• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's an objective fact that if your vote doesn't have an answer for the new refutes, it would effectively get null and voided. It isn't a standard because it's just that obvious.
That's definitively untrue.

Doesn't matter, you still removed it. Which you absolutely shouldn't have.
I see no reason to re-publish an inaccurate tally, but regardless, I didn't invalidate the votes or claim they didn't count, so its irrelevant to the topic of invalidating votes.

Doesn't have to be when it's that obvious. You're just being nitpicky for absolutely no reason.
No, you're just trying to invalidate several admin votes on a basis that is not established anywhere in our policies.
 
Second this.


I might also add that DDM, as far as I see, was more aligned with Agnaa's proposed middle ground, which is considerably less strict than DontTalk's stance it seems ("Above dimensions statements, if taken literally, are 1-A and not High 1-A" being his position). Qawsed also disagreed on the basis of "Any above dimensions statement being High 1-A is textbook NLF," but I never claimed that any such statement would be at that level, like I clarified later on. AKM also justified his agreement with Agnaa's response up there, and... Well, about that:

Agnaa seems like he doesn't want to bother logging in to the wiki again, so, in lieu of that, he gave me permission to share a screenshot of him confirming what I said in the previous post, here. I also threw in a bit of the conversation him and I had off-site regarding the topic.

TL;DR: As said above, his stance is that, if a statement is accepted as saying a character is "beyond dimensions" in the sense that they are superior to spatial qualities as a whole (The very property of having a dimension, in other words), then labelling it at 1-A is not an issue even if the verse makes no mention of infinite-dimensional space. His issue lies more with vaguer cases where "beyond dimensions" can be interpreted as something else, since, in his view, a higher-dimensional object (And similar jumps) can also be viewed as beyond dimensions relative to a lower-dimensional one (And so in that sense you can be beyond a set of dimensions while not being fundamentally above "dimension" as a general characteristic)

While I disagree with him on that last one, I think it's more of a semantics issue than anything, since from the start I've been using "beyond dimensions" to mean "This character is above and beyond spatiotemporal qualities entirely" anyway. That aside we share some common ground on the core problem. That said, he also seems to be of the view that the disagreement between myself and DontTalk isn't as fundamental as I think it is, which... I'd like DontTalk to opinate on, frankly.
This is probably a relevant summary of information here. I find that those factors are probably enough to pit a chunk of the current vote tally under further scrutiny.
 
That's definitively untrue.
Nope, been there, seen it happen in majority of the CRTs I've lurked in or participated in.

I see no reason to re-publish an inaccurate tally, but regardless, I didn't invalidate the votes or claim they didn't count, so its irrelevant to the topic of invalidating votes.
Like Planck said, you're the last person to be able to say that after what happened in the DC thread, so I'd suggest not bringing this up to begin with and focus on the OP on that front.

No, you're just trying to invalidate several admin votes on a basis that is not established anywhere in our policies.
If I did I'd just say it outright. I'm just telling you to not be so hasty and pay better attention to exactly what you're voting for.
 
So basically the whole "transcend beyond dimensions" is a matter of semanticality I presume?

Well, if they are stated to be so in the sense of being superior to spatial qualities as a whole and this is properly elaborated upon in the story regarding the nature of said spatial qualities, I honestly see no issue why that wouldn't work. It's not like "infinite dimensions" as a whole flies automatically as High 1-B all the time.
 
Nope, been there, seen it happen in majority of the CRTs I've lurked in or participated in.
People play fast and loose with the rules all the time. Seeing it happen isn't proof of concept that it's some sort of unwritten standard. It certainly doesn't justify delaying this revision that you personally have seen it happen.

Like Planck said, you're the last person to be able to say that after what happened in the DC thread, so I'd suggest not bringing this up to begin with and focus on the OP on that front.
And like I said, what I did on the DC thread has nothing in common with the vote situation here or the discussion we're having, because I never suggested or implied that certain votes should be discarded on any basis. I stand by my decision to not repost an inaccurate tally from a non-staff member on a Staff Discussion thread. Moreover, I did not bring it up in the first place, Planck did. All I did was point out that what I did was not invalidating the previous staff votes in any way.

I might also add that DDM, as far as I see, was more aligned with Agnaa's proposed middle ground, which is considerably less strict than DontTalk's stance it seems ("Above dimensions statements, if taken literally, are 1-A and not High 1-A" being his position).
I feel DDM's statements here are more clear:

I see some points on both sides, so I feel kind of conflicted, though I do agree with DontTalkDT that I do not think a throw away "Above the concept of dimensions" should default to High 1-A.
Did you agree for this to defaulted to Low 1-A?
I never really agreed with any specific defaults. Some characters have "Beyond concept of time, space, and dimension" and only got Low 1-C given that there's no evidence of their existing anything beyond a Low 2-C to 2-A sized cosmology beyond a statement like that.

I just think case by case, especially since one also might need to consider the possibility of hyperboles too, as well as dimensions often being used to describe parallel universes rather than spacio-temporal dimensions.

AKM also justified his agreement with Agnaa's response up there, and... Well, about that:
That is true, but he also said: We lowball by default unless sufficient evidence/backing is present to go any higher. Especially in these cases we need to be more strict. Agnaa has answered this above satisfactorily. We shouldn't make higher assumptions/interpretations than the minimum viable one.

And also explicitly said he agreed with DT.
 
People play fast and loose with the rules all the time. Seeing it happen isn't proof of concept that it's some sort of unwritten standard.
All those CRTs weren't playing fast or loose. They spanned multiple pages at a time with multiple back-and-forths until a summary ultimatum was finally reached, which it was for majority of those revisions.

