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.
lol.
Yeah, real life matters that I won't disclose have left my disposition for wiki shit at basically 0 as of recently. Although I obviously haven't forgotten about this thread, nor did I abandon it, really. When my next reply drops, probably sometime this week, I plan to toss it back to full...
Not as of yet. After this thread is wrapped up, specifically, is when the more menial parts of the revisions will be sorted out (E.g. Tier 11, How to re-organize the tiers), and after that is when the standard pages will be rewritten and then presented in one final thread.
(I'll respond to the...
"I see spacetime as a dream/illusion/book" isn't really the only qualifier for 1-A, as of the revisions. The tier is primarily focused around transcending physical composition (With "physical" here not being restricted to like, atoms and particles and whatnot, mind you) and getting to the point...
Yeah, pretty much. Tier 0 is effectively the giga version of 1-A, so it naturally inherits all its disqualifiers. Being surpassed, or some such, would still allow it to keep 1-A, but if the interaction anti-feats get so damning that they're being shown as relative to the lower (i.e. non-1-A)...
As said prior, I'm more or less striving to be as secular as possible with these revisions, since the concept being posited here indeed isn't exclusively religious and finds a lot of equivalents in general philosophy and the like. Which is why I, again, stress that I'm being fairly general here...
Depends on what "possible world" means in that case, since there's multiple types of possibility, of course. If you think metaphysical possibility is a thing, for instance, then "All metaphysically possible worlds" wouldn't include all the tiers, since that type of possibility doesn't concern...
@DontTalkDT I read the Staff PM earlier, so I'm honestly not sure if you're still in there. But I'm pinging you directly here, anyway, juuuust in case. Since the above, I think, cleared up some misunderstandings going around.
Honestly, as I estimate the situation, I don't think we are really...
I've been away for a while, so, this post will be a bit long. All-in-all, will pretty much act as a recap of sorts. Especially since I fear I probably expressed myself badly earlier here, so:
A verse could try to do this, yeah, but as soon as it tries to, it ultimately just disqualifies any of...
Quite sure.
I still do think Yog is legitimately 0, but over the course of the past 3 weeks I've become more indifferent to that. I'm willing to defend it but I can take it or leave it, at the end of the day.
Hah. Funnily this thread ties into things I'm going to bring up somewhere else later today (You know where). Crazy how that works out.
Anyway: Meh. I'd say that these peculiarities largely relate to the extremely subpar state of the ability itself, rather than anything else. Making Nondualism...
Jeez, that's a lot of stuff.
Apologies for the delay, for the matter, all. Been really busy tor the past week, so, didn't get to look at much stuff on the wiki whatsoever for that time. I'll try to get to this in the weekend.
Honestly a good call, too. Immortal Thor basically made explicit every single thing I thought about the Elder Gods (Core aspects of Part 3), one after another, so.
Hi all. Sorry for the delay – Been dealing with some technical problems for the past week (Which I'm sure some of you all were already aware of). In any case, that's solved now, so:
It's not really a contradiction, because you seem to think that "The Monad exists" and "The Monad doesn't exist,"...
There really was just never a contradiction to begin with, since a Tier 0 isn't part of the set of objects whose existence is consistent with certain axioms. It is those axioms, and things are consistent with its existence. So it subordinates everything to itself, and not the other way around...
I literally thought I had lost that response and was in the process of retyping the whole thing. Glad you picked it back up.
Anyway: It would, yes. Tier 0 is cosmology-independent here, so in principle, you could have a verse where the only cosmological structure is the Monad, and it'd still be...
@Deagonx
To articulate what we've come to, off the site:
Alright, so, to make it absolutely crystal clear: By "quality" or "property," here, I don't mean "An adjective." Obviously, adjectives broadly apply to a tier 0, and I agree that something "Having only one adjective" or "Having no...
I won't lie, I was lazing out on this thread because of the whole "Let's pick apart the characters who are purported to qualify for Tier 0" aspect that got introduced yesterday. But since things are getting rather hectic, I figure I should step in and clear the waters before moving forwards with...
The concept of Tier 0 here is not specifically drawn from Roman Catholicism, no. An "absolute reality without any distinctions in its substance" is something found in philosophy from all over the world, and which by no means started with the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, I'd much rather...
The Universal of "moral greyness" is a pretty funny thought, I won't lie.
Anyway: Preferably read the posts I did up there. Hopefully this clears the water with regards to what exactly is being meant here.
As I see it, that'd be pretty much the same thing as totally erasing all aspects of a...
That also ties into what I explained to Firestorm above. I notice, as pointed out earlier, that a lot of the opposition to this proposal comes from pretty exaggerated notions of what "Beyond qualities/attributes" means. What DontTalk thought I am suggesting and what I'm actually proposing are...
I'll cover the broad case (Including some things you might already be aware of).
So, a little explanation: What is tier 0 here? It's the logical endpoint of the idea that started at 1-A, really. 1-A is, at the end of the day, very tightly bound to the idea of surpassing physical composition...
That's a little out of context, or, rather, misinterpreted. Notice that he says relation isn't predicable of God because "He isn't a substance, but a *super*substance." What he's getting at is that God transcends the qualities of creation and as such isn't really related to it by proportion with...
I can see that needing some hashing out, yeah. The discussion on it will probably be pretty short, but I'd rather not clutter the thread with parallel conversations and am about to tab out, anyway, so that's for a bit later.
I am not advocating for us to start tiering actual religious figures whatsoever and nor does that follow from anything here, especially since you can find the basic concept underlying the Tier 0 proposal in plenty of secular philosophy, too, so it's not even specifically a religious thing. At...
There is a fundamental difference there. Since the Cosmological Argument tries to conclude the existence of an omnipotent creator from facts about causation and contingency and etc. I'm already assuming the existence of an omnipotent from the start, and then inferring what properties it should...
Truth be told, that's not really what I had in mind when you said "All truth values." I thought of it moreso as "For every characteristic of this being, it's both true, false, both, neither, and infinite other things," which doesn't seem inherently quantifiable, in my eyes. What you say seems...
A significant step-up. Although, by that, I assume it doesn't have internal *in*consistencies.
I think this is pretty succinctly explained by the fact that "All classically possible worlds + Non-classical worlds" doesn't really have a different cardinality or any metric by which we might say...
Honestly a good idea. The circumstances behind this thread are way different, anyway (Much shorter OP, for one), so, no point in following the model of the previous one.
We ball. @Agnaa
@Deagonx
Bleh. This back-and-forth's become pointless, either way. We are clearly not going to convince each other, and I feel we've already said all we need to say, and some of these points are starting to get circular on both ends. So I say we just call it a day on this one, you and I.