Tiering System FAQ

## Q: When are higher dimensions **not** viable to use as evidence for Tier 2 and above?

**A:** Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails.

### Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely larger than lower-dimensional equivalents?

In a way, yes, though not how most would think when using this word. Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension **n** is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on.

One may think of it as a multiplication between sets: For instance, the unit square [0,1]² may be expressed as the product of two unit intervals [0,1] x [0,1], which itself can be visualized as taking "copies" of the first interval and lining them up along each point of the second interval, of which there are uncountably infinitely-many, thus forming a square out of infinite line segments.

### Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely stronger than lower-dimensional equivalents?

Unintuitive as that may be: Not necessarily, as a number of characteristics through which we quantify the strength or power of a character can remain unchanged when transitioning between higher and lower dimensions. For example: Mass is a quantity that is detached from the dimension of the object which it is inherent to, and unlike volume is not divided in units corresponding to each particular dimension (1-volume [length], 2-volume [area], 3-volume, 4-volume...). It is singular in nature and its units equally apply to all dimensions; whether it is distributed over an area or a volume only tells us about the span of space in which it is spread, not about the quantity itself.

As a consequence of that, much of the calculation methods which are used to measure strength apply equally to both higher and lower dimensions, as they do not care about the extra variables and often work with a single one of them. Examples of this are kinetic energy (Ek=0.5\*M\*V^2), force (F=M\*A), work (W=F\*d), and etc.

An intuitive example of that is found in the general definition of Work as defined in physics: In essence, as work itself denotes the energy applied to an object as it is displaced along a given path, the basic formula for calculating it only takes into account a single variable, and the path itself is treated as an one-dimensional object, regardless of the dimension of the space in which the action itself takes place.

Hence, a higher-dimensional entity can be both stronger or weaker than a lower-dimensional one, and thus, they are usually quantified based on their own feats, instead of dimensionality alone. If a character is merely stated to be higher-dimensional and simultaneously has no other feats to derive anything noteworthy from, then they are put at **Unknown**, and the same applies to lower dimensions as well.

Do note, however, that them not qualifying for Tier 2 and above doesn't mean they are "fake" higher-dimensional beings or anything of the sort. It is simply that being higher-dimensional does not inherently mean they have infinite power in the first place, as explained above.

## Q: When are higher dimensions valid, then?

**A:** One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.

However, vaguer cases where a universe is merely stated to be higher-dimensional while existing in a scaling vacuum with no previously established relationship of superiority towards lower-dimensional ones (or no evidence to infer such a relationship from) should be analysed more carefully. In such cases where information as to their exact nature and scale is scarce, it is preferable that the higher dimensions in question be fully-sized in order to qualify.

Furthermore, higher-dimensional entities can also qualify for higher tiers when the verse which they are from explicitly defines them as being infinitely above lower-dimensional ones in power and/or existential status. However, lower-dimensional beings being stated to be "flat" in comparison to higher-dimensional aliens is not necessarily grounds for assuming the latter has infinitely more power (For reasons outlined in the answer above), and thus, such scenarios must also be analyzed case-by-case.

## Q: How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?

**A:** The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A).

A spacetime continuum with two time axes, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.

Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.

Neither would dimensions that are timeless voids or are described as beyond spacetime in general qualify. Unless they cotradict themselves, these realms should not have a time dimension at all, with change in them happening according to other principles. If they, on the other hand, do contradict themselves, the statement of them not having regular time would inherently not be reliable, making the idea equally unusable.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.

However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.

Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.

One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

## Q: Do higher-dimensional entities automatically get Immeasurable speed?

**A:** No. To put it simply: Although the presence of the additional axis results in a higher-dimensional space being infinitely larger in comparison to a lower-dimensional one, the numerical values themselves remain unchanged, as a "dimension" is nothing more than a continuum of numbers representing a direction of space. Consequently, the euclidean distance between a Point A and a Point B is always represented by an one-dimensional path (Regardless of the dimension of the space in which they are embedded), whose length is always measurable and given by a generalization of the Pythagorean theorem to n dimensions. That is:

File:Pythagoras.png
Or, in plain english: Subtracting each of the coordinates of the starting and ending points (Distance is always given by the absolute value, so whether the result is negative or not is irrelevant), squaring the results, summing them up, and then taking the square root of the resulting value.

