• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
That would actually still just be further proving that it's still within duality, since possibility/impossibility is a firm duality. At best, the Downstreamers themselves are only non-dual to a baseline degree, while the multiverse itself covers all binary possibilities.
 
There is no baseline transcendence of duality, though, because that would suggest that you can place duality and non-duality into a duality set.
 
Fiction treats duality weirdly. I will say that simply being non-dual isn't enough to be High 1-A. Or else all 1-A characters in the Masadaverse would be High 1-A, and Bernkastel and Lambdadelta would be High 1-A. And I think also some DC characters.
 
Isn't High 1-A like, transcending all systems?

Or is there more to it than just that?
 
That's kind of vague, and a vague description such as that probably wouldn't warrant a High 1-A rating. We have High 1-A on here as basically being just short of what would be considered Omnipotent. Only holding a minor limitation of some sort, but short of 0. You must transcend 1-As in at least a manner than 1-As transcend beings of lower tiers.
 
High 1-A is being above 1-A's like 1-A's are to 11-C's; conceptually superior in every way. While I do believe that logically, a tier of 1-A is assured, even on the safe end, you could argue that being above an absolutely infinite series of possibilities and universes that are in a manifold of themselves at an infinite level containing all permutations and possibilities allowed through modal logic could potentially qualify for higher, for many of the reasons outlined in this page (particularly, regarding logical "Omnipotence")
 
As I have said, if there isn't anything that implies that said multiverse consists of mathematical possibilities that are unbound by binary computability, then High 1-A is probably a reasonable rating. But as I have seen, the Theory of Everything has been vaguely mentioned, and while valid enough to warrant a 1-A rating, I haven't seen it expanded enough to consist of non-binary mathematical possibilities, so the Downstreamers transcending the multiverse would only be of the types of 1-As that simply transcend all concepts.
 
Okay, now I'm confused.

Doesn't the Cthulhu Mythos have beings far weaker than the Outer Gods that would fit that description? I know that doing something like rating every Outer God as High 1-A is absurd, but still.
 
@Aeyu

No, you can be to another 1-A what a 1-A is to an 11-C and still be 1-A. High 1-A is Tier 0 with a minor limitation. Therefore our rules for questionably omnipotent beings apply to High 1-As with the sole exceptio of having a minor limitation.

Increased scale, transcendence, multiplication by infinity ("1-A to 11-C" comparisons in a nutshelll), superiroity over logic, and the like do not automatically qualify something as High 1-A or 0.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
@Aeyu

No, you can be to another 1-A what a 1-A is to an 11-C and still be 1-A. High 1-A is Tier 0 with a minor limitation. Therefore our rules for questionably omnipotent beings apply to High 1-As with the sole of exceptio of having a minor limitation.

Increased scale, transcendence, multiplication by infinity ("1-A to 11-C" comparisons in a nutshelll), superiroity over logic, and the like do not automatically qualify something as High 1-A or 0.
Click to expand...
Well... DarkLK himself said that High 1-A, to him, should at the very least be to baseline 1-A what baseline 1-A is to Tier 11/10.
 
@Hadou

Paraconsistent logic, which is non-dual by its very nature, as outlined on the Omnipotence page, is computable, and thus it would contain these possibilities as well.

@Sera

Well, it's not noted that these beings have any limitations, and they can compute all possible logical and mathematical states and transcend them all. However, something cannot *become* 0, thus High 1-A would make more sense under that interpretation.

And that's just what it says on the Tiering System page, so...
 
@King

But only in certain cases. The Outer Gods have such transcendence. The Undimensioned Great Ones are literally insignificant to even the weakest avatar of the weakest Outer God as much as the Great Old Ones are to an ordinary man. So, Cthulhu Mythos has infinite High 1-As? Of course not.
 
Then who's bright idea was it to say that baseline high 1-A is to 1-A as 1-A is to 11-C, when there are so many who fit the criteria? Why even say that? High 1-A; imao, should have stayed as it was: Being Nigh-Questionably-Omnipotent.
 
Paraconsistent logic, which is non-dual by its very nature, as outlined on the Omnipotence page, is computable, and thus it would contain these possibilities as well.

This is not bound by binary computability, though. I know non-dual things are computable, I'm saying that I don't think that a non-specific Theory of Everything/Type IV Multiverse would cover everything unbound by binary computability. I'm saying that things in the text should imply that it covers things that are within non-binary mathematical possibilities as well as merely all binary computability.
 
