SCP Dimensionality

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Honestly, I'd kinda put "narrative" in the same group as "dimension" in most fiction. Especially if the same author can view it as having differing meanings.

Context is key.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't really see the point in tossing out a term when many authors have used it many times consistently, because one author misused it once.

I'm sure that SRAs or some other common theme/device/character has been misused at least once by one author in one tale, but that doesn't mean that we should by default assume that it's being used incorrectly.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

"misused"

This implies that the umbrella definition we have created is correct and that the actual SCP authors did not intend to use the term a certain other way.

Legitimately don't feel like this would be the case as opposed to a word just possibly having multiple meanings depending on story/author/when and where it's used.

 

[Agnaa]

Why do you believe the word has multiple meanings depending on story/author/when and where it's used?

How can you, Ovens, and Dargoo all be incapable of giving me more examples? You just keep asserting that with no backing.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Is the very fact that such statements exist in the first place not enough?

This isn't like a writer using "dimension" as sci-fi jargon for "universe" or something. This is the verse itself crafting definitions for the word "narrative" (beyond its actual definition, obviously) and then demonstrating more than a single meaning. Why then are we saying "there is only one meaning for the term "narrative" and other instances are misuses of the term"? I really don't understand that.

 

[Agnaa]

"Such statements" when there's one statement.

If a verse has its own unique term with one place where its definition is different than the other times then it was used, then I think it's pretty safe to say that there's one meaning.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

One obvious statement, with clear meaning, that also (unless I'm misremembering) just used "narrative" and did not make mention of "stacked narratives" or something of the like.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not particularly worried about how obvious it is since the rest of the verse is still consistent with how it uses the word. Do we always assume that a verse's own terms are unreliable if they get used incorrectly a single time?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

"unreliable"

Once again, it's not that it's unreliable in the actual verse. It's that it's unreliable in that you wish to apply a single definition to it at all times when the verse suggests there can be multiple meanings.

Can just "a narrative" be different than "layers of narrative/metanarrative" based on context? I don't see why not. It's not like the site or the writers have said it can't be. That's the problem in assuming something as vague as just "narrative" always means the same exact thing, when we're pretty much always given context, regardless.

 

[Agnaa]

"when the verse suggests there can be multiple meanings" The language you're using is so misleading. It was used differently a single time, that doesn't prove a trend in the writing. What proves a trend in the writing is a trend in the writing, which I can provide many examples for and you can't.

"Can just "a narrative" be different than "layers of narrative/metanarrative" based on context? I don't see why not." Just because something's not explicitly contradicted doesn't mean we should assume it's true, what the ****?

They could use it differently based on context but we have no reason to believe that they are. Why do I need to explain that you need evidence and reasons to believe things rather than just accepting them due to lack of contradictions? How are you all tripping up on such a low-level thing?

You made a post literal minutes ago about how "We don't assume that nothing in the game actually happened simply because it not happening is a possibility." You agree that we can't accept something being false just because it being false is a possibility in that thread, but you take the opposite stance here.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

"You agree that we can't accept something being false just because it being false is a possibility in that thread, but you take the opposite stance here."

I'm confused as to the link, here. What do you think I'm arguing for? That "narrative" can never mean higher/more complex levels of reality, or something? Because that's not what I'm saying, at all. Here is my initial point, again.

"Context is key."

If narrative ca mean different things (and I don't mean this in the abstract, I mean it has been explicitly used to mean something different), then we shouldn't always assume it is one thing without lack of context. This is not really a problem, since as I've already said, we're usually given context regardless. We'll know what it means when it's used, because its purpose has been made clear by the writing.

In the exact post you linked, I said something else, too. "Our default position is 'we don't know'."

I'm not saying "assume narrative means ______ instead of higher layers". I'm saying to let the context speak for itself, because it has already shown to do that, which is why we're having this conversation in the first place.

The core ideas of my point boil down to this; I disagree with your assertion that narrative will always mean one thing, because I view what you see as "misuse" as intentionally using a word to describe something else.

This has zero effect on literally ******* anything remotely related to tiering, right now.

 

[Agnaa]

Do you know what thread you're in?

Do you know why we're discussing this?

We are discussing whether narrative has a consistent meaning because it affects tiering.

Go back to here to understand why this is being discussed.

I have other problems with your post but none of them are as huge as you arguing in a conversation you haven't read for a point you don't understand.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

I'm aware of this, but I don't believe that affects tiering as some people do.