And like I said, what I did on the DC thread has nothing in common with the vote situation here or the discussion we're having, because I never suggested or implied that certain votes should be discarded on any basis. I stand by my decision to not repost an inaccurate tally from a non-staff member on a Staff Discussion thread.
Sure, still doesn't stop the decision from being a wrong one to take however. Also, one final point, you didn't just remove non-staff tallies, you also removed staff tallies from Glass himself who went through all of those feats to give his vote.

Moreover, I did not bring it up in the first place, Planck did. All I did was point out that what I did was not invalidating the previous staff votes in any way.
Deagon, what did I say about removing vote tallies being the same as invalidating them?

That is true, but he also said: We lowball by default unless sufficient evidence/backing is present to go any higher. Especially in these cases we need to be more strict. Agnaa has answered this above satisfactorily. We shouldn't make higher assumptions/interpretations than the minimum viable one.

And also explicitly said he agreed with DT.
Mind linking this comment? Was it before or after the comment Ultima made?
 
All those CRTs weren't playing fast or loose. They spanned multiple pages at a time with multiple back-and-forths until a summary ultimatum was finally reached, which it was for majority of those revisions.
This is a total non-sequitur to what I just said.

Sure, still doesn't stop the decision from being a wrong one to take however. Also, one final point, you didn't just remove non-staff tallies, you also removed staff tallies from Glass himself who went through all of those feats to give his vote.
I really couldn't care less if you think it's the wrong decision, I was merely establishing that what I did has no relevance to the concept of discarding votes as advocated for in this thread. Also, the "tally" was written by a non-staff member, not Glassman. "Tallies" does not mean votes, there was one tally, singular. I did not include the tally that Lord_Farquaad wrote because it was inaccurate, I never said anyones votes didn't count.

Deagon, what did I say about removing vote tallies being the same as invalidating them?
If your argument is that "Not including Lord_Farquaad's vote tally in the OP of the thread is the same as saying you don't think any of those votes count anymore" then I'd say that's fairly ridiculous, because as I've repeatedly established: I do not think any of those votes should be discarded, I just didn't include Lord_Farquaad's list of votes due to the inaccuracies I saw in it.
 
Yeah, okay, stop. You two are basically just trying to get the last word in this meaningless squabble, which is just needlessly cluttering the thread.

Anyway...

I feel DDM's statements here are more clear:
Genuinely didn't catch that. I guess the Find in page function failed me after all.

Regardless, that seems to be operatng under the assumption that I want any "above dimensions" and similar statement to be High 1-A, regardless of how contextless or throwaway it is, which I've already clarified isn't really the case. He said he'd have it on a "case by case" basis, but I'd want him to clarify what this basis is, exactly, if his core problem is that he thinks I'd let any random statement fly by.

That is true, but he also said: We lowball by default unless sufficient evidence/backing is present to go any higher. Especially in these cases we need to be more strict. Agnaa has answered this above satisfactorily. We shouldn't make higher assumptions/interpretations than the minimum viable one.
That was a response to me inquiring on why, exactly, "one higher infinity/dimensional jump higher" was a minimum viable lowball, to which he founded his response on Agnaa's.
 
Also, are we seriously having a back-and-forth on something as basic as "Their vote on this stance made prior to extensive argument and points made for/against it shouldn't be taken as their current stance"? Love this site sometimes.
Not exactly, because there was pretty extensive back and forth even before those votes. Three of the admin votes for the revision are on this very page.

But even with that said, these types of discussions have the potential to go on endlessly. I have both seen and participated in discussions that only ended by force because the thread ended up getting closed. The fact that two adamantly opposed debaters can continue for several more pages after a discussion was had and votes were given doesn't mean we can't count any of the staff votes until they all personally reaffirm their vote or "prove they understand what they're voting for" as another user suggested.
 
@Deagonx My guy, you’re the one who brought up MG in the first place. And no it’s not really moot when we’ve had upgrades for specific franchises that only get a couple of staff agreement, said same staff doesn’t actually pay attention to the thread and it takes a while for someone to point out how it’s not enough to qualify for the standards on the wiki.
 
Regardless, that seems to be operatng under the assumption that I want any "above dimensions" and similar statement to be High 1-A, regardless of how contextless or throwaway it is, which I've already clarified isn't really the case. He said he'd have it on a "case by case" basis, but I'd want him to clarify what this basis is, exactly, if his core problem is that he thinks I'd let any random statement fly by.
I mean, I think this portion is effective:

Some characters have "Beyond concept of time, space, and dimension" and only got Low 1-C given that there's no evidence of their existing anything beyond a Low 2-C to 2-A sized cosmology beyond a statement like that

It seems clear that his inclination is towards that of saying that statements about a character are not sufficient to upscale a character to that degree, but @DarkDragonMedeus if you can more specifically clarify your feelings on the matter that may be helpful.

That was a response to me inquiring on why, exactly, "one higher infinity/dimensional jump higher" was a minimum viable lowball, to which he founded his response on Agnaa's.
I understand, but respectfully, even in the discussions that you and I have had on these subjects, it's rarely the case that my explanation for why I see something another way is perceived as satisfactory. Which, I get it, that's a big part of why we have this core disagreement, because I also can't really relate to/wrap my head around your approach to things, so it's not easy to parse out our differences in a way that "makes sense" to the other party. But I'm of the same inclination, that "one higher infinity" is the minimum viable application of such a statement, and is thus preferable in the absence of further information. And to the points being made above about staff votes, the fact that AKM sees it that way is valid and counts as a vote, and given how rarely AKM has time to participate in threads, (his last post on the wiki being May 2nd), the approach of saying his vote doesn't count until he fully hashes this out with you is kinda crazy to me.
 
