Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification

[Reiner04]

Ah well, as obvious as it is, the "Bigger than 2-A" standard has been a blurry thing for more than a year. I don't really see any proper staff consensus on it. At many places some knowledgeable staff and members have said it's Low 1-C and that bigger than 2-A while still being 2-A is impossible. While some say it's not and that for low 1-C, only statements like having an uncountable infinite difference between 2-A, and a bigger structure grants it. This thread is to get a proper consensus on it. Some says that we shouldn't apply maths as fiction breaks rules all the time and should eliminate bigger than 2-A standard as a direct method to get Low 1-C. While other days we default to logic by default unless fiction breaks it.

@Ultima_Reality :

Anyway, this particularly bothersome thing left aside: I'll say I'm neutral with regards to whether or not "the space beyond" is Low 1-C. As I've expressed to some of the thread's participants off-site, I think this largely depends on whether we consider inherently finite visual representations (In this case, a universe being mistaken for a star when seen from the space beyond it) to mean anything when it comes to infinitely large objects and spaces. Although I will say that being finitely, or more generally, countably, larger than a 2-A space is not a thing, no, unless the verse makes clear that such a thing is possible, in which case we're obviously forced to roll with it. As a default, though, we don't do that.

@Qawsedf234 :

Yeah there's no backing to that at all. Just being bigger isn't enough to say it's a Aleph-1 superiority. Especially when the universes themselves are shown as taking up a notable amount of space and aren't just points or flat images.

@DontTalkDT :

Hope we can get a proper consensus on it and remove it or get it clarified already, if a standard can't be of any use to me then it shouldn't exist! (Jk).

The end goal of this thread is to create a "Spaces Containing 4-D Structures" or similar section in the FAQ Page.

"These spaces would be considered Low 1-C if they meet at least these requirements:"

Below is a chart for us, going over the various combinations of information of space surrounding/containing a 4-D structure(s). If you have recommendations for other attributes to judge by, let us know.

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes

 

[KLOL506]

This is gonna be rich.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Moritzva @Duedate8898 @Lonkitt @CrimsonStarFallen @DarkGrath @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Everything12 @Qawsedf234 @Abstractions @Sir_Ovens @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dereck03 @Agnaa Your input here would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Firestorm808]

We have the following according to our Tiering System:

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level - Characters or objects that can universally affect, create and/or destroy spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

Looking at previous Low 1-C threads, staff seems to be on different pages regarding what counts.

I feel this needs to be broken down for the sake of clarity for all staff and members in practical examples.

The following is a chart for us, going over the various combinations of information of space surrounding/containing a 4-D structure(s). If you have recommendations for other attributes to judge by, let us know.

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes

 

[Reiner04]

Snip

I've added it in the OP as well.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

snip

This is actually pretty damn good. If staff can agree and the changes can be presented in this format things will be way easier for everyone.

Good thinking there!

 

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

Sorry for comment in here, but damnn using table is such great idea.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Finally someone doing god's work!

Writing things down always help guiding people, avoid confusion and keep accountability on side of people claiming things.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The following is a chart for us, going over the various combinations of information of space surrounding/containing a 4-D structure(s). If you have recommendations for other attributes to judge by, let us know.

For posterity I'd add a section about an Uncountable Infinite number lf universe as well.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

@Antvasima

 

[Omnificence]

How come we don't have "an infinite # of Low 2-C structures" added to this chart? Wouldn't it make much of a difference?

 

[Tanin_iver]

How come we don't have "an infinite # of Low 2-C structures" added to this chart? Wouldn't it make much of a difference?

That's just 2-A

 

[Omnificence]

That's just 2-A

Even if there was a "yes" in one or both columns?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Anyways this is my view point

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes	Yes, if the Low 2-C space is described as infinitesimal. No otherwise.
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes	Yes, if the Low 2-C space is described as infinitesimal. No otherwise.
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No	No, being small within a space can just involve the space being larger on a 4-D scale.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Yes, if the 2-A space is described as infinitesimal or embedded within the larger space. No otherwise
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	Yes, if the space is described as infinity larger.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	If there's an infinite number of 2A spaces contained within a fraction of a space, that would require a 5-D space to contain them
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	The multiverses themselves no, but see below
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	Containing an infinite amount of different multiverses would probably go into Aleph-1 universes territory, which is Low 1-C.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	Yes, if the 2-A space is described as infinitesimal or embedded within the larger space. No otherwise

*Revised per later comments.

