Analyzing the Tiering System

[Agnaa]

What is this shit Ultima? Do you want a repeat of the last thread?

Why would you post 30 paragraphs of shitty arguments against dimensional tiering that couldn't hold up to scrutiny when dissected further? I thought all of our discussions with you trying to debunk dimensional tiering ended up with us going "Well, dimensional tiering can't really be debunked within its set of axioms, and those axioms aren't inherently unreasonable, we just prefer different axioms."

You even used the dumbass "everything has uncountably infinite points lmao" and "west isn't infinitely greater than north" ideas which rely on fundamental misunderstandings of how dimensional tiering works to make sense as arguments. You are spreading misinformation here.

Hell, there's even these sorts of issues in your arguments against 1-A, the section where I expected to completely agree with you. You conflate existing beyond (existing outside) and existing beyond (being greater than the thing entirely, and being unable to be put within it). You apply an example of the former with Low 2-C to say that the latter with High 1-B cosmologies is bad.

The justification for Aleph One being the ending point of High 1-B, even though I'm fine with that being the case, seems really flimsy and easy to find issues with. You can have Aleph Two universes where each has its co-ordinates described by the real numbers with no issue and without it being arbitrary.

I really want to debunk the avalanche of misleading arguments you gave but I feel like weirdly enough that would actually be derailing the thread, because those arguments don't change how much I care about changing systems.

In the end I'm neutral, although I do prefer option 1, I don't care either way and I'll continue using vsbw no matter which system is used. I would prefer to pick the system which the majority of people can understand the easiest by looking at the Tiering System page, which is why I repeatedly asked for a draft of your rewrite (which was never provided) so I could say whether it seems easy enough to understand.

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

I did not know that you wanted to get involved in these preparations. My apologies. I hope that we can all hold a polite tone though, and that there is no drama here.

If you have valid concerns they should obviously be listened to.

 

[Agnaa]

I was largely involved in the preparations by way of talking to the involved parties over Discord (the idea of using R^ came from a discussion with me where I was pointing out issues with their earlier proposed system), I just assumed that things like "a draft for how we'll change the tiering system page" would have been made before the thread was posted.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. Given these concerns, would it be better if we postpone this revision for a while, so you and others have the chance to properly evaluate this? The problem is that the forum move was suddenly forced upon us, so we thought that it might be better to initiate this without having to continue in the new forum. It likely turned into too many important issues at the same time though.

 

[Antoniofer]

I feel like if we postpone this revision (again) it will be freeze for other few months. Isn't like we are forcing a change, actually, this is going slower and calm of what I though, so you could take the time for a rebuttal (I believe DT is thinking in doing one right now).

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think there's much more to be evaluated. It's just that I think their reasons for the current system being bad are largely invalid. However, their new system (while it does have its own caveats it has to handwave away) is largely fine, and is somewhat better with how it lets us separate 1-A, even though there is the risk I've yet to evaluate of it possibly being more confusing for casual readers.

I do agree with there being too many important issues at the same time, though.

 

[Antvasima]

I am also worried that the new system will end up far too confusing for most of our visitors and a large part of our members. I like the higher degrees and segmenting of 1-A though.

 

[Agnaa]

I have been assured that the tiering system page would be mostly the same, although I can't imagine how it could be. I'd mostly just need to see it in practice to tell.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I am afraid that I have to go to bed soon though.

 

[ShivaShakti]

@Agnaa

Mind explaining why this thread didn't debunk Dimensions?

 

[Nepuko]

Okay. I am afraid that I have to go to bed soon though.

Good night.

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa

Mind explaining why this thread didn't debunk Dimensions?

Leave a post on my message wall with the arguments you want me to respond to. I don't want to go on a tirade against those arguments here for reasons I gave above.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

If possible, @Ultima Reality could you detail what the new Low, mid and High 1-C are in Option 1?

1-C in Option 1 becomes the equivalent to the currently-defined 1-B in the sense that it will encapsulate greater sizes/layers/levels which are infinitely above a basic Universe/Multiverse. So, basically

Low 1-C = 2 to 5 levels above a basic multiverse (6-D to 9-D in dimenshunal terms, or R^6 to R^9 if you will)

1-C = 6 to any higher finite number of levels (10-D and onwards)

High 1-C = infinite number of levels above a basic multiverse.

Meanwhile, Low 1-B is for stupidly high numbers of dimensions/layers/levels far exceeding High 1-C scales (like in TES or The Dark Tower), up to an uncountably infinite number of higher stuff (R^R). Basically, it's for characters who massively dwarf High 1-C stuff to the point of being unreachable from this perspective, but don't actually have any "qualitative transcendenz" over them or whatever: As in, they are just massively bigger. It's basically a "Pseudo-Outerversal" tier, if you will.

