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

[Deagonx]

Just having the mechanics of dimensionality not apply to you, doesn't mean that you are above all unmentioned things those mechanics could potentially mathematically bring forth.

This is, IMO, absolutely crucial and an extremely succinct way to capture the issue at hand.

Dimensionality should not be assumed by default to refer to "all possible ways to conceptualize dimensionality, even theoretical ones" rather than "the conceptualization of dimensionality that the verse in question actually uses." Any conceptual being could be described as "beyond dimensionality." Logically, there's no reason to assume that "adding an additional spatial dimension" would have any effect on any conceptual being. Would the "concept of good" suddenly be rendered an inert physical object?

Of course not. But we cannot have a system which both treats spatial dimensions as making a verse infinitely more powerful, and that also gives free reign to conceptual beings to automatically be considered above an infinite amount of them just because they exist above the dimensionality of that specific fiction.

These sorts of compromises aren't new to us. Just like DT said, the logical result of R>F transcendence or author powers could just result in Tier 0, since I can easily write an Azathoth clone and claim R>F transcendence over it. Since this is obviously an untenable approach within our system, we limit that to a single degree of infinity.

 

[Antvasima]

All non-staff members please stop commenting here. Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we apply DontTalk's suggested modifications to our tiering system now then? I think that he has sufficiently strong support for it.

 

[Firestorm808]

It is common practice to make the least amount of assumptions.

In this case, it's leaning toward DT's interpretation.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, agreed.

 

[Tarang123]

So should we apply DontTalk's suggested modifications to our tiering system now then? I think that he has sufficiently strong support for it.

If I may jump in here, I think it would be best to still let the discussion play out and truly flesh out. The thread is only two pages long and a lot of that has been subject to derailment

 

[Antvasima]

Well, this has been a major problematic issue for a long time, and as such there have been arguments regarding it for far longer than this thread, and we seem to have a strong staff consensus here, so I personally much prefer if @DontTalkDT applies the change rather quickly.

 

[Tarang123]

Well, this has been a major problematic issue for a long time, and as such there have been arguments regarding it for far longer than this thread, and we seem to have a strong staff consensus here, so I personally much prefer if @DontTalkDT applies the change rather quickly.

Sure, but I think brushing it aside and doing that to get it over with isn't really the best idea. It may get long, but I think letting things play out is the best course of action. I'd personally side with Ultima as his perspective makes the most sense to me rather than just spamming NLF over and over again as a counter. But that's just me

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the arguments that extraordinary claims need more extraordinary evidence, and that we cannot assume as astronomically exaggerated tiers as possible based on very vague and limited such evidence, are valid and solid axioms that are extremely important principles for the sustained reliability of our wiki overall, regardless if the argumentation is extensive enough for your taste.

Anything else are just prolonged and possibly sophisticated rationalisations to allow extreme exaggerations based on assumptions/with almost no solid ground to stand on as far as I am concerned.

So given that we have waited for years to get rid of this extremely destructive flaw in our system, I think that we should proceed without any further overly excessive back and forth repetition.

Also, this is still a staff only thread.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Well, the arguments that extraordinary claims need more extraordinary evidence, and that we cannot assume as astronomically exaggerated tiers as possible based on very vague and limited such evidence, are valid and solid axioms that are extremely important principles for the sustained reliability of our wiki overall, regardless if the argumentation is extensive enough for your taste.

Anything else are just prolonged and possibly sophisticated rationalisations to allow extreme exaggerations based on assumptions/with almost no solid ground to stand on as far as I am concerned.

So given that we have waited for years to get rid of this extremely destructive flaw in our system, I think that we should proceed without any further overly excessive back and forth repetition.

Also, this is still a staff only thread.

So what should we do about this?

Just apply the standard or wait for more discussion?

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, but I think brushing it aside and doing that to get it over with isn't really the best idea. It may get long, but I think letting things play out is the best course of action. I'd personally side with Ultima as his perspective makes the most sense to me rather than just spamming NLF over and over again as a counter. But that's just me

I don't think more discussion will be productive.

 

[AxisPowerRanger]

Time should be allowed for Ultima to make another response. Given his contributions to the wiki, how many people value his word on these topics, and the fact there are a good amount of people within his thread that agree with him. Just trying to push to end the thread w/o him being here feels extremely slimey.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I don't think more discussion will be productive.

What did you think about Low 1-A? Or should it follow our current standard(1-A)?

 

[Agnaa]

Time should be allowed for Ultima to make another response. Given his contributions to the wiki, how many people value his word on these topics, and the fact there are a good amount of people within his thread that agree with him. Just trying to push to end the thread w/o him being here feels extremely slimey.

It's more that there's been a consensus that hasn't really changed over Ultima's last several responses, and the way the conversation's going doesn't seem to be bringing up completely revelatory arguments/evidence, but honing in on side-side tangents, as they're the only parts of the issue left unexplored.

I would've said the same thing had DT not made his most recent response; it's not about who got the last word, but about where the conversation has been recently.

And hell, I'm not against them talking more (whether before we apply these changes, or afterwards), I just don't think it'd change the outcome of this thread.

What did you think about Low 1-A? Or should it follow our current standard(1-A)?

I don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered finding out.

If it's something I haven't commented on, I have no opinion. If it is, and you're just not able to tease that out, then someone else who can should point to it.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I don't know what you're talking about and can't be bothered finding out.

About beyond dimensions, I just need to inquire your stance clearly in this CRT.

Sorry if I bothering you.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

The verse that (maybe) will be affected by this.

1. Nasuverse
2. Megami Tensei
3. Isekai at Peace
4. Instant Death

Not to interject, but this will also affect Marvel Comics, as the White Hot Room is referred to a dimensionally transcendent space, devoid of directions.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It is a rebuttal in that "different form all dimensional space" isn't equivalent to "superior to all dimensional space in the ZFC Axioms".

Indeed it isn't, which is why I was never talking about characters who are simply different from dimensions, but outright superior to them in nature. So bringing up that kind of character is pretty useless as a point.

