- 92
- 87
There is a dead and unused discord server. We mainly just communicate through dms on discord or the site's discussion tab. We're planning on upgrading 2 maybe 4 characters to High 1-T+ at a bare minimum and maybe 1 to tier 0
-
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"
- Thread starter Iamunanimousinthat
- Start date
- 1,535
- 681
can i add u on dsicord
- 92
- 87
archetype_chaos
FoxySonicMaster108
He/Him- 1,959
- 706
I wonder where Homestuck would scale with this new system actually. I've made jokes about High 1-A Homestuck, but now I wonder if that's actually possible still.
- 92
- 87
There is a discussion to be had about platonism in general tbf
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Only 1 character can scale to tier 0 if it does qualify. Having more than 1 being in tier 0 in a single verse is already a contradiction. Unless it's their Avatar, then it's impossible for more than 1 character to scale to tier 0 under new standards.
And I doubt SMT qualifies anyways.
- 92
- 87
Why would it be contradictory if multiple ideas of multiple different magnitudes qualify for it?
- 1,535
- 681
its still at the very least 1-A imo, high 1-A is if u wanna argue the infinite hierarchy meta rivers r>f shit to be 1-A+
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
"Multiple different magnitudes" is a self-defeating statement itself since we are supposed to be dealing with a being that is supposedly beyond all characteristics and measurements.
If a singular being is for instance, a being that followed logical omnipotence, any other character that is considered "the same" as that being already makes it impossible for that "logically omnipotent" being to be actually omnipotent. There can be only one apex. More than one is contradictory to its existence.
- 4,936
- 2,096
You can have multiple characters scale to tier 0, it will just be that there is only one level of tier 0 that they all scale to, and that level is just a singular level/state of existence.
An example would be the Amaranth from TES, everybody who is 0 only scales to the same level of being as it because they are it, and there is no other state of being that exists that is on the same level or greater than it.
- 92
- 87
Logical omnipotence is the ability to do everything logically possible. It doesnt warrant being beyond all measure and characteristics since it's just the ability to do anything possible under a specific framework. And having multiple characters have logical omnipotence wouldnt contradict that either lol
- 92
- 87
The entire DKD comm jumping in joy rn
Divine simplicity - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
All of the things you mentioned are one thing (Except "perfect plurality." Dunno what that means)
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
I will have to listen to how Ultima would explain this first.
But from my opinion, it's impossible for multiple characters to scale to tier 0. What Ultima is trying to make as tier 0 is something called "Divine simplicity." Negative Theology, Logical omnipotence and Ineffability, are all the same.
Phoenks asked him what the new tier 0 meant.
And this was Ultima's reply.
And as a supporter of one of my favourite verses, Nasuverse, I have quite a big understanding on the concept of Negative Theology and how it becomes a contradiction if any character supposedly scales to the same tier as the supposed character despite having no direct connection to it.Divine simplicity - Wikipedia
All of the things you mentioned are one thing (Except "perfect plurality." Dunno what that means)
Anyways, I would still wait for Ultima to explain how multiple characters can somehow reach the same Divine simplicity in the same verse.
It's like saying there can be more than one Abrahamic God.
- 35
- 6
That’s the thing that is confusing to me. If everything comes from the collective unconscious but also is the collective unconscious. Aren’t they one and the same? I am thou and thou art I. I don’t know if Monad fits but given the reincarnation cycle of information is like saying the same idea just using different words but it’s understood to be the same thing. It’s all very convoluted yes, but it forms an understanding. Honestly, don’t know if I even have a correct understanding.
- 92
- 87
Yeah sorry the only smart Nasuverse fan ik is theoretical toxic. As for what you said Ultima should really elaborate as to why he thinks logical omnipotence, the ability to do anything logically possible, is an equivalent to Negative Theology, the inability to describe god as no words or thought could capture it's essence. Im not even talking about the stuff about negating all attributes somehow also being an equivalent to the above
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Imo, the concept of logical omnipotence itself seems to be limited by logic which also seems defeating imo. Divine simplicity is supposed to deny every aspect of God's "reason" for existence. Explaining something logically is already limiting the fullness of something that can not be understood.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
I'm friends with TT too lol. We've both caused chaos together in Nasu threads here in the past. And yeah, I also don't think logical omnipotence should really be considered a basis for tier 0 as much as NT and Ineffability. It's definition is already self defeating.