Some characters have "Beyond concept of time, space, and dimension" and only got Low 1-C given that there's no evidence of their existing anything beyond a Low 2-C to 2-A sized cosmology beyond a statement like that

It seems clear that his inclination is towards that of saying that statements about a character are not sufficient to upscale a character to that degree, but @DarkDragonMedeus if you can more specifically clarify your feelings on the matter that may be helpful.
Well, I'm note entirely the best judge of the policy, and of course throwaway statements are a thing. I generally want to avoid using verse specific examples, but I have seen some people repeatedly use the "Dimension above the concept of time and space" or "Can devourer and infinite number of dimensions" that are being used to describe the same Interdimensional Void to try to upgrade a verse to 1-A. When there isn't evidence that the term "Dimension" means the same thing in those respective sentences, with the former statement at best sounding like a single plane of higher infinity and would sound like a Low 1-C statement at best. I think Glassman might actually know what verse I'm talking about. But I do agree that often times such simple statements might not want to get too jumpy for the absolute highest end interpretations.
 
Soo I was given permission for one post (namely, this wonderful man, I adore you), so I will try to state my thought accurately enough. I would like to propose the following idea: since I consider the very idea of the so-called "jump point" absurd, since this idea calls into question the very essence of an objective assessment of the verse and its tier, then why not use only the information about spatial dimensions that was confirmed directly in the verse and canonical to it materials when evaluating the tier? I mean, it may sound extremely radical, but at the same time it is worth considering that this is an objective and dry approach to tier assessment.

For clarity, I will give an example: in the verse there is a confirmed structure of spatial (or geometric, as you like) dimensions, equivalent to tier 1-C. Thus, a character existing in the same verse and having a description in the likeness of "surpasses/beyond all possible dimensions" should be evaluated exclusively as High 1-C and no more to avoid subjective evaluation and the person's interest in overestimating the tier.

It is also worth considering a situation in which there is a fixed number of spatial dimensions in the verse (For example, 10), but at the same time the statement about the character existing in the same verse describes it as follows: "The character surpasses/contains a structure with an infinite number of dimensions." I suppose in such cases we can already talk about some Low 1-A or High 1-B (depends on the formulation of the statement, but I think I made myself clear)

Thank you!!
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm note entirely the best judge of the policy, and of course throwaway statements are a thing. I generally want to avoid using verse specific examples, but I have seen some people repeatedly use the "Dimension above the concept of time and space" or "Can devourer and infinite number of dimensions" that are being used to describe the same Interdimensional Void to try to upgrade a verse to 1-A. When there isn't evidence that the term "Dimension" means the same thing in those respective sentences, with the former statement at best sounding like a single plane of higher infinity and would sound like a Low 1-C statement at best. I think Glassman might actually know what verse I'm talking about. But I do agree that often times such simple statements might not want to get too jumpy for the absolute highest end interpretations.
I don't see any reference to the dimensions being of spatio-temporal nature like Ultima has demanded here tho. Ultima explicitly demanded that there be references to such.
 
Thats a perfectly fine opinion for you to have, but it isn't a site standard at all, so if you'd like to make it one that would be an entirely separate discussion. This is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
If staff members do not engage in rational and evidence-based discussion by not responding to new evidence and arguments presented, it may be reasonable to question the validity of their votes. This is not only a matter of "it is not in site standards" but also common sense in making informed decisions.

For instance, in the case of E12, their rejection of many of threads with a simple "it's not enough" without elaboration despite new evidence being presented may indicate a failure to engage in constructive discourse.

It is important to avoid bias in evaluation and recognize that staff votes are not necessarily permanent stances. Only those with expertise in this topic, such as Agnaa and Deagnox, were able to engage in this meaningful discussion, while others may have been misinterpreting Ultima's arguments or simply agreeing without careful consideration.

Given the significance of this discussion on the community, it is important to avoid rushing and ensure that all voices are heard in a rational and evidence-based manner.
 
You cannot invalidate bureaucrat and administrator staff votes merely on the premise that we found DontTalk's arguments very reasonable when we gradually read them, but are somehow each required to reread all of them at once and summarise all of the given points.

For the record, I still think that this thread is stalling too much to prevent a very necessary safeguard from being installed into our system, but DontTalk has stated to me that he will respond quite soon.
 
Gonna make this short. Promised Ultima I'll respond here before it's closed so I will.

Originally I was planning on writing a several thousand word wall of text, but every time I was close to done something else needed my attention more and when I came back it was already outdated. So instead I'll just quickly sum up my thoughts on the last things I actually read before coming back now.

Not gonna argue on whether it should be low 1-A, 1-A, H 1-A or even 0 for that matter. All I will say is that "+1 dimension to what is shown" is a ridiculous prospect for something that has sufficiently demonstrated that it is in fact not of dimensional nature, while also being superior to it. Gonna just lazily copy what I just told someone on discord:

"my main argument has always been "the character in question needs to transcend dimensionality, not just a dimensional structure. Simply "beyond dimensions" is obviously not enough, as it doesn't give any information of the nature of transcendence. Actually transcending dimensionality means that each dimension in a structure is equally irrelevant (as in they are superior) to them and that they are not participating in any of them or anything of equivalence. If one is beyond a dimension in such a way, one is beyond all dimensions in a n-dimensional structure just the same."",

as anything else would mean breaking Occam's razor over your knee. Whether an infinite hierarchy is implied or not is utterly irrelevant to this. Just to be clear, this is not NLF either by any means. Assuming that someone is beyond the notion of up and down, but not forth and back and left and right, when those are the same things, simply viewed from a different angle is nonsensical. If this is true for two dimensional axes, as well as three axes for the same reason, it is true for any n-dimension structure. This is one of the most basic proofs there are.

