Analyzing the Tiering System

[Sorari]

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.

According to Wikipedia Hausdroff Dimensions seem to be the same thing as fractional dimensions, which are lines, surfaces, bodies, etc. that because of infinite iteration they get caught in-between whole dimensions, so the coastline of of Britain is 1.21 dimensional. Because it's infinite repeating and constantly changes direction the more you zoom in (like a fractal) it's technically infinite in length, but converes at 1.21D.

This is a good video explaining it.

I don't see what this has to do with that though.

 

[Hrdlifil]

Maybe this pic can help. Credits to RatherClueless.

(the Tiers are those of Option 3 btw)

This picture is not correct and does no good but mislead people. There is no Universal set, there is no single size of Proper class, there isn ´t even notion of proper classes in ZFC, and you wrote tiers to totally wrong cardinals. This is one of the most misleading thing in this thread.

 

[Nepuko]

stuff

Tell that to Ultima who said it was correct. If something approved by the OP's author is the most misleading thing here we kinda have a big problem, or misunderstanding going on that should quickly be solved.

I obviously wouldn't post stuff randomly.

 

[Hrdlifil]

stuff

Tell that to Ultima who said it was correct. If something approved by the OP's author is the most misleading thing here we kinda have a big problem, or misunderstanding going on that should quickly be solved.
I obviously wouldn't post stuff randomly.

I don´t mind who said what is correct, again there is no universal set, there is no one size of proper classes, they arent in ZFC or ZFC+inaccessible cardinal, and that with wrong tiers is my mistake they aren´t wrong, they are just variant i disagree with (the one with proper classes) and the name of tiers are writen under cardinals where they start which now i see and that is correct (again correct but not the ideal thing in my opinion). When it comes to the mistakes they were i believe due to Ultima wanting to simplify things and hence writing something that isn´t real like universal set, nevertheless it is wrong. But Ultima knows what he is talking about so no worry.

 

[Nepuko]

You just lost me there man XD. I don't even know what's going on anymore. But if everything's fine then good I guess.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It is correct in relation to the first option which I suggested for what 1-A and 0 would be represented as (Save for the Universal Set part, which I said would only be Tier 0 if a verse for some reason choose to specify a character being that), which is the one Rather used as a reference there in the first place. We haven't really sorted that out anyways, not yet at least.

Anyways, this thread has been extending dangerously close to 500 messages and is literally murdering my phone with a hot knife right now. What do y'all think of a continuation thread? Should be a lot easier than scrolling this swamp.

 

[Elizhaa]

Having a continuation thread would be a good idea, right now, Ultima.

 

[KingPin0422]

Yes, let's make a continuation thread.

Have fun counting the votes ovo

 

[Maxnumb231]

so who can make a thread?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

And also, the new thread should also list option 3 to avoid confusion. As plenty of people who joined the thread didn't really see option 3 till someone else tagged them.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I guess the problem with classifying something based on transcendence of a hierarchy is that a hierarchy in and of itself can include a being transcendent of it. I guess we should be more specific on what kind of hierarchy we mean

 

[KnightOfSunlight]

I agree, though I've changed to undecided in terms of option to use.

 

[ZephyrosOmega]

I still think that instead of Low Complex Multiversal, Complex Multiversal, High Complex Multiversal, Hyperversal, and High Hyperversal, if we're going to merge the tiers it should be like:

LCM, CM, HCM, Hyper: Wrapped up into High Dimensional Level on 1-C

High Hyperversal: becomes Infinite Dimensional Level on 1-B

It gets to the point, is more concise and accurate, and uses terms that are easier to understand.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I might add that an uncountable number of higher dimensionsion should be High 1-C, if something like that were to be employed

 

[Sandman31]

Off topic. With all this talk about sets. What tier would a civilization be if they can shape a verse/space like this : [[1]]

 

[Antvasima]

Anyways, this thread has been extending dangerously close to 500 messages and is literally murdering my phone with a hot knife right now. What do y'all think of a continuation thread? Should be a lot easier than scrolling this swamp.

That seems fine to me.

And also, the new thread should also list option 3 to avoid confusion. As plenty of people who joined the thread didn't really see option 3 till someone else tagged them.

Strongly agreed.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I am going to lay low here, don't want to be too greatly involved in this thread, but for name suggestions, I will use option 1 as an example (As that is the one I agree to and support. I am not a fan of option 3.)

• Low 1-C is "Composite or "Complex Multiversal," as this refers to the additional dimensional nuances in our real-world cosmology making it more "Complete" or "Complex"
• 1-C is "Layered Multiverse level," which is self-explanatory
• High 1-C is "O-Layered Multiverse level," where O stands for Omega (Natural numerical infinity) and this is generic infinite layers stuff
• Low 1-B is "R-Layered Multiverse level," where R stands for Real Numbers, or uncountable numbers, which is its purpose
• 1-B is "Metaverse level" or "Meta-Hierarchal level," as this is where a hierarchy metalogical to basic dimensionalities/layers reside
• High 1-B is "Fixed Meta-Point level," or reaching an infinite hierarchy of metahierarchies
• 1-A is "Inacessible level," as they are existing beyond meta-hierarchies and their fixed points and the only hierarchy that exists is scaling between other Inacessible characters in-verse
• 0 is simply "Boundless"

The names are weird, but I do think we should avoid constant "versal" spam to be honest. The names would apply to options 2 and 3 however.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think we should change the names as Ultima and DontTalk said. That's just extra work for zero pay off.

 

[Skalt711]

^

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that this would be a bad idea.

 

[Kepekley23]

Changing something that already works well is completely unnecessary (and we're already working under a time-limit as it is). Those names are still something we made up and that only have meaning according to our own definitions, so we'd gain pretty much nothing from that change. We'd still need to explain what each of those terms refers to and we already do that with the current names.

