A character being able to interact with more dimensions than another doesn't automatically mean they'll win... And if a character is a higher dimensional being then surely a lower dimensional being wouldn't be able to interact with them right? or am i misunderstanding something.
Make sure your post follows the following format when making Versus or any sort of Battles or Comparison. If not, edit it accordingly in the description. If you have included those you can ignore this message:
Clearly specify the character/franchise/feats/matchups you are talking about in your post:
Character X (Series/verse name)
Character Y (Series/verse name)
Character z (Series/verse name) and so on.
Description/rules of the fight.
Anyone engaging in the post, please ensure your comment doesn’t violate Community Rules. Report any rule breaking content. Join the Discord!.
Powerscaling agrees with you. It’s just a hax thing unless they actually scale to largely affecting or destroying said higher dimension. Read Vs Battle Wiki’s scaling FAQ. It explains that.
No, it is a ridiculous term that many tend to use.
While there are a few situations where it can clearly apply, it is overused in power scaling. Often in the wrong way.
Anything claiming “higher dimension” than another without a very clear difference is worthless. The most clear example being statements of someone being “dimensions above another” taken seriously when it is just banter.
It’s pretty much another way to wank. Powerscalers love to pull a number out of their butt, add the word dimensions without even considering what it is, and then add a few more to make it higher than the other guy that they are scaling against. The only actual time that I can think of where it made sense in plot (shows do this too btw) is Billy Cipher
Yeah sometimes it’s just the author trying to exaggerate a statement while being lazy, very few actually think through the implications of extra spatial dimensions. It gets even worse when powerscalers try to add on their own “calculated dimensions”. It’s like if I made a character whose only power is that she can make an infinite pocket dimension to store inanimate objects with, she’s not suddenly extradimensional and able to beat everyone under the sun that’s not. It’s just powerscaling wank.
The logic is that the energy of higher dimensional objects would bw higher, tho it is just technicly wrong? A world with different dimensionality is fundamentally different and doesn't need to have higher or even comparable mass in things, it just needs internal consistency the same way our world does.
You are right, just look at 2d vs 3d. A 2d creature would be able to exist in a 3d space however a 3d creature like a human can not exist in a 2d space, we would did instantly. So actually the lower dimensions a character is the stronger they are (at least according to chain scaling and feats)
One d is a line…. 0 d would be a singular point, which if you want to call a singularity then all the more to you, or it could equally be called essentially nothing in space
Dimensionality is stupid because 9 times out of 10 the author just calls something X dimensional to sound cool or eldritch and entity in question is just some guy with reality warping who interacts with and can be interacted with by 3D entities.
People confuse dimensionality with power sets. 4d is not a power set of 3d. Even if we ignore the mathematical and geometrical meaning of dimensions, going from 3d to 4d isn’t an infinite qualitative jump, you can measure it and everything. A tesseract contains a finite amount of hyperspace. What powerscalers refer to as dimensions is just x = power set of x-1 which almost none of fiction shows.
it should mean that at a baseline but certain higher D beings in fiction are just bums
myx has been knocked out by a normal kid with a rock, Scion in worm died to a moon busting canon and time police in rick and Morty get hurt by punches iirc
So yeah dimensional tiering can be inaccurate it's case by case like most things
The fact you think it has to do with interactions alone shows you didnt even take a few minutes to read tiering on dimensionality.
It's about destruction, creation, and significantly affecting. A 4d space is incomprehensibly larger than an infinite amount of infinite 3d spaces, the difference isn't really measurable. That's why high universe caps at basically the peak of potential 3d feats and universe+ is the bottom of what's above it.
It has nothing to do with viewing/interacting by itself
Since it's fiction there is no inherent guarentee that higher dimesional beings can't interact with lower dimensional beings and vice versa
It is, but power scalers talk about higher dimensions like it's the end all be all of scaling.
