Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2

[Antvasima]

If we have supporting statements of transcendence, in-game evidence of being naturally inaccessible from even a 4-D plane (such as Kirby’s dimension or the 15/16 other dimensions, both of which are accepted as 4-D structure; they require the opening of rifts in Another Dimension, and for reference, the Kirby series does make a distinction between dimensional rifts and standard portals), and said 4-D structures being contained within Another Dimension as a small part of it (much like a smaller circle being contained in a bigger circle), I’d say qualitative superiority is a given.

For my money, this shouldn’t be as controversial as it’s become

@James_Plays_4_Games @Firestorm808 @Eficiente @Everything12

What do you think about this?

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

@James_Plays_4_Games @Firestorm808 @Eficiente @Everything12

What do you think about this?

Back to my post number 1036.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well your post number 1036 isn't actually helping your case at all, and I'll explain why.

Different universes on the same level of the dimensional hierarchy are still on different planes of existence. The default with dimensional travel is interdimensional range unless there is evidence of more range. The "move through alternate universes (or "dimensions")" part even means that the page considers "dimensions" synonymous with "universes".

This doesn't even make any sense. Given the statements of transcendence and how they refer to mathematical dimensions, I can use an example like this: a 3-D model is a higher plane than a 2-D drawing. Such "planes" are on a basis of whole numbers, so a higher than 4-D plane would be at least 5-D.

Also, what you're saying about dimensions and universes isn't exactly relevant, as the Dimensional Travel page is talking about how you move from higher planes to move from one location to another (such as, in Kirby's case, traveling from Planet Popstar to Halcandra).

Essentially, Kirby and co. travel to a location of a higher dimensionality than their 4-D dimension (Another Dimension) to go from Popstar to Halcandra.

Another Dimension being stated to transcend space-time doesn't change the fact that you have no proof of the dimensional rifts being used for travel between levels on the dimensional hierarchy, aside from if Another Dimension is higher-dimensional for other reasons, but in that case you can't use the dimensional rifts as supporting evidence. The purpose of the dimensional rifts is for reaching Another Dimension in any way whatsoever, not because of it transcending space-time, but because the main characters can't dimensional travel by themselves. You're fabricating the connection between the fact that dimensional rifts are pretty much the only way to get to Another Dimension and the fact that it's stated to transcend space-time. Traveling through dimensional rifts has never been portrayed as transcending dimensions in Kirby's series, so it lacks the context that you think it has.

I don't think you understand. The statements of transcendence support that the dimensional travel is to a higher dimension, along with the dimensions within Another Dimension being small parts of it.

These things support one another to create a logical reasoning for 5-D Another Dimension. Your dislike of it leads you to believe it's just being "fabricated." Both lacking Dimensional Travel and it being of a higher plane can coexist, you know?

Also, how does one "portray" such transcendence? I've already explained how it essentially functions as a model of a bunch of smaller circles contained within a bigger circle. In fact, the model it functions as is the same one that Firestorm claimed was necessary for Low 1-C. And yet, stuff like this is still happening...

What I wrote answered this already. I'll reiterate here. Another Dimension with the evidence of it being tier 2-C and with the statements of superiority referring to it being better than 4D can mean that it's within a location beyond 4D while not being that big itself, like how the monster that Popeye fought could've been from a 7D place despite it being a 3D creature. Being from a higher-dimensional location is impressive, especially if this implies some sort of long reach that would otherwise be impossible. If you want to prove Another Dimension as better than 4D, you need evidence of Another Dimension being in a higher level on the dimensional hierarchy to mean something like that it is that level on the dimensional hierarchy or that it's as big as it.

This is just outright wrong. If Another Dimension were simply "within a location beyond 4-D," the statements about it would indicate as such. The Popeye example is a horrendous one. Another Dimension is itself said to transcend space-time and mathematical dimensions, rather than being located somewhere that does as such.

A specific example involving Another Dimension is when Shinya Kumazaki (the Kirby series' director) says: "The extra-dimensional road that opens up when Galacta Knight appears transcends space-time." It does not say it's within a realm that transcends space-time, it is the realm that transcends space-time. Furthermore, the term "extra-dimensional" refers to dimensions beyond the typical Einsteinian space-time model (which in itself is 4-D).

Also to add to this, it's very important that it's said Another Dimension transcends "space-time" rather than just "space and time" because that's far more indicative of transcending the whole of a 4-D model, as opposed to merely surpassing each facet individually. And again, transcendence implies the trivialization of what it is transcending to an infinitely small degree. Much like how we as 3-D humans transcend the 2-D media we consume, such that it appears as fiction.

