Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

[MattSatire]

sorry, Bump

 

[Jinsye]

Can the L1C criterion be obtained by R>F to a 2A structure simply by considering it as fiction?

Yes.

isn't it necessary to have a universal affect on 5D structures to get the L1C tier?

Only if you're talking about dimensions, not R>F. They are different things.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

https://vsbattles.com/threads/deleting-completely-rewriting-the-reality-fiction-interactions-page.144227/post-5287375

 

[MattSatire]

Sorry, my previous question was not specific

Yes.


Only if you're talking about dimensions, not R>F. They are different things.

okay, is it need character affect the 5D structure universally to get the L1C tier or with your 5D existence you don't need the criteria I mentioned above to get the L1C tier?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Based on my discussion with a staff member, there is a new terminology called size-based qualitative difference.
I am suggesting to @DontTalkDT or to @Jinsye to write about it and what are differences between size-based qualitative difference and qualitative superiority difference (reality – fiction interaction)

Edit: He clarified it already here, but I would like this to be added.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's several steps in the right direction, but in my opinion it's still has things to be polished.

On the Qualifiers

(Minor) I don't think it should start with "A general rule of thumb" as it's saying the qualifiers as they are.

Hmmmm... yeah, I suppose.

Being "of no physical consequence to their being" is misleading, any fictional character has no consequence to us in a physical, non-physical and metaphysical way. We can word that while also allowing fictional characters to affect real things with a R/F t. over them due to specific powers or abnormal stats.

That covers one aspect of what makes them fiction, which is their lack of any power.

Well, I used the word physical here as a fictional character can mentally still be of consequence. It can inspire a character to do something and, in principle, certain kinds of mind control powers (like subliminal messages in a movie) are permitted to work for example. So saying they have no consequence in any way would generally be wrong.

I'm open to suggestions of alternative formulations if they encode that, though. One could, for instance, add a sentence after the "physical consequence" one saying something like "Or otherwise are of greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human."

What about the beings in the 'fictional world' being sentient in a real sense as opposed to in a fictional/fake way? And what about their passage of time being fictional and nothing to the real world, as opposed to the same or with different, yet clearly real mechanics on how their time works.

Neither of the two seem to proof or deny the possibility of being fictional, in my opinion. Sentience never really mattered for R>F. There are also good examples of why it might happen even in proper fiction. A sufficiently advanced AI might be sentient. There are also philosophical perspective on the "what if reality is a dream idea" that suggest that all sentient entities might just be part of some dreamers consciousness. Even for a comic I wouldn't consider it as disqualifying. A comic character can be written to seem sentient. In fact, a book can have lines that say that the character are in fact sentient, which from the inside perspective of the book would be the truth then.

In a dream or movie the flow of time can be the same as in real life. Same for a book that is writing itself or something. So the flow of time being the same matters neither IMO.

A fictional world can lack the ability to affect the real world just because everyone there is too weak to do that or nobody just so happen to have any ability that would allow them to do so, in a way that's not the same as it having a R/F t. in their real world. Do we agree that the previously mentioned things about their sentience and their time matters to whether or not they're fictional in the way R/F t. implies?

No. As said, I think perfectly qualifying characters can not have those properties. And I think defaulting to assumptions like those you mention generally goes to far on the being sceptical side. In fiction, there is an exception to everything and exactly due to that one should not always default to the exception. Sure, it's possible that the character in the comic book of some guy exists actually on the same level and is just 1 billion times weaker than the comic book and its paper, but unless there is any indication of the characters nature being real like that it doesn't seem plausible to default to assuming most characters like that have such a nature.

(Minor) I think this part could be done in bullet points, to make it easier to handle.

Done.

So, as said before the space those fictional worlds occupy should also be appropriate to what they are, but this wasn't established initially and so it needs to be said there. It's not clear by the text itself what "comparable" means, it doesn't say how any real size would be...real, and thus not have any R/F t. We should either define what "comparable" means in this context or just say what it means in this context w/o saying "comparable". One would intuitively think that a small town for example would not be comparable to the whole universe or the timeline, yet it is comparable in this context due to occupying real space, as it would only a house, only a room, and so on. This not being the same as the media in which the nothing that is fiction is being presented.

I guess one could instead say " Those include the realities being portrayed like parallel universes or otherwise as having just a finite difference in scale or having a similar nature."

It also says nowhere that a fictional world can be in a pocket space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside. I take that as something to mention for people to be aware of, as a case like that may feel like it qualifies while being something else.

