-
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.
Downstreamers reupgrade to 1-A (Solid this time, no possiblys or at leasts)
- Thread starter Aeyu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- the downstreamers
- Status
- 15,332
- 7,563
No problem.
- 1,280
- 1,123
Just gonna butt in and say, wasn't it agreed that the Theory of Forms is typically 1-A and is only High 1-B if executed poorly?
Thinking about it though, if there's no specific mention of the Theory of Forms then 1-A may be harder to prove. Just saying.
Thinking about it though, if there's no specific mention of the Theory of Forms then 1-A may be harder to prove. Just saying.
- 15,332
- 7,563
Done.
- 15,614
- 7,054
My main issue is basing upgrades on something not actually mentioned within the books and instead just taking outside theories and using them for upgrades.
Based on what's actually been shown, I'm totally fine with something along the lines of "At least High 1-B", but going beyond that may be diving a bit too deep into speculation.
Based on what's actually been shown, I'm totally fine with something along the lines of "At least High 1-B", but going beyond that may be diving a bit too deep into speculation.
- 32,359
- 20,298
This is my issue as well, and At least High 1-B is the most I am willing to accept.
- 168,532
- 77,302
Okay. I suppose that the Downstreamers should get an "At least High 1-B" rating then, but we should preferably explain why within a footnote in the profile, so we do not constantly have to return to discussing this subject over and over.
- 15,614
- 7,054
@Ant
Not entirely sure.
Not entirely sure.
- 1,484
- 169
I see dimensional tiering will be replaced with Tegmark's multiverse system in future.
Level 1 multiverse is an infinite universe. Dimensional stuff is property of level 2 (other "bubbles") and level 3 ("Many Worlds") multiverses. Level 4 multiverse includes other mathematical stuff.
Level 1 multiverse is an infinite universe. Dimensional stuff is property of level 2 (other "bubbles") and level 3 ("Many Worlds") multiverses. Level 4 multiverse includes other mathematical stuff.
- 32,359
- 20,298
No it won't? Why are you bringing this up. Multiverse Type I through IV are far too limited and vague to be applied to a full, complete tiering system.
- 6,104
- 5,106
Never. Dimensional Tiering is the best system for our purposes. It may not be flawless due to some differences between geometrical and physics implementations, but for us it works and has been working for years now. Replacing it with Types I through IV is far too limited as Matthew said, not to mention a lot of verses with suffer downplaying as the result, no better than returning to "megaverse" and "omniverse".
- 2,650
- 467
- Thread starter
- #136
Anything suggesting changing the Tiering System is a bad idea, as it threatens to destabilize this Wiki, and anyway, that's all derailing.
I propose this as a note, @Ant
While the Downstreamers most likely live in a Type IV Tegmark Multiverse, which can, under definition, contain aspatial, atemporal realms as well as all different possible universes under all potential different quantum, mathematical, and physical permutations of existence, the books are too vague to make an absolute assessment as to the nature of the Downstreamers' existence, coupled with the general lack of mention regarding dimensions within the books, thus At least High 1-B remains a safe low-end.
I propose this as a note, @Ant
While the Downstreamers most likely live in a Type IV Tegmark Multiverse, which can, under definition, contain aspatial, atemporal realms as well as all different possible universes under all potential different quantum, mathematical, and physical permutations of existence, the books are too vague to make an absolute assessment as to the nature of the Downstreamers' existence, coupled with the general lack of mention regarding dimensions within the books, thus At least High 1-B remains a safe low-end.
- 15,614
- 7,054
Not sure. Maybe replace "most likely" with something like "quite possibly" and cut out "which can, under definition, contain aspatial, atemporal realms as well as all different possible universes under all potential different quantum, mathematical, and physical permutations of existence,", as it isn't really necessary.
- 2,650
- 467
- Thread starter
- #140
Well, people may not understand what a Type IV multiverse corresponds to, which is why I thought of including that snippet. And do you not think that the mentioning of the "infinite ensemble," in relation to Type IV, which is categorized as the "Ultimate Ensemble theory," with both being referred to as theories of everything, and roughly describing the same landscape is not indicative of a Type IV?
- 15,614
- 7,054
It would likely simply be better to link an explanation than try to contain what a type IV multiverse is in a portion of one sentence.
I think that we cannot count inspiration as proper proof without more to go on.
I think that we cannot count inspiration as proper proof without more to go on.
- 168,532
- 77,302
Is this acceptable?
"While the Downstreamers possibly live in a Type IV Tegmark Multiverse, the books are too vague to make a certain assessment regarding the nature of the Downstreamers' existence. Coupled with the general lack of mention of dimensions within the books, "At least High 1-B" remains a safe low-end."
"While the Downstreamers possibly live in a Type IV Tegmark Multiverse, the books are too vague to make a certain assessment regarding the nature of the Downstreamers' existence. Coupled with the general lack of mention of dimensions within the books, "At least High 1-B" remains a safe low-end."
- 1,280
- 1,123
Well, the Old Ones right now are solid High 1-B last I checked.
We could add it to the existing footnote, if it is practical to do so.
We could add it to the existing footnote, if it is practical to do so.
- Status
Similar threads
