Low 1-A Wiki Wide Tiering Revision, Beyond Dimensions.

[DontTalkDT]

"Namely, that the statement doesn't take into account unmentioned spaces greater than everything in the verse, which we do not know can even exist" is a point that doesn't really properly address the reasoning I've made because it presupposes that the dimensions which physically exist (or can exist) in the setting are all that is relevant when it comes to indexing statements like this, which is something that I contested in my post. More specifically, I said:



As far as I can tell, you didn't address this (Though I suspect that the tangent about mathematicians and imprecise statements in the third paragraph was supposed to have been the answer. If it was, do elaborate more on it, since I don't understand how it works as a response at all), so I'll posit the question again: Do you really think that, if a verse has only 4 dimensions, and then a structure encompassing those four is described as surpassing dimensionality entirely, the structure in question can be appropriately modelled as a 5-dimensional space? Does it make sense to say that its size is on par with R⁵, even though it would exceed measure entirely? Does it make sense to say that it exceeds R⁴ in the same way R⁵ does? If so, why?

The answer is that it doesn't, because that would be taking the structure and applying to it properties that it lacks (In this case, volume), and whose foundational principles it does not participate in at all. It doesn't really matter if the dimensions in question are theoretical or physically existent, because neither notions would really apply to it regardless. So, for example, if you tried to make a measure-theoretic statement about it, you'd be unable to even write down anything because there isn't even a starting point to begin discourse about such a thing from within the framework's language. It doesn't even exist in that context, functionally speaking. It's a non-thing. In other words you might say that, even if it weren't possible for those higher dimensions to physically be brought to existence, it wouldn't really matter because of the nature of it alone.

(Inconsistent theories don't count for this argument, by the way. As you probably know, inconsistent theories have no models, which is to say there is no structure satisfying the statements in them, which is to say that they're not actually describing anything. For instance if it turns out an inaccessible cardinal doesn't exist, then there's no set that satisfies the formula describing one, and as such the formula itself might as well be air)

I can ground these questions with a scenario from a verse I've been wanting to index for a while, even. I won't get into specifics, but in that verse, there is a structure that is explicitly described as being unable to be equated to, charted out, of explained by, any model of spacetime, even when the characters attempted to include higher dimensions into the equation, due to the transcendent nature of it. Do you believe it makes sense to say the structure in question is just, itself, equivalent to something that's a couple dimensions higher? If not, what exactly distinguishes it from non-qualifying cases?

Now apply this point:



And it's not hard to see why it doesn't fall under a hasty generalization.

(And ontop of that you didn't answer a question I made: What of verses where the structure of reality is, in fact, not dictated entirely by physics? What of verses where mathematical structures are the basis of what exists?)

Also, now that I think about it, the Hitler example you made is a bad one, anyway, because by using it you're trying to make a point that generalized statements don't necessarily reflect the view and intent of the person who wrote them down, but the issue is that you're trying to use out-of-verse factors (Authorial intent) to try and make a conclusion about in-verse factors (The scope of the statement), acting as if the former is what ultimately matters, and not the latter, which is futile when the former is completely unknowable at the end of the day.

So, if a book says that "Murder is bad," then, sure, you can take this to mean that all murder is bad according to it. As for the deeper intent of the person who wrote it, though? That's a mystery. That person could've thought that murder, even if bad, is ultimately a necessary evil in certain cases. They could've indeed been against killing Hitler. They could even be a person who condones bad acts (Acknowledging something is bad doesn't mean you're against it, or specific instances of it). We just don't know, and this intent, being so cloudy, is thus a non-factor. When all we have is the text, we go by the text (And before you say something like "But the text doesn't mention that this thing is above aleph-many dimensions," the rest of this post is dedicated entirely to explaining why it doesn't need to, so, if that's on your mind, don't)


Bolded tidbit is not what my point is. Even if there is no physical mechanism that'd condition the material existence of higher dimensions, those higher dimension could still be a thing in the abstract, the logical, which segues into the argument above. Physical possibility isn't necessarily relevant here. Unicorns don't exist, sure (I wonder what one tastes like, though...), but the idea of a unicorn does.


I would say it is about author intent, yes. Whenever you mention "what is actually supposed to be going on," you, like it or not, try to invoke the intention of the person who wrote the story. If your point is actually "This statement is satisfied by much lower tiers, and as such we will choose something around that range, instead of the highest possible takeaway from it," then you're more than free to bring it up (I am doing it myself, after all. I'm not proposing that being above dimensionality is automatically Tier 0, but High 1-A), but the point about what authors know or don't know is wholly unrelated to that and not even necessary for its formulation, as you yourself agreed to when you said "But even if we assume that authors are mysterious beings with unknowable thoughts, we would still not take it like that, because other reasonable interpretations are still available." I think it borders on a non-sequitur, actually.

And then, of course, there's the fact I'm arguing that "one dimension higher" is not a rating that satisfies statements about things being above dimensionality, to begin with, so, yeah. Those paragraphs don't actually do much to address what I said. I never, once, attempted to argue anything you're accusing me of.


The Sagan Standard is a good saying but it's not really what I'd call a good principle to base your stance on. This being due to the fact that, when you get down to it, it's not really clear that something like "If a character is above dimensionality, then they are above aleph-many dimensions" is an extraordinary claim. In fact, whether it is one or not is exactly what the above discussion is all about, so if you want to mention it, that's fine, but don't expect it to have any actual weight. Without something substantiating why it is that the claims I am making are extraordinary, it's just a platitude that rings quite hollow. At most it will make your argument seem more rational to some onlookers, but that is really it.

In short what you're saying doesn't mean much when my whole argument is that existing above dimensionality is already "good really clear evidence" on par with being explicit about cardinals. I acknowledge that this doesn't necessarily invalidate your arguments done in the paragraphs above, sure, but that's not the point here: The point is that you are acting like "High 1-A should be held to higher standards of evidence" is something that directly attacks my stance, when it isn't, since my whole argument is that a specific kind of statement does, in fact, hold up to standards of evidence. So you may as well not have brought that up at all, in my view.

Whether a structure that is stated to be above dimensions in a verse with only 4 dimensions is adequately modelled as 5D space is just of no relevance. Some might be. Some might not be (like your example). However, that is purely a question of the nature of the space, not a question of size. I think the size of such a space could very well be equalised to that of a 5D space. Think of a conceptless void, which is later replaced by a 3D universe. The void can't be modelled as space or dimension of any nature, as it lacks such concepts altogether, but in terms of "size", as we use it for tiering, it can be equalized to the 3D space that replaces it. Different isn't superior. I believe I mention that roughly every time we debate something tiering-related.

Another thing I mention frequently is how you are required to meet sufficient conditions to claim something, not just necessary ones. Something being not "necessarily" restricted to existing dimensions is not a sufficient reason to consider it as definitely above such.

I believe I have sufficiently explained how laws besides physics can limit a verse's size. (or rather, how inherently there is no need for something to limit size. Nothing to give it size to begin with is sufficient.) What verses that run on mathematics are concerned: Same issue, really. Not every mathematical structure can be envisioned as space of any kind and where the line is drawn is unclear. If the statements aren't more specific, it's not hard to imagine that cardinal dimensions with their weird metrics are not necessarily considered.

And your point regarding authors is one again missing my explanation in their entirety. You can not just take the "murder is bad" statement is also applying to Hitler in the book. In the context of the book, you still need to interpret it. If you do so, you have to consider all reasonable interpretations, not just the literal one, and at least one of those would be what the author intended. Now, you don't know which that is since you can't read the authors mind, but you can't dismiss that the intended interpretation has to be amongst the possible interpretations. Otherwise, you would have failed in properly interpreting the text. Not knowing what the author thinks doesn't lead to more certainty as for which interpretation we need to take, but to less certainty. Obviously so, as it reduces the information we have. And if you think having less information can in any way justify giving a character higher ratings, then that's a sign that you should rethink your standards of reasoning. Less information can only increase the margin of error, it can never make us more certain about something.

So, to bring that back to the more specific case: If the author doesn't know about cardinals and large cardinals and stuff, then the statement wouldn't mean that. So it would be one of the viable interpretation. Now, we don't know whether or not the author intends that or not. So, operating under death of the author, we can not say "the author didn't mean cardinals are involved". However, neither can we say "the statement is mathematically literal and hence cardinals definitely are involved", as that too is making an assessment about the authors intention. We can merely say "both are some of the possible reasonable interpretations". I.e. we end up with more uncertainty. The set of possible reasonable interpretations taking author intent into account, is definitely a subset of the set of possible reasonable interpretations taking author intent not into account. In other words, if with author intention we can pick an interpretation where the character isn't High 1-A, then without it we can definitely still pick that interpretation, as we haven't gained more information that could exclude it. And, of course, that's what we would do as we never default to the massively high-end interpretations of statements.

What the whole "but not actually existing dimensions should count too!" is concerned: Nah. For a basic "above dimensions" statement you absolutely don't know whether those get considered in any way. Even if you had a "above all theoretical dimensions too!" statement you would then still need to know that the theoretical dimensions these people came up with actually cover the theories involving higher cardinals and stuff. Now, if you have that the verse actually mentions all those higher cardinals to confirm that it knows those theoretical and then have an explicit statement that the character would be above spaces of such sizes if they existed, then we have no problem. But notice how this ends up needing actual mention of those large stuff existing again?

Ultima, if "character that has no that impressive cosmological feats is actually countless infinite infinities more powerful than we have seen" is not an extraordinary claim, then I'm not sure what is. And I have my doubts that "Character x is above dimensions" is a statement anyone would consider extraordinary evidence, given how incredibly unspecific it is.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of my point, and a false equivalence ontop of that. "Nothing in this world can damage this character" is a statement that relies on things that physically exist in the verse, because something that doesn't exist cannot be said to be "in this world" under ordinary definitions. Being above dimensionality doesn't necessarily rely on the dimensions that physically exist in the setting, like I said up there, and which you yourself acknowledge to a degree when you allow characters to scale above "possible" dimensionalities. That's the point I've made that you, it seems, have left unanswered.

But, as is my point, if not even all physically existing and widely known things like a black holes would reasonably be considered in such extremely general statements without explicitly being mentioned, then there is no way physically non-existing and widely unknown things, like cardinal dimensions, are likely to be considered. That goes back to the whole thing where you can't expect lesser evidence to be believed for more extraordinary cases.

