Kind of sucks that this is always done behind closed doors, no transparency or explanations except maybe after the fact if there's a lot of controversy.

I recently found about this wikia because of the perfil about Q and - if I may - I have one question about the perfil: how much of the powers/abilities depicted in the perfil are official in the Star Trek universe? I know that the owners consider only what we see in the series/movies as official and a lot of the Q powers (despise looking possible for the caracheter) looks far beyond what the 80s-90s special efffects tech did in the few episodes that Q is in.

How could I submitt a new character for the site? I think that the Multivac (depicted in the short story "The Last Question" by Issac Asimov) is an interesting godlike (at least in the last few pages) subject for this site (side with the several "levels of Humankind" across the eons).

There should be an "Add" button to the right next to the "17,217 pages", I'd suggest you look at some profiles before creating your first one, but you can add any number of characters if they're not already featured on the Wiki.

I undesrtood now! I was surprised reading the Qs perfils, because I only recgonized a few abilities from the TNG and VOY series.

I'm amazed to see that the Q-Prohet are considered canon! I was amazed by the sinopses and images from the comic that i just want to read it somehow (but I can't find anywhere online).

I know about the add and I already saw some profiles, but I think that would be hard to write this perfil because, in The Last Question, we have "several evolutions" from the same character and - if I understood right - we have some inconsistences across all the short stories.

How do you figure? If the higher dimensional coordinate even exists, the distance is only 1 from 0, not infinity. Dimensions, again, are not layers.

1 from 0 has uncountably infinitely many real numbers in it. Since dimensional co-ordinates can be any real number, going 1 from 0 requires adding uncountably infinitely many numbers.

This is what dimensional tiering would require, though. It assumes that n-dimensions higher than 3 exert more than infinite force would in a lower dimension.

Yes but it doesn't need X or Y to be infinite to do that, only for Z to be non-zero.

The answer should be intuitive, it has a greater size in dimension Z of 1.

I'm not asking for the absolute increase, I'm asking for the relative increase. Or to generalize it, how many copies of object A would you need to construct object B? This more rigorously captures how we intuitively think about the relative scale of objects.

Dimensions aren't really equal to a mathematical set. The reason that you can't reach a higher dimension by increasing infinity in a lower dimension is because it's a wholly separate coordinate.

Sure they can be modeled as equal to a mathematical set. The line from X = 0 to X = 1 is the set of all real numbers from 0 to 1. I think that you can reach a higher dimension by increasing infinitely in spite of it being a wholly separate coordinate.

It would vary depending on how big the higher dimensional object is. A higher dimension would certainly *modify* physical amounts and percentages, but it wouldn't skyrocket to infinity.

I gave you a specific example of how big the higher dimensional object is. "object A of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 0, and object B of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 1" How much would those physical amounts and percentages be modified in this very clear and basic example?

1 from 0 has uncountably infinitely many real numbers in it. Since dimensional co-ordinates can be any real number, going 1 from 0 requires adding uncountably infinitely many numbers.

This logic is problematic, as a consequence of this would mean any object which represents a "2" would be infinitely greater than one that represents a "1" regardless of dimension. An object of 3cm is not infinitely larger than an object of 2cm, for instance, just because you can fit an infinite set of real numbers in between 2 and 3 cm.

Yes but it doesn't need X or Y to be infinite to do that, only for Z to be non-zero.

But this is directly contradicted by actual physics, which wouldn't automatically increase to infinite values when modified by dimension.

I'm not asking for the absolute increase, I'm asking for the relative increase. Or to generalize it, how many copies of object A would you need to construct object B? This more rigorously captures how we intuitively think about the relative scale of objects.

This is irrelevant though. Geometric objects are a concept, not an actual physical construct. Plus the fact, it goes back to the same thing as before. A Z value only needs to be "1", and dimension Y doesn't have to be infinite in order to allow that to occur.

Sure they can be modeled as equal to a mathematical set. The line from X = 0 to X = 1 is the set of all real numbers from 0 to 1. I think that you can reach a higher dimension by increasing infinitely in spite of it being a wholly separate coordinate.

Again, this is problematic, because it would assume that regardless of dimension, any greater measurable size would be infinitely greater than any lesser size, which is unintuitive. They can be modeled to form a mathematical set, but then you can do that with all numbers of dimensions, or anything, really.

I gave you a specific example of how big the higher dimensional object is. "object A of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 0, and object B of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 1" How much would those physical amounts and percentages be modified in this very clear and basic example?

It depends on what we're measuring.

This may be helpful:

"Most physical laws are already written in a dimension-free form. For example, in Newton’s second law, , and are both vectors, but they can be vectors in any number of dimensions. So you can use for objects on a line (1-D), on a table-top (2-D), in space (3-D), or whatever (whatever-D).

