I will only (and can only) permit you to make one post at a time, after seeing the post you intend to make.
-
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.
VS Battles Wiki Forum
Agnaa
Tanin_iver
Do u mean to say I must type out the whole post here itself for u to evaluate first, before I can post it there?
Agnaa
Exactly.
Tanin_iver
Alright, I will do so, after I complete my draft
Tanin_iver
2. While I agree with DT's take, I personally interpreted it a bit differently in the sense that the source of the dimensions should be independent and beyond all the dimensions shown in the verse. So, I'd personally take it as +1 transcendence over whatever the verse is shown to have.
3. Agree with DT, but it isn't necessarily limited. We could also argue for transcendence if enough context is provided which should lead to High 1-B. Else, arbitrarily high into 1-B.
4. Ehh, not too sure myself, I don't see it that different from 3 honestly. "No matter how high is the plane of existence" just replace plane of existence with dimension really. I feel it is same as 3.
5. "Beyond the concept of dimensions"
I don't think this has been addressed by anyone clearly yet.
Obviously, I will assume the verse makes it clear that the dimensions in question have qualitative superiority and that it trivializes the notions of dimensions in some way such that adding any number of dimensions is completely meaningless and is completely beyond any such hierarchy achievable by it.
Well, its 1-A in that case according to the original Tiering System revision discussions proposed by Ultima.
This is because we more or less defaulted to using Real Coordinate Spaces for the concept of dimensions cardinality(Aleph-1 dimensions/Low 1-A). So being beyond its concept or transcending it should be +1 transcendence or Aleph-2 which is 1-A. Even tho it may seem a bit arbitrary in choosing it, I think it is fine as a cut-off point over whatever the new proposals that are being discussed. Although, I might change my stance if something more justifiable is presented as a cut-off.
Also, if a verse references the existence of aleph or inaccessible cardinals etc, and trivializes it, then I'd say Ultima's take is fine. We can tier it as High 1-A or even higher tiers could be achievable given enough context without the need for Infinite Hierarchies if the verse makes it clear it is above notions of such sizes. Otherwise we Low-Ball and go for 1-A.
Anyways, I think the main premise of the OP and the thread has been addressed.
Otherwise, I think this thread can be concluded and closed.
The only thing now left to discuss is if the cut-off point needs to be changed and if it does than to what it should be. And that is completely beyond the scope of this thread and a new thread should be opened regarding that.
First of all I'd like to clarify that the statements you have provided for the scenarios have very little info to interpret them properly for Tiering purposes. But I'll still give it a shot at it.
1. I agree with DT's interpretation.
2. While I agree with DT's take, I personally interpreted it a bit differently in the sense that the source of the dimensions should be independent and beyond all the dimensions shown in the verse. So, I'd personally take it as +1 transcendence over whatever the verse is shown to have.
3. Agree with DT, but it isn't necessarily limited. We could also argue for transcendence if enough context is provided which should lead to High 1-B. Else, arbitrarily high into 1-B.
4. Ehh, not too sure myself, I don't see it that different from 3 honestly. "No matter how high is the plane of existence" just replace plane of existence with dimension really. I feel it is same as 3.
5. "Beyond the concept of dimensions"
I don't think this has been addressed by anyone clearly yet.
Obviously, I will assume the verse makes it clear that the dimensions in question have qualitative superiority and that it trivializes the notions of dimensions in some way such that adding any number of dimensions is completely meaningless and is completely beyond any such hierarchy achievable by it.
Well, its 1-A in that case according to the original Tiering System revision discussions proposed by Ultima.
This is because we more or less defaulted to using Real Coordinate Spaces for the concept of dimensions cardinality(Aleph-1 dimensions/Low 1-A). So being beyond its concept or transcending it should be +1 transcendence or Aleph-2 which is 1-A. Even tho it may seem a bit arbitrary in choosing it, I think it is fine as a cut-off point over whatever the new proposals that are being discussed. Although, I might change my stance if something more justifiable is presented as a cut-off.
Also, if a verse references the existence of aleph or inaccessible cardinals etc, and trivializes it, then I'd say Ultima's take is fine. We can tier it as High 1-A or even higher tiers could be achievable given enough context without the need for Infinite Hierarchies if the verse makes it clear it is above notions of such sizes. Otherwise we Low-Ball and go for 1-A.
Anyways, I think the main premise of the OP and the thread has been addressed.
@Agnaa I don't think anything new has been brought up That may require us to change the FAQ and like you said it already seems consistent with our interpretations. But if you still have any new suggestions you may bring it up.
Otherwise, I think this thread can be concluded and closed.
The only thing now left to discuss is if the cut-off point needs to be changed and if it does than to what it should be. And that is completely beyond the scope of this thread and a new thread should be opened regarding that.
Tanin_iver
Is the above fine, or needs some changing