• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultima_Reality said:
That bit you've posted was part of my point, yes. So, not really derailing.


tumblr_e9f5b5210a62ccff24b58ad274b9eadd_74f112e9_2048.jpg
Click to expand...
🗿
You are not convincing me.
 
If the minimum for 1-A is superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical infinite hierarchy, would we consider the superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical finite hierarchy as Low 1-A?

vsbattles.fandom.com

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Last edited:
Firestorm808 said:
If the minimum for 1-A is superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical infinite hierarchy, would we consider the superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical finite hierarchy as Low 1-A?

vsbattles.fandom.com

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
I don't think so. What's being proposed in this thread is to make superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical infinite hierarchy the minimum for Low 1-A instead of 1-A, as there's no reason to set superiority to an existing/hypothetical Hilbert space of aleph-0 dimensions as aleph-2 instead of aleph-1.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
I don't think so. What's being proposed in this thread is to make superiority to the concept of an existing/hypothetical infinite hierarchy the minimum for Low 1-A instead of 1-A, as there's no reason to set superiority to an existing/hypothetical Hilbert space of aleph-0 dimensions as aleph-2 instead of aleph-1.
Click to expand...
Ah. Thank you for the clarification.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
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.


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?
Click to expand...
No, hasty generalization is the case, as there are variables that can make this untrue. Namely, that the statement doesn't take into account unmentioned spaces greater than everything in the verse, which we do not know can even exist.

You acknowledge that the Hitler example qualifies as such. Why? What is the variable that can make it untrue here? Taken literally, there is none. The only answer is that the person who made that statement didn't make it with such precise attention as to take such extreme circumstances into account for the general rule. That the statement is not to be taken that literally. Same with a transcend dimensions statement. If an author says a character transcends dimensions, it's a big jump to assume this is meant to include extreme cases like higher cardinals or generally anything we don't know to exist. Eve if the statement is reliable, that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally to this extent.

You are confusing a mathematical statement, with a statement in fiction. Heck, even a mathematician would raise an eyebrow at "above dimensions" and ask you of a dozen definitions for what the hell that is supposed to mean, as for a mathematician such statements are way to imprecise to work with.

What physics is concerned: The laws of nature decide everything. They don't just decide what doesn't exist, but also what does exist in physics. And I'm not necessarily talking about real-life laws of nature, but fictional ones too. If higher dimensions exist, those are also part of physics and laws of nature. And if they don't, that's also a part of it. In reality, nothing exists that is not governed by physics. If it exists, it exists because physics makes it so. Point is: If there is no part of physics that ever caused the creation of a higher dimensional space, then there is none. And it is not implausible, that within physics it's impossible to create one, as physics includes no mechanism for such a thing. In fact, it is imaginable, that there is a law explicitly making it impossible. We don't know for sure, but you can exclude the consideration of physical laws of reality putting a limit on the size of it, meaning they are one of those variables that can make the statement false. Hence the hasty generalization fallacy applies.

Now, magic is the same game. A fictional work is not only governed by the laws of physics. There are also magical laws and forces. What you are wrong about is the idea that a force would need to suppress the existence of higher dimensions. That's because you go in with the weird idea that if they exist if nothing prevents them. That's wrong. It's not that higher dimensions need to be prevented by something, it's that they need to be caused by anything to begin with. If nothing can cause a aleph_1 space to exist, then it doesn't and can't.

So, if say a god creates everything in a verse, then if there is a limit on its power as for how large structures it can create, then that is also the limit on how large the verse can be, due to the rules governing the supernatural powers of the verse.

Or, other example, maybe there are magical rituals that can create higher dimensions, but those could be governed by occult laws that prevent the creation of any too large. E.g. maybe you can use the ritual as often as you like, but due to the inherent mechanics of magic layering it infinite times at once to pass from finite to infinite dimensions is not possible. Since that's just how magic works. And due to that nobody could create more dimensions, so there are none. Then it would be rightful to say that a character that transcends all (possible) dimensions is just aleph_0 dimensions level, as in the verse having more is impossible by its internal logic. Hence, we have another variable that can turn the generalization false. That makes 3.