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

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

And as I've said above, that's pretty much just nonsense, or at least nonsense when scaled down to this level. Refer to the analogy I've made up there:

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

So far, you haven't really explained what exactly it is that makes a beyond-dimensional character in any way "equivalent" to a character who is one dimensional jump above the rest of their verse, in scope. And for the matter the fact they're both "bigger than n-D" (For some n in-verse) doesn't create an equality in scope. That's a textbook false equivalence, in fact, because you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different in nature just because they share one loose property (Superiority over some level of existence). So it's not much better than arguing that apples and oranges most taste the same because they're both round and are fruits.

As said prior. You're either just completely different from dimensions in nature, and as such not comparable to them at all in terms of physicality, or your nature is one wholly superior to them. No real middle ground here. There are quantities that can't be meaningfully compared to each other even in the same universe: Asking whether a kilometer is bigger than 3 kg is a nonsense question, after all. Naturally the same would apply when you're trying to equate the scope of something spatial to the scope of something non-spatial.

Just having evidence that your are power-wise above x dimensions, doesn't proof you are also above x+2 dimensions. And both together, still don't prove you are infinite levels stronger. It just proves that the mechanisms of dimensionality don't apply to you and that you are more powerful than those who can destroy x dimensions.

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

A non-dimensional character certainly could be Tier 6, yes. You can have a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 off of a feat of destroying Britain (Amen) with great effort, for instance. However, what you can't really have is a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 due to being as large as Britain (Because being comparable in size to Britain would mean space applies to them and as such would contradict their alleged non-dimensionality). That dials back up to a previous point of mine: Either you are simply different from dimensions, and as such not comparable to any dimensional space, or you are above them outright.

Right now, your point eeems to be that "above dimensions" is satisfied by simply being of a distinct nature from all dimensionality + Having more AP than the dimensional things present in the verse, which is a pretty wacky point to make because it'd simply mean that the AP of that character is not on a non-dimensional level. For instance a character who is non-dimensional but Tier 7 would physically be exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would nevertheless be on a finite energy level just the same. Same here. A character who is non-dimensional but High 1-B would be physically exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would be on an infinite-dimensional level.

So, again, just dodging the point entirely. By that logic a Low 2-C character could be described as "beyond dimensions" if they have Type 1 BDE and a feat of effortlessly blowing up a timeline (In a verse where only that timeline exists), which is something obviously different from what I'm talking about, since even the FAQ says "Above dimensions in relation to a 4-D cosmology would be Low 1-C."

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

Not really the case, if cardinals beyond ZFC don't really exist at all. The character could be just something akin to the Universe of Sets itself for instance.

A believe "above dimensions" is too unspecific, because it can, in my opinion, rightfully be interpreted to mean things other than transcending all dimensional spaces that can be constructed in ZFC. A statement can potentially mean anything a reasonable reader of the work might interpret them as and many reasonable readers don't have the mathematical background to even consider this interpretation i.e. other interpretations of the scope of dimensions meant are plausible. As specific examples I named things like that it could mean dimensions limited to the knowledge of mathematics that is applied to the verse, dimensions that physically exist in the verse or dimensions that could potentially be produced in the verse.

All of those specific cases are being contested up there, so, not gonna scatter the points around by bringing up my objections to them here, really.

(Though I find it weird that you use "It could just be beyond the idea of dimensions within the scope of the mathematical knowledge present in the verse" and yet say a feat like that is just equal to one dimensional jump above the cosmology, because I'd certainly say higher finite numbers of dimensions are within the same scope of knowledge as 3-D or 4-D space)

I don't think "Being above one dimension = Being above all" due to... obvious reason IMO? Every character with power to transcend 4D space, but not 5D is a counterexample to the notion as such. That's why we have tiers between 2-A and 1-A. There are tons of degrees of power between those levels imaginable. And not just dimensional degrees of power, but also R>F stuff which we don't upgrade to High 1-A just due to being qualitatively above one dimension either. Like, dimensional spaces have different sizes. Obviously being above a small size doesn't imply being above all the larger ones, too...

Misses my point again. Let me quote myself from different points of this thread:

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.

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.

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

So, as I said, being above n-dimensional space isn't really the same as being above the very dimensions making up that space. The fact that this was your rebuttal to that point despite me explaining it three times on this thread tells me you haven't really been paying too much attention to my points at all.

This is, IMO, absolutely crucial and an extremely succinct way to capture the issue at hand.

Dimensionality should not be assumed by default to refer to "all possible ways to conceptualize dimensionality, even theoretical ones" rather than "the conceptualization of dimensionality that the verse in question actually uses." Any conceptual being could be described as "beyond dimensionality." Logically, there's no reason to assume that "adding an additional spatial dimension" would have any effect on any conceptual being. Would the "concept of good" suddenly be rendered an inert physical object?

Of course not. But we cannot have a system which both treats spatial dimensions as making a verse infinitely more powerful, and that also gives free reign to conceptual beings to automatically be considered above an infinite amount of them just because they exist above the dimensionality of that specific fiction.

These sorts of compromises aren't new to us. Just like DT said, the logical result of R>F transcendence or author powers could just result in Tier 0, since I can easily write an Azathoth clone and claim R>F transcendence over it. Since this is obviously an untenable approach within our system, we limit that to a single degree of infinity.

I don't think that's much a point at all. Conceptual beings are perfectly able to fall under the same caveat I listed up there: They're distinct from dimensions in nature, and as such simply incomparable to them. Not superior or inferior to n-dimensional space. Just different from it.

Reality-Fiction Interactions are also a bit of a different case from this one, seeing as the scope logically implied by them is so boundless that, at that point, the same arguments for disallowing omnipotence as an usable concept in tiering can apply to it (i.e It's such a distant endpoint that, by definition, no statement would be able to prove you're at that scope regardless of how well-developed). Therefore any scope we chose to limit it to is ultimately going to be arbitrary and not really more accurate that any other, so we may as well limit it to whatever the verse directly demonstrates (Which in most cases is one dimensional jump above whatever is transcended).

Being superior to dimensions is not really like that at all. There is indeed a reasonable low-end to it that doesn't really skyrocket up to genuine boundlessness while also being a good deal more logical than "one dimensional jump."

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So should we apply DontTalk's suggested modifications to our tiering system now then? I think that he has sufficiently strong support for it.

