Hm. Been a fair while.
Nevertheless: Reading through all of this, I see some people seem to be under the idea that the new addition to the FAQ page debunks the proposals on this thread, which, as far as I see, it doesn't. If you are superior in nature to a spacetime continuum, rather than simply being outside of it, then you, for all intents and purposes, do qualify for Low 1-C.
To be exact, this is because a spacetime continuum is, as a default, assumed to be infinite (Its 4-dimensional volume is infinite, that is to say. Finite spacetimes aren't really the assumption in modern physics, and you'll often find them in hypotheses discredited as unlikely, like the Big Crunch), and when a space is infinite, you are either smaller than it, the same size as it (Note that this can still be the case even if you contain said space as a subset of yourself), or uncountably larger than it (In case you are, in fact, bigger). So, if some notion of superiority is expressed in the text, the third option is all you can default to, unless spacetime is explicitly finite here, or something.
So, as I see it, trying to argue against this upgrade ought to be less "I accept the evidence, but think it doesn't qualify for Low 1-C anyway" and more "The evidence is not valid," if anything, because accepting the evidence as sound is just tantamount to conceding. Of course, I've no idea of whether or not the evidence does, in fact, do that, and nor I am interested in discussing it, so, I'd rather leave that to whoever is knowledgeable in Kirby.