The point is: Whether magic or science, if nothing causes higher dimensions to exist they might just don't. And, simply due to how reality works, it could be that they can't exist either. There doesn't have to be a big reason why. The truth simply is that not everything mathematics comes up with necessarily translates into reality in any shape or form. That aleph_3 dimensions do or can exist in a verse is no more likely than a fractal with a non-metric topology existing in the verse.

(Also, just to be clear, I talk about dimensions for convenience. Same arguments work for any other kind of planes of existence. R>F having limits due to whichever rules governs plot in a verse is just as possible.)
Ultima_Reality said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aren't we forgetting one teensy-weensy, but ever so crucial little, tiny detail? We see that stuff happening. This isn't about knowing author intent, this is about putting a minimal amount of effort into interpreting what is actually supposed to be going on in story.

If a character blows up a mountain we don't know how many tons of TNT the author had in mind, but we know the character blew up a mountain.
If we just have a statement "this character blows up a mounatin", know what we do in calculations? We take the smallest mountain possible and calc that.
And if the statement is just "this character blow up a hill"? Then we don't calculate it at all, because we can't tell what is going on with enough certainty to make any estimate.

You can't just take all statement to it's most literal conclusion because "we don't know what is meant". You have to try to properly interpret them. If the statement is vague, you go to the lowest end of what that vagueness can describe. Just because you can't tell whether the author meant the smallest mountain, doesn't mean you go and rank the character by a bigger one. You look through all legitimate ways the statement could be meant and interpret it in the lowest reasonable way.

So, the point is, amongst all reasonable interpretations, many lower than what you propose are contained. The statement is probably not supposed to be interpreted the way you propose. But even if we assume that authors are mysterious beings with unknowable thoughts, we would still not take it like that, because other reasonable interpretations are still available.

You don't win this debate by proving that your interpretation is not categorically excluded. You only win if you can show that it is with reasonable certainty correct. And you will have a hard time of that if anyone with half an understanding of the subject knows that your interpretation is not the intention, even if nobody knows which other interpretation is the true intention.
Ultima_Reality said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, higher tiers should be harder to get because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That works in real life that way and just as much in fictional analysis. I expect more evidence for a High 1-A character being Higher 1-A, than for a Wall level character being Wall level. If your argument that a character should have a 10% higher rating has a 10% chance of being wrong that's ok. If your argument that a character being infinite levels of infinity higher than it's ranking has a 10% chance of being wrong that's concerning. The more wrong you potentially are, the more certain you should be that you are not. If my character Bob has a 5% chance of being the strongest character in fiction, but otherwise in 9-B, and my character Karl has a 5% chance of being 9-B, but otherwise is 9-C, I am much more inclined of approving Karl to have a 9-B ranking, but not Bob.

So, it isn't about "difficult to get". They can be easy to get, by just having good really clear evidence. Like, as you mentioned, being explicit about cardinals. However, if you want a Low 1-C character to be High 1-A based on a single argument, than that argument better be rock solid. That it would make sense for a statement to mean High 1-A isn't enough. You need to know that it actually did. The error is too large for vague guesswork.

That aside, I find it amusing that you doubt the existence of singularities, as they arise from the formalism of a theory with much evidence like general relativity (although we have measured them by now), but don't doubt the existence of higher dimensions of which we know no mechanism which would indicate their physical existence (or non-physical existence in any tiering relevant fashion). Anyway, instead of "world" one could say "universe" and it would still be assumptive. Even if the verse had actually presented a black hole, it would still be assumptive, because it stretches the statement to no end. Like, I bet you in Dr. Who someone has at some point created a black hole on Earth and yet we wouldn't give a character stated to be immune to everything that was ever on Earth a High 3-A durability rating, just because there was technically is a thing with High 3-A destructive power at some point 10 years ago in a different storyline. Even there we would probably expect some closer evidence of that black hole being included.