Just to make this clear so that nobody will twist my words like they have been doing with Ultima over and over again. This is not referring to stuff that is just different. No, I am not advocating for throwaway and flowery statements to grant such a tier. The actual evidence would obviously need to be sufficient. What is sufficient? I honestly don't care, as that was never an actual topic Ultima even brought up. Still confused how half the replies he got ended up revolving around that.

The only exception to that in my opinion are verses with dimensions that aren't (necessarily) equivalent to the ones we use for tiering. For example, a verse that uses string theory shouldn't be assumed to be "beyond all dimensions" for something like that, as those dimensions aren't even necessarily infinite.

That should be it.
 
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.
What we recognize is that BDE Type 2 exists, we don't recognize that it is High 1-A and never did. I'm not sure where you take that from. All BDE Type 2 currently is, is that you are non-spatial in nature and are transcendent of dimensions within the scale of your verse.

Like, the BDE description we currently use states "These characters aren't necessarily superior to spacetime on every level, but just within the scope which they are shown." It actually is rather supportive of the principle that BDE characters aren't just above a high-end extrapolation beyond their showings.

And while you say you are talking about cases where we are sure the verse is abiding the notion... the entire debate is how you are against requiring explicit mention of the stuff you want to scale these characters above.

How can you be sure that a fiction that never mentions infinite dimensions, and much less cardinals, in any way follows your interpretation that being above dimensions makes you so powerful that you could destroy spaces whose size is of that of arbitrarily high cardinals? If a fiction doesn't mention an object like that, or one of equivalent size in composite hierarchies, you can't be sure.

Like, the best statement you can have without getting explicit is something along the lines of "regardless of how many dimensions there are, since this character is above dimensions he is superior to them all". Or something like you brought up "for a beyond dimensional character transcending one dimension and many are fundamentally the same". Like I made clear in my layout of proposed standards, I'm fine of upscaling by an infinite hierarchy if this type of statements are made. If a verse with 5D made such a statement, I'm fine with putting it at Low 1-A (or 1-A if anyone can properly justify the separation argument, I guess). But is it evidence that structures with higher cardinal sizes were considered? I don't think so!

You can say the idea presented should naturally extend to that, but I don't find it natural to do so, if the verse never plays with such concepts.

In essence, it is the same as the issue with Omnipotence. A verse can go and have a big lecture about Omnipotence. How it is logically contradicting, but the god in question doesn't care and how only the good conclusions apply to it and none of the bad. How truly everything is within its power etc. etc. However, if the verse never gets explicit about the god being able to wield its power to affect an object of a specific big size, or some other feat we can pin a tier to, we have Omnipotent characters still stick to "Omnipotent within the bounds of objects of the size the verse is known to have".

Or, to mention the only high-tier verse I support (I mentioned it already, but I will include it for first-time readers), Demon King Daimao has a character above all possible stories and a section where it's debated what possible stories are. It defines possible stories quite explicitly as "if it is logically consistent and can be expressed in words, it is a possible story". I would not be fine with upgrading the verse based on that using concepts the verse has never played with. If it never brings up an aleph_100 dimensions big space, I would not be fine with upgrading it just because by the verse's reasoning one can argue it should be included (as would large cardinals be...). Because, while I can run with the reasoning standards explained and reason that it technically should include lots of stuff, we have no guarantee that this was considered when the reasoning standards were made. It is a rule that gets extended beyond the scope it was made in. A hasty generalization, so to say. And I think that's similar to the dimensionality beyond the demonstrated scope case.

IMO it in spirit still is a lot like a NLF. Even if we knew the author intended to make an unbeatable character, we can't run with that idea to assume they considered everything humanity could imagine to beat it anyway. That's one part of why we don't extend such notions far. A rule as well should just also be only extended as far as we are certain it was considered to, so a fiction should provide some evidence that it considers all cardinals if we want to put a character above all cardinals.

With that said, let's get to the side points:

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.
And they get pretty ridiculous if you don't. Are you saying a set of all sets in fiction could transcend into reality? Obviously not. Then by the argument you just presented R>F transcendence should be TIer 0.

Your argument is essentially no better than those that argue all omnipotent entities in fiction should be considered equal in power due to being omnipotent. It's technically not a non-logical standpoint, but not one we as a vs-debate community acknowledge. In vs debating feats trump philosophy. The Omnipotent entity with better feats is the more powerful one, even if both are supposed to be omnipotent. Because we only assume omnipotence exist in the realms that the verse explored and not further.

And, yeah, just as for Omnipotence and just as for R>F transcendence this applies here as well. You're above all dimensionality? Well, show your scope of dimensionality. If it's less than that of someone that has shown more, you will still get the worse ranking, because we don't buy into such extrapolative statements beyond what the verse explains.

So yeah, that's why R>F is as it is. Because it's the highest logical argument that can be made without adding something not mentioned to the verse.

Also, honestly, should I add "want R>F to be Tier 0" to the things you want to achieve here? Or is it the opposite "R>F should be untierable"?

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.
If you say that a non-dimensional space that is tiered by comparing to dimensions wouldn't really be superior, then you are contradicting yourself in that the High 1-A tier is also the result of comparing it to dimensions. I indeed do not tier the non-dimensional properties of any void, because those are just not tierable. The only thing we can tier is the relative relationship in "size", i.e. power needed to destroy them, when compared to dimensional spaces. If the spaces weren't tiered like that you would have no guarantee that those who destroy them are superior in power to dimensional characters. Only by asserting that they are "larger" (need more power to destroy) than some dimensional reference space you can do so.

