• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

Flowman777 said:
I don't think some of these accusations against DontTalkDT are accurate.

I don't see how DontTalkDT is stalling. Their initial arguing seems like it was mainly to understand the specifics behind Ultima's proposal while counterarguing mainly against points that DontTalkDT immediately had concerns/counterpoints about. Examples of DontTalkDT trying to understand this revisions' specific details include:
At here,

At here,

At here,

At here,

At here,

At here,


Then, when DontTalkDT got enough information to understand Ultima Reality's revisions in specific detail, DontTalkDT made a counterproposal. The proof that DontTalkDT needed said previous information before making this counterproposal is the line:


When DontTalkDT got accused of misunderstanding Ultima Reality even after that, DontTalkDT made yet another effort to try to understand Ultima Reality's revisions.

So, it feels like DontTalkDT is trying to understand Ultima Reality as best as reasonably possible and then make counterpoints rather than trying to stall.

I also feel the fact that DontTalkDT is going out of their way to try to understand Ultima Reality's points throws the accusation that they are trying to mischaracterize Ultima Reality out. Going so far out of their way to try to understand Ultima Reality's points/revisions shows that DontTalkDT wants to steelman Ultima Reality's points. There is also the fact that when DontTalkDT tried to summarize Ultima Reality's positions when Ultima Reality asked some people for input, DontTalkDT sourced the exact quotes that Ultima Reality used, showing where DontTalkDT is getting their information from.
Click to expand...
As Ben has also summarized, I'm not saying that he is deliberately stalling, however that doesn't change my thinking that further wait on the current situation is needless red tape. If there was a game changer for him to bring, it would have already been brought up by now.
 
First, Ultima Reality has been addressing DontTalkDT's points but DontTalkDT has been addressing Ultima Reality's points. It's a two-way street.

Second, I'm not saying they can't understand Ultima's points even now, but rather that they are getting accused of misunderstanding Ultima's points. The latter being true does not mean that the former is true, and TBH I don't think the former is even true at all. Ultima Reality's main point is that larger objects can be reached by making an object larger but no matter how much larger a fictional object is, it will never become real due to not having any realness at all, making being "more real"-level power above all larger sizes (source):
By contrast, reality is obviously not composed out of slices of fiction, and neither can a real object be obtained by summing up fictional things, because the difference between the two hinges on an existential quality (i.e. The fact one is real and the other isn't), and not on physical measurements such as volume. Whereas a 3-dimensional object still has lower-dimensional portions of itself (As a cube can be divided into squares, and squares into lines, and lines into points), a body in reality has no part of itself that is fictional (And so a real cube can only be divided into real squares, and real squares into real lines, and real lines into real points. It cannot be divided into fictional squares, and nor can squares be divided into fictional lines, and nor lines into fictional points)
Click to expand...
And (source):
Unreality and nothingness not being exactly the same also isn't really relevant when you consider that unreality/fiction definitionally is an absence of something (And I know plenty of verses where it's explicitly stated to be like that, too). And an absence of a thing can't add up to the existence of that thing. Non-substance can't add up to substance. Same argument ultimately applies.
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT's main counterpoint is that the reverse is also true: no matter how real an object becomes, it will never become larger, thus meaning that being more real and being larger are merely different ways to be more powerful (source):
R>F equalizing to dimensional jumps is no true correspondence, obviously. Technically, R>F and dimensional tiering should be on two separate power axis. Both being 5D and seeing a universe as fiction are being infinitely superior to it, but without feats neither should be able to affect the other. The 5D character can't punch something more real than it and the R>F character doesn't cover 5D space as part of the cosmology it transcends. I will say that, as usual, I consider assumptions that R>F should just be able to cover the dimensions because in real life dimensions don't matter for a writer as overextrapolation. It's too much enforcing our views on fictional verses.
Click to expand...

The point that Ultima Reality made that follows from his main point is that reality/fiction difference is equivalent to viewing something as literal nothingness - not just there is 0, but literally nothing/empty set (source):
By contrast, take the empty set (∅): This, as the name suggests, is a set with no elements whatsoever. It is, in effect, the set-theoretical 0, and for preciseness' sake we must note that it isn't exactly nothing, per se, but rather a set containing nothing. Nevertheless it is, for obvious reasons, close enough to the idea of nothing to serve as an illustrative tool for our purposes, as a Reality-Fiction Transcendence is, as stated, nothing but a relationship where the superior side sees the inferior side as literal unreality, and thus, as nothing. So the empty set, from here and onwards, will serve as a stand-in for that "unreality."
Click to expand...
DontTalkDT's main counterpoint is that fiction is not literal nothingness in the first place (source):
I will say that fiction is logically not synonymous with nothingness. All nothingness is identical, but there are different stories is fiction, for example.
Click to expand...
And (source):
As a person that was involved in writing most of the wikis R>F standards, I can furthermore tell you that we never really have debated that to mean anything that deep. It's just an alternative to saying fiction, for verses that might have similar ideas without calling it fiction. It was an afterthought, not a big conscious decision to add that word to declare fiction as being the same as nothingness. Whether unreality even means nothingness, when we were to ignore the spirit of the text, is pretty debatable.
Cambridge dictionary defines reality as "the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be". Negating that, unreality just means imagination, making the term synonymous to fiction. Google (Oxford languages) defines unreality directly as "he quality of being imaginary, illusory, or unrealistic."