And why is that, exactly? To all of those things. If you translate that line of reasoning to the case of dimensionality, then the argument becomes "Even if the verse actually presented a space with X number of dimensions, it would still be assumptive to assume that a character described as above dimensionality would be superior to it." So, for example, you'd have to make it possible for there to be cases where a character is "beyond-dimensional" to a 2-D structure but not so to a 3-D structure, even if 3-D structures exist elsewhere in their verse, because right now you are saying that, if a statement says that a character is beyond a class of things, we won't treat them as above all things in that class even if the verse presents said things as existing physically.

Needless to say, this is an absurdity, because you are positing a fundamental difference between spaces of different dimension that makes it so you can exist beyond the nature of one without doing the same to the other, which is very much incorrect. For an n-dimensional space, all the dimensions that comprise it are interchangeable, they are the exact same dimension, ultimately. Dimensions have no ordinal positions (There is no such thing as the "first" dimension, and neither is there a "second" or "fourth" dimension. It makes no sense to consider length as coming before height, for instance, and neither does it make sense to consider height as coming before depth), and the distinction between them breaks down entirely when you examine it closely, too.

For example, take a cube. It has length, height and breadth. Now, remove the length and the breadth of it. What you have left is just a line segment standing on the vertical, laid over the y-axis, which... is literally just a length. Now remove its length and its height, and all you have now is its breadth, which ultimately is just a line segment laid over the z-axis. Once again, literally just a length. So you see here that there quite literally is no intrinsic distinction between one dimension and another. They're all the exact same.

As such, I repeat what I said up there: When you transcend one dimension, you already transcended all of them. If you are above dimension in relation to a 4-dimensional space, then you are also above it in relation to a 30-dimensional space, because all the dimensions that comprise the 30-D space are just additional lengths that are in no way different from the ones comprising the 4-D space. So if you transcend "length" (Or "measure," for the more mathematicaly inclined) in general, then you're above all those other lengths as well, not just a single one.

Because a statement like "He is so durable nothing in the universe can harm him" is an extremely unspecific throwaway statement on invulnerability that would need much more evidence to be interpreted as included infinitely strong forces. Given, if the verse has actually shown a black hole, it is becoming more reasonable. If the verse has mentioned a realistic black hole in some relation to the character it might even be somewhat reasonable. But if it's just a random throwaway statement and there was a black hole once 10 years ago in one episode, it's rather hard to say if there is actually an intended connection. Brings us back to the whole point about how statements can be interpreted in not the most literal way.

And, do I even have to take how "above one dimension = above all" is a terrible take? Like, dude, really? We just making all characters High 1-A now? "You transcend all concepts of your universe? That would include 3 dimensions. High 1-A it is!"
You can be of non-dimensional nature without transcending dimensions. And you can transcend 3 dimensions without being above 4. And you can also be both of those at once. Again, being different isn't the same as being superior. You can be unquantifiable by any dimensions and still not more powerful than 3. Or 5 or 50. How you can be described is no measure of power.



-------------------

I don't know if that's necessary as of yet. DontTalk and I exchanged just a couple posts, so far, and the thread hasn't even left the first few pages. The discussion seems like it's in its infancy, still.

I'm reasonably sure nobody aside from us reads through all of those long posts and I will never agree to your ideas of giving character ridiculously high rankings based on massive extrapolation of vague statements. So while I'm sure we can keep this debate going for ages, I doubt it will ever go anywhere. I mean, we had pretty much this same debates in several other threads and DMs in the recent years and the arguments really never gotten better.

So, if someone else wishes to enter the debate that would be worth engaging, but I doubt a debate amongst just us two will contribute much more.

 

[Tdjwo]

So, if someone else wishes to enter the debate that would be worth engaging, but I doubt a debate amongst just us two will contribute much more.

So we are allowed to contribute to the discussion as well?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So we are allowed to contribute to the discussion as well?

No, that wasn't to say that the usual staff discussion rules don't apply.

Was more in the direction that whenever staff gives their opinions, me or Ultima would probably want to comment on their arguments for obvious reasons.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Whether a structure that is stated to be above dimensions in a verse with only 4 dimensions is adequately modelled as 5D space is just of no relevance. Some might be. Some might not be (like your example). However, that is purely a question of the nature of the space, not a question of size. I think the size of such a space could very well be equalised to that of a 5D space. Think of a conceptless void, which is later replaced by a 3D universe. The void can't be modelled as space or dimension of any nature, as it lacks such concepts altogether, but in terms of "size", as we use it for tiering, it can be equalized to the 3D space that replaces it. Different isn't superior. I believe I mention that roughly every time we debate something tiering-related.

"Different isn't superior" isn't an actual rebuttal. My point is and has always been about things that are fundamentally superior to dimensionality, so by saying that, you're just ignoring what I actually said and trying to deflect the question to something else. So, to put the point back on its tracks, answer me: What if that conceptless void is superior to the 3-D universe? And for the matter I really don't see how you can be both at once.

Overall, your point seems to take it for granted that there is some measure of size called "a level of infinity" which higher dimensions and things beyond dimensionality just happen to be both equal to, which is not the case. The uncountably infinite differences that define the borders between each level of Tier 1 from Low 1-C to High 1-B are just themselves the difference between a higher dimension and a lower one. If the mechanisms behind those differences are transcended, then the difference in scope between the transcendent thing and what it transcends can't be expressed as "one dimension higher." It's as simple as that and the fact we're having a whole discussion about it is seriously concerning.

And, do I even have to take how "above one dimension = above all" is a terrible take? Like, dude, really? We just making all characters High 1-A now? "You transcend all concepts of your universe? That would include 3 dimensions. High 1-A it is!"
You can be of non-dimensional nature without transcending dimensions. And you can transcend 3 dimensions without being above 4. And you can also be both of those at once. Again, being different isn't the same as being superior. You can be unquantifiable by any dimensions and still not more powerful than 3. Or 5 or 50. How you can be described is no measure of power.

See my first point. That's a huge strawman overall, since my point was never about characters who are just different in nature from dimensionality (It was about characters who are outright superior to it from the start, which is to say that I'm talking about cases where how you can be described is, indeed, a measure of power), and moreover I already explained my reasoning for that claim, which you just responded with whataboutism and empty assertions (An example of that being the "You also can be both at once"). Of course you can be larger than 3-dimensional space without being larger than 4-dimensional space, but that just falls under this point here:

This transcendence I speak of, of course, being on a fundamental level. This is an important distinction to make because when we talk about all these fancy terms like "transcendence" and "qualitative superiority," all we really mean is "This thing has uncountably infinitely more power than this other thing," which is really not superiority over the lesser thing in any fundamental sense. Compare a 3-D object that has length, height and breadth with a 2-D object that has only length and height. The 3-D object isn't "above" the dimensions of length and height, it's just infinitely larger than something that has only those dimensions and no third one, and were you to remove 2/3 of its dimensions you'd find it is now reduced to a 1-D object.

So, if you "transcend" 3-dimensional space in the sense you describe, you're not "above dimensions" relative to it, just higher-dimensional. And as said you certainly aren't above the dimensions that make up the space.

Frankly this particular thing is really an issue of terminology: For example we use terms like "qualitatively superior" to describe the difference between dimensions, when an uncountably infinite difference in size isn't qualitative, it is, by definition, quantitative, since it involves numbers (2-dimensional space is, after all, just 1-D space multiplied by itself. Not a "qualitative superiority" any more than 2 * 2 = 4 is). Likewise "transcend" doesn't mean anything on its own, so if you use it as shorthand for "Uncountably infinite superiority in power" (As in the jump from Low 2-C to Low 1-C for example), then of course you're right, but you're also missing the point because that is not what I'm talking about at all.

Since this ties so closely with the first point, I ask that you address both at the same time, also, instead of quoting and responding to them separately. That'd be a headache to sort through.

Another thing I mention frequently is how you are required to meet sufficient conditions to claim something, not just necessary ones. Something being not "necessarily" restricted to existing dimensions is not a sufficient reason to consider it as definitely above such.

Now you're attacking the claim and not the reasoning behind the claim. Literally confusing the trees with the forest here. My arguments above already explained why that is definitely the case.

I believe I have sufficiently explained how laws besides physics can limit a verse's size. (or rather, how inherently there is no need for something to limit size. Nothing to give it size to begin with is sufficient.) What verses that run on mathematics are concerned: Same issue, really. Not every mathematical structure can be envisioned as space of any kind and where the line is drawn is unclear. If the statements aren't more specific, it's not hard to imagine that cardinal dimensions with their weird metrics are not necessarily considered.

Yes, it is hard to imagine that. We can envision any mathematical structure as a space, and the only cut-off possible is when we reach an infinite number of dimensions (Something that's irrelevant because tons of verses treat infinity as a valid notion, and we ourselves already assume physical infinities to exist by default in a verse). We don't even need to mention cardinals to see how absurd this point is: You seriously think that it's not a given that, say, a 5-dimensional space can be deemed to exist in the abstract? Even though it's literally built on the same notions which 4-D space is? (Literally just multiplying R⁴ by R). If you believe that then you're just objectively wrong.

And your point regarding authors is one again missing my explanation in their entirety. You can not just take the "murder is bad" statement is also applying to Hitler in the book. In the context of the book, you still need to interpret it. If you do so, you have to consider all reasonable interpretations, not just the literal one, and at least one of those would be what the author intended. Now, you don't know which that is since you can't read the authors mind, but you can't dismiss that the intended interpretation has to be amongst the possible interpretations. Otherwise, you would have failed in properly interpreting the text. Not knowing what the author thinks doesn't lead to more certainty as for which interpretation we need to take, but to less certainty. Obviously so, as it reduces the information we have. And if you think having less information can in any way justify giving a character higher ratings, then that's a sign that you should rethink your standards of reasoning. Less information can only increase the margin of error, it can never make us more certain about something.

So, to bring that back to the more specific case: If the author doesn't know about cardinals and large cardinals and stuff, then the statement wouldn't mean that. So it would be one of the viable interpretation. Now, we don't know whether or not the author intends that or not. So, operating under death of the author, we can not say "the author didn't mean cardinals are involved". However, neither can we say "the statement is mathematically literal and hence cardinals definitely are involved", as that too is making an assessment about the authors intention. We can merely say "both are some of the possible reasonable interpretations". I.e. we end up with more uncertainty. The set of possible reasonable interpretations taking author intent into account, is definitely a subset of the set of possible reasonable interpretations taking author intent not into account. In other words, if with author intention we can pick an interpretation where the character isn't High 1-A, then without it we can definitely still pick that interpretation, as we haven't gained more information that could exclude it. And, of course, that's what we would do as we never default to the massively high-end interpretations of statements.

