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

[Agnaa]

Shouldn't Ant's vote be included?
He made it clear at different points during the thread that he was in favor of whatever Ultima was proposing

We're requiring re-votes after the summaries, since I wasn't allowed to present my arguments earlier on in the thread.

 

[Udlmaster]

Nirvana and Buddhahood in some takes is the Ultimate Reality not to be confused with Brahman because Buddhism takes inspiration from Hinduism as well. I was not at all eluding to Ultimate Reality as Brahman just because the idea originates from Hinduism.

The source for Nirvana being the Ultimate reality is from a book called "Buddhism" by Peter Harvey, a famous Scholar on Buddhism and a professor of it, but not from any Sutras. More so, they're taking his assigning of Nirvana being the Ultimate reality as being.

However, I did actually check out their source for that, since I actually love to read what other people who actually know their stuff on Buddhism have to say on the topic and they don't say what the wikipedia article says, for example;

In the self-emptiness view, the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate reality, no reality with an inherent nature/existence; there are just non-ultimate conventional realities. Seeing Nirvana is seeing emptiness, in the sense of seeing that everything is empty of ultimacy. In the other-emptiness view, while conventional realities are still seen as empty of ultimacy, there is seen to be an ultimate reality, emptiness, which is a positive reality, but is empty of defilements. This is the basis of everything. The self-emptiness view is akin to ideas in early Buddhism in finding no ultimate basis that is the support of everything else. - An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey, pg. 127

It is a very interesting read, but the entire book is over 500 pages long, only that it covers more than Theravada Buddhism so I plan to give it a good read, though from what I read, it's good.

But the definitions Peter Harvey provides in the book don't line up with Wikipedia's definitions of an Ultimate reality;

Ultimate reality is "the supreme, final, and fundamental power in all reality".[1] This may overlap with the concept of the Absolute in certain philosophies. -Wikipedia

As unconditioned, Nirvana can have no spatial or temporal relationship to anything, even by negation: no place or time can be nearer to or further from it. It is not separate from the conditioned world, but is, as it were, always available to be experienced. As it is also the stopping of conditioned dhammas, this seems to imply that, ultimately, these are not fundamentally real. This connects with some of the things said of the ‘signless’ concentration - An Introduction to Buddhism by Peter Harvey, pg. 96

Doesn't really fit.

As I said, in some views although not too many. Some do view him as supreme whether as a person or a transcendent being. Sources vary and there are no absolutes though in most cases he is just a human.

Kinda true. It depends on where you look, and by this I mean, in certain traditions people venerate Buddha (and other Buddhas) as transcendent beings within Samsara, but they're all ultimately equals in actuality.

This is Universal across different interpretations of Buddhism? I know what Enlightenment is and the notion of Self is not exactly the same across multiple takes on Buddhism.

Yeah, the Pali canon (the source for this) is explicitly canonical to all Buddhist canons. The Great Scripture Store (Chinese canon) and the Buddhavacana (Tibetan canon) have the Pali canon within them.

The Buddhavacana does have some sutta from the Pali canon missing though.

That's is the jist that I was getting.

Yeah, that's good then. I was more so just clarifying on the position of "Ultimate Reality" since Brahman is that and Buddhists specifically argued against Brahman.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Yeah, that's good then. I was more so just clarifying on the position of "Ultimate Reality" since Brahman is that and Buddhists specifically argued against Brahman.

Yeah, the point I was also trying to make is something equivalent in nature. Perhaps considering it as some sort of “Ultimate Reality” does make it shaky but I believe the idea was there.

Yeah, most Buddhists do not believe in the notion of Brahman, at least not in that way.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The vote is currently 6-3 in favor.

 

[Deagonx]

I want to say for the record: I feel like the revisions largely just replace our current arbitrary stopping point for R>F with an equally arbitrary stopping point for R>F, and for that reason I feel that the best solution is largely to simply not tier R>F.

I've already said that but I wanted to say it again as my last will and testament before this revision (almost certainly) passes.

It is what it is, though. I'll adapt to the site standards even if I do not always agree with them.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I've already said that but I wanted to say it again as my last will and testament before this revision (almost certainly) passes.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I want to say for the record: I feel like the revisions largely just replace our current arbitrary stopping point for R>F with an equally arbitrary stopping point for R>F, and for that reason I feel that the best solution is largely to simply not tier R>F.

I've already said that but I wanted to say it again as my last will and testament before this revision (almost certainly) passes.

It is what it is, though. I'll adapt to the site standards even if I do not always agree with them.

If you want R>f to not be tiered at all, try making as detailed an argument as Ultima did.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The character in question once belonged to the real world, but made themselves less real via the mechanism that they created, which divides reality (the real world) and fantasy (the new world which the character created), with anything deemed unreal or illusory being forced into the new world and treated as an infinitely small nonexistent being from the perspective of the real world.