What I wrote in the previous paragraph also answers this. Basically, we don't know that the realm is superior to 4D just because "it exceeds" 4D on the dimensional hierarchy, because there are many different ways that could've been meant. You assume that it means the realm's size is so big that it's physically higher-dimensional, and that the statements refer to the volume of Another Dimension, when this wasn't clarified in the statements.

Addressed in previous responses, so I won't waste any more time than necessary.

The logic you're trying to make me understand, as if I somehow didn't already understand it, would lead to the conclusion that all multiverses default to being better than 4D. Individual universes have individual temporal dimensions, and a multiverse is bigger than all of them, so you can consider the multiverse of larger scope than those temporal dimensions, like it's of larger scope than the space of individual universes. This is just common sense. What you fail to recognize is that this "scope" doesn't prove anything about whether or not a macrocosm is better than 4D, since the scope only has to do with its size on a 4D scale. To be 5D is to be infinitely bigger than / superior to 4D infinity, and to be better than 4D is probably to be bigger than 4D infinity in some way. Your argument is that Another Dimension is better than 4D for being bigger than a few universes, while also presenting the fact that it's been stated to exceed 4D on the dimensional hierarchy in a way that you assume is its size. Being bigger than a few universes is just tier 2-C, so it in no way supports the statements about its transcendence either way.

Again, this is just wrong. Not all multiverses are above 4-D. They don't all transcend space-time and mathematical dimensions. Said 4-D constructs within a multiverse aren't always just a very small part of it. If what you're saying right now is what you believe to be the argument for 5-D, then you haven't actually understood what the argument is.

In fact, we don't even see any of the dimensions that are considered universes as we travel through Another Dimension, in any game that Another Dimension is present in, unless we're in such a dimension already. This further supports that such dimensions are infinitesimally small compared to Another Dimension as a whole.

With all that has been established by me, we have several statements of superiority that aren't specific enough to be used as evidence for Another Dimension being 5D without better information, and we have zero contextual evidence for support.

What you have attempted to establish has not resulted in a strong enough counterargument, hence why my stance and the stances of many others have not changed despite your claims.

Your post number 1036 has not changed this in the slightest.

Anyways I'mma go back to speedrunning Return to Dreamland Deluxe's True Arena like the madman I am

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Well your post number 1036 isn't actually helping your case at all, and I'll explain why.

This doesn't even make any sense. Given the statements of transcendence and how they refer to mathematical dimensions, I can use an example like this: a 3-D model is a higher plane than a 2-D drawing. Such "planes" are on a basis of whole numbers, so a higher than 4-D plane would be at least 5-D.

Also, what you're saying about dimensions and universes isn't exactly relevant, as the Dimensional Travel page is talking about how you move from higher planes to move from one location to another (such as, in Kirby's case, traveling from Planet Popstar to Halcandra).

Essentially, Kirby and co. travel to a location of a higher dimensionality than their 4-D dimension (Another Dimension) to go from Popstar to Halcandra.

You disagree with semantics that I am very clearly accurately portraying. A plane can also be a universe. That's what the Dimensional Travel page describes, so it doesn't necessarily relate to the dimensional hierarchy. It only relates to dimensional hierarchy travel if there is proof of that. The only potential proof is the statements about Another Dimension's transcendence, which, as I explained elsewhere, are ambiguous and unrelated to what characters undergo when traveling through a dimensional rift. Interdimensional travel is the baseline for dimensional travel. You should know this already.

Prove that Kirby and his friends travel to a higher dimensionality. All you did right now is assert something that I already addressed. Your point was that the dimensional rifts portray Another Dimension as having inaccessibility in the context of being better than 4D, but that's a major assumption, because the only reason there is inaccessibility is because the characters can't dimensional travel by themselves.

I don't think you understand. The statements of transcendence support that the dimensional travel is to a higher dimension, along with the dimensions within Another Dimension being small parts of it.

These things support one another to create a logical reasoning for 5-D Another Dimension. Your dislike of it leads you to believe it's just being "fabricated." Both lacking Dimensional Travel and it being of a higher plane can coexist, you know?

Also, how does one "portray" such transcendence? I've already explained how it essentially functions as a model of a bunch of smaller circles contained within a bigger circle. In fact, the model it functions as is the same one that Firestorm claimed was necessary for Low 1-C. And yet, stuff like this is still happening...

No they don't. The statements about Another Dimension's transcendence are separate from the dimensional rifts. There is no statement suggesting that, when Kirby travels through a dimensional rift, he is transcending dimensions or crossing an impossible distance to reach Another Dimension. It's treated as a character going through a wormhole and reaching another destination elsewhere, which is a destination that only has definite evidence of being tier 2-C as it stands. So, like I wrote, you're fabricating a connection between facts.