You are ignoring what I said up there, namely:

And then, of course, there's the fact I'm arguing that "one dimension higher" is not a rating that satisfies statements about things being above dimensionality, so, yeah. Those paragraphs don't actually do much to address what I said.

So, that is certainly a lot of words, but ultimately they all boil down to "This statement has various interpretations, some that give out lower tiers than others, and in lieu of evidence for the higher-end interpretation, we go with the lower-end one." Fine logic, but it falls flat on its face when, again, what I am doing is precisely explaining why "one dimension higher than whatever is in the verse" is not a reasonable possible interpretation for the kind of statement we're talking about. My whole point is High 1-A is not "a massively high-end interpretation." It should just be the default one.

So, first explain why "The difference is equal to +1 dimension" is a valid interpretation for "Above dimensionality," and then you can use that argument. You say the statement is too unspecific, now explain why it is unspecific.

What the whole "but not actually existing dimensions should count too!" is concerned: Nah. For a basic "above dimensions" statement you absolutely don't know whether those get considered in any way.

Why not? Your only sort-of rebuttal to my explanation for why that, indeed, ought to be the case, seemed to be "Being different from dimensions in nature isn't being superior to them," which was a comically huge strawman when my point revolves entirely around cases where the answer to "Is this character superior to dimensionality?" is a "Yes."

Even if you had a "above all theoretical dimensions too!" statement you would then still need to know that the theoretical dimensions these people came up with actually cover the theories involving higher cardinals and stuff. Now, if you have that the verse actually mentions all those higher cardinals to confirm that it knows those theoretical and then have an explicit statement that the character would be above spaces of such sizes if they existed, then we have no problem. But notice how this ends up needing actual mention of those large stuff existing again?

Ultima, if "character that has no that impressive cosmological feats is actually countless infinite infinities more powerful than we have seen" is not an extraordinary claim, then I'm not sure what is. And I have my doubts that "Character x is above dimensions" is a statement anyone would consider extraordinary evidence, given how incredibly unspecific it is.

See, this here is a perfect example of my problems with your posts, and for the matter of why they get so long: You're just saying that things ought to be the case without explaining why they ought to be the case, and when I prod into that you just make more assertions with no reasons backing them. So, just refer to my point above.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm reasonably sure nobody aside from us reads through all of those long posts and I will never agree to your ideas of giving character ridiculously high rankings based on massive extrapolation of vague statements. So while I'm sure we can keep this debate going for ages, I doubt it will ever go anywhere. I mean, we had pretty much this same debates in several other threads and DMs in the recent years and the arguments really never gotten better.

Honestly? Nah, get back here. I've made points that I didn't make before in any of our previous short-lived debates, not to mention I already pointed out how some of your claims lead to downright absurdities, at least if translated into the context at hand. The fact that you claim that you will never agree with my ideas despite the presence of those honestly tells me you're not arguing in good faith at all.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm reasonably sure nobody aside from us reads through all of those long posts and I will never agree to your ideas of giving character ridiculously high rankings based on massive extrapolation of vague statements. So while I'm sure we can keep this debate going for ages, I doubt it will ever go anywhere. I mean, we had pretty much this same debates in several other threads and DMs in the recent years and the arguments really never gotten better.

So, if someone else wishes to enter the debate that would be worth engaging, but I doubt a debate amongst just us two will contribute much more.

No, that wasn't to say that the usual staff discussion rules don't apply.

Was more in the direction that whenever staff gives their opinions, me or Ultima would probably want to comment on their arguments for obvious reasons.

Honestly, this could be endless discussion as you stated previously, you have been both for this for eternity.
Since both of you sent your arguments, staff members can choose which one is most reasonable.

Simply ping tier 1 experts, thread moderators who are heavily interested on this expertise.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You know, the OP aside, I am a bit weirded out by all the regular users commenting here. Could have sworn that this was a staff-specific thread.

In any case:

Honestly, this could be endless discussion as you stated previously, you have been both for this for eternity.
Since both of you sent your arguments, staff members can choose which one is most reasonable.

See above. In my view DontTalk is massively exaggerating the situation, ontop of the multiple instances where he misses my points entirely in some way or another. I welcome input from other staff members, but I think more discussion is needed as well (We haven't been at it "for eternity," also. It's been 7-8 posts)

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

You should probably mainly focus on reading DontTalk's posts here.

Sorry for quoting you, but I need your help to call tier 1 staffs.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That doesn't seem like a very good counter if I may say so myself. A character having an impressive cosmology doesn't particularly matter if they're above the very foundation of what our tiers from Low 1C and 1A are based on.

The point is that you need evidence for them being above such foundations in regard to power. And, if you have no showings on that level, then it better be some good clear evidence, not just a throwaway "above dimension".

Giving characters that otherwise have just Tier 3 feats a High 1-A rating based on an "above dimensions" statement that doesn't explain what the scale of dimensions that should be considered to be involved here is, is just over-extrapolating the feat. And, to refer to the section you quoted, it's extremely "ordinary" (as in, vague and unspecific) evidence for an extremely extraordinary proposal. (Being more than infinite infinities ^ infinite stronger than their next best feat/statement)

Honestly? Nah, get back here. I've made points that I didn't make before in any of our previous short-lived debates, not to mention I already pointed out how some of your claims lead to downright absurdities, at least if translated into the context at hand. The fact that you claim that you will never agree with my ideas despite the presence of those honestly tells me you're not arguing in good faith at all.

No, I know that I won't agree with you not due to bad faith, but because I have experience of our debates and you fundamentally have brought nothing new to the table here. Like, yes, some arguments weren't made, but they all still hinge on the same fundamental problem and the same fundamental difference in our ideas, just formulated in different ways.

Your entire idea hinges on taking a statement like "above all dimensions" and applying mathematical logic to it until some extremely high end point, which nobody that doesn't make that statement in context of mathematics would ever consider (and those that do make it would probably not consider either, if we're honest, although for the reason that they consider it just in ZFC with no "above ZFC" tier intended).

I can continue making replies to your points, if you want. The debate will take long then, as I don't often have the time to invest into those long replies, and we won't reach an agreement in my experience. But I will tell you that if you don't put up an argument that uses a different fundamental idea than "If we take this statement and extrapolate it using niche mathematics to assume that it includes mathematical structures most people don't know and were never even mentioned in the verse" then you won't get my agreement.

I just don't think that

1. A statement that says "all x" should be assumed to include things that the average reader (and likely the author in this case) doesn't know, if the reader was not informed that this thing is part of the verse.
2. That things that only theoretically, but not practically, exist in reality should be included in "all x" statements of a fictional verse, if it hasn't informed us that those things are considered in any way.

as my standards of evidence are higher than to speculate on those things. And I'm fairly sure you fundamentally don't agree with that, so yeah.

 

[Tarang123]

The point is that you need evidence for them being above such foundations in regard to power. And, if you have no showings on that level, then it better be some good clear evidence, not just a throwaway "above dimension".

It's not just above dimensions. It's above dimensionality. There is a fundamental difference between the two things.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's not just above dimensions. It's above dimensionality. There is a fundamental difference between the two things.

In this context, not really. Because that point of the debate is that we have no information of the dimensionality of the verse covering anything that large either. Meaning if you are a non-dimensional entity (you can be that at every tier, it doesn't even have to be a power thing) + have higher power than all dimensions in the verse, then you are "above dimensionality" as far as the verse is concerned. Because you would be above all "dimensional things" in the verse, which can be considered sufficient to satisfy the statement of being "above dimensionality".

I.e. It's rather speculative to assume that "above dimensionality" in a statement would include things never mentioned in the verse, things possibly not existing in the verse and unknown to most people.

Consider, for contrast, what a statement of "above logic" would imply about power if we followed a similar extrapolation.

 

[Tarang123]

In this context, not really. Because that point of the debate is that we have no information of the dimensionality of the verse covering anything that large either. Meaning if you are a non-dimensional entity (you can be that at every tier, it doesn't even have to be a power thing) + have higher power than all dimensions in the verse, then you are "above dimensionality" as far as the verse is concerned. Because you would be above all "dimensional things" in the verse, which can be considered sufficient to satisfy the statement of being "above dimensionality".

While I think there's a case-by-case thing to address, I think there's a fundamental flaw. You're treating this as if it was "non-dimensional" + "beyond existing dimensionality" when that isn't particularly the case. It could be very possible that a character/structure is beyond the very system that defines dimensionality, to which it wouldn't matter that only 3 or 4 or 5 are shown, as this character/structure would be above any amount

Consider, for contrast, what a statement of "above logic" would imply about power if we followed a similar extrapolation.

But above logic statements usually only refer to something that seems strange. Context is important. When a character is stated to be above dimensionality or the concept of dimensions, that's usually to be taken literally, while being above logic is more subjective and is context-dependent

 

[DontTalkDT]

While I think there's a case-by-case thing to address, I think there's a fundamental flaw. You're treating this as if it was "non-dimensional" + "beyond existing dimensionality" when that isn't particularly the case. It could be very possible that a character/structure is beyond the very system that defines dimensionality, to which it wouldn't matter that only 3 or 4 or 5 are shown, as this character/structure would be above any amount

Could be, yeah. But it doesn't have to be. Like, I talked earlier in my replies with Ultima about the difference between sufficient and necessary. A statement like that could refer to aleph-many dimensions, yeah, but it doesn't have to refer to them. And what you need to proof is not that it could refer to them, but that it actually refering to them is the only reasonable interpretation. (Well, the only reasonable one, except ones that give even higher ratings)

And can you deny that a story could be written where such a statement was made and aleph_16 many dimensions were not involved?

But above logic statements usually only refer to something that seems strange. Context is important. When a character is stated to be above dimensionality or the concept of dimensions, that's usually to be taken literally, while being above logic is more subjective and is context-dependent

I think both are plenty context dependent. Above dimensions is often to be meant in the same sense as "above reality" or "above all physical things" and stuff.