There are, as illustrated by the post above, a good deal of things DT hasn't really made clear regarding his stance on the matter. Not to mention that he's missed my points quite spectacularly time and time again (Like with the "Above one dimension = above all" point, which he misinterpreted despite me explaining it thrice over in this thread, and his point about how you can be non-dimensional at any tier), and the other staff member (Deagon) who actually bothered to comment in any depth is also guilty of the same, with his point about conceptual beings. So, I don't think that's very much appropriate, no.

 

[Deagonx]

There is indeed a reasonable low-end to it that doesn't really skyrocket up to genuine boundlessness while also being a good deal more logical than "one dimensional jump."

That's sort of the crux of the matter is what one finds to be the most reasonable or logical.

I'm inclined to agree with Agnaa that this discussion has plateaued and I think the points being made on both sides are about as clear as they are likely going to be. So should we call more staff here to vote and try to reach a consensus?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That's sort of the crux of the matter is what one finds to be the most reasonable or logical.

That's true, and I've already explained my own reasoning. Meanwhile, the opposing side's stance seems to be summarized by:

"Being different from dimensions isn't the same as being superior to them" (Which is a comically large strawman, seeing as my argument has always been about characters who are superior to dimensions, specifically}

"Being above dimensionality can technically be satisfied by a character who is non-dimensional and also has more AP than other dimensional things in the verse" (This doesn't really work, since it's talking about a case where the nature of the character's physiology is independent from their AP, which is not what I aim to discuss. As prior, it makes sense for a character to be non-dimensional and also only Tier 6 because their best feat is destroying Britain, but it makes no sense to have a character who is non-dimensional and simultaneously Tier 6 because they're as large as Britain)

"The levels of the Tiering System aren't necessarily dimensional. They can also simply be things that are equivalent to dimensional jumps, but not the same thing as them." (Fails to explain what makes those other things be equivalent to dimensional jumps in the first place)

"Being beyond dimensions can simply be in relation to whatever the author's idea of dimensions is." (Irrelevant because the intent of the author is completely unknowable in most cases and as such shouldn't be used for that. And DontTalk himself has admitted here that involving the author's intent isn't necessary at all and that other factors can be involved, to which my response was this)"

The fourth point of contention, in particular, eventually boiled down to me asking "Why exactly is a jump of one dimension sufficient to describe the scope of a character who is superior to dimensions?" (And so did the whole thing with the "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" shtick), which in turn leads to the third point. So, as I see it, that right there is the real crux of the whole debate. Rushing to votes is just avoiding any actual addressing of it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Aside from the whole extrapolation debate, there was still the stuff OP was originally about: If we have enough evidence for infinite dimensions and statements of transcending physical dimensions, do we default to Low 1-A (infinite hierarchy +1) or 1-A (due to the separability argument nobody seems to remember in detail apparently making that the more natural cut-off point)?

I guess the way the thread is going we are probably going with the Low 1-A option, in which case some baseline 1-A characters might go down to Low 1-A (Demon King Daimao 1-As should, I believe).



To summarize the regulations if we accept them with the Low 1-A option (definitely need to improve the wording of those later):

• Statements such as being "above dimensions" are, if sufficient evidence of qualitative superiority is given, ranked as 1 level of infinity above the amount of (tiering-applicable) dimensions we know to exist in the verse.
• Statements such as being "above all possible dimensions" need to be evaluated in detail to tell what "possible" refers to.
  • If there is no explanation given, we default to not more than were in some way mentioned (the mention does not have to be that they actually exist, but just that they could) or one more than that if it's clear that there are more possible than existing. If cardinals many things (points, objects dimensions) are mentioned to exist, we can default to the level of dimensions such a cardinality would at minimum require.
  • 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]
  • In other cases one one has to evaluate case-by-case what can be extrapolated relatively directly from what the verse has stated. E.g. if the verse has stated that for all dimensions there are, one could always, at any time, add one more, then it is reasonable to conclude that all possible dimensions include at least any finite amount and being qualitatively superior to that would hence result in Low 1-A ratings once more.
• Similar rules also apply for hierarchies above Low 1-A. I.e. a character above all (possible) dimensions on a 1-A level will likewise be rated as one level of infinity higher than what the largest dimensional thing in the verse is, if there is no further explanation. Of course, if a verse actually uses a hierarchy of cardinals and a character is mentioned to be above all (possible) such things, then they still get High 1-A.
• Those standards generalize to composite hierarchies. I.e. being qualitatively superior to all levels of reality or levels of infinity is evaluated as being one level of infinity higher than the biggest such thing that is known to exist in the verse. Being qualitatively superior to all possible levels of reality or levels of infinity is evaluated to be one level higher than the greatest level indicated to possibly exist or that can be extrapolated to possibly exist relatively directly from what the verse stated. Note that there is no analogy to assuming all finite dimensions are included in possible dimensions, for a system of mathematics that covers higher dimensions, when it comes to composite hierarchies. That is because for things like reality-fiction differences, stages of cultivations, planes of reality in which lower planes appear as small objects or similar the difference is not entirely logical in nature, but subject to the verse's internal rules for such supernatural things. As such a verse has to specify those rules in a way that makes it clear that infinite levels are definitely possible before similar extrapolation can be done. To list a few examples:
  • Character A is qualitatively superior to all possible stories. The verse tells us that all stories that can be expressed in words and are not paradoxical are possible. It also mentions that a story with infinite levels of qualitative superiority could exist. Then Character A would be Low 1-A based on that.
  • In a verse, there are 20 stages of cultivation and an unknown amount of more after that. The first one is Tier 7 and each subsequent one is qualitatively superior to the last. Character A is above all possible stages of cultivation and some truly unknowable entity from the perspective of those who are within them, but the verse doesn't specify in any way how many stages of cultivation are possible. As such the character would be ranked as Tier 1-B.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Aside from the whole extrapolation debate, there was still the stuff OP was originally about: If we have enough evidence for infinite dimensions and statements of transcending physical dimensions, do we default to Low 1-A (infinite hierarchy +1) or 1-A (due to the separability argument nobody seems to remember in detail apparently making that the more natural cut-off point)?

Possible dimensions shouldn't use uncountable infinite I think, they should use countable infinite since we based the tiering with ZFC theory. Continuum-Hypothesis stated that C>N0, or even C=N1, but it is not compatible and unproveable with ZFC.

I think we should tier them above baseline Low 1-A by C>N0 which is always true.

