Low 1-A Wiki Wide Tiering Revision, Beyond Dimensions.

[Rakih_Elyan]

So yeah, I just read the entire tiering system FAQ and the tier page itself and...

Q: How can a character be 1-A and above without an infinite-dimensional/infinitely-layered cosmology, then?​

A: A good way to accomplish this would be to show that whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. For example, if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely, or if they exist as a "background" or canvas of sorts in which any amount of them can be inserted. This argument generalizes to tiers higher than 1-A as well.

This section of the FAQ hasn't been revised yet since the creation of the new FAQ page by Ultima. (12 February 2021)

And the tiering page has just added a new sub-tier for tier 1-A (Again by Ultima). (23 March 2022)

Low 1-A | Low Outerverse level: Characters who can affect objects with a number of dimensions greater than the set of natural numbers, meaning in simple terms that the number of dimensions is aleph-1 (An uncountably infinite number, assumed to be the cardinality of the real numbers themselves), and therefore that such objects fully exceed High 1-B structures, which have only a countably infinite number of dimensions. More information on the concept is available on this page.

Once again, the FAQ hasn't been updated since Tiering update that adds Low 1-A.

My suggestion to the FAQ change is

Q: How can a character be Low Outversal (or Low 1-A if its better) and above without an infinite-dimensional/infinitely-layered cosmology, then?​

Since "No matter how many dimensions" "source of dimensions" and "beyond the concept of dimensions" will be treated as Low 1-A to fit our newer tiering system. Since they're only qualified to be Aleph-1 structure, not Aleph-2 which is the requirement of 1-A.

1-A | Outerverse level: Characters who can affect objects with a number of dimensions equal to the cardinal aleph-2, which in practical terms also equals a level that completely exceeds Low 1-A structures to the same degree that they exceed High 1-B and below. This can be extrapolated to larger cardinal numbers as well, such as aleph-3, aleph-4, and so on, and works in much the same way as 1-C and 1-B in that regard. Characters who stand an infinite number of steps above baseline 1-A are to have a + modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+).

Except for those dimensions that are expanded beyond Aleph-1 or have a context that the cosmology is larger than Aleph-1. We will default use a Low 1-A rating for those statements.

What kind of statements will this CRT affect?

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"
5. Beyond the concept of dimensions.

The verse that (maybe) will be affected by this.

1. Nasuverse
2. Megami Tensei
3. Isekai at Peace
4. Instant Death

Be polite and don't flame this thread.
Thank you in advance to those who are contributing to this thread.

Agree:

Neutral:

Disagree:

 

[Blackcurrant91]

I agree that it does seem somewhat ambiuous as Low 1-A=encompassing an infinite dimensional structure but 1-A also seems to incorporate parts of the same definition.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So first of all, this should be on the Staff Board, and regular members shouldn't comment without permission, as this pertains to the tiering system.

@Antvasima should the thread be moved or closed?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

So first of all, this should be on the Staff Board, and regular members shouldn't comment without permission, as this pertains to the tiering system.

@Antvasima should the thread be moved or closed?

I think i forget to create this on the staff discussion.

Same thing happen to my other thread an they are moved.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I think i forget to create this on the staff discussion.

Same thing happen to my other thread an they are moved.

asking because you need explicit permission to even make a thread like this

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I have locked the thread for the time being to avoid possible spam

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Gonna pass this one to @Ultima_Reality for now as I think this might relate to some design decision he made back in the Tiering System revision.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Gonna pass this one to @Ultima_Reality for now as I think this might relate to some design decision he made back in the Tiering System revision.

Passing the bomb to me, eh.

Anyway, statements like "No matter how high the plane of existence" warranting Low 1-A sounds odd to me. If the point is that the cosmology only has a finite number of higher planes, but some point X in it is unreachable by further additions of those, generally speaking that point being High 1-B would already suffice Countable infinity is, in fact, already unreachable to addition.

As for the notion of being beyond dimensionality altogether... Well I suppose this is an appropriate time to express my grievances with some of what I've written in the FAQ. More specifically this section here:

Q: What tier is transcending dimensions?

As specified above, a "dimension" is nothing more than a set of values representing a given direction within a system, and a multi-dimensional space can itself be thought of as a multiplication of several "copies" of these sets. For instance, the 3-dimensional space in which we live is often visualized as the set of all 3-tuples of real numbers (Thus, taking its values from the real number line, R), and is thus the result of the iterated multiplication: R x R x R = R³, likewise, 4-dimensional space is the set of all 4-tuples of real numbers, and is thus equal to R x R x R x R = R⁴, and so on and so forth.

