the object you've purposed has only 6 2D parts: the 6 faces that form it.

You can turn a 2D object into 3D by just folding it in 3D space. It will have a volume that you can measure.

In fact, there what you're measuring is the volume inside the object, not the volume of the object itself. Such as how when you draw a circumference and you calculate it's area, you're calculating the area within the circumference, not the area of the circumference itself

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Every 3D object can be divided in infinite 2 dimensional parts (infinite parts with {x, y, 0}, for example). Meanwhile, the object you've purposed has only 6 2D parts: the 6 faces that form it

I can infinitely divide any 2D object and fold them in 3D space to make infinite 3D objects.

In fact, there what you're measuring is the volume inside the object, not the volume of the object itself. Such as how when you draw a circumference and you calculate it's area, you're calculating the area within the circumference, not the area of the circumference itself

That's what volume is. Measuring what's enclosed by the surface area.