They have not, no, and i've already explained why they haven't been properly addressed. If you want to respond once more, that's fine, but don't brush aside me pointing out why you've missed my points as simply "You didn't like my answers." Explain how exactly they address my arguments to begin with, because I certainly can explain how mine address yours. The fact you wrote something doesn't mean said thing is valid.
Your opinion that they have not been properly addressed is based on your opinion that they didn't adequately answer your argument, while I think they did. So yeah, it's fundamentally related to not considering my points valid answers. Like, imagine you agreed with everything I said, would you still think it doesn't address stuff?
Indeed it isn't, which is why I was never talking about characters who are simply different from dimensions, but outright superior to them in nature. So bringing up that kind of character is pretty useless as a point.
The point you are missing here is what I said superiority in nature can be fulfilled by. Namely, being superior to in nature is fulfilled if you're
a) not of that nature. I.e. in this case not being dimensional. BDE Type 1 or 2. Otherwise, you would have to be superior to yourself, after all.
b) superior to the thing in itself. I.e. superior to the dimensions that there are in the fiction. The nature of something is determined by what it is. If in a verse dimensions don't include the whole ZFC hierarchy, then it also isn't part of the nature of dimensions in that verse. And, as frequently expressed, it is not a reasonable extrapolation to assume ZFC is per default part of every verse's idea of dimensions.
So it all comes around the fact that I (and apparently others) don't agree on vast extrapolations beyond the stuff mentioned in the verse.
And as I've said above, that's pretty much just nonsense, or at least nonsense when scaled down to this level. Refer to the analogy I've made up there:
So far, you haven't really explained what exactly it is that makes a beyond-dimensional character in any way "equivalent" to a character who is one dimensional jump above the rest of their verse, in scope. And for the matter the fact they're both "bigger than n-D" (For some n in-verse) doesn't create an equality in scope. That's a textbook false equivalence, in fact, because you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different in nature just because they share one loose property (Superiority over some level of existence). So it's not much better than arguing that apples and oranges most taste the same because they're both round and are fruits.
As said prior. You're either just completely different from dimensions in nature, and as such not comparable to them at all in terms of physicality, or your nature is one wholly superior to them. No real middle ground here. There are quantities that can't be meaningfully compared to each other even in the same universe: Asking whether a kilometer is bigger than 3 kg is a nonsense question, after all. Naturally the same would apply when you're trying to equate the scope of something spatial to the scope of something non-spatial.
We are, fundamentally, only comparing one thing: Power. And all characters have to have something that corresponds to power and is comparable to power in other verses. Otherwise, they could be untierable. That as well I have explained already.
So, first, I'm not comparing the size of a non-dimensional realm to a dimensional one. I am comparing the power needed to destroy a non-dimensional realm to the power needed to destroy a dimensional one.
I made the analogy of a void that could house a 3D realm before and said that destroying it could then be considered equivalent to 3D destruction or, more abstractly, that its "size" is equivalent to that of 3D space. To go more into detail on that: The reason I would accept it being 3D is that if you can destroy the void as a whole then you should reasonably be capable of doing the same when it has the 3D space inside, so you have to have at least as much power as needed to destroy the 3D space. If not for that, destroying the dimensionless void would be untierable. Note that I do not mean to say the void has a 3D size in a literal mathematical sense, this is only an analogy I use to describe how it would be treated for feats that involve the void, such as destruction.
That is one example of how I can talk about dimensionless things having tiering differences that can be equalized to those of dimensions. A void that can hold a 4D space inside has a better feat than the one that can hold only 3D space in it. When evaluating feats of destroying them, we would rank the former as the same power as destroying a 4D space and the latter as the same power as destroying 3D space, a relative power difference equivalent to that of destroying space 1 dimension higher. Two non-dimensional things, but the power differences involved can be the same.
I also mentioned composite hierarchies, which are another good example. Allow me to quote from our
Reality-Fiction page:
Reality-Fiction Transcendence is a state where a being is
qualitatively superior to another world, as a result of seeing the world as fiction and thus being more 'real' than said world. Due to this, the character will be treated as completely superior to the cosmology it transcends, and all characters limited to it, and will thus be granted a higher tier.
For example, if a character were to view an entire space-time continuum as fiction, they would be superior to such an extent that finite, or even basic infinite, differences in power cannot overcome their superiority. Thus, they would be treated as more than infinitely greater, such as in this case Low 1-C. The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity.
