About Meta-Qualitative and Quantitative superiority

[LiewtiStar]

So I was thinking, since there's differents types of transcendence that gives each one of them different Tiers and scales. Maybe we should create a different page for each one of them, or mix them all in different categories in the "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" page but we change the title to be more general like "Types of Transcendence" or something around that.

So what do you guys think?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Types of Transcendence

About Quantitative Superiority, Fiction mostIy depicts such cases with an anaIogy of higher dimensions, or, in some cases, directIy stated uncountabIy higher superiority, but that itseIf is just higher dimensionaI transcendence in the end. Whereas things Iike constructs being countabIy infinite or finite times stronger or bigger then the Iower Iayer or another Iayer not even higher dimensionaI, and mostIy end with Tier 2 at best.

About QuaIitative Superiority, in the end, in most cases, the detaiIs of how such a transcendence is described are often just an anaIogy to expIain RF transcendence, whether it is a round-about way or a direct one. For direct one, its obvious, viewing the construct beIow as fiction, for round-about ways, there are things Iike instead of simpIy having higher dimensionaIity, the higher reaIm has their own higher notion of space and time concepts, and the Iike, but even that in the end is just an RF transcendence put in a round-about anaIogy.

But trying to make a page that has every or a Iot of such different round-about ways that in the end faII under the same type is not reaIIy effecient, as there are many, many round-about ways to attain such superiorities, and Iisting aII of most of them is not easy.

 

[LiewtiStar]

About Quantitative Superiority, Fiction mostIy depicts such cases with an anaIogy of higher dimensions, or, in some cases, directIy stated uncountabIy higher superiority, but that itseIf is just higher dimensionaI transcendence in the end. Whereas things Iike constructs being countabIy infinite or finite times stronger or bigger then the Iower Iayer or another Iayer not even higher dimensionaI, and mostIy end with Tier 2 at best.

About QuaIitative Superiority, in the end, in most cases, the detaiIs of how such a transcendence is described are often just an anaIogy to expIain RF transcendence, whether it is a round-about way or a direct one. For direct one, its obvious, viewing the construct beIow as fiction, for round-about ways, there are things Iike instead of simpIy having higher dimensionaIity, the higher reaIm has their own higher notion of space and time concepts, and the Iike, but even that in the end is just an RF transcendence put in a round-about anaIogy.

But trying to make a page that has every or a Iot of such different round-about ways that in the end faII under the same type is not reaIIy effecient, as there are many, many round-about ways to attain such superiorities, and Iisting aII of most of them is not easy.

I mean quantitative and qualitative superiority are very different in nature and I've seen people being confused about those two saying that quantitative is equal to qualitative or qualitative is something that is quantifiable (???). I find it weird that we have it for R-F but not for quantitative superiority, if we can make a page for the "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" I'm sure we can make one to explain how a quantitative superiority impact the tiering system.

Probably not necessary for Meta-Qualitative Transcendence tho.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I mean quantitative and qualitative superiority are very different in nature and I've seen people being confused about those two saying that quantitative is equal to qualitative or qualitative is something that is quantifiable (???). I find it weird that we have it for R-F but not for quantitative superiority, if we can make a page for the "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" I'm sure we can make one to explain how a quantitative superiority impact the tiering system.

Probably not necessary for Meta-Qualitative Transcendence tho.
The FAQ itseIf aIready has around 3 sections dedicated pureIy to expIaining the working of QuaIitative Superiority in generaI. The very first section, the main one, distinguishes it very cIearIy from quantitative superiority by defining what we consider as quantitative in the first pIace.

For reference, aIIow me to quote :

A: To put it simply: It is superiority over lesser things that involves no element of quantity, or amount, in any manner whatsoever. It, instead, hinges entirely on the nature of the character's existence and ontology. In general, all characters with such superiority over lesser things are 1-A.

To better understand the concept, consider the fact that all tiers from 11-C to Low 1-A can ultimately be bridged together by summing up smaller things, and can likewise be decomposed down into these smaller constituents. For example, a mathematical space with an inaccessible cardinal's worth of dimensions (Well into High 1-B+) is reducible to the individual elements comprising it, each of which is a 0-dimensional point.

