-
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.
Berkely Cardinal
- Thread starter Urshani
- Start date
- 2,317
- 1,083
- Thread starter
- #3
yeah but how high
- 13,724
- 3,668
It's...not baseline though
- 4,652
- 2,462
Did I say it is?
- 13,724
- 3,668
- 13,724
- 3,668
They being high into baseline implies they dont have a single transcendence and its just a matter of AP, which is not the case. It'd be a different matter if it was "******* high above baseline"
Anyway, just a nitpick of my part. I'll stop derailing
Anyway, just a nitpick of my part. I'll stop derailing
Last edited:
- 13,724
- 3,668
- 36
- 17
Well, it does break set theory to some extent.
The highest "cardinality" something can have is akin to the icarus set, which is described in the "icarus set axiom". Its called an icarus set because it essentially flies too close to the metaphorical sun, that sun being breaking mathematics completely. As cardinals get stronger and stronger, they prove more and more stuff, the imaginary end of standard cardinality is something which is usually referred to as the "0=1" cardinal. Its called this way because if one were to logically prove the equality of 0 and 1, one would essentially be able to prove everything. This "highest cardinal" is effectively the "icarus set" I just mentioned, or well at least the closest thing to it.
Reinhardt cardinals and Berkeley cardinals which effectively are stronger than 0=1, effectively breaking the axiom of choice, ars completely inexpressible in standard set theory since one of its fundamental laws cannot be applied to them (axiom of choice).
These cardinals, if a fictional character were to scale to them, would effectively break the tiering system and you would need a new tier to express them, without completely downplaying them by putting them in a similar sense in anything in tier 0.
Even verses like the Manifold which contain Woodin Cardinals which are incredibly beyond baseline are essentially being downplayed by being in the same tier as Mahlo verses. The type of downplay you'd have by having a Berkeley verse in the same tier as Woodin would be inconceivably larger than the downplay of being in the same tier as a woodin verse that contains Mahlo.
The only verse which in my personal opinion stands close to "this" is World of Darkness due to it containing an abstract type 4 Tegmark multiverse, although sadly the wiki doesn't recognise this as anything beyond low outer because its supposed to be "physical" even though its verbatim that this multiverse in world of darkness is producing non-physical abstract realms and exists also in an abstract realm itself and is applied platonically also but oh well.
Hopefully this answered your question.
- 2,317
- 1,083
- Thread starter
- #14
Interesting.
- 3,633
- 2,504
To answer the OP: no. Tier 0 is specifically designed to handle any higher level of infinity, and doesn't necessarily require math to explain it. Concepts which are "beyond math" in a literal sense are allowed because it's fiction.
This wiki is an inclusive place which includes people of many education levels who may not even use English as their first language, or may simply not care about writing their battle-boarding posts like an English essay.
If we can all understand at least what they're trying to say, then there's no reason to nitpick their writing and possibly make them feel stupid.
It can be considered quite rude to try and correct people's grammar/spelling when you are not their teacher. If this is something you do often, you should expect conflict.
This wiki is an inclusive place which includes people of many education levels who may not even use English as their first language, or may simply not care about writing their battle-boarding posts like an English essay.
If we can all understand at least what they're trying to say, then there's no reason to nitpick their writing and possibly make them feel stupid.
Last edited:
- 13,724
- 3,668
Never was my intention at all. Dont know how you got into that conclusion.
- 158
- 118
I'd say the Cthulhu Mythos would also be comparable, with its infinite multiverse as the most basic layer of a series of planes of existence that become infinitely abstract at the highest levels. Granted, Lovecraft didn't use any language about the relationship of cardinals to his universe, but what is there is pretty compelling.
But I'll admit that I'm only beginning to come to grips with these higher-level mathematical functions and their place in tiering systems, so don't take this as a challenge or anything, lol.
- 3,633
- 2,504
That's unfortunately how it comes across. I do not know your intentions, and I'm sure you're not a bad person.