Different facts can support one another, but when none of the points are complete without each other being completely correct, or when the points use misinterpretations of terminology, we are not actually dealing with only facts. If your idea weren't fabricating a connection between facts, then I wouldn't dislike the idea. You're antagonizing my thought process by claiming that my disliking for your idea is why I'm trying to disprove it.

Whatever way the transcendence could be portrayed is besides the point. The point is, what you think is such a portrayal is really just characters who can't dimensional travel normally going through a wormhole. This doesn't signify that the world the characters traveled to has inaccessibility in a way that suggests it's better than 4D, since the explanation to the character not being able to get there normally is just because they don't have a dimensional travel ability. 3D characters aren't normally supposed to be able to physically travel to different universes. We've been over this already, and there's no arguing with it unless you bring up other information, but I already addressed the other information in other paragraphs, which I am continuing to do in this message.

This is just outright wrong. If Another Dimension were simply "within a location beyond 4-D," the statements about it would indicate as such. The Popeye example is a horrendous one. Another Dimension is itself said to transcend space-time and mathematical dimensions, rather than being located somewhere that does as such.

A specific example involving Another Dimension is when Shinya Kumazaki (the Kirby series' director) says: "The extra-dimensional road that opens up when Galacta Knight appears transcends space-time." It does not say it's within a realm that transcends space-time, it is the realm that transcends space-time. Furthermore, the term "extra-dimensional" refers to dimensions beyond the typical Einsteinian space-time model (which in itself is 4-D).

Also to add to this, it's very important that it's said Another Dimension transcends "space-time" rather than just "space and time" because that's far more indicative of transcending the whole of a 4-D model, as opposed to merely surpassing each facet individually. And again, transcendence implies the trivialization of what it is transcending to an infinitely small degree. Much like how we as 3-D humans transcend the 2-D media we consume, such that it appears as fiction.

I was just providing an example of what other fashion Another Dimension itself could transcend space-time on the dimensional hierarchy. Trying to exaggerate the terminology is no use. Tell me what fashion Another Dimension transcends space-time and mathematical dimensions. If you write that its size is what transcends, then show me what official information clarifies this. You will find that there is no official information that clarifies this. Until there is, or until there is actual evidence supporting the idea of the statements referring to Another Dimension's size (which is being discussed in other paragraphs), the statements about Another Dimension's transcendence are too ambiguous to be used specifically for its tier. No amount of "it is" will describe its size. I know "it is" the realm that transcends 4D on the dimensional hierarchy, but that doesn't tell me anything about the way the realm transcends 4D on the dimensional hierarchy.

Again, this is just wrong. Not all multiverses are above 4-D. They don't all transcend space-time and mathematical dimensions. Said 4-D constructs within a multiverse aren't always just a very small part of it. If what you're saying right now is what you believe to be the argument for 5-D, then you haven't actually understood what the argument is.

In fact, we don't even see any of the dimensions that are considered universes as we travel through Another Dimension, in any game that Another Dimension is present in, unless we're in such a dimension already. This further supports that such dimensions are infinitesimally small compared to Another Dimension as a whole.

I was describing the accidental result of the logic of the point. Me addressing flaws in the logic forces you to think outside the box more when answering. With that being done, with "Said 4-D constructs within a multiverse aren't always just a very small part of it." being written by you, I now write: Prove that Another Dimension's 4D constructs are an infinitesimal part of it. You can't; the single piece of "evidence" that was being used is no longer valid, for a reason that you didn't quote here. It was the part where I wrote that Eficiente confirmed that his blog post doesn't convey what you thought it did.

The second paragraph of this quote makes no sense to me. The dimensions in Another Dimension that are considered universes are the ones that the characters travel through during every visit to Another Dimension during Kirby's Return to Dream Land. Obviously when the characters are in a universe, they're only going to see properties of that universe, and when they're not, that universe won't be involved. This is just how universes work. This has nothing to do with representing universes as infinitesimal compared to the entirety of Another Dimension. If humanity discovers a new universe, and they can't see the one we're in now from there, there's not going to be any sort of conclusion about whether or not one of them is infinitesimal compared to the other. If I'm misinterpreting your point and this is about the background fading projections again, I already explained why those have no evidence of being universes (and you didn't attempt to disprove that here).

What you have attempted to establish has not resulted in a strong enough counterargument, hence why my stance and the stances of many others have not changed despite your claims.

Your post number 1036 has not changed this in the slightest.

