Tiering System Revision (Tier 4-C and up)

[Laxxius]

(made some edits for clarity)

This is a serious post, but I'm absolutely not expecting this content revision to take place. I was looking through the current Tiering System, and checking out the changes being made to the current one at the higher tiers, and I thought the current tiering system was largely fine but a bit strange at places. So, I decided to revise the tiering system to something I think is a bit more natural/intuitive.

My Revised Tiering System:

Low 4-C is axed
4-C now encompasses Low 4-C up to 4-B (small star to solar system)
High 4-C is the same as the current tiering system's 4-A (multi solar system)
4-B is the same as the current tiering system's 3-C (galaxy)
High 4-B is added, and is the same as the current tiering system's 3-B
4-A is the same as the current tiering system's 3-A

---

Tier 3 is where things start getting more interesting
I have 3-C defined as "possessing an infinite amount of physical power" (intentionally slightly vague). This roughly puts it at the current tiering system's High 3-A.
High 3-C is added; it describes characters who can affect more than 3 spatial dimensions. So, anywhere from 4 to infinity+. This doesn't really correspond to any tier in the current system
3-B is like the current system's Low 2-C, except that the current Low 2-C only considers a character which can affect 3 spatial plus 1 temporal dimension. I define my 3-B as the ability to destroy/create a single timeline or temporal dimension. My reasoning for putting this above my 3-C, is that if you can destroy/create an entire timeline, then you also destroy the space along with it. Regardless of how many spatial dimensions are flowing through time in a given universe.
High 3-B is new and encompasses tiers 2-B to 2-A, while including my definition of 3-C
3-A I have defined as the ability to affect additional dimensional axes superior to space & time. And that includes up to an infinite number of infinitely many different types of dimensional axes. For example, an infinite hierarchy of ephemeral god-inhabited dimensions beyond space&time, each existing beyond the next. I believe this is roughly the same as the current system's 1-B or High 1-B.

---

Tier 2 is the tier I'm the least proud of. Not sure how to improve it.
2-C is now the same as the community revised 1-A, I believe. Basically, the idea is that you fundamentally transcend all of reality and whatever different dimensions it may consist of. They become effectively irrelevant to you by some means. Maybe all of your reality is just your elaborate dream and you exist on a higher plane, or maybe you're the author of reality, etc.

2-B is now encompassed by the current 1-A (I think). For 2-B, my idea is that you do the whole "transcending reality" thing more than once, and this would cap at transcending reality infinitely many times. Ideally this character should be able to transcend reality at will, not merely exist transcended a bunch of times.

2-A is the current system's 1-A+ (I think). So for this you transcend an infinite hierarchy of reality transcendings. So, it's not enough to sit at the top of this hierarchy. You must transcend it altogether.
High 2-A is also encompassed by the current 1-A+, I believe. My definition of it is that you do the whole transcending shtick some transfinite ordinal amount of times. [THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH ISN'T NECESSARY; FEEL FREE TO SKIP IT] Because we're transcending to higher and higher layers, an ordinal hierarchy is created. For example: A character transcends an infinite hierarchy of realities, but then they find themselves in a new hierarchy. So they work their way up and transcend that hierarchy too. They proceed to transcend an infinite number of these infinite hierarchies, and find themselves to in fact be in an infinite hierarchy of infinite hierarchies of infinite hierarchies. This would still put them on the hilariously low end of High 2-A in my revised tiering system. I believe it somewhat corresponds to the ordinal number w^3. You would need to have some insane recursive loops of saying "transcends" and "hierarchies" just to get anywhere close to w^w. Or, you can have a cleverly defined cosmology. And of course, this extends to even higher ordinals which are insane to reach.

---

Hopefully you aren't bored from reading that block of text.
My 1-C is similar to the current High 1-A. I define it as "existing in a state not definable under ZFC". This includes inaccessible cardinal-type things. I think it could also maybe include things that can create/modify truth values to be neither true nor false (many-valued logic), so long as they don't create a logical contradiction.