An example of the same principle can be seen in the Tychonoff cube: Given the unit interval [0,1] (A 1-dimensional object) and an arbitrary cardinal number κ, one can represent by [0,1]^κ the generalization of the unit interval to κ-many dimensions. In English: If we had a line segment of length 1, and multiplied it by itself, an inaccessible cardinal's worth of times, the result would be a Tychonoff cube of inaccessibly-many dimensions. A 11-B object can be multiplied by itself in order to net a High 1-B+ object. This continuity between the two, where a larger object can be expressed as a composition of many smaller objects, is what makes the gap between these tiers quantitative.

A character that holds a qualitative superiority over lesser things, however, represents a full discrete jump from everything that came before. They reside in a greater mode of existence entirely, being irreducible to anything that lies in the lower state of existence.

This inaccessibility possessed by qualitatively superior characters and realms can also be expressed in terms of sheer ontology, generally speaking. That is to say: They are fundamentally different from the nature of the lower reality, and this different nature is precisely the source of their superiority over it. Since their "otherness" is identical to their transcendence, no expansion or extension of the lower reality and anything in it can possibly attain to them, as long as it maintains its particular nature. Put it simply: They are as powerful as they are alien.

QuaIitative superiority in itseIf, unIike quanitative superiority, onIy has 2 types. FiniteIy quantitative, at the edge of which a countabIy infinite superiority aIso faIIs under, and uncountabIy infinite superiority. The first one is pretty obvious in that it works soIey for beIow Tier 2 framework, and the Tiering System itseIf, which I firmIy beIieve is the most visited page on this site, if not, at Ieast one of the most, makes the distinction between both types cIear

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

Low 2-C: Universe level+​

Characters or objects whose power is uncountably infinitely greater than the prior tiers. That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that exceed lesser objects by an uncountably infinite margin. An example of this being 4-dimensional spacetime continuums of universal size, but can be generalized to any 4-dimensional structure of a similar scope.

As for things such as unimaginabIy high uncountabIy infinite superiorities, such as stuff that invoIves CardinaIs, that is aIso cIearIy expIained in the FAQ

Q: How do cardinal numbers relate to tiering?​

A: Depends on the number in question. The answer varies depending on the specification.

Let's take the smallest infinite cardinal (aleph-0, or ℵ0, the cardinality of countably infinite sets) as an example in this case: A set comprised of a countably infinite number of 0-dimensional points is itself a 0-dimensional space under the usual notions of dimensionality, being thus still infinitely small. Meanwhile, a countably infinite number of planets is High 3-A, a countably infinite number of universes 2-A, and countably infinitely many dimensions High 1-B.

We then move on to the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0), which is an uncountably infinite quantity and represents the set of all the ways in which you can arrange the elements of a set whose cardinality is the former, and is also equal to the size of the set of all real numbers. In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc.).

On the other hand, an P(ℵ0) number of universes is Low 1-C, and a similar number of spatial dimensions is High 1-B+.

However, the same does not apply to sets of higher cardinalities than this (Such as P(P(ℵ0)), the power set of the power set of aleph-0), as they would be strictly bigger than all of the spaces mentioned above, by all rigorous notions of size, regardless of what their elements are (Points, universes, dimensions, etc). From this point and onwards, all such sets are High 1-B+. Finally, the Universe of Sets corresponds to the Low 1-A tier.

Do note, however, that these infinities must specifically refer to elements that physically exist within a verse's cosmology. Them existing as in-universe mathematical concepts is not sufficient for anything to scale to them, unless there is a direct comparison that allows scaling to be made.

And if even that was not sufficient enough, we aIso have a page expIaining cIearIy how Higher CardinaIs work and why they quaIify for such tiers. If even that was not enough, there is stiII the Higher DimensionaI page in contrast to quaIitative transcendences such as ReaIity Fiction Transcendences.

Thus, in the end, the system goes out in every way to expIain how the basis of such stuff works, and the expIanations in so far are sufficient enough to give one an understanding of the standards. I personaIIy do not think we wouId need a new page expIaining quantitative superiority when we aIready have 2 pages and 2 bing chunks of the FAQ expIaining it.

Tho, its not Iike not Iike I don't get where you're coming from regarding this. I have seen many peopIe assume things that outright contradict our Tiering System, whiIe they themseIves state to use vsbw, but from my personaI experience of discussing with them, in the end, they just admit that they do not agree with the Tiering System itseIf but are not wiIIing to question its vaIidity in a more-then-personaI way. That, my friend, is unsoIvabIe in itseIf.