Practically speaking, this means that there is no limit for the number of dimensions which a space can have whatsoever, and one can construct spaces whose dimension corresponds to any cardinal number, including the infinite ones mentioned above. It is not even necessary for us to restrict ourselves to values taken from the real numbers, either: It is also possible to define the space of all n-tuples of cardinal numbers (Which takes its values from V, the class of all sets)

As a result, it is not at all feasible to take any statements involving a character existing "beyond dimensions" at face value, as this would lead to extremely inflated ratings largely dependent on No-Limits Fallacies. Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context.

The argument raised here being essentially that, since there is no real limit to the amount of dimensions that one can conceive of, we can't rate any character off of the fact they allegedly "transcend dimensions," because then we'd be rating them based on a NLF. There is no real limit at which to set the character in question, therefore tiering them that high is unfeasible.

I think that's a silly point to make, though. Certainly you can extend dimensionality well past basic infinity by making use of larger transfinites, but eventually we come to a point in which we arrive at numbers so large that even the question of whether they exist or not is one that has "We just don't know" as an answer (Those are large cardinals, the numbers that correspond to High 1-A and up). For example we can say "There exists an Inaccessible cardinal" as an axiom in a theory of our liking, but whether the idea behind that axiom is even a coherent one is another matter entirely. By contrast, the nonexistence of an inaccessible can be proven to be a consistent notion. Same applies to every other large cardinal.

So, as I see it, the premise of that section of the FAQ is a really stupid one. Just set High 1-A as the baseline for existing above dimensionality as a whole, and let it go higher if the verse in question makes it clear that a large cardinal's worth of things is a notion that exists.

Going by that route, I might note, also provides some logical basis to our current stance that existing in a point in which you exceed dimensionality is a notion that is relative and not 100% absolute. The reason for this being that, mathematically, it's possible for you to conceive of a scenario like this: Imagine two different frameworks, which we will call N and M. In its structure, N has, as an axiom, the assertion that an inaccessible cardinal doesn't exist. Meanwhile, M is the opposite, and says that an inaccessible cardinal does indeed exist.

Now, both N and M have within themselves a variety of sets and other structures, so that you can feasibly construct all of classical mathematics within each one of them, including spaces of all sorts of different dimensionalities. The difference here, though, is that the sequence of cardinal numbers present in M goes on for a lot longer than the one in N, and inside of it, it's possible to build spaces with numbers of dimensions higher than anything in N. So, from the viewpoint of N, a space with an inaccessible cardinal's worth of dimensions is not a thing that exists, and what it sees as the collection of all dimensional spaces would not include sets that large. Meanwhile, to M, an inaccessible cardinal does exist, thus so do spaces with inaccessible dimensionality.

This is to say that M dwarfs what N perceives as the collection of all dimensional spaces. What the latter regards as all possible dimensionalities is something that the former regards as just another set, and one whose cardinality can correspond to the number of dimensions of some space belonging to itself.

So, in my view, what I'm proposing successfully relativizes the notion of "being above dimensions/all possible dimensions" while giving those kinds of feats/statements a baseline that's a good deal more sensical than both Low 1-A and what's in the FAQ at present.

Of course, this argument applies downwards, as well. It's possible to have set theories where the only infinities avaliable are aleph-0 and its power set, 2^aleph-0, so I guess it's feasible to squish the number of possible dimensionalities that can be taken into consideration by a fair bit, but I'm not terribly informed on how those deal with things like that, so, I refrain from commenting much on that angle.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Y'know, Ultima, I mostly wanted to ask you because I figured you would remember why we even have Low 1-A as a separate tier. IIRC we had a debate regarding the completeness of Banach spaces or something back then, but that might have been regarding High 1-B.

Anyway, regarding your proposal: For short, it's still running into the mother of the No Limits Fallacy, which is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Like, a cut-off point was never the issue. We could have said it ends at "above all mathematics" as a cut-off point. However, as we decided in a thread not too long ago, we don't really do above all mathematics statements either. Because the existence of a cut-off point doesn't help, if it is a completely ridiculously large one, which nobody but some vs-debate nerds would ever even come up with.

