Kirby Cosmology Upgrade Part 2

[Paul_Frank]

So the evidence used to support superiority here doesn't well, actually prove it. The Japanese used in the tweets especially, when put into context, means to go through basically.

As you can see in the OP's own linked Jisho definition, 超えて in fact, does not always mean superiority, and can mean to go through. As such, in order to determine which is more likely, you need to not just slap a few characters into Jisho, and pick out your favorite definition, you need to look at the entire context of the statement.

When doing so you, unsurprisingly, don't have it imply superiority at all. You instead roughly get (not my tl I'm too lazy to translate Kirby tweets of all things)

What was that about other dimensions when very strong power accumulated... That's right! Heine's said that "the hole" leading to Ikuwkan (another dimension) had been opened! It's perilous because it goes to another world, traversing both time and dimensions!!

It appears that the vessel in which God resides may have arrived via a particular path through different dimensions, even though it is written in a book that has not yet been fully deciphered... That space, which held that path, was once known as; "Another Dimension."

This of course makes exponentially more sense, the tunnel between dimensions ends up, in fact, being a tunnel that goes through them, and not one that transcends them infinitely.

@Ultima_Reality has already seen this on Discord and agreed it means it doesn't count as evidence, so you should call him back if you disagree, because otherwise it invalidates any votes in support of low 1-C, as the evidence for it is invalid as well

 

[Eficiente]

@Arceus0x You can bring that up to my wall or private message, and invite whoever you want. That goes for everybody and for any thread that derails into more of a personal issue.

 

[Eficiente]

So the evidence used to support superiority here doesn't well, actually prove it. The Japanese used in the tweets especially, when put into context, means to go through basically.

As you can see in the OP's own linked Jisho definition, 超えて in fact, does not always mean superiority, and can mean to go through. As such, in order to determine which is more likely, you need to not just slap a few characters into Jisho, and pick out your favorite definition, you need to look at the entire context of the statement.

When doing so you, unsurprisingly, don't have it imply superiority at all. You instead roughly get (not my tl I'm too lazy to translate Kirby tweets of all things)

This of course makes exponentially more sense, the tunnel between dimensions ends up, in fact, being a tunnel that goes through them, and not one that transcends them infinitely.

Forgot to add, while Kirby twitter is very trustworthy, it's still a tertiary way of sorts to get canon information (If you take games as primary and guides as secondary), the info comes from a lead character who isn't sure of its ancient source being fully deciphered and passed on to 2 follower characters in the first 2 posts who in turn aren't sure of what the lead character explained, and 1 follower character in the last post who is more certain of what she heard but still adds uncertainly to what she says. This adds some level of unreliability, maybe it's not like a text you would find in an encyclopedia guidebook but more so what you would find written in a promotional poster. When the DLC the twitter posts were advertising came out it said nothing about each dimension in AD being more complex than a regular dimension.

Minor thing to say.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like Eficiente and Paul_Frank have debunked the most important parts of this argument then. Is there anything else that should be applied based on this thread, or are we almost done here?

If either of them is willing to write a summary explanation post, I can send a notification to the other staff members who have responded here previously though.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Lots to reply to here, and not alot of time. Effi severely misread at least one crucial part of my sources

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted.

 

[Eficiente]

Is anyone else capable of describing what he means, having arrived at the same conclusion?

 

[Eseseso]

RIP Low 1-C Kirby

 

[Antvasima]

So which staff members have responded to this thread previously?

 

[Peptocoptr27]

On the Wikipedia page

• On top of everything it says "Dimension One of the concepts in mathematics" (次元 数学における概念の一つ), it's not that the kanji always refers to that, this meaning of the word is what the page is explaining.

Yep. Dimensions/dimensionality is one of the concepts in mathematics indeed. I know you said that "on top of everything else", but it doesn't change a thing. Especially when that page is what's linked at the end of the Jisho page, which is the one you seem to have misunderstood the most.

• • Likewise after explaining well that concepts it even says "Also, in turn, dimension may mean the structure of the world." (また、転じて次元は世界の構造を意味することがある。), tho you should already know this by the bullet point before.

It can mean a perspective/point of reference/level of something, but when you initially translated to Twitter statement, you didn't consider that a possibillity. Why is it different now? Do you really believe the statement referred to AD as transcending the structure of the world or are you using this as an excuse to say the statement is ambigious? That's what I meant when I said that I looked for alternatives as to what else the statement could mean and couldn't find one that makes sense. Neither "structure of the world" nor "perspective" really make sense here. If for some reason, you want to use "level of something" though, it would probably still support my conclusion since the Wiki page on that section goes:
"In particular, it often means that there is a difference in quality rather than a difference in quantity, and that it cannot be understood without incorporating a completely different element (dimension)."

• • The stuff in the bullet point before in turn was some warning in the place where it was explaining what that take on Dimension means, a whole section below called "Diverted expression" (転用表現) goes over other meanings the word has that, among them being Perspective / Scale, World as in reality of unknown size (which is pointed out to often be used in fiction), among other meanings.

I already brought up the first one, and the second one is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's derived from Jigen, sure, but they're not to be used interchangeably.

• You linked a version of that wikipedia page from 2011 when it falsely claimed this to be the Jap. meaning of Dimension rather than the take on the word as a concept in physics and mathematics in its categories. This would be shady as f*ck if it weren't because we're too soft to do something about it rather than to let it pass, so I again feel empty.

How do you back up your claim that it "falsely" did so? If you still think I'm shady in how I select my sources, I invite you to look up the Oxford definition of Jigen. It doesn't get much more reliable than that, and you don't even have to count on me to provide it.