I don't really get that point. Basically any R>F difference is essentially of that nature, no? For the characters inside the book the world in the book seems bigger than for the reader.

Or do you just mean that it is not a qualifier? Are we saying anything that would suggest it is a qualifier?

Well, to me it's appropriate to talk about "fiction" in fiction in general before saying how it could have a R/F t. in its real world, as it's important to know how common and versatile 'fictional worlds' can be w/o qualifying for R/F t., having many mechanics that in other context for other verses may intuit R/F t. It covers the topic more completely, "reality-fiction transcendence" being a part of it and not all of it or its main premise as to why we care about it, which is how I think it should be presented to others to explain it.

But if we're more comfortable not doing that then ok.

Feel free to write a draft for that if you want it added. If something useful comes out of that, we can consider it.

Otherwise... well, as said, as far as I can write it I suspect it would end up either general abstract nonsense or too restrictive to capture the subject.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, DontTalk. You are awesome as always.

 

[Eficiente]

Well, I used the word physical here as a fictional character can mentally still be of consequence. It can inspire a character to do something and, in principle, certain kinds of mind control powers (like subliminal messages in a movie) are permitted to work for example. So saying they have no consequence in any way would generally be wrong.

I'm open to suggestions of alternative formulations if they encode that, though. One could, for instance, add a sentence after the "physical consequence" one saying something like "Or otherwise are of greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human."

Well, depends on what you mean by powers there. If we talk about superpowers, then that's not it, just natural side effects. I wouldn't say that they have a kind of mind control power just like I wouldn't say a human has Water Manip via being able to cry.

I like "Or otherwise are of greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human.", however, it misses being a bit more specific on what our standards are. People may be accustomed to many cases of fiction within fiction where the characters are too mundane, and so if they ever see verses that shake things up a little bit and the characters' powers allow them to be of consequence to their "real world", it would be easy for them to always believe this are special cases next to common ones and that they qualify as R/T t.

I propose "In order to qualify they must view the world as a some actual form of 'fiction', i.e. to them what happens in the fiction is not real and of no consequence to their being in either a physical, non-physical or metaphysical way, aside from natural, reasonable side effects that may come from consuming a work of fiction (Getting slightly influenced, getting emotional responses, having pre-programmed interactions, etc.)." Or something that would give across the same information.

Neither of the two seem to proof or deny the possibility of being fictional, in my opinion. Sentience never really mattered for R>F. There are also good examples of why it might happen even in proper fiction. A sufficiently advanced AI might be sentient. There are also philosophical perspective on the "what if reality is a dream idea" that suggest that all sentient entities might just be part of some dreamers consciousness. Even for a comic I wouldn't consider it as disqualifying. A comic character can be written to seem sentient. In fact, a book can have lines that say that the character are in fact sentient, which from the inside perspective of the book would be the truth then.

In a dream or movie the flow of time can be the same as in real life. Same for a book that is writing itself or something. So the flow of time being the same matters neither IMO.


No. As said, I think perfectly qualifying characters can not have those properties. And I think defaulting to assumptions like those you mention generally goes to far on the being sceptical side. In fiction, there is an exception to everything and exactly due to that one should not always default to the exception. Sure, it's possible that the character in the comic book of some guy exists actually on the same level and is just 1 billion times weaker than the comic book and its paper, but unless there is any indication of the characters nature being real like that it doesn't seem plausible to default to assuming most characters like that have such a nature.

I'm glad we found something we disagree with and that it's clear what it is, so we can talk about it.

Sentience never really mattered for R>F.

We never had standards for it beyond the basics tho. Very early on the wiki we had characters who clearly qualified with tons of lore into it (which I'm pretty sure also had dimensional tiering on top of R>F), and from there more characters got the same via "similar" cases, which could be far less elaborate. Which is up to us to put the standards on.

There are also good examples of why it might happen even in proper fiction. A sufficiently advanced AI might be sentient.

If it has "real" sentience, then it's real, regardless of lacking a body like ours. AI are not fiction, and follow pre-made / constantly updated programming that while vast, has a limited amount of results for the AI to work with, until they become as sentient as a human. Since you bring up AI, I will again say something that I said in the Undertale thread; not all forms of fiction are the same. Theater is fiction, and they can affect the real world while literally touching and talking to the audience & having everything be part of the story.