1-B is basically a better defined version of our current Outerverse level, except "beyond dimensions" changes to "abstract sizes which you cannot reach by stacking bigger infinities". Basically, for characters who completely transcend High 1-C stuff, or see it as a fiction, etc.

High 1-B is for infinite hierarchical levels above that. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be an hierarchy, greater sizes/power also qualify, as I said.

1-A is for characters who are beyond any and all scale, period, and who transcend Outerversal Hierarchies completely. It is pretty much to 1-B what 1-B is to 1-C, but on a much greater scale.

0 is for all-encompassing, fully abstract stuff which dwarfs all of the above.

 

[ThePerpetual]

"1-C = 2 to 5 levels above a basic multiverse (6-D to 9-D in dimenshunal terms, or R^6 to R^9 if you will)"

Why is 6 to 9 dimensional the specific boundary for (Low, I think?) 1-C? Is there a specific reason for Low 1-C stopping there?

 

[Nepuko]

@Ultima thanks!

@Perpetual probably because the current Low 1-C is 6D, while current 1-C is 7 to 9D. So here what happened is that they probably fused Curent Low1-C and Current 1-C into the New Low 1-C, so you have new Low 1-C : 6-D to 9-D.

Then current High 1-C (10D and 11D) fused with 1-B (12D+), and became new 1-C : 10D to any finite number.

High 1-B became High 1-C.

So Basically :

Low 1-C (6-D) + 1-C (7-D -> 9-D) = New Low 1-C (6-D -> 9-D)

High 1-C (10-D) + 1-B (12D -> X-D) = New 1-C (10-D -> X-D)

High 1-B (Infinite-D) = New High 1-C (Infinite-D)


(at least that's what I think).


Have a nice day!

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, according to one early 1990s Doctor Strange writer that has been consistently ignored by all other writers afterwards. Marvel is extremely messy.

I am shutting up now. Please return to the main topic.

I can actually take this opportunity to note that, a verse going "lol alephz" won't necessarily let it reach any higher tier without the proper context behind whatever statements they have. As I said, Aleph Numbers are infinite and really big, yes, but at the end of it, they are just that: Numbers, and don't really have an actual tier

Like, an uncountably infinite number of points could be as low as 11-B. It all depends on what they refer to when they mention Cantor's stuff.

 

[Spumlin]

NAY

 

[Ultima_Reality]

i cri ;_;

 

[Maxnumb231]

you already know me ultima i agree to this LOLLL

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, how will this affect smurfs in verus threads? Those with a high degree of hax that can affect higher dimensional beigns higher than the users own dimensional value (if that makes sense) also how will this affect beings who (random example) are 3D but have a mind that can omnisciently view the entire multiverse with a transcendetal perspective/mind/brain???

 

[Maxnumb231]

Question, how will this affect smurfs in verus threads? Those with a high degree of hax that can affect higher dimensional beigns higher than the users own dimensional value (if that makes sense) also how will this affect beings who (random example) are 3D but have a mind that can omnisciently view the entire multiverse with a transcendetal perspective/mind/brain???

> it they will have a tier where their hax is in the tier that those higher beings got affected for example a 3D being with 5D hax so it will be more simplified. > the last point would just be based on hax although if we say their tiering it's impossible for a 3D to have that ability, although i would put it in a hax category.

 

[Maxnumb231]

NAY

why do u disagree? can u atleast give a reason?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

How will this affect Tier High 2-A?

 

[I'm_Blue_daba_dee_daba_die]

I vote to option 2

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

i agree with this (ya) and will go for option 1 imho

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So yes, the OP is very long and naturally there have been lots of misunderstandings here and there. But Ultima is basically elaborating the 1-A and above levels and giving different levels. But for High 2-A and above tiers, it's not the actual tiers, but the definitions are what's being revised. We don't make a character Tier 1 based on a statement that someones "11-Dimensional" or can travel to the 79th dimension", since statements like that might get the dimension definition wrong.

There's also spacio-temporal dimensions which don't quite equate to the planes of higher infinity. Sometimes, "Upper-dimensional" can just mean advanced level of spatial manipulation. There's also the fact that time doesn't technically count as a spatial dimension. Some theorists do consider it a dimension, but to keep it consistent, it's best to keep spatial and temporal dimensions separate to avoid confusion. We've been saying that the barrier/separation between two or more universes was the 5th dimension; which is only half right at best. It's better to simply call it the 4th spatial dimension to avoid confusion. But yeah, spatial dimensions in itself would simply qualify for advanced levels of spatial manipulation, dimensional travel, spatial intangibility, ect rather than higher Tier. But I'll get to it in the next paragraph.