My 1-B isn't analogous to a current tier. I define it as "existing as some fundamental logical truth(s)". For example, you are the idea that 3 = 3. This is a pretty immutable being, so I figured it ought to be very powerful.

My 1-A is the same as the community's revised Tier 0. The difference between my Tier 1-A and Tier 1-B, is that multiple Tier 1-B characters can exist (imagine "2 equals 2" and "(A is B) and (B is C) implies (A is C)" getting along and being friends), and they can have different properties, while tier 1-A is totally immutable.

---

Tier 0 is easily my boldest change. I define it as any character which either: does not exist/has no properties, OR a character whose nature is a fundamental logical contradiction. This makes Tier 0 a nice garbage tier to toss in everything that gets defined haphazardly. Anything that is "beyond description" is Tier 0, because it has just been described, and so it's contradictory & meaningless. Anything that can set True = False or 0 = 1 can also go here. Anything that both exists and does not exist can go here. I hope this tier can be flexible too, as it could be used to trash any iteration of a character that has some contradictory nonsense. This tier I'm sure would be excellent for various SCPs, or whatever else has notoriously illogical explanations of power level.

END

Anyway I'm quite new here and I don't really understand most of what goes on, so this is a total newcomer perspective on this. I'm sure everyone and their grandma has already thought of a way to revise the tierlist, and that it's become a tired talking point, but hopefully I put in enough effort into this one. Let me know what you all think!

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I highly doubt we will be making changes; seems like something that's just "Attempting too hard to fix what isn't broken."

 

[Laxxius]

I highly doubt we will be making changes; seems like something that's just "Attempting too hard to fix what isn't broken."

yeah I'd be shocked if my proposal was actually even considered, even if I like it more than the current tiering system

 

[Qawsedf234]

The main reasons the tiering splits are made in the first place is for profiling purposes. Its why only 4D has three tiers devoted to it while everything else only has one, but a lot more people are universal to multiversal compared to 5D or whatever. Your suggestion would like, ultra-bloat everything since they'd be tiers with a couple thousand people in it.

Also some of these have contradicting definitions. Like 3-B would be 1-B or High 1-B by your definition when you're only listing it as 4D.

 

[Laxxius]

The main reasons the tiering splits are made in the first place is for profiling purposes. Its why only 4D has three tiers devoted to it while everything else only has one, but a lot more people are universal to multiversal compared to 5D or whatever. Your suggestion would like, ultra-bloat everything since they'd be tiers with a couple thousand people in it.

Also some of these have contradicting definitions. Like 3-B would be 1-B or High 1-B by your definition when you're only listing it as 4D.

that makes sense. I have no idea how many characters have which qualities.

there aren't any contradicting definitions, or the way I've communicated it is weird. The way I see it, a single temporal dimension should intuitively supersede any number of spatial dimensions, which is why I list it above my High 3-C (infinite spatial dimensions). More specifically, I define my 3-B as the ability to wholly create or destroy a timeline. To me, if a character can do this then it's likely that they necessarily are also able to wholly create or destroy up to an infinite amount of spatial dimensions. I likened my 3-B to the current Low 2-C, but I can see how that is misleading so I'll change that

 

[Eclipso]

Hopefully you aren't bored from reading that block of text.
My 1-C is similar to the current High 1-A. I define it as "existing in a state not definable under ZFC". This includes inaccessible cardinal-type things.

Inaccessible cardinals are perfectly definable in ZFC.

I think it could also maybe include things that can create/modify truth values to be neither true nor false (many-valued logic), so long as they don't create a logical contradiction.