The 3rt, last take it gives on the word is is Dimension as it's used in physics and mathematics, the first is just Dimension as in something else (Could be anything), and second "perspective; point of reference; level (of something)". You have no reason to overhype things when even the source you link doesn't say what you aim it to be.

You're not a Jisho user so I'll try to break this down for you once again. If Jigen merely translated to the english word "dimension" and nothing more specific, Jisho would not have included that 3rd slot. The whole reason it exists is to expand upon the first one. It's not there to provide a 3rd alternative for what Jigen could mean because by your logic and by basic common sense, the first one should already cover it. Look at other Jisho pages and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them aren't structured like that. Jigen is special because it means something more specific than "dimension". It means "(mathematical/physical dimensions)". Something the WordHippo page and the Oxford definition support. Even the Wikipedia page does so once you pay attention to the specifics.

This is some crazy idea you made up, Jigen is not just frequently used as in "reality of unknown size" in fiction,

I never said that. Why would I say that?

but there are cases of this being the case in Kirby, here for example (The Energy Spheres did not cross over the 1st dimension, 2nd, 3rt and 4th in Kirby's universe, they went into other realities/dimensions, hence they were in other realities).

They had to go through a higher dimensional space to get there, so they did cross physical dimensions. The same goes for Greater Doomer and Galacta-Knight. They're not an oversight. They're supporting evidence, and proof that Japanese people do in fact use Japanese words correctly. They don't use Jigen for, say, Magolor's home dimension/universe. They use it to describe the greater whole of AD.

The reason why you made up that only Isekai can be used as "reality of unknown" is not research but convenience, and even w/o evidence against it it would still be a monumental claim to say that a word has never been used in its most common meaning and instead has only been used in its higher take.

Not really, since said higher take is literally the definition of the word. And I didn't say that ONLY Isekai can be used for a reality of unknown size. I said that's probably the one they would use, as it often is. There are other options available to them, but Jigen is not one of them.

Again, your own sources don't exactly imply the same you say. The twitter post says neither 越える or 超える but 超えて.

I noticed. It never made a difference in any of the translations of the Tweet I've seen, and the leading kanji "超" is what serves as the distinction between the two variations. This one referring to a superiority. Unless you have proof that the difference in the final character of the word somehow makes it something other than Koeru, I don't think we're gonna go anywhere new with this.

The distinction between 越える or 超える is correct but not as rigid as you portray it, the link given to you by that person in reddit says as much "Depending on the interpretation, both can be used." (解釈によって、どちらも使えます。) And "超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)" can be interpreted with exceeding as in something being moved into another quantity, standard or limit rather than the quantity, standard or limit becoming more complex, it's the same on those context.

Depending on the interpretation, both CAN be used, yes. But that requires there to be room for interpretation in the first place. The two variations exist for a reason, and like the Reddit response that linked this page says, they each have thier own meaning so they're not mutually interchangeable. 100 years of age, quota, or a certain weigh limit are all things that you can be "beyond" in the sense of surpassing it or crossing it. It depends on how you define the limitation for each of those things since they're not exactly tangible things. You can't physically cross or be physically superior to them in any objective way, so both terms are usable, and in english, the word "beyond" encompasses both of them.
If you're described as being beyond (Keoru) a gorilla for example, you either crossed the gorilla's territory and reached the other side of it, or you're superior to the gorilla. You can say both of them depending on the context, but you can't say them interchangeably like you can with the afromentionned examples.
The same goes for being beyond (Koeru) space-time/dimensions. You either cross them, or surpass them, and that's where the variations of koeru come into play. They let us know which one it is.

Well, it's more like you were pushed into better defending your own lack of attention on the matter of Jiren.

That's projection. All of my sources were previously linked in this discussion with the exact same intent as they are now. All I did was compile them in a concise comment. You're the one who previously unfollowed the thread and was pushed into following it again because your FAQ edits didn't do anything to convert people to your side or change my arguments. You're the one who didn't comment on any of my sources until you were left no other choice.

You are missing what you make of this, which if you did and said something correct rather than something to be corrected we wouldn't be having this thread.

If I said something you agree with rather than something you disagree with, we wouldn't be having this thread. Can't argue with that. Sure.

Or how "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size", which even that is a rough way of saying it, is so easily attainable via 1 word over space-time/dimension.

Right now, it kind of is. If you don't like that, you can edit the FAQ as many times as you want. If saying it in a less rough way would help shutting down this upgrade, that would be a good place to start for you.

Forgot to add, while Kirby twitter is very trustworthy, it's still a tertiary way of sorts to get canon information (If you take games as primary and guides as secondary), the info comes from a lead character who isn't sure of its ancient source being fully deciphered and passed on to 2 follower characters in the first 2 posts who in turn aren't sure of what the lead character explained, and 1 follower character in the last post who is more certain of what she heard but still adds uncertainly to what she says. This adds some level of unreliability, maybe it's not like a text you would find in an encyclopedia guidebook but more so what you would find written in a promotional poster. When the DLC the twitter posts were advertising came out it said nothing about each dimension in AD being more complex than a regular dimension.

Minor thing to say.

Good point, actually. But I have to ask. If my assertion is correct, what good does that actually do for your side of the argument? I'm genuinely asking.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

RIP Low 1-C Kirby

Why do you constantly lose hope like that? If you agree with the upgrade, you should really get rid of that defeatist attitude. If your agreement isn't genuine, you should probably move to neutral.

So which staff members have responded to this thread previously?

I bolded thier names and even colored them red in the OP, like I said I would. The input of those in part 1 are counted in as well

 

[Eseseso]

Why do you constantly lose hope like that? If you agree with the upgrade, you should really get rid of that defeatist attitude. If your agreement isn't genuine, you should probably move to neutral.