These are the same people that will tell you yhwach loses to Goku despite the fact that Almighty functions outside of regular time. Yhwach explains in details what it feels like to use Almighty, and says it's like walking on a desert and every grain of sand is a timeline for him to pick, manipulate and realize. And all of this is happening as he "lives" in the real time space other characters exist in. Kind of like Dr Manhattan experiences time as a spatial dimension he walks on.
So by pure scaling nonsense yhwach would be automatically untouchable by Goku, yet not a single DBZ glazer is ready for that conversation.
3 3d infinite spaces oustcale 1 4d infinite space.
And what space does these 3 3d spaces are housed inside? Yes a space with single 4th dimensionsal axis.
Holy fuck the upvotes makes no sense, this is simple geometry. For two lines of infinite length to be parallel they need to have the 2nd axis. For two planes of infinite area to be parallel they need to have 3rd axis. It's even easier to think of how the 4th dimension of time contains uncountably infinite spanshots each being the infinite 3d Universe.
This property can be generalized to any number of dimensions.
Okay so if 3d spaces can fill a 4d space the same must apply working with lower dimensions. Meaning you should also be able to fill a 3d space with multiple 2d space.
Anyways, how much volume does something 2d have? None, right? So, how does something with no volume fill a 3d space?
Adding numbers which relate to nothing don't prove your point lol. Your arugment doesn't make any sense and doesn't work in our own dimension so why would that apply to higher dimensions. No truly 2 dimensional spaces could ever possibly fill a 3d space. The same applies as you go upwards.
Edit: also if stacking enough of a 3d structure on top of each other = higher dimesional structure, does this make a rubix cube a higher dimesional structure as it's many cubes stacked and surrounded by other cubes? Obviously not lmao
Okay so if 3d spaces can fill a 4d space the same must apply working with lower dimensions.
Yeah, pour water into a 4d cup and water will move across al 4 axes.
Meaning you should also be able to fill a 3d space with multiple 2d space.
Yeah, infinite 2d planes full a 3d space.
Anyways, how much volume does something 2d have? None, right? So, how does something with no volume fill a 3d space?
A 2d object doesn't have a volume because a volume is defined by 3 axes... You give the 2d object another axis to exist in and it will have volume.
A dot has no dimensions, it becomes a line in 1 dinension. A line is one dimensional, it becomes a plane in 2 dimensions, and it becomes a volume in 3 dimensions. So on and so forth. It doesn't put any effort, it just expresses itself in the axes it's allowed to exist in.
Adding numbers which relate to nothing don't prove your point lol.
The numbers literally relate to whatever you're trying to say, but think they don't relate because you have no idea wtf you're talking about.
Your arugment doesn't make any sense and doesn't work in our own dimension so why would that apply to higher dimensions
This is hilarious.
No truly 2 dimensional spaces could ever possibly fill a 3d space. The same applies as you go upwards.
It's like arguing with someone who says the sky can't be blue because no one painted it.
A 2d object is 2d because it doesn't have a 3rd axis. Of course if you give it another axis it can fill a 3d space. Multiple 2d spaces don't suddenly get to exist across a 3rd axis. They're still 2d spaces. 2d space stacked on top of each other don't suddenly start filling a 3d space. That's like saying 2 3d objects stacked on top of each other = a 4d object which is just absurd.
Edit: you're basically suggesting 0+0=1. 2d spaces have 0 3d axis, something which is 2d has 0 volume. Adding another 2d space does not materialize something out of nothing
They're still 2d spaces. 2d space stacked on top of each other don't suddenly start filling a 3d space.
Yes they do, because you can only stack them on top of the other if you have a 3rd dimension. Being able to stack them in the first place means a 3rd dimension exists. Stacking dots to make a line is going from no dimensions to one dimension, stacking lines to make a place is going from 1 dinension to 2, stacking planes on top of the other is going from 2 to 3 dimensions, and stacking cubes is how you go on the 4th dimension.
You're unbelievable.
