Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose I'll wait until he comes around and clarifies what "those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere" entails here. If this post is anything to go by, for instance, it seems we're fine with using an inductive argument to generalize into countably infinite dimensions. And in here all he said was "We need to know that the verse is talking about a system of mathematics that includes higher dimensions."
I think there was this that Ultima wanted clarified, but I'm not sure if this was going to be the topic of another thread or notI thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.
Okay, what did we need to apply here regarding those four examples again?I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.
Either nothing or, if we deem the questions interesting enough, we put the answers in the tiering system FAQ.Okay, what did we need to apply here regarding those four examples again?
And I revised my answer for 3 after some input from Agnaa to being upper end 1-B. If we take 3. as the statement ""no matter how many dimensions there are the character can destroy them" then that roughly equates to "can destroy n-dimensional space for every n" and hence land in that tier. (It would not equate to can destroy every n dimensional space at once. The tier for that would need extra debate due to mathematical considerations)1. is, without much more context but enough for the superiority to be at least identified as proper qualitative superiority, in my opinion to be ranked as however many dimensions the verse is known to have +1. That's because such a statement can easily refer to actually existent dimensions, and not include abstract dimensions that only exist in some mathematicians head.
2. is, if being the source scales to AP, to be ranked at the level of creating all dimensions the verse is known to have. I think being the source of dimensions quite clearly refers to just the existing ones.
4. I would default to the highest shown in the verse, unless we have somehow been told there can be unlimited ones. As a reason, consider the statement "no matter how high a building you climb on, you won't reach space". That's a reasonable statement to make and of course buildings here would be understood to only take into account what exists or is currently possible, not theoretical stuff like space elevators. In a similar manner, if a fiction has 10 stages of transcendence I would read this as meaning "no matter how high in the 10 known stages" and hence not include stages that may or may not actually exist or could exist beyond that.
or something like that.Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?
A: This would need to be evaluate similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitative superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoreticaly dimensions.
Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?
For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter how many dimensions equate to?
Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to be have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "no matter how many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse may be assumed to have.
Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would recieve.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.
So can I add that now so we can close this thread?Either nothing or, if we deem the questions interesting enough, we put the answers in the tiering system FAQ.
As a reminder the questions were:
What would the following statements equate to:
The answers were:
- "Beyond any dimensions"
- "Source of Dimensions"
- "No matter how many Dimensions"
- "No matter how high is the plane of existence"
And I revised my answer for 3 after some input from Agnaa to being upper end 1-B. If we take 3. as the statement ""no matter how many dimensions there are the character can destroy them" then that roughly equates to "can destroy n-dimensional space for every n" and hence land in that tier. (It would not equate to can destroy every n dimensional space at once. The tier for that would need extra debate due to mathematical considerations)
So, if we want to add it to the Tiering System FAQ I guess we would make 4 really small sections?
Like
or something like that.
Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?As a reminder the questions were:
What would the following statements equate to:
- "Beyond any dimensions"
- "Source of Dimensions"
- "No matter how many Dimensions"
- "No matter how high is the plane of existence"
No, because it would be an NLF to assume that "no matter how high" extends to more than the dimensions shown in the verse, but "no matter how many" has no such issue because it explicitly discusses numbers.Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?
Since it just looks like a case of substituting dimensions with planes of existence and how high with how many.
We're revising that section to be clearer.Also, do we even need to update the FAQ with such edge cases, since the FAQ kind of covers this already, I feel.
No, because it would be an NLF to assume that "no matter how high" extends to more than the dimensions shown in the verse, but "no matter how many" has no such issue because it explicitly discusses numbers.
I noticed the red highlighted wording, and it bothered me, so I asked, if there would be any difference.Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would recieve.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.
Fair enough.We're revising that section to be clearer.
That'll be reworded in the final draft.I noticed the red highlighted wording, and it bothered me, so I asked, if there would be any difference.
Not sure what "different infinities" in the third question means, so I'll leave it, but think it might need to be removed.Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?
A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.
Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?
For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter how many dimensions equate to?
Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "no matter how many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.
There is a relevant distinction.Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?
Since it just looks like a case of substituting dimensions with planes of existence and how high with how many.
Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?
A: This would need to be evaluate similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitative superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoreticaly dimensions.
Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?
For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?
Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation, it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "unlimited many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse may be assumed to have.
Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.
I usually wait to see if some staff members propose improvements on my formulations.So can I add that now so we can close this thread?
Well, dang, here I just slightly altered my proposal.Did some grammar fixes, hope they didn't change the meaning.
Not sure what "different infinities" in the third question means, so I'll leave it, but think it might need to be removed.
Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?
A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.
Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?
For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?
Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on 'all planes' including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included then it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.
@Antvasima @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Everything12 Is DontTalk's latest draft acceptable to you?I usually wait to see if some staff members propose improvements on my formulations.
Only change I'd suggest now is:Well, dang, here I just slightly altered my proposal.
Different infinities is meant to refer to cardinals. I guess I can make that more explicit. So:
Fair play. Not really my intention to derail things again, so much as to probe for what kind of statements do, and don't, fit the "1-A without infinite dimensions/hierarchy" criterion. The "beyond math" stuff can be left aside for now, but the other thing is a valid point of inquiry which I think ought to be tackled.I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.
Sounds ok. Then:Only change I'd suggest now is:
"on 'all planes' including numbers beyond the existing ones" > "whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist"
Since everyone seems to be ok with that, I will add it in a while then.Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?
A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.
Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?
For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?
Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.
Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?
Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included then it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.
I think we have not really reached a compromise yet? Like, we were interrupted before the debate was finished. So I will answer your question as I see it, but if you want to debate that further now, it should probably happen in another thread.Fair play. Not really my intention to derail things again, so much as to probe for what kind of statements do, and don't, fit the "1-A without infinite dimensions/hierarchy" criterion. The "beyond math" stuff can be left aside for now, but the other thing is a valid point of inquiry which I think ought to be tackled.
Like, my questions are really largely with regards to the compromise we reached.
I'm personally still on the fence regarding whether that's 1-A or Low 1-A, but to decide that will (at least for me) need a thread regarding that one mathematical detail I mentioned earlier.To my understanding, it seems that, if the transcendence also includes dimensions existing only abstractly (In general, not those of a specific framework), and not just the physical dimensions of the verse, we allow extrapolation to 1-A. But what kind of statements would we be looking for with regards to that, exactly?
I would just take that as beyond dimensional existence, since it's not clear that the reason the description fails is due to qualitative superiority rather than its alien nature.An example that might be relevant is a verse I mentioned being interested in indexing, a few pages ago, in this very thread. More specifically, that verse has a structure called "The Gate," which, due to its superiority over the rest of the cosmology, is unable to be expressed by any models of spacetime, and the characters explicitly note that even the inclusion of higher dimensions into said models nets no results, either. Would something like that be fine by us?
I'd be rather on the fence about that. The way it states that (and if I were to guess at the context) it sounds like it went from 3 to beyond dimensions applying to it. It doesn't sound like the idea is that it got too 'large' (or equivalent) for the dimensional hierarchy after going through it.Another statement that came to mind while I was thinking over that stuff was this one, from Hyperdimension Neptunia. Now, I don't know Neptunia whatsoever, so I won't vouch for any particular interpretation of that one scan. But, say, if a verse came around and described as realm as transcending numerical dimensions in general terms, and we knew that "transcending" meant qualitative superiority in context, would we be fine with extrapolating that to 1-A?
Thank you. Do we have anything left here before we close this thread?Ok, I added the draft to the page.
One dimension above the dimensions known to exist in the verse if no additional context is provided.and the characters that transcend the concept of dimension? as a concept it is an idea, in this case the character is not beyond the physical dimensions but the very definition of dimension itself
Mhmhm. Fair enough. Do you plan to make such a thread, yourself? Seems like you'd be most equipped to, provided some ironing out on what it's about happens first. I largely asked the previous questions because the draft you presented has some identifiable remnants of the compromise we were about to reach before the discussion was interrupted (i.e Talk of transcending theoretical dimensions, and not just physical ones), so that seemed like it could be properly ironed out.I'm personally still on the fence regarding whether that's 1-A or Low 1-A, but to decide that will (at least for me) need a thread regarding that one mathematical detail I mentioned earlier.
I guess we can close this thread.@DontTalkDT Can we close this thread?