I agree with the upgrade but too many mods oppose it even if I don't agree with their reasons for opposing.

I'm just afraid that after months of hiatus we're gonna end up achieving nothing.

 

[Arceus0x]

I agree with the upgrade but too many mods oppose it even if I don't agree with their reasons for opposing.

I'm just afraid that after months of hiatus we're gonna end up achieving nothing.

fear all you want, but bravery isn't lack of fear but rather the capability to stand up to fear and defeat it. Now be brave and do anything you can that isn't illegal or breaks the rules to support Pepto.

Personally, i don't mind even if this gets rejected since i am somewhat worried after seeing what happened to Arceus. However at the same time i am going to support this and make sure to make it go through if it is right. In my current opinion, Pepto makes perfect sense and his arguments as well, meanwhile the counterarguments so far have been rather misleading or they were misunderstanding sth...except for Everything12 who just says no cause he doesn't think its enough for whatever reason.

 

[Eficiente]

Yep. Dimensions/dimensionality is one of the concepts in mathematics indeed. I know you said that "on top of everything else", but it doesn't change a thing. Especially when that page is what's linked at the end of the Jisho page, which is the one you seem to have misunderstood the most.

This can very well be something one would explain to a kid; When Wikipedia has a page over 1 one word or character that has many uses or versions, they put next to it some indicative of what use for the word or version they're using. "Dimension One of the concepts in mathematics" means that page is about what dimension is used for as a concept in mathematics, not that this is what the word always means, just like we saying "Thor (MCU)" refers to the Thor of the MCU rather than the word Thor always refers to the Thor of the MCU. I should not be saying this because it was already abundantly clear by the comment you're replying to.

It doesn't matter how Jisho linked that because they were just aiming to explain that take of the word. This is another case "you can't disagree with that because of this other thing" when both are wrong and you know both are wrong.

It can mean a perspective/point of reference/level of something, but when you initially translated to Twitter statement, you didn't consider that a possibillity. Why is it different now? Do you really believe the statement referred to AD as transcending the structure of the world or are you using this as an excuse to say the statement is ambigious? That's what I meant when I said that I looked for alternatives as to what else the statement could mean and couldn't find one that makes sense. Neither "structure of the world" nor "perspective" really make sense here. If for some reason, you want to use "level of something" though, it would probably still support my conclusion since the Wiki page on that section goes:
"In particular, it often means that there is a difference in quality rather than a difference in quantity, and that it cannot be understood without incorporating a completely different element (dimension)."

Your approach to this is biased, no wonder you don't make sense of it if it isn't getting Low 1-C. "Structure of the world"/perspective/point of reference/level of something all make sense as the dimension is outside all that from Kirby's universe, in its own "Structure of the world"/perspective/point of reference/level of something, one would just use Dimension as in reality of unknown size because it's more fitting.

I already brought up the first one, and the second one is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's derived from Jigen, sure, but they're not to be used interchangeably.

The section called "Diverted expression" in the Jigen page tells other meanings from the take on Jigen used in math that they went on before, it's derived because it's not the same, and it is interchangeably because the same word, Jigen, can mean what they state it can mean.

How do you back up your claim that it "falsely" did so? If you still think I'm shady in how I select my sources, I invite you to look up the Oxford definition of Jigen. It doesn't get much more reliable than that, and you don't even have to count on me to provide it.

Not sure what you mean since you're not clear, I saw the changes between the modern age and the 2011 version you linked by just clicking the option to do that, or maybe you mean that it was false for the page to update itself and judged that it would be better to go out of your way to link an old version of the same page because that version looked as if it was more in line with your misguided take on things. You may link the Oxford definition of Jigen rather than telling me to look it up, it would be the 4th page already you show.

You're not a Jisho user so I'll try to break this down for you once again. If Jigen merely translated to the english word "dimension" and nothing more specific, Jisho would not have included that 3rd slot. The whole reason it exists is to expand upon the first one. It's not there to provide a 3rd alternative for what Jigen could mean because by your logic and by basic common sense, the first one should already cover it. Look at other Jisho pages and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them aren't structured like that. Jigen is special because it means something more specific than "dimension". It means "(mathematical/physical dimensions)". Something the WordHippo page and the Oxford definition support. Even the Wikipedia page does so once you pay attention to the specifics.

This is a scummy tactic,

1. nobody said that it "merely translated to the english word "dimension" and nothing more specific" and that 3rd slot shoudn't have been included, you made up that straw man.
2. The reason it exists itn't to expand upon the first one, it's an alt. take of the word. As dictionaries do.
3. Then you base your logic in that straw man you implied before, saying that by my own logic and by basic common sense, the first slot should already cover it, this is nonsensical and you try to apply it to gain more reason on the bs you were saying, which any pushover would buy into.
4. Other Jisho pages in fact aren't structured like that, too bad they would need to be structured like that, with the slots having the same take rather than saying each their own take, for you to be correct.
5. To say "Jigen is special because it means something more specific than "dimension". It means "(mathematical/physical dimensions)"" is just saying "I am right in what I believe" with no reason to it.
6. The Wikipedia page doesn't disagree with me, it didn't say anything I didn't, you just tried to have your own madman version of how I said the source didn't agree with you.

Are you going to link this WordHippo page and the Oxford definition? Your confidence on you memory of them may be too high, especially if sources only exist for you to look as if you held some reason regardless of context. Maybe you think you will be less wrong if you end up being wrong over stuff you weren't looking closely anyway and simply speaking from some memory.

I never said that. Why would I say that?

That went as in "Not only is...", which is very clear.