If you set off a firecracker in 3, 5, 7, etc. dimensions, then you’ll see and hear the explosion for a moment, and that’s it. If you set of a firecracker in 4, 6, 8, etc. dimensions, then you’ll see and hear the explosion intensely for a moment, but will continue to see and hear it for a while. For light the effect would be fairly subtle, except for extremely long-distance effects, like somebody reflecting a bright light off of the moon. You probably wouldn’t notice the effect day-to-day. However, it would ruin the experience of sound. In 4 dimensional space the firecracker, even in open air, would sound like thunder; loud at first, and leading into a drawn out boom. It may not even be possible to understand people when they speak.

All the fundamental particles should still exist, but how they interact would be pretty different. Which elements are stable, and the nature of chemical bonds between them, would be completely rearranged. Some things would stay the same, like electrons would still have two spins (up or down). But atomic orbitals, which are determined by spherical harmonics (which in turn are more complicated in higher dimensions), would generally be able to hold more electrons. As just one example (for our chemistry-nerd readers), you’ll always have 1 S orbital in every energy level, but in 4 dimensions you’ll have 4 P orbitals in each energy level, instead of the paltry 3 that we’re used to. This messes up a lot of things. For example, in 4 dimensions Magnesium would be a noble gas instead of a metal. Every element after helium would adopt weird new properties, and the periodic table would be longer left-right and shorter up-down.

So, while the laws of physics are actually the same, if you lived on a four-dimensional Earth in a four-dimensional universe you’d find that (among other things): your bar stool may need an extra leg, Earth wouldn’t be able to orbit anything, you’d never be able to hear anything crisply, and the periodic table of the elements would be seriously rearranged."

This logic is problematic, as a consequence of this would mean any object which represents a "2" would be infinitely greater than one that represents a "1" regardless of dimension. An object of 3cm is not infinitely larger than an object of 2cm, for instance, just because you can fit an infinite set of real numbers in between 2 and 3 cm.

Not at all, "greater" is relative, 2 would only be twice greater than 1, you only need two line segments of length 1 to create one of length 2, but you need uncountably infinitely many points of length 0 to create one of length 1.

But this is directly contradicted by actual physics, which wouldn't automatically increase to infinite values when modified by dimension.

Some values don't increase to infinite, but measures of dimensions do when modified by dimension. The area within a 3d object can only be meaningfully described as infinite.

This is irrelevant though. Geometric objects are a concept, not an actual physical construct. Plus the fact, it goes back to the same thing as before. A Z value only needs to be "1", and dimension Y doesn't have to be infinite in order to allow that to occur.

Could you explain what you mean by "Geometric objects are a concept, not an actual physical construct."?

They can be modeled to form a mathematical set, but then you can do that with all numbers of dimensions, or anything, really.

Exactly, which is why set-theory is the foundation for most modern mathematics.

It depends on what we're measuring.

Give me some examples. Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but some multipliers or relationships.

That blog you quoted explains how physics would work when living in a universe with 4 spatial dimensions, but not how they'd interact with objects with 3 spatial dimensions, which is the important part with dimensional tiering.

Not at all, "greater" is relative, 2 would only be twice greater than 1, you only need two line segments of length 1 to create one of length 2, but you need uncountably infinitely many points of length 0 to create one of length 1.

It'd still take an infinitely greater number to reach that double, as one can fit an infinite amount of real numbers in that gap. Which means that when dealing with 0 and 1, the distance is...1. Not infinity.

Some values don't increase to infinite, but measures of dimensions do when modified by dimension. The area within a 3d object can only be meaningfully described as infinite.

This is absurd. 3-D objects are not infinite in size simply because of their dimensionality.

Let me reiterate: Dimensionality is only a modifier of physics. Nothing more, nothing less. None of what's being modified becomes infinite.

Could you explain what you mean by "Geometric objects are a concept, not an actual physical construct."?

Exactly what I said. A geometric object is a mathematical object, which is conceptual. It is not physical until put into a physical framework, which is what dimensional tiering involves.

Give me some examples. Not necessarily an exhaustive list, but some multipliers or relationships.

That blog you quoted explains how physics would work when living in a universe with 4 spatial dimensions, but not how they'd interact with objects with 3 spatial dimensions, which is the important part with dimensional tiering.

It *does* relate to how things in the third dimension function. The relation is that physics doesn't get tossed out the window the minute we deal with higher dimensions. By the way, higher-dimensional stuff *can't* interact with the lower-dimensional and vice versa, without some sort of mechanism.

