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

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I could be misremembering something, but that's something I remember before. You can see the mention here in the Low 1C section:


Here's a link to what that means

So something beyond the concept of dimensions would likely also be beyond aleph 1 due to that encompassing the set of real numbers which is still part of the idea of real coordinate space.

I believe showing that something is beyond dimensionality in this sense would require more evidence than merely being independent of aleph-0 dimensions. "You would be independent of an infinite hierarchy if it existed" doesn't equate to "you would be independent of a hierarchy of all real numbers if it existed."

 

[Tarang123]

I believe showing that something is beyond dimensionality in this sense would require more evidence than merely being independent of aleph-0 dimensions. "You would be independent of an infinite hierarchy if it existed" doesn't equate to "you would be independent of a hierarchy of all real numbers if it existed."

If something was beyond the very concept of dimensions, this would already include that, no?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

If something was beyond the very concept of dimensions, this would already include that, no?

Merely stating that something is beyond the very concept of dimensions defaults to Low 1-C. Turning it into a Low 1-A or 1-A statement requires extraordinary evidence, as elaborated above.

 

[Tarang123]

Merely stating that something is beyond the very concept of dimensions defaults to Low 1-C. Turning it into a Low 1-A or 1-A statement requires extraordinary evidence, as elaborated above.

Clearly not true currently considering that verses like SMT are 1A for that very same reason

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Clearly not true currently considering that verses like SMT are 1A for that very same reason

SMT does meet the "extraordinary evidence" standard. One offhanded line about being "beyond dimensionality" doesn't count as the same thing.

 

[Tarang123]

SMT does meet the "extraordinary evidence" standard.

Eh...the primary reason its 1A is because it's beyond the concept of dimensions with a distinction between the 1A stuff and the non-1A stuff. That doesn't seem like "extraordinary evidence"

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Eh...the primary reason its 1A is because it's beyond the concept of dimensions with a distinction between the 1A stuff and the non-1A stuff. That doesn't seem like "extraordinary evidence"

Stop derailing this thread. You should've asked for permission to participate in the first place.

Same to you, IdiosyncraticLawyer

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Stop derailing this thread. You should've asked for permission to participate in the first place.

Same to you, IdiosyncraticLawyer

Okay, very sorry. I got carried away. I was planning to respond to Tarang123 again, but I won't if it's derailing.

 

[Tarang123]

Stop derailing this thread. You should've asked for permission to participate in the first place.

Same to you, IdiosyncraticLawyer

Sorry about that.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

What about verses that dont really have a stated infinite cosmology, but have a unique verse structure that brings theoretical spaces to life (e.g, if its possible to exist, it does.)

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

What about verses that dont really have a stated infinite cosmology, but have a unique verse structure that brings theoretical spaces to life (e.g, if its possible to exist, it does.)

For the future: Please ask for permission to participate on staff threads. I will leave the comment if any staff wants to answer your question.

@Tdjwo @Rakih_Elyan consider yourself warned to not severely derail a thread like this again. I will continue deleting the derailing comments.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

What about verses that dont really have a stated infinite cosmology, but have a unique verse structure that brings theoretical spaces to life (e.g, if its possible to exist, it does.)

It still fall under this CRT jurisdictions, as it is almost the same as the mentioned statements in the OP.

 

[Starter_Pack]

I have mentioned before that I really don't like being brought into discussions like these, as I am not comfortable discussing high tier matters with a voice of clarity and understanding.

My apologies.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I have mentioned before that I really don't like being brought into discussions like these, as I am not comfortable discussing high tier matters with a voice of clarity and understanding.

My apologies.

No problem.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Bump....

 

[BoastJr]

following and waiting for conclusions

 

[Ultima_Reality]

No, hasty generalization is the case, as there are variables that can make this untrue. 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.

You acknowledge that the Hitler example qualifies as such. Why? What is the variable that can make it untrue here? Taken literally, there is none. The only answer is that the person who made that statement didn't make it with such precise attention as to take such extreme circumstances into account for the general rule. That the statement is not to be taken that literally. Same with a transcend dimensions statement. If an author says a character transcends dimensions, it's a big jump to assume this is meant to include extreme cases like higher cardinals or generally anything we don't know to exist. Eve if the statement is reliable, that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally to this extent.

You are confusing a mathematical statement, with a statement in fiction. Heck, even a mathematician would raise an eyebrow at "above dimensions" and ask you of a dozen definitions for what the hell that is supposed to mean, as for a mathematician such statements are way to imprecise to work with.