We acknowledge that, contrary to the difference between dimensional space, a R>F difference is not one of quantity, but of quality. As even infinity in fiction can not harm reality, we default to R>F being a power difference equal to the relative gap between an n-dimensional space and an n+1 dimensional space. We usually formulate those gaps as "more than countably infinite times greater". Basically, if you are that much powerful than some other thing, then you are one dimensional level bigger even if no dimensions are involved. This would for example even apply if you had a dimensionless void and then a R>F difference to a higher level of reality that is likewise dimensionless. I assume you knew that much.
In other words, we have a system where stacking relative differences of similar size to the difference between the size of dimensional spaces can get you the same tiers, as destroying constructs of certain dimensions, even without such constructs being involved.
And I believe that sufficiently answers the point. Assume you have a verse in which at most 6 dimensions can exist. And a non-dimensional character views those 6 dimensions as fiction. By the standard reasoning for R>F this character has power equivalent to that needed to destroy 7D space, but is not actually 7D. It's non-dimensional. So in this verse it can, by the criteria I laid out, reasonably be called superior in nature to dimensions and yet is not High 1-A.
It ultimately works because we don't just compare everything to dimensional space, but we use the
power to destroy them as measuring stick.
Given, your argument is also in so far weird as that the alternative would be to just say they are untierable, as large cardinal dimensions don't represent non-dimensional objects in nature either. If you assert that a being above dimensions can't have a tier based on a dimensional measuring stick, large cardinal many dimensions would just also be out. But as said, I don't think the argument of non-dimensional characters not being able to have dimensional differences in power is sound to begin with. Their relative difference of power between each other can just be anything.
(Also, despite R>F logically being able to cover any written or imaginable description, including ZFC, we don't rank characters based on extrapolating from that. Just for comparison)
A non-dimensional character certainly could be Tier 6, yes. You can have a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 off of a feat of destroying Britain (Amen) with great effort, for instance. However, what you can't really have is a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 due to being as large as Britain (Because being comparable in size to Britain would mean space applies to them and as such would contradict their alleged non-dimensionality). That dials back up to a previous point of mine: Either you are simply different from dimensions, and as such not comparable to any dimensional space, or you are above them outright.
Right now, your point eeems to be that "above dimensions" is satisfied by simply being of a distinct nature from all dimensionality + Having more AP than the dimensional things present in the verse, which is a pretty wacky point to make because it'd simply mean that the AP of that character is not on a non-dimensional level. For instance a character who is non-dimensional but Tier 7 would physically be exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would nevertheless be on a finite energy level just the same. Same here. A character who is non-dimensional but High 1-B would be physically exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would be on an infinite-dimensional level.
So, again, just dodging the point entirely. By that logic a Low 2-C character could be described as "beyond dimensions" if they have Type 1 BDE and a feat of effortlessly blowing up a timeline (In a verse where only that timeline exists), which is something obviously different from what I'm talking about, since even the FAQ says "Above dimensions in relation to a 4-D cosmology would be Low 1-C."
Well, I think you can guess my reply to this part based on what I got into based on the above.
To expand further on a few things: You can have power in an equivalent amount to that needed for some dimensional feat without said power in itself being dimensional. That's again the whole composite hierarchy thing. The moment we talk about BDE characters we straight up start ignoring the idea that "power" is dimensional, as otherwise those characters should just have no power at all.
In fact, by saying that their power is above the verse's dimensions, the fiction already establishes the power comparable to the power of destroying spaces of a certain number of dimensions. So you are actually constructing a false dilemma. You say that non-dimensional power can't be any tier below High 1-A (disagree with that for reason I explained) and then argue that by process of elimination the character is High 1-A. What you neglect is that we could say that the aspect that the character is non-dimensional is just untierable, as it neither carries evidence for things the size of ZFC structures in the verse being a thing nor anything lower, and hence have to base our judgement on the next best feat. Said next best feat being the comparison that its power is at least superior to whatever is needed to destroy the verse's dimensions.
Basically, you're making a roundabout argument to basically say "because our tiering system has ZFC many dimensional levels we must assume all fictional verses do as well". We equalize what verses show in power into our linear system as well as we can. We don't assume that they actually follow or consider our system in any way when they come up with their powerlevels. An argument of how many levels of infinity the power of some character transcends can't involve the specification of how we build our system. It must logically stand on the fiction's own logic.
