Questions about qualitative superiority and R>F

[LuisGeno]

I have great doubts about the qualitative superiority and the R>F, if someone answers me I would greatly appreciate it.

First: qualitative superiority could be achieved by being "infinitely larger" than x dimension, and therefore that dimension is infinitesimal to that infinitely larger dimension. Alright? And another thing, if the higher spatial dimensions are not automatically greater infinities than each other, where did the idea that extradimensional axes could give rise to greater infinities come from? Where can I read information about this? I want to learn it well.
Another thing, does the transcendence R>F between layers/dimensions make them infinitely greater than each other? According to me, this has nothing to do with size, but with the nature of dimensions/layers, so is it a form of qualitative transcendence, or is it just a form that is added apart?
And, last question: if in a verse it is mentioned that there are infinite dimensions, that they are explicitly about extra dimensional axes, but nevertheless, there is only evidence of qualitative superiority between 3 of those infinite dimensions, can this qualitative superiority also be applied to all other dimensions? I had heard that this is possible, if it is said that the qualitative superiority is by its nature of spatial dimension, but I want to be sure.

That's all. Sorry for so many questions, but I needed it. Have a nice day, afternoon or night

 

[LuisGeno]

Bump.

 

[LuisGeno]

Bump.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Uncountable infinite is the safer bet for qualitative superiority than a simple infinite.

Another thing, does the transcendence R>F between layers/dimensions make them infinitely greater than each other? According to me, this has nothing to do with size, but with the nature of dimensions/layers, so is it a form of qualitative transcendence, or is it just a form that is added apart?

See above

And, last question: if in a verse it is mentioned that there are infinite dimensions, that they are explicitly about extra dimensional axes, but nevertheless, there is only evidence of qualitative superiority between 3 of those infinite dimensions, can this qualitative superiority also be applied to all other dimensions? I had heard that this is possible, if it is said that the qualitative superiority is by its nature of spatial dimension, but I want to be sure.

Ya

 

[Georredannea15]

I have great doubts about the qualitative superiority and the R>F, if someone answers me I would greatly appreciate it.

First: qualitative superiority could be achieved by being "infinitely larger" than x dimension, and therefore that dimension is infinitesimal to that infinitely larger dimension. Alright? And another thing, if the higher spatial dimensions are not automatically greater infinities than each other, where did the idea that extradimensional axes could give rise to greater infinities come from? Where can I read information about this? I want to learn it well.
Another thing, does the transcendence R>F between layers/dimensions make them infinitely greater than each other? According to me, this has nothing to do with size, but with the nature of dimensions/layers, so is it a form of qualitative transcendence, or is it just a form that is added apart?

In fact, qualitative superiority is a little more detailed.

R>F is basically not a qualitative superiority, it is just being "more real" than the lower plane.

But if we break it down a bit more... it is indirectly a qualitative superiority in terms of power, but certainly not a qualitative superiority in terms of existence.

Apart from that, yes, as you said, someone who considers a 4-D plane as a "fiction" is not uncountable infinitely larger than it, nor does it have an extra dimensional axis. It only gets the "higher" power scale than 4-D plane because it is "more real" than 4-D.

And, last question: if in a verse it is mentioned that there are infinite dimensions, that they are explicitly about extra dimensional axes, but nevertheless, there is only evidence of qualitative superiority between 3 of those infinite dimensions, can this qualitative superiority also be applied to all other dimensions? I had heard that this is possible, if it is said that the qualitative superiority is by its nature of spatial dimension, but I want to be sure.

That's all. Sorry for so many questions, but I needed it. Have a nice day, afternoon or night

Not always, you will need a few more statements.

For example, like "the relationships between these dimensions is the same", except that if each of the infinite dimensions extends in a different directions, then yes. That would make H1-B. It was another way for Marvel to maintain its H1-B.

 

[Reiner04]

R>F is basically not a qualitative superiority, it is just being "more real" than the lower plane.

But if we break it down a bit more... it is indirectly a qualitative superiority in terms of power, but certainly not a qualitative superiority in terms of existence.

Apart from that, yes, as you said, someone who considers a 4-D plane as a "fiction" is not uncountable infinitely larger than it, nor does it have an extra dimensional axis. It only gets the "higher" power scale than 4-D plane because it is "more real" than 4-D.

What's the name of weed u smocking?