What physics is concerned: The laws of nature decide everything. They don't just decide what doesn't exist, but also what does exist in physics. And I'm not necessarily talking about real-life laws of nature, but fictional ones too. If higher dimensions exist, those are also part of physics and laws of nature. And if they don't, that's also a part of it. In reality, nothing exists that is not governed by physics. If it exists, it exists because physics makes it so. Point is: If there is no part of physics that ever caused the creation of a higher dimensional space, then there is none. And it is not implausible, that within physics it's impossible to create one, as physics includes no mechanism for such a thing. In fact, it is imaginable, that there is a law explicitly making it impossible. We don't know for sure, but you can exclude the consideration of physical laws of reality putting a limit on the size of it, meaning they are one of those variables that can make the statement false. Hence the hasty generalization fallacy applies.

"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:

Not to mention that, if a character is described as beyond dimensionality altogether, then that's not necessarily restricted only to dimensions that exist in the physical. If a verse has only 4 dimensions and then a structure encompassing it is described as exceeding dimensionality entirely, do you really think that, in-verse, that structure could be modelled as a 5-dimensional space? If so, why? And how wouldn't that just contradict the idea that it is supposed to be above dimensionality?

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:

Mathematical concepts are not like this: We don't wave our hands around and conjure these things by magic, we establish primitive notions and instruments, and then work our way up, building larger and more complex things out of the foundation they provide. What this results in is a state of affairs where larger things depend on smaller, more basic ones, and are defined in terms of them. When we consider R⁵, all we're thinking about is the real number line multiplied by itself five times over (R x R x R x R x R), which is to say that 5-dimensional space is defined in terms of 1-dimensional space. To have 5 or 91 or 81,519 dimensions, we first need to define 1 dimension. This is a degree of uniformity and dependence between members of a group that is not present in other cases where a hasty generalization is being made, so, for all intents and purposes, when you transcend one dimension, you already transcended them all.

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.

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)

Now, magic is the same game. A fictional work is not only governed by the laws of physics. There are also magical laws and forces. What you are wrong about is the idea that a force would need to suppress the existence of higher dimensions. That's because you go in with the weird idea that if they exist if nothing prevents them. That's wrong. It's not that higher dimensions need to be prevented by something, it's that they need to be caused by anything to begin with. If nothing can cause a aleph_1 space to exist, then it doesn't and can't.

So, if say a god creates everything in a verse, then if there is a limit on its power as for how large structures it can create, then that is also the limit on how large the verse can be, due to the rules governing the supernatural powers of the verse.

Or, other example, maybe there are magical rituals that can create higher dimensions, but those could be governed by occult laws that prevent the creation of any too large. E.g. maybe you can use the ritual as often as you like, but due to the inherent mechanics of magic layering it infinite times at once to pass from finite to infinite dimensions is not possible. Since that's just how magic works. And due to that nobody could create more dimensions, so there are none. Then it would be rightful to say that a character that transcends all (possible) dimensions is just aleph_0 dimensions level, as in the verse having more is impossible by its internal logic. Hence, we have another variable that can turn the generalization false. That makes 3.

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.

Aren't we forgetting one teensy-weensy, but ever so crucial little, tiny detail? We see that stuff happening. This isn't about knowing author intent, this is about putting a minimal amount of effort into interpreting what is actually supposed to be going on in story.

If a character blows up a mountain we don't know how many tons of TNT the author had in mind, but we know the character blew up a mountain.
If we just have a statement "this character blows up a mounatin", know what we do in calculations? We take the smallest mountain possible and calc that.
And if the statement is just "this character blow up a hill"? Then we don't calculate it at all, because we can't tell what is going on with enough certainty to make any estimate.

You can't just take all statement to it's most literal conclusion because "we don't know what is meant". You have to try to properly interpret them. If the statement is vague, you go to the lowest end of what that vagueness can describe. Just because you can't tell whether the author meant the smallest mountain, doesn't mean you go and rank the character by a bigger one. You look through all legitimate ways the statement could be meant and interpret it in the lowest reasonable way.

So, the point is, amongst all reasonable interpretations, many lower than what you propose are contained. The statement is probably not supposed to be interpreted the way you propose. 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.

You don't win this debate by proving that your interpretation is not categorically excluded. You only win if you can show that it is with reasonable certainty correct. And you will have a hard time of that if anyone with half an understanding of the subject knows that your interpretation is not the intention, even if nobody knows which other interpretation is the true intention.