I can also give you an alternative. I know characters that are above "all stories that can be described in words, without involving paradoxes" where stories are reality-fiction stuff that actually exists in this context. Would you extrapolate those character to be the strongest in fiction (or at least extremely high end Tier 0) based on the fact that logically most other fiction is included in this? It logically makes sense, but I personally consider it inappropriate to consider things not actually brought up like that.

 

[Tarang123]

Could be, yeah. But it doesn't have to be. Like, I talked earlier in my replies with Ultima about the difference between sufficient and necessary. A statement like that could refer to aleph-many dimensions, yeah, but it doesn't have to refer to them. And what you need to proof is not that it could refer to them, but that it actually refering to them is the only reasonable interpretation. (Well, the only reasonable one, except ones that give even higher ratings)

And can you deny that a story could be written where such a statement was made and aleph_16 many dimensions were not involved?

But why would it be referring to that? If a character is stated to be beyond the concept of dimensions, they should be logically above the very foundation that dimensions are tied to. To my knowledge, alephs aren't really exempt from that.

Sure, a story doesn't mention aleph 16 dimensions or whatever (assuming that was what you were saying), but if the character is considered to be beyond dimensionality itself (and this is consistent), then they should logically be above any number of dimensions. We already assumed in the past that this was the case, hence why verses like SMT were 1A. All that's being done is moving the post from 1A (aleph 2) to High 1A (Inaccessible Cardinal)

 

[DontTalkDT]

But why would it be referring to that? If a character is stated to be beyond the concept of dimensions, they should be logically above the very foundation that dimensions are tied to. To my knowledge, alephs aren't really exempt from that.

Sure, a story doesn't mention aleph 16 dimensions or whatever (assuming that was what you were saying), but if the character is considered to be beyond dimensionality itself (and this is consistent), then they should logically be above any number of dimensions. We already assumed in the past that this was the case, hence why verses like SMT were 1A. All that's being done is moving the post from 1A (aleph 2) to High 1A (Inaccessible Cardinal)

But that's a rather speculative interpretation. Like, we for example don't consider concepts themselves to be without Tier limit. Someone that erases the concept of space, for example, isn't assumed to be able to do so for structures larger than what they were shown to affect. We restrict any other statements to the levels shown in the fiction and not higher.

So, a character "beyond the concept of dimensions" should be above the concept that we were shown the verse to have. We don't know if the dimensionality in the verse covers the existence of things much larger than the verse itself. Much less mathematical stuff that the average person doesn't know about. How do you know their concept of dimensions doesn't end at, for example, one infinite hierarchy? That's rather speculative and ultimately what I would consider a NLF. (Most NLF don't truly have no limit, it usually is about the limit being infinitely higher than any demonstrated)

Up to this point we at least tried to restrict it to "dimensions as to how they might be in physics", rather than mathematical dimensions which don't have things like "distance" in the way we expect, although that doesn't make much sense either.

---

Anyway, while I can continue my debate with Ultima later, I think it's time to get a few more opinions from staff.

@Elizhaa @Agnaa @Everything12

You guys are listed for Tier 1-A stuff, so I will tag you. This is less about OP itself, but about Ultima's proposal to make characters stated to be "above dimensions" High 1-A.

Do you think it's reasonable? If yes, why, if no, why not? If you have the stamina to do so I invite you to read Ultima and my debate on the matter. If not, feel free to give an opinion anyway.

 

[Tarang123]

But that's a rather speculative interpretation. Like, we for example don't consider concepts themselves to be without Tier limit. Someone that erases the concept of space, for example, isn't assumed to be able to do so for structures larger than what they were shown to affect. We restrict any other statements to the levels shown in the fiction and not higher.

If someone erases the concept space, that should be looked at closely to see if it's consistent. If it's consistent, we can discuss how to tier that. That isn't the same as directly transcending the concept of dimensions.

So, a character "beyond the concept of dimensions" should be above the concept that we were shown the verse to have. We don't know if the dimensionality in the verse covers the existence of things much larger than the verse itself. Much less mathematical stuff that the average person doesn't know about. That's rather speculative and ultimately what we usually consider a NLF. (Most NLF don't truly have no limit, it usually is about the limit being infinitely higher than any demonstrated)

That doesn't particularly make sense. If a character is beyond the concept of dimensions, then the number of dimensions shown doesn't particularly matter, as the concept would naturally encompass that. The NLF point would work if someone got the conclusion of beyond all extensions of dimensionality from a statement of transcending dimensions. In a case like that, I fully agree with you that it depends on what's shown in the cosmology. But in the case being proposed by Ultima, it's transcending dimensionality (or the concept of dimensions if you want to call it that), which is a different case, which I pointed out earlier.

 

[Agnaa]

You guys are listed for Tier 1-A stuff, so I will tag you. This is less about OP itself, but about Ultima's proposal to make characters stated to be "above dimensions" High 1-A.

Do you think it's reasonable? If yes, why, if no, why not? If you have the stamina to do so I invite you to read Ultima and my debate on the matter. If not, feel free to give an opinion anyway.

I skimmed Ultima's posts on this page and found no arguments for High 1-A. He can link any posts I should read, talk to me on Discord, or make further replies here if he wants to explain those arguments.

This seems nonsensical.

We put characters who are "above dimensions" at 1-A (by default, if those dimensions qualify and are on the scale of tier 11 through to Low 1-A, without intrinsically reaching higher), since Low 1-A is the highest extent of commonly used dimensions. But if we allow any arbitrary extension, dimensions could reach any tier. I have no idea how you could single High 1-A out of that infinite well of possibility.

EDIT: Talked to Dee/Aeyu about it on Discord; she thinks that such statements should generally be 1-A, but that some really specific statements could deserve higher. I'm inclined to agree with that. If the verse defines (or even just demonstrates) dimensions in such a way that they extend into 1-A, transcending them entirely would be High 1-A, and so on for High 1-A and 0.

(I did get permission before sharing that btw)

 

[DontTalkDT]

I skimmed Ultima's posts on this page and found no arguments for High 1-A. He can link any posts I should read, talk to me on Discord, or make further replies here if he wants to explain those arguments.

This seems nonsensical.

We put characters who are "above dimensions" at 1-A (by default, if those dimensions qualify and are on the scale of tier 11 through to Low 1-A, without intrinsically reaching higher), since Low 1-A is the highest extent of commonly used dimensions. But if we allow any arbitrary extension, dimensions could reach any tier. I have no idea how you could single High 1-A out of that infinite well of possibility.

EDIT: Talked to Dee/Aeyu about it on Discord; she thinks that such statements should generally be 1-A, but that some really specific statements could deserve higher. I'm inclined to agree with that. If the verse defines (or even just demonstrates) dimensions in such a way that they extend into 1-A, transcending them entirely would be High 1-A, and so on for High 1-A and 0.

(I did get permission before sharing that btw)

If you don't mind me asking (somewhat relating to OP now), why 1-A and not Low 1-A? As Low 1-A is infinite dimesions +1, it appears like a more natural cut-off point, than infinite dimensions +2 (which is baseline 1-A).

Also, how specific does a statement in your opinion need to be to upscale to 1-A realms vs. being only above the dimensions that are known to exist in the verse?

 

[Agnaa]

Low 1-A corresponds to an uncountably infinite (aka R, aka aleph-1) instances of qualitative superiority. Qualitative superiority is greater than just being countably infinitely stronger, so it can be considered uncountable infinity aleph-1, or R. This puts Low 1-A at R^R. Which I think is as much as conventional forms of dimensions can deal with; an uncountably infinite amount of axes, each with real number lines.

I believe that was talked about when we first moved to this system.

Trasncending that puts you at the next tier. 1-A is a step beyond that in the same direction, aleph-2 layers, or R^R^R, or however you want to represent it.

Also, how specific does a statement in your opinion need to be to upscale to 1-A realms vs. being only above the dimensions that are known to exist in the verse?

It needs to go beyond "all dimensions" to something along the lines of "all possible dimensions", or talk about how even if more were added they wouldn't be enough. I'm also sympathetic to statements based on there being a coherent extendible mathematical system of dimensions (and isn't just limited to the 4 dimensions we have IRL), to which this space is incomprehensible. If that makes any sense.

Like, they have 10-D stuff, and can model more, but this higher realm is incomprehensible to any attempts at that. With cases like that, it seems easier to assume that it's 1-A, rather than having 11-D suddenly be incomprehensible for no reason.

 

[Agnaa]

After a long discussion with Ultima over Discord, we have not reached an agreement.

From what Ultima's said, my position is somewhere between his and DT's. I'm willing to accept statements about being above all dimensions as 1-A in more cases than DT is, but I'm not willing to accept all such statements as 1-A. And I'm not willing to put them at High 1-A either.

Our difference of view in terms of accepting statements seems to be that, vague statements like "beyond all dimensions" could mean a lot of things. As there's a lot of things "dimensions" could refer to. To give an incomplete list...

• The dimensions that actually exist in that reality.
• The concept of having a value that can continuously vary.
• The mathematical processes that can be validly performed on dimensions.
• The extents and other basic parameters of dimensions.

Depending on which of these things is being referred to, a different tier would come from such a statement. Ultima seems to believe that these statements rarely, if ever, refer to the dimensions that actually exist in that reality. And so, it refers to some combination of the other ideas, which leads to a far higher tier. I want more context before ruling that sort of thing out. One of the reasons that Ultima gives for this, is that if they wanted to express "larger than the dimensions that exist in our finite-dimensioned world", they could just say "higher-dimensional". My contention to that is that is that higher dimensions may not actually be able to exist in the setting, so that would be a misnomer, Ultima doesn't seem to think that this is plausible while still equating to a higher dimension in terms of the tier we give it.

While I disagree with him there, I don't think he's objectively wrong. A system could be built which operated as he suggests, I just think it would inflate tiers in a lopsided fashion. And that similar arguments, such as about reality-fiction differences, would exacerbate that. He seems to agree (in relation to reality-fiction differences as well), but seems to think that the extra accuracy is worthwhile. I don't think it's more accurate, so that's that.

I have a stronger disagreement when he talks about them not just getting 1-A but High 1-A. This is rooted in not wanting to base the definition of "dimension" in what physics uses, but in what maths uses, where it's a lot more open-ended, and could go arbitrarily far; to any higher number. The reason this stops at High 1-A and not 0 is because our tiering system begins to involve large cardinals here, which aren't proven to exist. And in fact, they aren't proven to be independent of ZFC (to where its inclusion or exclusion is arbitrary); it's wholly possible they run into an issue where they cannot logically exist.