There are also philosophical perspective on the "what if reality is a dream idea" that suggest that all sentient entities might just be part of some dreamers consciousness.

That can be as real as "fate" or some versions of "God" and it wouldn't change a thing due to being entirely redundant to how things normally are. "If" we are in a dream (We're not), it doesn't matter due to being constantly made dream, always making the present, just like if we weren't a dream (Which we are) we always live in the present. In both cases we have as much free will and ability to react & act to things.

That is assuming that dream is like a dream we can have, if it's a dream that already created all of time at once or it's an idea that can be looked at while awake then damn, that's some super dream, but everything remains as redundant for us.

As said before not all forms of fiction are the same; if anyone real can make "characters" in dreams seem to have sentience then they're not, the feat of "reacting to things in real time" is something that can be done with toys, it's made by the dreamer while they don't know it, it's not true sentience.

Even for a comic I wouldn't consider it as disqualifying. A comic character can be written to seem sentient. In fact, a book can have lines that say that the character are in fact sentient, which from the inside perspective of the book would be the truth then.

Well, this are common things people made in stories across the years that we are accustomed to, but we have to wonder if that's the same as not disqualifying. If you saw a comicbook character that could talk to you, you would think it's an IA or something, but knowing for certain that their sentience is real would be knowing for certain that the character is in fact real.

From there;

• Maybe just that character is sentient & the rest/most of the rest isn't, at which point I have no issue calling that world fictional.
• Maybe a few / just 1 character is sentient but the way that works is that they are aware of things everyone else could be aware of too if they had more information, everyone being as sentient as the 1 character that the "real world" more easily finds to be sentient. That's something that can happen in stories where the fiction wants revenge on the "real world" for their mistreatments, or simply suffers for their cruelties / simply find odd & f*cked up the way they can do everything to them & are helpless about it. It would not be real abuse if the victims weren't real, "victims" being "everyone in the fictional world and the reality of the fictional world itself (Or only the parts affected, if everything is proven to be potential target)". I do personally have Undertale in mind when saying this, and I would also think that She-Hulk being mad at Marvel for giving her new family members and demanding to drop that retcon or something like that is not the same at all for a number of reasons.

In a dream or movie the flow of time can be the same as in real life. Same for a book that is writing itself or something. So the flow of time being the same matters neither IMO.

They wouldn't be the same as they remain fiction past one experiencing them. Unless the fiction in question only exists in the present, which can be unlike their real media of fiction in real life.

As not all forms of fiction are the same, you could, if you had the means to, watch a movie stopped in every one of its frames, watch it slowly, in reverse, skip parts, etc. You could do something similar with a book or a comic. Dreams are somewhat akin to playing with toys as it's experienced once consecutively until it ends.

Just because some forms of fiction keep their flow of time the same as real life and others appear to do so while they don't it doesn't mean that all should be treated the same, that would be allowing cases to work by their own rules rather than taking them for what they should be, which is how you would treat them in real life, and having definitions of that means having standards about it here.

• If it shouldn't have a flow of time like its "real world", and it's proven that it does, then that should be a red flag.
• If it shouldn't have a flow of time like its "real world", and what seems to be it can be assumed to the experience of it their "real world" has (or what characters on par with the real world or with special abilities experience), then it's fine.
• If it's like a dream that's done in real time then I concur that it's fine.

I guess one could instead say " Those include the realities being portrayed like parallel universes or otherwise as having just a finite difference in scale or having a similar nature."

Yes.

I don't really get that point. Basically any R>F difference is essentially of that nature, no? For the characters inside the book the world in the book seems bigger than for the reader.

Or do you just mean that it is not a qualifier? Are we saying anything that would suggest it is a qualifier?

I'm saying it doesn't qualify if it's just a pocket space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside, which any verse can have and call fiction.

Feel free to write a draft for that if you want it added. If something useful comes out of that, we can consider it.

Otherwise... well, as said, as far as I can write it I suspect it would end up either general abstract nonsense or too restrictive to capture the subject.

I'll see in the week.

 

[AKUTO123]

If it has "real" sentience,

my native language is not english so can you explain the word sentience to me?

 

[Eficiente]

Having a conscience, a real intelligence rather than a fake portrayal of it for fun/practicality. Being from Argentina, I would say it's a word that can be used that way even though its actual description is something else.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think that we should do here?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/deleting-completely-rewriting-the-reality-fiction-interactions-page.144227/post-5299441

 

[Jinsye]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

I asked DontTalk for input again.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, depends on what you mean by powers there. If we talk about superpowers, then that's not it, just natural side effects. I wouldn't say that they have a kind of mind control power just like I wouldn't say a human has Water Manip via being able to cry.