Although the axiom of constructibility does resolve CH, it is not generally considered to be intuitively true any more than CH is generally considered to be false.[13]

It turns out the rational numbers can actually be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the integers, and therefore the set of rational numbers is the same size (cardinality) as the set of integers: they are both countable sets.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That's true, and I've already explained my own reasoning. Meanwhile, the opposing side's stance seems to be summarized by:

"Being different from dimensions isn't the same as being superior to them" (Which is a comically large strawman, seeing as my argument has always been about characters who are superior to dimensions, specifically}

"Being above dimensionality can technically be satisfied by a character who is non-dimensional and also has more AP than other dimensional things in the verse" (This doesn't really work, since it's talking about a case where the nature of the character's physiology is independent from their AP, which is not what I aim to discuss. As prior, it makes sense for a character to be non-dimensional and also only Tier 6 because their best feat is destroying Britain, but it makes no sense to have a character who is non-dimensional and simultaneously Tier 6 because they're as large as Britain)

"The levels of the Tiering System aren't necessarily dimensional. They can also simply be things that are equivalent to dimensional jumps, but not the same thing as them." (Fails to explain what makes those other things be equivalent to dimensional jumps in the first place)

"Being beyond dimensions can simply be in relation to whatever the author's idea of dimensions is." (Irrelevant because the intent of the author is completely unknowable in most cases and as such shouldn't be used for that. And DontTalk himself has admitted here that involving the author's intent isn't necessary at all and that other factors can be involved, to which my response was this)"

The fourth point of contention, in particular, eventually boiled down to me asking "Why exactly is a jump of one dimension sufficient to describe the scope of a character who is superior to dimensions?" (And so did the whole thing with the "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" shtick), which in turn leads to the third point. So, as I see it, that right there is the real crux of the whole debate. Rushing to votes is just avoiding any actual addressing of it.

So, in summary, points 1, 2 and 4 are not really sound in the slightest, be it because they wholly miss what I'm trying to say or because they try to dodge it by resorting to talking about haphazard scenarios that only really qualify for the kind of statement being discussed if you abuse terminology or stretch definitions really hard. Point 3 has barely been discussed so far, meanwhile, and DontTalk's only established some vague notion of "equivalence" to support it without really explaining how this equivalence really comes about (And I've already pointed out how it's objectively just a false equivalence)

All-in-all, I want that properly answered.

If there is no explanation given, we default to not more than were in some way mentioned (the mention does not have to be that they actually exist, but just that they could) or one more than that if it's clear that there are more possible than existing. If cardinals many things (points, objects dimensions) are mentioned to exist, we can default to the level of dimensions such a cardinality would at minimum require.

What exactly does this mean, by the by? Sounds like you're saying that, if X cardinal's worth of things is mentioned to exist in a verse, we can default "Above dimensions" statements to the minimum number of dimensions that such a cardinality would require (i.e If there are aleph-2 things in a verse, such statements would be tiered off of transcending aleph-2 many dimensions)

This sounds like an odd separation when taking into account your first point, seeing as everything from R through R^ω falls under 2^aleph-0 (Unlike larger cardinals' worth of dimensions, which have much more narrow cut-off points). So if 2^aleph-0 things exist, then there isn't much of a reason to not include all the dimensions that fall under that amount of things. Excluding larger cardinal amounts of dimensions makes some amount of sense, but that really doesn't, imo.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That's true, and I've already explained my own reasoning. Meanwhile, the opposing side's stance seems to be summarized by:

"Being different from dimensions isn't the same as being superior to them" (Which is a comically large strawman, seeing as my argument has always been about characters who are superior to dimensions, specifically}

"Being above dimensionality can technically be satisfied by a character who is non-dimensional and also has more AP than other dimensional things in the verse" (This doesn't really work, since it's talking about a case where the nature of the character's physiology is independent from their AP, which is not what I aim to discuss. As prior, it makes sense for a character to be non-dimensional and also only Tier 6 because their best feat is destroying Britain, but it makes no sense to have a character who is non-dimensional and simultaneously Tier 6 because they're as large as Britain)

"The levels of the Tiering System aren't necessarily dimensional. They can also simply be things that are equivalent to dimensional jumps, but not the same thing as them." (Fails to explain what makes those other things be equivalent to dimensional jumps in the first place)

"Being beyond dimensions can simply be in relation to whatever the author's idea of dimensions is." (Irrelevant because the intent of the author is completely unknowable in most cases and as such shouldn't be used for that. And DontTalk himself has admitted here that involving the author's intent isn't necessary at all and that other factors can be involved, to which my response was this)"

The fourth point of contention, in particular, eventually boiled down to me asking "Why exactly is a jump of one dimension sufficient to describe the scope of a character who is superior to dimensions?" (And so did the whole thing with the "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" shtick), which in turn leads to the third point. So, as I see it, that right there is the real crux of the whole debate. Rushing to votes is just avoiding any actual addressing of it.

Ultima, again, you not liking my answers doesn't mean that I didn't already reply to your points.

Much of your last reply consisted of you quoting parts of your old posts, which should have been a hint towards me perhaps already given replies to those parts when I answered the old posts. Disagreement on the validity of the argument isn't the same as not addressing things.

I can gladly reply once more, but you can't expect things to get stalled indefinitely until you are happy with the outcome.

What exactly does this mean, by the by? Sounds like you're saying that, if X cardinal's worth of things is mentioned to exist in a verse, we can default "Above dimensions" statements to the minimum number of dimensions that such a cardinality would require (i.e If there are aleph-2 things in a verse, such statements would be tiered off of transcending aleph-2 many dimensions)

This sounds like an odd separation when taking into account your first point, seeing as everything from R through R^ω falls under 2^aleph-0 (Unlike larger cardinals' worth of dimensions, which have much more narrow cut-off points). So if 2^aleph-0 things exist, then there isn't much of a reason to not include all the dimensions that fall under that amount of things. Excluding larger cardinal amounts of dimensions makes some amount of sense, but that really doesn't, imo.

I don't really understand your confusion regarding that point? Like, we default to the smallest structure that could contain those many things.

Like, if a character destroys a space that can contain 100 1 m^3 cubes, then we would default to that space being 100 m^3 in volume, as that's the minimum size of it.

If a character destroys a space that can contain countably infinite many 1 m^3 cubes, we would default to an infinite 3D space, as that's the smallest thing that can manage that.

