Analyzing the Tiering System

[Antvasima]

DontTalkDT seems to make sense, but I am not a very good person to ask, as I do not understand all of the terminology.

In any case, option 3 seems best, and we should try to keep the system possible to understand for our members and visitors.

@DarkLK

Okay. My apologies if I misunderstood their natures. The point I was trying to make is just that I want to display distinctions between very different types of (current) tiers 1-A and 0 characters.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Wait but what if a verse only has 3 dimensions but the character is beyond all 3 dimensions and beyond existence/non existence blah blah in a verse with only 3 dimensions.

Baseline low 1-A.

 

[Agnaa]

Baseline low 1-A.

no

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

It depends on how it's described.

 

[Agnaa]

@Lucius @Procrastination Read the OP, it answers this question clearly and directly.

As dimensions are mainly constructs of space and time in the sense we use them, being beyond space and time entirely would already make you "beyond-dimensional", regardless if your verse has 3, 4 or 916 spatio-temporal dimensions in it. Once you jump off the boat, you are in the water, after all. You can't really scale a character to something which straight up doesn't exist in their verse.

Treating existing beyond space and time over a Low 2-C cosmology as being in a higher dimension than it is nonsensical and doesn't conform to what dimensions are in the first place.

This is obviously a fairly glaring issue with 1-A's current, formal definition, since, going by the basics of it, any character described as "beyond space and time" would qualify, as opposed to our current treatment, where a character has to explicitly transcend infinitely-layered structures to warrant such a rating. Due to that, I really think its primary definition should be changed to "a size so big you't can reach it by stacking infinities". It is really far more straightforward, less obtuse, and also encapsulates stuff like the current "transcending all forms of space and time" pretty well.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I thought that we were going the other way.

 

[Siperri123]

@Antvasima

Both the beginning (baseline) and the peak are within the same hierarchy, so I do not think that endless levels (peak) should be singled out separately.

I agree with darklk, detaching there will be many characters that are high 1-A in the same verse.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Having the top be separated would be no different than high 3-A.

will be many characters that are high 1-A in the same verse.

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Antvasima]

@Siperri

Please explain what you mean.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Uhh... High 1-A has nothing to do with being "Nigh-Omnipotent" back in the older days of VSBW... it's just to define how powerful some 1-As are due to their complex cosmology being > most . It's just a way or organizing 1-As so it's easier to understand the difference between some 1-As .SO having several "High 1-As" as this revision defines the term wouldn't matter in actuality.

 

[Siperri123]

@Siperri

Please explain what you mean.

There are verses that have a very large hierarchy, the beings in the higher level go beyond the logic of the lower level creatures.

then there are many such hierarchies, the higher hierarchy transcends the lower hierarchy, like the difference between reality and fiction, so what tier will they be if separated?.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally do not see that as a problem. Option 3 works quite fine for me in terms of distinction in that regard.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I am down for option 3 as well

 

[Hrdlifil]

Hello people,
some people here are against the proposed change of tiering system with some good and some bad arguments as it is always the case. Let me please share with you my poposal(which i discussed with Ultima who also colaborated so it is not just my idea) which I believe is very simmilar with Ultimas and others proposal maybe just little different here and there. So this is it:

I think that our current tiering system based on number of dimensions makes a lot of sense and I would like to keep as much of it as is possible. Why do I think that? Because all else beeing the same the ability to create or destroy nD universe is much greater than the ability to create or destroy (n-1)D universe.

Example: Real world. Lets say that there was a realy powerfull 2D beeing that decided to destroy the whole 2D universe. What would happen to us? Nothing, we wouldn´t even notice as intermolecular forces are to some degree elastic and this infinitisimal cut would do nothing to them.

So I think that our tiering system is perfectly fine up to 2-C. From Low 2-C to high 1-B I think only little changes are needed, nothing to complex. I propose equateing higher spaces/levels/layers to R ^ n.

So:

2-C to 2-A stays the same with th proposed notion of equateing higher spaces/levels/layers to R ^ n.

New Low 1-B = R ^ n hierarchy for arbitrary large n from natural numbers

New Mid 1-B = arbitrary metric space whose basis has cardinality N0

New High 1-B = arbitrary metric space with basis that has cardinality N1

However above that there is where I believe the problem starts. That is because our measure doesn ´t make any sense for non-separable topologies non-housdorf. In other worlds when you start talking about spaces that are more than than P(N1) dimensional it all
breaks down. So lets do an extension that repairs this and keeps everything else the same so it isn´t too complicated for some users and we don´t throw away something that works.