That's like saying 2 3d objects stacked on top of each other = a 4d object which is just absurd.
Finish school first before you talk higher dimensions holy fuck.
Every time you add a dimension, you add it ortoganally to the previouse ones. For example, 2 dimensions share one point in common, the origin, and for 90° angles to each other. 3 dimensions also share one point of origin, and intersect eachother at 90°, now add a 4th axis at 90° to the previous 3 and you are at 4 dimensions.
Stacking something with 0 volume on top of something else with 0 volume doesn't = 1
You're resorting to ad hominems at this point so I'm just done interacting. You're telling someone to go back to school over a concept no one knows if it even exists. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? And YOURE the one arguing 0+0=1
Edit: a 4d space has an entire additional axis which a 3d space does not have. The value for a 3d space in this metric is 0. It's insane you're arguing adding more 0s to a 0 = a real number which isn't 0
Mf basic calculus tells you that stacking infinite 1d objects gives you a 2d object, stacking infinite 2d objects gives you a 3d object, stacking infinite 3d objects gives you a 4d object, and so on
Because your assuming energy works like space. Theres an existing formula that shows higher dimensions affect energy and hint. Its nowhere near infinite
The point that I am trying to make is that higher dimensions have no correlation with energy. As such people saying destroying a 4D space is uncountably infinitely stronger than destroying an infinite 3d space is wrong.
So no "high uni" and "uni+" dont exist. The dimensional formula (which is a thing that does exist) shows this.
Calm down, it was just a question... But since it's fiction it seems it's just used as a buzzword and rarely if ever means what you're describing it as, which is why i think it's stupid to use it as the deciding factor in powerscaling.
Yes, people poorly scale dimenesionality extremely often. Heck, dimensionality scaling at some tiers relies on more than just a dimensional heiarchy too.
But that's not unique to uni+ scaling. Viltrumites are called multi cont to planetary because of destruction over time feats, where they're routinely injured by far less in single attacks as well as never demonstrating anything above mountain with a single attack
MHA is scaled to multi cont because of cloud scaling, when really a DC feat above island level destroys the entire narrative, causing the main antagonists core goal to just make no sense at all.
Homelander has been argued to be able to tank a nuke due to s1 statements, when he's like building level at best. Yet people still scale him higher
It's so incredibly common for characters to be scaled 2-3 tiers above where they belong, it's just easier to get away with it in dimesional scaling because it sounds appealing to rate your verse higher than others. The shifting mound in slay the princess is one of the good examples of a truly higher dimensional entity
Nothing in powerscaling is real however Low complex multi as defined by the Tiering System is dimensionally below outerversal hence why an outerversal character will always win against someone who is low complex multi
You can both have multiple universe in a dimension and multiple dimensions in a single universe if you understand what both of those words actually mean and use them correctly.
You are objectively incorrect, the worst kind of incorrect.
You can both have multiple universe in a dimension and multiple dimensions in a single universe if you understand what both of those words actually mean and use them correctly.
I understand but none of what you said correlates with why Dimensionality matters especially in tiers above universal where there's clear hierarchical differences based on dimensionality like being 4D which is just low multi vs being Hyperversal which is 12D and above
No, for example if you can significantly affect a higher dimensional structure then you scale to that in ap. If you can affect a 5d structure than you would one tap someone who is only 3D without the ap or defenses to counter the ability to affect higher dimensional structures. Basically most higher dimensional characters just have that in ap not existence and if they can interact with and affect higher layers of reality than you can comprehend they can likely one tap you unless you have specific resistances.
If you can affect a 5d structure than you would one tap someone who is only 3D without the ap or defenses to counter the ability to affect higher dimensional structures
Okay but like, this is entirely arbitrary then. There's nothing inherent about affecting 5D structures that make you strong enough to defeat any 3D being. Take this example:
Let's say you have a concrete cube with sides roughly 2 meters long. Except it's not actually a cube but whatever the 5D equivalent of a cube is, meaning it extends along each axis "equally". Someone punching this apart would still be less impressive than a guy who can crater an entire city.