If a character destroys a space that can contain aleph_1 many 1 m^3 cubes, we would default to 4D space, as that's the minimum space that could contain that many cubes.

And if a character destroys a space that can contain aleph_2 many 1 m^3 cubes... well, 4D space can't do it, 5D space can't do it, 6D space can't do it... the smallest space that can contain that would be one with aleph_2 many dimensions, no?

Or am I overlooking a space that can and is smaller than that?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not to interject, but this will also affect Marvel Comics, as the White Hot Room is referred to a dimensionally transcendent space, devoid of directions.

Demon King Daimao will be effected as well due to “possible worlds' hierarchy",
if I remember correctly, he should be now low 1-A with his void body 1-A (or higher into low 1-A)

Unless the infinite hierarchy is still valid somehow (they are being equated to possible worlds) which can be possibly high 1-B according to the last note from DT.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT based on your stance, being apophatic to 6D means you are not getting anything past 7D?

Well, what kind of statements do you exactly mean by that?
If you mean stuff like "this entity can't be described in any human terms whatsoever", then yeah. At best. The problem with that is that the idea is kinda paradoxical. Like, "is more powerful than us" would then also be a statement that doesn't apply. It's a bit like omnipotence: The idea itself doesn't apply in full to fiction, so one has to rely on the more specific details to rank it.
If you, on the other hand, mean only specific statements not applying (e.g. it's only described as "not weaker than us" and "can't be beaten" and stuff like that) then it depends on which ones the verse says are involved.

Demon King Daimao will be effected as well due to “possible worlds' hierarchy",
if I remember correctly, he should be now low 1-A with his void body 1-A (or higher into low 1-A)

Unless the infinite hierarchy is still valid somehow (they are being equated to possible worlds) which can be possibly high 1-B according to the last note from DT.

It's a little different regarding rankings and stuff, but best to not debate the details here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima, again, you not liking my answers doesn't mean that I didn't already reply to your points.

Much of your last reply consisted of you quoting parts of your old posts, which should have been a hint towards me perhaps already given replies to those parts when I answered the old posts.

I already explained why your answers were not sound logic. If you want to respond once more, that's fine, but don't brush aside me pointing out why you've missed my points and made bad arguments as simply "You didn't like my answers." Explain how exactly they address my arguments to begin with, because I certainly can explain how mine address yours. You replied, certainly, but that doesn't mean said replies are valid.

I don't really understand your confusion regarding that point? Like, we default to the smallest structure that could contain those many things.

Like, if a character destroys a space that can contain 100 1 m^3 cubes, then we would default to that space being 100 m^3 in volume, as that's the minimum size of it.

If a character destroys a space that can contain countably infinite many 1 m^3 cubes, we would default to an infinite 3D space, as that's the smallest thing that can manage that.

If a character destroys a space that can contain aleph_1 many 1 m^3 cubes, we would default to 4D space, as that's the minimum space that could contain that many cubes.

And if a character destroys a space that can contain aleph_2 many 1 m^3 cubes... well, 4D space can't do it, 5D space can't do it, 6D space can't do it... the smallest space that can contain that would be one with aleph_2 many dimensions, no?

Or am I overlooking a space that can and is smaller than that?

Ahhh, I see. Yeah, I'll admit I had a small lapse in my thinking there. My objections to that largely boil back to the same stuff as above, so, I'm fine with brushing this in particular aside.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It's a little different regarding rankings and stuff, but best to not debate the details here.

Sure, will be making a thread for it afterwards.

Also, your draft looks good but it definitely miss explanation because otherwise it looks compelling.

Perhaps, you can create a a page to clarify why your perspective is best for the fandom.

 

[Deagonx]

If you mean stuff like "this entity can't be described in any human terms whatsoever", then yeah. At best. The problem with that is that the idea is kinda paradoxical. Like, "is more powerful than us" would then also be a statement that doesn't apply

This is a bit off-topic for the thread, but big agree. It's kind of nonsensical to take a concept like indescribability, and then conclude that such a being can be described with great power as a result.

Let me say an entity that cannot be described by what they are but only by what they are not, where do statements like that rank?

I mean, I can't speak for DT, but personally I think the very idea of it is nonsensical. "Can only be described in terms of what it is not" is a positive description, not a negative one.

But I just don't see how this concept is tierable at all, let alone a shortcut to anything super high, because the basic premise is incompatible with our tiers, which constitutes a positive description, not a negative one: i.e. "can destroy a universe."

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Honestly I'm not sure what this tangent about negative theology has to do with the topic at hand. The current debate, by and large, is about statements of being above dimensionality, and whether it is valid to treat such things as valid evidence to jump to 1-A or higher. That other stuff just needlessly clutters the thread and is best left to be discussed somewhere else. With that in mind I am deleting the comments pertaining to the topic.

To place this somewhat back on its tracks, I'd like to bring attention to this particular comment:

Ant, I am having a tough time comprehending this stuff. Could you break down both sides' points for me so I can understand the thread better? You seem to have a good grasp on both sides. Thank you.

@Antvasima

From what I can tell, you edited it to "Unproductive rhetorical sarcasm," before deleting the post itself. While I agree that it was, indeed, rhetorical sarcasm, I myself fail to see how it is unproductive. I don't think it's unreasonable to try and verify if the voting parties in a debate do, indeed, have a good grasp on the arguments made by both of its sides. It's not at all appropriate to leave the decision factor on the hands of people who don't have a clue of what's being spoken, after all.

I don't intend to drag this into its own separate discussion, but something important to keep in mind, imo.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have too many distracting tasks to provide indepth analysis and explanations of all of your respective arguments, especially as I would have to reread them to even remember them reasonably well, but the way I perceive this, DontTalk is trying to add some very reasonable safeguards to avoid easy shortcuts to as extreme tiers as possible without sufficiently elaborate evidence, whereas you want to keep our system as it is (which allows very unreliable interpretations), and I am extremely opposed to exaggerated tiers based on very vague premises in general.

Also, yes, singling me out one of the comparatively few times I actually take a firm stand regarding an issue is unproductive derailing.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

Is it not rather disingenuous to agree with a position you do not fully understand, but only the conclusion of it? DT, Agnaa, and Ultima, regardless of their positions, seem to pretty firmly understand the descriptions and terms being used.