 

[Firestorm808]

For posterity I'd add a section about an Uncountable Infinite number lf universe as well.

To clarify:

2-A is a "countably infinite number of universes"

"Uncountable infinite number of universes" is:

"An infinite # of 2-A" or "An infinite number of an infinite number of 2-A"?

 

[Firestorm808]

@Qawsedf234

I'm a bit confused by one of your views.

A Finite # of 2-A Structures looks small compared to the space around it and is not explicitly described as infinite, you say "Yes, if the 2-A space is described as infinitesimal or embedded within the larger space. No otherwise"

If An infinite # of 2-A Structures looks small compared to the space around it and is not explicitly described as infinite, you say "no."

Wouldn't the view for Finite 2-A apply to Infinite 2-A so long as even a single 2-A is embedded within the larger space?

Additionally, can you give a brief example of what a structure "embedded within the larger space" would look like?

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	Yes, if the 2-A space is described as infinitesimal or embedded within the larger space. No otherwise
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm a bit confused by one of your views.

I flipped them on accident.

Additionally, can you give a brief example of what a structure "embedded within the larger space" would look like?

The Mystara Multiverse when viewed from the perspective of the Immortals are viewed as two-dimensional rivers in an infinite void with infinite rivers. A 2-A space embedded within a void.

 

[Fixxed]

@Firestorm808 give me permission for comment in here

Yeah i agree just being bigger than 2A structure it self is not low 1C. But like DT say bigger than 2A and still 2A is very specific case, it is the source of the standard now day. I think this thread just make it general not specific

But being infinity structure and make 2A is finite in it self is another thing, since 2A structure is infinity by default, being infinity and make it infinity is finite or small is literally mean bigger or higher infinity

Since infinities is based on size or cardinality. All countable infinite is have same size of infinity, if the verse have bigger infinity size than other infinity it mean higher infinity

Indeed, Dedekind defined an infinite set as one that can be placed into a one-to-one correspondence with a strict subset (that is, having the same size in Cantor's sense); this notion of infinity is called Dedekind infinite. Cantor introduced the cardinal numbers, and showed—according to his bijection-based definition of size—that some infinite sets are greater than others. The smallest infinite cardinality is that of the natural numbers (ℵ0).

So only if that structure is infinity and make other infinity is finite or small to it size, i think it can have low 1C structure

Basically the all thing that needed is larger or bigger infinity

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes	No, there are no infinity size for compare with the infinity of the space and it not make the low 2C structure as small portion in it self
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes	Probably, but i think no because there are no infinity size for compate with the infinity of the space
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	If the space make the structure is small thing, Yes
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Yes, larger infinity structure
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	If the space make the structure is small thing, Yes
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Yes

 

[Fixxed]

@Reiner @Firestorm808 One question
Isnt infinity number structures of 2A is just same as finite or even one structure of 2A???

 

[Firestorm808]

I flipped them on accident.

To clarify, of the two, the first is no, the second is yes?

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

This is why I stick to below Tier 3

 

[Qawsedf234]

To clarify, of the two, the first is no, the second is yes?

Yeah, I meant to put them in the other spot.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Yeah i agree just being bigger than 2A structure it self is not low 1C. But like DT say bigger than 2A and still 2A is very specific case, it is the source of the standard now day. I think this thread just make it general not specific

But being infinity structure and make 2A is finite in it self is another thing, since 2A structure is infinity by default, being infinity and make it infinity is finite or small is literally mean bigger or higher infinity

Since infinities is based on size or cardinality. All countable infinite is have same size of infinity, if the verse have bigger infinity size than other infinity it mean higher infinity


So only if that structure is infinity and make other infinity is finite or small to it size, i think it can have low 1C structure

Basically the all thing that needed is larger or bigger infinity

Just to add onto this, Ultima has suggested a couple times in the past that the space being infinite + space-time being visually small is enough to suffice for Low 1-C in and of itself: even without statements for space-time being necessarily infinitesimal or embedded.

Low 1-C is fine by me. We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present. Add that to the space in question here being explicitly described as infinite and the worlds as "small" compared to it, and you have a fairly straightforward case.

