Talk:*Below*

Should we really keep this as a separate article, and not merely add the information contained herein to the relevant definitions at Orz communications? After all, we don't have the slightest idea of what *below* is, much less whether it is a dimension or not. Valaggar 10:36, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Mmm, it's subjective, but I would, I guess just because (to me) *below* represents a big enough mystery to have its own article. --Zeracles 03:38, 25 December 2007 (CET)

---

Here's the only Orz line where *above* and *below* appear, for thy reference:

You are a *silly* *camper*. I am always Orz.

If I was not Orz, then I would not be, but of course I am Orz.

We are from *outside*. Also the Arilou *quick babies* are from *outside*.

It is the same, but not.

Orz are from *below*, Arilou are from *above*.

Orz does not like Arilou. Arilou are too much trouble.

We can not have parties when Arilou always *jumping in front*.

It makes Orz *frumple* so much.

*Happy campers* not going to *heavy space* *slide* near Chandrasekhar.

Especially not ever!

These are *fat* words. Do you want to play this some more?

However, *outside* appears in numerous contexts; the Orz say:

• that they "are happy *people energy* from the outside."
• that they don't want to return to *outside* because it would make them **Frumple**
• that Humans "cannot *slide* like Orz from *outside* to *inside* and *in between*."
  • Since *sliding* is interdimensional travel, it seems that *outside* might be a dimension.
  • This view is supported by the fact that the Orz once say that they want to show the *inside* to the Humans (because they're so happy that it's *alliance* time); the Orz also mention, with another occasion, that they will show other *levels* to the Humans after being *connected*, and since *level* means "dimension", it seems that *inside* is a *level*/dimension; we can infer from here that *outside* is also a dimension.
• Also remember that the Orz were meant to be really *frumple* if the player took them to QuasiSpace, lending even more credence to the interpretation that *outside*=QuasiSpace.

That is, Orz and the Arilou are from the same dimension, *outside* — QuasiSpace. *Above* and *below* might then be either regions of QuasiSpace, ways to experience QuasiSpace (like *slow time* and *quick time* might be for TrueSpace), or some characteristics (for instance, the Arilou are *above* on the political scene of QuasiSpace, while the Orz are *below*, they're scapegoats).

Ergo, *below* isn't really that significant to warrant having a whole article about it, and even if we chose to keep this article, we should probably either make another one named *Above* or rename this one to "*Above* and *below*" (probably the latter option). But we should probably just redirect to Orz communications, as we don't really have that much to say about these two words. Besides, if these two best-fits have their own articles, wouldn't yet other best-fits, such as *slow time* and *quick time*, envy them and make pressures on us to make articles for them as well? We can't make an article about *outside* either, since it's almost certain it means QuasiSpace (we can't redirect to QuasiSpace either, since it's not certain, just almost certain). Valaggar 09:52, 25 December 2007 (CET)

---

For any following this (just because I have started to inspect the code), the relevant dialogues may be found here (arilou) and here (orz).

I knew that *below* only appeared once. I don't think we can say that *below* isn't significant, as things are not important just because they are referred to a lot, even though in many contexts these two states coexist. We just don't know, and not knowing is what makes it significant as far as arguing for the existence of this article.

I also don't even think it almost certain that *outside*=QuasiSpace, just that *outside* contains QuasiSpace. If we identify QuasiSpace as a dimension, then *outside* may not be a dimension, rather it may describe a class of dimensions or even simply a way of perceiving them (this latter option seems closer to the sort of thing *inside* might be). In this way, *sliding* may be more general amd describe more than just interdimensonal travel (I would change the *slide* item on the Orz communications page to reflect this). We don't know that *levels* are *dimensions*. *Levels* may be more precise or general, indeed, the Arilou imply that something of significance is not precisely the same as a dimension:

We are not from your space, or your... *time*. Some of your more broad thinkers refer to such realms as other dimensions. Though trivialized, this is a suitable metaphor for your intellect.

and whatever this is may not simply be about where something is (this is what a dimension describes), but also about what something is (c.f. They, Them (by the way, I think Them should redirect to They)):

I do not think you can even touch them; you are not quite solid enough.

(solid could be related to *squishy*)

Whatever is more precise, it may have to do with *outside*, *above* and *below*. *Outside* may also not refer to an absolute place or set of places, it may depend on where you are, making it a relative description (*outside* of *outside* could be *inside*, for example).