You can investigate and define many valued logics with regular logic as the metatheory just fine, similarly, you can with ZFC. Some element G of n^M, not in 2^M(where M is the set of propositions in said model) obeying some specific rules of said logic can easily be used to define an n-valued logic, where G(p)=0 denotes “G says p is false”, G(p)=1 denotes “G says p is true”, G(p)=m for some m<n or m=n denote “G says p is the m-the truth value”.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

High 3-C is added; it describes characters who can affect more than 3 spatial dimensions. So, anywhere from 4 to infinity+. This doesn't really correspond to any tier in the current system
3-B is like the current system's Low 2-C, except that the current Low 2-C only considers a character which can affect 3 spatial plus 1 temporal dimension. I define my 3-B as the ability to destroy/create a single timeline or temporal dimension. My reasoning for putting this above my 3-C, is that if you can destroy/create an entire timeline, then you also destroy the space along with it. Regardless of how many spatial dimensions are flowing through time in a given universe.

This does not make sense. You cannot assume that someone who destroyed 3D+1D structure can also destroy 4D+1D one.

Also, no offense, but this is really unnecessary, will cause a lot of changes for almost all of profiles, some of this is not legit, and I doubt this will be even considered.

 

[Jin2188]

This is a neat idea, it would clarify some stuff and add some tiers in between so there aren't absurd jumps from one tier to another. I'll try my hand at building on this.

Don't ax Low 4-C, but merge High 4-C from the current system into 4-C. Make High 4-C Solar System level.
Add Low 4-B for Multi-Solar System level, and make 4-B Galaxy level
Add Low 4-A for Multi-Galaxy level, and make 4-A Universe level.

I think you should have it be Low 3-C and 3-C, instead of 3-C and High 3-C. It's just cleaner imo. Low 3-C should be defined as "being able to exert an infinite amount of physical force", and 3-C should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in higher spatial dimensions" which would go from 4 to any higher finite amount. I think there should also be a High 3-C that would be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in an infinite amount of higher spatial dimensions", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite spatial dimensions. I agree that there should be a distinction between affecting objects in higher-dimensional space, and affecting space itself, that distinction doesn't seem to exist right now.

Add Low 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect an entire space-time continuum".
Define 3-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect multiple separate space-time continuums", going from 2 up to any higher finite number.
Add High 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect infinite separate space-time continuums", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite space-time continuums.

Low 3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist in a layer above spatial dimensionality". This would be equivalent to the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level.

3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This is a bit of a mouthful, so I'll try to explain what I mean. Quantitative transcendence (afaik) is the idea that a higher level of reality is reducible to the elements comprising it within the levels of reality below it. For example, a 4D tesseract is reducible to all the 3D cubes within it, or all the 2D planes, or all the 1D lines. This is what VSBattles uses for dimensional tiering, but since we've already moved beyond spatial dimensionality, I've chosen to use the term "quantitative transcendence" instead of "dimension" as a catch-all for layers of reality that function via quantitative transcendence but aren't described as dimensions. 3-A would go from 2 quantitative transcendences up to any higher finite number, spanning from the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level to its Hyperverse level.

Add High 3-A, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This, just like High 3-C and High 3-B, can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite quantitative transcendences (this would include the infinite number of infinitely many types of dimensional axes you described). I believe this would also be within the scope of the community revised Low 1-A:

That is, they either encompass, or can affect structures which encompass, the collection including all possible dimensional spaces.

Low 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that qualitatively transcend material composition as a whole", those being structures that are irreducible to anything below them, unlike quantitative transcendence.

2-C should be equivalent to all the higher layers of 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of qualitative transcendence". Just like 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C, this would start from 2 and would extend to any higher finite number of qualitative transcendences.

High 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's 1-A+. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite qualitative transcendences.

Low 2-B should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside a hierarchy of layers of qualitative transcendence". Such a hierarchy does not necessarily need to have infinite layers, but what's important is that it transcends the hierarchy as a whole, instead of just existing on the highest layer of it.