If narrative is used in one story to clearly demonstrate higher levels of reality, I do not believe this particular instance is altered by the word being used elsewhere or being "inconsistent". Only that this should affect how we look at the word in other instances.

If this (one of Dargoo's comments) is deemed an issue relating to tiering,

"Not to mention that the word "Narrative" is massively inconsistent even with extended canon, as the same author of 3812 defined them as alternate universes in another story."

then I do not necessarily agree. If the context is clear in a particular case, then it's clear, and should be usable.

 

[Agnaa]

Perhaps the crux of the discussion is, what do you want to do when there's no context?

 

[Sera_EX]

I'm inclined to agree with Azzy, but Agnaa as usual does make some good points too. I'm not entirely sure what do to here either.

 

[Agnaa]

This thread's been a mess anyway, we've jumped between half a dozen different topics in the span of 100 posts.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Perhaps the crux of the discussion is, what do you want to do when there's no context?

As in someone just makes an off-handed mention of narrative, or something like that? It's tough, considering that at least some context is almost always provided. In most cases, it probably wouldn't be something with an impact on tiering.

I suppose the nightmare scenario here is something that has a comment like "can destroy all narratives" with pretty much nothing beyond that in its story/article/page, yeah?

Being honest, in that case, I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action would be. Perhaps see how the writer had used the term before (or, if multiple times, most recently and/or consistently) and go with that. For that, I'd definitely say sticking with some sort of trend would probably be safest if we really have nothing else, but it's not something I'd remotely like to decide on my own under any circumstances.

 

[Agnaa]

Let's say we had a character called Tony, who was said to "Reside in narratives and alter their course towards providing Tony with as many cheese sandwiches as possible." How would we treat that?

If we assume it uses the common definition of narrative, then he'd be 11-A due to being seen as fiction. If we assume "narrative" is a meaningless term, then he'd be Unknown for being a being of information.

Also, I'm not sure what you thought I'd mean by disagreeing with you. Did you think that even if there was context that implied it wasn't the common definition that I'd still use the common definition? I'm not that simpleminded and that's why I'm not pushing for 1-A SCP due to Kaktus' second proposal declaring that there are infinite narratives.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Probably what I said above, in a case like that.

"Also, I'm not sure what you thought I'd mean by disagreeing with you. Did you think that even if there was context that implied it wasn't the common definition that I'd still use the common definition?"

I didn't really assume anything beyond what you said, because I do not want to shove meaning into your comments and put words in your mouth. Like I mentioned, my initial concern was not one directly related to tiering. Just about how we should handle a word when it is used differently than normal and whether that is due to misuse or specific intent.

 

[Agnaa]

We should handle it as it's near-universally used unless we have a good reason to do otherwise.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

I agree, in this case, as I suggested above. Sticking with a common trend is fine if there is just nothing else that's being given to us.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I agree, in this case, as I suggested above. Sticking with a common trend is fine if there is just nothing else that's being given to us.

I can agree with this then.

 

[Antvasima]

Here are DarkLK's replies:

I am not an SCP Foundation expert, so I do not understand the context.

However, in my opinion, Narrative Layers can be used as a justification for high tiers only if their use is a fully aware and controlled process. That is, for example, we have some kind of high layer, which from the inside looks like a normal three-dimensional world and some normal person lives there. Even if this person's fiction is a full-fledged world of a lower order, I do not think that we should give the high tier to a normal person. However, if someone is positioned as some kind of higher being and has full control over the process, this may be an excuse for the high tier. Full qualitative transcendence of the entire hierarchy is the best option, it can even be a justification for 1-A.

Such layers are not automatically considered as dimensional layers. Difference between narrative layers must be determined in each verse individually. That is, for example, you can have norman worlds inside layers, then higher layers will simply be infinitely larger/more real/conceptually dense. This can be considered equivalent for dimensions. Although inside the layers you can have any kind of structure. There may be a difference between tier 10 and 1-A inside a single layer.

Inside the layers, these things from other layers do not exist at all. You can match them only by looking at the structure from the outside. And there will be no "below dimensional" things. There simply will be some kind of abstract hierarchy, which for some reason from the inside looks like a normal world(s). How big the difference between layers depends on the complexity of these layers. If the higher layer considers the lower as fiction it does not mean that it will automatically be beyond dimensional, if we do not have info, that within a single layer there may already be infinite dimensions or the difference between structures as between dimensional and dimensionless objects.