- 18,393
- 14,311
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
I don't understand this aspect of Reality-Fiction Transcendence...
- Thread starter Iamunanimousinthat
- Start date
- Status
- 2,209
- 1,180
No you can't lol. At best, you can have 2D objects that together have a 3D shape, but that's only its shape, not that they're 3D
Volume of an object =/= Volume inside of an object.
I can literally have a paper whose volume is 1m³, and bend it to form a square whose volume inside is 2m³. Does it mean the volume of the paper has increased? No. It's just that it has greater empty space inside.
There are some problems about that in mathematics: calculate the volume of a cylinder which is not complete, but has an empty cylinder inside. If you have a 2D object and you form a cylinder with it, r1=r2 (because the 2D space you bended is still 0 in one dimension, so the radius of the empty space would be the same of the radius of the side of the cylinder), which clearly shows that no, forming an empty figure with 2D forms does not magically make it 3D
- 18,393
- 14,311
Math moments. Guys, if you want to win the race, always attach references of your claims.
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #124
Well my current main concern is the equivalency problem between gaining Low 1-C via R>F and gaining Low 1-C via dimensionality.
For the R>F Low 1-C, the fictional world can only exist as representation in their world, and the actual fictional world is inaccessible to them vice-versa, almost conceptual in nature.
For the Low 1-C via dimensionality, the lower dimensional world by virtue is not inaccessible and can exist normally in higher dimensional space. In order to gain Low 1-C via dimensionality, you must be able to affect/create/destroy and entire Low 1-C structure.
Here is what it says on the tier list:
Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level
Characters or objects that can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)Characters with R>F transcendence get Low 1-C by virtue of just existing in their world.
- 2,209
- 1,180
I mean, you don't need to "attach references" for just logic. If you have a 2D object, then it logically has 2 dimensions. Even if you bend it to look like a cube, it still would have no volume, because it'd be 6 2D planes, with the inside completely empty. Like, the example I put: when you want to calculate the volume of a bowl (not the volume inside of a bowl, but the volume of the bowl itself) you have to take the volume of all the form and substract the volume of the empty space to it. When you do that to a 3D object formed by 2D planes... it's volume ends up in 0 because the inside is completely empty.
That's like if you try to calculate the volume of a circumference. It's just 0, because a circumference is formed by a line, by something with 1 dimensions, and since its inside is empty, then it has 0 volume lol. The circumference of a circle is 1D, because it's a line, duh, while the circle itself is 2D. If you bend a 2D square to form a cube it's like if you bend a 1D line to form a circumference: just because it has the form of something of a higher dimension it doesn't mean it's higher dimensional
I'm pretty sure a character who has shown to be 5D via dimensionality is in fact treated as low 1-C without the need to affect/create/destroy an entire low 1-C structure, like this one. You just have to prove that such 5D dimension is a higher dimension inaccessible to lower dimensions. Which don't happen with R>F, because it's nearly everywhere potrayed that "real characters" are infinitely superior to "fictionals", although there are exceptions to such rule
Last edited:
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #126
Dude, the thing you posted is literally measuring the empty space inside the hollow cylinder,
It's achieving this by assuming the cylinder is not hollow, and getting the radius of the whole thing, (r1 or Radius 1) and then substracting it from the empty space by getting it's radius,(r2 or Radius 2). They are both literally different non-zero measurements.
And yeah. if you roll up a 2D object, it will have 0 volume until you enclose the tops, and then it will have a volume.
A 5D dimensional space by definition cannot be inaccessible to lower dimensions. It is literally comprised of all the lower dimensions.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Eh? Then you don't know how uncountable infinite works.
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #128
And this is to reference to what?
- 18,393
- 14,311
To your claim that 5D can't be inaccessible to 4D?
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #130
It literally can't. 4D space is embedded in 5D space.
- 2,209
- 1,180
And that proves? The example I put is with 2 3D spaces. If you try it with a 3D space and a 2D one, you'd get the volume is 0. Such as how you can't say a circumference has area. A circumference of a circle is the enclosing boundary of a circle, what you descrived: a 2D plane bended to form a cube would be the circumference of a square: the enclosing boundary of a square. As I previously said:
Yes it can? A 2D object with only x and y coordinates, whose cordinates can never reach a coordinate of z=/=0 nor affect the entiretiy with something with 3 coordinates: at best, it can affect an infinitely-small part of it. Such as how we, humans, cannot reach something with w=/=0 nor affect something with 4 coordinates, but, at best, an infinitelly-small part of it
- 18,393
- 14,311
How can 2D reach 3D?
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #133
None of this is true. Higher dimensional objects are not infinitely bigger.
By going into a 3rd dimension.
- 2,209
- 1,180
Ok, wait a moment, I'll go to the 4th dimension and come back in a sec
Bruh... how can an object limited to 2 dimensions move in 3 dimensions?
- 18,393
- 14,311
But in 2D space, there is none. So tell me how to reach? Also, I would like an evidence supporting you while you are claiming
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #136
We live inside a 3 dimensional universe. There is no 4th dimension to go to. If we live in 4D dimensional space, you could travel across the 4th dimension despite not being 4D because 3D objects and lower can fit inside 4D spaces.
If you're asking how does one leave a separate 2D space and enter a separate 3D space? Then they can do it the same way you can move between between two separate 3D spaces.
- 18,393
- 14,311
No, I am asking you how 2D can reach 3D if it is not inaccessible. Prove your claim with evidence.