It just is immensely speculative to take a statement of being above dimensions and extrapolate it to being above infinite infinite hierarchies of infinity and more without further evidence on that scale.

It's like taking a statement "He's so durable that literally nothing in this world can hurt him" and giving High 3-A durability for that, because that means that actual black holes shouldn't be able to do damage (except that our standards of evidence for extraordinary Tiers like High 1-A should be 10x higher than for High 3-A). It's taking a very unspecific statement and interpreting it to include a very specific extraordinary case. Another example would be reading "murder is bad" in the book and concluding that the writer was against killing Hitler.

Not to mention that your desired cut-off point is so unknown, that most authors wouldn't even know it, making that interpretation of these statements most likely entirely against what was meant, and hence essentially purposeful misinterpretations for powerscaling purposes.

To that comes that it makes broad assumptions of the limits of dimensions in various cosmologies. In real life, the number of dimensions we have isn't decided purely by mathematics, but mostly by physics. If physics says we can have just 4 dimensions, then more don't and can't exist.
Similarly, in fictions, the limits of what number of dimensions do and can exist can be limited by their own internal rules of physics, mathematics, logic or supernatural forces. Assuming that no limiting factor on the possible dimensions exists, just because none is mentioned, is then again a NLF.

TL;DR In a cosmology that has only demonstrated a regular universe, taking a "above all dimensions"-statement to be High 1-A defies any reasonable standard on evidence and is a vast and unintended extrapolation of statements. If you want "all possible dimensions" to be baseline Large Cardinals, then you need at least evidence that all the really big cardinal numbers of dimensions are actually possible in the verse.

(and I gonna unlock the thread now, cause debating in a locked thread is weird.)

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Any staff that wants their opinion posted here?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I've never thought i will be bumping another staff discussion again.
Bump

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I hate to bump this as non staff but I think the OP is saying that the FAQ on 'how to reach 1-A' contradicts how the current tiering system works. When is 'above infinite dimensions' Low 1-A and when is it 1-A?

because the Low 1-A description is 'encompassing an infinite dimensional structure' but people constantly get 1-A based on 'above infinite dimensions' statements.

Isnt aleph-0 a countable infinite, and aleph-1 a uncountable infinite? that may be where the difference is from.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Y'know, Ultima, I mostly wanted to ask you because I figured you would remember why we even have Low 1-A as a separate tier. IIRC we had a debate regarding the completeness of Banach spaces or something back then, but that might have been regarding High 1-B.

Anyway, regarding your proposal: For short, it's still running into the mother of the No Limits Fallacy, which is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Like, a cut-off point was never the issue. We could have said it ends at "above all mathematics" as a cut-off point. However, as we decided in a thread not too long ago, we don't really do above all mathematics statements either. Because the existence of a cut-off point doesn't help, if it is a completely ridiculously large one, which nobody but some vs-debate nerds would ever even come up with.

It just is immensely speculative to take a statement of being above dimensions and extrapolate it to being above infinite infinite hierarchies of infinity and more without further evidence on that scale.

It's like taking a statement "He's so durable that literally nothing in this world can hurt him" and giving High 3-A durability for that, because that means that actual black holes shouldn't be able to do damage (except that our standards of evidence for extraordinary Tiers like High 1-A should be 10x higher than for High 3-A). It's taking a very unspecific statement and interpreting it to include a very specific extraordinary case. Another example would be reading "murder is bad" in the book and concluding that the writer was against killing Hitler.

Not to mention that your desired cut-off point is so unknown, that most authors wouldn't even know it, making that interpretation of these statements most likely entirely against what was meant, and hence essentially purposeful misinterpretations for powerscaling purposes.

To that comes that it makes broad assumptions of the limits of dimensions in various cosmologies. In real life, the number of dimensions we have isn't decided purely by mathematics, but mostly by physics. If physics says we can have just 4 dimensions, then more don't and can't exist.
Similarly, in fictions, the limits of what number of dimensions do and can exist can be limited by their own internal rules of physics, mathematics, logic or supernatural forces. Assuming that no limiting factor on the possible dimensions exists, just because none is mentioned, is then again a NLF.

TL;DR In a cosmology that has only demonstrated a regular universe, taking a "above all dimensions"-statement to be High 1-A defies any reasonable standard on evidence and is a vast and unintended extrapolation of statements. If you want "all possible dimensions" to be baseline Large Cardinals, then you need at least evidence that all the really big cardinal numbers of dimensions are actually possible in the verse.