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.

No, higher tiers should be harder to get because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That works in real life that way and just as much in fictional analysis. I expect more evidence for a High 1-A character being Higher 1-A, than for a Wall level character being Wall level. If your argument that a character should have a 10% higher rating has a 10% chance of being wrong that's ok. If your argument that a character being infinite levels of infinity higher than it's ranking has a 10% chance of being wrong that's concerning. The more wrong you potentially are, the more certain you should be that you are not. If my character Bob has a 5% chance of being the strongest character in fiction, but otherwise in 9-B, and my character Karl has a 5% chance of being 9-B, but otherwise is 9-C, I am much more inclined of approving Karl to have a 9-B ranking, but not Bob

So, it isn't about "difficult to get". They can be easy to get, by just having good really clear evidence. Like, as you mentioned, being explicit about cardinals. However, if you want a Low 1-C character to be High 1-A based on a single argument, than that argument better be rock solid. That it would make sense for a statement to mean High 1-A isn't enough. You need to know that it actually did. The error is too large for vague guesswork.

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.

That aside, I find it amusing that you doubt the existence of singularities, as they arise from the formalism of a theory with much evidence like general relativity (although we have measured them by now), but don't doubt the existence of higher dimensions of which we know no mechanism which would indicate their physical existence (or non-physical existence in any tiering relevant fashion).

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.

Even if the verse had actually presented a black hole, it would still be assumptive, because it stretches the statement to no end. Like, I bet you in Dr. Who someone has at some point created a black hole on Earth and yet we wouldn't give a character stated to be immune to everything that was ever on Earth a High 3-A durability rating, just because there was technically is a thing with High 3-A destructive power at some point 10 years ago in a different storyline. Even there we would probably expect some closer evidence of that black hole being included.

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.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I think this is just the difference in what the standard should be, I assume you disagree with this thread? @Ultima_Reality
Do you want to go to voting phase?

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 be any kind of trump card. 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.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I assume you disagree with this thread? @Ultima_Reality
Do you want to go to voting phase?

I partly disagree, I suppose. As said before, I think that if the feat in question is "Plane of existence X is in some unreachable point beyond any finite addition of layers of existence," that's High 1-B. If it's unreachable to infinite layers too, it's Low 1-A. Meanwhile if it's beyond dimensionality outright, it shouldn't be Low 1-A, it should be High 1-A at absolute worst.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I partly disagree, I suppose. As said before, I think that if the feat in question is "Plane of existence X is in some unreachable point beyond any finite addition of layers of existence," that's High 1-B. If it's unreachable to infinite layers too, it's Low 1-A. Meanwhile if it's beyond dimensionality outright, it shouldn't be Low 1-A, it should be High 1-A at absolute worst.

I see what you mean, so you think that dimensionality in a whole encompasses the entire Aleph.
I will put you on the disagree.
Do you mind if we go on a voting phase here?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Do you mind if we go on a voting phase here?

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.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

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 see, understood.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

It seems like Ultima want to continue to discuss with you here.

 

[Tarang123]

If I may quickly throw my opinion out there before leaving this up to the staff to decide upon, I think it's a little strange that the main, and basically only, opposition against Ultima's "beyond the concept of dimensions = High 1A" argument is just jerking off standards as if that's an appropriate response. If you don't like Ultima's suggestion, then debunk it based on actual logic and why it doesn't make sense according to the tiering system. Stop letting your personal biases and preferences get in the way of this.

I'm going to leave myself out of the DT and Ultima discussion, but I find it very dishonest to agree with either of them just cause it fits your personal bias on how things "should" work rather than what actually makes sense.

If you think DT's "infinity + 1" argument makes sense, agree with that because it makes more sense, not because you think that's how the wiki should function. I'm a bit surprised that people are getting "concerned" from Ultima's proposals to begin with considering that they've made a tiering system where 99% of all the high tier stuff is based on dimensions to begin with.

As for the argument being made, I will say this much. I personally agree with it, but I think a counter can be made for it to stay at 1A. The way I see it, the concept of dimensions in fictional works usually only ever refers to the usual spatial-temporal dimensions, which cap off at Low 1A iirc. So transcending that concept would be 1A instead of High 1A. But that’s a possible counter I can think of

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

If I may quickly throw my opinion out there before leaving this up to the staff to decide upon, I think it's a little strange that the main, and basically only, opposition against Ultima's "beyond the concept of dimensions = High 1A" argument is just jerking off standards as if that's an appropriate response. If you don't like Ultima's suggestion, then debunk it based on actual logic and why it doesn't make sense according to the tiering system. Stop letting your personal biases and preferences get in the way of this.