 

[Ren1999]

What's the name of weed u smocking?

As usual, people who want to change the tier system on this wiki I will still wait for them to do so

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Making Low 1-C just from seeing Low 2-C structure as infinitesimal (not fiction) is really stupid, since 2-A exists and we should instead use that as a stepping stone for Low 1-C from seeing them as infinitesimal.

Or being uncountable infinitely superior than Low 2-C, shit like High 1-B and above stay at it is.

Using Low 2-C as a stepping stone will greatly contradict our tiering system.

I wonder what are your arguments against this Ren.

 

[Ren1999]

viewing a low 2C or 2A structure as infinitesimal or underestimating it could be tier 1 according to the system on this wiki, where do you say it doesn't meet the tier 1 standards of this wiki. I challenge you when you change this wiki system that many verses become tier 1 because of that

you think that only R>f and transcendence can be tier 1

 

[Ren1999]

I challenge you when do you change this tier 1 system


Tiering System page; Tier 1

Characters or objects that can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence (Or "levels of infinity", as referred below) which trivialize everything below them into insignificance, normally by perceiving them as akin to fictional constructs or something infinitesimal.




Tiering System FAQ

A: One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify

 

[Fixxed]

Qualitative superiority is just a term for validate the transcendence or superiority between lower and higher realm
In fact that thing is not need if the context of verse is clearly indicate or mention about higher plane of existence

So qualitative superiority is just mean higher dimensional superiority to the lower. We consider the superiority is to the level of infinity, so the nature of higher existence is always infinitely superior than the lower. But we not take any infinite statement as qualitative superiority, just something that make the higher realm is unreachable for the lower realm. Simply we just take infinity quality not infinity quantity

 

[Georredannea15]

What's the name of weed u smocking?

What? These are the standards for R>F.

 

[Reiner04]

What? These are the standards for R>F.

1. R>F is one blatant existential superiority. I don't know who told u that it's not existential superiority. It is.
2. R>F difference equated to uncountable infinite difference, hell Qualitative superiority itself means "difference of more than countable infinite". So no uncountable infinite difference = no Qualitative superiority.

You're going against most blatant standards here.

 

[Georredannea15]

1. R>F is one blatant existential superiority. I don't know who told u that it's not existential superiority. It is.
2. R>F difference equated to uncountable infinite difference, hell Qualitative superiority itself means "difference of more than countable infinite". So no uncountable infinite difference = no Qualitative superiority.

You're going against most blatant standards here.

Everything you said, DT and Agnaa completely rejected. That's why we don't give HDE to R>F because it doesn't give you any existential superiority or +1 axis, it just makes you "more real" from the lower plane.

I think you can try to learn properly instead of talking out of your head.

Also, R>F and qualitative superiority are different things.

Also "being different or more than countably infinite = uncountably infinite" was denied by DT and Ultima themselves.

 

[Reiner04]

Also, R>F and qualitative superiority are different things

Everything you said, DT and Agnaa completely rejected.

more than countably infinite = uncountably infinite was denied by DT and Ultima themselves.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Everything you said, DT and Agnaa completely rejected. That's why we don't give HDE to R>F because it doesn't give you any existential superiority or +1 axis, it just makes you "more real" from the lower plane.

I think you can try to learn properly instead of talking out of your head.

Also, R>F and qualitative superiority are different things.

Also "being different or more than countably infinite = uncountably infinite" was denied by DT and Ultima themselves.

I want whatever you sniff/smoke/whatever

 

[Georredannea15]

Are you guys all right? It's really funny that a few people here who apply standards "according to their own minds" are talking to me as if they know a lot. Frankly, I don't even argue with those who say that R>F is an existential superiority or qualitative transcendence.

Guys just look at standards and old threads.

 

[Reiner04]

I want whatever you sniff/smoke/whatever

Sister, you must not take weird things from anyone stranger but me. I won't allow. I'm here if u want to sniff/eat/drink smth smth.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

why are you bringing HDE into this?
you can get HDE without being qualitatively superior. the same way you can be qualitatively superior without HDE (R>F)
you're extrapolating abilities in tiering as if they are connected suddenly.
Our methods to qualify for qualitative superiority aren't just about more axis and this and that.
We're long beyond dimensional tiering

We currently have
Ontological superiority

Furthermore, higher-dimensional entities can also qualify for higher tiers when the verse which they are from explicitly defines them as being infinitely above lower-dimensional ones in power and/or existential status

Reality > Fiction transcendence

They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

Dimensional superiority paired with higher infinities.