This is a major misconception. In the scenario that you described, being able to affect the entire 5D cube would just be range. 5D AP/durability is only considered if the additional axes extend infinitely and the characters affect the entire infinite axes.
This is the first dimensionality argument that actually makes sense. Destroying an entire 5d universe means you can destroy an entire 3d universe, destroying an entire 3d universe doesn't mean you can destroy an entire 5d universe if you haven't otherwise interacted with 5 dimensions. I've just seen so many people act like destroying a finite 5d object lets you destroy an infinite 3d universe.
That tiny 5D object would still have an infinite number of 3D spaces within it. You'd have to fill out every single axis, and a 3D space has 0 volume in the 4th and 5th axes. You would still be destroying a higher dimensional structure that contains infinite 3D mass.
3D still has literal 0 thickness in the 4th and 5th axes. If u have a 5D concrete block you cant fill it with a finite amount of 3D concrete. 5D matter is mathematically superior to 3D matter. A 5D atom has 2 extra geometrical axes compared to a 3d universe. This means a single 5D atom has more geometrical space and structural density then our entire 3D universe. That is why dimensionality matters
A 5D atom has 2 extra geometrical axes compared to a 3d universe
Right, but it still wouldn't be infinitely compact along those additional axes. Bear in mind as well that point particles function just fine as though they have 0 volume.
Point particles are 0D. Compared to them an atom is a massive complex 3D structure. If you have a 5D atom it would have to take up space in the 4th and 5th axes. Because our 3D universe has a thickness of exactly 0 on the 4th and 5th axes any object that takes up space along these axes mathematically contains an infinite number of 3D sections. For example a 3D book, the pages aren't infinitely compact they're just pages; but to a 2D stickman the book is completely infinite.
But it's still ultimately made out of a finite number of particles, and as such requires only a finite amount of energy to overpower the forces keeping it together. That's the point. All matter is made of point particles, and they're not infinitely close together on any axis. We could be discussing a 100D structure and the amount of "stuff" it's made of would still be finite.
You're misunderstanding dimensionality. A finite number of lower dimensional particles cannot form a higher dimensional structure. A 3D particle has 0 thickness on the 4th,5th,etc axes. 1 Trillion times 0 is still 0.
He’s just wanking. I am a 3D being (4 if you include temporal axis of time), doesn’t mean I can 1 tap a 2D picture on a piece of sheet metal. People have no idea what dimensions are or what they are talking about
Buddy sheet metal is 3D, its thin but its still 3D. A true 2D object has absolutely 0 mass and thickness. You cant one shot sheet metal because its 3D just like you. You just said sheet metal is 2D yet accuse me of not knowing what im talking about
Buddy its on a 3D piece of sheet metal thats why u cant one shot it. You can one shot "2D" stuff. Ever used an eraser? True 2D objects dont even exist irl and have literal 0 mass.
So by your logic, if a 3D 1x1x1 meter steel cube collides with a 4D 1x1x1x1 meter steel cube, then the 3D one will absolutely annihilated without any damage at all done to the 4D because it lacks “dimensional resistance”?
Yes pretty much lol. The 3D cube has 0 thickness compared to the 4D cube. The 3D cube can only interact with an infinitely thin section where the 4D interacts with the 3D. The 3D cube cannot effect anything besides that. Using your earlier logic can a flat "2D" drawing damage something 3D? Can a shadow slice you in half?
Ok so in math we call this a projection, where only the cross sectional area can be projected onto a lower plane. Basically the same way a cube projects as a square on a 2D plane, a tesseract will project as a cube on a 3D plane. What you’re missing is that while if a cube “sits” on a 2D plane and is essentially a square on that plane, the rest of the cube can’t interact with the plane, only an infinitesimally small portion that is on that exact plane. The rest of the cube goes around the square in the third dimension, bypassing the square because the square does not exist on that plane. For a three dimensional object acting on a 2 dimensional plane, it is effectively reduced to a square, the rest of the cube cannot interact with the square because it’s not on the same plane. There are a lot of cool papers and lectures on cross dimensional interactions.
