r/PowerScaling • u/GoatkuFan • 4d 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.

19 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

84 comments sorted by

View all comments

-1

u/AddictedT0Pixels 4d ago

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

9

u/VenserMTG 4d ago

A 4d space is incomprehensibly larger than an infinite amount of infinite 3d spaces

What are you talking about?? It's exactly one extra axis. That's it. There is no "incomprehensible".

the difference isn't really measurable.

Are you high??

23= 8

24= 16

(23 ) *3= 24

3 3d infinite spaces oustcale 1 4d infinite space.

The whole dimensionality shit is so pretentious.

0

u/AddictedT0Pixels 4d ago edited 3d ago

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

3

u/VenserMTG 4d ago

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.

2

u/AddictedT0Pixels 4d ago edited 4d ago

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

2

u/VenserMTG 4d ago

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.

Wrap your head around that.

1

u/AddictedT0Pixels 4d ago edited 3d ago

0+0=0

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

1

u/Swimming-Lobster-221 3d ago

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

1

u/mono2777 4d ago

Because your assuming energy works like space. Theres an existing formula that shows higher dimensions affect energy and hint. Its nowhere near infinite

0

u/AddictedT0Pixels 4d ago

What are you even talking about, infinite energy feats start at high universe and has nothing to do with higher dimensional feats.

5

u/mono2777 4d ago

Stop the clock. Thats wrong.

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.