I myself am still reading reading the points, and taking the time to understand things I’ve never heard of before, and I think that’s a principle both parties should uphold if they want to vote on something that’s supposed to be this important. Repeating the Sagan Standard without explaining what’s extraordinary is the same as saying nothing.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

DontTalk is trying to add some very reasonable safeguards to avoid easy shortcuts to as extreme tiers as possible without sufficiently elaborate evidence, whereas you want to keep them, and I am extremely opposed to exaggerated tiers based on very vague premises in general.

I think both I and DontTalk agreed that "easy shortcuts" to high tiers aren't themselves the issue (He himself admitted that it can be easy to get to 1-A, High 1-A and 0 just through explicit mentions of cardinal numbers, after all), but whether said shortcuts are valid to begin with. Lots of people being in high tiers isn't exactly an issue if all their ratings are accurate in the end.

For the rest, I refer to what Milly said*.

*EDIT: I've undeleted his post, by the way. He has nothing else to say on this thread, as confirmed to me in private, and the contents of the message are pertinent to the issue at hand.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I think that this is just about engaging in ad hominem rhetorical agitation to prevent me from using my staff rights to make a judgement call here.

I have had several experiences over the years of very extreme tiers being applied without sufficiently elaborate evidence for my taste, and have read all of DontTalk's arguments here, and think that they make sense regarding ways that we can hopefully prevent this in the future.

 

[Antvasima]

I don't think that I have been rude or condescending towards our staff or regular members here, but admittedly recurrently have a blunt way of wording my responses, as I have very low emotional/social intelligence and an unfiltered way of reasoning/near inability to lie due to my mental disorders. It is hard for me to suddenly just get a brain transplant in that regard.

Anyway, I do not appreciate sarcasm or ad hominem distraction/agitation/derailing, and stand by my conclusions regarding that I agree with DontTalk here.

 

[Dr._whiteee]

No one knows what you're referring to because you deleted my comment.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima quoted it afterwards.

Edit: Oh, the second comment. Deagonx deleted that due to that it was non-staff derailing.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Honestly I'm not sure what this tangent about negative theology has to do with the topic at hand. The current debate, by and large, is about statements of being above dimensionality, and whether it is valid to treat such things as valid evidence to jump to 1-A or higher. That other stuff just needlessly clutters the thread and is best left to be discussed somewhere else. With that in mind I am deleting the comments pertaining to the topic.

Like you said this pertains to statements that grants jumps to 1-A, and so far negative theology statements grants jumps to 1-A, an example will be Fate, so it is not needless clutter but a valid concern on our we will treat negative theology in the nearest future

 

[DontTalkDT]

They have not, no, and i've already explained why they haven't been properly addressed. If you want to respond once more, that's fine, but don't brush aside me pointing out why you've missed my points as simply "You didn't like my answers." Explain how exactly they address my arguments to begin with, because I certainly can explain how mine address yours. The fact you wrote something doesn't mean said thing is valid.

Your opinion that they have not been properly addressed is based on your opinion that they didn't adequately answer your argument, while I think they did. So yeah, it's fundamentally related to not considering my points valid answers. Like, imagine you agreed with everything I said, would you still think it doesn't address stuff?

Indeed it isn't, which is why I was never talking about characters who are simply different from dimensions, but outright superior to them in nature. So bringing up that kind of character is pretty useless as a point.

The point you are missing here is what I said superiority in nature can be fulfilled by. Namely, being superior to in nature is fulfilled if you're

a) not of that nature. I.e. in this case not being dimensional. BDE Type 1 or 2. Otherwise, you would have to be superior to yourself, after all.

b) superior to the thing in itself. I.e. superior to the dimensions that there are in the fiction. The nature of something is determined by what it is. If in a verse dimensions don't include the whole ZFC hierarchy, then it also isn't part of the nature of dimensions in that verse. And, as frequently expressed, it is not a reasonable extrapolation to assume ZFC is per default part of every verse's idea of dimensions.

So it all comes around the fact that I (and apparently others) don't agree on vast extrapolations beyond the stuff mentioned in the verse.

And as I've said above, that's pretty much just nonsense, or at least nonsense when scaled down to this level. Refer to the analogy I've made up there:



So far, you haven't really explained what exactly it is that makes a beyond-dimensional character in any way "equivalent" to a character who is one dimensional jump above the rest of their verse, in scope. And for the matter the fact they're both "bigger than n-D" (For some n in-verse) doesn't create an equality in scope. That's a textbook false equivalence, in fact, because you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different in nature just because they share one loose property (Superiority over some level of existence). So it's not much better than arguing that apples and oranges most taste the same because they're both round and are fruits.

As said prior. You're either just completely different from dimensions in nature, and as such not comparable to them at all in terms of physicality, or your nature is one wholly superior to them. No real middle ground here. There are quantities that can't be meaningfully compared to each other even in the same universe: Asking whether a kilometer is bigger than 3 kg is a nonsense question, after all. Naturally the same would apply when you're trying to equate the scope of something spatial to the scope of something non-spatial.

We are, fundamentally, only comparing one thing: Power. And all characters have to have something that corresponds to power and is comparable to power in other verses. Otherwise, they could be untierable. That as well I have explained already.

So, first, I'm not comparing the size of a non-dimensional realm to a dimensional one. I am comparing the power needed to destroy a non-dimensional realm to the power needed to destroy a dimensional one.

I made the analogy of a void that could house a 3D realm before and said that destroying it could then be considered equivalent to 3D destruction or, more abstractly, that its "size" is equivalent to that of 3D space. To go more into detail on that: The reason I would accept it being 3D is that if you can destroy the void as a whole then you should reasonably be capable of doing the same when it has the 3D space inside, so you have to have at least as much power as needed to destroy the 3D space. If not for that, destroying the dimensionless void would be untierable. Note that I do not mean to say the void has a 3D size in a literal mathematical sense, this is only an analogy I use to describe how it would be treated for feats that involve the void, such as destruction.

That is one example of how I can talk about dimensionless things having tiering differences that can be equalized to those of dimensions. A void that can hold a 4D space inside has a better feat than the one that can hold only 3D space in it. When evaluating feats of destroying them, we would rank the former as the same power as destroying a 4D space and the latter as the same power as destroying 3D space, a relative power difference equivalent to that of destroying space 1 dimension higher. Two non-dimensional things, but the power differences involved can be the same.

