Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The main purpose of this forum is to discuss how to properly index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises.
Let’s start by addressing this question: What is Tier 0.
First and foremost, “Tier 0” is a terminology that you guys picked, and therefore it can mean anything you want. It can mean cats, it can mean pickle jars. Now, the meaning you ascribe Tier 0 is not reducible to either cats or pickle jars, but to an existence that holds the endpoint of infinite potentiality in a way that stands infinitely apart from every other potentiality. On top of that, you represent it through mathematics. Like how there’s an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2.
Here is where the problems start. Your representation is not consistent with the meaning that you seek to ascribe Tier 0 and even with the traits possessed by characters that you attribute this tier to. Unless you want to claim that these characters are not reducible to Tier 0 and you only use it because of indexing pragmatism as you specified in that footnote on "Tiering System".
So we have a contradiction on the table already: Your meaning of Tier 0 seems to point towards the endpoint of infinite potentiality, which is reflected by some choices you made with respect to characters that you deem as Tier 0 (The Amaranth), yet you self-admittingly represent the tier through mathematics because of pragmatism. However, the endpoint of infinite potentiality is automatically outside of mathematics and logic. And I have arguments for this.
But why is that the case? You might ask. Go on a journey with me:
The characters you deem as Tier 0 are more than what you represent to be Tier 0, and philosophers, theologists, etc. have thought about the proposition pertinent to the nature of infinite potentiality for a very long time. This proposition can be summed as "God". Not God as in "Zeus", but as in "The Fundamental God". Something like "Allah", "The Dao", even "Shiva" (though Shiva himself is high 1-A because he's an avatar of The Infinite Void which is Tier 0). These Gods are all Tier 0. They hold the Absolute Endpoint of Infinite Potentiality.
And this is the quintessential understanding of what all these people came to realize about something that is the Absolute Endpoint of Infinite Potentiality. Everyone from Laozi to Carl Jung to Schopenhauer to many others has this common ground between them when it comes to this kind of Being, let's call this Being “The Absolute Being" for simplicity, and I will try to summarize this understanding:
"The Absolute Being is that which can never be comprehended and that which is fundamental and necessary to everything."
- Me
And this is Tier 0: Something that is necessary and fundamental to everything. Not aleph null, not infinity, none of that. The aleph null thing might be relevant for the lower tiers but not for Tier 0. For this tier represents something upon which everything else depends on, of which its most fundamental form is most competently described as nondualistic and therefore incomprehensible for those dualistic existences depending on it (I say the most fundamental form because those dependent on it are also IT expressed in a finite way). Pretty much all the accurately tiered Tier 0 chars are that: The Amaranth, The Creator from Umineko. So Tier 0 is necessary for everything “else”. Tier 0 is necessary, everything from Tier High 1-A to the lowest depends on it. Huge difference there. I guess you could say that the only meaningful infinite disparity in potentiality is between 0 and everything else. That goes for the reason that from High 1-A to the lowest everything has a cap, no matter how far that cap is. But Tier 0 is the only existence with no cap.
Let's break down this statement more:
Why is this kind of being necessary?
There's no doubt that there is existence, you can verify this with the epistemological truth "I think therefore I am". So we postulate existence. Generally, in philosophy, there are 2 types of existence: Necessary Existence, and dependent existence.
Necessary Existence is something that can never be described by a dependant existence, but we can make some inferences about such Existence and our relationship with It. The Necessary is Absolute by definition. It has to be because otherwise, it's not Necessary. Something Necessary has to be Fundamental and something Fundamental is Absolute. There also can’t be more than 2 Absolutes because that means neither is Absolute. You can have an infinite amount of High 1-A Tiers but with Tier 0, you CAN’T.
Now, the level of "Absolute" is debatable. There are different possibilities of Absolute:
1. Something that can do anything no matter what it is: Can manipulate contradictions, can create square circles, can even make it so that THEY exist and not exist at the same time. Which would be "Hard Nonduality";
2. Something that can still manipulate contradictions, create square circles, but they most likely cannot make it so that they exist and not exist at the same time. This is Soft Nonduality. (This is where I stand. THE MINIMUM we postulate is existence. So they have to at least exist. Although this doesn't exclude them being able to erase their own existence, which would not be reversible);
3. Something maximally strong. Can do anything that can be done. Excludes making square circles (In my view, this is not likely. They. Have. To. Be. Able. To. Make. Square. Circles. ****. It [maybe].).
So The Fundamental is characterized by being Absolute which entails being Symmetrical, Nondual, Infinite Potential-Having, and these traits can be best represented by dual beings like us through the law of noncontradiction. Why? Because logical contradictions are the most taboo things that can ever exist for us. A square circle is literally not a thing. You can’t imagine it, just like The Absolute Existence.
This is how I represent the Absolute’s powers and subsequently nonduality through syntax:
Absolute: p ∧ ¬ p is True (unless you want to argue that an absolute is just maximally strong and can't generate square circles & make contradictions like "The sky does and doesn't exist." coherent. But trying to define an absolute is useless so we'll put a fork in that debate.)
Finite: p ∧ ¬ p is False, but p ∨ ¬ p can be True.
Natural language:
Absolute: The proposition: "The sky does(p) and(∧) doesn't(¬ p) exist." is True.
Finite: The proposition: "The sky does(p) and(∧) doesn't(¬ p) exist." is False, but the proposition: "The sky can or(∨) can not exist." is True.
Why is this kind of being non-describable?
Well… explaining it kind of beats the idea. They just are. Dual beings presuppose disparity, Nondual beings don’t. You just can’t conceptualize Nonduality because your mind Works in Duality. And that is why Nonduality can never be represented through Dual languages like math. It’s like trying to describe math with physics as opposed to the reverse. And even this analogy is not a true analogy because it works in duality.
This brings us to our main dish, my argument in the thread that you closed.
IF we assume the aforementioned premises then we’re left with this entailment and reductio:
The Tier 0 Being is Absolute, and that is true because we take it as a presupposition given the fact that we address the Absolute endpoint of potentiality; 2) You can't have 2 Absolutes. It doesn't make sense, saying that you can have 2 Absolutes means neither is Absolute; 3) Something Absolute is also meta-permeant. It can bypass any fictional meta. No... it does that simply by inferring the previous 2 premises.
C: There’s only 1 Tier 0 per Omniverse. And yes, our universe is also part of that so fiction is real and every universe is connected and we can postulate that via the argument from contingency + the entailment that infinite potentiality in the nondual on every axis entails infinite potential in the dual.
Brother Mohammed explains the argument from contingency very well. < Why is it the case that such existence exists.
So Idk man. I honestly call for a complete revision of Tier 0. It's best represented through the law of noncontradiction and where it breaks, and we have the backed-up inferences above of what that means.
“Armchair Philosophy”. Look, barely of what I say here is something new. I just ride on the shoulder of giants here: Schopenhauer, Carl Jung, Nietzsche, eastern religions, many great arguments, a preponderance of reason that pinpoints to these answers... etc. So watching 1 Vsauce video once doesn't warrant getting cocky over this stuff especially in front of these beasts.
If you think this proposition is clear cut then you haven't paid attention to the literature