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.
Sorry, it's... it's been a while since I touched this site. :S
I do stand by my previous post, though, since no one has given any counterarguments (from what I can see) and I haven't changed my mind on it myself. Other than that, I'm lost on what exactly we're doing here.
For the reset stuff, there are two details that might be worth considering:
Following a true reset, you are given the option to rename Chara, something that doesn't happen after a regular reset - it simply reuses the name you gave originally, saying "A name has already been chosen."
The only...
For the "separate spacetimes" thing, that comment from DontTalk that Agnaa posted up there simply says that two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B. Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each...
That being said, I thought of a counterexample I can use against DT's argument, one that was conveniently pointed out to me already: Nonexistent Physiology. There, the second and third "nature types" simply require either being neither existent nor nonexistent (a gap) or being both existent and...
Specifying that a character's nonduality has to also be transcendent and that it otherwise has no inherent consequences in a combat situation doesn't feel right, because in that case, any potential applications of transduality aren't from "being nondual" so much as they are from "being...
Well, since I lost interest in doing my draft (although I can try to pick it back up again later), I can only suggest that Transduality should be renamed to Nonduality. Even setting aside the age-old argument of "nondual" being the proper term in philosophy and theology, it seems that we are...
Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page. 🤞
Basically, for any statement A said about the character, should A being both true and false (a "glut") be classified separately from A being neither true nor false (a "gap")?
Can you explain why you think it's more relevant for NEP than Transduality? Don't they often intersect, anyway?
I'm not...
Quick question: does anyone think it might help to divide "is both A and not A" from "is neither A nor not A" for the purposes of Transduality classification? While they are kinda similar in principle, I feel like they'd have different applications in a combat scenario, and we also already...
This looks nothing like string theory. The "dimensions" in this case seem to just be parallel universes, as evidenced by A) them being called the "Human/Machine/etc. World" and B) the Human World being treated as the fourth of these dimensions as opposed to the third (it's the fourth to the left...
Looks great, Ultima! The one suggestion I have is to expand on "Comprises all possible character strings" in the Self-Reference ENGINE's AP description.
Oh, I wouldn't say these are my ideas, per se. I believe Ultima was the one who initially felt that tier 2 is flawed, with Aeyu and myself following suit. But yeah, I'll keep that in mind.
You know, Pain, me and a couple other people have plans to change tier 2 because we see it as inaccurately defined, and your idea actually happens to sort of fit what we want to do. I don't want to go into more detail at the moment, though.
My opinion is that the first and third scenarios should just be 3-A, and the second one should be "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C." What about cases where we know that time was affected, but not that the universes are separate spacetimes, though?
I can't fully comprehend your post, but I'll try to decipher it as well as I can.
The first thing sounds like you're saying Tegmark argued that quantum universes would be separated by space and time. If so, do you know where he stated this?
The second thing is something I already know: we have...
To add on to my previous post, I'd also like to note this excerpt from The Universes of Max Tegmark:
The idea being expressed here is simply that in a type I, II, or III multiverse, all of the universes were created from the same Big Bang, with the added detail that a level II multiverse would...
So, I did a small amount of research on multiverse theory, and I found that the concept of a bubble multiverse stems from the theory of eternal inflation, which in simple terms posits that the inflation (extreme exponential expansion) of space continues forever in most of the universe, but also...
If at all possible, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get another translator to double-check this stuff, would it? The native Japanese speaker gave some pretty compelling stuff, but just in case...
After reading the conversation between Ant and the other person, I'm inclined to agree with the conclusion that Ultima reached. The question is, where does the Self-Reference Engine scale in relation to the 0=1 axiom?
Honestly, this whole thread is kind of moot to begin with, for the simple reason that we lack an official mathematical definition of 0. It's just "you exceed the mathematical foundation of High 1-A just as it exceeds the foundation of everything below it," but unlike High 1-A which we clearly...
The real big brain move is to define tier 0 by V=Ultimate L. 👀
In all seriousness, I can't follow this thread anymore, so I'm just going to step away for a while...
I dunno about you, but equalizing characters who are qualitatively beyond an infinite High 1-A hierarchy to 1-inaccessible sounds logical if High 1-A is based on inaccessible cardinals. Besides, right now it's not clear what exactly we are treating as the baseline for tier 0. We just assume...
phew I can't believe I read all of that...
Anyway, every point I could have made for why Mahlo cardinals don't work for baseline 0 has already been accounted for, more or less. I might also add that at the moment, the written description for tier 0 doesn't give any examples of "objects which...
This is your first mistake: simply containing a High 1-B structure does not make anything Low 1-A. Think of it like this: the set of naturals is encompassed by the set of integers, which is in turn a subset of the rationals, and yet all three of these sets have the same size. Similarly, the set...
Small nitpick with the end of that last post: a better way to describe it would be "Should we edit the tiering system page to reflect our current standards, or should we update our standards to be accurate to what's written in the tiering system?"
But yeah, I support the latter option. Just...
Eh? Why not? I thought we required different universes to be separate space-time continua to qualify for the multiverse tiers, which they wouldn't be under a quilted multiverse.
I don't necessarily agree with Ultima's tiering. The multiverse being High 1-A is fine (provided the translation is accurate since that's being contested), but my point of contention is with his tiering of the hierarchies beyond it. In my opinion, something which is inaccessible to an infinite...
I agree that we should write down some standards for determining the nature of multiverses in fiction, particularly when it comes to quilted and bubble multiverses. I believe we default to multiverses being the latter unless proven otherwise, so...