Anyway, Ultima's proposal for a fundamental tiering system revision aside:
I think it makes sense to treat an infinite hierarchy as a whole as the unification of all levels, making it High 1-B.
So being qualitatively superior to one would be Low 1-A.

So, if applied in combination with the change in the other thread about that rule, I agree with OP.
 
DontTalkDT said:
No, hasty generalization is the case, as there are variables that can make this untrue. Namely, that the statement doesn't take into account unmentioned spaces greater than everything in the verse, which we do not know can even exist.

You acknowledge that the Hitler example qualifies as such. Why? What is the variable that can make it untrue here? Taken literally, there is none. The only answer is that the person who made that statement didn't make it with such precise attention as to take such extreme circumstances into account for the general rule. That the statement is not to be taken that literally. Same with a transcend dimensions statement. If an author says a character transcends dimensions, it's a big jump to assume this is meant to include extreme cases like higher cardinals or generally anything we don't know to exist. Eve if the statement is reliable, that doesn't mean it is to be taken literally to this extent.

You are confusing a mathematical statement, with a statement in fiction. Heck, even a mathematician would raise an eyebrow at "above dimensions" and ask you of a dozen definitions for what the hell that is supposed to mean, as for a mathematician such statements are way to imprecise to work with.

What physics is concerned: The laws of nature decide everything. They don't just decide what doesn't exist, but also what does exist in physics. And I'm not necessarily talking about real-life laws of nature, but fictional ones too. If higher dimensions exist, those are also part of physics and laws of nature. And if they don't, that's also a part of it. In reality, nothing exists that is not governed by physics. If it exists, it exists because physics makes it so. Point is: If there is no part of physics that ever caused the creation of a higher dimensional space, then there is none. And it is not implausible, that within physics it's impossible to create one, as physics includes no mechanism for such a thing. In fact, it is imaginable, that there is a law explicitly making it impossible. We don't know for sure, but you can exclude the consideration of physical laws of reality putting a limit on the size of it, meaning they are one of those variables that can make the statement false. Hence the hasty generalization fallacy applies.

Now, magic is the same game. A fictional work is not only governed by the laws of physics. There are also magical laws and forces. What you are wrong about is the idea that a force would need to suppress the existence of higher dimensions. That's because you go in with the weird idea that if they exist if nothing prevents them. That's wrong. It's not that higher dimensions need to be prevented by something, it's that they need to be caused by anything to begin with. If nothing can cause a aleph_1 space to exist, then it doesn't and can't.

So, if say a god creates everything in a verse, then if there is a limit on its power as for how large structures it can create, then that is also the limit on how large the verse can be, due to the rules governing the supernatural powers of the verse.

Or, other example, maybe there are magical rituals that can create higher dimensions, but those could be governed by occult laws that prevent the creation of any too large. E.g. maybe you can use the ritual as often as you like, but due to the inherent mechanics of magic layering it infinite times at once to pass from finite to infinite dimensions is not possible. Since that's just how magic works. And due to that nobody could create more dimensions, so there are none. Then it would be rightful to say that a character that transcends all (possible) dimensions is just aleph_0 dimensions level, as in the verse having more is impossible by its internal logic. Hence, we have another variable that can turn the generalization false. That makes 3.

The point is: Whether magic or science, if nothing causes higher dimensions to exist they might just don't. And, simply due to how reality works, it could be that they can't exist either. There doesn't have to be a big reason why. The truth simply is that not everything mathematics comes up with necessarily translates into reality in any shape or form. That aleph_3 dimensions do or can exist in a verse is no more likely than a fractal with a non-metric topology existing in the verse.

(Also, just to be clear, I talk about dimensions for convenience. Same arguments work for any other kind of planes of existence. R>F having limits due to whichever rules governs plot in a verse is just as possible.)

Aren't we forgetting one teensy-weensy, but ever so crucial little, tiny detail? We see that stuff happening. This isn't about knowing author intent, this is about putting a minimal amount of effort into interpreting what is actually supposed to be going on in story.