If we keep this, I agree that it would be fitting to either also have a page for *above* or go for one called *above* and *below*. I wouldn't put *below* into the orz communications page since *below* I think should be distinguished from the other things listed there, as it is more mysterious and potentially sinister. I don't think it's a problem that we don't have much to say about *above* and *below* - these are whole other places we have next to no idea about, but which are apparently significant all the same. *Slow time* and *quick time* don't fit this description.

I'm not writing it, but I wouldn't be hostile to an *outside* article. But this has its problems, so it might even be good to have an article called *outside*, *above* and *below*, where searches for these words respectively redirect to this one (which I think is useful for when we put links to these). Given what I say above about the possible connections between these, this may be a solution.

Just my thoughts of course. I love this stuff (and I think Val's views echo his philosophy). Would anyone else like to *play*? --Zeracles 20:56, 25 December 2007 (CET)

---

Mmm, yes, true. I myself flirted with a view of dimensions as having two "coordinates" - outsideness and height; thus, the Orz home dimension is *outside* *below*, and QuasiSpace is *outside* *above*. I later discarded them on the grounds that *level* has to mean "dimension", as the Orz name *slow time* *heavy space* (normal TrueSpace) as being a *level* (ABOUT_US_3). But maybe that's not really so clad in stone. The "It is a better *level* for games." in that line can be also interpreted as "It is in a better *level* for games", after all.

Now, back on topic: My point was that, since there's nothing that indicates that *below* is so significant (which, by the way, could also be said about *outside*), it doesn't deserve an article. Maybe we could make an "Orz home dimension" article, though — at least to keep Category:Dimensions exhaustive. And *below* and *outside* would redirect to that. System unit is awaiting further input. Valaggar 14:08, 26 December 2007 (CET)

Processing of Orz dialogue is complete. Report follows:

• *Space*, *time* and *colors* are many. What we call "dimension" is actually the totality of the entities possessing a given set of one of each of these characteristics (and a *level* is the totality of the entities possessing a given set of all or some of these characteristics, i.e. it's an artificial way of singling out a group of dimensions). *Space* can be *heavy space*, *Pretty Space* etc. (*now space* might mean "the current *space*"). *Time* can be *slow time*, *quick time* etc.. I do not know what variants there are for *colors*, but it seems that *above* or *below* or in *the middle* and *outside* or *inside* or *in between* might constitute *colors* (i.e. sort of "miscellaneous characteristics").
• *Sliding* is changing outsideness (moving from *outside* to *inside* and *in between*).
• *Spreading* is changing *space*.
• *HYUIVBHJHG* is using a *space* that is extremely easy to travel through as a shortcut (like HyperSpace, but much, much better).
• The word used for changing *time* is never mentioned (it might be that the Arilou do more *time* travel — they even use *time*, and not *space*, to refer to something akin to a dimension — and the Orz do more *sliding*, as "many can *slide*, but Orz are better of course". Since the Taalo make *time jokes*, they're probably proficient at *time* travel as well.

Report end. System unit is awaiting further input regarding the use in the Ultronomicon of the information gleaned by the system unit. Valaggar 18:28, 26 December 2007 (CET)

---

This is good stuff, Val. A reasonable interpretation. I'll just add my thoughts.

• I think that as you say, it is a good idea to say what we call dimension. *Space* and *time* are definitely properties which differentiate between them. However, I doubt that *colours* (I don't care if American English is standard here, this is how I'm going to spell it, and it's sulPHur, not sulFur) are in this class. Remember that these best-fits are supposed to be clues, so I would suspect that colours have to do with how one senses these dimensions. Using the fact that things can look different in different coloured light (c.f. rose-coloured glasses), it seems likely that *colours* are different ways of perceiving dimensions, or parts of them. I think this is more in line with: Happy *pieces*! I am *squirting nice colors*!.

• While *space* and *time* must have to do with dimension, I don't think we can be certain that *outsideness* and *height* do as well. I'm sure at least one of them do, but perhaps one of them is more about perception (my preference for this is *outsideness*). I would say that the relationship between *colour* and *outsideness*/*height* is really uncertain.

• *Sliding* definitely contains but could be more general than changing *outsideness*.