You try to have those non-dimensional things be incomparable, yet simultaneously larger than, dimensional spaces. An obvious paradox.

What occam's razor is concerned, you're wrong and it actually goes against you. I'm not asserting any special kind of transcendence other than the one the source mentions: Transcendent of dimensions. What I demonstrated by showing that transcendence of dimensions in fiction can be one that is not equivalent to transcending all higher dimensions on a High 1-A scale is that transcendence of that kind can exist. Now you have the burden of proof to show that this transcendence of dimensions is not having that property.

And with that we loop back to the main point. You assume that the legitimate interpretation has to be the one based on how you imagine transcendence of this type should work, while that interpretation isn't in any way proven to be the legitimate one. Both author and reader can just as easily understand it as being within the scope of dimensionality the verse laid out.

You talk about "if a verse never mentions or alludes to other equivalent methods of transcendence", but forget that in the scenario we are talking about the verse hasn't established that the method of trasncendence in question involves being above cardinality-many dimensions. That's the problem of this whole debate. That what you try to sell as the default viewpoint of dimensional transcendence has no right to be the default.

Now, what occasm's razor is concerned, assuming that the dimensionality that the "above dimensionality" statements are referring might be limited to the dimensionality explicitly mentioned in the verse, requires 0 assumptions on my part. I'm only asserting a possibility, not a definitive truth, and then argue based on it being possible to not refer to something that's infinite infinite levels of infinity bigger we should not rank it as such. I'm never arguing that it couldn't be possible. On the other hand, arguing that the character is High 1-A requires you to assume that the extrapolation you propose holds, i.e. that the author interpreted these things the way you do. If you didn't assume that a lower interpretation would be possible and we wouldn't hand out such a high tier faced with the uncertainty. So my position does in fact use less assumptions and would hence be favored by occam's razor.

Occam's razor just generally can't free you from a burden of proof in our tiering context, as in face of large uncertainty we default to the lowest reasonable values. Extraordinary evidence... you know the drill.

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)
Actually, no. I don't really say anything about cartesian products. Real number vector spaces are frequently only uniquely defined up to isomorphisms. And for the sake of my argument I also could just remove the 5-tuple. It's not really required to be there.

And, yeah, I defined no structure. Given, I could easily define some structure on it. Just wouldn't be a vector space structure, which I believe is the point. The universe of sets has an equal lack of structure, being little more than a collection, yet you make a size comparison regardless. That's the point of the comparison. I can define a structure which doesn't meet the axioms for dimensions, but can equally much be compared to dimensional structures as the universe of sets. Whether that be not at all or just by inclusion.

In fact, thinking about it, it's perfectly reasonable for a verse to might not take the axiom of choice, in which case it can have infinite dimensional vector spaces that have no dimensions. So I guess those would be other examples of dimensionless structures clearly "bigger" than one by the same standard as the set of sets, but not bigger than all dimensional structures that could occur in other fictions.

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.
The specific formulation as I included in my layout was:

"If "possible" is clarified to mean dimensions that can be modelled by some system of mathematics, and said system is known to be able to model higher dimensional spaces, we assume at least all finite dimensions would reasonably be included and a character with qualitative superiority over them would hence be Low 1-A. [I think as far as extrapolation is concerned, this is a reasonable compromise based on what I discussed with Agnaa]"

And that was just a rough draft with rather unspecific wording for ease of reading.

So I'm not just willy nilly includig abstract dimensions. They have to first have a statement of being qualitatively superior to all possible dimensions. So what you bring up as alternative formulations is to be evaluated as for whether it qualifies for that first. Then the verse explicitly has to specify that all dimensions that can be modelled in their system of mathematics are included, by that explicitly saying that the abstract dimensions which don't necessarily exist get considered. And then they have to demonstrate that they use a system of mathematics in which higher dimensions are a thing. And under those conditions, I am willing to extrapolate to the point of them being beyond finite dimensions. Not infinite or cardinal many dimensions that were not mentioned.

I think why I can compromise on that and not on your suggestion should be quite clear.

Contrary to your proposal all the concepts involved in the scaling are explicitly mentioned. That's ensured by the mentioning of at least finite higher dimensions. You meanwhile insist that you can upscale to High 1-A without infinite dimensions and the various levels cardinals being mentioned at all.

In this case, the verse gives us a guarantee that their dimensionality that if referred to regarding the transcendence stuff isn't limited by physical or supernatural factors. It does so by specifying that specifically the dimensionality of their system of mathematics is mentioned, not any of the real existing stuff. Meanwhile, you wish to default to the verse having an understanding where transcending dimensions means transcending arbitrarily many, even higher cardinals, without explicit evidence of such restrictions not being present.

The only point I'm compromising here, when compared to my initial stance, is the lack of explicit evidence for the system of mathematics to have truly any finite dimensions. But, as Agnaa argued, it seems rather plausible that mathematicians with a mathematical model of 8 dimensions can do the step to 9 dimensions on paper. It's a much lesser jump than to infinite (where dimensions don't necessarily exist without the axiom of choice) and to actual cardinal stuff.

So yeah, I think I don't contradict myself much by accepting a reasoning of a lower tier with this much more explicit evidence, while rejecting the proposal of a much higher tier via less explicit evidence.