It can be superpowers for sure. E.g. Vandalieu has a skill that lets him draw pictures which are specifically composed in a way that they have a psychological effect. That is a superpower of his. At the same time I see no reason why someone viewing his world as actual fiction, who looks at such a picture, should not be effected by the psychological effect.

If this were an attack with mental energy or something I could see the reason. But hypnotism through pictures doesn't change based on which level of reality you look at the pictures from IMO.

So yeah, I think there are valid cases where I would say they have superpowers able to effect reality even if they are fictional.

I like "Or otherwise are of greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human.", however, it misses being a bit more specific on what our standards are. People may be accustomed to many cases of fiction within fiction where the characters are too mundane, and so if they ever see verses that shake things up a little bit and the characters' powers allow them to be of consequence to their "real world", it would be easy for them to always believe this are special cases next to common ones and that they qualify as R/T t.

I think it's specific as we can get, when the variety of fiction is taken into mind. Fiction can have literally everything, including non-logical things, so considering every power separately or something is impossible.

I propose "In order to qualify they must view the world as a some actual form of 'fiction', i.e. to them what happens in the fiction is not real and of no consequence to their being in either a physical, non-physical or metaphysical way, aside from natural, reasonable side effects that may come from consuming a work of fiction (Getting slightly influenced, getting emotional responses, having pre-programmed interactions, etc.)." Or something that would give across the same information.

Well, as said, I think there are cases where non-natural superpower side-effects can take effect too. So that appears too exclusive.

If it has "real" sentience, then it's real, regardless of lacking a body like ours.

That is an assertion you make and I see no reason to agree with it.

In fact, I believe there is good reason to inherently reject the notion, as "real" sentience is a highly debatable concept in real-life philosophy. It's like making a criteria based on the existence of free will, when the question of whether that even is a thing (or, if it is, what it is exactly) is notoriously unsettled.

Some philosophical branches argue sentience is nothing more but a complex pattern of physical processes in the brain. Adherents of that branch might argue that the only relevant difference between the programming of a regular video game NPC and true sentience is the complexity of patterns.

In that case, your argument would be equivalent to the assertion that a sufficiently complex fictional pattern becomes real. That could hardly be the case, right?

And even if we had an actual conclusive idea on what sentience is, we still couldn't assume that any fraction of authors abide it.

So yeah, I'm inherently opposed to any argument based on sentience, as what it is is entirely unsettled.

AI are not fiction, and follow pre-made / constantly updated programming that while vast, has a limited amount of results for the AI to work with, until they become as sentient as a human.

That's a philosophical opinion of yours. One not universally shared nor accepted.

Since you bring up AI, I will again say something that I said in the Undertale thread; not all forms of fiction are the same. Theater is fiction, and they can affect the real world while literally touching and talking to the audience & having everything be part of the story.

The page already sufficiently qualifies what it means by real fiction, so I consider this a non-issue. Theather is already excluded by the qualifiers given. (and, arguably, actors are real and just the story is fictional. Although that, too, is philosophical discourse.)

That can be as real as "fate" or some versions of "God" and it wouldn't change a thing due to being entirely redundant to how things normally are. "If" we are in a dream (We're not), it doesn't matter due to being constantly made dream, always making the present, just like if we weren't a dream (Which we are) we always live in the present. In both cases we have as much free will and ability to react & act to things.

That is assuming that dream is like a dream we can have, if it's a dream that already created all of time at once or it's an idea that can be looked at while awake then damn, that's some super dream, but everything remains as redundant for us.

As said before not all forms of fiction are the same; if anyone real can make "characters" in dreams seem to have sentience then they're not, the feat of "reacting to things in real time" is something that can be done with toys, it's made by the dreamer while they don't know it, it's not true sentience.

I barely understand what you're arguing here. I believe you agree that a dream character can have sentience in some case? But then not true sentience?

Idk, but it in any case plays again into your idea what true sentience is and that it is somehow tied to being real or fictional, which I, as said, consider unfounded and not generally accepted in real-world discourse on the topic. You may be convinced you're right, but with such philosophical topics you will have to accept people to have different opinions on those matters and, as a page that evaluates fictions written by lots of different people, we can't be so inflexible as to choose one philosophical branch.

