Now that we have a Dimensional Tiering page, would you be willing to help write a complementary basic explanation page about what beyond-dimensional 1-A tieing practically means, so it is reasonably easy to understand for our visitors?
I would really appreciate the help, and can improve upon the text structure and grammar if you wish.
Even some of my simple statements are sometimes misunderstood, so I'm not the best person to create explanations that will be "easy to understand for our visitors".
Unfortunately, I'm very busy recently, and soon I have a vacation, so I'll be pretty busy for a month. I can only repeat what I said to Assaltwaffle.
In fiction there are a lot of artistic hyperboles, so I always tried to avoid excessive abstraction in wording. 1-A in my view, this is just a being that can not be conceptualized in terms of dimensions (or some other hierarchy of qualitive perspectives) and also surpasses dimensional structures of any complexity. Various vague characteristics like "beyond philosophy", "beyond mathematics", sometimes attributed as mandatory properties 1-A, were not part of my definition for the reason described above. Their interpretation can be very different, depending on the author of the work.
Okay. It is fine if you make the text complicated though. I just want our system to accurately follow what you have defined. I can ask some other members to help out with writing the page as well if you wish.
Antvasima wrote: I just want our system to accurately follow what you have defined.
Our system should accurately follow what is convenient for the wiki. I always offered this. Clear criteria and minimum of vague information with vague interpretations.
Can not be estimated in terms of dimensions
Has a qualitative superiority over dimensional structures
From this can follow a number of some other default properties, but basically this is all. There's no need to be "beyond all concepts" (in an obscure context), "beyond mathematics" (in an obscure context) or something like that. This can be additional properties depending on how they are interpreted in a particular fictional work, but not more than that.
Well, I started talking about this because I saw some comments here already quite long. There was something like "yes this guy is beyond dimensional, but we do not know if he is beyond mathematics, so I do not think he is 1-A".
Being beyond mathematical theorems automatically is beyond the creativity of dimensional space and hierarchy.
And being beyond description automatically is beyond the creativity of dimensional space and hierarchy...
But this is not an excuse to give 1-A every time when we see such statements without further specifics...
This is the difference between theory and practice in the context of the wiki, which I always say. We do not write profiles for definitions. Only for characters that do not always match the definitions in practice.
This is not about the (notions) of mathematics. Multiverse Construct can’t exist by simply “being”, in contrast to outerversal, the characterization follows the laws of space-time order(in accordance to mathematics). “Beyond description” literally doesn’t say much by itself, can imply higher levels beyond the known physics, though not necessarily beyond the creativity of dimensions.
This entity shan’t be limited in relation to dimensions, in any comprehensive, or minuscule limitations that is considered logical scientifically.
It's still a description. Just like any other words and explanations. But this is not about this.
If you do not want to say that any mention of "beyond mathematics" should automatically give tier 1-A, then I do not understand what this has to do with this thread (maybe it's my problems with English).
Are you trying to prove something to add to the official definition? Or do you want to refute something?
Anime has more information. There's a lot more cards. The Maze in the anime distorts the space at impossible angles or something like that. This should require additional dimension.
Yes it is a canon, just like xxxHOLiC. Basically everything in CLAMP-verse is the canon for everything. Tsubasa is probably the most important work because all other works are intertwined there and the best direct feats are performed.
Most likely it is better, because the authors are script writers for anime. Although this is not necessary. You can revise anime as an extended universe or something like that.
Hi. I saw you mention on Matt's Elder Scrolls blog that the regular multiverse in Oblivion is like a "story in a story in a story" or a "world within a world within a world", referring to it's infinitely complex hierarchy. When you have time, could you show me where this stuff comes from? I'd appreciate it.
Awesome! A friend of mine had a few questions regarding Umineko and some other stuff, but he's having problems with posting at the moment, so is it cool with you if I post my Discord stuff here, add you as a friend, and then have him friend you (since that way your info wouldn't be getting out)? If possible. If not, that's understandable. :)
Sorry, I do not have much time now. It seems DontTalkDT has already answered these strange questions (there is a reason why hard sci-fi is a very limited genre lol).
As for me. Contrary to popular belief, my system has never been "dimensional tiering". These are rather "qualitative perspective tiering". This is not even an alternative to the OBD system. It's just that there are no restrictions on the three qualitative levels (or three degrees of infinity). Dimensions are just the simplest and most common example of how this is realized in various fictions.
"For example: In Umineko, there's at least 5 dimensions added to each higher layer in the lowest domain (+1 temporality). Meaning the difference between these layers is qualitatively greater than the difference between dimensions."
At present, this is no longer relevant. All the information from my last blog refers only to the world that exists within a single layer.
I would, of course, very much appreciate if you would be interested in writing a draft for an expanded explanation for the page. I can try to improve upon the sentence structures afterwards if you wish.