If a character blows up a mountain we don't know how many tons of TNT the author had in mind, but we know the character blew up a mountain.
If we just have a statement "this character blows up a mounatin", know what we do in calculations? We take the smallest mountain possible and calc that.
And if the statement is just "this character blow up a hill"? Then we don't calculate it at all, because we can't tell what is going on with enough certainty to make any estimate.

You can't just take all statement to it's most literal conclusion because "we don't know what is meant". You have to try to properly interpret them. If the statement is vague, you go to the lowest end of what that vagueness can describe. Just because you can't tell whether the author meant the smallest mountain, doesn't mean you go and rank the character by a bigger one. You look through all legitimate ways the statement could be meant and interpret it in the lowest reasonable way.

So, the point is, amongst all reasonable interpretations, many lower than what you propose are contained. The statement is probably not supposed to be interpreted the way you propose. But even if we assume that authors are mysterious beings with unknowable thoughts, we would still not take it like that, because other reasonable interpretations are still available.

You don't win this debate by proving that your interpretation is not categorically excluded. You only win if you can show that it is with reasonable certainty correct. And you will have a hard time of that if anyone with half an understanding of the subject knows that your interpretation is not the intention, even if nobody knows which other interpretation is the true intention.

No, higher tiers should be harder to get because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That works in real life that way and just as much in fictional analysis. I expect more evidence for a High 1-A character being Higher 1-A, than for a Wall level character being Wall level. If your argument that a character should have a 10% higher rating has a 10% chance of being wrong that's ok. If your argument that a character being infinite levels of infinity higher than it's ranking has a 10% chance of being wrong that's concerning. The more wrong you potentially are, the more certain you should be that you are not. If my character Bob has a 5% chance of being the strongest character in fiction, but otherwise in 9-B, and my character Karl has a 5% chance of being 9-B, but otherwise is 9-C, I am much more inclined of approving Karl to have a 9-B ranking, but not Bob.

So, it isn't about "difficult to get". They can be easy to get, by just having good really clear evidence. Like, as you mentioned, being explicit about cardinals. However, if you want a Low 1-C character to be High 1-A based on a single argument, than that argument better be rock solid. That it would make sense for a statement to mean High 1-A isn't enough. You need to know that it actually did. The error is too large for vague guesswork.

That aside, I find it amusing that you doubt the existence of singularities, as they arise from the formalism of a theory with much evidence like general relativity (although we have measured them by now), but don't doubt the existence of higher dimensions of which we know no mechanism which would indicate their physical existence (or non-physical existence in any tiering relevant fashion). Anyway, instead of "world" one could say "universe" and it would still be assumptive. Even if the verse had actually presented a black hole, it would still be assumptive, because it stretches the statement to no end. Like, I bet you in Dr. Who someone has at some point created a black hole on Earth and yet we wouldn't give a character stated to be immune to everything that was ever on Earth a High 3-A durability rating, just because there was technically is a thing with High 3-A destructive power at some point 10 years ago in a different storyline. Even there we would probably expect some closer evidence of that black hole being included.






Anyway, Ultima's proposal for a fundamental tiering system revision aside:
I think it makes sense to treat an infinite hierarchy as a whole as the unification of all levels, making it High 1-B.
So being qualitatively superior to one would be Low 1-A.

So, if applied in combination with the change in the other thread about that rule, I agree with OP.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this.
How many staffs should agree for this to be approved?
 
Firestorm808 said:
What's the final revised summary of the proposed changes?
Click to expand...
Rakih_Elyan said:
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"
The verse that (maybe) will be affected by this.
  1. Nasuverse
  2. Megami Tensei
  3. Isekai at Peace
  4. Instant Death
Click to expand...
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
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"
Click to expand...
To clarify, the above 4 statements and variations are or are not going to be treated as above an hypothetical infinite hierarchy for Low 1-A?
 
Sir_Ovens said:
Can someone simplify what this thread is about?
Click to expand...

