• 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.

Standard Clarification: Size of Higher Dimensional World/Universe/Realm

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's how it would be in string theory. If there is someone talking about some 10/11/26D space with large or even infinite 3D space, it still seems way more reasonable to assume they talk about the 10/11/26D string theory model with compacted dimensions.
So Is our default model for higher dimensional realm is the String Theory one and higher dimensions are compactified by default? But at what point does that stop working? Also Compactified dimensions are basically tiny, discontinuous spaces at the Planck scale within 4D spacetime, so which showcasing will prove that this default doesn't apply, because other than string dimensions, regaular dimensions are only thing that can be default for the verse no? 🤔
 
I mean, I understand that for 10/11/26-dimensional multiverses since its usually a reference to those models of String Theory. But then there's cases where someone affects 7/15/21 dimensional space where that doesn't seem to be the case. Seems odd to me if we defaulted to compactified dimensions in those instances when nothing really hints at that being the case.
 
Default dimensions to be compactified mean we are actually default applying a specific size to them. Because compact is a specific type of size so i feel it is very arbitrary to assume spatial dimensions that not the basic 3 one to be compactified
 
permission from @Reiner04

While this might sound similar to previous messages its kind of the same sentiment most people have. Why would we default compactification? It just serves to make the higher tiers more restrictive which like Planck said the tiers arent made to be restrictive they are just tiers ofc the higher you go the more qualifications you need but with option 2 you genuienly need the most specific wording like "the dimension im from is a higher dimension which has an infinite 4th axis with 1 time axis" or "this dimension is so high it has 26 infinite dimensional axis". while im not saying that any higher dimensional statement should be considered +1D tiering wise (kinda why we have the HDE thing for powers and abilities) it just makes it seem like its artificially harder to reach these tiers souley by wiki standards and not by lack of evidence n what not. IMO if a dimension is siginificant in size (I.E stated to be infinite by a RELIABLE source) it shouldnt be defaulted to compactification. if we really wanted to go with option 2 tier L1C and 2C would genuienly be overrun as there are thousands of verses that dont even mention dimensional axises and thus wouldnt qualify past 4-5D.
 
So to summarise the current 2 points which is being discussed:
  1. We default higher dimensions of higher dimensional realm to compactified dimensions unless there is an explicit statement that higher dimensional axes or all the axes of the realm are of significant size.
  2. We default all axises of higher dimensional realm to equal sizes unless evidences of compactification or unequal size among different axes is available.
 
Permission granted by @Vietthai96.
While this might sound similar to previous messages its kind of the same sentiment most people have. Why would we default compactification? It just serves to make the higher tiers more restrictive which like Planck said the tiers arent made to be restrictive they are just tiers ofc the higher you go the more qualifications you need but with option 2 you genuienly need the most specific wording like "the dimension im from is a higher dimension which has an infinite 4th axis with 1 time axis" or "this dimension is so high it has 26 infinite dimensional axis".
You don't need something hyper-specific like this, you just need more than a funni number. You need actual evidence of an uncountable superiority. Something like The Ds from Tenchi Muyo for example, which have statements of higher dimensions being theoretical impossibilities to lower ones and higher dimensions being able to overcome the laws of physics of lower ones.

Hell, this is how we're SUPPOSED to be handling it already:

Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?​

A: One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify.

Furthermore, higher-dimensional entities can also qualify for higher tiers when the verse which they are from explicitly defines them as being infinitely above lower-dimensional ones in power and/or existential status.
An example of this being verses such as Umineko no Naku Koro ni. However, lower-dimensional beings being stated to be "flat" in comparison to higher-dimensional beings is not necessarily grounds for assuming the latter has infinitely more power (For reasons outlined in the answer above), and thus, such scenarios must also be analyzed case-by-case.
So this shouldn't even be a debate at all, this is just a case of our pre-existing standards not being properly enforced.
while im not saying that any higher dimensional statement should be considered +1D tiering wise (kinda why we have the HDE thing for powers and abilities) it just makes it seem like its artificially harder to reach these tiers souley by wiki standards and not by lack of evidence n what not. IMO if a dimension is siginificant in size (I.E stated to be infinite by a RELIABLE source) it shouldnt be defaulted to compactification. if we really wanted to go with option 2 tier L1C and 2C would genuienly be overrun as there are thousands of verses that dont even mention dimensional axises and thus wouldnt qualify past 4-5D.
It's not making it "artificially" more difficult to reach those tiers, it's simply an application of Occam's Razor. We should always assume the minimum required size for a cosmology to comply with our Tiering System, anything more is introducing unnecessary elements. I seriously don't understand why that's controversial. Also, see @DontTalkDT's responses to this thread. When someone is talking about a space being infinite, they're usually referring to the volume, not necessarily the "hypervolume" of a fully-extended higher-dimensional space.