There are plenty of fictional works that describe dimensions as planes of higher infinity, but most scientists and those who aren't into fictional works wouldn't view it as such. However, yes we have plenty of characters like Mr Mxy who actually uses the 5-D statement to refer to a plain of higher infinity due to perceiving entire 2-A sized multiverses as comic books. Or the Providence perceiving entire 2-A sized multiverses as saved data files. So if verses do define and/or demonstrate dimensions being planes of higher infinity, or at the very least a mention of "Each dimension stated to be qualitatively superior to the lower dimension" then those statements do work. I know Xenosaga has yet to make a come back which I heard is part of Ultima's plans, but I do know Wave Existence has never really used anything beyond "The 4th dimension" but was stated to exists on multiple planes of higher infinities.

I know DonTalk said he might come back, but I will say the OP is good. Was just trying to clarify the details as best I can. But someone like Sera or Ultima is welcome to correct me on any errors. I also think option 2 is the best.

 

[M765]

hey, I just wanna ask: Is it possible for an 1-A characters & higher to hace somekind of human-like forms, but definetly not physical but abstract, & dimentionless???? The question I am tryin to ask: Does a Tier 1-A characters & higher characters necessarily have to be completely formless? or can they have some forms with human-like details or something???? Please reply as soon as possible.....

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Given that The Law of Identity is one of our tier 0s and she's a high school girl for most of the story, you don't have to be some abstract formless entity.

 

[Maxnumb231]

hey, I just wanna ask: Is it possible for an 1-A characters & higher to hace somekind of human-like forms, but definetly not physical but abstract, & dimentionless???? The question I am tryin to ask: Does a Tier 1-A characters & higher characters necessarily have to be completely formless? or can they have some forms with human-like details or something???? Please reply as soon as possible.....

not really u dont have to be formless to bne 1-A if it's about the new 1-A. the first question is more like such tier characters can have avatars like how yog has a outerversal avatar.

 

[Malomtek]

I completely agree with this. I say "Yay". But I want to propose a different option concerning Tier 1, after looking at Anime Characters Fight Wiki, which we originally based out tiering system on.

Basically, assuming that the dimensional tierings will soon be adapted to fit into this new tiering system

1-C and its subtiers remain unchanged

Low 1-B is back, and it is 12-D to 26-D, or whatever the analogues to these will be in this new tiering system (the 26-D is a reference to bosonic string theory)

1-B is 27-D to any finite number level

High 1-B is a countably infinite number of dimensions

High 1-B+ is an uncountably infinite number of dimensions

Low 1-A: current "baseline" Outerversal, up to an infinite number of levels of existence above that

An infinitely-layered "baseline" Outerversal may be Low 1-A+

1-A: Worldly Cardinals

High 1-A: Inaccessible Cardinals

0: Proper Classes

If this can't or won't be accepted, I say go for Option 1 in your post, as I think that it is the easiest layout for the current 1-As and 0s in the old system to be "adapted" to.

 

[Maxnumb231]

there's going to be high 1-B which means it's high outerversal which i think it would make sense if 1-A is inacessible cardinals.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I have a question to all this: but how do we standardize dimensions/reams/spaces/levels/layers across verses?

An infinite layers in one verse could very well be a five layers in another verse in terms of actual power showing and feats. How do we make this not seem arbitary?

Just like how we are deciding that having a higher dimension doesn't make one infinitely larger, or stronger, or incomprehensible, we shouldn't be assigning power to characters above certain hierarchies, especially if said layers are ill defined. Like I said before, one layer in one verse can be more complex than an infinite layers in another verse.

 

[Maxnumb231]

I have a question to all this: but how do we standardize dimensions/reams/spaces/levels/layers across verses?
An infinite layers in one verse could very well be a five layers in another verse in terms of actual power showing and feats. How do we make this not seem arbitary?

Just like how we are deciding that having a higher dimension doesn't make one infinitely larger, or stronger, or incomprehensible, we shouldn't be assigning power to characters above certain hierarchies, especially if said layers are ill defined. Like I said before, one layer in one verse can be more complex than an infinite layers in another verse.

you're going into more like comparing the cosmology of the verses, it's like comparing the writer vs featherine even tho featherine doesnt hit tier 0 what she transcdence above is far greater than The Writer transcends.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I can't really read this entire thread with the time I have, but I can say that I agree with the first set of proposed changes and would go with Option 1 regarding 1-C to 1-A.

