R>F may be useless; it is not different from normal reality warping.

[Jockey-1337]

R>F may be useless; it is not different from normal reality warping.



R>F automatically gives 1-A. I think it should not be so.

R>F doesn't automatically give 1-A or even a "Higher-D > Lower-D" degree of transcendence.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

ok

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

The guy isnt even any higher tier because its unclear whether it's any actual cosmological superiority weird example but ok

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Sutter_Cane

 

[Cipher72]

Firstly I believe that this should be a staff thread considering it's impact secondly

R>F automatically gives 1-A. I think it should not be so.

I don't believe that R>F automatically warrants 1-A. You must ensure that it's “true” R>F as in it should be Qualitative in nature and that there's no disqualifiers.

 

[Hecky2222]

R>F automatically gives 1-A

Negative Reading Comprehension

 

[Re5yh]

This should be closed

 

[Random-Helper323]

This should either be closed or moved to staff discussion, depending on whether it has any merit.

 

[Jockey-1337]

I don't believe that R>F automatically warrants 1-A. You must ensure that it's “true” R>F as in it should be Qualitative in nature and that there's no disqualifiers.

It is possible to say differently: R>F stuff doesn't automatically give even a "Higher-D > Lower-D" degree of transcendence.

 

[Noneless21]

this is truly one of the threads of all time

 

[Random-Helper323]

This should either be closed or moved to staff discussion, depending on whether it has any merit.

@Antvasima what do you think should be done here?

 

[Hecky2222]

It is possible to say differently: R>F stuff doesn't automatically give even a "Higher-D > Lower-D" degree of transcendence.

LMAOOO I guess I will debunk Homestuck even further for that

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Firstly I believe that this should be a staff thread considering it's impact secondly

I don't believe that R>F automatically warrants 1-A. You must ensure that it's “true” R>F as in it should be Qualitative in nature and that there's no disqualifiers.

All R>F (viewing lower world as a book or similar medium isnt R>F) is qualitative superiority unless proven otherwise. Viewing lower reality as fiction/an illusion means that the lower world is insubstantial/0 in comparison which then leads to the scenario where you cant add that "0" to lead to the "1" of the higher reality, while higher dimensions and infinitely larger planes are continuous to the lower ones and you can conceivably add up to them or take a slice off them equivalent to the smaller plane.

 

[Jockey-1337]

@Antvasima what do you think should be done here?

Thank you. I hope to see the opinions of mods and admins.

 

[Rutæhh]

it depends on how the story portrays the statement

 

[Mido02]

this is truly one of the threads of all time

Azer might have a rival, what a competition

 

[Cipher72]

It is possible to say differently: R>F stuff doesn't automatically give even a "Higher-D > Lower-D" degree of transcendence.

Yes, R>F should not be a direct qualifier, I do share that opinion now whether it be Qualitative or Quantitative in nature I.e the nature of the superiority can be determined with other evidences. However your thread seems very Bare bones for what it's attempting to achieve.

All R>F (viewing lower world as a book or similar medium isnt R>F) is qualitative superiority unless proven otherwise. Viewing lower reality as fiction/an illusion means that the lower world is insubstantial/0 in comparison which then leads to the scenario where you cant add that "0" to lead to the "1" of the higher reality, while higher dimensions and infinitely larger planes are continuous to the lower ones and you can conceivably add up to them or take a slice off them equivalent to the smaller plane.

I never denied that R>F isn't Qualitative Superiority by it's very nature a reality-fictional gap should be Qualitative simply based on the fact that one treats the other as fictitious/unreal, because no amounts of stacking/addition of something unreal/fictitious should result in said things amounting to something real. What I said was that R>F in fiction isn't necessarily a Qualitative gap. It can be both Qualitative or Quantitative in nature that is to be determined based on whether there's

• Ample evidence to qualify for a Qualitative gap (an elaboration on the R>F)
• potential Disqualifiers

My stance is Simple;
R>F by default is Qualitative however it shouldn't automatically warrant a 1-A rating. A 1-A rating should be given if there's enough evidence for a Qualitative gap (an elaboration on the of R>F is enough imo) with no potential disqualifiers. Essentially a Vague mention of a character seeing another as fictitious or another world as a dream shouldn't qualify for 1-A, it should be elaborated on. I do believe that is the current standards though.

 

[Vesxpura]

This should either be closed or moved to staff discussion, depending on whether it has any merit.

Thats the problem, it doesnt have merit

 

[Random-Helper323]

Thats the problem, it doesnt have merit

That seems to be the prevailing opinion. I'd rather see what admins think about it though.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, there doesn't seem to be an elaborate well-considered argument available here.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It might be best to close it then.

 

[Maniaunavailable]

should be closed, but yeah we already knew this, it all depends on how each story depicts the trascendance, imo umineko is the best example

 

[Random-Helper323]

Ant and myself both agree on just closing it, as does the majority. We can see what others think, but honestly if others have better arguments they'd be better off making their own thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this thread then. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.