I don't think the 2-A option is terribly logical either, after mulling it over: 2-A would imply that universes in KH are displaced over 4-D space, which doesn't work when parallelism of any two objects by definition requires an extra axis: For two line segments to be parallel, you'd have to set it so they wouldn't touch regardless of how far they are extended, which wouldn't be possible if they stood side-by-side in 1-D space as in here, meaning you would need them to be displaced over a plane. Same thing happens with planes: For them to be parallel, they shouldn't ever be able to meet, so you'd need them to be displaced over 3-D space. Generalizing that to the 4-D case, spacetimes would obviously have to be displaced over a 5-D region (This works by definition, too: If they're different spacetime continuums then obviously they can't share the same space, in the way 3-D objects exist around us for instance)

Warning: I only read the OP.

So, glancing over this: It doesn't really seem to be anything particularly notable, in the sense that we already assume 4-D spacetimes that exist in parallel are spaced apart across 5-dimensional space. The issue, largely, is whether this 5-dimensional space has anything noteworthy about it to be tiered; it could be a complete void, for instance, and as such have really nothing in it to blow up in the first place.

More than that, it could just not meet our criteria of what a "significantly large" dimensional structure is, and as such be left untiered. Just like we don't instantly grant characters Low 2-C ratings for destroying small spacetimes (Or sections of spacetime). If the space was infinitely large, there'd be something to work with, but if we don't know its size, then, yeah.

And, to my knowledge, I believe we already use the 5-D space reasoning as part of the regular justification for tiers like 2-C and 2-A. It's why the gap between them is treated as "unquantifiable," because, ideally, feats that warrant them involve affecting both the universes and the space between them.

 

[Theglassman12]

I'm still not sure I follow this argument when it comes to tier 1. How does a realm being larger than something that's tier 2 would by default makes said realm transcend it and become a higher plane of existence? An infinite universe is much larger than a planet but it's still in the 3-D space, what about larger sizes makes the realm transcend to a higher dimension and not just be a larger version of said structure?

 

[Phoenks]

To clarify:

2-A is a "countably infinite number of universes"

"Uncountable infinite number of universes" is:

"An infinite # of 2-A" or "An infinite number of an infinite number of 2-A"?

What you described there is "Infinite x Infinite" or "Infinite x Infinite x Infinite"

It would moreso be "An infinite series of infinitely branching infinite multiverses across an infinite amount of points in time."

Infinite x Infinite repeating itself infinitely. Or Infinite^Infinite

Anyway, here's my answer to your chart.

Space Surrounding/Containing	The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space?	The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym?	Is the Space Low 1-C?
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	No	No. This can just be universal+ to multiversal+.
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes	No. A ny2-A structure can do this.
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No	No. Any larger multiverse can do this.
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes	No. Any 2-A structure can do this.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No. Encompassment of 2-A stuff is just 2-A.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	Depends if the space is quantifiable or just a void. If it is quantifiable, then in my eyes, it would be need to bigger than an Aleph-0 cardinality/amount of "space" and thus move up to Aleph-1.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No. Any finitely larger thing is just the same thing really. Even though it might not look like it.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Depends if the space is quantifiable or just a void. If it is quantifiable, then in my eyes, it would be need to bigger than an Aleph-0 cardinality/amount of "space" and thus move up to Aleph-1.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No. This is Infinite x Infinite 2-A, which is still just baseline 2-A and doesn't breach into Low 1-C territory.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	Depends if the space is quantifiable or just a void. If it is quantifiable, then in my eyes, it would be need to bigger than an Aleph-0 cardinality/amount of "space" and thus move up to Aleph-1.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No. Any finitely larger thing is just the same thing really. Even though it might not look like it.
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Depends if the space is quantifiable or just a void. If it is quantifiable, then in my eyes, it would be need to bigger than an Aleph-0 cardinality/amount of "space" and thus move up to Aleph-1.

 

[Reiner04]

How does a realm being larger than something that's tier 2 would by default makes said realm transcend it and become a higher plane of existence?

Well, we have this as an accepted standard because in mathematics, it's impossible to have something larger than Tier 2-A (Aleph 0) and still be of same size, being larger than Aleph 0 size/Tier 2-A directly gets you to the higher level of infinite which cannot be achieved regardless what you add or multiply in the Tier 2-A structure. If fiction did smth like 2 times larger than 2-A, then it's simply breaking rules and don't follow mathematics, this thread is to decide if we should allow mathematics and logics related to them in scaling when it comes to infinity or 2-A and above structures or not.

@Reiner @Firestorm808 One question
Isnt infinity number structures of 2A is just same as finite or even one structure of 2A???