...

In any case, I believe fiction and nothingness not being the same as just a fact. Two things are identical exactly then iff they have all the same properties. It's not further hard to come up with a property that some dream has and nothingness doesn't.
Click to expand...

It seems DontTalkDT is trying to counterpoint Ultima Reality's points with their counterpoints. Thus, DontTalkDT understands Ultima Reality's points.
 
Flowman777 said:
Ultima Reality's main point is that larger objects can be reached by making an object larger but no matter how much larger a fictional object is, it will never become real due to not having any realness at all, making being "more real"-level power above all larger sizes (source):

DontTalkDT's main counterpoint is that the reverse is also true: no matter how real an object becomes, it will never become larger, thus meaning that being more real and being larger are merely different ways to be more powerful (source):

The point that Ultima Reality made that follows from his main point is that reality/fiction difference is equivalent to viewing something as literal nothingness - not just there is 0, but literally nothing/empty set (source):

DontTalkDT's main counterpoint is that fiction is not literal nothingness in the first place (source):

It seems DontTalkDT is trying to counterpoint Ultima Reality's points with their counterpoints. Thus, DontTalkDT understands Ultima Reality's points.
Click to expand...
Side note, this is a god-tier summary dude. I’m impressed.
 
Flowman777 said:
First, Ultima Reality has been addressing DontTalkDT's points but DontTalkDT has been addressing Ultima Reality's points. It's a two-way street.
Click to expand...
Hardly.

Flowman777 said:
The point that Ultima Reality made that follows from his main point is that reality/fiction difference is equivalent to viewing something as literal nothingness - not just there is 0, but literally nothing/empty set
Click to expand...
For the sake of full clarity here: It should be noted that the "Fiction = Absolute Nothingness" thing is not particularly something I was ever that committed to, and which (As I commented before), I eventually shaved off my argument anyway. You can see me being somewhat ambivalent on that in a quote you've provided yourself, there. The point ultimately being that the empty set illustration works regardless, as I pointed out even in later parts of the thread, like here.

Flowman777 said:
DontTalkDT's main counterpoint is that fiction is not literal nothingness in the first place
Click to expand...
DontTalk's most recent formulation of his counterpoint was essentially "There are interpretations of Reality-Fiction Transcendences that don't involve surpassing something so hard that you see them as the empty set or something analogous to that."

This being said, he did provide some (Fairly bizarre) "counterexamples" to that notion, among which were computer simulations, which he argued can't hold arbitrarily-many dimensions due to computers having limited computing power (Ignoring the fact computers don't have enough power to render universes, either). In general, a rather large point of his is that "Reality-Fiction Transcendences can be quantitative, too," hence the previous example, which also ignores the fact that the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page itself says that the gap between a higher layer and a lower one is "strictly one of quality, not quantity," thus meaning the counterexamples he gives simply aren't R>F to begin with. So, basically using some very haphazard idea of "fiction" that doesn't at all align with the present definitions.

Now: I don't think DontTalk is intentionally stalling the thread. Highly doubt he is doing this out of malicious intent. But I certainly do think his side of the debate has been extremely evasive, and hasn't really addressed the core point, either. (As my last post in the thread details)

ProfectusInfinity said:
Side note: this is a god-tier summary dude.
Click to expand...
Eh.
 
I'll be honest that I disagree with a lot of that summary but also be honest that I'm not sufficiently invested to dedicate a text wall of my own in response to it. Not when I can summarize my opinion in two sentences.
 
TheGreatJedi13 said:
quick question
seeing how Tier 0 needs to be unchanging etc etc
would they automatically gain Acausality Type 5 in their P&A section
Click to expand...
Yeah. (Though you remind me I frankly ought to write a list of the powers that a Tier 0 would need to have by default under these proposals, as well as how each of them ought to apply. How any given power works for a Tier 0 would be quite different from how it works for everything else)
 
How am I getting ahead of myself? This has already been discussed privately.

Edit: Yknow what don’t even answer that. I’m not in the mood to discuss this.
 