One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

Also, stop taking Agnaa and DontalkTD out of context about their comments on HDE
Their comment is regarding higher dimensional existence and how we don't treat R>F or Ontological superiority to function similarly to the mathematical/geometrical dimension of superiority and not a tiering system comment.
Their comment about uncountable infinity qualifying to have an additional axis is relevant to higher dimensional existence and not tiering.

the discussion on HDE does not pertain to tiering especially how our tiering FAQ literally states this

Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely stronger than lower-dimensional equivalents?​

Unintuitive as that may be: Not necessarily, as a number of characteristics through which we quantify the strength or power of a character can remain unchanged when transitioning between higher and lower dimensions. For example: Mass is a quantity that is detached from the dimension of the object which it is inherent to, and unlike volume is not divided in units corresponding to each particular dimension (1-volume [length], 2-volume [area], 3-volume, 4-volume...). It is singular in nature and its units equally apply to all dimensions; whether it is distributed over an area or a volume only tells us about the span of space in which it is spread, not about the quantity itself.

As a consequence of that, much of the calculation methods which are used to measure strength apply equally to both higher and lower dimensions, as they do not care about the extra variables and often work with a single one of them. Examples of this are kinetic energy (Ek=0.5*M*V^2), force (F=M*A), work (W=F*d), and etc.

An intuitive example of that is found in the general definition of Work as defined in physics: In essence, as work itself denotes the energy applied to an object as it is displaced along a given path, the basic formula for calculating it only takes into account a single variable, and the path itself is treated as an one-dimensional object, regardless of the dimension of the space in which the action itself takes place.

Hence, a higher-dimensional entity can be both stronger or weaker than a lower-dimensional one, and thus, they are usually quantified based on their own feats, instead of dimensionality alone. If a character is merely stated to be higher-dimensional and simultaneously has no other feats to derive anything noteworthy from, then they are put at Unknown, and the same applies to lower dimensions as well.

Do note, however, that them not qualifying for Tier 2 and above doesn't mean they are "fake" higher-dimensional beings or anything of the sort. It is simply that being higher-dimensional does not inherently mean they have infinite power in the first place, as explained above.

 

[Georredannea15]

why are you bringing HDE into this?
you can get HDE without being qualitatively superior. the same way you can be qualitatively superior without HDE (R>F)
you're extrapolating abilities in tiering as if they are connected suddenly.
Our methods to qualify for qualitative superiority aren't just about more axis and this and that.
We're long beyond dimensional tiering

We currently have
Ontological superiority


Reality > Fiction transcendence


Dimensional superiority paired with higher infinities.


Also, stop taking Agnaa and DontalkTD out of context about their comments on HDE
Their comment is regarding higher dimensional existence and how we don't treat R>F or Ontological superiority to function similarly to the mathematical/geometrical dimension of superiority and not a tiering system comment.
Their comment about uncountable infinity qualifying to have an additional axis is relevant to higher dimensional existence and not tiering.

the discussion on HDE does not pertain to tiering especially how our tiering FAQ literally states this

I can DM you screenshots of my conversations on this topic. R>F is just being "more real" as DT said and has nothing to do with the state of being. Reiner said it is also a qualitative superiority existentially and uncountably infinitely greater, which is absolutely false.

 

[Reiner04]

R>F is just being "more real" as DT said and has nothing to do with the state of being.

Reiner said it is also a qualitative superiority existentially and uncountably infinitely greater, which is absolutely false.

We call the state of existence in which a character is so vastly superior to another due to such a difference between Reality and Fiction "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" or sometimes "R>F transcendence" for short.

Revise the standards then. Goodluck.

 

[Georredannea15]

It is not a direct qualitative transcendence, it just acts like it, but the dimensional plane that that level of existence has is the same as that of the higher level of existence. As DT said, "it's just being more real." and the description page need some change after new standarts.

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT Help?

 

[Robo432343]

R>F is basically not a qualitative superiority, it is just being "more real" than the lower plane.

 

[Georredannea15]

Wow, it turns out that everyone knew everything perfectly well, if you guys that knowledgeable then make those damn standards.

I'm sure it will end like before in this Q&A.