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.
Being above height itself however isn't being above area. And being above area isn't being above volume. So, no, there is no reason being above the notion of length requires to being larger than 2-D space. Measures (i.e. quantifications of size) are usually defined completely separately for each dimension. It requires quite some mathematical work to get to the point where you can compare them and then that comparison indicates nothing about something beyond the notion of 1D being larger than 2D. So yeah, you can have a notion of dimensional size separately of 1 dimensional size in particular.

In fact, the prior example regarding the axiom of choice demonstrates how adding infinite more dimensions can lead to non-dimensionality, in a sense.

So... is being above the concept of a 1D axis non-spatial? Yeah, maybe. But no indication of being "larger" in any sense. The superiority part just doesn't survive the switch to higher D measures. Simply because A > 1D & 2D > 1D does not imply any relationship between 2D and A.

If non-dimensional things not superior to all dimensions can exist, then so can non-dimensional things superior to just some could as well.

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)
Yeah, no. The idea that in the abstract a verse can't have a limit on its dimensions is incredibly speculative. It's just as bad of an assumption as that a character that is above anything humanity can imagine should be Tier 0, because naturally that would include abstract stuff like the class of sets.

You just can't assume that such statements are made with everything you can come up with in mind, when the verse doesn't say it extrapolates as much. But yeah, that's ultimately just the first point again.

Gonna make this short. Promised Ultima I'll respond here before it's closed so I will.

Originally I was planning on writing a several thousand word wall of text, but every time I was close to done something else needed my attention more and when I came back it was already outdated. So instead I'll just quickly sum up my thoughts on the last things I actually read before coming back now.

Not gonna argue on whether it should be low 1-A, 1-A, H 1-A or even 0 for that matter. All I will say is that "+1 dimension to what is shown" is a ridiculous prospect for something that has sufficiently demonstrated that it is in fact not of dimensional nature, while also being superior to it. Gonna just lazily copy what I just told someone on discord:

"my main argument has always been "the character in question needs to transcend dimensionality, not just a dimensional structure. Simply "beyond dimensions" is obviously not enough, as it doesn't give any information of the nature of transcendence. Actually transcending dimensionality means that each dimension in a structure is equally irrelevant (as in they are superior) to them and that they are not participating in any of them or anything of equivalence. If one is beyond a dimension in such a way, one is beyond all dimensions in a n-dimensional structure just the same."",

as anything else would mean breaking Occam's razor over your knee.
Quite the opposite. Occam's razor says to take the least amount of assumptions. Interpreting dimensionality to mean what the verse has shown in the scope of dimensions requires 0 assumptions. Assuming that it means stuff not actually mentions requires to assume extrapolation holds, which is at least 1 assumption.

Aside from that this point has in great detail been adressed in my debate wit Ultima, so I won't get into it further.

Whether an infinite hierarchy is implied or not is utterly irrelevant to this. Just to be clear, this is not NLF either by any means. Assuming that someone is beyond the notion of up and down, but not forth and back and left and right, when those are the same things, simply viewed from a different angle is nonsensical. If this is true for two dimensional axes, as well as three axes for the same reason, it is true for any n-dimension structure. This is one of the most basic proofs there are.
Dimensional spaces are not just directions. That's a false equivalence. Left and right, might be just up and down but rotated differently (given, that one can rotate it is an assumption in itself. Regularly you can't just rotate something into higher D directions). However, those are all 1D objects. An n-dimensional space can't be rotated into an n+1 dimensional space. The size of a n-dimensional space is larger than the the of the unification of the n 1D axis that span it. Being able to transcend a number of 1D axis literally just lands you in Tier 11. So if that's what your "above dimensions" means you don't even get anywhere. Only transcending all n-dimensional spaces (for all n) gets you anywhere and those can't be equalized to each other in any way.

Like, really, we talk about size here (or some equivalent). Obviously transcending any small object wouldn't proof that you transcend any large object as well. It's like saying that someone larger than any 1 m^3 object is automatically larger than every object in existence. Or that a being that transcends reality itself is above any imaginable reality by nature…

Just to make this clear so that nobody will twist my words like they have been doing with Ultima over and over again. This is not referring to stuff that is just different. No, I am not advocating for throwaway and flowery statements to grant such a tier. The actual evidence would obviously need to be sufficient. What is sufficient? I honestly don't care, as that was never an actual topic Ultima even brought up. Still confused how half the replies he got ended up revolving around that.
That is quite a cop-out.

If you can't specify what sufficient evidence is, then I will just claim that there is no realistic way for the fiction to give sufficient evidence under the conditions we debate (i.e. no explicit mention of anything). You basically destroyed your whole argument by not showing that it's even possible to attain sufficient evidence under the debated condition of not mentioning cardinals and infinities and stuff at all. It’s the key point of the debate that sufficient evidence can’t be acquired without getting explicit statements, after all.

The only exception to that in my opinion are verses with dimensions that aren't (necessarily) equivalent to the ones we use for tiering. For example, a verse that uses string theory shouldn't be assumed to be "beyond all dimensions" for something like that, as those dimensions aren't even necessarily infinite.
...As are the dimensions of verses that don't mention anything about infinite dimensions? Like, it's weird how you acknowledge that verses can have limits to dimensionality which aren't High 1-A, yet you argue for the suggestion of extrapolating them to High 1-A without explicit evidence that those realms of scale are even considered in the verse.

If you acknowledge that it's possible for such statements to not mean High 1-A, it seems like a large failure in scrutiny to not demand evidence that the verse considers things like aleph_1000 dimensional spaces. It's not like any verse will tell you that its dimensions are "equivalent to the ones we use for tiering". That's a conclusion you can only draw by explicit evidence of scales like those in the tiering system being included.


(Whew, that took a few hours to write...)
 