So, for example, in two-dimensional space, the distance between the points (4,4) and (8,8) is calculated through the following formula:

d(4,8) = √4² + 4²

d(4,8) = √16 + 16

d(4,8) = √32

d(4,8) = √32 = 5.656854 ≈ 6

Then, to generalize this to higher dimensions, we only have to take into account the additional variables. For example, in 6-dimensional space, the distance between the coordinates (2,2,2,2,2,2) and (8,8,8,8,8,8) is:

d(2,8) = √6² + 6² + 6² + 6² + 6² + 6²

d(2,8) = √36 + 36 + 36 + 36 + 36 + 36

d(2,8) = √216 = 14.6969384567 ≈ 15

Taking the "15" to be some arbitrary unit of distance, it is then perfectly possible to gauge a defined speed for a character who crosses it in a given length of time. For example, if 15 in this case is 15 meters, then a character who crosses this in a second would naturally be moving at 15 m/s

Similarly, moving in a higher-dimensional space also doesn't qualify as Immeasurable speed, and would be more appropriately rated as Interdimensional range

Of course, this formula doesn't always illustrate how the distance between two points works in real life, as the Earth has curvature and is obviously not a perfectly flat plane like Euclidean Space (At least non-locally), and the same applies to the universe at large. This is no issue, however, as there are plenty of metrics that can be applied to non-euclidean spaces: For example, the distance between two points on the surface of a sphere is given by a geodesic, as opposed to a straight line passing directly through the sphere's interior, whose length is itself given by its spherical distance.

They can qualify for Immeasurable Speed, however, if the regular dimension of time appears like a spatial dimension from their higher dimensional perspective. That is to say, that it can freely be traversed both forward and backwards, allowing them to access any point in it and move unbound by the notions of time inherent to the lower space. An example of this are the Bulk Beings from Interstellar.

## Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?

**A:** In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for **2-A**

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.

For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.

However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

## Q: Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.

## Q: How do cardinal numbers relate to tiering?

**A:** Firstly, it should be highlighted that asking about the tier of a cardinal number is effectively a meaningless question when the quantity which it is denoting is not specified in the question as well, and makes as much sense as asking "What tier is the number 8?"

Let's take the smallest infinite cardinal (aleph-0, or ℵ0, the cardinality of countably infinite sets) as an example in this case: A set comprised of a countably infinite number of 0-dimensional points is itself a 0-dimensional space under the usual notions of dimensionality, being thus still infinitely small. Meanwhile, a countably infinite number of planets is **High 3-A**, a countably infinite number of universes **2-A**, and countably infinite dimensions **1-B**.

We then move on to the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0), which is an uncountably infinite quantity and represents the set of all the ways in which you can arrange the elements of a set whose cardinality is the former, and is also equal to the size of the set of all real numbers. In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc)

On the other hand, an P(ℵ0) number of universes is **Low 1-C**, and a similar number of spatial dimensions/layers of reality is **Low 1-A**

However, the same does not necessarily apply when approaching sets of higher cardinalities than this (Such as P(P(ℵ0)), the power set of the power set of aleph-0), as they would be strictly bigger than all of the spaces mentioned above, by all rigorous notions of size, regardless of what their elements are. From this point and onwards, all such sets are **Low 1-A** at minimum.

Do note, however, that these infinities must specifically refer to elements that physically exist within a verse's cosmology. Them existing as in-universe mathematical concepts is not sufficient for anything to scale to them, unless there is a direct comparison that allows scaling to be made.

## Q: How do I differentiate between Low 1-A and 1-A in practice?

**A:** To put it simply, these three tiers are all defined by the property of being "inaccessible" in relation to a certain starting point: For instance, **High 1-B** is defined as a size that is unreachable in relation to any countable number of dimensions and/or higher realms of existence, while **Low 1-A** trivializes such sizes in a similar manner. **1-A** is an extension of this idea, and marks states that are undefinable in relation to **Low 1-A** realms and beyond any extensions thereof.

Do note, however, that these definitions only involve transcending all forms of size in contrast to a specific scale. Though it's indeed vastly easier to get these levels when an infinite-dimensional space (or similar structure) is present, such things are not necessary to qualify for them, in principle.

## Q: How can a character be Low 1-A and above without an infinite-dimensional/infinitely-layered cosmology, then?

**A:** A good way to accomplish this would be to show that whatever state of being in which they exist is completely independent of the number of layers/dimensions present on the setting. For example, if they are unaffected by dimensions being arbitrarily added or removed from physical space by virtue of transcending it entirely, or if they exist as a "background" or canvas of sorts in which any amount of them can be inserted. This argument generalizes to tiers higher than **Low 1-A** as well.

Note that, in order to jump to Low 1-A this way, it does not suffice that adding one or several layers/dimensions makes no difference to the character in question. That much could be true even if the character only has one level of qualitative superiority to the constructs, as then they would all appear to have zero / infinitely small size to them. It has to be clear in some fashion that even if an infinite or unlimited number of dimensions/layers are added or removed it would make no difference to the character. The same applies to similarly large jumps in other tiers, like from Low 1-A to 1-A etc.