 

[ThanatosX]

It is not a direct qualitative transcendence, it just acts like it, but the dimensional plane that that level of existence has is the same as that of the higher level of existence. As DT said, "it's just being more real." and the description page need some change after new standarts.

If it was like that, than literally half of those that are Tier 1 at the moment would be heavily downgraded. Being more real than a lower dimensional construct is a form qualitative trascendence.
I think you took DT and Agna's word out of context. Those words were specifically referring to HDE, not AP or Tier 1 in general. A character needs to show to have an additional dimensional axis to have HDE, but this doesn't mean that a character need an additional dimensional axis to be Tier 1 in the first place.
The point is that those that works under a R>F difference are, most often than not, 3-D author like beings that sees a lower set of dimensions as fictional. It makes then "more real" than the lower dimension, which means that they are indeed Tier 1, but it doesn't give them HDE since they are still 3-D in nature, they just exist in a higher plane that sees lower ones as fictional.

 

[Georredannea15]

If it was like that, than literally half of those that are Tier 1 at the moment would be heavily downgraded. Being more real than a lower dimensional construct is a form qualitative trascendence.
I think you took DT and Agna's word out of context. Those words were specifically referring to HDE, not AP or Tier 1 in general. A character needs to show to have an additional dimensional axis to have HDE, but this doesn't mean that a character need an additional dimensional axis to be Tier 1 in the first place.
The point is that those that works under a R>F difference are, most often than not, 3-D author like beings that sees a lower set of dimensions as fictional. It makes then "more real" than the lower dimension, which means that they are indeed Tier 1, but it doesn't give them HDE since they are still 3-D in nature, they just exist in a higher plane that sees lower ones as fictional.

What you call "existential superiority" also refers to that plane being higher dimensional (i.e. uncountably infinitely larger).

But this is absolutely wrong. What they mean here is a plane of existence that is infinitely powerful and higher, infinitely larger than the lower plane, and they are trying to fit that into R>F, and that is absolutely wrong.

As DT said, R>F is just being more real, although the power it imparts is similar to qualitative superiority, we can't exactly call it a qualitative superiority.

Just like a character that is immune to all conceptual attacks is like a typical transdual being but not actually has a transduality. Ofc, it's just an example for better understanding.

 

[ThanatosX]

What you call "existential superiority" also refers to that plane being higher dimensional (i.e. uncountably infinitely larger).

But this is absolutely wrong. What they mean here is a plane of existence that is infinitely powerful and higher, infinitely larger than the lower plane, and they are trying to fit that into R>F, and that is absolutely wrong.

As DT said, R>F is just being more real, although the power it imparts is similar to qualitative superiority, we can't exactly call it a qualitative superiority.

Just like a character that is immune to all conceptual attacks is like a typical transdual being but not actually has a transduality. Ofc, it's just an example for better understanding.

I am not sure what you mean exactly with this, but if you are claiming that a R>F difference is not a higher infinite than you are indeed wrong.
Just give a look at this Q&A made by Ultima one month ago if you don't believe me. In that, he quotes directly the Reality-Fiction Trascendence page that explains this, which is:

"A character that qualifies would usually then scale to one level of infinity higher than the totality of the cosmology they transcend. So for example, viewing a Low 2-C to 2-A cosmology as fiction would grant Low 1-C, doing so to a 6-Dimensional Low 1-C construct would scale the character to 1-C, doing so to a 10-Dimensional High 1-C structure would be the equivalent of an 11-D High 1-C and so on."

On top of that, he also says that to him in some cases a R>F Difference should be even more than a single dimensional jump, and DT replied to him by saying that we did so in the past, but as of now it counts as a single higher infinite.
So yes, a R>F is indeed a qualitative trascendence, and I am not really understanding from where you are coming from when you are saying that it's not since it is the most clear cut trascendence there is.

 

[Reiner04]

Yeah R>F is Qualitative transcendence. We Nerf down R>F transcendence to one lvl dimensional jump as we aren't sure just how high R>F scales due it's nature seemingly being far superior than dimensional jumps. But we are sure it's at least 1 level of higher infinite in least so that's just in lack of better option.

As for it being HDE, Ultima and DT have contrary opinion on it. As for Ultima it is HDE or any uncountable infinite sheer size unless stated otherwise but DT says otherwise on it. I'm in agreement with it being HDE but that doesn't really matter to this thread.