I think it's strange to be confident enough in their existence to use it for our tiering system, but not confident enough to use it to scale to series. Ultima is fine with this, since we shouldn't be assuming that things exist, even if we make that assumption for our tiering system. Another reservation I have (that I neglected to mention to Ultima over Discord, as it only struck me now) is that for such an interpretation to not reach tier 0, is that it doesn't just rely on large cardinals being disproven, but any cardinal of that sort of size, which seems even more unlikely to me.

After all of that, aside from being less confused over Ultima's claim of High 1-A, I hold the same view as I did when I first entered this thread.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Low 1-A corresponds to an uncountably infinite (aka R, aka aleph-1) instances of qualitative superiority. Qualitative superiority is greater than just being countably infinitely stronger, so it can be considered uncountable infinity aleph-1, or R. This puts Low 1-A at R^R. Which I think is as much as conventional forms of dimensions can deal with; an uncountably infinite amount of axes, each with real number lines.

I believe that was talked about when we first moved to this system.

Trasncending that puts you at the next tier. 1-A is a step beyond that in the same direction, aleph-2 layers, or R^R^R, or however you want to represent it.

Well, depends on what you consider "conventional forms". I think the difference drawn was about the separability of the space or something? (I don't quite remember and apparently, nearly nobody does...) Personally, I feel like that would often be less relevant of a difference. For example:

I'm also sympathetic to statements based on there being a coherent extendible mathematical system of dimensions (and isn't just limited to the 4 dimensions we have IRL), to which this space is incomprehensible. If that makes any sense.

Like, they have 10-D stuff, and can model more, but this higher realm is incomprehensible to any attempts at that. With cases like that, it seems easier to assume that it's 1-A, rather than having 11-D suddenly be incomprehensible for no reason.

Let's say we accept extrapolating based on that. Wouldn't it be more natural that they can model finite, but not infinite dimensions, instead of being able to model infinite dimensions, but not non-separable spaces?

In general I would be somewhat ok with that reasoning if the way they "model" is clear enough that we can tell that it would expand that far.

It needs to go beyond "all dimensions" to something along the lines of "all possible dimensions"

Isn't that neglecting the possibilities of factors which limit dimensions to more finite amounts?

Like, in real life we don't know if infinite dimensions are possible. It could be that only 3 (and 1 time dimension) exist and that within physics there is nothing that could create more. Then the 3 we have are all possible ones.

Similarly, if we have some creator entity that creates the verse with its power, it could be that the limit on its power is the limit on possible dimensions, as nothing in the verse has the power to create something larger than a certain space.

Basically, I think the statement additionally needs to explain what "possible" means in a way that makes it clear arbitrary/infinitely many are included. Well, that or mention a number.

or talk about how even if more were added they wouldn't be enough.

That goes in the direction of the last thread. Essentially, I believe that such a statement needs to clarify in some fashion that an arbitary amount/infinite amount wouldn't be enough. Just a statement that adding a few layers makes no difference shouldn't suffice.

(the finite vs infinite difference also seems more important to me here, than the separability one, as it appear to be more arguments via being above infinite levels, than about separability)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I think Agnaa's interpretation of the inbetweener makes sense. Based on what I heard, while I don't claim to even remotely be an expert on our Low 1-A and above borders, I recall Aeyu's interpretation being what I remember. Low 1-A is basically Uncountable Infinite dimensions where as High 1-B is countable infinite. Similar to 2-A Vs baseline Low 1-C where one is countable Infinite on a 5-D scale while the other is Uncountable Infinite on the same dimensional scale. But 1-A is the truly beyond spacio temporal dimensions and where it starts. That's how I always vaguely understood it and what appears to be on what Aeyu is saying. But I really can't touch on how to reach High 1-A let alone Tier 0.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I can continue making replies to your points, if you want. The debate will take long then, as I don't often have the time to invest into those long replies, and we won't reach an agreement in my experience. But I will tell you that if you don't put up an argument that uses a different fundamental idea than "If we take this statement and extrapolate it using niche mathematics to assume that it includes mathematical structures most people don't know and were never even mentioned in the verse" then you won't get my agreement.

I just don't think that

1. A statement that says "all x" should be assumed to include things that the average reader (and likely the author in this case) doesn't know, if the reader was not informed that this thing is part of the verse.
2. That things that only theoretically, but not practically, exist in reality should be included in "all x" statements of a fictional verse, if it hasn't informed us that those things are considered in any way.

I've already explained (Sufficiently, I believe), why the status of the practical existence or nonexistence of those structures in the verse is largely irrelevant. And moreover you never really bothered to explain the bedrock behind much of your claims, such as why, for instance, an "above dimensions" statement is "too unspecific" for your tastes, or why it is wrong to think "Being above one dimension = Being above all" (This one being particularly egregious because your only response to it was, as I said, whataboutism and more claims without backing).

So, if you don't feel like answering, that's fine, but there are a good deal of things that you haven't clarified at all, which doesn't bode particularly well for your side of this discussion.

In this context, not really. Because that point of the debate is that we have no information of the dimensionality of the verse covering anything that large either. Meaning if you are a non-dimensional entity (you can be that at every tier, it doesn't even have to be a power thing) + have higher power than all dimensions in the verse, then you are "above dimensionality" as far as the verse is concerned. Because you would be above all "dimensional things" in the verse, which can be considered sufficient to satisfy the statement of being "above dimensionality".

This misses the point again, since, again, I am talking about cases where being above dimensionality is indeed a matter of power. Of course, being non-dimensional + Having greater power than the rest of the verse by raw feats is possible, but then that just means your non-dimensionality is strictly unrelated to AP (Type 0), and not of the transcendence kind at all. From the start, I was making a point about characters whose nature grants them superiority over dimensionality (Meaning their physiology is tied to their AP), not characters who are just different from any and all dimensions in nature.

Frankly, your concern seems to largely be "Can we trust that this specific takeaway from the statements is the case here?", while mine is "What tier is this character if said interpretation is indeed the case?" See what I mean when I said you missed the point at several stages of the discussion? Really, the moment you said that, you just vindicated all I said up there. Goes to show the purported "experience" you used to assess the present situation really means absolutely nothing.

So, you can keep putting together some haphazard scenarios in which things are technically "above dimensions" if you stretch it, but ultimately that's just you dodging the actual questions.

Depending on which of these things is being referred to, a different tier would come from such a statement. Ultima seems to believe that these statements rarely, if ever, refer to the dimensions that actually exist in that reality. And so, it refers to some combination of the other ideas, which leads to a far higher tier. I want more context before ruling that sort of thing out. One of the reasons that Ultima gives for this, is that if they wanted to express "larger than the dimensions that exist in our finite-dimensioned world", they could just say "higher-dimensional". My contention to that is that is that higher dimensions may not actually be able to exist in the setting, so that would be a misnomer, Ultima doesn't seem to think that this is plausible while still equating to a higher dimension in terms of the tier we give it.

I'd word this summary a bit differently, myself. From what I can gather, your point was that, even if something is described as "above dimensions," it can still have some structural principle that can be compared and equated to a higher-dimensional volume. The example you used, if I recall, was that even if some realm beyond dimensions (Relative to a 4-dimensional spacetime) can't be said to have a 5-dimensional hypervolume, it can still have, say, "blorg," which is some hypothetical principle that can be compared to one.

My point is that I think this is just a distinction without a difference, pretty much. In mathematics, if two units of measure are quantifying something completely different from another, then they can't be compared in any sensible way, and if that is not true, and there can indeed be comparisons made between them, then they're of the exact same nature. For example, you can compare height and breadth, because ultimately they are literally just length, but oriented along different axes (The y-axis for height and the z-axis for breadth). Meanwhile you can't feasibly compare, say, 2 square meters to 30 km/h. If you asked which was bigger, or smaller, that's just a nonsensical question.

So, if "blorg" is similar enough to hypervolume for the two be compared and smoothly equated, then "blorg" is really just no different from a hypervolume, and is very much a measure of space. A character (As well as us for the matter) would be able to scrutinize blorg in the same manner as they'd do to hypervolume, and so the only distinction between the two is that you named them differently. You say blorg is different, but in reality it isn't. You say "but higher dimensions might not be able to exist in the setting," but I say that the realm in question is already necessarily one if your argument applies.

To illustrate this a bit further I may as well lay down some actual definitions for those terms: When we want to speak about the everday notions of size (Length, Area, Volume...) in mathematical terms, we refer to the concept of a "measure." In the most general terms possible, the n-dimensional measure of a set is really just the smallest possible sum of n-dimensional objects that can contain that set. It's like that with the Lebensgue Measure, the standard measure used in mathematics, and with the Hausdorff Measure, which is its slightly broader generalization. So, for example, when you say that the 2-dimensional measure of a 3-dimensional set is infinity, all you're really saying is that it takes an infinite amount of 2-D things to fully cover up a 3-D thing.

if any structural principle is comparable enough to this for you to make direct comparisions (Which your stance directly implies, since it posits equality to some R^n), then it quite literally is just another measure, and as such what you're describing is not above dimensions in any sense, just a higher-dimensional space. If it lacks measure entirely, then it cannot be compared in any form. So you either: A) Are simply non-comparable to any notion of dimension/measure, not above or below it, just different, or B) You are superior to dimension and that generalizes to whatever number. It's either one or the other.

I have a stronger disagreement when he talks about them not just getting 1-A but High 1-A. This is rooted in not wanting to base the definition of "dimension" in what physics uses, but in what maths uses, where it's a lot more open-ended, and could go arbitrarily far; to any higher number. The reason this stops at High 1-A and not 0 is because our tiering system begins to involve large cardinals here, which aren't proven to exist. And in fact, they aren't proven to be independent of ZFC (to where its inclusion or exclusion is arbitrary); it's wholly possible they run into an issue where they cannot logically exist.

I think it's strange to be confident enough in their existence to use it for our tiering system, but not confident enough to use it to scale to series. Ultima is fine with this, since we shouldn't be assuming that things exist, even if we make that assumption for our tiering system. Another reservation I have (that I neglected to mention to Ultima over Discord, as it only struck me now) is that for such an interpretation to not reach tier 0, is that it doesn't just rely on large cardinals being disproven, but any cardinal of that sort of size, which seems even more unlikely to me.