Anyways I'mma go back to speedrunning Return to Dreamland Deluxe's True Arena like the madman I am

To me it seems that the stances of many others remain unchanged because that's a specific group that has a different belief about what counts as reliable evidence of something transcending a dimension on the dimensional hierarchy. That group hasn't given up on this thread yet because of impressive determination, and that group hasn't fully understood my perspective because they're very convinced that their own is the correct one. The purpose of the paragraph that you quoted here was for me to establish what the outlook of this thread is in the case that my points are the correct ones, which I'm confident is the case like how you're confident of the opposite, whether it's true or not.

Good luck with speedrunning The True Arena.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

I still personally believe a (Current Tier 2 tier, 'possibly' [Higher-Dimensional] tier) works here b/c possibly implies you can make the argument for it but it also isn't strong enough to be given the complete tier, which I think would solve this stalemate.

 

[Eseseso]

I still personally believe a (Current Tier 2 tier, 'possibly' [Higher-Dimensional] tier) works here b/c possibly implies you can make the argument for it but it also isn't strong enough to be given the complete tier, which I think would solve this stalemate.

I'd be fine with "2-C, possibly Low 1-C"

 

[DaMonkeMan]

That makes the most sense.

 

[The_Pink_God]

But then there's always the one person that goes:

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

I still personally believe a (Current Tier 2 tier, 'possibly' [Higher-Dimensional] tier) works here b/c possibly implies you can make the argument for it but it also isn't strong enough to be given the complete tier, which I think would solve this stalemate.

People can make an argument using insufficient evidence for pretty much anything. Listing a rank as "possibly" should be used with caution. I find it applied well when the conclusion is maybe implied by the fictional work and has reliable evidence of maybe being the case but the truth of the matter is ambiguous. I don't get that feeling from this thread's proposal.

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

Bump

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

Bump

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I agree

 

[Antvasima]

@James_Plays_4_Games @Eficiente @Everything12 @Firestorm808

So has this thread been rejected then?

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'm currently typing up a counter to James's post. Considering this rejected is a premature statement to me

 

[Antvasima]

Okay then.

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

bump

 

[CloverDragon03]

Been pretty busy lately, my apologies. I'll try to get a response out soon

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Thanks man. As you can tell, so have I, but I guess after all, I really don't have much to say right now that hasn't been said. Just that James' own definition of what qualifies as a "Possibly" sounds a whole lot like AD right now.

="James_Plays_4_Games, post: 5554286, member: 5427"]
I find it applied well when the conclusion is maybe implied by the fictional work and has reliable evidence of maybe being the case but the truth of the matter is ambiguous.

How does that not apply to AD? Especially since you agree with the translation that asserts it is mathematically superior to space and time? How does that not even reasonably hint that it is exactly that? It sounds pretty "Likely" to me, to say the least.

 

[CloverDragon03]

As I'm working on my response, it should be noted that if a flat-out Low 1-C isn't deemed okay, I feel a possibly Low 1-C rating should still suffice. The fact that the thread has gone as long as it has is indicative of the fact that both sides of the argument are pretty much at a stalemate. Possibly ratings are essentially compromises, so it pretty much makes sense

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

Keeping this thread alive.

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

bump

 

[y3p_owo]

Bump

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Keeping this thread alive.

Good luck with that.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Good luck with that.

No luck needed. @CloverDragon03 wrote that he's working on a response. It's been over a week, so you could check up on him if you're worried. Otherwise, we just need to be patient.

 

[Eseseso]

I still think "possibly Low 1-C" is a good option

 

[CloverDragon03]

You disagree with semantics that I am very clearly accurately portraying. A plane can also be a universe. That's what the Dimensional Travel page describes, so it doesn't necessarily relate to the dimensional hierarchy. It only relates to dimensional hierarchy travel if there is proof of that. The only potential proof is the statements about Another Dimension's transcendence, which, as I explained elsewhere, are ambiguous and unrelated to what characters undergo when traveling through a dimensional rift. Interdimensional travel is the baseline for dimensional travel. You should know this already.

Prove that Kirby and his friends travel to a higher dimensionality. All you did right now is assert something that I already addressed. Your point was that the dimensional rifts portray Another Dimension as having inaccessibility in the context of being better than 4D, but that's a major assumption, because the only reason there is inaccessibility is because the characters can't dimensional travel by themselves.

That's the thing: Dimensional Travel also involves travel to higher dimensions, so the inability to go there without Dimensional Travel can coexist with Another Dimension being 5-D. You're creating an arbitrary standard when it comes to these pieces of evidence being used in conjunction with one another to create a cohesive argument, which I believe is why we're at such an impasse at the moment. One piece of evidence should never be enough on its own to solidly prove something, which is why I have given multiple to begin with.

Also, as I will get to later, your concerns about the "ambiguity" in Another Dimension's transcendence are wholly arbitrary.