(and I gonna unlock the thread now, cause debating in a locked thread is weird.)

I would like to ask, what would the baseline be for characters/verses that explicitly state they are above all definitions of dimensionality/dimensional theory? Would that still be L1-C?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

To that comes that it makes broad assumptions of the limits of dimensions in various cosmologies. In real life, the number of dimensions we have isn't decided purely by mathematics, but mostly by physics. If physics says we can have just 4 dimensions, then more don't and can't exist.
Similarly, in fictions, the limits of what number of dimensions do and can exist can be limited by their own internal rules of physics, mathematics, logic or supernatural forces. Assuming that no limiting factor on the possible dimensions exists, just because none is mentioned, is then again a NLF.

I have one issue with this. Dimensions in real life aren't planes of existence/reality, they're more like measurements to explain phenomena. Currently, string theory accepts 10, but more could exist. A great way to prove my point is the 5th dimension. The fifth dimension ( the origin of gravity and electromagnetism, and light) is theorized to either be much larger than the universe, or 10 to the negative 33rd power centimeters. In bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional. since dimensions are a subset of the universe, there could theoretically be an unlimited number of dimensions inside the universe.

Since rl dimensions are pretty much completely different to how they're treated here, its not exactly fair to use an appeal to reality.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Also, Hilbert spaces are used regularly in physics, which are infinite dimensional. Infinite dimensional spaces are used frequently in quantum mechanics, as well.

 

[Antvasima]

I extremely strongly agree with DontTalk's latest post above.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Also, Hilbert spaces are used regularly in physics, which are infinite dimensional. Infinite dimensional spaces are used frequently in quantum mechanics, as well.

Did you ask permission to comment in the thread?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Did you ask permission to comment in the thread?

I saw blackcurrant joining in with no opposition ( dont think he asked permission as well), so i thought i could as well. My bad. Feel free to delete my comments

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I saw blackcurrant joining in with no opposition ( dont think he asked permission as well), so i thought i could as well. My bad. Feel free to delete my comments

I ask you since you made multiple comments. They are fine to stay, but for the sake of future participation, please keep this in mind.

 

[Tarang123]

It's like taking a statement "He's so durable that literally nothing in this world can hurt him" and giving High 3-A durability for that, because that means that actual black holes shouldn't be able to do damage (except that our standards of evidence for extraordinary Tiers like High 1-A should be 10x higher than for High 3-A). It's taking a very unspecific statement and interpreting it to include a very specific extraordinary case. Another example would be reading "murder is bad" in the book and concluding that the writer was against killing Hitler.

That first one is a really bad equivalence tbh. "nothing in this world can hurt him" and "transcends all possible dimensions" aren't even remotely comparable. One of them cannot logically get to High 3A. The other one can logically get to tier 1.

 

[Tarang123]

I would like to ask, what would the baseline be for characters/verses that explicitly state they are above all definitions of dimensionality/dimensional theory? Would that still be L1-C?

If they're shown to be distinct to them in nature then they'd be 1A as of right now. That's precisely why SMT is 1A

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

If they're shown to be distinct to them in nature then they'd be 1A as of right now. That's precisely why SMT is 1A

This thread revise that to set the baseline to Low 1-A since the old standard are pretty much outdated.

 

[Tarang123]

This thread revise that to set the baseline to Low 1-A since the old standard are pretty much outdated.

I know, but that's what the current standard is

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

How many staff need to agree for this to be approved?

 

[Tarang123]

How many staff need to agree for this to be approved?

Who has agreed?

 

[Blackcurrant91]

guys please let DT/Ultima debate. You need staff approval to comment here.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Y'know, Ultima, I mostly wanted to ask you because I figured you would remember why we even have Low 1-A as a separate tier. IIRC we had a debate regarding the completeness of Banach spaces or something back then, but that might have been regarding High 1-B.

Anyway, regarding your proposal: For short, it's still running into the mother of the No Limits Fallacy, which is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Like, a cut-off point was never the issue. We could have said it ends at "above all mathematics" as a cut-off point. However, as we decided in a thread not too long ago, we don't really do above all mathematics statements either. Because the existence of a cut-off point doesn't help, if it is a completely ridiculously large one, which nobody but some vs-debate nerds would ever even come up with.

It just is immensely speculative to take a statement of being above dimensions and extrapolate it to being above infinite infinite hierarchies of infinity and more without further evidence on that scale.