## Q: Is transcending an Low 1-A character to the same degree they transcend normal humans 1-A?

**A:** No. Due to making use of a much larger measuring stick in comparison to lower tiers (Power sets of infinite sets, as opposed to adding individual dimensions), the gap between any two levels in **1-A** actually exceeds the entire system below them, and is equivalent to repeating the whole process which led to the previous level on a much higher scale. Thus, most statements that make use of such comparisons would only amount to one further level into the tier, unless some additional context showing it to be higher is present.

## Q: Is predating the concepts of space and time an Low 1-A feat?

**A:** No. As said above, predating a certain concept does not necessarily imply any form of superiority over it, especially not to the degree where it warrants an **Low 1-A** rating.

## Q: What tier is transcending dimensions?

**A:** As specified above, a "dimension" is nothing more than a set of values representing a given direction within a system, and a multi-dimensional space can itself be thought of as a multiplication of several "copies" of these sets. For instance, the 3-dimensional space in which we live is often visualized as the set of all 3-tuples of real numbers (Thus, taking its values from the real number line, R), and is thus the result of the iterated multiplication: R x R x R = R³, likewise, 4-dimensional space is the set of all 4-tuples of real numbers, and is thus equal to R x R x R x R = R⁴, and so on and so forth.

Practically speaking, this means that there is no limit for the number of dimensions which a space can have whatsoever, and one can construct spaces whose dimension corresponds to any cardinal number, including the infinite ones mentioned above. It is not even necessary for us to restrict ourselves to values taken from the real numbers, either: It is also possible to define the space of all n-tuples of cardinal numbers (Which takes its values from V, the class of all sets)

As a result, it is not at all feasible to take any statements involving a character existing "beyond dimensions" at face value, as this would lead to extremely inflated ratings largely dependent on No-Limits Fallacies. Therefore, such descriptors are to be evaluated while taking into account the number of dimensions which the verse has been shown to entertain; for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be **Low 1-C** with no further context.

## Q: What is qualitative superiority?

**A:** Qualitative superiority, also sometimes called being qualitatively greater, is a term colloquially used to mean that something is superior to an extend that it justifies being on a higher tier of infinity in terms of our Tiering System than the thing they are superior to. That means a character qualitatively superior to the usual spacetime continuum would, for example, be Low Complex Multiverse level (Tier Low 1-C) at the level represented by the R^5. Someone qualitatively superior to that would have the same tier, but on the higher level of infinity represented by the R^6 and someone qualitatively superior to that level would be baseline Complex Multiverse level (Tier 1-C).

In the same vein a space being qualitatively superior to another space, means that destroying that space would land you on a higher level of infinity in the Tiering System than destroying the space it is superior to.

In rough terms it means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size".

The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference. Another typical example is reality-fiction differences. Those are cases like viewing a plane of reality as mere fiction, like for example writing on a sheet of paper or a dream. They are assumed to imply superiority of a similar scale.

Of course, the same levels of superiority can also be reached via sufficiently explicit quantitative statements, such as when cardinalities above countably infinite get involved in a manner that implies a corresponding difference in power/size.

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

## Q: When is the destruction or creation of a universe or timeline ranked as Low 2-C (Universe level+)?

**A:** As the Tiering System specifies, the affected area either has to be a large four dimensional space, be qualitatively superior to three dimensional spaces or, most commonly, be an entire space-time continuum.

The latter means that all of the three-dimensional space of the universe has to be destroyed or created, at each moment in time. I.e. the entire timeline has to be destroyed.

Note that only direct destruction or creation qualifies. Just destroying the universe at the beginning of time and the rest vanishing due to the resulting causality paradox does not meet the requirements and would only be ranked as 3-A (Universe level).

For Tiering in regard to creating the Big Bang see here. Note that for creation feats additional considerations should be taken into account, as explained here.

## Q: What is the Tier for destroying or creating several timelines?

**A:** As the Tiering System specifies, destroying or creating multiple timelines or space-time continuums is usually ranked between 2-C and 2-A, depending on the number of timelines involved.

However, there are two edge cases, which require particular considerations.

First, note that in our terms a universe, and hence also space-time continuums and timelines, always includes all of the three dimensional space that can be reached from it. That is to say, any place that can theoretically be reached via regular three-dimensional movement alone (e.g. via spaceflight) would be considered as part of the same universe, and hence timeline, regardless of whether the fiction considers it as such. Traveling from one universe to another should only by possible via portals, higher-dimensional movement, teleportation or other unusual means of transportation.