So how to clasify manipulations (creation, destruction, and everything between) of spaces that are above said dimensions? Well we can simply map those spaces to cardinalities. Why would that work? Because that is the spirit of the old tiering system remember? The ability to manipulate or transcend space of certain complexity is the means of tiering our characters. So example, lets have a character C which completly transcends 1-B hierarchy so he completly transcends infinitely dimentional space. So what is above the space of complexity/dimentionality of N1(infinitely dimentional space)? Well that would be space of complexity/size P(N1) = N2. This would serve as very natural and elegand boundary between 1-B and 1-A.

So how do we do the new tiering?

First lets pick a Universe where this tiering happens (we normalize here). I propose this universe to be ZFC+GCH+There exists a inaccessible cardinal. In this universe nothing would change for tiering bellow Low 1-A. Everything would stay the samy bellow that so this is really a very smooth extention and transition.


New tier Low 1-A would be represented by hierarchy N2,N3,....,N¤ë,N¤ë+1,....,N¤ë+¤ë,.....
(so extreme amount of space to differentiate between Loa 1-A characters)


New tier Mid 1-A would be represented by hierarchy N¤ë1,...,N¤ë2,....,N¤ë_¤ë,...,N¤ë_¤ë_¤ë,....
(again extreme amount of space to differentiate between Mid 1-A characters and thiw whole hierarchy transcends Low 1-A hierarchy to unimaginable degree)


New tier High 1-A would be represented by hierarchy starting at first aleph fixed point a = Na with cof(a) = ¤ë and going onward
(same as before)


Now to top it of New Tier 0 would be represented by the inaccessible cardinal k = Nk with cof(k) = k . This is the definition of beeing above everything, transending every hierarchy, ....

So lets do this, keep what is great and just make it better. With this we would not throw away a lot of work done in previous tiering system and we would make it much better with this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A question on option 3: If High 1-A is above one infinite Outerversal hierarchy, what would Tier 0 be?

One could also consider: 1-A baseline, High 1-A Infinite Hierarchy above, Tier 0 everything beyond.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

II would assume 1-A [ is essentially baseline beyond the concept of dimensions to infinite^infinite levels of infinity above thode beyond tthe concept of dimensions , or every possible level of infinity above the concept of dimensions that can be defined by levels of infinity ]

High 1-A [is essentially transcending Outerversals to a similar degree as they transcend mortals , or being conceptually above every possible variant of a Infinite Outerversal Hierarchy]

0 [difference that cant be defined by any measure of difference of things beyond even the aforementioned]

 

[DMB_1]

From the videos that I've watched, Degrees of infinity seem to be an orderal thing, not a cardinal one, so using mutlipliers seems pointless.

Also, what do we do with 1-A characters who are statedin their verse to trascend even complex mathematics like this (which would naturally be used/have an effect in the same verse in/on Outervesal scaling)?

 

[Hrdlifil]

From the videos that I've watched, Degrees of infinity seem to be an orderal thing, not a cardinal one, so using mutlipliers seems pointless.
Also, what do we do with 1-A characters who are statedin their verse to trascend even complex mathematics like this (which would naturally be used/have an effect in the same verse in/on Outervesal scaling)?

I don´t know what you watched neither do i know what is orderal. If you mean ordinals than there is a cardinal for every ordinal and cardinal specifies size, ordinal is just about ordering

 

[Hrdlifil]

II would assume 1-A [ is essentially baseline beyond the concept of dimensions to infinite^infinite levels of infinity above thode beyond tthe concept of dimensions , or every possible level of infinity above the concept of dimensions that can be defined by levels of infinity ]
High 1-A [is essentially transcending Outerversals to a similar degree as they transcend mortals , or being conceptually above every possible variant of a Infinite Outerversal Hierarchy]

0 [difference that cant be defined by any measure of difference of things beyond even the aforementioned]

Man what you have written is just handwaving nonsense akin to suggsverse and one of the reasons the tiering system needs to change. I don´t want to ofend you but people are trying to come up with preceise system and you offer infinite above the concept of above above the concept where there isn´t even concept and even even transcend infinite (this kind of nonsense)

 

[MinarutoKSM]

Yay, Option 1 and using Inaccessible cardinals for 1A and Proper Classes for 0.

I still do question different verses and how they stack up to one another.

What would TOAA or Kami Tenchi be in DC seeing how The Presence, Super Celestials, and others are shown?