It's like taking a statement "He's so durable that literally nothing in this world can hurt him" and giving High 3-A durability for that, because that means that actual black holes shouldn't be able to do damage (except that our standards of evidence for extraordinary Tiers like High 1-A should be 10x higher than for High 3-A). It's taking a very unspecific statement and interpreting it to include a very specific extraordinary case. Another example would be reading "murder is bad" in the book and concluding that the writer was against killing Hitler.

Not to mention that your desired cut-off point is so unknown, that most authors wouldn't even know it, making that interpretation of these statements most likely entirely against what was meant, and hence essentially purposeful misinterpretations for powerscaling purposes.

To that comes that it makes broad assumptions of the limits of dimensions in various cosmologies. In real life, the number of dimensions we have isn't decided purely by mathematics, but mostly by physics. If physics says we can have just 4 dimensions, then more don't and can't exist.
Similarly, in fictions, the limits of what number of dimensions do and can exist can be limited by their own internal rules of physics, mathematics, logic or supernatural forces. Assuming that no limiting factor on the possible dimensions exists, just because none is mentioned, is then again a NLF.

TL;DR In a cosmology that has only demonstrated a regular universe, taking a "above all dimensions"-statement to be High 1-A defies any reasonable standard on evidence and is a vast and unintended extrapolation of statements. If you want "all possible dimensions" to be baseline Large Cardinals, then you need at least evidence that all the really big cardinal numbers of dimensions are actually possible in the verse.

(and I gonna unlock the thread now, cause debating in a locked thread is weird.)

By this stance, did you agree to Low 1-A as a new baseline for something like beyond dimensions (If they're agreed that they are real spatial dimensions)?

guys please let DT/Ultima debate. You need staff approval to comment here.

I am the OP bruh.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

guys please let DT/Ultima debate. You need staff approval to comment here.

After this point, I will be deleting comments from people that has not asked for permission to participate.

 

[Qawsedf234]

extremely strongly agree with DontTalk's latest post above.

Yeah, to assume any above dimensions claim is a High 1-A statement is the ultimate example of a NLF in my view.

 

[Elizhaa]

From what I recall, Low 1-A was based on c >= the set of all space-time dimensions or hausdorff metrics/space, from properties like seperability; c being like aleph 1. So, Low 1-A doesn't really transcend the concept of dimensions, currently.
Thus, 1-A started at aleph 2.

On being for High 1-A for transcending dimensions, it seems better to leave it based on the verse cosmology and evidence like DontTalk said.

 

[DontTalkDT]

From what I recall, Low 1-A was based on c >= the set of all space-time dimensions or hausdorff metrics/space, from properties like seperability; c being like aleph 1. So, Low 1-A doesn't really transcend the concept of dimensions, currently.
Thus, 1-A started at aleph 2.

I don't remember if you're right, but that was the kind of stuff that I meant to ask Ultima about. As I thought there was some reason like that for the division.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

From what I recall, Low 1-A was based on c >= the set of all space-time dimensions or hausdorff metrics/space, from properties like seperability; c being like aleph 1. So, Low 1-A doesn't really transcend the concept of dimensions, currently.
Thus, 1-A started at aleph 2.

On being for High 1-A for transcending dimensions, it seems better to leave it based on the verse cosmology and evidence like DontTalk said.

Any second-countable space is separable: if {��}

is a countable base, choosing any ��∈��

from the non-empty ��

gives a countable dense subset. Conversely, a metrizable space is separable if and only if it is second countable, which is the case if and only if it is Lindelöf.

I don't think we can just adsume they're separate, since even the wikipedia say only ifs many times with the exception of countable base.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Anyway, regarding your proposal: For short, it's still running into the mother of the No Limits Fallacy, which is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

Like, a cut-off point was never the issue. We could have said it ends at "above all mathematics" as a cut-off point. However, as we decided in a thread not too long ago, we don't really do above all mathematics statements either. Because the existence of a cut-off point doesn't help, if it is a completely ridiculously large one, which nobody but some vs-debate nerds would ever even come up with.

It just is immensely speculative to take a statement of being above dimensions and extrapolate it to being above infinite infinite hierarchies of infinity and more without further evidence on that scale

Invoking the hasty generalization fallacy doesn't really mean anything here. The issue with hasty generalization is often that it involves making a broad conclusion based on a sample size that's statistically insignificant. Stuff like "I saw a Californian kill a person one time, therefore all Californians are murderers," revolving around cases where there are several underlying variables to take into account that can, and often do, make the claim an obviously untrue one, which is not the case here.

