- 1,096
- 94
Hello, First of all, and to begin, there is a relativism which doesnt reflect the initial explanation of the tiering system, neither the true implication of Omnipresence.
Read the following.
>Note 1: All beings have an infinite number of dimensional aspects, most of which have a magnitude of zero. A being which is classified as n-dimensional has non-zero magnitude in n number of dimensional vectors.
As noted previously, every being and object has an infinite number of dimensional aspects, with most of them being zero. For example, a regular bar of soap has an infinite number of dimensional aspects, but the value of all such dimensional vectors, apart from the three basic spatial dimensions (length, breadth and height), is zero.
Note 2: A query that might arise is the existence of lower-dimensional beings in a higher-dimensional plane, and what it implies. Contrary to how complicated it sounds, the explanation for it is quite simple.
Infinite Zamasu would be fitting to show the above/below statement, in other words Zamas observed the universe as a 4-D being on the 5th dimensional axis. Because if he "would" encompass the timeline eventually, that is inherently making the precision where he exists withi a 5-D analog. That's why his existence was appearing throughout the entire continuum.
> "The answer to this is simple: While higher-dimensional creatures cannot directly interact with lower dimensional ones, they can however, interact with the higher-dimensional construct within which the lower dimensional construct lies, eg: we can tear the 3-dimensional paper in which the two-dimensional square exists. "
Doesnt this indirectly lead to a possibly infinite alternate timelines in the dragon ball world if anyone used the time machine and "created" new time rings?. Which means however that "everything" doesn't doesnt extend to where one might see it relatively, but where infinity extends to: Infinite-dimensional space.
>. "In other words, every being and object exists in a higher-dimensional space (apart from those High 1-B and above), only with the magnitude of higher dimensional vectors being zero."
In this case, it would be natural to say this : Infinite-dimensional beings are Omnipresent to finite-dimensional beings, because they transcend this "finiteness" of n-dimensional constructs.
Hence, while higher-dimensional beings are not capable of directly attacking a lower dimensional being, they are very much capable of harming them (via an indirect attack on a higher-dimensional plane)."
The true implication of Omnipresence, is that range or a specific multilayered complexity is irrelevant.
Omnipresence has no finite map. For this reasons, Zamasu's speed rating should be changed to immeasurable, Unless he was explicitly claimed to be a conceptual being, but 5-D beings would easily be able to destroy him regardless.
Outerverse level can obviously be Omnipresent without question if not implied to be otherwise, "irrelevant" would be the alternative. Low 2-C/2-C to 1-B with Omnipresence should have immeasurable speed, because everything happens to be existing o a higher-dimensional space for each layer of infinity.
For example : 3-D beings exist within a 4-D construct, that 4-D construct exists on a 5-D axis, and so on. Meaning that 3D being perceives time, 4-D perceives possibilities(timelines) but not a infinite of them. And so on.
Other misinterpretations of Omnipresence, Gaia. She is the earth itself, but the Earth can be observed easily anyhow. Maybe this case can be explained, withphase space :
For example, The earth is Gaia/Gaia is the Earth. She can appear simultaneously anywhere on the planet, but bounded to the laws of physics. Let say the universe is a chess board, the chess board has infinite positions because space is infinite, although Gaia's locality would be the earth, meaning Finite positions. Now the laws of physics/game rules determine how she can exist, thus the total phase space conjunctions are coordinated with these physical constants. Gaia would simply cover all these specific phase states simultaneously in earth, since her essence is Earth.
Maybe Cosmic Presence/Awarness would be better? Anyhow i'm no expert on Greek deities, but this can be interpreted metaphorically. Short, Omnipresence has nothing to do with relativity on some specific dimensional aspect. So a term that replaced such locality would be necessary. This is obviously very different from "oneness" in your own physical body.
VSBW's speed rule :"Omnipresence must be specified in conjunction with the scale."
But this is technically entirely the opposite precision of Omnipresence. Because in the initial explanatio, by explictly aboding a higher-dimensional layer, it means there is another layer above it. Meaning there will always be a bigger everything, as the dimensional aspect extends to infinity. Nigh-Omnipresence however, is just based on the aspect where there is more than the stated or relative Everything, but saying that someone encompasses to "almost" everywhere doesnt meaning anything. Nigh-omnipresence is not a philosophical term, just happens to be a pointless derivation of the original.