 

[Antvasima]

@Assaltwaffle

Thank you for the evaluation.

 

[Andytrenom]

"We don't make a character Tier 1 based on a statement that someones "11-Dimensional" or can travel to the 79th dimension", since statements like that might get the dimension definition wrong."

I don't think this is actually correct. The problem is dimensionality doesn't inherently translate to the kind of beyond infinite transcendence our system implies, not that a verse may be using an incorrect interpretation of dimension

In fact, many of the verse where higher D tiering would no longer be valid would have a 100% correct idea of what dimensions are

 

[Crabwhale]

Alright lemme crack open the reasons why keeping this stuff private for a long time now was a terrible idea. Keep in mind, this is not criticizing the tiering system itself, it's criticizing the way it was handled.

Misinformation leads to drama
This was basically my main concern for this thread. And although so far I am glad it has been mostly avoided, it should still really be disallowed in the future.

Developing this entire thing in secrecy has led users to do a lot of speculation on what exactly will even happen. Speculation and misinformation can easily lead to friction because people not only are left in the dark if they're not in the Discord, but they also develop their own theories of what the new system will be, and those theories can easily turn out not great for the future of the wiki when rumors are involved and inflate or deflate certain things.

To give an example, one user kept asking whether tier S was going to happen in the very server the change was being discussed i. Due to needing a bit of dumbing down, some users were not understanding how the system even worked on a mathematical level, including myself for a time. Which conveniently leads me to my next point.

Total disorganized mess
I honestly do not understand how this revision even made through it's birthing pangs to be honest. Chaotic discussion on a server which can switch topics and completely derail in an instant is one thing, but the rest of it was done in PMs.

I'm not saying the users who worked on it are untrustworthy, but what I am saying is that said discussion and building through PMs can appear shady as **** and easily supports my first point.

Furthermore, even some of the most extensively involved members in the project seem to be confused themselves, and a final consensus between all the people aside from Ultima and Aeyu seemed to never even have been reached. I mean, just look at Agnaa up there.

Bad timing
Not going to lie, this one might be a bit subjective, and it's not really even the project's own fault due to unforeseen consequences forcing our hand at the moment, but launching a project this big this soon is quite honestly ludicrous.

We already several other wiki-wide projects that are still pending right, and have potentially a strict deadline of only a couple of months due to outside circumstances with FANDOM FANDICK being what it's being right now.

Also, the whole migrating the entire discussion part of the wiki thing to another forum? That's also going to be a ton of work. Really, this entire thing came way too soon for us to readjust thousands of pages right as we're waddling through tens of different other threads and will be in the middle of a massive move in just a few months.

I guess you could call it a preemptive taking of it, but still, the point remains. This is going to be a huge amount of edits, and a potentially sizable amount of verse revising, all on the brink of the biggest change in the wiki for years.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not saying the users who worked on it are untrustworthy, but what I am saying is that said discussion and building through PMs can appear shady as **** and easily supports my first point.

So there's an issue with having preliminary discussions/planning for a revision through PMs? I personally don't think there's much of an issue if things are open for public comment before they're implemented and any concerns are addressed. This is what I've tried to do for big things (initial discussions on the audit group were a mix of directing members to a message wall thread, and discussions over discord), and for small things (I've talked about minor verse revisions with other supporters over PMs before making the thread/posting in a thread).

I think it's fine to work out the initial kinks with people who you're pretty sure will find issues with it before presenting it to the public. If this thread was made before talking to anyone about it privately then the system would have been completely rewritten 3 different times, and many of the tiers would have been shuffled back and forth over the course of this thread. That could of course still happen (hell, that's essentially what happened the last time this thread was made), but fielding it in private reduces the chance of large chaotic shifts happening when it's publicized.

Furthermore, even some of the most extensively involved members in the project seem to be confused themselves, and a final consensus between all the people aside from Ultima and Aeyu seemed to never even have been reached. I mean, just look at Agnaa up there.

We agree on how the system should be were it to be implemented (which wasn't the case when I first heard the proposal). The disagreement's just on the part's debunking the current system (which I've already disagreed with).

 

[Andytrenom]

Not 100% certain, but I believe Ultima mentioned there would be a different thread for actually implementing the changes

If that is true and this thread is more about getting opinions on the revision itself, as well as informing the community at large, that alleviates some of the concerns regarding timing

 

[Myriadofmemes]

Eh, maybe just tard questions passing through but, isn't this about as inaccurate as the previous system? Also, is this useful to the site in any way at all? Ant seems to have already raised the glaring issue with verses who absolutely do not conform to this but I don't think that anyone's mentioned the scope of exactly how many those are. Most of them.