To illustrate this, I can cite the NLF's other mommy: The Proof by Example, the formal equivalent of hasty generalization, whose structure is as follows: "I know that x, which is a member of group X, has the property P. Therefore, all other elements of X must have the property P." Phrasing my argument in this format, it would go more or less like: "I know that 4-dimensional space, which is a member of the class of all dimensional space, is transcended by this character. Therefore, all other members of the class of dimensional spaces are also transcended by this character.."

What makes this argument ultimately not be subject to that fallacy is the lack of variables influencing the conclusion drawn from the premises. In the example above, for instance, saying that all Californians are murderers based on the fact you've seen a Californian kill someone one time is obviously wrong because groups of people are not a single unit with an homogeneous mindset that'd condition all of them into killers. Likewise, you could say "I saw three black swans by the lakeside the other day. Therefore most swans are black," and that'd be wrong for a similar reason: The fact you saw some black swans doesn't discredit the possibility that there are more white swans than black ones.

The trend you see here is that, in such cases, the members of the group you want to make a claim about are discrete entities that lie independent of each other. The existence of a black swan has no effect whatsoever on the existence of a white swan, and vice-versa, and likewise the existence of a Californian person who is a murderer has no effect on the existence of a Californian person who isn't. As such, what applies to the particular scenario doesn't necessarily extend to the general scenario. Your Hitler example, bizarre as it is, is the same thing (Though my lawyer has unfortunately advised me to make no further comment on it)

Mathematical concepts are not like this: We don't wave our hands around and conjure these things by magic, we establish primitive notions and instruments, and then work our way up, building larger and more complex things out of the foundation they provide. What this results in is a state of affairs where larger things depend on smaller, more basic ones, and are defined in terms of them. When we consider R⁵, all we're thinking about is the real number line multiplied by itself five times over (R x R x R x R x R), which is to say that 5-dimensional space is defined in terms of 1-dimensional space. To have 5 or 91 or 81,519 dimensions, we first need to define 1 dimension. This is a degree of uniformity and dependence between members of a group that is not present in other cases where a hasty generalization is being made, so, for all intents and purposes, when you transcend one dimension, you already transcended them all. One case already holds the basic ideas that also apply to all other cases.

This transcendence I speak of, of course, being on a fundamental level. This is an important distinction to make because when we talk about all these fancy terms like "transcendence" and "qualitative superiority," all we really mean is "This thing has uncountably infinitely more power than this other thing," which is really not superiority over the lesser thing in any fundamental sense. Compare a 3-D object that has length, height and breadth with a 2-D object that has only length and height. The 3-D object isn't "above" the dimensions of length and height, it's just infinitely larger than something that has only those dimensions and no third one, and were you to remove 2/3 of its dimensions you'd find it is now reduced to a 1-D object.

To that comes that it makes broad assumptions of the limits of dimensions in various cosmologies. In real life, the number of dimensions we have isn't decided purely by mathematics, but mostly by physics. If physics says we can have just 4 dimensions, then more don't and can't exist.

Similarly, in fictions, the limits of what number of dimensions do and can exist can be limited by their own internal rules of physics, mathematics, logic or supernatural forces. Assuming that no limiting factor on the possible dimensions exists, just because none is mentioned, is then again a NLF.

I think what I put in bold there is quite honestly the only good point you've made here, so I'll ask you to elaborate more on that. To my knowledge, physics never really goes "Anything past this specific number of dimensions can't exist," at most it's "There is no evidence for this many dimensions nor any real utility to positing them in our models." Moreover that paragraph also leaves out verses where reality and its structure is defined by something other than physics. What of verses where those are, indeed, decided by mathematics, for example?

Second paragraph: That mention of "supernatural forces" there is probably a bad example to list. If the number of possible dimensions is being actively suppressed by an in-verse force instead of somehow being just intrinsically low, then that's a feat for the force in question, and not something that helps you make your point. Assuming that a verse functions on wholly different principles of math, also, sounds really weird, given how the very system we'd use to tier it does operate on those very principles, so randomly positing that a given verse doesn't would create an odd incompatibility, not to mention it'd also give us precedent to ignore whatever directs us to ratings we happen to not like. Logic? Same thing.