2-B should be equivalent to all the higher layers of High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". "Meta-qualitative", in this case, refers to a type of structure that exists above qualitative transcendence in the same way that qualitative transcendence exists above quantitative transcendence. This starts from 2 and extends to any higher finite number of meta-qualitative transcendences.

High 2-B should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite meta-qualitative transcendences.

2-A would just be this process stacked on itself an arbitrary number of times. We'll consider baseline 2-A equivalent to the ordinal w^3, like you did in your example. This tier would start there, and extend to w^4, w^5, and w^any higher finite number.

High 2-A should be equivalent to the current tiering system's High 1-A+. Baseline High 2-A would be equivalent to the ordinal w^w, but would keep going from there, extending to w^w^w, w^w^w...^w, and even further beyond that. This tier would have no upper bound, and would be considered to be the farthest that mathematics can take you.

Your definition for 1-C is alright, but I would define it as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside of the framework of mathematics". Such a character would be able to affect structures within a "logical space" that is governed not by mathematics, but by a given logical system.

I like your definition for 1-B, it's very unique, but it doesn't really fit into the framework I'm building here, because a "fundamental logical truth", would most likely be considered an "object" within "logical space", which a 1-C character would be able to manipulate. Rather, I would define 1-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of a certain logical system". While a 1-C character would be able to manipulate structures within a certain "logical space" a 1-B character would be able to manipulate that specific "logical space" as a whole. (This may include, or perhaps be, the cosmology of Modal Realism).

I will also add High 1-B here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of all logical systems". This is not the same thing as 1-B, as it bases itself of of István Aranyosi's idea of "logical pantheism".

Aranyosi suggests that God is best conceived of as being the totality of "Logical Space." Logical Space, as he expounds it, is the maximally inclusive region in which all conceivable propositions and their negations exist; not simply the collection of all possible worlds, but also containing even contradictory claims about possible worlds.

For example: Philosopher David Lewis scandalously posited the thesis of Modal realism, where possible worlds are seen as actually-existing, concrete realities that are just as real as our own world, arguing that these alternative worlds are the truthmakers for modal claims. Others, meanwhile, see possible worlds as being abstract objects, not actually concrete as our own world is, and others then see them as simply useful fictions, which we mentally construct in order to formalize statements in modal logic. For Aranyosi, all three of these positions would exist as separate "logical spaces" (uncapitalized) within the all-encompassing Logical Space (capitalized).

There would also be "logical spaces" for the different schools of logic. For example, there would be a "logical space" for classical logic, one for propositional logic, one for intuitionistic logic, and so on. Essentially, while a baseline 1-B character would be able to manipulate a single "logical space" (uncapitalized), a High 1-B character would be able to manipulate the all-encompassing Logical Space (capitalized), which contains all other "logical spaces" within.

I do not agree with your decision to equivalate 1-A with the current tiering system's Tier 0. Instead, I will define 1-A as its own tier, as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond the framework of all logical systems". Such structures would include things like Extended Modal Realism.

I will also add High 1-A here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond any and all logical and/or illogical frameworks". I'm not sure what such a structure would look like, maybe some kind of narrative framework? Whatever the case, this is basically the strongest a character could get without meeting the qualifications for Tier 0.

I'll leave Tier 0 alone, it'll be the same as it is currently. I do think there's a pretty big flaw with the idea, but I won't mention that here.

I do like the idea of a sort of "trash heap" tier though, I just don't think it should be Tier 0. Instead, I'll create an entirely new tier that'll exist "below" 11-C. I'll call it Tier Ω: Irrelevant. Characters that go into this tier are fundamentally impossible to scale accurately, either because of conflicting canons, internal contradictions, or something else. I disagree on what exactly should go in this tier, however. I believe that a character should only go in this tier if the nature of their existence or the nature of the story they exist in makes scaling them inherently unreliable. Most of the Suggsverse would probably go in this tier. SCP, however, generally has reliable scaling, even if certain characters have internal contradictions, so most SCPs would not go in this tier.