Another answer from that site:

Q: Ok, this is a dumb question, but the dimension number does NOT effect the magnitude of a force vector or the total energy right? As in 10 J in 1-D is the same as 10J in 3-D which is the same as 10J in 10-D in terms of magnitude?

A: That’s a great question! Kinetic energy shouldn’t have anything to do with the dimension of the space.

Basically, if a 4-D object could hit you with the same energy you could hit it with were it 3-D, it wouldn't annihilate the entire universe/multiverse. It'd hit you with X amount of joules from an undetectable direction.

It'd still take an infinitely greater number to reach that double, as one can fit an infinite amount of real numbers in that gap. Which means that when dealing with 0 and 1, the distance is...1. Not infinity.

It depends what perspective you're looking at it from. If you're looking at it from the 0-dimensional points, the line of 0 to 1 and the line of 0 to 2 are the same size, both being uncountably infinite, but if you're looking at it from the 1-dimensional lines, the line of 0 to 1 is half the length of the line of 0 to 2, they're different sizes with a finite difference.

This is absurd. 3-D objects are not infinite in size simply because of their dimensionality.

They are infinite in size from a lower-dimensional perspective, finite in size from a three-dimensional perspective, and 0 in size from a higher-dimensional perspective.

Let me reiterate: Dimensionality is only a modifier of physics. Nothing more, nothing less. None of what's being modified becomes infinite.

Sure, so give me the number that it's modified by when stepping up in directions. The only number or set you can give that makes sense is uncountable infinity.

Exactly what I said. A geometric object is a mathematical object, which is conceptual. It is not physical until put into a physical framework, which is what dimensional tiering involves.

I forgot the correct word to use in this situation, but "It's not physical until put into a physical framework" is so self-proving that it's useless, nothing is physical when it's not physical.

It *does* relate to how things in the third dimension function. The relation is that physics doesn't get tossed out the window the minute we deal with higher dimensions.

This isn't what I meant. I'm talking about the relationship between how the same laws apply to two objects that have different sizes by virtue of having a different number of dimensions.

By the way, higher-dimensional stuff *can't* interact with the lower-dimensional and vice versa, without some sort of mechanism.

Can't they not interact with each other because the difference in physical laws between them makes physical interaction impossible?

Another answer from that site

That answer isn't useful since it doesn't describe the relationship between those differently-dimensioned objects.

Can you please just give me an answer to the question I've asked earlier? "object A of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 0, and object B of sizes X = 1, Y = 1, Z = 1" How much would those physical amounts and percentages be modified in this very clear and basic example? This has been the fourth time I've asked for an answer.

It depends what perspective you're looking at it from. If you're looking at it from the 0-dimensional points, the line of 0 to 1 and the line of 0 to 2 are the same size, both being uncountably infinite, but if you're looking at it from the 1-dimensional lines, the line of 0 to 1 is half the length of the line of 0 to 2, they're different sizes with a finite difference.

This is an arbitrary series of distinctions. It's either one or the other, and neither point toward 0 being infinitely < 1.

They are infinite in size from a lower-dimensional perspective, finite in size from a three-dimensional perspective, and 0 in size from a higher-dimensional perspective.

Except they're not. We can measure and assign non-infinite value to higher dimensional objects. Just because we cannot perceive higher spatial dimensions as they are does not mean we cannot predict exactly what shapes in these dimensions would look like, not to mention predict what sorts of differences in physicality there would be.

Sure, so give me the number that it's modified by when stepping up in directions. The only number or set you can give that makes sense is uncountable infinity.

You're seeing this as a black/white issue, which it's not. They are affected differently per the consequences of this higher dimensional geometry on dimensionless physical constants.

I forgot the correct word to use in this situation, but "It's not physical until put into a physical framework" is so self-proving that it's useless, nothing is physical when it's not physical.

You're muddling the issue here. Mathematical objects do not immediately fit into physical systems; they are concepts.

This isn't what I meant. I'm talking about the relationship between how the same laws apply to two objects that have different sizes by virtue of having a different number of dimensions.

To also answer the below question, physical laws do not change just because of dimension. Physics do not automatically take a break from reality because of a higher dimension. The physical constants may be *modified* by dimensionality, as that "blog-post" clearly reasons, but none of those values accelerate immediately to infinity. Again, infinity is problematic in physics.

Can't they not interact with each other because the difference in physical laws between them makes physical interaction impossible?

They can't interact because there is another coordinate that puts it out of immediate sight. If I am at (1, 1, 0), and you are at (1, 1, 1) you are not in the exact same place that I am. This brings into the discussion the debate between compactified and large extra dimensions.

That answer isn't useful since it doesn't describe the relationship between those differently-dimensioned objects.

Except it does. It clearly represents and shows how just because you're in a higher dimension, does not mean that energy increases by an infinite amount, it's still within the same framework of physics as we are.