Strictly speaking, I also never said that I am not assuming a limiting factor. The limiting factor, in this case, would be the indeterminate status of the validity of cardinals beyond vanilla ZFC. Is it a really high limit? Yeah, but it's a limit nevertheless. I guess you could feasibly say "Well, this same uncertainty applies to the Axiom of Infinity!", and that'd be a fair point were it not for the fact we already assume plenty of physical infinities exist as is. And ontop of that, any verse where infinite amounts of things exist would also be exempt.

Not to mention that, if a character is described as beyond dimensionality altogether, then that's not necessarily restricted only to dimensions that exist in the physical. If a verse has only 4 dimensions and then a structure encompassing it is described as exceeding dimensionality entirely, do you really think that, in-verse, that structure could be modelled as a 5-dimensional space? If so, why? And how wouldn't that just contradict the idea that it is supposed to be above dimensionality?

Not to mention that your desired cut-off point is so unknown, that most authors wouldn't even know it, making that interpretation of these statements most likely entirely against what was meant, and hence essentially purposeful misinterpretations for powerscaling purposes.

By that logic, most calculations and the like are "purposeful misinterpretations for powerscaling purposes," too. As is everything from Low 2-C and onwards (And really anything that gets remotely technical). Ultimately the intent of the author is entirely unknowable in 99% of cases and hinging ratings entirely on what you think they "most likely" knew is bad practice. It's completely irrelevant, bluntly speaking.

It's like taking a statement "He's so durable that literally nothing in this world can hurt him" and giving High 3-A durability for that, because that means that actual black holes shouldn't be able to do damage (except that our standards of evidence for extraordinary Tiers like High 1-A should be 10x higher than for High 3-A). It's taking a very unspecific statement and interpreting it to include a very specific extraordinary case.

Firstly I ask that you stop acting as if higher tiers should be inherently harder to reach than lower ones solely for the sake of it. In principle they should only be "harder" to get to because of the large scope of the things involved in their definitions and the specificity of terms that comes with that, not because of us going out of our way to artificially kneecap statements for the sake of conforming to some utterly arbitrary notion of "This tier should be super duper hard to get!!". Reminder that 1-A, High 1-A and 0 aren't even terribly difficult to get as is. All you need to do is mention a big cardinal and then have something somehow scale to it. That easy.

Secondly, that hypothetical statement has a lot of variables that'd need scrutiny. What does "world" mean, in this context? Because if world refers to a planet, then it can easily be Tier 7. High 3-A as a possible rating also assumes that gravitational singularities exist (We don't actually know if they are things that are somewhere out there or just a result of the formalism of general relativity going out of whack due to the conditions past the event horizon). List goes on.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Anyways, any of you agree or disagree with tier Low 1-A as a baseline for these statements?

What kind of statements will this CRT affect?

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Let's not derail and focus on the topic of this thread, shall we?

I don't think the discussion above really counts as derailing, seeing as it is still within the topic of the thread (i.e Deciding what tier the sort of statements you've listed are to be). Unless you're referring to something else?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Unless you're referring to something else?

Well this

In the example above, for instance, saying that all Californians are murderers based on the fact you've seen a Californian kill someone one time is obviously wrong because groups of people are not a single unit with an homogeneous mindset that'd condition all of them into killers. Likewise, you could say "I saw three black swans by the lakeside the other day. Therefore most swans are black," and that'd be wrong for a similar reason: The fact you saw some black swans doesn't discredit the possibility that there are more white swans than black ones.

The trend you see here is that, in such cases, the members of the group you want to make a claim about are discrete entities that lie independent of each other. The existence of a black swan has no effect whatsoever on the existence of a white swan, and vice-versa, and likewise the existence of a Californian person who is a murderer has no effect on the existence of a Californian person who isn't. As such, what applies to the particular scenario doesn't necessarily extend to the general scenario. Your Hitler example, bizarre as it is, is the same thing (Though my lawyer has unfortunately advised me to make no further comment on it)

You just described the Black Swan theory lol.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I don't think the discussion above really counts as derailing, seeing as it is still within the topic of the thread (i.e Deciding what tier the sort of statements you've listed are to be). Unless you're referring to something else?

What is your stance within this thread?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well this

You just described the Black Swan theory lol.

That bit you've posted was part of my point, yes. So, not really derailing.

What is your stance within this thread?