Beyond-Dimensional Existence Revisions

[Ultima_Reality]

@Assalt

Why exactly should scale characters based on constructs that don't actually exist in their verse, though? If the text itself mentions the existence of such things as possibilities and further states that the character in question would still be above them, or if it is very obviously implied that any levels of abstraction would still be beneath them, then I'd be fine with giving them an 1-A rating, but otherwise there simply isn't enough evidence or context to back up such extreme claims, and thus they can be classified as no-limits fallacies. The Burden of Proof isn't on us, it's on fiction.

 

[Agnaa]

@Assalt So you're saying that a beyond-dimensional structure is one of size beyond any stacking of dimensions.

However, dimensions could have a size such that they're beyond a size that can be reached by stacking dimensions. In fact, you can arbitrarily make their size as high as possible.

Hence, I think it's unfair to say that beyond-dimensional is above any dimensional construct no matter how complex, since we can imagine dimensional constructs that have a greater size than baseline beyond-dimensional.

Or if we're taking the analogy of a building/golf, then being beyond-dimensional isn't a feat at all, and cannot be said to be above dimensionality of any size, since there's no comparison point from which beyond-dimensionality is greater.

 

[Antvasima]

I am personally inclined to agree with Assaltwaffle, but I am not the best person to ask.

 

[KingPin0422]

To translate what Agnaa said in plain English: you ca have dimensions at 1-A, just not ones that can be defined in terms of space or time. 1-A is beyond Hausdorff dimensionality, but not all dimensionality period.

Also, I agree with Ultima.

 

[Promestein]

I'm also inclined to agree with Ultima, but I have nothing to say that hasn't been said already.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Both make good points, but I think Ultima makes more sense overall.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it seems like Ultima's suggestion should be applied then.

 

[Antvasima]

It is probably best if somebody asks DarkLK to comment here first though.

 

[KingPin0422]

I asked him, and this is what he had to say:

As for the fact that so called "Beyond-Dimensional Existence" may simply be an existence without some form of coordinate axes, which in itself does not guarantee a high tier, then this is pretty obvious and I have no problems with classification refinement.

 

[Thelastmlg]

To translate what Agnaa said in plain English: you ca have dimensions at 1-A, just not ones that can be defined in terms of space or time. 1-A is beyond Hausdorff dimensionality, but not all dimensionality period.
Also, I agree with Ultima.

would this be like the transcedence that defines 1-A threads?

as in, more 1-A dimensions means more transcedence, and thus more power?

 

[KingPin0422]

Yes, of course. If higher dimensions = higher infinities before breaching the 1-A barrier, then the same should hold true afterwards.

 

[Antvasima]

So does DarkLK agree with Sera and Ultima?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, looks like he has no problems with the changes.

 

[KingPin0422]

If we're good to go here, then we need Ultima to write up the descriptions for the new set of types. I think type 0 is lacking spatio-temporal existence w/o being superior to it on any level, type 1 is transcending space and time on a limited (non 1-A) scale, type 2 is transcending space and time on any possible level (1-A), and type 3... uh, I don't know, but it applies to High 1-A and above.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

Okay. I suppose that Ultima should feel free to apply this then.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Wrote up this draft:

Type 0: Entities whose nature is defined by a lack of the concepts of space and time entirely, normally by preceding both of those constants, and as a result being untied from their effects and consequences, without necessarily exceeding them by virtue of size or some inherently superior nature. As a result, this category does not necessarily imply greater Attack Potency and most often overlaps with Acausality, Resistance to Space-Time Manipulation, Nonexistent Physiology, or all of the above.

Type 1: Characters whose nature exceeds spatio-temporal dimensions in relation to a limit scope of existence, without automatically standing above further extensions of the concepts and their applications, normally due to some lack of evidence or context.

Type 2: Entities who trivialize not only the existence of space and time, but any additional extensions which may exist (or potentially exist) in the context of their setting, standing in a state that is inaccessible to any form of those two concepts, regardless of complexity or size, normally being beyond the basis upon which such levels would be defined in the first place.

Any suggestion or criticism is welcome.

 

[KingPin0422]

Are we doing away with type 3? For what reason?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Not really, I omitted Type 3 because the current description ("Existing not only beyond dimensions, but all hierarchies of size") already fits the definition of High 1-A and above, so editing it seems rather needless.

 

[KingPin0422]

"Boundless creatures are those whose existence is not only conceptually superior to the concept of dimensions but all hierarchies of size. They are usually all-encompassing beings that encompass even beyond-dimensional creatures, to where they are only infinitesimal in comparison. The most common comparison is a droplet of water in an endless sea. Likewise, they can also simply be those that dwarf beyond-dimensional entities in a similar manner without necessarily being all-encompassing."

The description seems to go back and forth between High 1-A ("conceptually superior to [...] all hierarchies of size") and 0 ("all-encompassing beings that encompass even beyond-dimensional creatures"), and it's also called "Boundlessness," which I'm not sure is an appropriate name. At the very least, I would recommend cleaning up the description so that it fits the new tiers better.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Fair enough on those points. I am probably removing the type names anyways, so the concerns about it being called "Boundlessness" can be put at rest.

 

[Nepuko]

So, looking at the definitions, if I got it right a character that became Low 1-C via transcending space-time would be Type 1, and a 1-A character would be Type 2?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Proposals look good.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that Ultima's suggestions seem good, but it is best to confirm with Sera and DarkLK.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Agnaa

Okay. I suppose that Ultima should feel free to apply this then.

I've applied the changes.

 

[Nepuko]

So, looking at the definitions, if I got it right a character that became Low 1-C via transcending space-time would be Type 1, and a 1-A character would be Type 2?

cough...so?

 

[Elizhaa]

So, looking at the definitions, if I got it right a character that became Low 1-C via transcending space-time would be Type 1, and a 1-A character would be Type 2?

cough...so?

No, the first case is just Type 0. The second case is Type 1 or Type 2 depending the contexts given.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima

Thank you. Is there anything left to do here?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't think so.

 

[KingPin0422]

So, looking at the definitions, if I got it right a character that became Low 1-C via transcending space-time would be Type 1, and a 1-A character would be Type 2?

cough...so?

No, the first case is just Type 0. The second case is Type 1 or Type 2 depending the contexts given.

Incorrect. Type 0 implies that the character, while not participating in the concepts of time or space, does not transcend them on any level. Type 1 would be transcending space-time on a limited (i.e. non-1-A) scale. Type 2 is basically just being 1-A.

 

[Elizhaa]

Ok, apologies on my mistakes.

 

[Antvasima]

Is it fine if I close this thread?