Can we still call Kami Tenchi a 0 for his verse when he could possibly be a 1-C in DC (just an example)? Or do we put him as 1-C to better correlate with DC and other verses?

Or am I not on the right track?

 

[Hrdlifil]

Yay, Option 1 and using Inaccessible cardinals for 1A and Proper Classes for 0.
I still do question different verses and how they stack up to one another.

What would TOAA or Kami Tenchi be in DC seeing how The Presence, Super Celestials, and others are shown?

Can we still call Kami Tenchi a 0 for his verse when he could possibly be a 1-C in DC (just an example)? Or do we put him as 1-C to better correlate with DC and other verses?

Or am I not on the right track?

And what kind of proper class? Ord? or No? Or do you assume V=HOD and there is bijection? Do you see why it is not a good idea to use proper classes?

 

[F_Deurkleed]

I got one question about the tiers. Where do characters with infinite 4d power scale to? Like in which tier would they be. Would be nice if stuff like that is also included in the tier System tbh.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

From the videos that I've watched, Degrees of infinity seem to be an orderal thing, not a cardinal one, so using mutlipliers seems pointless.

Also, what do we do with 1-A characters who are statedin their verse to trascend even complex mathematics like this (which would naturally be used/have an effect in the same verse in/on Outervesal scaling)?

We aren't going to take some random statements about "transcending mathematics" at face value in the new system. Things like that are really just fundamentally unprovable and should be either unquantifiable (when no context is given) or quantified based on how far "mathematics" goes in the verse itself.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I got one question about the tiers. Where do characters with infinite 4d power scale to? Like in which tier would they be. Would be nice if stuff like that is also included in the tier System tbh.

Infinite 4-D power is just Low 2-C in the new system, speaking very generally, since the tier itself is equated to R^4 (infinite 4-dimensional space) in size, while the subsequent ratings are variations thereof.

 

[Nepuko]

A question on option 3: If High 1-A is above one infinite Outerversal hierarchy, what would Tier 0 be?
One could also consider: 1-A baseline, High 1-A Infinite Hierarchy above, Tier 0 everything beyond.

If I recall correctly High 1-A is above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, something about being above even uncountably infinite "Outerversal transcendences" if I'm not wrong.

0 is how it is said above in Option 1 : " becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system ".

Have a nice day.

 

[Antvasima]

Kami Tenchi and TOAA would likely not be particularly high according to the new system, but this is off-topic, so let's return to the main issue please.

 

[Udlmaster]

I think before we should continue we should simplify everything back down again.

Because right now it's just a bunch of posturing and complex mathematical theories.

Simmer down and reduce these to their basics because throwing around "proper classes" and such with people not understanding what Ordinals or Cardinals are is making this a headache to read.

I think we should try to keep this as basic and simple to understand, remember this is a system not just for indexing but for other users to use so they can scale a character.

No one wants to have to go through a course in Mathematics and or a crash course in Cantor's set theory.

Just keep things user friendly and simple to read and understand.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree that we should keep this relatively easy to understand for our members and visitors.

 

[Sorari]

I don't understand how 1-A can be "beyond all hierarchies," and still have 0 above it.

For 0 to be above 1-A doesn't 1-A have to be placed below 0 hierarchally?

 

[KingPin0422]

Here is my problem with option 3:

The middle end of a given tier is meant to be like, the archetypal representative of what that tier should be. The middle of 5-B is based around our Earth, which is what we associate "planet level" with; the middle of 4-C is based around our Sun, which is what we associate "star level" with; etc.

Under option 3, we'd be asserting that the archetypal "hyperdimensional character" according to fiction is... an infinite-dimensional being. That's not good at all, since a hyperverse as we define it is "higher-dimensional universe," and it isn't necessarily infinite-dimensional; in fact, going by the current system, I'm certain that we have more 1-B characters than High 1-B characters.

It's the very same deal with 1-A. When someone thinks of a transcendental character, do they need to think of someone who is on an infinite level of abstraction beyond Hausdorff dimensionality? I think not. There are actually more Low 1-As than 1-As, so...

This is also one of the multiple reasons I do not like 1-C. An archetypal "string theoretic multiverse" is 10-D or 11-D, which we place at High 1-C. Meanwhile, mid 1-C is "7-D, 8-D, or 9-D characters", and it's not as noteworthy as High 1-C, I'm pretty sure.

My point is, the middle end of a tier should basically embody the tier as a whole, like, it should be what most people associate with a tier. For that reason, I would like to vote for option 1.