Well, since we already breaking mathematics by questioning what to do when it comes to spaces bigger than 2-A, nothing wrong with bringing infinite amounts of 2-A with in custody as well.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, depends on whether you can use the universes as measuring sticks for distances in the depiction or not.
Usually, you can not, because they are depicted as floating bubbles or lines or whatever which don't really depict proper size, and in that case I would say no to all of them. If you can use them in a way to measure the size of the 5D space to prove it's significantly large, then you could get somewhere. But... yeah, depicting 5D space in a way that conserves size is just pretty hard.

Space being infinite in itself doesn't matter, as space at that level is infinite in some sense anyway. You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. But I figure if you have information that specific then you wouldn't need this thread. In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.

And of course, countable x countable = countable, so infinite infinite multiverse structures do nothing to enhance 2-A.

As for whether above baseline 2-A exists: In a fiction it's plausible. I can absolutely see that some fiction would write that a character destroying 1 infinite multiverse is weaker than a character destroying that and another 1000 infinite multiverses. However, we factually know that in reality there is no real difference between the number of universes destroyed. It's like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are the same amount of numbers, but the latter list contains 0 and hence clearly "one more". Things can be larger in some sense, without being larger in a way that registers for the tiering system.
Busting more multiverses in itself is no greater feat at all for a start, but some fictions will explicitly insist that there are power differences (Like, being 2x as strong as a 2-A character). In that case, you can have 2-A Character A and have a Character B that is stated to be much stronger, but B would still be 2-A. Given that the difference isn't objective one could debate whether it holds any value when comparing it to ratings of different fictions... I think by precedence we assume it does.
But yeah, the main point is any 2-A feat will be equal, you can at best have scaling chains to get higher and, if you do, those won't get you Tier 1.

 

[Reiner04]

As for whether above baseline 2-A exists: In a fiction it's plausible. I can absolutely see that some fiction would write that a character destroying 1 infinite multiverse is weaker than a character destroying that and another 1000 infinite multiverses. However, we factually know that in reality there is no real difference between the number of universes destroyed. It's like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.... and 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... are the same amount of numbers, but the latter list contains 0 and hence clearly "one more". Things can be larger in some sense, without being larger in a way that registers for the tiering system.
Busting more multiverses in itself is no greater feat at all for a start, but some fictions will explicitly insist that there are power differences (Like, being 2x as strong as a 2-A character). In that case, you can have 2-A Character A and have a Character B that is stated to be much stronger, but B would still be 2-A. Given that the difference isn't objective one could debate whether it holds any value when comparing it to ratings of different fictions... I think by precedence we assume it does.
But yeah, the main point is any 2-A feat will be equal, you can at best have scaling chains to get higher and, if you do, those won't get you Tier 1.

So, should we consider it a by default thing that a fiction must be breaking rules when it introduces structures that are far bigger than 2-A constructs (bigger not in the sense of "more number of 2-A constructs" but the real size difference) and dwarfs them to insignificant size (like small ball or rock) but aren't "explicitly stated to be infinite or uncountable infinite" and scale them to just being a higher level of 2-A rather than Tier 1 or we take it as granted that they are following maths and are higher level of infinite unless they contradict infinity with multipliers (like Marvel comics does mostly)?

 

[Tanin_iver]

I apologize for this late request. But could you guys add the spatial size of the Low 2-C universes in the table as well.
Like a 3-A spatial sized, Low 2-C structure and a High 3-A spatial sized Low 2-C structure that are trivialized to infinitesimal subset by a larger infinite sized structure if either of them will count for Low 1-C, as even this has been contested in a recent thread.

 

[Firestorm808]

According to Ultima's prior minimum agreement for Low 1-C, "We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present."

This also seems to be the case for why GOW's Realm containing Yggdrasil is currently agreed as Low 1-C.

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69

Your input is appreciated.

 

[Reiner04]

I have question using 1-D analogy.

multiple infinite size 1-D object in infinite 1-D space would overlap with each other. (both object and space are real number btw)

If there is statement that say multiple infinite size 1-D object never intersect/overlap with each others when those objects are moving would that mean it only possible by adding additional axis (2D space) ?

You can have multiple infinite 1D lines in a single infinite 1D space w/o them intersecting with each other. For instance go ahead and break the infinite line from anywhere and push them in opposite directions, you'll get 2 infinite 1D lines in same infinite 1D space. But

This is not related to the topic and it's a staff thread not QnA so we gotta ask anything unrelated only in QnA forum.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Reiner that sounds way too specific and a case by case basis to use rather than a normal standard that we can apply to all verses imo. Especially when likely dozens of verses treats other infinite timelines and multiverses being destroyed as a more impressive feat without any implication of transcendence.