 

[Antvasima]

Agreed.

 

[ÆONS]

Besides, those names you came up with would sound ridiculous to one who has no clue about complicated math like this. Plus to me they seem filled to the brim with intentions of making our tieiring system more retro and complex than it should be, we should just keep everything as simple as they can be so they could not be misunderstood or misinterpreted by people.

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

Wait, but how about if we use option 3. We can't have High Outerversal for both High 1-A and Tier 0

 

[Maxnumb231]

i disagree having option 3 as it will mess the tiering itself if we change the requirements. i do think option 1 is the best to go without changing the naming itself

 

[ÆONS]

Wait, but how about if we use option 3. We can't have High Outerversal for both High 1-A and Tier 0

No we are not, we are simply going name High 1-A as "High Outerversal" while 0 will be called "Boundless". I really don't see why naming of tiers would be an issue as we can just keep our current terminology while making a few changes. So therefore I'm gonna declare this, we should not change the naming of the tiers, we should keep the names as they are while making small changes here and there. I reiderate my support for option 3.

 

[Maxnumb231]

option 1 is the better choice for this due to the fact it simplifies the tiering better and the requirements as for option 3 it creates havoc towards the requirements of said tiers and such as high 1-A being there is utterlay laughable as 1-A in option 1 already depicts that it can extend to whatever inacessible cardinals (strong limit Ks) you may stack it will never reach ORD

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

option 1 is the better choice for this due to the fact it simplifies the tiering better and the requirements as for option 3 it creates havoc towards the requirements of said tiers and such as high 1-A being there is utterlay laughable as 1-A in option 1 already depicts that it can extend to whatever inacessible cardinals (strong limit Ks) you may stack it will never reach ORD

The only thing that may be confusing for some would be normal 1-A. Everything else is easy and simple. Low 1-A is baseline to finite. 1-A is infinite. High 1-A is basically our lower Tier 0's. And 0 is our strongest characters on this wiki type like Azathoth

 

[Maxnumb231]

option 1 is the better choice for this due to the fact it simplifies the tiering better and the requirements as for option 3 it creates havoc towards the requirements of said tiers and such as high 1-A being there is utterlay laughable as 1-A in option 1 already depicts that it can extend to whatever inacessible cardinals (strong limit Ks) you may stack it will never reach ORD

The only thing that may be confusing for some would be normal 1-A. Everything else is easy and simple. Low 1-A is baseline to finite. 1-A is infinite. High 1-A is basically our lower Tier 0's. And 0 is our strongest characters on this wiki type like Azathoth

and that's my problem with it 1-A is strong limit K to high 1-B in the option 1, which means that even if high 1-B gets uncountably infinite amount of hierarchies or power you still dont get close to strong limit K which by that measure is above the system of the said hierarchy. this goes for tier 0 to 1-A which 1-A being strong limit K can increase to whatever u think and still below what proper class is.

 

[Antvasima]

It is probably appropriate for Ultima to start a continuation thread when he finds the time.

 

[Maxnumb231]

close this thread and wait for the continuation?

 

[Antvasima]

No, it is better to link to the new thread here first.

 

[Nepuko]

You know, Option 3 High Tiers are the same as Option 1's. Most people including me chose Option 1 before, but then others complained that it compresses the lower tiers too much, so there's now Option 3. Option 3 keeps the lower tiers not compressed, like Option's 2, and 1-B in option 1 becomes Low 1-A, High 1-B becomes 1-A, and 1-A becomes High 1-A. Simple.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out Nepuko.

 

[Nepuko]

Thank you for helping out Nepuko.

Aye glad to help.

 

[Maxnumb231]

You know, Option 3 High Tiers are the same as Option 1's. Most people including me chose Option 1 before, but then others complained that it compresses the lower tiers too much, so there's now Option 3. Option 3 keeps the lower tiers not compressed, like Option's 2, and 1-B in option 1 becomes Low 1-A, High 1-B becomes 1-A, and 1-A becomes High 1-A. Simple.

sure they "are" the same, but the way it was handled using high 1-A is terrible as 1-A is the most logical sound. Best example of this is going from aleph omega to inacessible which alephs will no longer be in the inacessibles. This is only an anology towards what 1-A to 0 is. high 1-A will just have antoher problem to tier a character and such and if u do tier them it will lead to another obscure scaling. i am fine by option 2 but option 3 is not what it is especialyl if we change tier 1s. combining both option 1 and 2 is even more destructive than what it is.

 

[Nepuko]

I don't really understand what you mean, but if the problem is tier becoming obscure then I dunno. I'm not looking at the characters who'll be tiered, I'm only looking at the Tiering itself. Why remove a neater tiering just cuz "not a lot of characters will be there"?

Unless it's actually a criteria here, I'm relatively new so I don't know, but if "not a lot of characters" is a criteria to, say, remove a tier for exemple, then I guess it is an issue that should be mentioned. Also from how I see it Option 3 combines both Pros of both options :

-Categorizing the too broad Outerversal and above (now whether it's a "good one" or a "bad" categorization is left to the pros owo)

-Not compressing lower tiers + "less work" + "not too much change" (people don't like abrupt changes it seems. Oh well)

Tho I guess it prob still have more characters than in Tier 0 owo

 

[Andytrenom]

It would certainly be more ideal if a tier doesn't have only a small handful of characters

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we should use definitions for very different types of character power levels even if not a lot of characters would end up classified as such.

 

[Paul_Frank]

No matter which option is accepted the number of tier 0 characters will only be a handful so I'm not sure why the same happening to high 1-A is an argument against option 3