 

[Jin2188]

This does not make sense. You cannot assume that someone who destroyed 3D+1D structure can also destroy 4D+1D one.

You also cannot assume that destroying a 4D hypercube means that someone can destroy an entire space-time continuum, which is what the current tiering system does. I think that this is far more reliable, since destroying a space-time continuum means you're destroying space, aka the framework for any spatial dimensions that can exist.

 

[Arceus0x]

https://media.**********.net/attachments/1106665035759108248/1269997311568773252/i-said-let-him-cook-v0-3h011y9py8da1.jpg?ex=66b218aa&is=66b0c72a&hm=7ad66c6a3582ccff5a6dcdd48c88cb9bc2167dd8242781a5636356614879ce1f&

 

[Eclipso]

There would also be "logical spaces" for the different schools of logic. For example, there would be a "logical space" for classical logic, one for propositional logic, one for intuitionistic logic, and so on.

Your very own logic says prop logic is classical logic. That doesn’t make very much sense with how you distinguish them.

Classical logic is a group of the usual logics, mostly PL and FOL. Why would they have different spaces?

 

[Lloydblitzed]

Disagree with these changes, I really don't see why we should even change those tiers to begin with

 

[Ryzen7900X]

fun and games.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This is not a sensible change.

 

[Ryzen7900X]

This is a neat idea, it would clarify some stuff and add some tiers in between so there aren't absurd jumps from one tier to another. I'll try my hand at building on this.

Don't ax Low 4-C, but merge High 4-C from the current system into 4-C. Make High 4-C Solar System level.
Add Low 4-B for Multi-Solar System level, and make 4-B Galaxy level
Add Low 4-A for Multi-Galaxy level, and make 4-A Universe level.

I think you should have it be Low 3-C and 3-C, instead of 3-C and High 3-C. It's just cleaner imo. Low 3-C should be defined as "being able to exert an infinite amount of physical force", and 3-C should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in higher spatial dimensions" which would go from 4 to any higher finite amount. I think there should also be a High 3-C that would be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in an infinite amount of higher spatial dimensions", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite spatial dimensions. I agree that there should be a distinction between affecting objects in higher-dimensional space, and affecting space itself, that distinction doesn't seem to exist right now.

Add Low 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect an entire space-time continuum".
Define 3-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect multiple separate space-time continuums", going from 2 up to any higher finite number.
Add High 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect infinite separate space-time continuums", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite space-time continuums.

Low 3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist in a layer above spatial dimensionality". This would be equivalent to the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level.

3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This is a bit of a mouthful, so I'll try to explain what I mean. Quantitative transcendence (afaik) is the idea that a higher level of reality is reducible to the elements comprising it within the levels of reality below it. For example, a 4D tesseract is reducible to all the 3D cubes within it, or all the 2D planes, or all the 1D lines. This is what VSBattles uses for dimensional tiering, but since we've already moved beyond spatial dimensionality, I've chosen to use the term "quantitative transcendence" instead of "dimension" as a catch-all for layers of reality that function via quantitative transcendence but aren't described as dimensions. 3-A would go from 2 quantitative transcendences up to any higher finite number, spanning from the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level to its Hyperverse level.

Add High 3-A, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This, just like High 3-C and High 3-B, can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite quantitative transcendences (this would include the infinite number of infinitely many types of dimensional axes you described). I believe this would also be within the scope of the community revised Low 1-A:

Low 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that qualitatively transcend material composition as a whole", those being structures that are irreducible to anything below them, unlike quantitative transcendence.

2-C should be equivalent to all the higher layers of 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of qualitative transcendence". Just like 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C, this would start from 2 and would extend to any higher finite number of qualitative transcendences.

High 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's 1-A+. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite qualitative transcendences.

Low 2-B should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside a hierarchy of layers of qualitative transcendence". Such a hierarchy does not necessarily need to have infinite layers, but what's important is that it transcends the hierarchy as a whole, instead of just existing on the highest layer of it.