Can a character regenerate after getting erased to a monadic level? I.e. the whole example with the only technical case where a thing can "become" Tier 0 only by stripping their existence down to the prime level, can someone do the opposite of that and "emanate" himself.

Because that might just result in completely unbeatable characters now that I think about it, because how can you really negate that.
 
While mens wait for Ultima; @Quintessence_PE

VID_413520703_172949_222_1.gif


Kaptan yolcu var
 
Last edited:
NHTkenshin2 said:
Can a character regenerate after getting erased to a monadic level? I.e. the whole example with the only technical case where a thing can "become" Tier 0 only by stripping their existence down to the prime level, can someone do the opposite of that and "emanate" himself.

Because that might just result in completely unbeatable characters now that I think about it, because how can you really negate that.
Click to expand...
Really interesting question. I'd say it depends: Coming back from being subsumed back into the Monad through "sheer force of evil" or something is, obviously, incoherent, since there should be no will anymore, in the first place. But if it is just "Oh, I was/am one with the Monad, so I just recreated myself," that's fine. In that sense the only way to come back from this state would be through the grace of the Monad itself. Now, being favored by an omnipotent god isn't exactly something many fictional characters have, so, yeah.

That said, I don't think "Erasing someone to the point they come back to the Monad" really constitutes Existence Erasure with Tier 0 hax potency, or anything like that, since all you're required to do is to wipe out the traits that individuate a person into something "separate" from the Monad. If a verse has souls returning to a 1-A void upon being erased from existence, I wouldn't say that means all soul destruction in that verse actually is 1-A Soulhax.

It is, however, Tier 0 BFR, functionally speaking. Which is to say: It isn't impossible (Or even particularly hard) to resist erasure of that sort, but if you don't resist it, then, yeah, you're completely cooked. No return for you.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Now, being favored by an omnipotent god isn't exactly something many fictional characters have, so, yeah.
Click to expand...
Dante Alighieri fr:
black-handsome-man.gif


Ultima_Reality said:
That said, I don't think "Erasing someone to the point they come back to the Monad" really constitutes Existence Erasure with Tier 0 hax potency, or anything like that, since all you're required to do is to wipe out the traits that individuate a person into something "separate" from the Monad. If a verse has souls returning to a 1-A void upon being erased from existence, I wouldn't say that means all soul destruction in that verse actually is 1-A Soulhax.

It is, however, Tier 0 BFR, functionally speaking. Which is to say: It isn't impossible (Or even particularly hard) to resist erasure of that sort, but if you don't resist it, then, yeah, you're completely cooked. No return for you.
Click to expand...
Having the ability to erase all attributes from an individual is probably not Tier 0 EE, I'd agree.

Although it is pretty possible for an entity to "un-BFR" itself from that though, schools of thought such as Advaita Vedanta and Hegels idealism do touch on the whole idea of the enlightenment of someone and their realisation that makes them return back into the Tier 0 entity. By which then the individual just becomes omnipotent at this point, where it could pretty easily emanate itself back into a body.

Taking this logic, it is also technically possible for someone to strip an individuals existence down to no attributes, forcing them to return into the Tier 0, and that erased entity reforming themselves back (assuming it doesn't inherently need a source to exist again, and can just emanate itself from a Tier 0 nonetheless)
 
Bobsican said:
Dragon Ball is already tier 1, it doesn't really need much else especially given its premise of brute force being better than hax.
Click to expand...
you certainly do not know the caretakers then.
By the way, does the presence qualify for Tier 0? I heard he is basically sentient monad
iirc the aethyr / warp from warhammer is also similar to monad like it has only one part, it unifies all possible things, always existed, cannot be surpassed, is not a part of any hierarchy, etc
 
Last edited:
Grand_Saver_Ritsuka said:
you certainly do not know the caretakers then.
By the way, does the presence qualify for Tier 0? I heard he is basically sentient monad
iirc the aethyr / warp from warhammer is also similar to monad like it has only one part, it unifies all possible things, always existed, cannot be surpassed, is not a part of any hierarchy, etc
Click to expand...
The Warp almost certainly wouldn't be allowed from my understanding. There are several entities who are all roughly equal power within the Warp (Chaos Gods), entities who can ascend to be as powerful as them (Emps, Sigmar, Nagash, etc) and entities beyond the Warp and are superior to the Chaos Gods but can still be harmed by beings of the Warp (Void Entities)
 
Since this is a revision on wiki policy, imagine DT uses his bureaucrat veto right to just reject the thread, I can't lmao <cry>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
651
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
2K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
The Boundless tier can be defined as "Transcending Modern Mathematics"
Replies
0
Views
352
VictoriaGenesisBOA
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
152K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
How many of you guys believe in the tiering system?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top