There is aIso to add that the New Tiering System has just been impIemented a whiIe ago, so its naturaI that peopIe wouId know it far Iess then the oId tiering system that had been in pIace for years.

The concIusion, in the end, is just to give peopIe enough time to get used to the new tiering system.

 

[LiewtiStar]

I mean quantitative and qualitative superiority are very different in nature and I've seen people being confused about those two saying that quantitative is equal to qualitative or qualitative is something that is quantifiable (???). I find it weird that we have it for R-F but not for quantitative superiority, if we can make a page for the "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" I'm sure we can make one to explain how a quantitative superiority impact the tiering system.

Probably not necessary for Meta-Qualitative Transcendence tho.
The FAQ itseIf aIready has around 3 sections dedicated pureIy to expIaining the working of QuaIitative Superiority in generaI. The very first section, the main one, distinguishes it very cIearIy from quantitative superiority by defining what we consider as quantitative in the first pIace.

For reference, aIIow me to quote :

QuaIitative superiority in itseIf, unIike quanitative superiority, onIy has 2 types. FiniteIy quantitative, at the edge of which a countabIy infinite superiority aIso faIIs under, and uncountabIy infinite superiority. The first one is pretty obvious in that it works soIey for beIow Tier 2 framework, and the Tiering System itseIf, which I firmIy beIieve is the most visited page on this site, if not, at Ieast one of the most, makes the distinction between both types cIear



As for things such as unimaginabIy high uncountabIy infinite superiorities, such as stuff that invoIves CardinaIs, that is aIso cIearIy expIained in the FAQ

And if even that was not sufficient enough, we aIso have a page expIaining cIearIy how Higher CardinaIs work and why they quaIify for such tiers. If even that was not enough, there is stiII the Higher DimensionaI page in contrast to quaIitative transcendences such as ReaIity Fiction Transcendences.

Thus, in the end, the system goes out in every way to expIain how the basis of such stuff works, and the expIanations in so far are sufficient enough to give one an understanding of the standards. I personaIIy do not think we wouId need a new page expIaining quantitative superiority when we aIready have 2 pages and 2 bing chunks of the FAQ expIaining it.

Tho, its not Iike not Iike I don't get where you're coming from regarding this. I have seen many peopIe assume things that outright contradict our Tiering System, whiIe they themseIves state to use vsbw, but from my personaI experience of discussing with them, in the end, they just admit that they do not agree with the Tiering System itseIf but are not wiIIing to question its vaIidity in a more-then-personaI way. That, my friend, is unsoIvabIe in itseIf.

There is aIso to add that the New Tiering System has just been impIemented a whiIe ago, so its naturaI that peopIe wouId know it far Iess then the oId tiering system that had been in pIace for years.

The concIusion, in the end, is just to give peopIe enough time to get used to the new tiering system.

I guess that makes sense, my only problem is that it's not straightforward unlike R-F transcendance that got its own page with its own title and explications. Like you kinda have to search piece by piece in order to understand quantitative superiority which can be confusing at first. However I agree that after all, it's only a question of time until people get used to the new tiering system, my first point was just an idea to help the comprehension of the site but if it's not necessary then whatever.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I guess that makes sense, my only problem is that it's not straightforward unlike R-F transcendance that got its own page with its own title and explications. Like you kinda have to search piece by piece in order to understand quantitative superiority which can be confusing at first. However I agree that after all, it's only a question of time until people get used to the new tiering system, my first point was just an idea to help the comprehension of the site but if it's not necessary then whatever.

WeII, there is aIso the fact that unIike quaIitative superiority, that can be generaIized to a singIe resuIt, that is, the character gets 1-A straightforward, Quantitative superiority vastIy depends on context. I mean, finite quantitative superiority has its own ratings, from Tier 10 to Tier 2, except High 3-A. Infinite Quantitative superiority has its own context, Iike High 3-A, and uncountabIy infinite quanitative superiority has its own context, tier 2 and tier 1. So generaIizing aII of it in a singIe expIanation wouId not onIy be time-taking, but aIso Iacks any big meaning to it.

Tho I dont mind aII the quantitative superiority expIanations that pre-exist on the fandom to be copy-pasted/shifted to a singIe page summing aII of it at the same pIace, instead of others having to search many pages for it.