• Whatever the truth behind these dimensions, it seems clear that perceptions (*colour*, *smell*) and knowledge are related to it, and I think we should mention this. Particularly how just knowing something, as the Androsynth did, makes one vulnerable. The Arilou also say that ``knowledge transcends reality perimeters" (cue ominous reference to the ultron). Just knowing something may even be equivalent to movement in what we call dimensions (. . . spooky psychic stuff, Falayalaralfali).

And now about *time*. Some evidence about what this could be

from the Orz: *Time* is not one but many.

from the Arilou: We are many places, at many *times*.

This, along with the Arilou's preoccupation with long-term consequences and their mention of ``event strands", suggest that they like to consider dimensions as different times within *time*, where each individual time is the result of events occurring in a different way. Kind of like the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM I suppose. The Arilou's awareness of (and possible influence over) or intrinsic relationship with this may be why they are *above*, as in all-seeing. While this last part is probably too speculative to include in any article, I think the mention of event strands gives us licence to cite this possibility.

Those are just my thoughts on what we could say (my other thoughts are too speculative even for a talk page!), some of it is too speculative. As for how we say this as in what to do with the articles, maybe I'll think a bit more, but anyway we probably need a third opinion on this (Fyzix, PsiPhi, Svdb?). An article called ``Orz home dimension" makes this too specific to the Orz I think. --Zeracles 23:26, 26 December 2007 (CET)

---

• *Outsideness* being about perception — the Orz say "We are from the *outside*. Also the Arilou *quick babies* are from *outside*. It is the same, but not. Orz are from *below*, Arilou are from *above*."; it seems to me that "it is same, but not" would not be used to introduce different places with the same perception, but different perceptions of the same place, or a difference in the "Y-axis" of perception, where the abscissa (*outsideness*) is fixed — no matter which one of the later two interpretations one accepts, *above* and *below* are related to perception.

The whole story about the Androsynth knowing and thus making themselves *smellable* and thus facilitating the Orz's translation from *outside* to what I guess is *in between*... and they're in the process of moving to *inside*, and they need *fun* and *parties* for this... *outsideness* is quite perception-related too, I'd say. So maybe both *outsideness* and *height* are related to perception, after all. So both *outsideness* and *height* are subsets of *color* [I'm keeping this spelling, because Firefox's built-in spel cheker doesn't recognize British English].

And I'd say that *color*/perception refers to reality phase, as the Androsynth used devices that show (notice that they only show — only transfer of information, not matter) places with other reality phases, but the same space... Orz translated through their *slippery places* from *outside* to *in between*, which is perception-related. Also, phase is related to light/color, after all.

So a perception from *outside* would be a detached perception (which, go figure, the Arilou indeed have!), while one from *inside* would be a very involved one (*fun* and *parties* and starting *campers* and whatnot). A perception from *above* would be a "demiurge"/"owner" one (experiments on Humans, *jumping in front* etc.), while one from *below* would be a "devil"/"thief" one (profiting from what others have built).

• *Sliding* — yes, I think you're right. Although the line "You cannot *slide* like Orz from *outside* to *inside* and *in between*." seems to imply that *sliding* is limited to changing *outsideness*, there's another line I missed (because I searched for "slide", not "slid"): "Finally we find you, the *happy campers* and the Taalo *playground* for sliding through." Since the Orz use the Taalo *playground* to *spread*, not change *outsideness*, it seems that *sliding* is more general.

• About the many-worlds interpretation: [You can also link to Wikipedia by using [[wikipedia:Many-worlds interpretation|this gimmick]].] Hmm... something in me doesn't quite like the idea that *time* is so different from the other "traits", but the idea definitely does work... "At different *times*, we explore different easy places. That is our way."

However, *time* can be *slow time* or *quick time*... this reference to speed doesn't quite support the branching-time interpretation... admittedly, one might say that the Arilou refer to event strands as *time*, while the similarly-named Orz best-fit refers to an altogether different thing.

If we reject the many-worlds interpretation, then *time* means the same thing for both species. There are easy places for each one of the ten *times* ("At different *times* [...]", "this place is an easy place... one of ten easy places"), and they're places of *very heavy space* ("You cannot catch *Nnngn*... do not even try. I think you are not quite solid enough."). *Playgrounds* are the opposite — places where *Pretty Space* is somehow favored. After all, *playgrounds* are gravity centers, while *easy places* are seemingly places in the void.