Please don't take this as a criticism of your character, only your actions.
- 13,724
- 3,668
I really don't see how pointing out minor mistakes means people are trying to make them feel stupid...but I'll take your word for it. The more you know.
- 3,633
- 2,504
Only if the mistakes are not important. You should still correct people on something important, like their information being wrong for a versus thread, a belief in a common misconception, or a mistake in a calculation. You might be right, and I'm being too harsh in my interpretation. It can just be frustrating to be on the receiving end of an unimportant nitpick, is all.
Sorry if I made things awkward, I'll stop derailing too now.
Darksmash
He/Him- 1,494
- 1,636
Cthulhu Mythos stuff is basic transcendence. It doesn't really come anywhere close to reaching top tier cardinals even with the most wankish interpretations
- 158
- 118
If you say so
- 4,942
- 1,316
Darksmash
He/Him- 1,494
- 1,636
Ah yes I would obviously spend a lot of time reading about a verse I don't even like. Because of course you can't ******* talk about a verse's power levels in a neutral light without being labelled a hater or a downplayer
- 4,942
- 1,316
Woah woah man, just a making a joke.
- 36
- 17
No, Cthulu Mythos is still baseline, if I am not mistaken its a single layer above baseline boundless because of the supreme archetype, so no it wouldn't compared sadly, in fact after some planned revisions it is going to be baseline boundless only because of the outer gods possibly getting a downgrade to capped high 1-a
- 4,096
- 1,356
Actually World of Darkness got upgraded to Tier 0 so…
- 4,096
- 1,356
Also we typically don’t use scientific theories in fictional settings as usually fiction only use aspects of specific theories like Tegmark’s theories and may not necessarily use that theory to the fullest unless the authors states they use quantum mechanics or other scientific theories.
Last edited:
- 809
- 249
Most wanked interpretation would have the SA be mathiverse level wdym
Darksmash
He/Him- 1,494
- 1,636
Most wankish(still somewhat workable), not outright most wanked. As the latter is the same level of wank as saying Super Buu is Mathiverse level because he was called omnipotent
- 36
- 17
I know, it's still considered as baseline Mahlo which I disagree with
Threemagi
He/Him- 486
- 97
So 'abstract' Tegmark multiverse>>>'Vanilla' mathematical multiverse? (Which Manifold is)
- 36
- 17
Technically the abstract Tegmark Multiverse would be akin to what the mathiverse is. I am going to make a revision thread for it soon so we can possibly get the argument through here.
- 36
- 17
Just incase that didn't answer your question, yes technically it would be much much much more powerful than the manifold
- 13,724
- 3,668
I mean, isnt a Type 4 Multiverse already abstract per its definition? With anything physical coming from said abstractions.
- 36
- 17
As per many content revision threads that's exactly the reason why it's not higher. If not then please enlighten me on why it does necessary qualify for higher per wiki standards lol
Darksmash
He/Him- 1,494
- 1,636
It doesn't qualify because it's basically an NLF idea similar to Omnipotence. Not because it's physical or whatever. You can be physical and still reach Tier 0 anyday
- 36
- 17
You cannot be physical by a dimensional sense and reach tier 0 though that's completely contradictory unless the verse has somehow connected large cardinals to physicality.
And also I don't see how it would be an NLF idea when if a verse has only shown mathematics extending up to a 5D model, simply the mention of a tegmark multiverse automatically gets the verse to low outer without futher qualifications. This alone would be a "No Limits Fallacy" by other instances but somehow this instance is accepted.
Also if the very theory of max tegmark, word per word is contained within the verse, and it also mentions Max Tegmark as the maker of said theory, and the existence of a tegmark multiverse is not deducted just by a mention of "a mathematical ensemble" I cannot see this being a NLF by any constructive means without nitpicking what applies under the fallacy and what doesn't per instance which would just completely make the use of the fallacy inherently meaningless.
Similar threads