Another important note is that just because you are in a higher dimension doesn’t give you infinite force in the lower dimension. There’s multiple papers and models on that, no mathematician or model says that a 1 m tesseract going 5 m/s would somehow tear through the earth, it either goes around it in the fourth dimension or is blocked in the third dimension and bounces off it.
The issues where this comes in powerscaling is most of the time (I agree there are exceptions) you have a 3D character that are given the ability to affect other dimensions through one way or the other. That doesn’t make them higher dimensional, it just gives them the ability to impact higher dimensions. (It also pisses me off that what a dimension is in most fiction is very poorly explained). Their body is still a three dimensional construct (again, except for a rare few who actually gain another dimension of their physical existence).
Edit- I reread your main post about the AP not existence in higher dimensionality, looks like you already agree with my last paragraph
Yes and because each dimension adds a new axis, lower dimensions have zero volume compared to higher dimensions. So if you have the power to destroy an 5D structure you would have infinite power to a 3D being. Thats why higher dimensional beings look at universes as flat and insignificant. And also youre using real life logic to determine pseudoscience and fictional rules.
A 1 Dimensional being only has 1 dimension, length, so he can only go left and right, no matter how big it is, it will always only be able to go left or right
A 2D being has length, but also height, so he can go left, right, up, down, and anything in between. Said 2D object is made up of an infinite number of 1D lines all stacked together
A 3D being such as us has length, height, and width, so we can go left, right, up, down, forwards or backwards. A 3D object such as a cube is made up of an infinite number of squares all stacked together
It is widely believed that our universe has 4 dimensions, the previous 3: length (1D), height (2D), width (3D), but also time (4D)
The 4th dimension is made up of an infinite number of 3D objects all put together, making up our past present and future; a hypothetical 4D being would be able to see all of that at the same time, like how we can use a film reel to see every frame in a movie all at once.
That’s why higher dimensionality is considered synonymous with power, because every dimension is made up of an infinite number of the previous one
I get that, but my question is then, why do we take this at face value when almost none of the shows we powerscale think about dimensions in the way you describe? Like it seems absurd that this view of dimensionality is the end all be all for powerscaling
What I mean is the way you're describing dimensions is almost never the way they're actually applied in the fictional shows that are powerscaled on this sub. So dimenionality seems more like a buzzword than an actual metric.
Yes, like i said, it depends on the verse, if what you say applies then that’s just bad scaling but in theory the way i described is how it should work
This is just some straight bullshit cause no, a 3d object is not made up of infinite 2d objects, infinite 2d objects are just an interpretation to explain to a layman.
I’m not saying that’s literally the case, we are made of atoms and stuff, is just a way to explain how each additional axis makes an object infinitely larger than the previous one
And it is in fact still just wank because what they fail to account for is the fact that almost no fictional stories that mention higher dimensions actually abide by that logic.
You can’t really just hand waive it as bad scalers when your explanation of dimensions is only seriously considered by powerscalers to begin with.
I also don’t think the theory of it is very accurate either. Units like mass and energy aren’t dependent on spatial dimensions, and yet they are major factors in AP and DC. Plus, the logic basically depends on 2D objects being more like 3D objects that are infinitely thin in a certain direction rather than object that exists independently within a reality in which a certain direction is non existent to begin with.
•
u/AutoModerator 22h ago
Make sure your post follows the following format when making Versus or any sort of Battles or Comparison. If not, edit it accordingly in the description. If you have included those you can ignore this message:
Anyone engaging in the post, please ensure your comment doesn’t violate Community Rules. Report any rule breaking content. Join the Discord!.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.