And, as said, if we assessed that such equivalences couldn't be made then what you describe would just be untierable. Because even High 1-A is fundamentally a tier with a dimensional measuring stick, just that the number of dimensions here is described by some additional axioms.
Not really the case, if cardinals beyond ZFC don't really exist at all. The character could be just something akin to the Universe of Sets itself for instance.
Either that goes against your own reasoning or you're actually arguing that those characters should be Tier 0, not just High 1-A.
If you argue the Universe of Sets is non-dimensional, but not above all possible large cardinal dimensions, then you are contradicting yourself. Since you basically argued that a non-dimensional power can't be describable by a tier based on dimensional stuff (with that dimensional stuff not being limited to what the verse considers) and large cardinal many dimensions would satisfy that. If you argue that such a thing can exist and be comparable to such a tier, then I can claim the same for lower tiers. Say, I can define a collection of sets which contains R^4 as subset in addition to several smaller sets and on which you can't define a metric, topology or dimensions at all. The set would then be larger than R^4 by the same reasoning the universe of sets is bigger than dimensions, yet it could only consist of several subsets of R^5 and hence be smaller, all while not carrying any spatial structures. E.g. a character that is {R^4, {}, R^2, (1,1,4,5,7), [1,4]^4 x {2,1}}.
Alternatively, you argue the Universe of Sets only qualifies if above truly every possible sense of dimensions one could come up with, i.e. all large cardinals included, and hence is Tier 0.
All of those specific cases are being contested up there, so, not gonna scatter the points around by bringing up my objections to them here, really.
(Though I find it weird that you use "It could just be beyond the idea of dimensions within the scope of the mathematical knowledge present in the verse" and yet say a feat like that is just equal to one dimensional jump above the cosmology, because I'd certainly say higher finite numbers of dimensions are within the same scope of knowledge as 3-D or 4-D space)
In essence, the above really didn't address the cases, which is the failure of the argument. You argued based on what the tiering system things dimensions work like and neglected that fiction doesn't care. Ultimately, fiction can do what it wants and we have to account for that. We can't force our views on it.
What the part in brackets is concerned: As I said in prior parts of the debate, several things beyond knowledge can be factors why not more dimensions exist. Additionally, even for someone with knowledge it can mean something different. A physicist might speak within the range of the theories they find relevant, for instance. It's one of the more reasonable extrapolations, which is why I consider allowing it under the conditions I laid out in my summary of the proposal, but it's not like no exceptions can exist.
Misses my point again. Let me quote myself from different points of this thread:
So, as I said, being above n-dimensional space isn't really the same as being above the very dimensions making up that space. The fact that this was your rebuttal to that point despite me explaining it three times on this thread tells me you haven't really been paying too much attention to my points at all.
I believe I have in this and earlier posts laid out in great detail what I understand to qualify as minimal fundamental superiority.
The problem with your argument is twofold.
First, transcending 6 1D axis separately isn't a 6D feat. Just as transcending 0D points isn't a feat of being above every space assembled of such.
Glueing 6 axis together wouldn't even get you a 6D space, you would need aleph_1 many for that.
Measurement theory in any case tells us that structure makes a difference for size, i.e. the size of a space isn't just the sum of the size of all components.
Hence your idea of "all axis are the same" just leads nowhere. All axis are the same, but the amount of directions and the size of the space spanned depends on the amount. A 6D space can not be identified by a 7D one. A 4D space has mathematical properties no other space has. Some theorems hold in it and nowhere else.
The very definition of the Hausdorff dimension is based on how in fact not all measures are the same.
And again, for a verse in which dimensions above 4 are not even considered, how can the higher ones be essentially the same? There is a clear difference, the 4 exist and the rest don't. So this also brings us back to the whole "we don't default to the assumption that unlimited dimensions can exist"-thing. What you are claiming by saying that all dimensions are the same and it hence makes no difference is in essence that no verse can have a limit on the number of possible dimensions in it, which is nonsense for already explained reasons.
Your idea that all dimensionality is essentially the same, regardless of number, is just weird.
Which brings us to the second problem. You are posing a very specific view of what "being above the dimensions" is supposed to mean and assume all fiction will abide by the definition you just made up, no evidence required. You can't just assume everyone thinks like you in such specific matters. Without evidence that a fiction takes that philosophical viewpoint, you can't just use it even if you think it's correct. Because fiction plays by its own rules. All we can do is to go by the parts of the rules it bothers to tell us about and otherwise default to low-ends.