They had to go through a higher dimensional space to get there, so they did cross physical dimensions. The same goes for Greater Doomer and Galacta-Knight. They're not an oversight. They're supporting evidence, and proof that Japanese people do in fact use Japanese words correctly. They don't use Jigen for, say, Magolor's home dimension/universe. They use it to describe the greater whole of AD.

The text doesn't say that they had to go through a higher dimensional space, with math's take on Jigen they would be A. going across dimensions as in Kirby's universe 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rt dimension and 4th dimension, crossing between that, which they didn't, or B. going across 1st, 2nd, 3rt and 4th dimensions of many dimensions, which is counterintuitive nonsense as the objects were simply moving across many realities, not the realities' dimensions in the way math uses it. It can't be supporting evidence as that already assumes AD to be a higher dimensional space, the premise you fail to prove.

Not really, since said higher take is literally the definition of the word. And I didn't say that ONLY Isekai can be used for a reality of unknown size. I said that's probably the one they would use, as it often is. There are other options available to them, but Jigen is not one of them.

It's 1 definition of the word, the only reason you believe they use it in that take is your own flawed biased view on all this things you come across with.

I noticed. It never made a difference in any of the translations of the Tweet I've seen, and the leading kanji "超" is what serves as the distinction between the two variations. This one referring to a superiority. Unless you have proof that the difference in the final character of the word somehow makes it something other than Koeru, I don't think we're gonna go anywhere new with this.

I don't know Japanese, you should prove this makes no difference as you were the one to not use the real kanjis that were being used but some others for you to compare against it other.

Depending on the interpretation, both CAN be used, yes. But that requires there to be room for interpretation in the first place. The two variations exist for a reason, and like the Reddit response that linked this page says, they each have thier own meaning so they're not mutually interchangeable. 100 years of age, quota, or a certain weigh limit are all things that you can be "beyond" in the sense of surpassing it or crossing it. It depends on how you define the limitation for each of those things since they're not exactly tangible things. You can't physically cross or be physically superior to them in any objective way, so both terms are usable, and in english, the word "beyond" encompasses both of them.
If you're described as being beyond (Keoru) a gorilla for example, you either crossed the gorilla's territory and reached the other side of it, or you're superior to the gorilla. You can say both of them depending on the context, but you can't say them interchangeably like you can with the afromentionned examples.
The same goes for being beyond (Koeru) space-time/dimensions. You either cross them, or surpass them, and that's where the variations of koeru come into play. They let us know which one it is.

There is room for interpretation by virtue of being in a sentence where both work, otherwise you're saying "Depending on the interpretation, both CAN be used but no really", which is pretty much "That's correct, expect it's not. And that it's not correct it's the take we need to go by."

That's projection. All of my sources were previously linked in this discussion with the exact same intent as they are now. All I did was compile them in a concise comment. You're the one who previously unfollowed the thread and was pushed into following it again because your FAQ edits didn't do anything to convert people to your side or change my arguments. You're the one who didn't comment on any of my sources until you were left no other choice.

I meant your flawed beliefs over your sources, that those beliefs are wrong and that's shown better.

If I said something you agree with rather than something you disagree with, we wouldn't be having this thread. Can't argue with that. Sure.

I obviously meant that idk how you would misinterpreted something said so clearly, hence you didn't talk about it before and still don't.

Right now, it kind of is. If you don't like that, you can edit the FAQ as many times as you want. If saying it in a less rough way would help shutting down this upgrade, that would be a good place to start for you.

Again you dodge to say anything of substance and replace it with whatever gives certain people that "feel good" they would need.

Good point, actually. But I have to ask. If my assertion is correct, what good does that actually do for your side of the argument? I'm genuinely asking.

That it's more unreliable.

do anything you can that isn't illegal or breaks the rules to support Pepto.

Evolve your methods too while you're on it, the more helpless we are against things that should potentially be covered by the rules in the future the closer in time the latter comes to be, assuming we're not incompetent about it. This thread's whatever.

 

[Jinsye]

So the evidence used to support superiority here doesn't well, actually prove it. The Japanese used in the tweets especially, when put into context, means to go through basically.

As you can see in the OP's own linked Jisho definition, 超えて in fact, does not always mean superiority, and can mean to go through. As such, in order to determine which is more likely, you need to not just slap a few characters into Jisho, and pick out your favorite definition, you need to look at the entire context of the statement.

When doing so you, unsurprisingly, don't have it imply superiority at all. You instead roughly get (not my tl I'm too lazy to translate Kirby tweets of all things)

This of course makes exponentially more sense, the tunnel between dimensions ends up, in fact, being a tunnel that goes through them, and not one that transcends them infinitely.

@Ultima_Reality has already seen this on Discord and agreed it means it doesn't count as evidence, so you should call him back if you disagree, because otherwise it invalidates any votes in support of low 1-C, as the evidence for it is invalid as well

This is the sentiment that I agree with. I don't believe the Low 1-C votes are valid anymore as the context clearly shows that the tunnel between dimensions is in fact a tunnel that goes between dimensions.

And also, I will note voicing Ultima as an 'agreement' is absolutely misleading. All he said was that if it was superiority then it is Low 1-C. However, through Discord he finds it odd that he was placed on the agree section, especially with Paul's own arguments against Low 1-C.

 

[Seol404]

Just read through this, I'm in agreement with Paul.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Personally, i don't mind even if this gets rejected since i am somewhat worried after seeing what happened to Arceus.

I always said that I prefer tier 2 Kirby over tier 1 Kirby. He has way better matchups in tier 2, among other reasons. I back this upgrade because a bigger cosmology can't hurt, Kirby might not scale to it, it simplifies Another Dimension while at the same time making it more interesting, and of course, I genuinely believe it to be true, as do plenty of people off site.