2-B should be equivalent to all the higher layers of High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". "Meta-qualitative", in this case, refers to a type of structure that exists above qualitative transcendence in the same way that qualitative transcendence exists above quantitative transcendence. This starts from 2 and extends to any higher finite number of meta-qualitative transcendences.

High 2-B should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite meta-qualitative transcendences.

2-A would just be this process stacked on itself an arbitrary number of times. We'll consider baseline 2-A equivalent to the ordinal w^3, like you did in your example. This tier would start there, and extend to w^4, w^5, and w^any higher finite number.

High 2-A should be equivalent to the current tiering system's High 1-A+. Baseline High 2-A would be equivalent to the ordinal w^w, but would keep going from there, extending to w^w^w, w^w^w...^w, and even further beyond that. This tier would have no upper bound, and would be considered to be the farthest that mathematics can take you.

Your definition for 1-C is alright, but I would define it as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside of the framework of mathematics". Such a character would be able to affect structures within a "logical space" that is governed not by mathematics, but by a given logical system.

I like your definition for 1-B, it's very unique, but it doesn't really fit into the framework I'm building here, because a "fundamental logical truth", would most likely be considered an "object" within "logical space", which a 1-C character would be able to manipulate. Rather, I would define 1-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of a certain logical system". While a 1-C character would be able to manipulate structures within a certain "logical space" a 1-B character would be able to manipulate that specific "logical space" as a whole. (This may include, or perhaps be, the cosmology of Modal Realism).

I will also add High 1-B here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of all logical systems". This is not the same thing as 1-B, as it bases itself of of István Aranyosi's idea of "logical pantheism".


There would also be "logical spaces" for the different schools of logic. For example, there would be a "logical space" for classical logic, one for propositional logic, one for intuitionistic logic, and so on. Essentially, while a baseline 1-B character would be able to manipulate a single "logical space" (uncapitalized), a High 1-B character would be able to manipulate the all-encompassing Logical Space (capitalized), which contains all other "logical spaces" within.

I do not agree with your decision to equivalate 1-A with the current tiering system's Tier 0. Instead, I will define 1-A as its own tier, as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond the framework of all logical systems". Such structures would include things like Extended Modal Realism.

I will also add High 1-A here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond any and all logical and/or illogical frameworks". I'm not sure what such a structure would look like, maybe some kind of narrative framework? Whatever the case, this is basically the strongest a character could get without meeting the qualifications for Tier 0.

I'll leave Tier 0 alone, it'll be the same as it is currently. I do think there's a pretty big flaw with the idea, but I won't mention that here.

I do like the idea of a sort of "trash heap" tier though, I just don't think it should be Tier 0. Instead, I'll create an entirely new tier that'll exist "below" 11-C. I'll call it Tier Ω: Irrelevant. Characters that go into this tier are fundamentally impossible to scale accurately, either because of conflicting canons, internal contradictions, or something else. I disagree on what exactly should go in this tier, however. I believe that a character should only go in this tier if the nature of their existence or the nature of the story they exist in makes scaling them inherently unreliable. Most of the Suggsverse would probably go in this tier. SCP, however, generally has reliable scaling, even if certain characters have internal contradictions, so most SCPs would not go in this tier.

this seems like OP's sock. should i take this to RVR?

 

[Laxxius]

Inaccessible cardinals are perfectly definable in ZFC.


You can investigate and define many valued logics with regular logic as the metatheory just fine, similarly, you can with ZFC. Some element G of n^M, not in 2^M(where M is the set of propositions in said model) obeying some specific rules of said logic can easily be used to define an n-valued logic, where G(p)=0 denotes “G says p is false”, G(p)=1 denotes “G says p is true”, G(p)=m for some m<n or m=n denote “G says p is the m-the truth value”.

you're right, I should've said "provable in ZFC"

unfortunately the rest is beyond what i'm able to understand in this area, so i'll take your word for it.

to think of a better example for my tier 1-C: It could be for characters that exist in a transfinite hierarchy which is greater than the PTO of ZFC

 

[Laxxius]

This does not make sense. You cannot assume that someone who destroyed 3D+1D structure can also destroy 4D+1D one.