Because honestly, all of that are just NLF. Why we would assume that the entire dimensionality would encompasses the entire Aleph? When we just capped unreachable to dimensionality by infinite is just Low 1-A?

I'm going to leave myself out of the DT and Ultima discussion, but I find it very dishonest to agree with either of them just cause it fits your personal bias on how things "should" work rather than what actually makes sense.

If you think DT's "infinity + 1" argument makes sense, agree with that because it makes more sense, not because you think that's how the wiki should function. I'm a bit surprised that people are getting "concerned" from Ultima's proposals to begin with considering that they've made a tiering system where 99% of all the high tier stuff is based on dimensions to begin with.

Honestly all of this are being based on personal bias is almost true, because we all have different opinions on how should dimensions caps. In a lot of sense, being above all dimensions is already on Cardinal is NLF.

More extraordinary claims should be made for High 1-A besides being beyond dimensions as a basis, because Aleph-null on itself is a shitton of Infinite that it is qualify for dimensionality itself.

As for the argument being made, I will say this much. I personally agree with it, but I think a counter can be made for it to stay at 1A. The way I see it, the concept of dimensions in fictional works usually only ever refers to the usual spatial-temporal dimensions, which cap off at Low 1A iirc. So transcending that concept would be 1A instead of High 1A. But that’s a possible counter I can think of

Spatial and temporal dimensions is at maximum caps at High 1-B, Low 1-A is a very big if that even Wikipedia are not sure if the spatiotemporal dimensions are actually have separable set.

 

[Tarang123]

Because honestly, all of that are just NLF. Why we would assume that the entire dimensionality would encompasses the entire Aleph? When we just capped unreachable to dimensionality by infinite is just Low 1-A?

Why would that be an NLF? And why would it not? We already assume that it goes past aleph null (which is literally the purpose of the thread). Being above the concept of dimensions is literally what it means. Above the abstraction of dimensions, which includes the alephs, which are literal dimensions.

And no it wouldn't be Low 1A cause Low 1A just encompasses the set of real numbers. It would be where the concept would cap at bare minimum. Being above it would be aleph 2 even at the lowest.

Honestly all of this are being based on personal bias is almost true, because we all have different opinions on how should dimensions caps. In a lot of sense, being above all dimensions is already on Cardinal is NLF.

That's not what's being argued though. What's being argued by people against it is that it would inflate wiki stats, which is literally the dumbest thing I've heard all day considering we have like 30 Tier 0 characters. Being above all dimensions should definitely be case-by-case, but if it's legit, why wouldn't it be High 1A? It seems like a stretch to say that a character is beyond the concept of dimensions but still bound by a higher dimension.

More extraordinary claims should be made for High 1-A besides being beyond dimensions as a basis, because Aleph-null on itself is a shitton of Infinite that it is qualify for dimensionality itself.

Aleph null is literally just countable infinity. It's not "a shit ton". And no, it wouldn't, Low 1A would be where it scales due to it encompassing the set of real numbers.

Spatial and temporal dimensions is at maximum caps at High 1-B, Low 1-A is a very big if that even Wikipedia are not sure if the spatiotemporal dimensions are actually have separable set.

That is literally not true. Aleph 1, even on our tiering system, encompasses the set of real numbers, which would mean that's where conventional space-time dimensions would cap at.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

And no it wouldn't be Low 1A cause Low 1A just encompasses the set of real numbers. It would be where the concept would cap at bare minimum. Being above it would be aleph 2 even at the lowest.

That is literally not true. Aleph 1, even on our tiering system, encompasses the set of real numbers, which would mean that's where conventional space-time dimensions would cap at.

Conversely, a metrizable space is separable if and only if it is second countable, which is the case if and only if it is Lindelöf.

-Wikipedia

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

The truth or falsity of this hypothesis is undecidable and cannot be proven within the widely used Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with axiom of choice (ZFC).
c=N¹ is cannot be proven using ZFC, it is larger than N⁰. But not necessarily equal to N¹ as they have different sets.

 

[Tarang123]

-Wikipedia

How does this address my point?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

How does this address my point?

My bad, see the post above.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I think we should instead use ZFC than CH, since we use ZFC for cardinality and CH is independent from ZFC.

 

[Tarang123]

My bad, see the post above.