So they used to be real, but then they crossed the threshold separating the real from unreal (that they created) and are now unreal.

Sounds fine to me, also.

Just in case I need to clarify a bit more, the Real Being (A) is made out of that same Real Energy and they give it to the Fictional Being (B), allowing for interaction with other Real Beings. Then that energy gets absorbed by another Fictional Being (C) from Character B, allowing for the same interaction capabilities.

Honestly that hypothetical feels like a case where a verse is contradicting itself. Fictional characters need, effectively, "divine intervention" from beings of the realer world to interact with the higher reality, and yet a fictional character, with no such augmentation whatsoever, interacts with something real?

 

[Hasty12345]

our current arbitrary stopping point for R>F with an equally arbitrary stopping point for R>F

could you elaborate on how a new system that separates quantitative and qualitative superiority such that the latter is above all forms of the former is equally arbitrary as an entirely incoherent equivalence of a jump of 1 spatial axis? Even if you don't think Ultima's logic is correct, I fail to see how it's "arbitrary"?

 

[Padaruyos]

I've missed out on a lot. Can someone give me a summary of the changes made?

 

[Eseseso]

I want to say for the record: I feel like the revisions largely just replace our current arbitrary stopping point for R>F with an equally arbitrary stopping point for R>F, and for that reason I feel that the best solution is largely to simply not tier R>F.

I've already said that but I wanted to say it again as my last will and testament before this revision (almost certainly) passes.

It is what it is, though. I'll adapt to the site standards even if I do not always agree with them.

Bold to assume this will pass and not just remain unconcluded forever since it's only 5-3.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Bold to assume this will pass and not just remain unconcluded forever since it's only 5-3.

It's been literally only 3-4 days. Give it time.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

could you elaborate on how a new system that separates quantitative and qualitative superiority such that the latter is above all forms of the former is equally arbitrary as an entirely incoherent equivalence of a jump of 1 spatial axis? Even if you don't think Ultima's logic is correct, I fail to see how it's "arbitrary"?

I agree. One jump being equivalent to an added extra spatial axis lacks much sense, if any at all.

 

[Padaruyos]

So let me get this straight.

10-B to 2-A works as normal
Low 1-C to High 1-B is based on number of spatial or temporal axes the character can affect significantly, QS skips this tier entirely
Low 1-A to 0 is entirely based on Qualitative Superiority, and cannot be reached even with infinitely many dimensional axes.

 

[Blunt_Claw]

So let me get this straight.

10-B to 2-A works as normal
Low 1-C to High 1-B is based on number of spatial or temporal axes the character can affect significantly, QS skips this tier entirely
Low 1-A to 0 is entirely based on Qualitative Superiority, and cannot be reached even with infinitely many dimensional axes.

Low 1-A is still math based but aside from that,yeah pretty much.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

So let me get this straight.

10-B to 2-A works as normal

Yeah.

Low 1-C to High 1-B is based on number of spatial or temporal axes the character can affect significantly, QS skips this tier entirely

That's the gist but the main part of that spatial axis is considered quantitative. High 1-B will be the last stretch of a countable infinity while High 1-B+ is all the quantitative sets.

Low 1-A to 0 is entirely based on Qualitative Superiority, and cannot be reached even with infinitely many dimensional axes.

Low 1-A is the upper limit of Math as if the entire Universe is based on mathematics as described by Max Tegmark and his notion of a Type IV Universe.

0 can't be reached nor obtained. It's simply not in any hierarchy system and is essentially the “Supreme” ineffable being where he is real and more real than real or the entire premise being Creation being nothing more than a tiny thing that seems to hold nothing over it as just fake or unreal.

 

[Agnaa]

could you elaborate on how a new system that separates quantitative and qualitative superiority such that the latter is above all forms of the former is equally arbitrary as an entirely incoherent equivalence of a jump of 1 spatial axis? Even if you don't think Ultima's logic is correct, I fail to see how it's "arbitrary"?

I, personally, wouldn't say it's wholly arbitrary. I'd say it's one of 6 plausible ways to rate R>F differences.

I agree. One jump being equivalent to an added extra spatial axis lacks much sense, if any at all.

I'm sympathetic to making all spaces from R^1 to R^omega land in the same tier, with joule values being the only real way to divy it up. That would stop the correspondence to "an additional extra spatial axis", instead drawing it equivalent to, just, being the next cardinal.

I also wanna point out that once you get past 1-B, R>F differences under the current system aren't equivalent to one extra spatial axis.

So let me get this straight.

10-B to 2-A works as normal

That might get changed in later parts of the thread.

