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

[Luckyfun]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I will remind DontTalk.

 

[Overlord_Darkness]

BUUUUUUUUUUUMP

 

[Antvasima]

I will remind him again.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.

 

[KingNanaya]

I suppose I'll wait until he comes around and clarifies what "those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere" entails here. If this post is anything to go by, for instance, it seems we're fine with using an inductive argument to generalize into countably infinite dimensions. And in here all he said was "We need to know that the verse is talking about a system of mathematics that includes higher dimensions."

I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.

I think there was this that Ultima wanted clarified, but I'm not sure if this was going to be the topic of another thread or not

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.

Okay, what did we need to apply here regarding those four examples again?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Okay, what did we need to apply here regarding those four examples again?

Either nothing or, if we deem the questions interesting enough, we put the answers in the tiering system FAQ.

As a reminder the questions were:
What would the following statements equate to:

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"

The answers were:

1. is, without much more context but enough for the superiority to be at least identified as proper qualitative superiority, in my opinion to be ranked as however many dimensions the verse is known to have +1. That's because such a statement can easily refer to actually existent dimensions, and not include abstract dimensions that only exist in some mathematicians head.

2. is, if being the source scales to AP, to be ranked at the level of creating all dimensions the verse is known to have. I think being the source of dimensions quite clearly refers to just the existing ones.

4. I would default to the highest shown in the verse, unless we have somehow been told there can be unlimited ones. As a reason, consider the statement "no matter how high a building you climb on, you won't reach space". That's a reasonable statement to make and of course buildings here would be understood to only take into account what exists or is currently possible, not theoretical stuff like space elevators. In a similar manner, if a fiction has 10 stages of transcendence I would read this as meaning "no matter how high in the 10 known stages" and hence not include stages that may or may not actually exist or could exist beyond that.

And I revised my answer for 3 after some input from Agnaa to being upper end 1-B. If we take 3. as the statement ""no matter how many dimensions there are the character can destroy them" then that roughly equates to "can destroy n-dimensional space for every n" and hence land in that tier. (It would not equate to can destroy every n dimensional space at once. The tier for that would need extra debate due to mathematical considerations)


So, if we want to add it to the Tiering System FAQ I guess we would make 4 really small sections?
Like

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluate similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitative superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoreticaly dimensions.

Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?​

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter how many dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to be have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "no matter how many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse may be assumed to have.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would recieve.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.

or something like that.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Either nothing or, if we deem the questions interesting enough, we put the answers in the tiering system FAQ.

As a reminder the questions were:
What would the following statements equate to:

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"

The answers were:

And I revised my answer for 3 after some input from Agnaa to being upper end 1-B. If we take 3. as the statement ""no matter how many dimensions there are the character can destroy them" then that roughly equates to "can destroy n-dimensional space for every n" and hence land in that tier. (It would not equate to can destroy every n dimensional space at once. The tier for that would need extra debate due to mathematical considerations)


So, if we want to add it to the Tiering System FAQ I guess we would make 4 really small sections?
Like

or something like that.

So can I add that now so we can close this thread?

 

[Tanin_iver]

As a reminder the questions were:
What would the following statements equate to:

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"

Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?

Since it just looks like a case of substituting dimensions with planes of existence and how high with how many.

Also, do we even need to update the FAQ with such edge cases, since the FAQ kind of covers this already, I feel.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?

Since it just looks like a case of substituting dimensions with planes of existence and how high with how many.

No, because it would be an NLF to assume that "no matter how high" extends to more than the dimensions shown in the verse, but "no matter how many" has no such issue because it explicitly discusses numbers.

Also, do we even need to update the FAQ with such edge cases, since the FAQ kind of covers this already, I feel.

We're revising that section to be clearer.

 

[Tanin_iver]

No, because it would be an NLF to assume that "no matter how high" extends to more than the dimensions shown in the verse, but "no matter how many" has no such issue because it explicitly discusses numbers.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would recieve.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.