No they don't. The statements about Another Dimension's transcendence are separate from the dimensional rifts. There is no statement suggesting that, when Kirby travels through a dimensional rift, he is transcending dimensions or crossing an impossible distance to reach Another Dimension. It's treated as a character going through a wormhole and reaching another destination elsewhere, which is a destination that only has definite evidence of being tier 2-C as it stands. So, like I wrote, you're fabricating a connection between facts.

Different facts can support one another, but when none of the points are complete without each other being completely correct, or when the points use misinterpretations of terminology, we are not actually dealing with only facts. If your idea weren't fabricating a connection between facts, then I wouldn't dislike the idea. You're antagonizing my thought process by claiming that my disliking for your idea is why I'm trying to disprove it.

Whatever way the transcendence could be portrayed is besides the point. The point is, what you think is such a portrayal is really just characters who can't dimensional travel normally going through a wormhole. This doesn't signify that the world the characters traveled to has inaccessibility in a way that suggests it's better than 4D, since the explanation to the character not being able to get there normally is just because they don't have a dimensional travel ability. 3D characters aren't normally supposed to be able to physically travel to different universes. We've been over this already, and there's no arguing with it unless you bring up other information, but I already addressed the other information in other paragraphs, which I am continuing to do in this message.

Kirby himself doesn't need to transcend dimensions and such. A character of 3-D dimensionality can have higher than 3-D AP (look at Dragon Ball Super, for instance). In addition, your need for a "crossing of an impossible distance" is never mentioned within the Tiering System page as a requirement. Tier 1 is stated to entail: "Characters or objects that can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence." Or, in the case of locations, it should the spaces in question being qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence. So, Another Dimension is only accessible via Dimensional Travel, where you travel to Another Dimension to reach another place (like Halcandra for instance), and the Dimensional Travel page itself states that this ability involves traveling to higher planes of existence.

So again, not understanding what isn't Low 1-C here.

Also, I don't intend on antagonizing your thought process really. I'm just extrapolating your retorts, because this really should be as clear-cut Low 1-C as it gets. The points I make don't use any misinterpretations, no matter how much you claim that to be the case. There are 4-D structures within Another Dimension (hence why AD is currently 2-C, as it's using the fact that there are 15 to 16 of these structures within it), and they are small parts of AD as shown by the fact that not once does the player ever see these structures aside from when they're in the structures themselves. Another Dimension is so massively larger than 4-D structures that said structures cannot even be seen aside from being inside the 4-D realms in question.

Another Dimension transcending space-time is correct.
Another Dimension being inaccessible from 4-D structures without a rift being torn into it (honestly this is even further supported in the remake due to the rifts being portrayed as an actual tear in the fabric of the 4-D structure that morphs into the shape of a star) is correct.

I'm really not sure what you want from me.

I was just providing an example of what other fashion Another Dimension itself could transcend space-time on the dimensional hierarchy. Trying to exaggerate the terminology is no use. Tell me what fashion Another Dimension transcends space-time and mathematical dimensions. If you write that its size is what transcends, then show me what official information clarifies this. You will find that there is no official information that clarifies this. Until there is, or until there is actual evidence supporting the idea of the statements referring to Another Dimension's size (which is being discussed in other paragraphs), the statements about Another Dimension's transcendence are too ambiguous to be used specifically for its tier. No amount of "it is" will describe its size. I know "it is" the realm that transcends 4D on the dimensional hierarchy, but that doesn't tell me anything about the way the realm transcends 4D on the dimensional hierarchy.

The thing is, though, the example makes no sense. You're creating this arbitrary need for a "fashion in which it transcends space-time and mathematical dimension" when the term "transcendence" indicates a trivialization of ALL below it. "Transcend" literally means "to be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division)." As such, transcending space-time means to go beyond the range or limits of it, meaning Another Dimension goes beyond the range or limits of a 4-D structure.

Dimensions are portrayed as integer numbered dimensions (1-D, 2-D, 3-D, 4-D, etc.), so this would mean being a 5-D structure. It doesn't need to specifically say anything about size for this extrapolation to be made. It's simply applying the definitions of dimensionality and transcendence.

To me it seems that the stances of many others remain unchanged because that's a specific group that has a different belief about what counts as reliable evidence of something transcending a dimension on the dimensional hierarchy. That group hasn't given up on this thread yet because of impressive determination, and that group hasn't fully understood my perspective because they're very convinced that their own is the correct one. The purpose of the paragraph that you quoted here was for me to establish what the outlook of this thread is in the case that my points are the correct ones, which I'm confident is the case like how you're confident of the opposite, whether it's true or not.

Good luck with speedrunning The True Arena.