Well, this are common things people made in stories across the years that we are accustomed to, but we have to wonder if that's the same as not disqualifying. If you saw a comicbook character that could talk to you, you would think it's an IA or something, but knowing for certain that their sentience is real would be knowing for certain that the character is in fact real.

Yeah, again, gonna disagree because I don't agree with the qualifier of real sentience even meaningfully existing. Nor would I agree that knowing a character has real sentience makes them real.

Especially not in any sense that is relevant to the power scaling debate at hand. Like, that's something you have to consider to. Even if you assert they are real in some definition of the term, if they are not real in the way of not having the power gap their "realness" if of no interest to us at all. We may as well put them into the fictional category then, for our purposes.

Maybe just that character is sentient & the rest/most of the rest isn't, at which point I have no issue calling that world fictional.

I know counterexamples, of verses where there is one dreamer of the dream of reality that explicitly gives sentience to lots of different characters. You could imagine it as dreaming from multiple perspectives at once, if you want.

So I can't agree with this.

Maybe a few / just 1 character is sentient but the way that works is that they are aware of things everyone else could be aware of too if they had more information, everyone being as sentient as the 1 character that the "real world" more easily finds to be sentient. That's something that can happen in stories where the fiction wants revenge on the "real world" for their mistreatments, or simply suffers for their cruelties / simply find odd & f*cked up the way they can do everything to them & are helpless about it. It would not be real abuse if the victims weren't real, "victims" being "everyone in the fictional world and the reality of the fictional world itself (Or only the parts affected, if everything is proven to be potential target)". I do personally have Undertale in mind when saying this, and I would also think that She-Hulk being mad at Marvel for giving her new family members and demanding to drop that retcon or something like that is not the same at all for a number of reasons.

I don't really understand what you want to say with this. Sorry.

They wouldn't be the same as they remain fiction past one experiencing them. Unless the fiction in question only exists in the present, which can be unlike their real media of fiction in real life.

That sounds like you're saying if something has a past there is no flow of time. Reality is often described as a 4D spacetime continuum, with both future and past being actual places that exist. So I disagree that the fiction needs to exist in the present for any of this.

As not all forms of fiction are the same, you could, if you had the means to, watch a movie stopped in every one of its frames, watch it slowly, in reverse, skip parts, etc. You could do something similar with a book or a comic. Dreams are somewhat akin to playing with toys as it's experienced once consecutively until it ends.

Yeah, in principle you could do that in a movie, is you had the ability to control it like that. In verses with time manipulation powers you can also do that with reality, which doesn't mean they have no proper time or that two universes can't have the same time.

Just because some forms of fiction keep their flow of time the same as real life and others appear to do so while they don't it doesn't mean that all should be treated the same, that would be allowing cases to work by their own rules rather than taking them for what they should be, which is how you would treat them in real life, and having definitions of that means having standards about it here.

It means that time flow should have no relevance to the debate IMO. Some can have it, others don't. So you can't separate the fiction from non-fiction by this criteria.

• If it shouldn't have a flow of time like its "real world", and it's proven that it does, then that should be a red flag.
• If it shouldn't have a flow of time like its "real world", and what seems to be it can be assumed to the experience of it their "real world" has (or what characters on par with the real world or with special abilities experience), then it's fine.
• If it's like a dream that's done in real time then I concur that it's fine.

I still don't agree with the notion that any media definitely shouldn't have a flow of time. Take Umineko, a verse where the reality-fiction difference is so blatantly explained that they even bring up dimensional tiering and differences of infinity explicitly. There fictions are magical crystals or books, for example. Or text on a page of paper that is written as the story advances. There time can go along with the time on the meta-layers. Or it can also not do so, but it can, in principle, do that. Yeah, that means the books are magical books, but that changes nothing on the contents being fiction. As long as it keeps contained to the book I think such things can still perfectly qualify as fictional.

I'm saying it doesn't qualify if it's just a pocket space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside, which any verse can have and call fiction.

Sure, if it's a pocket space it doesn't qualify. And fiction can of course call everything whatever it wants.

I, for example, also know a fiction that calls solar system-sized pocket space "Universe". But I wouldn't put a note about that on the pocket reality page, as that is a "don't assume that until the fiction indicates it"-situation IMO.

I'm not going to assume that something that meets all the qualifiers is a pocket dimension unless it's indicated in any way.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalk makes good sense above.