Per default universes are assumed to have separate three-dimensional spaces, but should a piece of fiction demonstrate the opposite destruction of several timelines connected in such a way would only be Low 2-C (Universe level+).

Second, is the case of timelines that at certain points are connected. Contrary to the case where one can always travel from one universe to the other via three-dimensional movement, it is only possible in those at certain times. In fact, at certain points in time they might be the same universe. E.g. if a timeline branches into two, then the timelines were the same universe before the branch split happened. Other way around, if two timelines get merged into one, then they are the same universe only after they were fused.

In those cases, the destruction of any one timeline is only counted if it was not connected to any other timeline for an infinite amount of time. Otherwise, if there are several timelines none of which are separate for an infinite amount of time, they would all be counted as just one timeline for the purpose of Tiering their destruction or creation.

Note that timelines, per default, are assumed to be infinitely long i.e. it’s assumed that there is no end to time. Hence, unless the contrary are shown, the destruction of timelines that branch out from each other, and then never merge together again, would still be ranked between 2-C and 2-A (depending on the amount).

The underlying idea behind all of that is that each timeline that is counted should still be a large four dimensional object, as that’s the fundamental criteria to qualify for those tiers.

Consider that, once again, only direct destruction or creation qualifies. Just destroying the universe at the beginning of time and the timeline(s) vanishing due to the resulting causality paradox does not meet the requirements. This, in particular, means that one needs to take care that if multiple timelines, which branch off from each other, are destroyed, that it is not done by just properly destroying one timeline and the rest getting paradoxed out of existence due to their mutual past getting destroyed. Whether or not that is likely to be the case is decided on case-by-case basis and depends on such things as the nature and depiction of the attacks.

Note that for creation feats additional considerations should be taken into account, as explained here.

## Q: What is the Tier for possessing Infinite Power or Infinite Strength?

**A:** Statements regarding infinite power, infinite strength, or unlimited quantities do not automatically indicate an ability to produce an infinite amount of energy at once. For example, a power source that never depletes could have an infinite quantity of energy, but can't necessarily be wielded with infinite magnitude (not all at once). Statements involving "infinite power/strength" must be clearly indicative of magnitude to qualify for tiering, in order to avoid inflated ratings or inconsistencies in a story. Further, the hyperbolic nature of the phrase must be taken into consideration, where characters are prone to describing someone's power as infinite in a context where it is so great as to be insurmountable from their perspective, but not truly infinite in a manner relevant to their tier. If proven, however, statements of infinite strength would qualify for **High 3-A** or higher if evidence regarding a higher degree of infinity above baseline is established.

## Q: What tier does a character being beyond dimensions equate to?

A: This would need to be evaluated similar to statements about transcending space and time. If the character is beyond dimensions in the sense of being qualitatively superior to them then they should be only one level of qualitative superiority above however many dimensions the verse is known to have. This is because such a statement would usually refer to the dimensions that the verse has, and not include theoretical dimensions.

## Q: What tier does a character being the source of all dimensions equate to?

For this to be a quantifiable feat, it must first be confirmed that the character meets either the creation or Stabilization Feats standards. If that is the case, the character's tier is determined by the amount of dimensions that verse is actually known to have.

## Q: What tier does a character being able to destroy an unlimited amount of dimensions equate to?

Such a feat would be considered to be the upper end of Tier 1-B if there is no further context. That is because it could be understood to have the same meaning as the statement: "The character is able to destroy n-dimensional space, for any number n." In that formulation it is clear that such a statement would cover all finite dimensions, but we do not assume that "an unlimited amount" would cover infinitely many dimensions or even higher cardinalities of them.
If the verse is known to have infinite dimensions, then this would instead be interpreted as being able to destroy all dimensions the verse is known to have.

## Q: What tier does a character being qualitatively superior to all planes of existence, no matter how high they are, equate to?

Such a character would be assumed to be one level of qualitative superiority higher than the tier that destroying all planes of existence would receive.
It would usually not be considered to cover planes of existence that are not known to exist, as we do not know the practical limits of how many there could be and the statement itself is not clear whether 'all planes' includes realms beyond those that exist.
If it is clarified that theoretical dimensions are included then it comes down to how many are known to be considered in the theoretical framework.

## Q: What tier does destroying all finite dimensional spaces at once equate to?

If a character with a single attack destroys a 1-dimensional space, a 2-dimensional space, a 3-dimensional space and so on, for any finite number of dimensions they would be considered to be 1-B. The same applies if each of the spaces are contained in each other i.e. if the 1-dimensional space is part of the 2-dimensional space, which is part of the 3-dimensional space and so on. The reason for this is that the unification of all the finite dimensional space is best modeled through the space of all finite sequences which has countably infinite many dimensions.