This is the sentiment that I agree with. I don't believe the Low 1-C votes are valid anymore as the context clearly shows that the tunnel between dimensions is in fact a tunnel that goes between dimensions.

Tbf all the current disagreement votes except Effi's were granted very generously. E12's only reasonings were "It's not enough" and "kanjis and meaning don't matter". For a very long time, I could have denied every single disagreement vote with the very same logic as the one you're using now. The votes are still valid until we know for sure that thier foundation is debunked, and by then the whole upgrade will be invalid so...

And also, I will note voicing Ultima as an 'agreement' is absolutely misleading. All he said was that if it was superiority then it is Low 1-C.

And my claim is that it is superiority, thus, he agrees with my premise, but can neither confirm nor deny that my foundation for said premise is legitimate due to lack of knowledge on in-verse context and Japanese. That's why I counted him for agreement for the time being. He was free to switch at any moment.

However, through Discord he finds it odd that he was placed on the agree section, especially with Paul's own arguments against Low 1-C.

I also let Ultima know on Discord that I was counting his agreement vote and he didn't object. If he genhinely wishes to be counted as neutral, I can do that if it comes from him, but it would be a bit strange considering how he voiced it on the thread and in private.

Anyway, here's the deal: Despite my persistance, I don't have all the time in the world to dedicate to this thread. For the very first time in a whole year, someone is actually challenging my argument in a meaningful way. You're free to side with whoever you want, but I can't respond to all of you at once. And to any staff reading this, you absolutely shouldn't jump to the conclusion that my arguments have been debunked and that the upgrade is yours to shut down. Just let Effi and I settle this, and if things ever get circular, I have a back up proposition for that scenario.

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps it would be best if @Peptocoptr27 and @Eficiente each write a sufficiently thorough, but easily understood, explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here, along with their own views about it.

After that, I can call for all of the staff members who have responded in this thread previously, so they can evaluate the provided information.

 

[Arceus0x]

Perhaps it would be best if @Peptocoptr27 and @Eficiente each write a sufficiently thorough, but easily understood, explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here, along with their own views about it.

After that, I can call for all of the staff members who have responded in this thread previously, so they can evaluate the provided information.

I believe that is the best option. I think everyone needs to temporarily go silent while Eficiente and Peptocoptr talk about this. The only reason we should interfere is in the case that something is incorrect or misunderstood.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Perhaps it would be best if @Peptocoptr27 and @Eficiente each write a sufficiently thorough, but easily understood, explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here, along with their own views about it.

After that, I can call for all of the staff members who have responded in this thread previously, so they can evaluate the provided information.

Just so we're perfectly clear, we each get only one more comment to sum everything up and make our case and then this'll be left in the hands of the remaining staff?

 

[Arceus0x]

Just so we're perfectly clear, we each get only one more comment to sum everything up and make our case and then this'll be left in the hands of the remaining staff?

Not really just do what you two need but a summary. Is preferable here

 

[Antvasima]

Just so we're perfectly clear, we each get only one more comment to sum everything up and make our case and then this'll be left in the hands of the remaining staff?

Well, you should each write an explanation post for the situation as you understand it, after that other staff members hopefully evaluate them, but you can still respond to answer questions from them and the like afterwards.

 

[y3p_owo]

Bump

 

[Eficiente]

Peptocoptr27 should start as he didn't say what he makes of this and this in relation to what he claims.

 

[Antvasima]

Perhaps it would be best if @Peptocoptr27 and @Eficiente each write a sufficiently thorough, but easily understood, explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated here, along with their own views about it.

After that, I can call for all of the staff members who have responded in this thread previously, so they can evaluate the provided information.

@Peptocoptr27

Would you be willing to do this please?

 

[y3p_owo]

They are, but they're going to do it on August 1st, as they're too busy to finish writing it any earlier than that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. We can wait then.

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Here's a new summary. I'll my best to respond to the misunderstandings caused by the last one without repeating too much of it.

Koeru (越える vs 超える)
Here, I'll highlight the most important detail of the Jisho page, since many people don't see that the two definitions are associated with a specific form of Koeru. As you should now see, Koeru can mean either one, but each specific variation of it only has one meaning. I guess it is easy to miss when you're not looking for it, but number 1 is 越える and number 2 is 超える.

越える is used when going beyond a place, a time, or a point. (e.g. crossing the boarder, stepping over the finishing line, staying up passed midnight, etc.)
超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)

It's only when the subject of Koeru is of an ambiguous nature that either one can be used. When you live "beyond" 100 years for example, it doesn't matter if you consider 100 years a passing point or a standard for longevity, so both are usable depending on your interpretation since what you mean is just as easily understood either way. This is how it works within this specific context, but in the context of this upgrade, the difference absolutely matters hence why we're having this discussion. We need to know whether Koeru refers to crossing the subject (space-time/dimensions) or being superior to it, and thanks to the distinction, the answer is staring us right in the face. It's a superiority (超える). If Koeru merely translated to "beyond" like the english word regardless of the lead kanji, I would say that the safest interpretation would be the lowest one that reveals nothing new, but the kanjis used tell a different, more specific story.

Jigen 次元
Here is once again the WordHippo page for Jigen as per Effi's request. In it, we see that it translates both to "dimension" and "dimensionality". This is because no matter how you look at it, the term translates specifically to mathematical dimensions. It's not a one for one translation of the English word "dimension". You can even see that in the examples at the bottom.

