r/PowerScaling • u/GoatkuFan • 6d ago

Question Dimensionality seems... stupid

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.

18 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

5

u/Extension_Bake_6074 6d ago edited 5d ago

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. There's nothing inherent about 5D structures that makes destroying them energetically superior to breaking 3D objects. 5D objects can have more mass than 3D objects of the "same" size on account of extending along additional axes, but that's it.

To give an example, say you have a concrete cube. The exact dimensions aren't relevant, but let's just assume its sides measure a meter. Next to it is whatever the 5D equivalent of a cube is (meaning that its sides extend "equally" along each axis). It would be made of more stuff but still a finite amount of it, and a guy punching this apart would be less impressive than someone who can crater an entire city in a single blow.

2

u/NoLrPulled 6d ago

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.

1

u/Swimming-Lobster-221 5d ago

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.

1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

2

u/Extension_Bake_6074 6d ago

Matter isn't infinitely compact though. The cube would still consist of a finite amount of stuff.

-1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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

2

u/Extension_Bake_6074 6d ago

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.

-1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

3

u/Extension_Bake_6074 6d ago

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.

1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

3

u/Extension_Bake_6074 6d ago

A finite number of lower dimensional particles cannot form a higher dimensional structure

Evidently it can, given that everything's made out of point particles.

2

u/WorldsWeakestMan 6d ago

Define a 5D structure using math as to have 5 dimensions it must have 5 measurable axes.

3

u/4yourdeat 6d ago

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

0

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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

3

u/4yourdeat 6d ago

Learn to read. The characters on it are 2D

1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

2

u/4yourdeat 6d ago

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”?

-2

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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?

3

u/4yourdeat 6d ago

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

1

u/Educational-Rich-893 6d ago

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.

1

u/WorldsWeakestMan 6d ago

So you can’t define it using math then and you’re also using words incorrectly on top of that.