- 2,168
- 2,128
I too I'm pretty shocked no one said anything about the empty set argument tbh. Like that was one of the first things I questioned, honestly.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To clarify: You can have BDE without R>F, but genuine R>F can't really be had without BDE, since its properties require that it have that to begin with. Not to say R>F statements need to include "Beyond dimensions" to qualify, though. Mostly talking about the actual qualities of the tiers.I am sure that the R>F bullshit in this system will be much more difficult than the current R>F. Because R>F in this system also requires BDE to be mandatory. You are either with it or you are nothing.
Of course, but I'd just consider that a form of BDE, myself. Different from characters who aren't "above dimensions" in any sense.I mean you can also be beyond the "fictional" dimensions of the lower reality, but still abide by the "real" dimensions of your reality. Though that probably would require some distinction to clarify that the dimensions they follow aren't just an extension of the fiction as you have talked about.
Honestly I don't understand the scenario very much. Can you elaborate?ah btw Ultima, quick question before I call it a night.
Not sure if you remember that one infinite regression question I had about a week ago, but my follow up question is, considering the scenario I gave, what tier does that sound like?
Above all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*Of course, but I'd just consider that a form of BDE, myself. Different from characters who aren't "above dimensions" in any sense.
because you can have r>f with BDE? That doesnt really seem problematicAbove all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*
*unless those dimensions have the quality "more real"
I do find it strange that you work with reasoning like that, while also:
Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?
- Asserting that they are really Above All Dimensions.
- Treating omnipotent/divinely simple/etc. characters as also encompassing all possible hierarchies of real-ness.
You kind of answered yourself there. SomeWhy does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?
Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.From what I remember from the OG question, it was basically transcendent entity creates an infinite regression until they downgrade their nature into that which allows them to enter the lower fictional world
I wouldn't place statements of "Beyond all concepts"/"Beyond all possibilities" as being inherently Tier 0. And neither would I say the root of Tier 0 is "It's above all concepts." Though, that's talking about practice. With regards to the theory of it: When you speak of "All concepts/possibilities" relative to Tier 0 (Pretty much what I called "High 1-A+" earlier), you'd be talking about things like the collection of all possible worlds, or the collection of all character strings and sentences, in which case it obviously would simply include ontological superiorities. No reason it wouldn't.Above all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*
*unless those dimensions have the quality "more real"
I do find it strange that you work with reasoning like that, while also:
Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?
- Asserting that they are really Above All Dimensions.
- Treating omnipotent/divinely simple/etc. characters as also encompassing all possible hierarchies of real-ness.
That sounds like it'd be just Low 1-C, yeah. The "no-space"/"no-time" aspect is interesting, but from how you describe it, it seems to be less something beyond dimensional space altogether (As the Void is), and moreso just a weird extension of spacetime itself.I talked about this with Executor before, but he recommended that I ask about it here due to the no-space/time aspect.
Very sorry for being long-winded, but there's a lot of context needed, especially since the Vortex's nature is inherently contradictory (it's both outside of space-time, yet space-time is part of it—neither entirely connected, nor entirely detached from it).
Time in Doctor Who is granular, so the 'interstitial time' that exists between these granules is an entirely different form of time (outside/beyond normal reality) that exists as part of the Time Vortex, which is variously described as multi-, poly-, and transdimensional.
Unlike space-time (which are one within the Vortex), it doesn't technically progress, hence why it's called no-space and no-time, and it contains geometries and colours too complex for the normal universe. People thrown into the interstitial time are often scattered from one end of causality to the other (connected to 'everywhere, nowhere', and 'everywhen, nowhen'). Despite this, it's also a mishmash of temporal zones that crackles with unfixed, flowing time and events that have never existed/never will exist.
The Vortex is beyond most forms of mathematical description, 'outside any normal frame of reference', etc. By comparison, the ocean of time (a Low 1-C, MCU-esque structure, even if you don't include warp space) that it supports is merely a shadow—part of the ocean that is interstitial time—and a 'larger than average singularity' compared to the explicitly infinite Vortex.
Not only that, but it contains other dimensions, including hyperspace (a fourth dimensional, non-Euclidian universe that has warped enough physical laws for FTL travel) and the astral plane (where all space-time in the universe is one).
What kind of qualitative superiority and lack of space-time buffoonery could I get for something like that? Executor believed it was at least one dimensional level of transcendence (i.e, the difference between Low 2-C and Low 1-C).
Basically an infinite regression of layers. Apologies for the confusion, was half asleep at the time and I’m not sure if there are any examples like this in any verse before (well, at least from my experience)Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.