Low 1-C to High 1-B is based on number of spatial or temporal axes the character can affect significantly, QS skips this tier entirely
Low 1-A to 0 is entirely based on Qualitative Superiority, and cannot be reached even with infinitely many dimensional axes.

Low 1-A is still kinda quantitative; it's beyond ordinary quantitative notions, but it's not quite qualitative.

 

[Agnaa]

Low 1-A is the upper limit of Math as if the entire Universe is based on mathematics as described by Max Tegmark and his notion of a Type IV Universe.

This is a bad description. A "Type IV Universe" is not one universe, it's not "a Universe based on mathematics", it's a multiverse where every mathematically consistent construct is instantiated as a part of it.

0 can't be reached nor obtained. It's simply not in any hierarchy system and is essentially the “Supreme” ineffable being where he is real and more real than real or the entire premise being Creation being nothing more than a tiny thing that seems to hold nothing over it as just fake or unreal.

This is a bad description. It can be reached and obtained; characters will get that tier. It's not just being "even more real than the real creation".

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That might get changed in later parts of the thread.

All I can see changing regarding those tiers is Ultima moving some of the borders around. For example, 5D beings make up such a large portion of Low 1-C that it would make sense to move 6D to a higher tier.

 

[Deagonx]

If you want R>f to not be tiered at all, try making as detailed an argument as Ultima did.

That would be largely pointless, as it would have no chance of passing here.

as an entirely incoherent equivalence of a jump of 1 spatial axis?

Any conceptualization of R>F that does not immediately equate to Tier 0 is equally incoherent. We are just choosing the stopping point that suits us best. We don't need to dress it up as more than it is. I am not defending the "single spatial axis jump." Though in general the concept of a spatial axis being infinitely greater in power is also something arbitrary we created.

 

[Agnaa]

All I can see changing regarding those tiers is Ultima moving some of the borders around. For example, 5D beings make up such a large portion of Low 1-C that it would make sense to move 6D to a higher tier.

I've heard Ultima have qualms with the general setup of tier 2 before. With the idea of there being a distinction between destroying 4 timelines and 8 timelines.

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Honestly that hypothetical feels like a case where a verse is contradicting itself. Fictional characters need, effectively, "divine intervention" from beings of the realer world to interact with the higher reality, and yet a fictional character, with no such augmentation whatsoever, interacts with something real?

Yea I see your point there, my overall question came from Odinforce Thor (a High 1-B) absorbing power from Galactus (Enchanted Planets key), although there’s probably some context there I failed to understand ngl.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

I'm sympathetic to making all spaces from R^1 to R^omega land in the same tier, with joule values being the only real way to divy it up. That would stop the correspondence to "an additional extra spatial axis", instead drawing it equivalent to, just, being the next cardinal.

Yeah, but that'll only go so far. Unless we equate Cardinals now to not sets of infinite but rather entire states of things like planes of existence that transcend the norm of measurement.

I made a funny theory by splitting that notion into three parts: spatial, temporal, and cardinal axis. Spatial is any occupying space usually correlated with dimensions. Temporal being the time or movement of that concept in any degree, at least more than just past, present, and future. Of course, Cardinals which just correlate to many number sets or mathematics defining some sort of quantity. Anything beyond the notion of space, time, or numbers given that occupy a general physical construct would be surpassed by things betond such concepts at their core.

So, to define each layer as one set of infinite or R>F per level is quite tasteless(for a lack of better words).

I also wanna point out that once you get past 1-B, R>F differences under the current system aren't equivalent to one extra spatial axis.

Eh, still you know what the frustration holds on most people because they see it that way. It's just easier to say what we said without arguing about the nuances.

 

[Padaruyos]

I've heard Ultima have qualms with the general setup of tier 2 before. With the idea of there being a distinction between destroying 4 timelines and 8 timelines.

I've heard there's a "Tier 2 Un****ening" idea a while back which will make Low 2-C to 2-A the same in AP.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That would be largely pointless, as it would have no chance of passing here.

Ultima thought his thread had no chance of passing after DT blocked everything he proposed on https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/. He was utterly surprised when Ant endorsed him.

 

[Padaruyos]

So there's going to be a new tier right?

High Hyperverse level+ specifically for uncountably infinite amount of dimensions.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

This is a bad description. A "Type IV Universe" is not one universe, it's not "a Universe based on mathematics", it's a multiverse where every mathematically consistent construct is instantiated as a part of it.

I'm like most authors. I use Universe and Multiverse interchangeably. The “entire” should be an obvious giveaway.

This is a bad description. It can be reached and obtained; characters will get that tier. It's not just being "even more real than the real creation".

That's a limited description I put on it. Though I could specify better then again for the most part we will get the idea better once everything is put together. It's not exactly wrong is what I'm trying to get at and some people understand it better like that. However, my example also goes with the theory of Creation being a Dream of God, if you need context for the latter example.