TrueSpace is probably *slow time* *heavy space* ("We are too happy, in this *slow time* *heavy space*) *in between* ("Orz can *dance* very well *in between*") *the middle* ("Better parties in *the middle* for sure."); HyperSpace and QuasiSpace can't be *heavy space*, judging from their emptiness; QuasiSpace is also somewhere *outside* *above* and also *quick time* (if the Arilou being called *quick babies* is any indication).

[By the way, since these replies are so sizable, I've used horizontal lines to separate them. I hope nobody got hurt! (or *hurt*)] Valaggar 11:17, 27 December 2007 (CET)

---

Well, it's all possible. *Slow time* and *quick time* seem to pose a problem for MWI, but suggesting that *time* has different meanings for the arilou and orz is not the only way of preserving MWI - maybe time in *slow time* is not *time*. Maybe it is only the two words together which makes the asterisk pair necessary - there is no *slow* or *quick*. *Slow time* may simply refer to the slowing of time in a gravitational field. Of course, a gravitational field is spacetime curvature, and a supposed way of getting a wormhole. Maybe the portal spawner creates a portal without this curvature, making the arilou *quick*.

I have another theory for what *time* could be which I'll put here soon. Regarding what to do with articles, perhaps we could put a list of self-consistent theories somewhere, IDF theories perhaps, a bit like the theories section of the Orz page. In general I think this discussion can help to polish IDF related pages, as from a recent edit I guess you've seen. --Zeracles 02:04, 28 December 2007 (CET)

---

"We are too happy, in this *slow time* *heavy space*" seems to create a strong parallel between *XXX time* and *YYY space*. If we go with *XXX time* not being a subset of *time*, then we have to do the same thing with *space*. Which, I'd say, would lead to unnecessary complications.

As to the page about theories — Svdb strongly opposes this idea, it seems. And judging from the type of speculation that tended to parasite a lot of pages here, I guess that his reluctance has a good reason (by the way, funny to look at the Zoq=Frog thing again after so much time).

Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:
So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the *outside*/*above*/*below* definitions, about classifying *Pretty Space* as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way *Pretty Space* can be kept in that category, and the IDF article can be added to the category too). Valaggar 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)

---

If I understand you (which I might not), what you say about a ``strong parallel between *XXX time* and *YYY space*" is somewhat circular, that is, you assume that when the Orz say *slow time*, they used the word ``time". They may not have, they may have (for example) said just one Orzese word (like ``orgetgetch" (yes, I read that from one of the spammers)) which is best fit by two of our words, one of which just happens to be time.

And now for the others -

Earlier on this page I have said words to the effect that we need to be careful about speculation - in my view it gets out of hand when it crosses the line between constraining what is possible and filling in the blanks. Notice that while the latter is subjective and not fit for any article, the former is objective. I think it's an important difference and in the above talk I'd say we have been doing the former. At the very least I maintain, as Val does, that we can use it to improve IDF-related pages (actually it looks like Val has already started this). All this could be a symptom of inadequate discussion in the past.

Anyway, I think we can keep things under control by following the example set by the relevant section of the Orz page, which sets a precedent for now.

I'm still inclined to keep this page, or at least not merge it with Orz communications, for reasons I've said. In the case of the latter, or perhaps in any case, I'm in favour of Val's idea about Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue replacing Category:Dimensions. If we get rid of this page just because we don't think *below* is necessarily significant (which I don't accept, I think the discussion above shows that *below* is part of an important mystery), there are many other pages which should go.

We do need some input, but there's no hurry :) Happy new year. --Zeracles 01:12, 29 December 2007 (CET)

---

(re first paragraph) No, what I mean is that, just as a parallel between *time* and *space* is easy to draw (the Orz say "*Space* is many. *Time* is many."), a parallel between *XXX time* and *YYY space* is easy to draw (the Orz say "*slow time* *heavy space*"). So if we go by the interpretation that *XXX time* is not a subset of *time* (let's call this (1)), then we also have to accept that *YYY space* is not a subset of *space* (2). So we get four entities (*time*, *space*, *XXX time* and *YYY space*) with the many-worlds interpretation (even without counting the many branches); we have two and only two entities if *XXX time* is indeed a subset of *time* and *YYY space* is indeed a subset of *space*. Besides, since there's that parallel between *time* and *space* (the one-word best-fits), we'd probably have to concede that *space* is also a term referring to some kind of branching. Which is really far-fetched, you know. The principle of parsimony/Ockham's Razor would tell us to strongly prefer the non-many-worlds interpretation, then.