Rakih_Elyan said:
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"
The verse that (maybe) will be affected by this.
  1. Nasuverse
  2. Megami Tensei
  3. Isekai at Peace
  4. Instant Death
Click to expand...
 
I never really agreed with any specific defaults. Some characters have "Beyond concept of time, space, and dimension" and only got Low 1-C given that there's no evidence of their existing anything beyond a Low 2-C to 2-A sized cosmology beyond a statement like that.

I just think case by case, especially since one also might need to consider the possibility of hyperboles too, as well as dimensions often being used to describe parallel universes rather than spacio-temporal dimensions.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I never really agreed with any specific defaults. Some characters have "Beyond concept of time, space, and dimension" and only got Low 1-C given that there's no evidence of their existing anything beyond a Low 2-C to 2-A sized cosmology beyond a statement like that.

I just think case by case, especially since one also might need to consider the possibility of hyperboles too, as well as dimensions often being used to describe parallel universes rather than spacio-temporal dimensions.
Click to expand...
If the stated dimensions are an actual hierarchical spatial dimensions?
Can we default this to Low 1-A?
 
Well, if we have Infinite spacio-temporal dimensions, I have been fine with it being a 1-A statement. And have been neutral on that being 1-A if he have proof of enough dimensions to even made a mid level 1-B sized cosmology even. Low 1-A is still like within dimensionality just Uncountable Infinite amount of them as opposed to High 1-B's countable infinity.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
Well, if we have Infinite spacio-temporal dimensions, I have been fine with it being a 1-A statement. And have been neutral on that being 1-A if he have proof of enough dimensions to even made a mid level 1-B sized cosmology even. Low 1-A is still like within dimensionality just Uncountable Infinite amount of them as opposed to High 1-B's countable infinity.
Click to expand...
Low 1-A is aleph-1 dimensions. 1-A is aleph-2 dimensions and above. Saying 1-A is "beyond dimensionality" is an oversimplification, and I see no reason for existing independently of High 1-B's aleph-0 dimensions to be aleph-2 instead of aleph-1.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Low 1-A is aleph-1 dimensions. 1-A is aleph-2 dimensions and above. Saying 1-A is "beyond dimensionality" is an oversimplification, and I see no reason for existing independently of High 1-B's aleph-0 dimensions to be aleph-2 instead of aleph-1.
Click to expand...
That basically.

I'm not sure why being above aleph_0 dimensions would be equivalent to aleph_2 dimensions, instead of aleph_1. Like, one level higher than 0 would be 1, not 2, no?
 
DontTalkDT said:
That basically.

I'm not sure why being above aleph_0 dimensions would be equivalent to aleph_2 dimensions, instead of aleph_1. Like, one level higher than 0 would be 1, not 2, no?
Click to expand...
Wasn't it due to the idea of like Real Coordinate Space? With Aleph 1 encompassing the set of real numbers. If one were to be above the concept of dimensions, or whatever, it would be aleph 2 or something like that
 
Tarang123 said:
Wasn't it due to the idea of like Real Coordinate Space? With Aleph 1 encompassing the set of real numbers. If one were to be above the concept of dimensions, or whatever, it would be aleph 2 or something like that
Click to expand...
Please elaborate. I haven't heard of real coordinate spaces before.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Please elaborate. I haven't heard of real coordinate spaces before.
Click to expand...
I could be misremembering something, but that's something I remember before. You can see the mention here in the Low 1C section:

Characters or objects that can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of 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)
Click to expand...
Here's a link to what that means

So something beyond the concept of dimensions would likely also be beyond aleph 1 due to that encompassing the set of real numbers which is still part of the idea of real coordinate space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

UchihaLik
Does Outerversal go beyond dimensionality or not?
Replies
8
Views
514
UchihaLik
UchihaLik
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
20
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Georredannea15
  • Locked
Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards
4 5 6
Replies
208
Views
22K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Reiner04
  • Locked
Time dimension standard elaboration and a bit of change (whatever guess yourself)
2 3
Replies
83
Views
8K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top