Well this part is an affirmation of your stance much like what the end of my previous response was, so I will take this moment to say...

I did in fact get a world record on The True Arena... Only to lose it a couple days afterwards. Still 2nd tho

 

[CloverDragon03]

No luck needed. @CloverDragon03 wrote that he's working on a response. It's been over a week, so you could check up on him if you're worried. Otherwise, we just need to be patient.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear

Sorry this took a while. Real life stuff happened, then I got sick, it was just a whole mess honestly

 

[DaMonkeMan]

I still think "possibly Low 1-C" is a good option

Same.
Then we make Kirby vs Sonic

 

[y3p_owo]

Same.
Then we make Kirby vs Sonic

No, no, no...

Kirby vs Arceus-

 

[Ret_of_Guys]

No, no, no...

Kirby vs Arceus-

Kirby doesn't scale to AD tho

 

[Eseseso]

Kirby doesn't scale to AD tho

Not yet...

 

[Ret_of_Guys]

Not yet...

I don't think there are feats that show that anyone actually scales to AD

 

[CloverDragon03]

I don't think there are feats that show that anyone actually scales to AD

Master Crown surviving the collapse of AD gg

Anyways we're getting off topic here, this CRT is strictly about the cosmology

 

[Eseseso]

Kirby doesn't scale to AD tho

I mean he literally scales to the collapse of AD right now, not to mention he could temporarily push back its collapse with his AP via Star Spit

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

That's the thing: Dimensional Travel also involves travel to higher dimensions, so the inability to go there without Dimensional Travel can coexist with Another Dimension being 5-D. You're creating an arbitrary standard when it comes to these pieces of evidence being used in conjunction with one another to create a cohesive argument, which I believe is why we're at such an impasse at the moment. One piece of evidence should never be enough on its own to solidly prove something, which is why I have given multiple to begin with.

Also, as I will get to later, your concerns about the "ambiguity" in Another Dimension's transcendence are wholly arbitrary.

Kirby himself doesn't need to transcend dimensions and such. A character of 3-D dimensionality can have higher than 3-D AP (look at Dragon Ball Super, for instance). In addition, your need for a "crossing of an impossible distance" is never mentioned within the Tiering System page as a requirement. Tier 1 is stated to entail: "Characters or objects that can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence." Or, in the case of locations, it should the spaces in question being qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence. So, Another Dimension is only accessible via Dimensional Travel, where you travel to Another Dimension to reach another place (like Halcandra for instance), and the Dimensional Travel page itself states that this ability involves traveling to higher planes of existence.

So again, not understanding what isn't Low 1-C here.

Also, I don't intend on antagonizing your thought process really. I'm just extrapolating your retorts, because this really should be as clear-cut Low 1-C as it gets. The points I make don't use any misinterpretations, no matter how much you claim that to be the case. There are 4-D structures within Another Dimension (hence why AD is currently 2-C, as it's using the fact that there are 15 to 16 of these structures within it), and they are small parts of AD as shown by the fact that not once does the player ever see these structures aside from when they're in the structures themselves. Another Dimension is so massively larger than 4-D structures that said structures cannot even be seen aside from being inside the 4-D realms in question.

Another Dimension transcending space-time is correct.
Another Dimension being inaccessible from 4-D structures without a rift being torn into it (honestly this is even further supported in the remake due to the rifts being portrayed as an actual tear in the fabric of the 4-D structure that morphs into the shape of a star) is correct.

I'm really not sure what you want from me.

The thing is, though, the example makes no sense. You're creating this arbitrary need for a "fashion in which it transcends space-time and mathematical dimension" when the term "transcendence" indicates a trivialization of ALL below it. "Transcend" literally means "to be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division)." As such, transcending space-time means to go beyond the range or limits of it, meaning Another Dimension goes beyond the range or limits of a 4-D structure.

Dimensions are portrayed as integer numbered dimensions (1-D, 2-D, 3-D, 4-D, etc.), so this would mean being a 5-D structure. It doesn't need to specifically say anything about size for this extrapolation to be made. It's simply applying the definitions of dimensionality and transcendence.

I can save time by shortening this matter. It'd be best for you to answer this section after reading the entirety of this message first, because there are clarifications after this section.