I'm not directly pushing with major revisions, just clarifying things which should be obvious, or maybe they have always been? Omnipresence overall should be clarified as it truly is, it's more of a question though.
Read the following.
>Note 1: All beings have an infinite number of dimensional aspects, most of which have a magnitude of zero. A being which is classified as n-dimensional has non-zero magnitude in n number of dimensional vectors.
As noted previously, every being and object has an infinite number of dimensional aspects, with most of them being zero. For example, a regular bar of soap has an infinite number of dimensional aspects, but the value of all such dimensional vectors, apart from the three basic spatial dimensions (length, breadth and height), is zero.
Note 2: A query that might arise is the existence of lower-dimensional beings in a higher-dimensional plane, and what it implies. Contrary to how complicated it sounds, the explanation for it is quite simple.
Infinite Zamasu would be fitting to show the above/below statement, in other words Zamas observed the universe as a 4-D being on the 5th dimensional axis. Because if he "would" encompass the timeline eventually, that is inherently making the precision where he exists withi a 5-D analog. That's why his existence was appearing throughout the entire continuum.
> "The answer to this is simple: While higher-dimensional creatures cannot directly interact with lower dimensional ones, they can however, interact with the higher-dimensional construct within which the lower dimensional construct lies, eg: we can tear the 3-dimensional paper in which the two-dimensional square exists. "
Doesnt this indirectly lead to a possibly infinite alternate timelines in the dragon ball world if anyone used the time machine and "created" new time rings?. Which means however that "everything" doesn't doesnt extend to where one might see it relatively, but where infinity extends to: Infinite-dimensional space.
>. "In other words, every being and object exists in a higher-dimensional space (apart from those High 1-B and above), only with the magnitude of higher dimensional vectors being zero."
In this case, it would be natural to say this : Infinite-dimensional beings are Omnipresent to finite-dimensional beings, because they transcend this "finiteness" of n-dimensional constructs.
Hence, while higher-dimensional beings are not capable of directly attacking a lower dimensional being, they are very much capable of harming them (via an indirect attack on a higher-dimensional plane)."
The true implication of Omnipresence, is that range or a specific multilayered complexity is irrelevant.
Omnipresence has no finite map. For this reasons, Zamasu's speed rating should be changed to immeasurable, Unless he was explicitly claimed to be a conceptual being, but 5-D beings would easily be able to destroy him regardless.
Outerverse level can obviously be Omnipresent without question if not implied to be otherwise, "irrelevant" would be the alternative. Low 2-C/2-C to 1-B with Omnipresence should have immeasurable speed, because everything happens to be existing o a higher-dimensional space for each layer of infinity.
For example : 3-D beings exist within a 4-D construct, that 4-D construct exists on a 5-D axis, and so on. Meaning that 3D being perceives time, 4-D perceives possibilities(timelines) but not a infinite of them. And so on.
Other misinterpretations of Omnipresence, Gaia. She is the earth itself, but the Earth can be observed easily anyhow. Maybe this case can be explained, withphase space :
For example, The earth is Gaia/Gaia is the Earth. She can appear simultaneously anywhere on the planet, but bounded to the laws of physics. Let say the universe is a chess board, the chess board has infinite positions because space is infinite, although Gaia's locality would be the earth, meaning Finite positions. Now the laws of physics/game rules determine how she can exist, thus the total phase space conjunctions are coordinated with these physical constants. Gaia would simply cover all these specific phase states simultaneously in earth, since her essence is Earth.
Maybe Cosmic Presence/Awarness would be better? Anyhow i'm no expert on Greek deities, but this can be interpreted metaphorically. Short, Omnipresence has nothing to do with relativity on some specific dimensional aspect. So a term that replaced such locality would be necessary. This is obviously very different from "oneness" in your own physical body.
VSBW's speed rule :"Omnipresence must be specified in conjunction with the scale."
But this is technically entirely the opposite precision of Omnipresence. Because in the initial explanatio, by explictly aboding a higher-dimensional layer, it means there is another layer above it. Meaning there will always be a bigger everything, as the dimensional aspect extends to infinity. Nigh-Omnipresence however, is just based on the aspect where there is more than the stated or relative Everything, but saying that someone encompasses to "almost" everywhere doesnt meaning anything. Nigh-omnipresence is not a philosophical term, just happens to be a pointless derivation of the original.
I'm not directly pushing with major revisions, just clarifying things which should be obvious, or maybe they have always been? Omnipresence overall should be clarified as it truly is, it's more of a question though.