Also, no offense, but this is really unnecessary, will cause a lot of changes for almost all of profiles, some of this is not legit, and I doubt this will be even considered.

to me, intuitively, it makes more sense to assume that than what the current tierlist does. I'm not sure how to explain it better. It just seems obvious (to me) that a character that can affect a temporal dimension can also affect any number of spatial dimensions

 

[Laxxius]

This is a neat idea, it would clarify some stuff and add some tiers in between so there aren't absurd jumps from one tier to another. I'll try my hand at building on this.

Don't ax Low 4-C, but merge High 4-C from the current system into 4-C. Make High 4-C Solar System level.
Add Low 4-B for Multi-Solar System level, and make 4-B Galaxy level
Add Low 4-A for Multi-Galaxy level, and make 4-A Universe level.

I think you should have it be Low 3-C and 3-C, instead of 3-C and High 3-C. It's just cleaner imo. Low 3-C should be defined as "being able to exert an infinite amount of physical force", and 3-C should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in higher spatial dimensions" which would go from 4 to any higher finite amount. I think there should also be a High 3-C that would be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect objects that exist in an infinite amount of higher spatial dimensions", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite spatial dimensions. I agree that there should be a distinction between affecting objects in higher-dimensional space, and affecting space itself, that distinction doesn't seem to exist right now.

Add Low 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect an entire space-time continuum".
Define 3-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect multiple separate space-time continuums", going from 2 up to any higher finite number.
Add High 3-B, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect infinite separate space-time continuums", which can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite space-time continuums.

Low 3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist in a layer above spatial dimensionality". This would be equivalent to the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level.

3-A should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This is a bit of a mouthful, so I'll try to explain what I mean. Quantitative transcendence (afaik) is the idea that a higher level of reality is reducible to the elements comprising it within the levels of reality below it. For example, a 4D tesseract is reducible to all the 3D cubes within it, or all the 2D planes, or all the 1D lines. This is what VSBattles uses for dimensional tiering, but since we've already moved beyond spatial dimensionality, I've chosen to use the term "quantitative transcendence" instead of "dimension" as a catch-all for layers of reality that function via quantitative transcendence but aren't described as dimensions. 3-A would go from 2 quantitative transcendences up to any higher finite number, spanning from the current tiering system's Low Complex Multiverse level to its Hyperverse level.

Add High 3-A, defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of quantitative transcendence over spatial dimensionality". This, just like High 3-C and High 3-B, can have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite quantitative transcendences (this would include the infinite number of infinitely many types of dimensional axes you described). I believe this would also be within the scope of the community revised Low 1-A:

Low 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that qualitatively transcend material composition as a whole", those being structures that are irreducible to anything below them, unlike quantitative transcendence.

2-C should be equivalent to all the higher layers of 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of qualitative transcendence". Just like 3-A, 3-B, and 3-C, this would start from 2 and would extend to any higher finite number of qualitative transcendences.

High 2-C should be equivalent to the current tiering system's 1-A+. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite qualitative transcendences.

Low 2-B should be equivalent to the current tiering system's baseline High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside a hierarchy of layers of qualitative transcendence". Such a hierarchy does not necessarily need to have infinite layers, but what's important is that it transcends the hierarchy as a whole, instead of just existing on the highest layer of it.

2-B should be equivalent to all the higher layers of High 1-A. It should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess multiple layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". "Meta-qualitative", in this case, refers to a type of structure that exists above qualitative transcendence in the same way that qualitative transcendence exists above quantitative transcendence. This starts from 2 and extends to any higher finite number of meta-qualitative transcendences.