You summarized my stance well enough there. As you said, I don't think assuming things exist in the context of the verse is necessarily the same as assuming they exist in the context of the Tiering System, which by and large is a framework we made ourselves, and which is external to the verse (It being applied to the fiction, and not vice-versa).

Curious about the tidbit I bolded, though. What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Firestorm808]

To clarify, a verse with the following conditions has the following interpretations:

• Portrayed/described up to 7D
• The highest realm is described as superior/beyond the primal concept of space.

Highest Realm is

DontTalk: 1-C
Agnaa: 1-A, possibly higher
Ultima Reality: 1-A, possibly High 1-A

 

[DontTalkDT]

To clarify, a verse with the following conditions has the following interpretations:

• Portrayed/described up to 7D
• The highest realm is described as superior/beyond the primal concept of space.

Highest Realm is

DontTalk: 1-C
Agnaa: 1-A, possibly higher
Ultima Reality: 1-A, possibly High 1-A

In my case this is accurate. Idk if it is for Agnaa and Ultima, due to the specific detail that you said "concept of space" rather than "concept of dimensionality", which might make a difference for their positions.

But it's best if they clarify that on their own.

 

[Firestorm808]

In my case this is accurate. Idk if it is for Agnaa and Ultima, due to the specific detail that you said "concept of space" rather than "concept of dimensionality", which might make a difference for their positions.

But it's best if they clarify that on their own.

I consider Dimensionality as just an adjective/sub-concept of the main concept of Space since it's just a word used to specify an aspect of Space.

5-D... Space, 100-D... Space, Infinite-D... Space, etc.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is wrong. Both physics and mathematics regularly use infinite dimensional models.

Which is not the same as to say that those actually exist as physical things.

I consider Dimensionality as just an adjective/sub-concept of the main concept of Space since it's just a word used to specify an aspect of Space.

5-D... Space, 100-D... Space, Infinite-D... Space, etc.

I don't agree that it's quite as straightforward, but we are not talking about my opinion right now. So, as said, it's probably better for the people in question to clarify themselves.

 

[Agnaa]

Gonna do a longer response soon, but before then.

To clarify, a verse with the following conditions has the following interpretations:

• Portrayed/described up to 7D
• The highest realm is described as superior/beyond the primal concept of space.

Highest Realm is

DontTalk: 1-C
Agnaa: 1-A, possibly higher
Ultima Reality: 1-A, possibly High 1-A

I think "the primal concept of space" isn't enough; that combat could exactly reflect what exists in reality, and hence only be 7-D.

But if it was something that qualified for me, I would only give 1-A. I wouldn't give any "possibly higher".

And from what I've heard from Ultima, I believe he would give it solidly High 1-A.

 

[Tarang123]

But if it was something that qualified for me, I would only give 1-A. I wouldn't give any "possibly higher".

What exactly would qualify for you, if I may ask. This is just to have a clear understanding of what does and doesn't qualify for the tier.

And from what I've heard from Ultima, I believe he would give it solidly High 1-A.

Yeah, he'd want it to be High 1A at minimum

 

[Agnaa]

Alright gamers, this is going to be quite the long post.

Well, depends on what you consider "conventional forms". I think the difference drawn was about the separability of the space or something? (I don't quite remember and apparently, nearly nobody does...) Personally, I feel like that would often be less relevant of a difference. For example:

Let's say we accept extrapolating based on that. Wouldn't it be more natural that they can model finite, but not infinite dimensions, instead of being able to model infinite dimensions, but not non-separable spaces?

In general I would be somewhat ok with that reasoning if the way they "model" is clear enough that we can tell that it would expand that far.

I guess that could work as a compromise? It just seems weird to me since to decently model dimensions in the first place you need to incorporate real numbers, so incorporating real numbers into another aspect of it (how many there are) doesn't seem like that much of a reach, if you're already adding multiple extra physical dimensions.

Isn't that neglecting the possibilities of factors which limit dimensions to more finite amounts?

[...]

Basically, I think the statement additionally needs to explain what "possible" means in a way that makes it clear arbitrary/infinitely many are included. Well, that or mention a number.

That's possible, but I'd expect such factors to limit the amount of dimensions to what's already demonstrated to exist elsewhere in the setting's writings (I wouldn't expect an unmentioned rule that only 12 dimensions can exist, while 9 are all that is ever mentioned), or to be established as the reason somewhere else. Like, a certain character/ability not being able to reach that higher being. So I think that those statements are clear enough in regards to establishing that arbitrarily many are included.

That goes in the direction of the last thread. Essentially, I believe that such a statement needs to clarify in some fashion that an arbitary amount/infinite amount wouldn't be enough. Just a statement that adding a few layers makes no difference shouldn't suffice.

(the finite vs infinite difference also seems more important to me here, than the separability one, as it appear to be more arguments via being above infinite levels, than about separability)

If the statement is clearly talking about a few layers, then sure, but I think statements along the lines of "No matter how many are added, it won't be enough" are already talking about an arbitrary amount. With the same caveats as before.

[If a structural feature is similar enough to dimensions to be equated to it, it is a dimension]

I think I phrased that in a bit of a bad way, giving an example which could be read as "Hypervolume but under a different name". Which is why I soon moved to the example of Extradimensional Realms, and a void (or being) who is above all Extradimensional Realms, as defined in a setting. And then positing another setting with Extradimensional Realms, or something extremely similar, but more of them, and asking whether you'd scale a character above all of the former above all of the latter.

As I said, I view the talk about dimensions as much the same. While every setting on the site would be equalised to these Extradimensional Realms, that shouldn't be enough to put them at 1-A if the statements are weak. I don't think it is actually a contradiction to say that a character's above all Extradimensional Realms in their series, but not in other series, if those other series have more. Ditto for dimensions.

From our discussion, you seemed to treat this Extradimensional Realms example with more scrutiny than if that word had been swapped for "Dimensions". Which I believe you do because "Dimensions" are the only mathematical point of comparison for our tiering system. But as I said, I think the root of the tiering system at that level is the looser term "levels of infinity". And if we were to run the hypothetical again, I don't think a character in a verse where four levels of infinity are mentioned, who says they're above "all levels of infinity" should get 1-A without more information.

Curious about the tidbit I bolded, though. What exactly do you mean by that?

I don't really know how else to phrase it. If we only scale fictional series to cardinals which are eventually proven to be compatible with ZFC, those series would only fail to reach tier 0 by your reasoning if there are no cardinals of that size ever proven to be compatible. It's not just about some specific formulations (such as large cardinals), but all possible ones. So I think it's a safe bet to say that something of that scale will eventually be found compatible. I'd find it weird for logic to make all cardinals of that scale impossible.

What exactly would qualify for you, if I may ask. This is just to have a clear understanding of what does and doesn't qualify for the tier.

I talked about that back here.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I believe this is related to the thread, so i'll ask it here. a structure has an immeasurably infinite ladder, each with qualitive superiority. However, this ladder doesnt actually get you close to the structure, but draws you away. What tier does this qualify as?

 

[Agnaa]

I believe this is related to the thread, so i'll ask it here. a structure has an immeasurably infinite ladder, each with qualitive superiority. However, this ladder doesnt actually get you close to the structure, but draws you away. What tier does this qualify as?

This is a thread about general guidelines for verses. Please don't ask questions asking for evaluations on specific verse cosmologies, unless such questions have a direct link to a point of discussion in the thread.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I guess that could work as a compromise? It just seems weird to me since to decently model dimensions in the first place you need to incorporate real numbers, so incorporating real numbers into another aspect of it (how many there are) doesn't seem like that much of a reach, if you're already adding multiple extra physical dimensions.

I mean, it's a big jump from finite to infinite information. You can for example easily make a computer do math in finite dimensional spaces of any number. However, asking it to do computations in infinite ones won't work, because you can't input the information into it.

(And infinite spaces are often not envisioned like normal spaces. Typical examples of infinite D space are those of functions and infinite sequences. To that comes that figuring out that infinity has different sizes took humanity a long time after they discovered space and numbers and stuff...)

That's possible, but I'd expect such factors to limit the amount of dimensions to what's already demonstrated to exist elsewhere in the setting's writings (I wouldn't expect an unmentioned rule that only 12 dimensions can exist, while 9 are all that is ever mentioned), or to be established as the reason somewhere else. Like, a certain character/ability not being able to reach that higher being. So I think that those statements are clear enough in regards to establishing that arbitrarily many are included.

Honestly can't agree on that one. For one we usually assume things are limited to what we're somewhat directly shown/told unless it's a thing that works like in real life (with that I mean for example we default to a real life universe size, even if fiction has shown no such size). But in real life this reasoning wouldn't hold either. In the end, I don't think operating under the idea "if there were a limit it would be said" is healthy for a vs-community. It's ultimately this kind of reasoning NLFs get based on.

It also goes against my experience of how fiction works. E.g. Demon King Daimao establishes that TLOI is above all possible stories one volume before it establishes limits on what possible stories are. That's simply done because the author had no reason to mention it earlier. And it only was relevant for a rather unrelated reason that could have easily been left out. If not for that, we might never have been told. Ultimately, authors usually don't write power for its own sake. I don't think they would bother mentioning a limit unless it's important to the story.

To that comes that, in my experience, authors often throw in such statements to make it clear that the character is inconceivable and above reality, with no deeper thought put into it.

Furthermore, as I tried to make clear, it's not like the author needs to have a firm rule in their head that "more than 12 dimensions can't exist in my setting". The author never having come up with a power and quirk of physics that would cause more than 12 to exist is enough, as then there is nothing in the setting that could possibly make them exist. In other words, the idea that if the author thought of it they would mention it goes both ways here. If the author thought up a specific rule that prevents higher Ds, they might mention it, but if they thought up an amazing thing that could make them exist, you would think that's also something that would be mentioned. But ultimately, the author frequently probably didn't think so deeply about it at all, since the statement was just meant to convey "more powerful than all others can hope to be".

If the statement is clearly talking about a few layers, then sure, but I think statements along the lines of "No matter how many are added, it won't be enough" are already talking about an arbitrary amount. With the same caveats as before.

That would work, but specifically due to the "no matter how many" which demonstrates an arbitrary amount.


Edit: Also, to talk about a case of non-mathematical nature, which are actually more frequently of relevance: How do we deal with other hierarchies? Say, stages of cultivations or higher planes / levels of existence reached by comprehending a heavenly law to some extent or R>F hierarchies? If we are talking about beings "above all possible stages/levels" would you likewise assume there are infinite unless something indicates otherwise?