Your three ideas are about three individual details from the Kirby series:

1. You think that Another Dimension being stated to transcend space-time in the dimensional hierarchy sense is evidence of its size being 5D. This evidence is the best out of the three, but this signifies that it's above 4D to an unknown extent (above 4D infinity) rather than 5D (infinitely above 4D infinity), and the size of Another Dimension is not stated to be what's in question in the statements, so it could only be considered within a place like that (like a tier 2-C multiverse inside of a tier 2-A location). This evidence could only support other ideas, rather than being independent evidence.
2. You think that Another Dimension only being shown to be accessible via dimensional rifts is evidence of Another Dimension being higher-dimensional. This is not the default for how wormholes work, and there isn't official information conveying that the only possible way to get to Another Dimension is through special wormholes, so when I question you to substantiate your idea, you describe it as being consistent to the other points so this evidence is recontextualized. This means it's not independent evidence.
3. You think that Another Dimension's universes being a small part of its whole means that it's 5D. The oversight is that the universes need to be like grains of sand for the multiverse's context to potentially be 5D, which is completely absent from any reliable material we have to work with. The universes, like what we expect from a tier 2-C multiverse, are the locations that the characters travel and explore in, and are the locations with a lot going on inside of them. You've answered by writing that I'm adding needless rules, but I'm not. What I described in "1" and further into this message are the rules I see when I look at the standards of the VS Battles Wiki. You have also mentioned that this point is consistent to other ideas, recontextualizing it. Much like the previous point, it's not independent evidence.

Don't you see what's wrong? The structure of all three of your ideas aren't independent. The first one is at best supporting evidence, and the other two aren't good enough to be suitable evidence when they lack certain details that would make them reliable. This is not enough for even a "possibly" tiering. One supporting evidence is nothing without something primary or reliable to work with.

Next I will put some short clarifications based on specific parts of what you wrote, so my point won't be misrepresented.

Kirby himself doesn't need to transcend dimensions and such. A character of 3-D dimensionality can have higher than 3-D AP (look at Dragon Ball Super, for instance). [...]

I already know that. My point is about how traveling to Another Dimension is represented. It's not shown to be some sort of monumental occurrence going to a higher dimension. At its worst, it's akin to going through a fancy door, and at its best, it's treated as traveling to another universe to go through an interesting area. This is not to write that traveling to a location necessarily needs be monumental in the way I described for that location to be considered higher-dimensional, just that because the dimensional rifts that lead to Another Dimension aren't like that, your idea about the dimensional rifts is dependent because it doesn't have the context of being better than the default for wormholes, which is being a structure that can link two disconnected locations in space to each other.

[... ]There are 4-D structures within Another Dimension (hence why AD is currently 2-C, as it's using the fact that there are 15 to 16 of these structures within it), and they are small parts of AD as shown by the fact that not once does the player ever see these structures aside from when they're in the structures themselves. Another Dimension is so massively larger than 4-D structures that said structures cannot even be seen aside from being inside the 4-D realms in question.

Kirby doesn't have beyond infinite vision to be able to see the multiverse from a single universe, for there to be the context that Another Dimension is so big that even he can't see it all. The detail you wrote here isn't evidence that helps prove your idea, it's a factor that doesn't disconfirm your idea, whereas I find that the other points I have made disconfirm your idea regardless of this fact.

Another Dimension being inaccessible from 4-D structures without a rift being torn into it (honestly this is even further supported in the remake due to the rifts being portrayed as an actual tear in the fabric of the 4-D structure that morphs into the shape of a star) is correct.

They've always looked like that. Wormholes are like tears in space by default. This is not new news. It's a tear that can act as a way to travel from one universe to another. This is just basic wormhole stuff. This isn't indicative of anything more than 4D on the dimensional hierarchy.

The thing is, though, the example makes no sense. You're creating this arbitrary need for a "fashion in which it transcends space-time and mathematical dimension" when the term "transcendence" indicates a trivialization of ALL below it. "Transcend" literally means "to be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division)." As such, transcending space-time means to go beyond the range or limits of it, meaning Another Dimension goes beyond the range or limits of a 4-D structure.

Dimensions are portrayed as integer numbered dimensions (1-D, 2-D, 3-D, 4-D, etc.), so this would mean being a 5-D structure. It doesn't need to specifically say anything about size for this extrapolation to be made. It's simply applying the definitions of dimensionality and transcendence.

...to an unknown extent and not necessarily in terms of its size, like I wrote. Unless you have more evidence about what fashion Another Dimension transcends the dimensional hierarchy in, it's not a good idea to assume that the extent reaches 5D, and it's not a good idea to assume that its size is what is being referred to. What is a better idea is to infer that the statement means it's beyond 4D to an unknown extent in an unknown way, maybe in terms of its special properties that allow for time travel.

The matter being an integer + "D" is an extreme simplification of the matter when there are mathematics inside all of that, with infinities involved, like I wrote in the first section. To elaborate; a character simultaneously destroying one hundred multiverses that have infinite universes is still only tier 2-A, but I'd describe that as transcending 4D to an extent. Meanwhile, a character simultaneously destroying infinite multiverses that have infinite universes reaches 5D and tier 1.