I noticed the red highlighted wording, and it bothered me, so I asked, if there would be any difference.

We're revising that section to be clearer.

Fair enough.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I noticed the red highlighted wording, and it bothered me, so I asked, if there would be any difference.

That'll be reworded in the final draft.

 

[Agnaa]

Did some grammar fixes, hope they didn't change the meaning.

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.

Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?​

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter how many dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "no matter how many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.

Not sure what "different infinities" in the third question means, so I'll leave it, but think it might need to be removed.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Wouldn't 3 and 4 be the same, that is arbitrarily high into 1-B?

Since it just looks like a case of substituting dimensions with planes of existence and how high with how many.

There is a relevant distinction.

Like, imagine a conversation like this "There are 13 planes of existence. We humans exist on the first one. Regular gods exist on the second and transcend us completely. However, even they are transcended by those of the third plane. But even those are transcended by those with access to even more planes of existence. The supreme god, though, he is superior to all planes of existence, no matter how many."
In this context, I think it's pretty evident how the god is meant to be superior to the 13 planes, not infinitely many further planes that don't exist.

I guess reformulating the headline to "no matter how high they are" and maybe using "unlimited" or something for dimensions makes it less controversial though.

So:

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluate similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitative superior to them then they should be only level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoreticaly dimensions.

Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?​

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy no matter an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation, it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "unlimited many" would cover infinitely many dimensions or different infinities.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse may be assumed to have.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on all planes including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included than it comes down to how many have to be assumed to be considered in the theoretical framework.

So can I add that now so we can close this thread?

I usually wait to see if some staff members propose improvements on my formulations.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Did some grammar fixes, hope they didn't change the meaning.

Not sure what "different infinities" in the third question means, so I'll leave it, but think it might need to be removed.

Well, dang, here I just slightly altered my proposal.

Different infinities is meant to refer to cardinals. I guess I can make that more explicit. So:

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.

Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?​

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear on 'all planes' including numbers beyond the existing ones.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included then it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I usually wait to see if some staff members propose improvements on my formulations.

@Antvasima @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Everything12 Is DontTalk's latest draft acceptable to you?

 

[Agnaa]

Well, dang, here I just slightly altered my proposal.

Different infinities is meant to refer to cardinals. I guess I can make that more explicit. So:

Only change I'd suggest now is:

"on 'all planes' including numbers beyond the existing ones" > "whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist"

 

[Antvasima]

I find DontTalk's latest draft acceptabe to apply, yes, although Agnaa likely has valid suggestions for improvements.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The draft seems largely alright. That said:

I thought we decided to leave all decisions here for a later thread and only clarify on those four examples here?
Kinda surprised by the nature of the discussions going on here... and don't really plan to comment further on them as... well, we decided not to do that here.

Fair play. Not really my intention to derail things again, so much as to probe for what kind of statements do, and don't, fit the "1-A without infinite dimensions/hierarchy" criterion. The "beyond math" stuff can be left aside for now, but the other thing is a valid point of inquiry which I think ought to be tackled.

Like, my questions are really largely with regards to the compromise we reached. To my understanding, it seems that, if the transcendence also includes dimensions existing only abstractly (In general, not those of a specific framework), and not just the physical dimensions of the verse, we allow extrapolation to 1-A. But what kind of statements would we be looking for with regards to that, exactly?

An example that might be relevant is a verse I mentioned being interested in indexing, a few pages ago, in this very thread. More specifically, that verse has a structure called "The Gate," which, due to its superiority over the rest of the cosmology, is unable to be expressed by any models of spacetime, and the characters explicitly note that even the inclusion of higher dimensions into said models nets no results, either. Would something like that be fine by us?