- 92
- 87
Exactly what I meant when defining logical omnipotence earlier
- 4,936
- 2,096
I literally am on a server with ultima and was talking to him when he revealed what he considered tier 0, to quote Aslan:
"Do not cite the Deep Magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."
I know what he considers to qualify for tier 0, and Amaranth is one of them, and I will just say that Divine Simplicity doesn't mean that there is only one "being" of that level, lest we decide to treat things such as the Pleroma, God, Atman/Brahman, or Ain (Soph) (or whatever exists behind the veils) as not divinely simple, which they are and are exemplars of what divinely simple beings are.
Now yes while SMT would not qualify for tier 0 due to things that would be tier 0 being surpassable, just there being multiple "possible" tier 0 beings does not make them not tier 0.
- 92
- 87
Fair. I was lowkey confused as to why Tier 0 requirements were so low with logical omnipotence apparently qualifying since by that metric anyone who scales to the planet in nasuverse would be instant tier 0
Invite me to that server tbh frrrrrrr
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
I will still rather wait for Ultima's say on this.
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Yeah because of the collective unconscious bs that exists in Nasuverse's earth. Yet we know these characters are nowhere near the Root.
- 92
- 87
No. Just the fact that it contains every single logically possible space would mean it would have the ontologically important parts of modal realism/logical omnipotence lol
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Are you referring to Ilya's statement?
- 92
- 87
no its Skadi explaining chaos and the Nemo talking about logical coordinates
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Ooooooohhhhh. I forgot about that.
- 92
- 87
yeah idk what Ultima is cooking but by his metric anyone who scales to the planet in nasuverse should be tier 0 lol. The same would apply to SMT's Nirvana achievers as they blatantly are above logic and by extension logical omnipotence. If we ignore logical omnipotence though Shiki and the Root should be Tier 0 and mfs who achieve the end of fool's journey in smt should be tier 0 as well since by Ultima's interpretation of the cosmology they'd be the absolute of the verse and they have actually stuff to get them to ineffability/divine simplicity
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
I honestly disagree with anyone from Nasuverse excluding Root/Shikis scaling to tier 0. And I disagree with anyone in the entire SMT from scaling to tier 0 based on how I really think Divine simplicity should be tierd. But if they qualify under Ultima's version, well, there's nothing that can be done. Imma just cope with my internal cringe of seeing Kiara Sessyoin on the same tier as the Root all because she used the "Tier 0" Earth as a vibrator
Tdjwo
He/Him- 2,947
- 1,171
Why are you like this?
- 92
- 87
Tier 0 Mash(she blocked a planet busting fire attack)I honestly disagree with anyone from Nasuverse excluding Root/Shikis scaling to tier 0. And I disagree with anyone in the entire SMT from scaling to tier 0 based on how I really think Divine simplicity should be tierd. But if they qualify under Ultima's version, well, there's nothing that can be done. Imma just cope with my internal cringe of seeing Kiara Sessyoin on the same tier as the Root all because she used the "Tier 0" Earth as a vibrator
- 5,476
- 12,517
Strictly speaking, "Logical Omnipotence" is really only "Can do everything that is intrinsically possible." If the verse considers it to be possible that there exists something that has contradicting properties (Has both A and ~A), then the Omnipotent would in fact be able to do that, and still be a "logical" omnipotent on that basis
So overall I've no issue with Tier 0s being capable of actualizing "mild" contradictions. The problems largely arise when it's things like "It can literally kill itself" and etc.