 

[Georredannea15]

According to Ultima's prior minimum agreement for Low 1-C, "We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present."

This also seems to be the case for why GOW's Realm containing Yggdrasil is currently agreed as Low 1-C.

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69

Your input is appreciated.

That's not the only reason why GoW was Low 1-C, it became 5-D, but it also has a 5th axis Yggdrasil's 5th axis stretches infinitely, you'll need context like that((i.e. your 5th axis must be infinite or significantly large, otherwise it won't happen) ,other than that it was just a trivial 5th axis and does not scale to Low 1-C.

DT explain here;

You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work

Yes, we have this. We have a structure that has a 5th axis and extends infinitely on this axis.

If this is not present, it becomes a trivial, non-scalable 5-D structure.

And of course there are many other things like LoA, this logic was only part of our Low 1-C support, not the only reason

 

[Firestorm808]

To clarify the definition of our standards:

One to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.)

In common fictional depictions, what counts as one level of infinity greater?

Is one level of infinity supposed to mean one Aleph greater?

In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

In common fictional depictions, when does the absolute limit of 4-D space end and 5-D space begin?

Is 5-D one aleph greater than 4-D?

 

[Reiner04]

@Reiner that sounds way too specific and a case by case basis to use rather than a normal standard that we can apply to all verses imo.

As per our FAQ, we don't default destroying more number of 2-A structures to be any bigger feat than destroying single, so if fiction is doing smth like that then it breaks logic and goes against our accepted standards and we just have to force ourselves to roll with that fiction perspective. But what a single fiction does shouldn't default to all of fictions as we scale stuff on logics and reasonings unless fiction just breaks it- is basically what I think.

The reason bigger than 2-A is being treated as Low 1-C is because only thing that can be bigger than 2-A is uncountable infinite, as @DontTalkDT stated even countable infinite* countable infinite doesn't change the size but stays of same size as single countable infinite, difference can be only noticed if either of them is bigger, aka uncountable larger.

 

[Planck69]

According to Ultima's prior minimum agreement for Low 1-C, "We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present."

This also seems to be the case for why GOW's Realm containing Yggdrasil is currently agreed as Low 1-C.

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69

Your input is appreciated.

As far as I was aware, yeah. The bulk of the argument for the Realm Between Realms was that for it to have parallel space-time continuums displaced within it, it'd need to have a higher-dimensional axis for that to happen.

That, alongside being infinite in size across all of the space the realms were displaced in, made it Low 1-C.

 

[Firestorm808]

It also has a 5th axis Yggdrasil's 5th axis stretches infinitely, you'll need context like that, other than that it was just a trivial 5th axis and does not scale to Low 1-C.

To clarify, the starting assumption is that the outer space of Yggdrasil is 5-D.

Yggdrasil extends infinitely throughout this space.

Therefore, Yggdrasil had a 5-D axis?

 

[Reiner04]

As far as I was aware, yeah. The bulk of the argument for the Realm Between Realms was that for it to have parallel space-time continuums displaced within it, it'd need to have a higher-dimensional axis for that to happen.

That, alongside being infinite in size across all of the space the realms were displaced in, made it Low 1-C.

I believe as per what DT said, in previous responses and current. The space (supposedly 5D) in which multiverse exist is default to insignificant size and this not tierable but if somehow if it can be proven that it has significant size and is far bigger 5D structure (taking Universe size as scale) then it's tierable;

Well, depends on whether you can use the universes as measuring sticks for distances in the depiction or not.
Usually, you can not, because they are depicted as floating bubbles or lines or whatever which don't really depict proper size, and in that case I would say no to all of them. If you can use them in a way to measure the size of the 5D space to prove it's significantly large, then you could get somewhere. But... yeah, depicting 5D space in a way that conserves size is just pretty hard.

You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work.

 

[Planck69]

To clarify, the starting assumption is that the outer space of Yggdrasil is 5-D.

Yggdrasil extends infinitely throughout this space.

Therefore, Yggdrasil had a 5-D axis?

Yes, that was indeed the case.

Granted, we have confirmation that Yggdrasil created the Realm Between Realm as a result of its branches so like, it's Low 1-C anyway (Comment on that thread plz).

 

[Reiner04]

(Comment on that thread plz).

(Any opinion on this thread tho?)

 

[Planck69]

Not much of one. Our handling of Tier 2 and the gap between it and Tier 1 is atrocious.