And yes, this would displace a lot of characters from Tiers 1-C and 1-B, but honestly that just means they didn't really deserve to be there to begin with, and are only at those tiers because of wank due to our standards not being enforced.
 
Last edited:
I mean, I understand that for 10/11/26-dimensional multiverses since its usually a reference to those models of String Theory. But then there's cases where someone affects 7/15/21 dimensional space where that doesn't seem to be the case. Seems odd to me if we defaulted to compactified dimensions in those instances when nothing really hints at that being the case.
This seems to make sense to me, but @DontTalkDT also made good points here, so I am uncertain. 🙏
 
That being said, the votes seem to be decently in favor of the Modified First View. And Grace seems to have passed as well.
 
What is the votes tally so far? 🙏
 
That being said, the votes seem to be decently in favor of the Modified First View. And Grace seems to have passed as well.
There is one issue that DT brought up with the Modified first view by Qawsedf. It is that all dimesional axis having even/equal sizes when overall/general size is infinite and unequal/uneven sizes when overall/general size is finite doesn't seems cohorent. Although most staffs agrees that compactified dimensions shouldn't be default, i think Qawsedf's version needs to be updated based on DT's suggestion for any sizes, rather than just infinite. So it needs to be changed to something like:

Cosmological structures are assumed to be the bare minimum size required to adhere to both the source material and the tiering system. For example, a multiverse containing several, or even infinite universes is assumed to be fourth-dimensional with an insignificant fifth-dimensional axis, as this is the minimum requirement to bridge the fictional's cosmology with our technical framework. General statements from authors regarding an 'infinite multiverse' do not apply to these wiki-induced insignificant dimensions. Since authors are typically unaware of the technicalities used by the wiki to organize Tier 2 structures, their statements should not be assumed to expand upon mechanics that were never established in-verse. Conversely, all axes of an established higher-dimensional realm are assumed to be of equal size by default, as it is fundamentally more consistent to assume dimensional symmetry rather than assuming unequal sizes without evidence. Consequently, this default applies unless there is a specific indication that the higher dimensions are compactified or that the axes are otherwise uneven.
 
There is one issue that DT brought up with the Modified first view by Qawsedf. It is that all dimesional axis having even/equal sizes when overall/general size is infinite and unequal/uneven sizes when overall/general size is finite doesn't seems cohorent. Although most staffs agrees that compactified dimensions shouldn't be default, i think Qawsedf's version needs to be updated based on DT's suggestion for any sizes, rather than just infinite. So it needs to be changed to something like:
@Qawsedf234 Does this updated version, based on what DT said and the majority consensus to not default higher dimensions to compactified, seem alright? Or do you have some other specific wording in mind?
 
There is one issue that DT brought up with the Modified first view by Qawsedf. It is that all dimesional axis having even/equal sizes when overall/general size is infinite and unequal/uneven sizes when overall/general size is finite doesn't seems cohorent. Although most staffs agrees that compactified dimensions shouldn't be default, i think Qawsedf's version needs to be updated based on DT's suggestion for any sizes, rather than just infinite. So it needs to be changed to something like:
@Planck69 @Elizhaa Thoughts on this?
 
So Is our default model for higher dimensional realm is the String Theory one and higher dimensions are compactified by default? But at what point does that stop working? Also Compactified dimensions are basically tiny, discontinuous spaces at the Planck scale within 4D spacetime, so which showcasing will prove that this default doesn't apply, because other than string dimensions, regaular dimensions are only thing that can be default for the verse no?
The reasons string theory/compacted dimensions is the default is that it requires the least amount of assumptions to explain the cosmology. If you have higher spatial dimensions, there should be things we can measure and they just don't show up, which is hars to justify spatially bht easy to justify with compacted dimensions.

For the work the thing is basically significant sizes. If someone says that a zone has five spatial axis and that the space is infinite that would qualify all axis as significant with this change. But, if the space from a 3D scale is said to be infinite and these higher dimensions are never brought into relation with them in terms of size, there would be no indication if they're compacted or not in my view.