In that case, Omnipotence by necessity results in Monadhood (The core requirement for Tier 0) simply because an omnipotent must not be beholden or contained by anything existing "prior" to itself. So it must be the creator of all categories and possibilities (Rather than simply an individual that "taps" into these possibilities to actualize them), and hence not be within any of them, lest it find foundation on something other (And definitionally lesser) than itself. So it cannot exist in any possible world whatsoever and instead be completely outside the framework of attributes entailed by that, which leads directly into divine simplicity and negative theology and that whole package.
(You'll notice that this is quite literally just a variation of Russell's Paradox, also. The fact that the actualizer of all categories and possibilities cannot be within any category or possibility)
Stuff like this is why I'd say stuff like Daimaou, where Akuto can create "all possible worlds" by virtue of having power over all possible combinations of characters and the like, is by no means 0. It's a kind of "pseudo-omnipotence" in that he can at best create a kind of 'replica' of the modal multiverse within a story and yet nevertheless is beholden to things on his own level of existence and higher, and thus is himself in a possibility/category.
Last edited:
- 92
- 87
So you're creating a definition of logical omnipotence which is that "Can do anything that the verse deems possible". Could you give me "your" understanding of monadhood in more depth then?
- 5,476
- 12,517
Not creating it, no. "Logical Omnipotence" as a concept comes from the Scholastic tradition heralded by people like Thomas Aquinas, who first and foremost reasoned that God can't do the "absolutely impossible," and from that inferred that he can't enact true contradictions because they just happened to consider those to fall into that category. They didn't accept such a thing as "other modes of being" that could follow other frameworks of logic, or any of the like.
So, technically, that's the most proper definition of the concept, if anything, which falls into place differently for us because the sensibilities we have when indexing fiction are so different from those of back then.
"Monadhood" is also just the shorthand I'm using for a divinely simple absolute reality, by the way. So, "Being that has no differentiation/composition whatsoever, whether spatial, temporal or qualitative," pretty much.
- 92
- 87
well alright
also check your discord I had a different inquiry entirely but didnt want to derail this whole thread into smt yappery
- 22,043
- 18,127
Since there's some discussion about non-space/times, I was wondering about how we'd treat something like The Void from Doctor Who.
The Void exists between all universes in Doctor Who. It's otherwise a typical 'never-space' fictional void, composed of literally nothing (including space-time) and containing almost nothing.
What stands out are two aspects of the Void:
Firstly, the Time Vortex and the timeless/spaceless void at the end of reality are almost always referred to as no/non reality, space, time, etc. The Void is explicitly beyond them, and is described as un reality, space, time, etc, meaning it's simultaneously immeasurably huge and tiny. This suggests that un- means both 'opposite/negative' and 'non' reality, in this case.
Secondly, while The Void is called 'The Void between universes', it also exists everywhere in universes, and certain races can access it for space-time travel within a single continuum.
The Void exists between all universes in Doctor Who. It's otherwise a typical 'never-space' fictional void, composed of literally nothing (including space-time) and containing almost nothing.
What stands out are two aspects of the Void:
Firstly, the Time Vortex and the timeless/spaceless void at the end of reality are almost always referred to as no/non reality, space, time, etc. The Void is explicitly beyond them, and is described as un reality, space, time, etc, meaning it's simultaneously immeasurably huge and tiny. This suggests that un- means both 'opposite/negative' and 'non' reality, in this case.
Secondly, while The Void is called 'The Void between universes', it also exists everywhere in universes, and certain races can access it for space-time travel within a single continuum.
- 5,476
- 12,517
If it's "The total absence of space that also completely dwarfs space itself," then it is certainly in the 1-A range, yes. Whether Low 1-A or 1-A may be up to debate, though.
- 7,001
- 4,287
So High 1-B and below are dimensions, 1-A are things ontologically superior to dimensions, Tier 0 is Ain Soph, what is High 1-A?
- 22,043
- 18,127
Thanks.
- 5,476
- 12,517
High 1-A is basically just the tier that's to 1-A what 1-A is to things below it. Basically fundamentally transcending the "quality" defining the 1-A level of existence, just as 1-A fundamentally transcends quantitative stuff like dimensions and etc.
Similar threads
- Locked