(re significance of *below*) If we say that *below* is significant because it's part of an important mystery, we'll also have to lend the same importance to *above*, *outside*, *inside*, *in between*, *space*, *time* and possibly even *XXX space* and *YYY time*. Since it'd be a little too much to have an article for each of these (there's not even much to say about them), I think we can just keep them in a single article. And we already have an article suited for that — Orz communications. We can just keep these words as entries there.

And... uh... actually the same goes for *Pretty Space*. I'd be in favor of replacing the *Pretty Space* article with a redirect to Orz communications too, actually. We don't have much (if any) solid information about *Pretty Space* (see the number of unknowns in the article), and we don't even know if it's a dimension (which means that the argument "let's keep *Pretty Space* so as to make Category:Dimensions an exhaustive list of all dimensions we know" has no power).

And no, I guess we should keep Category:Dimensions as Category:Dimensions (IDF is too convoluted a name, and it's, after all, just a phenomenon used for interdimensional travel — not really a name for a category to which the article Dimensions would belong). And we can still add the IDF article to it, after all.

And Happy New Year, of course. Unless there are some Chinese around here (I mean, except the spammers). Valaggar 14:01, 29 December 2007 (CET)

---

(re first paragraph) I think I understand you now. Except that the more I think about space branching, the better many worlds seems, and actually, from a physical perspective, that may be exactly what many worlds implies anyway, if one takes time to be the ``proper time" of general relativity . . . which I think is correct, at least I'm sure it is a valid way of taking it (MWI is nothing more than an interpretation of probability). Oh, but I can detail this later. What I'm trying to say is that if we have branching of both space and time, it's just branching of spacetime - taken this way, parsimony doesn't work. Although, if this was the case, the Orz should have said ``*spacetime* is many".

And again in conversation we come across parsimony - I'm actually tempted to wonder if the spiritual beliefs thread on the SCDB might have gone well if it had been carried on as on this talk page (read: if we were the only two posters).

(re significance of *below*) Well, the necessity of more pages if we keep this one is the strongest argument against *below* . . . I take this point, but I have a problem with just putting it all in Orz communications. It reads like a disjoint list of definitions (because it is I suppose). Some of these definitions are more significant than others. Like *below*. A list of definitions is needed, but I also think that we should highlight the more significant ones somehow, possibly with a different section on that page.

Another problem I have with putting it all in the Orz communications page is that these things are then made specific to the Orz. It involves other races to various extents. If we put it all in an article somewhere, I haven't thought about it but maybe one of the IDF pages would be a better place.

A more general problem I have with just shoving this into a list of definitions without a list of theories (or at least some kind of narrattive) is that definitions depend on the theories (so if we are going to admit definitions, we wouldn't really be speculating by presenting the theories on which they depend). Rather than saying ``*XXX* may mean this, that or anything in between" for all of them, a list of self-consistent theories could, I think, present the information in a more tractable way. Suppose I discuss the beginning of the universe. I could present all the possibilities for all the things anyone might wonder about the universe, or I could present just a handful of self-consistent theories. Both the former and the latter have their uses, that's all I'm saying.

(re categories) Heh, if you don't support your own idea, what chance does it have?

I love that user page of yours, maybe I'll put my silly theory up in similar kind.

(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) Half of me will defer your well-wish for a few weeks yet! --Zeracles 09:48, 30 December 2007 (CET)

---

(re first paragraph) "Well, it's all possible". And since it's about a game universe, one can even replace parsimony with "the preferred hypothesis is the one that is most interesting". Which, in negative form, could be worded as "boring and therefore wrong". That is, you like the many-worlds interpretation, so it's true for you unless the Twin Gods say it's otherwise, and I prefer the non-many-worlds interpretation, so that's what is true for me unless the Twin Gods say it's otherwise.