 

[Agnaa]

[most of the post]

Meh, I don't have experience evaluating tier 1 verses anyway, so I probably shouldn't be commenting too authoritatively on how to do so. Your points are fair enough, and it seems like you're not too much stricter than I am.

Edit: Also, to talk about a case of non-mathematical nature, which are actually more frequently of relevance: How do we deal with other hierarchies? Say, stages of cultivations or higher planes / levels of existence reached by comprehending a heavenly law to some extent or R>F hierarchies? If we are talking about beings "above all possible stages/levels" would you likewise assume there are infinite unless something indicates otherwise?

Kind of, in that I think that using entirely different hierarchies lets you make jumps from below 1-A to 1-A, and from 1-A to High 1-A, and from High 1-A to 0. I was under the impression that this was standard practice; that verses don't need to establish an infinite number of steps in High 1-A for something that utilizes a different hierarchy to that to be tier 0.

 

[Antvasima]

I still extremely strongly agree with DontTalk here. I don't believe in systematically applying ridiculously enormous no-limit fallacies, and think that extraordinary claims should require a comparative amount of extraordinary evidence.

Also, this is still a staff only thread.

 

[Deagonx]

I deleted some of the non-staff intrusions. This is a messy enough discussion without various individuals sniping tidbits that they disagree with.

As to the discussion itself, I read through the arguments carefully, but my conclusion should be of no surprise to those that know me. I am strongly in agreement with DontTalk, and I generally lean against grandiose extrapolation in the absence of concrete information. My principle is that if interpretations X and Y are both feasible with the data we have, and only one of them involves upgrading a character an unimaginable amount, we should generally conclude that we don't have enough information to do it.

I can't think of a more egregious violation of that principle than assuming an infinite hierarchy due to a phrase as generic as "beyond all dimensions." I hold no ill will towards the opposing side here, but I just really don't see it that way at all, and I think as we delve into these esoteric tiers, our level of scrutiny should get higher, not lower.

 

[Antvasima]

Exactly.

 

[AKM sama]

I am in agreement with DT here. I have always been on the side of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For such a high tier, I don't think simple statements are sufficient. The context should be provided in detail for us to ascertain if it exactly matches our requirements. Not every statement of "beyond all dimensions" should be extrapolated to the highest level possible until and unless they come with that same level of explanation.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Jesus, I took a bit. Sorry for the wait, y'all, got caught up in some IRL business.

I think I phrased that in a bit of a bad way, giving an example which could be read as "Hypervolume but under a different name". Which is why I soon moved to the example of Extradimensional Realms, and a void (or being) who is above all Extradimensional Realms, as defined in a setting. And then positing another setting with Extradimensional Realms, or something extremely similar, but more of them, and asking whether you'd scale a character above all of the former above all of the latter.

As I said, I view the talk about dimensions as much the same. While every setting on the site would be equalised to these Extradimensional Realms, that shouldn't be enough to put them at 1-A if the statements are weak. I don't think it is actually a contradiction to say that a character's above all Extradimensional Realms in their series, but not in other series, if those other series have more. Ditto for dimensions.

From our discussion, you seemed to treat this Extradimensional Realms example with more scrutiny than if that word had been swapped for "Dimensions". Which I believe you do because "Dimensions" are the only mathematical point of comparison for our tiering system. But as I said, I think the root of the tiering system at that level is the looser term "levels of infinity". And if we were to run the hypothetical again, I don't think a character in a verse where four levels of infinity are mentioned, who says they're above "all levels of infinity" should get 1-A without more information.

I treated them with more scrutiny not entirely because of that, no, and I suppose it's my bad if it came off that way.

To explain myself a bit better: I think it ultimately boils down to rating characters based on the least possible rating that properly satisfies all of the conditions described by the verse. If you have a series of extradimensional realms, and then a void beyond them all, then this void's superiority over them can be perfectly described by a space of one dimension higher (In lieu of further information, of course). If you have a 4-dimensional spacetime, and then a 5-dimensional space that completely surrounds it and holds it as a tiny part of its bulk, then, suffice to say, this 5-D space is beyond the 4-D spacetime.

And so I think the disconnect here is largely that you seem to treat a "dimension" and a plane of existence as being (At least functionally) the same, when that's not really the case. The "extradimensional realms" in your example wouldn't be equivalent to dimensions, but to dimensional spaces, which are very different things (Things made up of dimensions, but not themselves dimensions). You can be "beyond" 2-dimensional space without being beyond 3-dimensional space, but being beyond the very dimensions making up that space is a whole different matter, like I explained in my previous post up there.

Of course, if said void is described as beyond higher-dimensional spaces as a general phenomenon, then I'd be fine with rating that as higher than +1 dimension. However, if you are beyond some higher-dimensional spaces, but not all (And thus hold a superiority over them that's able to be described as equal to the gap between a lower-dimensional space and a higher-dimensional one), then it follows that you're not really "above dimensions" in any sense, just, yourself, higher-dimensional.

And that in turn ties into the issues that you run into when you say that the root of the Tiering System is a loose concept of "levels of infinity," which higher dimensions happen to be equal to, and not higher dimensions themselves. I find that pretty silly. It's like saying "Well, this thing isn't actually x2 larger than that other thing. The difference in size between them is something that's like x2, but it's totally different, trust me." If you are uncountably infinitely larger than something else, that directly runs into higher-dimensional spaces (A cube for example can be said to be the union of uncountably infinite squares). You can't exactly refer to some vaguer measure of size that stands apart from that (Even if it you could, the topic would just shift to asking why exactly existing beyond said measure entirely would be insufficient for 1-A)

Overall I also find the argument odd because, when it comes down to it (And without taking wacky esoteric stances), math is often formulated to approximate and describe the phenomena we stumble upon in reality into a formal language. We put together systems that most closely resemble our experiences in the real world and work off of that, and when we describe things like higher dimensions using it, we're just taking the principles we know work in lower ones and generalize them further, getting results that are, for the most part, coherent.

So, suppose you have two Realms, A and B, and Realm A is superior to Realm B. If you say the difference in size between the two realms is equal to the difference in size between a higher-dimensional space and a lower-dimensional one, but that the two realms aren't literally that, then you're just speaking nonsense, because the role of mathematics in the argument is purely descriptive as is. So if two phenomena end up being described as the same (And this description is accurate), then, suffice to say, they are the same phenomenon. Saying otherwise is like if you picked a cube whose volume is 6 m³, and then pointed to another object (Ostensibly of some other nature) and said "That thing isn't 6 m³, but it is equal in size to this cube." Completely meaningless. Either it is, indeed, 6 m³ (Or some other measurement of equivalent size), or it isn't, and as such isn't equal to the cube at all.

Also, as a question directed to both you and DontTalk: Throughout this thread I noticed that a big focus was on how certain statements should be interpreted, and on whether or not specific takeways could be obtained from the most basic case possible. So, what is your opinion on more specific cases: For instance, what if a verse specifies that Realm X is fundamentally above higher dimensions in general? That could come in a myriad ways, but it can be either by going "This isn't simply a higher-dimensional space, but something even greater," or "This thing is beyond even the idea of higher dimensions," or, or "Beyond the system where dimensions are described," or "It is beyond even the quality of having dimensions at all" (So in this case it is superior to dimensionality, rather than simply "dimensions," for the latter fourth, which is a distinction I admittedly didn't think of entertaining at all until now)

I don't really know how else to phrase it. If we only scale fictional series to cardinals which are eventually proven to be compatible with ZFC, those series would only fail to reach tier 0 by your reasoning if there are no cardinals of that size ever proven to be compatible. It's not just about some specific formulations (such as large cardinals), but all possible ones. So I think it's a safe bet to say that something of that scale will eventually be found compatible. I'd find it weird for logic to make all cardinals of that scale impossible.

I don't see how that's much of a point at all, if I understand the argument correctly. Large cardinals are pretty much just stronger axioms of infinity, describing properties that further extend the initial one (Which just results in ω/aleph-0 existing). So if you have two models of set theory, N and M, the former being one where, say, inaccessible cardinals don't exist, and the latter being one where they do, the least inaccessible in the latter will be seen as a proper class in the former. Just like how, if you take out the Axiom of Infinity, then the Universe of Sets is just ω, and the natural numbers become all the ordinals and cardinals of that system.

Furthermore, as I tried to make clear, it's not like the author needs to have a firm rule in their head that "more than 12 dimensions can't exist in my setting". The author never having come up with a power and quirk of physics that would cause more than 12 to exist is enough, as then there is nothing in the setting that could possibly make them exist. In other words, the idea that if the author thought of it they would mention it goes both ways here. If the author thought up a specific rule that prevents higher Ds, they might mention it, but if they thought up an amazing thing that could make them exist, you would think that's also something that would be mentioned. But ultimately, the author frequently probably didn't think so deeply about it at all, since the statement was just meant to convey "more powerful than all others can hope to be".

This, for the matter, also falls under the above point (And it also serves as one answer to your previous objection of "But what if the verse's concept of dimensions doesn't extend that far?"). Let's use your previous example as an illustrative tool: Say, a verse has a ritual that makes it possible for dimensions to be added to the universe. However for some practical reason or other, infinite dimensions can't actually be added to the setting. Either the magicians doing said rituals can't supertask, or the ritual is simply not powerful enough to create infinitely-many dimensions. Could be whatever.

Now, given those factors, surely, a being that exists "above dimensionality" or "above all possible dimensions" would just be equal to aleph-0 dimensions, yes? No. As it turns out, when you want to talk about size beyond infinity, you will necessarily run into higher-dimensional spaces and there are no other avenues avaliable. If you want to posit that the aforementioned being is just High 1-B, then it is itself a higher-dimensional thing and thus not really "beyond dimensions." It's just beyond the dimensional spaces that can be added by manual means avaliable in the verse, which is very different. Refer to the cube analogy I made for further lampshading on the absurdities that your points lead to, also.

And, by the way, from what I see, you didn't respond to this. You really should (And for the matter to the first point I made made in here. But then again they're just reiterations of the same point anyway)

As to the discussion itself, I read through the arguments carefully, but my conclusion should be of no surprise to those that know me. I am strongly in agreement with DontTalk, and I generally lean against grandiose extrapolation in the absence of concrete information. My principle is that if interpretations X and Y are both feasible with the data we have, and only one of them involves upgrading a character an unimaginable amount, we should generally conclude that we don't have enough information to do it.