Below are answers to social stuff.

Well this part is an affirmation of your stance much like what the end of my previous response was, so I will take this moment to say...

I did in fact get a world record on The True Arena... Only to lose it a couple days afterwards. Still 2nd tho

I see. Good job.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear

Sorry this took a while. Real life stuff happened, then I got sick, it was just a whole mess honestly

It's okay. I hope you're feeling better now.

 

[NegaNote]

Small nitpick from my reading of the tiering system FAQ, but unless it's an uncountably infinite set of multiverses containing infinite universes, it's still only tier 2.

So what is your suggestion then? Some kind of Tier 2-A+? "Unquantifiably above Tier 2 and below Tier 1"? The former at least would mean a change to the Tiering System, and I can't imagine that being an easy change, but meanwhile the latter is just awkward, and if Kirby were ever to be decided to scale to AD, it would make finding matchups just weird. Not that that would necessarily make it incorrect by itself, though Clover and Pepto and I have already made our positions clear on that front. I'm just not sure what you want out of this.

And I contest the claim that the first point could only be supporting evidence -- the fact that it isn't fully directly clarified which thing is transcending space doesn't mean AD could only be considered as part of that larger structure, it just means that that is one of the possibilities, another being that it really is the size being talked about. Just my thoughts. I remain in agreement with Clover and Pepto.

 

[James_Plays_4_Games]

Small nitpick from my reading of the tiering system FAQ, but unless it's an uncountably infinite set of multiverses containing infinite universes, it's still only tier 2.

So what is your suggestion then? Some kind of Tier 2-A+? "Unquantifiably above Tier 2 and below Tier 1"? The former at least would mean a change to the Tiering System, and I can't imagine that being an easy change, but meanwhile the latter is just awkward, and if Kirby were ever to be decided to scale to AD, it would make finding matchups just weird. Not that that would necessarily make it incorrect by itself, though Clover and Pepto and I have already made our positions clear on that front. I'm just not sure what you want out of this.

And I contest the claim that the first point could only be supporting evidence -- the fact that it isn't fully directly clarified which thing is transcending space doesn't mean AD could only be considered as part of that larger structure, it just means that that is one of the possibilities, another being that it really is the size being talked about. Just my thoughts. I remain in agreement with Clover and Pepto.

The idea of tier 2-A+ means the exact same thing as tier 2-A. It doesn't matter if it's one multiverse that has infinite universes or a bajillion multiverses that have infinite universes; it's still the same idea of an infinite amount of universes, making it tier 2-A. There isn't a need to change the Tiering System.

The first point I addressed in my previous message can only be used as supporting evidence as it stands, in our perspective of analyzing what it means using available evidence. In a different perspective, it could be different. It's "possible" that the people who wrote the statements meant what they wrote about Another Dimension in the sense that it's 5D to the standards of the VS Battles Wiki, and provided no reliable evidence to actually prove so because they didn't feel that they needed to. However, this is not how to apply a "possibly" rank, because it needs to be beyond a theory, in our perspective. If there were better information about the statements or about the factors surrounding them, then the point could be more than supporting evidence. As a comparison example; it's "possible" that the author of One-Punch Man thinks of Saitama as capable of producing infinite energy from one punch (tier High 3-A) if he were to be serious enough or grow in power enough, but currently there is no reliable evidence suggesting that idea in the perspective of observers to the standards of the VS Battles Wiki, unless they're trying to unreliably analyze the author.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I'll get to responding to this ASAP. Hopefully that's sooner than later, though I am still kinda sick and also have university work to deal with. Thanks for keeping up with the responses thus far though, James

 

[Antvasima]

I am glad that both of you are able to hold a polite and reasonable discussion regarding these issues.

 

[EMagoIorSouI]

I am glad that both of you are able to hold a polite and reasonable discussion regarding these issues.

I want to second this. I won't cite any specific examples (mainly because I don't know any off the top of my head) but I have been witness to a multitude of revision threads, particularly ones that are as long as this and the proposition itself is astronomical, where both parties will often get heated and downright aggressive with their responses to ensure their point is more vividly seen, when really I find it to be a way to easily derail and create a dissonance that disorients outsiders, as well as the initial point of their arguments and the thread itself. This thread hasn't been perfect but seeing the patience and cordiality between you guys is admirable and something not only this wiki needs more, but the nature of debating and discussing in general I feel.

To clarify, I don't really have a consensus to this proposition as I've mainly been on the sidelines following along, but by doing so I've recognized the more humble side of this community. For that, I tip my hat off to you, if you feel as if you fall under that category.