Here is the actual dictionary definition of Jigen, which reaffirms the point made above, along with providing similar examples. It also provides two secondary definitions for Jigen, none of which make any sense in the Kirby statements at hand. Hence why I said earlier in the thread that I looked for alternatives as to what they could mean and found nothing that makes sense except for the conclusion I came to.

Here is the Jisho page for Jigen, which, unlike the other Jisho pages, bothers to define the word "dimension" in order to make it clear that it's not a one for one translation of that english word. That's the point of the #3 slot on this page. It's not a third potential translation of Jigen, because it would ultimately be made extremely redundant by the first, which should already encompass it. It's a definition that's meant to specify what they meant by "dimension" in the first place. For the other Jisho pages, this isn't a necessity like it is for this one. Even more proof that Jigen is very specific in what it means when referring to "dimensions". This is backed up by my previous two sources which are deemed reliable, so I hope you get the idea.

While the Wikipedia page for Jigen does state that a divergent/repurposed expression of it translates to "the world", that's simply another instance of the subtleties of variants in the Japanese language. The term used in this section is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's similar enough to draw a connection, but once again too different to treat them as mutually interchangeable. I also find it kind of odd how the legitimacy of my claims was brought into question due to one of my sources being a Wikipedia article, but now the only element of substance used against my conclusion is a Wikipedia article. So not only is it the least reliable source out of the ones I've provided, but it doesn't even contradict my point.

FAQ Low 1-C Standards (Qualitative Superiority)

"The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference."

Now that we know that Jigen is defined as physical dimensions, we know that the statement about AD being superior to them grants it higher dimensionality (in a verse that already has 4 dimensional space-time continuums), making it 5D. It's that straightforward. You can't be superior to the very foundation of any and all 4D structures without being 5D, and the FAQ still agree with that.

"Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."

To conclude, here's what needs to be evaluated
The legitimacy of my linguistic claims. If they're correct, so is this upgrade. There's no way around it. As everything outside of those claims is largely irrelevant in comparison, this needs to be the number 1 focus.

 

[Eficiente]

Here's a new summary. I'll my best to respond to the misunderstandings caused by the last one without repeating too much of it.

Koeru (越える vs 超える)
Here, I'll highlight the most important detail of the Jisho page, since many people don't see that the two definitions are associated with a specific form of Koeru. As you should now see, Koeru can mean either one, but each specific variation of it only has one meaning. I guess it is easy to miss when you're not looking for it, but number 1 is 越える and number 2 is 超える.

越える is used when going beyond a place, a time, or a point. (e.g. crossing the boarder, stepping over the finishing line, staying up passed midnight, etc.)
超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)

It's only when the subject of Koeru is of an ambiguous nature that either one can be used. When you live "beyond" 100 years for example, it doesn't matter if you consider 100 years a passing point or a standard for longevity, so both are usable depending on your interpretation since what you mean is just as easily understood either way. This is how it works within this specific context, but in the context of this upgrade, the difference absolutely matters hence why we're having this discussion. We need to know whether Koeru refers to crossing the subject (space-time/dimensions) or being superior to it, and thanks to the distinction, the answer is staring us right in the face. It's a superiority (超える). If Koeru merely translated to "beyond" like the english word regardless of the lead kanji, I would say that the safest interpretation would be the lowest one that reveals nothing new, but the kanjis used tell a different, more specific story.

The twitter post says neither 越える or 超える but 超えて. The distinction between 越える or 超える is correct but not as rigid as you portray it, the link given to you by that person in reddit says as much "Depending on the interpretation, both can be used." (解釈によって、どちらも使えます。) And "超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)" can be interpreted with exceeding as in something being moved into another quantity, standard or limit rather than the quantity, standard or limit becoming more complex, it's the same on those context.

Also even saying "superiority" alone does nothing.

Jigen 次元
Here is once again the WordHippo page for Jigen as per Effi's request. In it, we see that it translates both to "dimension" and "dimensionality". This is because no matter how you look at it, the term translates specifically to mathematical dimensions. It's not a one for one translation of the English word "dimension". You can even see that in the examples at the bottom.

Here is the actual dictionary definition of Jigen, which reaffirms the point made above, along with providing similar examples. It also provides two secondary definitions for Jigen, none of which make any sense in the Kirby statements at hand. Hence why I said earlier in the thread that I looked for alternatives as to what they could mean and found nothing that makes sense except for the conclusion I came to.

Here is the Jisho page for Jigen, which, unlike the other Jisho pages, bothers to define the word "dimension" in order to make it clear that it's not a one for one translation of that english word. That's the point of the #3 slot on this page. It's not a third potential translation of Jigen, because it would ultimately be made extremely redundant by the first, which should already encompass it. It's a definition that's meant to specify what they meant by "dimension" in the first place. For the other Jisho pages, this isn't a necessity like it is for this one. Even more proof that Jigen is very specific in what it means when referring to "dimensions". This is backed up by my previous two sources which are deemed reliable, so I hope you get the idea.

While the Wikipedia page for Jigen does state that a divergent/repurposed expression of it translates to "the world", that's simply another instance of the subtleties of variants in the Japanese language. The term used in this section is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's similar enough to draw a connection, but once again too different to treat them as mutually interchangeable. I also find it kind of odd how the legitimacy of my claims was brought into question due to one of my sources being a Wikipedia article, but now the only element of substance used against my conclusion is a Wikipedia article. So not only is it the least reliable source out of the ones I've provided, but it doesn't even contradict my point.

What I said before in my first 3 replies to quotes here should do, also people should look up the sources Peptocoptr27 links by themselves.