Your example is flawed because you're expecting a given solid amount for all higher-dimensional objects when the real answer is that it varies depending on the constant.

This is an arbitrary series of distinctions. It's either one or the other, and neither point toward 0 being infinitely < 1.

It isn't at all arbitrary, it's based on whether you measure it by 0-dimensional points or by 1-dimensional lines. With 0-dimensional points 0 to 1 is infinite and 0 to 2 is equally infinite, with 1-dimensional lines 0 to 1 has length 1, and 0 to 2 has length 2.

Except they're not. We can measure and assign non-infinite value to higher dimensional objects. Just because we cannot perceive higher spatial dimensions as they are does not mean we cannot predict exactly what shapes in these dimensions would look like, not to mention predict what sorts of differences in physicality there would be.

Okay, so what non-infinite value does a 4-D hypercube with each vertex being 1 unit apart have?

You're seeing this as a black/white issue, which it's not. They are affected differently per the consequences of this higher dimensional geometry on dimensionless physical constants.

I'm not asking for one solution that governs everything, I'm asking for you to give me any of the myriad of relations at all.

You're muddling the issue here. Mathematical objects do not immediately fit into physical systems; they are concepts.

I'm not trying to muddle the issue, I just don't get what you mean.

To also answer the below question, physical laws do not change just because of dimension. Physics do not automatically take a break from reality because of a higher dimension. The physical constants may be *modified* by dimensionality, as that "blog-post" clearly reasons, but none of those values accelerate immediately to infinity. Again, infinity is problematic in physics.

The problem is that I can't conceive of them interacting in a way where one has not had something accelerate to infinity.

They can't interact because there is another coordinate that puts it out of immediate sight. If I am at (1, 1, 0), and you are at (1, 1, 1) you are not in the exact same place that I am. This brings into the discussion the debate between compactified and large extra dimensions.

But they're not always out of sight. If you range from (0, 0, 0) to (1, 1, 0) and a higher-dimensional being comes trampling through the region (-1, -1, -1) to (2, 2, 2), wouldn't they pass over you? How does that interaction play out?

Except it does. It clearly represents and shows how just because you're in a higher dimension, does not mean that energy increases by an infinite amount, it's still within the same framework of physics as we are.

Yes and I agree that it would all work similarly within its own dimensional bubble, but the comparison between dimensions and how they'd interact is the relevant part to dimensional tiering.

Your example is flawed because you're expecting a given solid amount for all higher-dimensional objects when the real answer is that it varies depending on the constant.

To clarify, I am not expecting any solid amount to apply all of the time. I just want any example of any constant being modified to get an idea of the scale by which some of them change.

Okay, would you like an invite to my Discord server? We can talk about this in a lot more fluid a format there and we can debate this amongst people who might be able to break it down more simply.
Otherwise, let me know and I'll continue this debate here.

I have asked this on Azzys page, but he seems to be busy right now so i thought about asking you if you dont mind. In the Nyarlathotep Vs Hajun thread you said Hypnos went beyond the First Gate, and even before the First Gate there were Outerversal spaces. But werent Outerversal spaces beyond the First Gate only?

Hey, i hope you dont mind me linking in for a bit. I have a smol question regarding the gates Aeyu. Can i get text passages where a distinction between the First Gate and the Ultimate Gate were made? As "Throught the Gates of the silver key" only mentioned the Ultimate Gate (Or it did mention the First Gate too and i missed it when i readed the book)

"Randolph Carter’s advance through that Cyclopean bulk of abnormal masonry was like a dizzy precipitation through the measureless gulfs between the stars. From a great distance he felt triumphant, godlike surges of deadly sweetness, and after that the rustling of great wings, and impressions of sound like the chirpings and murmurings of objects unknown on earth or in the solar system. Glancing backward, he saw not one gate alone, but a multiplicity of gates, at some of which clamoured Forms he strove not to remember."

This is before Carter reaches the Ultimate Gate. There's not just one Gate, there's several. And Hypnos only managed to come across one, the first.

To further expand on what Aeyu said, if you're looking for a passage that uses both "First Gate" and "Ultimate Gate", the First Gate is what he passes through to reach the realm of the Ancient Ones. The Ultimate Gate is what he passes through to encounter the Archetypes/Yog-Sothoth.

'Umr at-Tawil tells Carter:

“I am indeed that Most Ancient One,” said the Guide, “of whom you know. We have awaited you—the Ancient Ones and I. You are welcome, even though long delayed. You have the Key, and have unlocked the First Gate. Now the Ultimate Gate is ready for your trial. If you fear, you need not advance. You may still go back unharmed the way you came. But if you choose to advance . . .”