I am undecided on the worldly/inaccessible VS inaccessible/proper class thing, for now.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Udl

Of course. You all have to remember that all of this is obviously going to be simplified as much as possible and have a fairly thorough explanation section in the Tiering System page; Right now some of us are using the actual mathematical terminology for this stuff because it is just easier and way faster to refer to, especially when discussing with other people who already know this stuff.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't understand how 1-A can be "beyond all hierarchies," and still have 0 above it.

For 0 to be above 1-A doesn't 1-A have to be placed below 0 hierarchally?

They are above hierarchies of an Outerversal nature, but can still have hierarchies of their own.

In general, I am aware this may lead to the question of what exactly constitutes an hierarchy of an "Outerversal nature", but that is precisely why I believe we should establish a defined measuring stick to associate this stuff with. Else everything goes haywire and we have no idea of where to place what outside of vaguely-defined notions that just... can't be put into a formal context.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Wait, so what will be the requirement for Tier 0 then? What will be it's name? will we go back to True infinity for the Tier 0 name?

 

[KingPin0422]

Wait, so what will be the requirement for Tier 0 then? What will be it's name? will we go back to True infinity for the Tier 0 name?

Basically, tier 0 transcends High 1-A levels in much the same way that High 1-A transcends (Low) 1-A, and Low 1-A transcends everything beneath it.

 

[Sorari]

I don't understand how 1-A can be "beyond all hierarchies," and still have 0 above it.

For 0 to be above 1-A doesn't 1-A have to be placed below 0 hierarchally?

They are above hierarchies of an Outerversal nature, but can still have hierarchies of their own.
In general, I am aware this may lead to the question of what exactly constitutes an hierarchy of an "Outerversal nature", but that is precisely why I believe we should establish a defined measuring stick to associate this stuff with. Else everything goes haywire and we have no idea of where to place what outside of vaguely-defined notions that just... can't be put into a formal context.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but I'm confused by this.

A hierarchy, as I understand it is just a manner of ordering things, in this case I assume you mean a power hierarchy.

And while you can outline hierarchies within hierarchies, there's often one all-encompassing hierarchy that's recognized, and each fiction has one of these.

In Marvel we have TOAA > LT > Greater Abstracts > Lesser Abstracts > Cosmic Gods > Gods > Superhumans > Humans.

In this hierarchy TOAA is tier 0, but he's still part of the hierarchy of all things (as much as any other being).

You could of course have a limited universal hierarchy consisting of "Lesser Abstracts > Cosmic Gods > Gods > Superhumans > Humans" but I see no point in it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I am not really referring to in-universe hierarchies of power or the very concept of an "hierarchy" as much as setting up a defined metric based on the notion of qualitatively greater sizes, which in fiction is normally demonstrated by an hierarchy of levels of existence or greater infinities encompassing one another, just like the current 1-B is split into levels (12-D, 13-D, 14-D, and so on) which are each unreachable from the lower one.

This is pretty much what this proposal is trying to do: It's applying this idea to 1-A and making it more linear and straightfoward, overall.

 

[Sorari]

I am not really referring to in-universe hierarchies of power or the very concept of an "hierarchy" as much as setting up a defined metric based on the notion of qualitatively greater sizes, which in fiction is normally demonstrated by an hierarchy of levels of existence or greater infinities encompassing one another, just like the current 1-B is split into levels (12-D, 13-D, 14-D, and so on) which are each unreachable from the lower one.
This is pretty much what this proposal is trying to do: It's applying this idea to 1-A and making it more linear and straightfoward, overall.

Ah, so what you mean is basically beyond infinities.

But how do you determine, for certain, if a character is 1-A or 0? Because there seems to be no quantitative difference between the tiers.

Also, from my understanding you have tiers denoted by numbers, subtiers denoted by letters, and sub-subtiers denoted by high, intermediate and low. Wouldn't it be easier if the sub-subtiers were plus and minus? Like a "high 2-A" would instead be called 2A+, an "intermediate 5-C" would be called 5C, and a "low 2-B" would be 2B-? It looks a bit fancier, but it's probably too much work.

 

[Nepuko]

Maybe this pic can help. Credits to RatherClueless.


(the Tiers are those of Option 3 btw)

 

[Sorari]

Maybe this pic can help. Credits to RatherClueless.

Ah, so 1-B to High 1-A are just different levels of infinite dimensions?

 

[KingPin0422]

I guess...? Hausdorff dimensions (including space-time dimensions) cannot exist beyond Aleph one, but you could theoretically have non-Hausdorff dimensions at Low 1-A.