FAQ Low 1-C Standards (Qualitative Superiority)

Now that we know that Jigen is defined as physical dimensions, we know that the statement about AD being superior to them grants it higher dimensionality (in a verse that already has 4 dimensional space-time continuums), making it 5D. It's that straightforward. You can't be superior to the very foundation of any and all 4D structures without being 5D, and the FAQ still agree with that.

It never did, from this part

"Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitatively superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this."

I tried to say this before but Peptocoptr27 ignored it purposely, be it "greaten than", "superior", "transcend" as in superior or whatever word, if it's applied to a structure then that doesn't mean it's qualitatuvely superior, which is some term we use rather than 2 words and what they mean on their own put together.

Here: "In rough terms [qualitatuvely superior] means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size"."

 

[Peptocoptr27]

"The twitter post says neither 越える or 超える but 超えて."

Here's the Jisho page for 超えて then. It's literally just an inflection of 超える. I told you it made no difference. Can we move on now? This is yet another waste of space-time (pun intended?).

Also even saying "superiority" alone does nothing.

Thankfully, it's not superiority alone. I specified it's a superiority over not just space-time, but physical dimensions as a whole. Even ignoring the latter, there doesn't seem to be consensus among staff when it comes to how superiority over space-time is treated. I wish Ultima was still around. He told me he was about to retire, and I don't know how soon that's gonna be, but he's clearly just as fed up with this thread as I am, so I guess that problem will resolve itself for you when he leaves. I'm not blaming you but it does kind of suck. Still, it technically has nothing to do with the main argument in the OP so I'll have to move on. Unless someone here thinks they can find a way to make Ultima give a shit about this thread? That would be nice ngl. Anyone is free to try. His inputs were always constructive even back when he actually disagreed, so having him on the discussion could do no wrong as long as he genuinely cares imo.

What I said before in my first 3 replies to quotes here should do,

It doesn't. It's accusations of dishonesty and stuff I already explained and responded to. We're going nowhere so I'll suggest a solution at the end of this comment.

also people should look up the sources Peptocoptr27 links by themselves.

YES! Thank you! People absolutely should look up my sources for themselves! That's what I'd been waiting for.

It never did, from this part

"Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitatively superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this."

I don't understand how someone can accuse me of being this malicious person who willingly withholds and ignores information for the sake of my biased narrative when you're out here still saying that my main argument is that "it's superior to/transcends space and time". Yes, it is/does, and with further context, that can be Low 1-C as the FAQ says, but my main argument is that it's superior to mathematical dimensions. That's the "further context" if you will, the main meat of it all, and the reason why we need to focus on the legitimacy of my linguistic claims above all else, upon which even the dictionary backs me up.

I tried to say this before but Peptocoptr27 ignored it purposely, be it "greaten than", "superior", "transcend" as in superior or whatever word, if it's applied to a structure then that doesn't mean it's qualitatuvely superior, which is some term we use rather than 2 words and what they mean on their own put together.

Not only is this framing hypocritical, but it makes responding to you in a professional manner pretty difficult. On top of everything else, it's either evidence that you still don't understand my argument after more than a year, or a call to edit the FAQ again. It absolutely doesn't currently back you up on this, even after your most recent edit.

"The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference."

The FAQ doesn't say this for nothing. It's completely relevant, and isn't contradicted by anything you already quoted. If Jigen, in that Twitter statement, does translate to mathematical dimensions (which it does), then we're explicitly dealing with a superiority in dimensionality. That's a qualitative superiority even by itself, something the FAQ re-iterates here:

"Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."

If you don't like that, edit the FAQ again. Maybe then I'll finally move on to doing something more productive with my time. It's a win-win, so by all means, edit the FAQ again. I'll most likely just give up and move on to something else. I'm drained, and I'm here typing pointless VS debating shit at 1AM while the world is burning and life is passing by.

Here: "In rough terms [qualitatuvely superior] means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size"."

...which being superior to the very foundation of any and all conceivable 4D structures (dimensional axes up to 4D) would achieve.

My suggestions
1: Edit the FAQ again, and get this over with. Even if I disagree with the changes to it, at least then I'll know my upgrade is inapplicable because of actual Wiki guidelines, and not because some staff members said it's insufficient.
2: I believe that my sources on the topic of kanjis are enough to prove that AD is of a higher dimensionality than the pre-established cosmology, but the irony is that neither I or Effi are the most knowledgeable people in that particular field. The only reason we're the two people most involved in this thread is because I'm the one who started it and introduced this upgrade to a wider audience, while Effi is basically the only staff member who calls the shots when it comes to Kirby. If my proof is still not enough, and no one is willing to edit the FAQ a second time in a way that actually shuts down the upgrade, the only thing I can really do is refer you to the Japanese speaker who helped me obtain my knowledge to begin with.
He already agreed to it, so you can just DM me if that's what you really want to do, Effi.

 

[Antvasima]

Are you willing to write an explanation post for your own views about these issues, Eficiente? I can quote it together with Pepto's post above for other staff members to evaluate afterwards.

 

[Antvasima]

My suggestions
1: Edit the FAQ again, and get this over with. Even if I disagree with the changes to it, at least then I'll know my upgrade is inapplicable because of actual Wiki guidelines, and not because some staff members said it's insufficient.
2: I believe that my sources on the topic of kanjis are enough to prove that AD is of a higher dimensionality than the pre-established cosmology, but the irony is that neither I or Effi are the most knowledgeable people in that particular field. The only reason we're the two people most involved in this thread is because I'm the one who started it and introduced this upgrade to a wider audience, while Effi is basically the only staff member who calls the shots when it comes to Kirby. If my proof is still not enough, and no one is willing to edit the FAQ a second time in a way that actually shuts down the upgrade, the only thing I can really do is refer you to the Japanese speaker who helped me obtain my knowledge to begin with.
He already agreed to it, so you can just DM me if that's what you really want to do, Effi.