I also mentioned composite hierarchies, which are another good example. Allow me to quote from our Reality-Fiction page:

Reality-Fiction Transcendence is a state where a being is qualitatively superior to another world, as a result of seeing the world as fiction and thus being more 'real' than said world. Due to this, the character will be treated as completely superior to the cosmology it transcends, and all characters limited to it, and will thus be granted a higher tier.

For example, if a character were to view an entire space-time continuum as fiction, they would be superior to such an extent that finite, or even basic infinite, differences in power cannot overcome their superiority. Thus, they would be treated as more than infinitely greater, such as in this case Low 1-C. The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity.

We acknowledge that, contrary to the difference between dimensional space, a R>F difference is not one of quantity, but of quality. As even infinity in fiction can not harm reality, we default to R>F being a power difference equal to the relative gap between an n-dimensional space and an n+1 dimensional space. We usually formulate those gaps as "more than countably infinite times greater". Basically, if you are that much powerful than some other thing, then you are one dimensional level bigger even if no dimensions are involved. This would for example even apply if you had a dimensionless void and then a R>F difference to a higher level of reality that is likewise dimensionless. I assume you knew that much.

In other words, we have a system where stacking relative differences of similar size to the difference between the size of dimensional spaces can get you the same tiers, as destroying constructs of certain dimensions, even without such constructs being involved.

And I believe that sufficiently answers the point. Assume you have a verse in which at most 6 dimensions can exist. And a non-dimensional character views those 6 dimensions as fiction. By the standard reasoning for R>F this character has power equivalent to that needed to destroy 7D space, but is not actually 7D. It's non-dimensional. So in this verse it can, by the criteria I laid out, reasonably be called superior in nature to dimensions and yet is not High 1-A.

It ultimately works because we don't just compare everything to dimensional space, but we use the power to destroy them as measuring stick.

Given, your argument is also in so far weird as that the alternative would be to just say they are untierable, as large cardinal dimensions don't represent non-dimensional objects in nature either. If you assert that a being above dimensions can't have a tier based on a dimensional measuring stick, large cardinal many dimensions would just also be out. But as said, I don't think the argument of non-dimensional characters not being able to have dimensional differences in power is sound to begin with. Their relative difference of power between each other can just be anything.

(Also, despite R>F logically being able to cover any written or imaginable description, including ZFC, we don't rank characters based on extrapolating from that. Just for comparison)

A non-dimensional character certainly could be Tier 6, yes. You can have a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 off of a feat of destroying Britain (Amen) with great effort, for instance. However, what you can't really have is a character who is non-dimensional and also Tier 6 due to being as large as Britain (Because being comparable in size to Britain would mean space applies to them and as such would contradict their alleged non-dimensionality). That dials back up to a previous point of mine: Either you are simply different from dimensions, and as such not comparable to any dimensional space, or you are above them outright.

Right now, your point eeems to be that "above dimensions" is satisfied by simply being of a distinct nature from all dimensionality + Having more AP than the dimensional things present in the verse, which is a pretty wacky point to make because it'd simply mean that the AP of that character is not on a non-dimensional level. For instance a character who is non-dimensional but Tier 7 would physically be exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would nevertheless be on a finite energy level just the same. Same here. A character who is non-dimensional but High 1-B would be physically exempt from all dimensions, but their AP would be on an infinite-dimensional level.

So, again, just dodging the point entirely. By that logic a Low 2-C character could be described as "beyond dimensions" if they have Type 1 BDE and a feat of effortlessly blowing up a timeline (In a verse where only that timeline exists), which is something obviously different from what I'm talking about, since even the FAQ says "Above dimensions in relation to a 4-D cosmology would be Low 1-C."

Well, I think you can guess my reply to this part based on what I got into based on the above.

To expand further on a few things: You can have power in an equivalent amount to that needed for some dimensional feat without said power in itself being dimensional. That's again the whole composite hierarchy thing. The moment we talk about BDE characters we straight up start ignoring the idea that "power" is dimensional, as otherwise those characters should just have no power at all.

In fact, by saying that their power is above the verse's dimensions, the fiction already establishes the power comparable to the power of destroying spaces of a certain number of dimensions. So you are actually constructing a false dilemma. You say that non-dimensional power can't be any tier below High 1-A (disagree with that for reason I explained) and then argue that by process of elimination the character is High 1-A. What you neglect is that we could say that the aspect that the character is non-dimensional is just untierable, as it neither carries evidence for things the size of ZFC structures in the verse being a thing nor anything lower, and hence have to base our judgement on the next best feat. Said next best feat being the comparison that its power is at least superior to whatever is needed to destroy the verse's dimensions.

Basically, you're making a roundabout argument to basically say "because our tiering system has ZFC many dimensional levels we must assume all fictional verses do as well". We equalize what verses show in power into our linear system as well as we can. We don't assume that they actually follow or consider our system in any way when they come up with their powerlevels. An argument of how many levels of infinity the power of some character transcends can't involve the specification of how we build our system. It must logically stand on the fiction's own logic.

And, as said, if we assessed that such equivalences couldn't be made then what you describe would just be untierable. Because even High 1-A is fundamentally a tier with a dimensional measuring stick, just that the number of dimensions here is described by some additional axioms.

Not really the case, if cardinals beyond ZFC don't really exist at all. The character could be just something akin to the Universe of Sets itself for instance.

Either that goes against your own reasoning or you're actually arguing that those characters should be Tier 0, not just High 1-A.

If you argue the Universe of Sets is non-dimensional, but not above all possible large cardinal dimensions, then you are contradicting yourself. Since you basically argued that a non-dimensional power can't be describable by a tier based on dimensional stuff (with that dimensional stuff not being limited to what the verse considers) and large cardinal many dimensions would satisfy that. If you argue that such a thing can exist and be comparable to such a tier, then I can claim the same for lower tiers. Say, I can define a collection of sets which contains R^4 as subset in addition to several smaller sets and on which you can't define a metric, topology or dimensions at all. The set would then be larger than R^4 by the same reasoning the universe of sets is bigger than dimensions, yet it could only consist of several subsets of R^5 and hence be smaller, all while not carrying any spatial structures. E.g. a character that is {R^4, {}, R^2, (1,1,4,5,7), [1,4]^4 x {2,1}}.