The default assumption is generally speaking an IRL one. So either 4D space-time, some form of string based M-Theory, or the Brane Space cosmology.

Like DT said, you have to show that the statement is talking about cosmology as a whole, rather than an observable 3D volume.
 
4 admins and 3 thread mods agree with the modified view, while one thread mod disagrees with the second view

One bureaucrat, one thread mod and one admin agree with the second view.
Hmm. I prefer more of a clear consensus regarding these types of topics.

@Qawsedf234 @DontTalkDT

Are the two of you able and willing to try to work out some kind of compromise solution here? 🙏
 
Maybe something like:
The rating on the wiki are a broadscope generalization for indexing, as such there is a disconnect between has a specific franchise will handle it's cosmology and how the Wiki will rate it. The cosmological structures in a work are assumed to be the bare minimum size required to adhere to both the source material and the tiering system.

For example, a multiverse containing several, or even infinite universes is assumed to be fourth-dimensional with an insignificant fifth-dimensional axis, as this is the minimum requirement to bridge the fictional's cosmology with our technical framework. General statements from authors regarding an 'infinite multiverse' or just 'infinite space/ or volume' do not apply to these wiki-induced insignificant dimensions. Since authors are typically unaware of the technicalities used by the wiki to organize Tier 2 or higher structures, their statements should not be assumed to expand upon mechanics that were never established in-verse.

Having said that, if the author notes these higher dimensional axis within a size statement or alternatively indicates that they're comparable in scope to other known infinite structures, then they can also be assumed to be infinite as well. As this is expanding on the author's known dimensional structures rather than a wiki-induced dimensional structure.
 
Maybe something like:
I would obviously be ok with that from a ruling perspective, but find it strange to say that there is a "disconnect between how a specific franchise will handle its cosmology and how the Wiki will rate it". Like, what we're discussing here seems to be more in line with the franchise not specifying what its cosmology is and us filling in the gaps with a conservative assumption.
For there to be a disconnect with how the franchise treats it, wouldn't the franchise first have to give an indication on how to treat it?
Or is that line supposed to refer to some other issue?
 
For indexing purposes the cosmological structures in a work are assumed to be the bare minimum size required to adhere to both the source material and the tiering system. For example, a multiverse containing several, or even infinite universes is assumed to be fourth-dimensional with an insignificant fifth-dimensional axis, as this is the minimum requirement to bridge the fictional's cosmology with our technical framework. General statements from authors regarding an 'infinite multiverse' or just 'infinite space/ or volume' do not apply to these wiki-induced insignificant dimensions. Since authors are typically unaware of the technicalities used by the wiki to organize Tier 2 or higher structures, their statements should not be assumed to expand upon mechanics that were never established in-verse.

Having said that, if the author notes these higher dimensional axis within a size statement or alternatively indicates that they're comparable in scope to other known infinite structures, then they can also be assumed to be infinite as well. As this is expanding on the author's known dimensional structures rather than a wiki-induced dimensional structure.
 
Is somebody here willing and able to properly apply the accepted text then please? 🙏
 
Do other staff members here have any suggestion? 🙏
 
Yeah you can apply it. Or I can do it later i guess
Since this thread is done, can i ask a question

Are this standard apply generally? If author aware and stated a vast dimension/space is higher dimension but that dimension is not a space that seperated universes, can this standard apply to case like that?

Cause this standard say as long as the author aware of higher D it will count as significant dimension
 
If author aware and stated a vast dimension/space is higher dimension but that dimension is not a space that seperated universes, can this standard apply to case like that?
The FAQ already cover this. If it's a higher dimension in the sense of being cosmology located above a universe, that doesn't mean it's larger spatially.
 
The FAQ already cover this. If it's a higher dimension in the sense of being cosmology located above a universe, that doesn't mean it's larger spatially.
I mean higher dimension that literally higher dimension like 3D 4D 5D.... not just some higher realm that located above a universe
 
I mean higher dimension that literally higher dimension like 3D 4D 5D.... not just some higher realm that located above a universe
I think there may be a question issue then. Because if your point is "The author says this is an infinite 5D space" we'd have always tiered that as Low 1-C. It being just a 5D space also isn't Low 1-C. What would make it Low 1-C is a character saying "The universe is infinite in magnitude" and the same character also saying "The universe contains five spatial dimensions".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top