 

[Georredannea15]

I am not sure what you mean exactly with this, but if you are claiming that a R>F difference is not a higher infinite than you are indeed wrong.
Just give a look at this Q&A made by Ultima one month ago if you don't believe me. In that, he quotes directly the Reality-Fiction Trascendence page that explains this, which is:

"A character that qualifies would usually then scale to one level of infinity higher than the totality of the cosmology they transcend. So for example, viewing a Low 2-C to 2-A cosmology as fiction would grant Low 1-C, doing so to a 6-Dimensional Low 1-C construct would scale the character to 1-C, doing so to a 10-Dimensional High 1-C structure would be the equivalent of an 11-D High 1-C and so on."

On top of that, he also says that to him in some cases a R>F Difference should be even more than a single dimensional jump, and DT replied to him by saying that we did so in the past, but as of now it counts as a single higher infinite.
So yes, a R>F is indeed a qualitative trascendence, and I am not really understanding from where you are coming from when you are saying that it's not since it is the most clear cut trascendence there is.

That's not what I mean, and I certainly don't deny it. My point is that while it shares the same effects as QS, it is not the same.

For example, if you affect an entire space beyond the lower plane with QS and you have the equivalent power to this plane, you will get things like AP, Tier and range, and even when your existence is equalized, you will get HDE.

But viewing the lower plane like a fiction gives you nothing but layers of AP, tier, and hax, unlike QS. You can't earn things like range and HDE that QS has.

That's why DT calls it "more real" rather than just "existential superiority" or "qualitative superiority" because it can't give you things like HDE and range that QS can.

And if that was already an "existential transcends/ superiority," it would certainly add a dimensional axis.

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah R>F is Qualitative transcendence. We Nerf down R>F transcendence to one lvl dimensional jump as we aren't sure just how high R>F scales due it's nature seemingly being far superior than dimensional jumps. But we are sure it's at least 1 level of higher infinite in least so that's just in lack of better option.

As for it being HDE, Ultima and DT have contrary opinion on it. As for Ultima it is HDE or any uncountable infinite sheer size unless stated otherwise but DT says otherwise on it. I'm in agreement with it being HDE but that doesn't really matter to this thread.

Things like "uncountable infinite difference" or "dimensional superiority" are not used in R>F anymore. Especially after the latest HDE bullshits.

 

[Reiner04]

Things like "uncountable infinite difference" or "dimensional superiority" are not used in R>F anymore. Especially after the latest HDE bullshits.

Then revise R>F page that states it's existential superiority and uncountable infinite difference. That's all.

 

[Georredannea15]

Then revise R>F page that states it's existential superiority and uncountable infinite difference. That's all.

Already new standards suggest that this is no longer that case Lmao. I don't need to open an extra revision

 

[LuisGeno]

To be honest, I don't know how the thread got so out of control.
Now, I want to say something that is shocking me: I had understood that R>F was something other than qualitative superiority, but that it still qualified for higher levels as well.
What's going on here? Have those standards changed?

 

[Georredannea15]

To be honest, I don't know how the thread got so out of control.
Now, I want to say something that is shocking me: I had understood that R>F was something other than qualitative superiority, but that it still qualified for higher levels as well.
What's going on here? Have those standards changed?

DT interprets this as "becoming more real" rather than existential superiority or a dimensional leap. So a lot has changed with HDE and a few other things.

 

[Ren1999]

Ah shit, here we go again

this is the same as in the previous thread which always brought DT, ultima and agna arguments against the tier system, I don't know when you claimed the arguments of the three were similar to your arguments against the tier system, that's why I challenged you both, you and Rakih first at that time in the previous thread create a system thread Downgrade tier, I'll see how good your argument is

 

[Ren1999]

because they both also claim that something greater than 2A and low 2c considers infinitesimal and belittles it is not enough to be tier 1 even though the tier system says so it is enough to be tier 1, Now it's happening again with R>f people always Bring the arguments of DT Ultima and Agna that you claim the arguments of the three of them are similar to yours

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't like to bring DM conversations here. But I can if you really want me to.

 

[Reiner04]

I don't like to bring DM conversations here. But I can if you really want me to.

Sure. Proceed.

 

[Georredannea15]

Sure. Proceed.

And where? I don't like to do it here and I don't usually move it to the wiki.