I am in agreement with DT here. I have always been on the side of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For such a high tier, I don't think simple statements are sufficient. The context should be provided in detail for us to ascertain if it exactly matches our requirements. Not every statement of "beyond all dimensions" should be extrapolated to the highest level possible until and unless they come with that same level of explanation.

As I said prior, that's fine logic, for the most part. What it doesn't address, however, is why exactly the interpretation being proposed here (That "beyond dimensions" can be satisfied just by equating that to being one dimension higher) is a feasible one at all. So far, I don't think I've gotten much of an answer to that, save for (Sort of) Agnaa's arguments, and even those are pretty lacking as far as that goes, in my view, for the reasons I laid out above.

By that token, the "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" stuff is pretty empty as well. There are no concrete parameters for what exactly constitutes "an extraordinary claim," so, until someone can answer the question above (Why "above dimensions" is equal to n+1-dimensional space), I don't see how it serves as the basis for much of anything.

 

[DontTalkDT]

"Different isn't superior" isn't an actual rebuttal. My point is and has always been about things that are fundamentally superior to dimensionality, so by saying that, you're just ignoring what I actually said and trying to deflect the question to something else. So, to put the point back on its tracks, answer me: What if that conceptless void is superior to the 3-D universe? And for the matter I really don't see how you can be both at once.

Overall, your point seems to take it for granted that there is some measure of size called "a level of infinity" which higher dimensions and things beyond dimensionality just happen to be both equal to, which is not the case. The uncountably infinite differences that define the borders between each level of Tier 1 from Low 1-C to High 1-B are just themselves the difference between a higher dimension and a lower one. If the mechanisms behind those differences are transcended, then the difference in scope between the transcendent thing and what it transcends can't be expressed as "one dimension higher." It's as simple as that and the fact we're having a whole discussion about it is seriously concerning.

It is a rebuttal in that "different form all dimensional space" isn't equivalent to "superior to all dimensional space in the ZFC Axioms". It is the latter we were debating. The point was that not being of a dimensional nature in no way absolves you of providing just as much prove of power-wise being superior to someone that can destroy x-dimensions, as a dimensional creature would need to provide. Remember, our power rating system isn't so narrow-minded as to say a Low 1-C character has to destroy 5D space, all we demand is an amount of power equivalent to one that can. And such an equivalent amount of power could be completely non-dimensional.

So, what your superiority question is concerned: Well, first the void must have proof that it is, in some sense, "bigger than 3D". Or, specifically, if a character that has ultimate power over the void should get the level of a character qualitatively superior to 3D space, then it must be proven that manipulating the void as a whole requires power equivalent to the amount that would be necessary to manipulate 4D space (/ equivalent to manipulating something more than baseline infinite x stronger than 3D). Let's say the void has provided that evidence. Then it now is at least as "big" (or, more specifically, significantly affecting it is power-wise equivalent) to the level of 4D size. It's not actually that big, cause we have no size associated with it, but it is equivalent. Want it to be even equivalent to 1-A or High 1-A? Well, then you need evidence that significantly affecting it is power-wise equivalent to affecting as many levels of infinity as those tiers transcend. Just being non-dimensional and above 3D is not evidence that infinitely more levels of infinity of power is required.

And levels of infinity are not inherently bound to things dimensional in nature. If you think that, then you have not understood our system of composite hierarchies, which is indeed concerning. First, yes I take it for granted that something like a level of infinity exists. Because we have to rank all fictions relative to each other using a single measuring stick. Said measuring stick being our tiering system. And said tiering system has different levels i.e. tiers. And some tiers are finite, others span infinite gaps. And each infinite gap is then, logically, a level of infinity. The existence of levels of infinity is inevitable in vs-debating, all that changes is what those levels are equalized to. In our case, each gap is supposed to be as large as a dimensional jump, yes. However, it's not that we say each is an actual dimensional jump, just that characters at a certain tier need to have power equivalent to those with a certain amounts of dimensional jumps. Hence just being non-dimensional is not equivalent to being above infinite levels of infinity. The mechanics of dimensions may not apply to you, but the mechanics of different scales of power that you can be equated to still do.

Now, to be clear, we wouldn't have this debate if you demanded close to sufficient evidence for properly "transcending" the mechanics of dimensionality. The evidence you demand of just "being above dimensionality" as a throwaway statement just doesn't suffice for proving "transcendence" in the fashion you would like to have it. Just having the mechanics of dimensionality not apply to you, doesn't mean that you are above all unmentioned things those mechanics could potentially mathematically bring forth. Just having evidence that your are power-wise above x dimensions, doesn't proof you are also above x+2 dimensions. And both together, still don't prove you are infinite levels stronger. It just proves that the mechanisms of dimensionality don't apply to you and that you are more powerful than those who can destroy x dimensions.

The amount of evidence you need to "transcend the mechanism" the way you imagine it is just bigger.

First, the mechanism would need to be specified closer than just "dimensions". Is it the mechanism by which the (as far as we know in our examples) finite amount of dimensions in the verse was created? E.g. is it the mechanism by which the laws of physics produced those dimensions? Or maybe is it the mechanism by which a god produced those dimensions? Or is it maybe not those, but a mechanism based on a mathematical idea like induction, i.e. we have n-dimensions right now and nothing stops us from always adding 1 more? That would be reasoning appropriate for Low 1-A. Is it a mechanism in which aleph-many dimensions for any aleph exist? Well, then you might actually have yourself High 1-A on hand. However, you can't just guess which is meant based on your notion of what seems the most straightforward meaning of "above dimensions". The text needs to actually say what it is.

And the second requirement is quite simply a clear notion that what is meant by transcending the mechanism isn't just it not applying to you, but that every space and object that can be brought forth by that mechanism is transcended.

So, for example, if you have an "above all possible dimensions"-type of statement and then a specification "it is possible to add 1 more dimensions to space at any time", then that is an ok Low 1-A feat. But that level of specificness is necessary.

This, for the matter, also falls under the above point (And it also serves as one answer to your previous objection of "But what if the verse's concept of dimensions doesn't extend that far?"). Let's use your previous example as an illustrative tool: Say, a verse has a ritual that makes it possible for dimensions to be added to the universe. However for some practical reason or other, infinite dimensions can't actually be added to the setting. Either the magicians doing said rituals can't supertask, or the ritual is simply not powerful enough to create infinitely-many dimensions. Could be whatever.

Now, given those factors, surely, a being that exists "above dimensionality" or "above all possible dimensions" would just be equal to aleph-0 dimensions, yes? No. As it turns out, when you want to talk about size beyond infinity, you will necessarily run into higher-dimensional spaces and there are no other avenues avaliable. If you want to posit that the aforementioned being is just High 1-B, then it is itself a higher-dimensional thing and thus not really "beyond dimensions." It's just beyond the dimensional spaces that can be added by manual means avaliable in the verse, which is very different. Refer to the cube analogy I made for further lampshading on the absurdities that your points lead to, also.

No, it would be above dimensions in a legitimate interpretation of what that meant. It would just not be "above every dimension possible to be constructed in ZFC". However, that it is was never said.

The being would still fulfill other interpretations of "above dimensionality" such as

1. Above the idea of dimensions anyone in the verse (and possibly the author) knows about. They don't know aleph stuff, so the statement just mean the ones they know.
2. Above all dimensions that can exist. Other dimensions can't as far as we know, so "dimensionality" as a mechanism might not extend to infinity in this fiction. It might just be that in this fiction a property of dimensionality is essentially to be finite dimensional, as a higher thing can't be produced.
3. Above all physical dimensions. Maybe non-physical ones are a things, but those are not what is meant with the vague statement.

That aside, you posit that the High 1-B character (it should be Low 1-A IMO, as we transcend any finite amount of dimensions and as such also their union, but that aside) would be dimensional, but that is not true. As said, you can be not of a dimensional nature regardless of tier. If a tier 6 character (or power) could be non-dimensional then a High 1-B one can as well. So, if you were trying to make an induction type argument with the reasoning "if character transcends infinite dimensions + character is dimensional, then that proves dimensional stuff of more than infinite dimensions exist, so the character is not above infinity dimension, hence more must exist" then you fail at the stage were you posit that the character transcending infinite dimensions is of dimensional nature. It can just not be.

(Honestly, weird argument, because even if we interpreted it as equating to be above ZFC you could do the same argument. "Spatial being above ZFC proves Large Cardinal dimensions exist, so Large Cardinals are proven. Hence character actually Tier 0")

I've already explained (Sufficiently, I believe), why the status of the practical existence or nonexistence of those structures in the verse is largely irrelevant. And moreover you never really bothered to explain the bedrock behind much of your claims, such as why, for instance, an "above dimensions" statement is "too unspecific" for your tastes, or why it is wrong to think "Being above one dimension = Being above all" (This one being particularly egregious because your only response to it was, as I said, whataboutism and more claims without backing).

So, if you don't feel like answering, that's fine, but there are a good deal of things that you haven't clarified at all, which doesn't bode particularly well for your side of this discussion.

I believe I have explained why I disagree with those points and sufficiently at that. You just don't agree with my explanations. You can disagree with them but don't pretend I haven't given any explanation at all.

To give you a reminder in the shortest possible form:

1. A believe "above dimensions" is too unspecific, because it can, in my opinion, rightfully be interpreted to mean things other than transcending all dimensional spaces that can be constructed in ZFC. A statement can potentially mean anything a reasonable reader of the work might interpret them as and many reasonable readers don't have the mathematical background to even consider this interpretation i.e. other interpretations of the scope of dimensions meant are plausible. As specific examples I named things like that it could mean dimensions limited to the knowledge of mathematics that is applied to the verse, dimensions that physically exist in the verse or dimensions that could potentially be produced in the verse.
2. I don't think "Being above one dimension = Being above all" due to... obvious reason IMO? Every character with power to transcend 4D space, but not 5D is a counterexample to the notion as such. That's why we have tiers between 2-A and 1-A. There are tons of degrees of power between those levels imaginable. And not just dimensional degrees of power, but also R>F stuff which we don't upgrade to High 1-A just due to being qualitatively above one dimension either. Like, dimensional spaces have different sizes. Obviously being above a small size doesn't imply being above all the larger ones, too...