I was more gesturing towards omnipotence/divine simplicity. Unless you're trying to say that you wouldn't put such characters anywhere near tier 0 unless they already had High 1-A cosmologies or something.I wouldn't place statements of "Beyond all concepts"/"Beyond all possibilities" as being inherently Tier 0. And neither would I say the root of Tier 0 is "It's above all concepts." Though, that's talking about practice. With regards to the theory of it: When you speak of "All concepts/possibilities" relative to Tier 0 (Pretty much what I called "High 1-A+" earlier), you'd be talking about things like the collection of all possible worlds, or the collection of all character strings and sentences, in which case it obviously would simply include ontological superiorities. No reason it wouldn't.
And overall I would say that the dimensions existing in a higher R>F plane would very much be operating on a different notion of dimensionality than those of a lower R>F plane, in virtue of the gap between the two layers being qualitative in the first place. If you have Realm A and Realm B, and a set of dimensions in Realm A is > all dimensions in Realm B (Even if that set is one of 2 dimensions and Realm B has 91710 dimensions) by virtue of the gap between realms being purely quality-based, then Realm A does indeed contain a different quality of "dimension" than Realm B, definitionally.
That's what I was trying to say. If you have real R>F, you are also beyond all dimensions, which means you have to have BDE in the first place, but I think I may have misexplained myself above.To clarify: You can have BDE without R>F, but genuine R>F can't really be had without BDE, since its properties require that it have that to begin with. Not to say R>F statements need to include "Beyond dimensions" to qualify, though. Mostly talking about the actual qualities of the tiers.
So it's like a character seeing the X cosmology as a "fiction" to fit into this system, but still part of a less-real plane or a hierarchy, right?Characters with R>F will not need to have statements of BDE, if I understand Ultima's system correctly.
However, they are rated above characters with BDE that don't have statements of being more real, and they will be downgraded if they're shown to be within the dimensionality of less-real things (or more likely, if their real realm is shown to be an extension of the dimensionality of the place they see as less real).
I can only guess they mean something like tzimtzumYeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.
you dont because they should be disconnected from any hierarchyHow would you treat hierarchies of simplicity that lead "up" to the Monad?
I mean, let's say the monad is an all-encompassing "oneness"you dont because they should be disconnected from any hierarchy
Probably because the new system would eliminate disagreements on possible mathematical interpretations of the same buzzword composite hierarchy, albeit by sacrificing mathematical superiority altogether. (large math construct capped at low 1-A rip)Why would moving to this new system, where you simply need new buzzwords (platonic concepts, R>F differences, divine simplicity) to get the big tiers, help in any way?
What would this scale to?That sounds like it'd be just Low 1-C, yeah. The "no-space"/"no-time" aspect is interesting, but from how you describe it, it seems to be less something beyond dimensional space altogether (As the Void is), and moreso just a weird extension of spacetime itself.
Reminds me of the Hounds of Tindalos, which is a Lovecraft story where it's stated that "Time and space are illusory projections of a higher reality," which sounds 1-A-y, but contextually is really just talking about how the perception of temporal progression is a brain-generated illusion, since in truth all of past, present and future is just different sections of a single 4-D block. This seems to be a similar case, especially given you mention that it's called "no-time" because time doesn't progress there.
What about them having an ability to do that? Does it negate the difference? Or is it accepted within fictional logic?I mean, if there are explanations for why it happened (like, due to a being from the higher realm having a hand in it), then it would no longer be an antifeat IMO.
Depending on their ability I would still think this would require more looking into, but I guess that's for when something like that comes up.Basically if they can interact with the higher entity on their own accord (even if it be absorption or an ability) it’d be an anti-feat.
I don't think so.Ah btw this springs another question (albeit probably an obvious one tbh, but for the sake of clarity), if a ‘real’ being gave the ‘fiction’ being an energy that allows them to interact with other ‘real beings’ and then another ‘fiction’ being absorbs that same energy from the recipient, I assume that’s an anti-feat?
Well in this case, the anti-feat would be that a "fictional character" is able to -- of their own capabilities -- absorb "real energy" from someone else.Anything done purely on the being's own terms is
The person I'm quoting said that they were granted the capability of interaction by a more-real being.Well in this case, the anti-feat would be that a "fictional character" is able to -- of their own capabilities -- absorb "real energy" from someone else.
The "formerly" there is really throwing me off.So if there exists a mechanism for a less real character to enter the "real world", but this mechanism was created by someone (formerly) inhabiting the real world, that would be allowed?
The character in question once belonged to the real world, but made themselves less real via the mechanism that they created, which divides reality (the real world) and fantasy (the new world which the character created), with anything deemed unreal or illusory being forced into the new world and treated as an infinitely small nonexistent being from the perspective of the real world.The "formerly" there is really throwing me off.
Not from how I read it.The person I'm quoting said that they were granted the capability of interaction by a more-real being.