High 2-B should be defined as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that possess infinite layers of meta-qualitative transcendence". Can also have a + modifier if it's talking about uncountably infinite meta-qualitative transcendences.

2-A would just be this process stacked on itself an arbitrary number of times. We'll consider baseline 2-A equivalent to the ordinal w^3, like you did in your example. This tier would start there, and extend to w^4, w^5, and w^any higher finite number.

High 2-A should be equivalent to the current tiering system's High 1-A+. Baseline High 2-A would be equivalent to the ordinal w^w, but would keep going from there, extending to w^w^w, w^w^w...^w, and even further beyond that. This tier would have no upper bound, and would be considered to be the farthest that mathematics can take you.

Your definition for 1-C is alright, but I would define it as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist outside of the framework of mathematics". Such a character would be able to affect structures within a "logical space" that is governed not by mathematics, but by a given logical system.

I like your definition for 1-B, it's very unique, but it doesn't really fit into the framework I'm building here, because a "fundamental logical truth", would most likely be considered an "object" within "logical space", which a 1-C character would be able to manipulate. Rather, I would define 1-B as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of a certain logical system". While a 1-C character would be able to manipulate structures within a certain "logical space" a 1-B character would be able to manipulate that specific "logical space" as a whole. (This may include, or perhaps be, the cosmology of Modal Realism).

I will also add High 1-B here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist as and/or represent the framework of all logical systems". This is not the same thing as 1-B, as it bases itself of of István Aranyosi's idea of "logical pantheism".


There would also be "logical spaces" for the different schools of logic. For example, there would be a "logical space" for classical logic, one for propositional logic, one for intuitionistic logic, and so on. Essentially, while a baseline 1-B character would be able to manipulate a single "logical space" (uncapitalized), a High 1-B character would be able to manipulate the all-encompassing Logical Space (capitalized), which contains all other "logical spaces" within.

I do not agree with your decision to equivalate 1-A with the current tiering system's Tier 0. Instead, I will define 1-A as its own tier, as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond the framework of all logical systems". Such structures would include things like Extended Modal Realism.

I will also add High 1-A here, which I will define as "being able to create, destroy, or significantly affect structures that exist beyond any and all logical and/or illogical frameworks". I'm not sure what such a structure would look like, maybe some kind of narrative framework? Whatever the case, this is basically the strongest a character could get without meeting the qualifications for Tier 0.

I'll leave Tier 0 alone, it'll be the same as it is currently. I do think there's a pretty big flaw with the idea, but I won't mention that here.

I do like the idea of a sort of "trash heap" tier though, I just don't think it should be Tier 0. Instead, I'll create an entirely new tier that'll exist "below" 11-C. I'll call it Tier Ω: Irrelevant. Characters that go into this tier are fundamentally impossible to scale accurately, either because of conflicting canons, internal contradictions, or something else. I disagree on what exactly should go in this tier, however. I believe that a character should only go in this tier if the nature of their existence or the nature of the story they exist in makes scaling them inherently unreliable. Most of the Suggsverse would probably go in this tier. SCP, however, generally has reliable scaling, even if certain characters have internal contradictions, so most SCPs would not go in this tier.

imo your version of 1-C and higher treads into the territory of being logically contradictory. Though, it's just my personal philosophy that mathematics is not transcendable.

the rest of it seems fine enough, though to be honest I don't understand most of the strange terms like "hyperverse" (also i skimmed through it tbh)

 

[Laxxius]

Disagree with these changes, I really don't see why we should even change those tiers to begin with

i also disagree with them now. Because if I understand right, my tiering would have many very sparse tiers and a couple very full ones. So, my system doesn't create a proper set of tiers

 

[Qawsedf234]

i also disagree with them now. Because if I understand right, my tiering would have many very sparse tiers and a couple very full ones. So, my system doesn't create a proper set of tiers

I'll close this then