I'll admit, I don't have an incredibly long response to post in this thread, but based on what I've read of this discussion along with previous experiences, I'm in favour of what Ultima's saying here
 
Can somebody write a reliable tally for which staff members that think what here please?
 
Interpreting dimensionality to mean what the verse has shown in the scope of dimensions requires 0 assumptions.
You conflate dimensions with dimensionality. You know the difference I presume?

However, those are all 1D objects. An n-dimensional space can't be rotated into an n+1 dimensional space.
I suppose you didn't quite unterstand my analogy. I never claimed you can turn a n dimensional space into a n+1 dimensional space. I said there is no intrinsic difference between dimensions in a dimensional structure.

Being able to transcend a number of 1D axis literally just lands you in Tier 11.
Ok, yeah, you didn't get it at all. I am not talking about the transcendence of a 1-D structure here.

Like, really, we talk about size here (or some equivalent).
We don't. Please tell me you actually know what the premise of this whole debate is.

Obviously transcending any small object wouldn't proof that you transcend any large object as well. It's like saying that someone larger than any 1 m^3 object is automatically larger than every object in existence.
No it's not because you didn't understand the premise. That's a horrible example.

If you can't specify what sufficient evidence is, then I will just claim that there is no realistic way for the fiction to give sufficient evidence under the conditions we debate (i.e. no explicit mention of anything).
I literally said I don't care, but sure, let me give you a hypothetical. Who begs shall receive:

"[. . .] His world was built upon three simple dimensions, forming all that was around them. Each one reaching out far beyond what the eye could see, yet he stood atop of them. No. Atop was not the right word, as it described a location. X, Y and Z. While everything that moved within this world could be attributed with such corresponding values, yet to him they held no meaning. It was not that he was too big to be bound by them. No, their insignificance was far more fundamental than that. A simple matter of size did not explain this. Something that can be described by X Y and Z can still partially be described by X and Y. He was different. An existence beyond those basic constrains of time and space. [. . .]"

This only shows 3 dimensions, yet claiming that it is just 4-D, when it explicitly tells you that such a difference isn't what this is, would be, frankly speaking, goofy as hell.

You basically destroyed your whole argument by not showing that it's even possible to attain sufficient evidence under the debated condition of not mentioning cardinals and infinities and stuff at all. It’s the key point of the debate that sufficient evidence can’t be acquired without getting explicit statements, after all.
I haven't and it isn't. You just suddenly decided to make it the point, severely derailing the thread over and over again. Ultima told you to get back on point a multitude of times, yet you just kept going. Your lack of imagination for such a feat is no argument.

Like, it's weird how you acknowledge that verses can have limits to dimensionality which aren't High 1-A, yet you argue for the suggestion of extrapolating them to High 1-A
I literally start off saying "I will not debate the tiering of this." This honestly feels like you are debating in bad faith, portraying your opponents in a bad light.

If you acknowledge that it's possible for such statements to not mean High 1-A
The difference is the nature of dimensions (mainly in regards to their size). I thought I made that pretty clear. If a vere's dimension doesn't fit our standards, we obviously wouldn't tier them as such. Did you actually think Id be advocating for that?

This actually took a few rewrites to make sure it doesn't get me banned, lol

and before anyone asks, yes I still have permission to respond here.
 
I'm more partial to the 1-A middle ground proposed by Agnaa.
Due to the separation argument thing? I wish anyone would be able to tell me what that was based on. Like, I asked frequently in the thread why that was and I start to get the impression that nobody even knows the details anymore.
 
As the crux of the matter lies in the lack of a cogent rationale - which is consistent with the exigencies of "adequate contextualization" - to substantiate the proposition that these interpretations ought to furnish an augmentation of n+1 spatial dimensions (or an additional stratum) in a precise and coherent manner, it behooves us to examine the merits of both positions that have been advanced in this regard.

On the one hand, your viewpoint may be characterized as one that is grounded in a cautious and judicious assessment of the situation, as it seeks to avoid any tendency towards exaggeration or overstatement. On the other hand, Ultima's perspective represents an attempt to preserve the fundamental and conceptual definition of the construct of dimensionality, by refusing to compromise on its essential features. Agnaa's solution, meanwhile, represents an attempt to chart a middle course that avoids both the pitfalls of understatement and the excesses of hyperbole.
No, this is about the question why we would put it at 1-A, instead of Low 1-A. Like, the main difference between Agnaa's and my view. Not the whole extrapolation beyond anything mentioned issue with Ultima.

But I just remembered that Agnaa didn't want to use the separation argument, but just found R^R as a more natural cut-off point, because R was already established.

Personally, I find it rather weird, as IMO the difference between finite and infinite dimension or between no cardinals vs cardinals is more important and intutive. Especially if one considers that, mathematically speaking, in systems without the axiom of choice "infinite dimensional" spaces can be non-dimensional.
 
Why would you delete comments from a member who is bringing more arguments against DT's statements than all but the one staff (Ultima) that has been against them on this thread? Much of which DT hasn't even addressed.
No, I have? It was pretty much exactly the same stuff Ultima said and which I already answered regarding his replies. Like, the "all dimensions are the same" thing? 1:1 a point Ultima made.

Well, the take on string theory was new, but that wasn't against my points.

Almost all of your staff aren't even as qualified in this area as Rather is. And I'm sure that both Ultima and DT would agree with that.
Eh, debatable. The fundamental issue regarding extrapolation isn't all that complex.

If you think that deep knowledge of mathematics is required to understand one of the arguments, that just goes to show my point that it's an extrapolation based on stuff a regular reader and author wouldn't even consider.
 
@Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Elizhaa @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

We would greatly appreciate some input here regarding our main topic.

Here is our tally so far.

Agree with DontTalk: Antvasima, Qawsedf234, Firestorm808, Deagonx, AKM sama

Agrees with Ultima: Lonkitt

Neutral: Agnaa (Wants a middle ground of 1-A instead of Low 1-A or High 1-A but acknowledges that he's not particularly qualified to talk about this and has mostly conceded to DontTalk), DarkDragonMedeus (Agrees with Agnaa but also leans towards agreeing with DontTalk), Planck69, Damage3245
 
Last edited:
Since I don't particularly feel like retreading old ground, what with Rather's above response already being a thing, I'll just weigh in on a branch of the discussion that particularly catches my eye:

So I'm not just willy nilly includig abstract dimensions. They have to first have a statement of being qualitatively superior to all possible dimensions. So what you bring up as alternative formulations is to be evaluated as for whether it qualifies for that first. Then the verse explicitly has to specify that all dimensions that can be modelled in their system of mathematics are included, by that explicitly saying that the abstract dimensions which don't necessarily exist get considered. And then they have to demonstrate that they use a system of mathematics in which higher dimensions are a thing. And under those conditions, I am willing to extrapolate to the point of them being beyond finite dimensions. Not infinite or cardinal many dimensions that were not mentioned.
That sounds like a fairly simple thing to demonstrate. In fact, it can be inferred about as soon as higher dimensions become a topic of conversation. Dimensions, after all, are fundamentally a mathematical concept, and if higher dimensions are mentioned in a sense, then it is natural that the dimensions included in the mathematics of the verse extend to all finite numbers. I don't find much of a reason to assume that it stops at, say, R^6, when the factors that allow you to construct R^6 also allows you to extend the number of dimensions arbitrarily far (Covering all values of n, at least). So if a verse states something is "beyond the idea of dimensions" (Provided it refers to the general notion and not just to, say, a specific person's conception) or "beyond dimensionality" (The quality of having X is not the same as X), I don't see why that wouldn't be Low 1-A even under your stricter view.

Which I suppose is my core issue with your proposal of rating such feats as "one infinity higher." Sure, you might argue against my proposal for High 1-A, specifically, but regardless that doesn't make your own proposal suddenly valid.

Furthermore, Rather gave an example of what a statement that, in my view, would qualify for the 1-A range even without infinite dimensions or similar being brought up:

"[. . .] His world was built upon three simple dimensions, forming all that was around them. Each one reaching out far beyond what the eye could see, yet he stood atop of them. No. Atop was not the right word, as it described a location. X, Y and Z. While everything that moved within this world could be attributed with such corresponding values, yet to him they held no meaning. It was not that he was too big to be bound by them. No, their insignificance was far more fundamental than that. A simple matter of size did not explain this. Something that can be described by X Y and Z can still partially be described by X and Y. He was different. An existence beyond those basic constrains of time and space. [. . .]"

Which as of yet you appear to not have addressed.
 
Last edited:
That sounds like a fairly simple thing to demonstrate. In fact, it can be inferred about as soon as higher dimensions become a topic of conversation. Dimensions, after all, are fundamentally a mathematical concept, and if higher dimensions are mentioned in a sense, then it is natural that the dimensions includes in the mathematics of the verse extend to all finite numbers.
Yeah, I never said that criteria was particularly hard to achieve? The point of that was to clear the criteria of "the stuff we put the character above is actually mentioned in the verse". If the verse makes a dimensional argument it will often be the case that it naturally mentions higher dimensions of finite number. Same criteria for infinite and cardinal many dimensions is more rarely fulfilled, though.

But of course, it's just one of the mentioned criteria, in any case.

I don't find much of a reason to assume that it stops at, say, R^6, when the factors that allow you to construct R^6 also allows you to extend the number of dimensions arbitrarily far (Covering all values of n, at least).
The factors allow you to cover finite dimensions, yeah. Hence in that realm I'm fine, assuming the other criteria (purely theoretical dimensions are explicitely included + proper qualitative superiority) are given as well.

Same doesn't apply for infinite or more dimensions, though, as those need a considerably more difficult argument.

So if a verse states something is "beyond the idea of dimensions" (Provided it refers to the general notion and not just to, say, a specific person's conception) or "beyond dimensionality" (The quality of having X is not the same as X), I don't see why that wouldn't be Low 1-A even under your stricter view.
If it's meant in a mathematical sense of dimensions (as in, theoretical dimensions are included so that possible limits of physics or supernatural power and stuff play no role) then I can agree with that. Like, that's what the compromise with Agnaa was all about. So as long as you keep it to Low 1-A instead of High 1-A, we are mostly in agreement on that.

Which I suppose is my core issue with your proposal of rating such feats as "one infinity higher." Sure, you might argue against my proposal for High 1-A, specifically, but regardless that doesn't make your own proposal suddenly valid.
What is "such feats" here? Because, as said, for strictly mathematical stuff where higher dimensions were considered and qualitative superiority is given, I'm willing to go to Low 1-A, not just +1. But that doesn't extend to infinite dimensional and cardinal stuff without it being mentioned.

It's just for stuff that isn't at least that specific that I strictly want to default to +1.

Furthermore, Rather gave an example of what a statement that, in my view, would qualify for the 1-A range even without infinite dimensions or similar being brought up:



Which as of yet you appear to not have addressed.
I feel like that already fails at the matter of qualitative superiority. Like, this seems to detail a beyond dimensional existence, but I see no evidence of infinite superiority above even the three dimensional universe, much less a multiverse or even bigger constructs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top