Now, in my defense, I wrote this yesterday. Though I fell asleep.
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.
I'm bringing up the specific view that our Tiering System recognizes, this being the ability called Beyond-Dimensional Existence Type 2 (Being above spatial properties entirely), so, dunno what your issue is, since it's a definition we already all agreed to, I hope? I never said that no evidence would be required for us to conclude that a verse is abiding by the notion I'm speaking of. I'm talking about cases where we are already sure the verse is abiding by that notion.
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 am aware you are going by some notion of "power," yes, but ultimately gauging what power it takes to significantly affect and destroy something is going to be tied into making an equivalence between the "size" of what's being affected and some given n-dimensional space, so, I think that distinction is one without a difference, as said prior. So, by that point, we're just saying "Those things are equivalent because we say they are equivalent." If you try to apply any actual reasoning to it, you see that the argument itself is a false equivalence: Making a equivalence between two things due to a property they both share (Superiority over some scope of existence. Both 4-D space and a conceptless void house 3-D space, so they're equivalent)
Frankly, I'd be fine with saying destroying a dimensionless void that's not superior to dimensions, but different in nature from them, would be untierable, for the reasons above. When you say "We tier it this way because if you can destroy a conceptless void capable of housing a 3-D space then you can destroy the 3-D space as well," you're not really tiering the non-dimensional properties of the void, just the fact that it can house a 3-D space, and this would in turn just loop back into my point: That, if this void isn't really superior to dimensions, then it is irrelevant to the conversation at hand, and that if it is and you're equating it to 4-D space solely from the fact they are both superior to a 3-D space, then that's fallacious logic.
Your argument seems to boil down to "Fiction can have different kinds of transcendence that aren't necessarily dimensional in nature, so being beyond dimensions doesn't inherently mean you jump infinite tiers," but I think that's also a weird argument that gets amended fairly straightforwardly once you apply Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Which is to say that, if a verse never mentions or alludes to other equivalent methods of transcendence, we generally speaking would have to assume that dimensional.jumps are the only available avenue. Else we are effectively just assuming the cosmology allows for paradoxes without good reason, which to me is a no-no.
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
Yeah, and I'd say that's pretty untenable. As Agnaa pointed out, those things can get pretty arbitrary, but as soon we make an equivalence between these things, we are giving in to other implications of equality. For instance, as far as we are concerned, if you are in Layer A, transcending Layer B as fiction, putting together uncountably infinite things in Layer B is going to have something there transcend into Layer A (If we didn't treat it like that it would entail the difference between layers being greater than a dimensional jump). These implications get pretty bad when we're equating dimensional things to non-dimensional things.
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}}.
Not if you're taking the standard constructions in math into account, no. Like, if you can get R^5 to begin with, then implicitly you're saying cartesian products up to that point are already a thing, and by then nothing really stops you from going arbitarily far with this, so it doesn't really carry the same weight as something that exceeds dimensions, in my view.
The example itself is especially weird because that set is... just a collection, it has no structure to speak of. So what you're describing wouldn't be equivalent to some transcendent space containing R^4, R^2, and other things (Or even a collection of things so big that it forms one). It'd be just those very spaces you mention, and nothing else (In other words it'd be like considering only 4-dimensional space and 2-dimensional space and absolutely nothing else). And it wouldn't be larger than the spaces it consists of, either: Saying that would be like saying that a set of 3 apples has more volume than a single apple (Not talking about the added sizes of the apples. Just the set of apples itself)
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.
You did say that stuff like "Beyond all dimensions is mathematics" would be something you're willing to extrapolate up to Low 1-A, yeah. But I find that quite bizarre when you say that stuff like "transcends the definition of dimensions" would also be equivalent to a dimensional jump above the rest of what physically exists in the verse. Presumably the same would apply to stuff like "Beyond the quality of having dimensions" or "Beyond the idea of dimensions." If you're making such all-inclusive statements, then you're inherently also including dimensions that exist only in the abstract, too (Supposing the statement can be taken literally that is). It's not like further dimensions not physically existing makes them outside the definition of dimensions or anything.
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.
Being uncountably infinitely larger than 6 1D axes separately doesn't mean you're above their multiplication, no, just like being larger than 1-D space doesn't mean you are larger than 2-D space, but being above the very notion of "length" certainly does. It's as I said before: We are infinitely larger than something that has only height, but we are not above the quality of height itself by any means.
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.
Physically, it may have a limit, yes, but in the abstract, not really. And I'd say a fair few kind of statements would lead to you transcending purely theoretical dimensions by nature (And this ties into the previous point about verses where mathematical structures are what define reality, not solely physics)