Another statement that came to mind while I was thinking over that stuff was this one, from Hyperdimension Neptunia. Now, I don't know Neptunia whatsoever, so I won't vouch for any particular interpretation of that one scan. But, say, if a verse came around and described as realm as transcending numerical dimensions in general terms, and we knew that "transcending" meant qualitative superiority in context, would we be fine with extrapolating that to 1-A?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Only change I'd suggest now is:

"on 'all planes' including numbers beyond the existing ones" > "whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist"

Sounds ok. Then:

Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?​

A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.

Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?​

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or stabilization feat standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?​

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?​

Such a character would be assume to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included then it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.

Since everyone seems to be ok with that, I will add it in a while then.

Fair play. Not really my intention to derail things again, so much as to probe for what kind of statements do, and don't, fit the "1-A without infinite dimensions/hierarchy" criterion. The "beyond math" stuff can be left aside for now, but the other thing is a valid point of inquiry which I think ought to be tackled.

Like, my questions are really largely with regards to the compromise we reached.

I think we have not really reached a compromise yet? Like, we were interrupted before the debate was finished. So I will answer your question as I see it, but if you want to debate that further now, it should probably happen in another thread.

To my understanding, it seems that, if the transcendence also includes dimensions existing only abstractly (In general, not those of a specific framework), and not just the physical dimensions of the verse, we allow extrapolation to 1-A. But what kind of statements would we be looking for with regards to that, exactly?

I'm personally still on the fence regarding whether that's 1-A or Low 1-A, but to decide that will (at least for me) need a thread regarding that one mathematical detail I mentioned earlier.

An example that might be relevant is a verse I mentioned being interested in indexing, a few pages ago, in this very thread. More specifically, that verse has a structure called "The Gate," which, due to its superiority over the rest of the cosmology, is unable to be expressed by any models of spacetime, and the characters explicitly note that even the inclusion of higher dimensions into said models nets no results, either. Would something like that be fine by us?

I would just take that as beyond dimensional existence, since it's not clear that the reason the description fails is due to qualitative superiority rather than its alien nature.

Another statement that came to mind while I was thinking over that stuff was this one, from Hyperdimension Neptunia. Now, I don't know Neptunia whatsoever, so I won't vouch for any particular interpretation of that one scan. But, say, if a verse came around and described as realm as transcending numerical dimensions in general terms, and we knew that "transcending" meant qualitative superiority in context, would we be fine with extrapolating that to 1-A?

I'd be rather on the fence about that. The way it states that (and if I were to guess at the context) it sounds like it went from 3 to beyond dimensions applying to it. It doesn't sound like the idea is that it got too 'large' (or equivalent) for the dimensional hierarchy after going through it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ok, I added the draft to the page.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Ok, I added the draft to the page.

Thank you. Do we have anything left here before we close this thread?

 

[Antvasima]

Thanks a lot for helping out, DontTalk.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[Zer00Negativo]

and the characters that transcend the concept of dimension? as a concept it is an idea, in this case the character is not beyond the physical dimensions but the very definition of dimension itself

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

and the characters that transcend the concept of dimension? as a concept it is an idea, in this case the character is not beyond the physical dimensions but the very definition of dimension itself

One dimension above the dimensions known to exist in the verse if no additional context is provided.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DontTalkDT Can we close this thread?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm personally still on the fence regarding whether that's 1-A or Low 1-A, but to decide that will (at least for me) need a thread regarding that one mathematical detail I mentioned earlier.

Mhmhm. Fair enough. Do you plan to make such a thread, yourself? Seems like you'd be most equipped to, provided some ironing out on what it's about happens first. I largely asked the previous questions because the draft you presented has some identifiable remnants of the compromise we were about to reach before the discussion was interrupted (i.e Talk of transcending theoretical dimensions, and not just physical ones), so that seemed like it could be properly ironed out.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I plan to do that, but since there is a lot going on in the wiki right now I don't know if now is the right time.
Still, it should happen sooner rather than later.

With that said:

@DontTalkDT Can we close this thread?

I guess we can close this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to everybody who helped out here.