Also, what is this about revising our Tiering System FAQ page more specifically? Should I call for DontTalkDT, KingPin042, and Ultima_Reality?

 

[Peptocoptr27]

Also, what is this about revising our Tiering System FAQ page more specifically?

Effi says my upgrade isn't valid because of what the FAQ says. It actually is valid because of how the FAQ treats dimensional superiority (see the parts I quoted above). As such, the only way to deny the upgrade is to:

1: Edit the FAQ again to change how we treat dimensional superiorities in relation to tier 1, in a way that somehow makes it so that being superior to 4 dimensional axes no longer automatically makes you 5D.

2: Refute the linguistic claims upon which this thread is built on, which is a hard sell because the dictionary, a translation community, and a fluent Japanese speaker back me up on it. I'm waiting to see if Effi is ready to talk to him (assuming he can't find a way to edit the FAQ in a way that actually shuts down the upgrade).

I'm admittidly tired of this, and I don't think I'm the only one, so either solution is fine by me, but the most logical and feasible one would just be to accept the upgrade.

Should I call for DontTalkDT, KingPin042, and Ultima_Reality?

Ultima would certainly be nice, like I said in my last comment.

 

[Antvasima]

Here's a new summary. I'll my best to respond to the misunderstandings caused by the last one without repeating too much of it.

Koeru (越える vs 超える)
Here, I'll highlight the most important detail of the Jisho page, since many people don't see that the two definitions are associated with a specific form of Koeru. As you should now see, Koeru can mean either one, but each specific variation of it only has one meaning. I guess it is easy to miss when you're not looking for it, but number 1 is 越える and number 2 is 超える.

越える is used when going beyond a place, a time, or a point. (e.g. crossing the boarder, stepping over the finishing line, staying up passed midnight, etc.)
超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)

It's only when the subject of Koeru is of an ambiguous nature that either one can be used. When you live "beyond" 100 years for example, it doesn't matter if you consider 100 years a passing point or a standard for longevity, so both are usable depending on your interpretation since what you mean is just as easily understood either way. This is how it works within this specific context, but in the context of this upgrade, the difference absolutely matters hence why we're having this discussion. We need to know whether Koeru refers to crossing the subject (space-time/dimensions) or being superior to it, and thanks to the distinction, the answer is staring us right in the face. It's a superiority (超える). If Koeru merely translated to "beyond" like the english word regardless of the lead kanji, I would say that the safest interpretation would be the lowest one that reveals nothing new, but the kanjis used tell a different, more specific story.

Jigen 次元
Here is once again the WordHippo page for Jigen as per Effi's request. In it, we see that it translates both to "dimension" and "dimensionality". This is because no matter how you look at it, the term translates specifically to mathematical dimensions. It's not a one for one translation of the English word "dimension". You can even see that in the examples at the bottom.

Here is the actual dictionary definition of Jigen, which reaffirms the point made above, along with providing similar examples. It also provides two secondary definitions for Jigen, none of which make any sense in the Kirby statements at hand. Hence why I said earlier in the thread that I looked for alternatives as to what they could mean and found nothing that makes sense except for the conclusion I came to.

Here is the Jisho page for Jigen, which, unlike the other Jisho pages, bothers to define the word "dimension" in order to make it clear that it's not a one for one translation of that english word. That's the point of the #3 slot on this page. It's not a third potential translation of Jigen, because it would ultimately be made extremely redundant by the first, which should already encompass it. It's a definition that's meant to specify what they meant by "dimension" in the first place. For the other Jisho pages, this isn't a necessity like it is for this one. Even more proof that Jigen is very specific in what it means when referring to "dimensions". This is backed up by my previous two sources which are deemed reliable, so I hope you get the idea.

While the Wikipedia page for Jigen does state that a divergent/repurposed expression of it translates to "the world", that's simply another instance of the subtleties of variants in the Japanese language. The term used in this section is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's similar enough to draw a connection, but once again too different to treat them as mutually interchangeable. I also find it kind of odd how the legitimacy of my claims was brought into question due to one of my sources being a Wikipedia article, but now the only element of substance used against my conclusion is a Wikipedia article. So not only is it the least reliable source out of the ones I've provided, but it doesn't even contradict my point.

FAQ Low 1-C Standards (Qualitative Superiority)

Now that we know that Jigen is defined as physical dimensions, we know that the statement about AD being superior to them grants it higher dimensionality (in a verse that already has 4 dimensional space-time continuums), making it 5D. It's that straightforward. You can't be superior to the very foundation of any and all 4D structures without being 5D, and the FAQ still agree with that.


To conclude, here's what needs to be evaluated
The legitimacy of my linguistic claims. If they're correct, so is this upgrade. There's no way around it. As everything outside of those claims is largely irrelevant in comparison, this needs to be the number 1 focus.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @KingPin0422

Would any of you be willing to evaluate this post and Eficiente's following responses please?

 

[Eficiente]

I believe my last response is good enough, this could be made to last forever in a very artificial way.

 

[Arceus0x]

Man's too scared to reply

 

[Eseseso]

Man's too scared to reply

Ha!

 

[Eficiente]

I'm too tired of people acting like a bunch of kids like that, it wouldn't matter if I reply.

 

[Eseseso]

I'm too tired of people acting like a bunch of kids like that, it wouldn't matter if I reply.

Aren't we all just a bunch of, how did you put it?

Ah yes: "pushovers"?

 

[Eficiente]

Any staff can take over to do what I should here.