Saw it, but there's another problem, and here's why I agree with Ultima. The thing with the alephs is that you literally get more alephs through the axiom of replacement. It's how you get the concept of higher infinities. High 1A (the inaccessible cardinal) is something so big that the very axiom itself is below it. No amount of replacement can reach it. To make it so that someone above the concept of dimensions is just aleph one would then mean they could be reached by just adding another dimension, which doesn't really make much sense.

The other thing is that to claim that it's an NLF, you'd be arguing that it's an NLF for it to scale to Aleph null rather than it being lower, which also doesn't really make sense due to how something like the concept of dimensions works anyway.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Saw it, but there's another problem, and here's why I agree with Ultima. The thing with the alephs is that you literally get more alephs through the axiom of replacement. It's how you get the concept of higher infinities. High 1A (the inaccessible cardinal) is something so big that the very axiom itself is below it. No amount of replacement can reach it. To make it so that someone above the concept of dimensions is just aleph one would then mean they could be reached by just adding another dimension, which doesn't really make much sense.

The other thing is that to claim that it's an NLF, you'd be arguing that it's an NLF for it to scale to Aleph null rather than it being lower, which also doesn't really make sense due to how something like the concept of dimensions works anyway.

It is the same as R itself, with no matter how many R there are. You will never reach N¹

 

[Tarang123]

It is the same as R itself, with no matter how many R there are. You will never reach N¹

So? You can literally reach N1 by using replacement. It's literally the equivalent of stacking blocks on each other. So long as the size of the blocks is the same, it works to get to a higher level.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

So? You can literally reach N1 by using replacement. It's literally the equivalent of stacking blocks on each other. So long as the size of the blocks is the same, it works to get to a higher level.

You need R^Infinity to reach High 1-B in this wiki, this is literally what you just said before.
Stacking R upon each other will just get you to Aleph-Null.

 

[Tarang123]

You need R^Infinity to reach High 1-B in this wiki, this is literally what you just said before.
Stacking R upon each other will just get you to Aleph-Null.

Okay, you didn't get what I meant or I misunderstood what you meant by R. When you have aleph null, all you have to do to get to aleph 1 is use replacement to basically duplicate the same size. That applies to other alephs too

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Okay, you didn't get what I meant or I misunderstood what you meant by R. When you have aleph null, all you have to do to get to aleph 1 is use replacement to basically duplicate the same size. That applies to other alephs too

R is dimension.
That mean the cardinality of Aleph-null right?
I will leave this to Ultima and DT, my head hurts.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

spatial and temporal dimensions is at maximum caps at high 1-b, low 1-a is a very big if that even wikipedia are not sure if the spatiotemporal dimensions are actually have separable set.

It's not really proper to say that spacetime dimensions as a whole cap that low. Strictly speaking there isn't much of a formal definition for what "space" is, for instance, and the closest you get to a definition at all in mathematics is "A set endowed with certain properties dictating how its members interact" (Which obviously doesn't suddenly stop when you get past infinite dimensions). As for time-like dimensions: The only difference is that they're usually represented by a negative signature in the spacetime model, so it isn't absurd to think of aleph-many temporal dimensions either.

All-in-all, what caps at Low 1-A is specifically the usual arrangements of the spacetime manifold as physics define them, since they have a few topological properties that form a strict cap on their cardinality, but that doesn't mean spacetime dimensions as a whole cap at that point.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

It's not really proper to say that spacetime dimensions as a whole cap that low. Strictly speaking there isn't much of a formal definition for what "space" is, for instance, and the closest you get to a definition at all in mathematics is "A set endowed with certain properties dictating how its members interact" (Which obviously doesn't suddenly stop when you get past infinite dimensions). As for time-like dimensions: The only difference is that they're usually represented by a negative signature in the spacetime model, so it isn't absurd to think of aleph-many temporal dimensions either.

All-in-all, what caps at Low 1-A is specifically the usual arrangements of the spacetime manifold as physics define them, since they have a few topological properties that form a strict cap on their cardinality, but that doesn't mean spacetime dimensions as a whole cap at that point.

Not a whole yes, but without further context. It is Low 1-A.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Not a whole yes, but without further context. It is Low 1-A.

?

I'm confused. Given your mentions of separable and metrizable spaces it seemed that, when you said spacetime dimensions capped at High 1-B, you were making a statement about how it is in math. Then when I point out that it's wrong, you seem to imply that it's just how we decided to treat it on the wiki?