Can we apply any revisions based on this thread now?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Idk. If I and Eficiente can't agree, we might need to go with majority approval.
I still have some small changes to make to my draft before it can be applied, in any case. (i.e. add the stuff Eficiente and I agreed on to be an improvement) Assuming it would have majority approval, that is.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I read some of the thread and it looks like the characters will no longer get low 1-C for seeing the multiverse as fiction, is that right?

Could someone make a summary that I can understand to agree or disagree?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I read some of the thread and it looks like the characters will no longer get low 1-C for seeing the multiverse as fiction, is that right?

Could someone make a summary that I can understand to agree or disagree?

As far as I am concerned we basically keep the same standards - it's just that we write them down. So seeing the universe as actual fiction still qualifies.

My current proposal is this (with some more minor alterations to clarify some points)

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

As far as I am concerned we basically keep the same standards - it's just that we write them down. So seeing the universe as actual fiction still qualifies.

My current proposal is this (with some more minor alterations to clarify some points)

so I agree, as long as it doesn't change this way of getting low 1-C, thanks, for your work and keep it up, and thanks a lot for the explanation!

 

[Antvasima]

Idk. If I and Eficiente can't agree, we might need to go with majority approval.
I still have some small changes to make to my draft before it can be applied, in any case. (i.e. add the stuff Eficiente and I agreed on to be an improvement) Assuming it would have majority approval, that is.

As far as I am concerned we basically keep the same standards - it's just that we write them down. So seeing the universe as actual fiction still qualifies.

My current proposal is this (with some more minor alterations to clarify some points)

I personally think that your suggested version seems good enough to apply.

@Jinsye @DarkDragonMedeus @Pain_to12 @Eficiente @Qawsedf234 @Sir_Ovens @Bobsican @Reiner

What do you think?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

DontTalkDT's suggestion looks good to me.

 

[Jinsye]

I'm personally fine with DT's rewritten draft.

 

[Reiner04]

I am also fine with it.

 

[Bobsican]

I also lean more to DT's perspective.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I am fine with DT suggestions but I have some little qualms

Reality-Fiction Transcendence is a state where a being is qualitatively superior to another world, as a result of seeing the world as fiction and thus being more 'real' than said world.

instead of using just "another world" it should be "another world or character".
half of the times in fiction when R>F happens it is due to interactions between 2 characters not because of a cosmology and a character.
Cause in this scenario, if the character B is what Character A transcends, and not the world character B lives in, the tier is a bit different.
i.e. if character B is 3-D and lives in a 4-D world, and character A sees character B as unreal, then Character A will be low 2-C as opposed to low 1-C.

Due to this, the character will be treated as completely superior to the cosmology it transcends, and all characters limited to it, and will thus be granted a higher tier.

this can be "the character can be concluded to be of a Higher Dimension to the world/character and will thus be granted a higher tier"

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think about the above post, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

instead of using just "another world" it should be "another world or character".
half of the times in fiction when R>F happens it is due to interactions between 2 characters not because of a cosmology and a character.
Cause in this scenario, if the character B is what Character A transcends, and not the world character B lives in, the tier is a bit different.
i.e. if character B is 3-D and lives in a 4-D world, and character A sees character B as unreal, then Character A will be low 2-C as opposed to low 1-C.

If Character A transcends the character, but not the world, then we are in a pretty debatable situation IMO. Not sure if I would give out TIer 1 for a character that does definitely not transcend the world.

this can be "the character can be concluded to be of a Higher Dimension to the world/character and will thus be granted a higher tier"

No. R>F transcendence is not about dimensions. Higher dimensions aren't involved in this construct. We only equalize the power gaps to be equivalent to the size gaps between dimensions.

 

[AKUTO123]

If Character A transcends the character, but not the world, then we are in a pretty debatable situation IMO. Not sure if I would give out TIer 1 for a character that does definitely not transcend the world.

The character is 3-dimensional, but the Universe is 4-dimensional with the space-time continuum. In that case, wouldn't it be normal to surpass the character and not cross the universe?

 

[Jinsye]

I frankly have no idea what you guys are arguing, if you only transcend one specific character with no further explanation then I'm not quite certain it would qualify without viewing the rest of a structure as fiction.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@DontTalkDT actually makes sense. It is questionable that you can transcend (qualitative superior) a character without transcending the said world.

 

[PrinceofPein]

If Character A transcends the character, but not the world, then we are in a pretty debatable situation IMO. Not sure if I would give out TIer 1 for a character that does definitely not transcend the world.