(re significance of *below*) Re first paragraph: I think we could use a user-sortable table to solve this, like here. Re second paragraph: I guess Dimension would be a suitable place to say that, just after saying that "the Arilou intimate [...] trivialized metaphor [...] "space" or "*time*"." Re third paragraph: Maybe we shouldn't bias the reader's interpretation of the raw data, you know. Maybe, since IDF-related words are such a contentious matter, we should stick to something to the likes of just listing exactly what the Orz say about the word. For instance, maybe we should remove the "Likely contains QuasiSpace." from the definition of *outside*, and instead of defining *above* as "where the Arilou come from. This may refer to QuasiSpace (in terms of its relative reality phase with respect to TrueSpace/HyperSpace), a particular part of QuasiSpace (if *outside* refers specifically to QuasiSpace), or an obscure characteristic of the Arilou in contrast to the Orz (who are from *below*).", we could just say that "Although both the Orz and the Arilou are from *outside*, the latter are "from *above*"."

(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) So "Fong Kit-ming" in the title of your "page at the school of physics" refers to you!? I'd never have guessed. Half of me is eager to find out the story, the other half is already dead because of this curiosity. And, by the way, YAY! My nomenclature for referring to the Twin Gods has been adopted by your page! And there's a link to that page I created, Star Control sequel, too! You're my hero! Valaggar 14:02, 30 December 2007 (CET)

---

(re first paragraph) No, I don't like many worlds. I have a different preference (which I haven't even mentioned here), actually, but I'm not writing what I like here, I am constraining what is possible, as I was saying. On the other side of this, I hope you're not arguing against many worlds just because you don't like it (or me haha).

Maybe it's just that I've never seen one before, but how would the user-sortable table work? I mean what would you use to rank the entries?

And yes, we can always take the easy way out and do trivially more than quote from the game, but I thought we were here to do a bit more than that. I was trying to make the point that listing possible theories introduces no bias. In fact, whenever the Orz communications page has something like ``possibly" or ``may be", it's giving you a theory. Listing the general classes of theory admitted by the information given is objective. In fact, I was trying to say that it might be more economical to list the theories, since this is what words like ``possibly" or ``may be" do anyway.

But if I understand you, you're now saying we should get rid of the might-bes and possibilities anyway? I would actually favour this if the theories find a home somewhere, but not if they don't, because I don't think it would make sense to not at least mention basic possibilities like QuasiSpace's possible membership of *outside* anywhere in this wiki. We are fans after all.

I thought I was already your great hero guy, since you canonised me ;) but it sounds good . . . I would have been accepting sainthood on false pretences by not adopting your nomenclature, clearly. --Zeracles 12:01, 31 December 2007 (CET)

---

(re first paragraph) The "appeal to beauty" was more of a fanciful way to agree to disagree (as if you haven't noticed)... I have a feeling that this isn't what the Twin Gods have imagined, but then, who knows how far away my interpretation is from Theirs...

(re second paragraph) It was in reply to "Some of these definitions are more significant than others. Like *below*. A list of definitions is needed, but I also think that we should highlight the more significant ones somehow, possibly with a different section on that page.". The user-sortable table would allow us to make another column, a "category" one. ("1. Dimensions/IDF"; "2. Interjections" etc.) Then, if the user wants to, he/she/it can choose whether to have definitions sorted after their category or alphabetically. There's a problem with this take, of course — a table would make it ugly and rather hard to read. And there's something which, I hope, is a solution to this problem. Increasing the height of the cells. And I'd also make another column to the right, which lists all the places where the best-fit appears (not the entire reply, just the significant part).

Alternatively, we could, of course, just make a second section with the definitions broken into sections. A third option would be to just list all the best-fits (bolding those who are defined on the page) in alphabetical order at first, and then write the list of definitions (sectionized by category).

(re third and fourth paragraph) Judging from my "Orz about dimensions" edit at Dimension, I think I meant the worst option of all — replacing "possibly" and "may be" with quotes, and not listing theories. After looking at the time of that edit, I'm surprised that it wasn't late in the day, so that I have "I was tired" as an excuse. But "I was bored" might still work. Don't mind what I said about theories. Dimension article corrected. Valaggar 12:35, 31 December 2007 (CET)

---

I thought beauty could always be substituted for parsimony anyway, not just in the game world. I also doubt the Twin Gods imagined many worlds, if they imagined anything at all, and if they imagined nothing, that's fine too, their answer still needs to be brilliant all the same.

Theories would highlight the more likely significant ones without real bias. Catgories sounds like the best way of ordering entries in such a table, but I think I'd prefer your third option. --Zeracles 10:42, 2 January 2008 (CET)