Alternatively, you argue the Universe of Sets only qualifies if above truly every possible sense of dimensions one could come up with, i.e. all large cardinals included, and hence is Tier 0.

All of those specific cases are being contested up there, so, not gonna scatter the points around by bringing up my objections to them here, really.

(Though I find it weird that you use "It could just be beyond the idea of dimensions within the scope of the mathematical knowledge present in the verse" and yet say a feat like that is just equal to one dimensional jump above the cosmology, because I'd certainly say higher finite numbers of dimensions are within the same scope of knowledge as 3-D or 4-D space)

In essence, the above really didn't address the cases, which is the failure of the argument. You argued based on what the tiering system things dimensions work like and neglected that fiction doesn't care. Ultimately, fiction can do what it wants and we have to account for that. We can't force our views on it.

What the part in brackets is concerned: As I said in prior parts of the debate, several things beyond knowledge can be factors why not more dimensions exist. Additionally, even for someone with knowledge it can mean something different. A physicist might speak within the range of the theories they find relevant, for instance. It's one of the more reasonable extrapolations, which is why I consider allowing it under the conditions I laid out in my summary of the proposal, but it's not like no exceptions can exist.

Misses my point again. Let me quote myself from different points of this thread:


So, as I said, being above n-dimensional space isn't really the same as being above the very dimensions making up that space. The fact that this was your rebuttal to that point despite me explaining it three times on this thread tells me you haven't really been paying too much attention to my points at all.

I believe I have in this and earlier posts laid out in great detail what I understand to qualify as minimal fundamental superiority.

The problem with your argument is twofold.

First, transcending 6 1D axis separately isn't a 6D feat. Just as transcending 0D points isn't a feat of being above every space assembled of such.

Glueing 6 axis together wouldn't even get you a 6D space, you would need aleph_1 many for that.

Measurement theory in any case tells us that structure makes a difference for size, i.e. the size of a space isn't just the sum of the size of all components.

Hence your idea of "all axis are the same" just leads nowhere. All axis are the same, but the amount of directions and the size of the space spanned depends on the amount. A 6D space can not be identified by a 7D one. A 4D space has mathematical properties no other space has. Some theorems hold in it and nowhere else.

The very definition of the Hausdorff dimension is based on how in fact not all measures are the same.

And again, for a verse in which dimensions above 4 are not even considered, how can the higher ones be essentially the same? There is a clear difference, the 4 exist and the rest don't. So this also brings us back to the whole "we don't default to the assumption that unlimited dimensions can exist"-thing. What you are claiming by saying that all dimensions are the same and it hence makes no difference is in essence that no verse can have a limit on the number of possible dimensions in it, which is nonsense for already explained reasons.

Your idea that all dimensionality is essentially the same, regardless of number, is just weird.

Which brings us to the second problem. You are posing a very specific view of what "being above the dimensions" is supposed to mean and assume all fiction will abide by the definition you just made up, no evidence required. You can't just assume everyone thinks like you in such specific matters. Without evidence that a fiction takes that philosophical viewpoint, you can't just use it even if you think it's correct. Because fiction plays by its own rules. All we can do is to go by the parts of the rules it bothers to tell us about and otherwise default to low-ends.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hm. I may as well clear the air about stuff here before I progress any further. No use in clarifying something if said clarification is in the middle of a bible of a post that no one's gonna read.

I have had several experiences over the years of very extreme tiers being applied without sufficiently elaborate evidence for my taste, and have read all of DontTalk's arguments here, and think that they make sense regarding ways that we can hopefully prevent this in the future.

Well, I think the divide between us here is that you seem to be under the impression that my stance is a character being described as "Above dimensions" will, regardless of how little context is behind that statement, instantly spit out High 1-A for said character, which is not really the point I'm trying to make, and which I'll admit has been a bit of a source of frustration for me throughout this discussion. What I want to be High 1-A is cases where statements of something being "Above dimensionality" is pretty much exactly what they sound like, with no strings attached. Cases where we already agreed that they are 100% literal and to be taken at face value.

For example, a good instance of a case that wouldn't remotely fly by in my view is the Darkness Beyond Time from Chrono Cross, which is described as the place "beyond the dimensions." However, in that case, context informs us that the "dimensions" in that case are simply timelines, and not spatial dimensions (This is to say that what "dimensions" mean in the statement would be subject to heavy scrutiny). Likewise cases where the "beyond dimensions" character is clearly not superior to dimensions in their physiology, just different from them, wouldn't fly either.

Which is why I keep saying DontTalk is missing my point, because ultimately we seem to be having two completely different conversations in this dialogue. He is asking "What kind of evidence do we need to take this statement literally?", while I am asking "If we already have enough evidence to take this statement literally, what tier is it?". Those are two completely different topics and shouldn't even be in the same thread.

Imagine if we were in a thread whose purpose is to discuss what tier to best equate to an infinite amount of energy, if you will. I claim the correct tier is High 3-A. Meanwhile, another person comes around and their main contention is "But can we even trust these statements? Something being described as infinitely strong isn't always literal after all." While a valid point in other contexts, it's completely out of place in a discussion where we're debating about cases that we already decided are literal, isn't it?

In the end it keeps dialing back to the age-old adage of "Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence." But then again, is "This character, who is beyond dimensionality, is beyond any number of dimensions" really that extraordinary? The opposition's answer to this seems to be "Yes" on the basis that the gap between, say, Low 2-C and Low 1-C isn't necessarily only a dimensional jump, but can also be something equivalent in scope to it, and as such something can be beyond a specific set of dimensions but not above dimensions in general, but so far no one has given anything that links the scope of "5-D space transcending a 4-D timeline" and "Realm that's utterly beyond dimensions."

The only link that can be thought of is "They both are infinitely above a 4-D thing," but then by equating the two you are inadvertently creating a false equivalence. That is: You're positing that, just because two things share one property, they are the same. You wouldn't say a cat and a dog are the same just because they are both quadrupeds, would you? And neither would you say a ball of pure metal is like a basketball just because they're both spherical, or, as the classic example goes, that apples and oranges are the same because they're both round fruits.