Okay let me rephrase, we are in a 4-D world but all of us are 3-D, if someone transcends all humans in this world and views us as fictional, but not the 4-D world, how is it debateable that this charcter is 4-D (low 2-C)?
So it is indeed possible to transcend the characters in a world but not the world it-self, provided the world is also of a higher construct.

No. R>F transcendence is not about dimensions. Higher dimensions aren't involved in this construct. We only equalize the power gaps to be equivalent to the size gaps between dimensions.

It is equivalent, which is why I said, it can be added that "such characters can be concluded to be of Higher dimensioned", but it is not a hill, I am willing to die on, as it is not really important.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Okay let me rephrase, we are in a 4-D world but all of us are 3-D, if someone transcends all humans in this world and views us as fictional, but not the 4-D world, how is it debateable that this charcter is 4-D (low 2-C)?
So it is indeed possible to transcend the characters in a world but not the world it-self, provided the world is also of a higher construct.

I think this might work in a situation such as.
An entire universe/reality exists inside an entity's mind but for the people, it is shown as an alternate dimension/reality. and their own universe/reality exist side by side in this alternate dreamscape/simulation
in a way, a character does transcend the character/humans that they are fiction to them yet do not transcend the universe itself but rather just the content inside the universe. (Because they are the entire universe itself in a way)
I've seen something similar although it is a bit complicated to explain
I settled with giving it low 2-C because instead of a timeline inside that universe it follows the dream with the mind being like the 4th axis of some sort playing it out the way it wants. someone tried to nuke that entire reality with it being narrated to being erased but then the character simply dreamt it back and called the person foolish for attempting to do so and put him to sleep

this is very specific and rare scenario and i haven't seen any other fiction that does it like this while also having an actual main reality that is dimensionally structured

 

[DontTalkDT]

The character is 3-dimensional, but the Universe is 4-dimensional with the space-time continuum. In that case, wouldn't it be normal to surpass the character and not cross the universe?

In this context, the world would be the 3D bit, though. I.e. without time. That is to say, transcending the 3D character without transcending the 3D space would be weird.

Okay let me rephrase, we are in a 4-D world but all of us are 3-D, if someone transcends all humans in this world and views us as fictional, but not the 4-D world, how is it debateable that this charcter is 4-D (low 2-C)?
So it is indeed possible to transcend the characters in a world but not the world it-self, provided the world is also of a higher construct.

I mean, sure, but then I would still expect the character to transcend the 3D part of the world. Not just the humans alone.

It is equivalent, which is why I said, it can be added that "such characters can be concluded to be of Higher dimensioned", but it is not a hill, I am willing to die on, as it is not really important.

We make a strict distinction between a character being higher dimensional and a character just being equivalent in power to one such character. It has relevance to hax and certain other finer tiering details, so it's not a good idea to muddy the border.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I mean, sure, but then I would still expect the character to transcend the 3D part of the world. Not just the humans alone.

Well I dont know how we can clarify it and how we should treat such cases, of a character transcending the humans and space(3-D) but not the entire space-time continuum, I can provide a few examples if need be

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well I dont know how we can clarify it and how we should treat such cases, of a character transcending the humans and space(3-D) but not the entire space-time continuum, I can provide a few examples if need be

It would be helpful.

 

[Antvasima]

I frankly have no idea what you guys are arguing, if you only transcend one specific character with no further explanation then I'm not quite certain it would qualify without viewing the rest of a structure as fiction.

I also think that this seems like a strange viewpoint.

Anyway, if I understood correctly, DontTalk seems to agree with us about this, so his conclusions here are probably fine to apply.

 

[Jinsye]

Well I dont know how we can clarify it and how we should treat such cases, of a character transcending the humans and space(3-D) but not the entire space-time continuum, I can provide a few examples if need be

If you're just transcending a 3-D world, then that'd just be Low 2-C. It's the same principle as every other level.

Otherwise, I think we should apply this. I would be willing to.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Well we can wait for DT to reply one more time and then it can be applied

 

[Antvasima]

Probably, yes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have issue with this:

Potential mediums for viewing a cosmology as fiction include: written media (Books or stories), images (Paintings, comics, or movies), data (Simulations or video games), or mental constructs (thoughts or dreams). All of the above would be considered less 'real' than the person who views the cosmology as such, and can directly imply qualitative superiority.

<Books> should be removed.