- 169
- 47
I think Edwin Abott explains something like that in Flatland, when Square goes in the 3rd dimension.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Is it a theory or proven? Because I wonder where is 3rd dimension is coming from if this does not exist in 2D plane.
- 2,209
- 1,180
....no? Leaving aside the existence of a 4th dimension, which is not proven to exist nor to don't (and in fact there are many theories which hypothesize with their existence) there is no way a 3d being could move in 4th dimension. Such as the same way a draw in a paper cannot reach you.
- 169
- 47
He was an important person regarding dimensions, and introduced ideas of more than 3.
Nearly everything involving dimensions is theory, so I'm not sure what you mean.
- 18,393
- 14,311
If it is not proven, then no need to assume, it is not inaccessible.
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #143
If you're talking about actual science, then 2D spaces and higher dimensional spaces don't exist and have never been observed. We only have our 3D space that we live in that we observe. Higher and Lower dimensional spaces only exist in purely theoretical thought.
But to answer your question: to be able to move from a 2D space, to a separate 3D space, it would entail the same actions as being able to move between two separate 3D spaces in fiction.
???
What are you talking about? A drawing on paper has already reached you. The paper and the graphite are both made of the same atoms that you are made of
- 18,393
- 14,311
2D space (let's take an example of “contents of paper”) has absolutely no way to reach 3D space. So, it is inaccessible and yes, we assume in vsb that 4D is inaccessible to 5D.
We equate this.
We equate this.
- 169
- 47
2D space is theory too.
Abott is an important man for dimensions and he said this in Flatland:
Stranger. You do not understand me. I mean that when you see a Woman, you ought - besides inferring her breadth - to see her length, and to see what we call her height; although that last Dimension is infinitesimal in your country. If a Line were mere length without ``height,'' it would cease to occupy Space and would become invisible. Surely you must recognize this?
I. I must indeed confess that I do not in the least understand your Lordship. When we in Flatland see a Line, we see length and brightness. If the brightness disappears, the Line is extinguished, and, as you say, ceases to occupy Space. But am I to suppose that your Lordship gives to brightness the title of a Dimension, and that what we call ``bright'' you call "high"?
Stranger. No, indeed. By "height'' I mean a Dimension like your length; only, with you, "height'' is not so easily perceptible, being extremely small.
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #146
The contents of a paper is not 2D it's 3D.
- 18,393
- 14,311
????????????????????????????? You are aware, I am talking abt inside the paper?
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #148
There is no such thing as inside the paper. A paper is made of atoms. It's all 3D.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Ya no. Thanks. This became actually dumb to discuss.
- 2,209
- 1,180
First of all: proof of travelling between 2 different 3D universes separated by a 4D axis being possible IRL?
It's just an example, don't take everything so literal. The point is: such as a draw can never come out of a paper to punch you in the face, a 2D being can never come from 2nd dimension to 3rd to attack us.
- 169
- 47
There's no proof of 4D or of different universes IRL.
- 18,393
- 14,311
True since our tiering system is def based on only proven IRL stuff
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #153
Not because it doesn't work. An object cannot leave 2D space and enter a 3D space in the same way a an object cannot leave 3D space and enter another different 3D space. It ahs nothing to with dimensionality, but whether you can travel to different spaces, or whether different spaces exist at all.
However, If a 2D object was however able to enter a 3D space, it would easily be able to move around, because 2D space is already embedded inside 3D space.
- 169
- 47
It's Justanormalperson who said they wanted IRL proof.True since our tiering system is def based on only proven IRL stuff
Also you said Abott didn't count because theory wasn't proven IRL things.
- 2,209
- 1,180
So there's no way for a 3D being to travel to a different universe IRL, and as thus, you cannot actually say a "a 3D being can move into 4 dimensions such as how you can travel between universes", cool!
Good you admited my point.
That means... that for an object to move into 3 dimensions, it should gain the ability to move into 3 dimensions! Thanks again by saying by yourself what I previously said.
I'm also leaving btw. If you want to know more about how a 2D object is infinitely lower than a 3D one, check Tiering System FAQ, and if you want to learn about coordinates, then check some maths books. Bye
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #156
?? LOL no I didn't. Unless you're going to claim beings in parallel universes are inaccessible to each other too while also being infinitely bigger or smaller than each other while both being 3D
Again NO.
For an 2D object to be able to move in 3 dimensions, the space they are in must be comprised of 3 dimensions. The 2D object doesn't gain anything or change in anyway.
- 169
- 47
???
You say weird things. You want everything about 4D and more to disappear because it's not real?
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #158
That's not what was said.
What I said was, There is no proven way for any object of any dimensions, to move from one space of any dimension, to another space of any dimensions. That's a complete statement. It has nothing to do with dimensionality and has everything of whether you can travel to different spaces. In fiction, people do this via teleportation, wormholes, blackholes, phasing, vibrations, immeasurable speed, etc.
The second statement:
Objects of Lower dimension can move in higher dimensional space, because the lower dimensions are embedded in the higher dimensions by definition.
You can literally draw a flat plane inside a 3D graph and move it around freely in any direction.
- 4,924
- 2,082
Guys, just leave the thread at this point. They won't accept any possible answers bar the one they want.
And I assume we have at least room temperature IQ since we are arguing against this, so they aren't gonna get what they want, and if they try to make a thread to change it, not a soul will let them pass it.
And I assume we have at least room temperature IQ since we are arguing against this, so they aren't gonna get what they want, and if they try to make a thread to change it, not a soul will let them pass it.
- 3,293
- 1,268
- Thread starter
- #160
There's no need to insult people's intelligence. It's quite lame.
- Status
Similar threads