 

[Deagonx]

Ultima thought his thread had no chance of passing after DT blocked everything he proposed on https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/.

I don't see that as being especially informative here. In the current scenario we have just decided R>F occupies the entire pinnacle of our tiering system. The odds that the staff as a whole vote to then immediately remove it entirely is essentially nil, even setting aside the fact that my general disposition towards tiering is significantly more conservative than most of our staff.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

I mean there's still time for counterarguments against Ultima. However, unless somehow that becomes good enough, I think everyone is tired of arguing for R>F, and the revamped idea of quantitative and qualitative jumps.

It just seems most people who favor one side in the first voting will most likely choose the same side. That's just how it is and some of the staff reasoning either boils down to concern over those main points I mentioned earlier or that the others do see the current system working as incoherent or they straight up don't like the idea, to begin with.

 

[Eseseso]

Ngl it did always feel weird before Ultima's thread to have 1-A be the go-to tier for "beyond dimensions" when Low 1-A meant being beyond any number of dimensions (as you transcended infinite dimensions with Low 1-A)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Ngl it did always feel weird before Ultima's thread to have 1-A be the go-to tier for "beyond dimensions" when Low 1-A meant being beyond any number of dimensions (as you transcended infinite dimensions with Low 1-A)

I just assume it has to do with “numbers” being something that's countable. That a countable set of infinity is just one of many cardinals like alephs being lower orders of axioms. With things that are inaccessible larger cardinals and are uncountable with many sets. So Low 1-A defines those as opposed to infinite D being High 1-B kinda makes sense. While 1-A would be beyond the very concepts and notions of dimensions and numbers.

 

[Agnaa]

Ngl it did always feel weird before Ultima's thread to have 1-A be the go-to tier for "beyond dimensions" when Low 1-A meant being beyond any number of dimensions (as you transcended infinite dimensions with Low 1-A)

1-A, from the time we got our tiering system from ACF, has always been the go-to tier for "beyond dimensions".

Low 1-A was added in 2019, as we saw a need for a tier that was like, well, a light version of being "beyond dimensions". Beyond a countably infinite amount, but still lying within what we took at the time as conventional definitions of dimensions.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

^Copy Cat. He had to make it look better.

 

[Eseseso]

1-A, from the time we got our tiering system from ACF, has always been the go-to tier for "beyond dimensions".

Low 1-A was added in 2019, as we saw a need for a tier that was like, well, a light version of being "beyond dimensions". Beyond a countably infinite amount, but still lying within what we took at the time as conventional definitions of dimensions.

And the whole "lite version of beyond dimensions" thing always felt weird to me.

 

[Agnaa]

And the whole "lite version of beyond dimensions" thing always felt weird to me.

Because we realised that there was room for a tier between High 1-B (countably infinitely many dimensions) and 1-A (aleph-3, beyond uncountably infinitely many dimensions).

I don't remember the full purpose of the tier. It was at least for direct statements of having uncountably infinitely many dimensions, but idk what other situations could've gotten it.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Because we realised that there was room for a tier between High 1-B (countably infinitely many dimensions) and 1-A (aleph-3, beyond uncountably infinitely many dimensions).

That seems fair but whose idea was to correlate numbers of dimensions as something to do with 1-A?

 

[Agnaa]

That seems fair but whose idea was to correlate numbers of dimensions as something to do with 1-A?

Ultima/Dee's.

Funnily enough, looking back, I see some parallels to this revision:

It fixes the aforementioned inconsistencies I mentioned (such as dimensionless/beyond-dimensional characters appearing in tiers specifically for n-dimensional characters), and also fits far more with the idea of "Attack Potency" as a whole, really.

Those "inconsistencies" only exist because we only assume they're dimensionless/beyond-dimensional in relation to that piece of fiction itself, which doesn't establish that character as being beyond infinite dimensions. This is as much of an inconsistency as "omnipotent" characters appearing in tiers specifically below omnipotence.

Beyond just arguments, to my general view of the change as a whole:

As always, my problems lie solely as minor nitpicks, or as problems with the parts trying to debunk the current system. As before my opinion's a myeh.

And similarly, very few staff members agree with me (although now I'm joined by more than just DT), while most support the change.

I hope I end up wrong, and this change gets looked upon fondly, so we don't jump back in another 4 years.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

I hope I end up wrong, and this change gets looked upon fondly, so we don't jump back in another 4 years.

Ha…funny…Well, we’re always due for a change every now and then. Though I can't say how popular this change was because it was….interesting to say nonetheless.

 

[Kairach]

So when will the voting end?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

So when will the voting end?

Probably by the end of 2025 at the earliest.