What reason is there to assume otherwise when the theory itself is stated to cover absolutely everything computable and beyond:

Tegmark's MUH (which plays directly into the Ultimate Ensemble/Type IV multiverse) is defined as: "Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[3][4] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real."

The CUH (Computable Universe Hypothesis) is in fact a more limited variation of this:

"...proposing as an alternative to MUH the more restricted "Computable Universe Hypothesis" (CUH) which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecidable or uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces "serious challenges", including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) "virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH"."

Additionally, the above statements about MUH are almost verbatim what is stated in Manifold:Time.
 
Because No Limits Fallacies exist, and it doesn't specify all types of computability beyond simple binary computability. It would be a large and illogical leap to assume it also means all types of computability beyond those that cover everything that isn't flat out non-dual, seeing as it's the difference between just being 1-A, and several being becoming a step from Omnipotence, it should probably be addressed in the story that it covers all types of computability, or that the multiverse is implied to be covering non-binary mathematical possibilities and not just binary ones.
 
It means all equations, period. Regardless of caveats. All possibilities of logic, all mathematical realities - anything, in fact, that can be described, and even those things which cannot be (that PDF I posted above goes really deep into this) No-Limits-Fallacies aren't an issue in empirical theories which are peer-tested by fellow scientists, with so far every detractor of said theory Tegmark, a well-respected professor, doctor and scientific director, has been able to formulate a logical response to.
 
No limits fallacies are beside the point. This is a term used solely and exclusively in the middle of vsdebates.

Don't apply "No limits fallacies" to scientific theories, as this term was never and will never be an academic term. You can't invalidate a scientific proposition based on "it is saying that it has no limits". It is like saying that the proposition "Infinity has no end" is an NLF.
 
I'm not saying that, though. I am saying that the standard Theory of Everything does not mention that it includes all types of computability, which it should be specified that this usage of the Theory of Everything does. Binary computability does not cover non-duality.
 
The type IV multiverse covers all possible mathematical and logical definitions. He definitely doesn't need to mention that it includes all computability and non-duality, since he already mentions in his own definition to contain all mathematical and logical propositions (in which computability and paraconsistence are based).
 
The book does not mention the Type IV Multiverse, it just mentions the standard Theory of Everything, which does not cover most of the things you mentioned that the Type IV Multiverse covers. While the Type IV Multiverse was based around the Theory of Everything, the standard theory is not profound to cover everything unbound by binary computability and non-dual mathematical possibilities, and mentioning the Theory of Everything isn't enough to assume it is as profound as the Type IV Multiverse.
 
A Type IV multiverse is not so much "based," on the ToE as it is a candidate for ToE. That being said, the Manifold highly and heavily emphasized to be a Type IV multiverse, based on all the descriptions given above as well as characterizations and associations which are indicative of such. It is not a stretch to assume this, as Stephen Baxter, the writer of the Manifold trilogy, possesses degrees in mathematics and engineering.
 
While that's true, it isn't profound enough to match the precise description that is being proposed to warrant a High 1-A rating is all I am saying. It is definitely enough for the multiverse to consist of everything bound by duality and enough for the Downstreamers to be considered non-dual.
 
From the book:

Anna's face worked. "They are considering constraints on the ultimate manifold." Maura suspected that she was going to struggle with the rest of this conversation. "The manifold of what?" "Universes. It is of course a truism that all logically possible universes must exist. The universe, this universe, is described — umm, that's the wrong word — by a formal system. Mathematics. A system of mathematics." Maura frowned. "You mean a Theory of Everything?" Anna waved a hand, as if that were utterly trivial, and her beautiful wings rustled. "But there are many formal systems. Some of them are less rich, some more. But each formal system, logically consistent internally, describes a possible universe, which therefore exists." Maura tried to follow that. "Give me an example of a formal system." "The rules of geometry. I mean, Euclid's geometry." "High school stuff." Anna looked at her with reproof. "I never went to high school, Maura." "I'm sorry." "Some of these universes, as described by the formal systems, are rich enough to support self-aware substructures. Life. Intelligence. And some of the universes aren 't rich enough. A universe described by Euclidean geometry probably isn't, for example. Therefore it can't be observed. What the group down there is trying to establish is whether a universe that cannot be observed, though it exists, may be said to have a different category of existence." Anna glanced at Maura. "Do you understand?"

This description of the manifold aligns directly with the Type IV multiverse description. The Old Ones transcend this plateau of existence. Later on:

We have changed everything, Malenfant. Mind has assumed responsibility for the evolution of the cosmos. There will be many daughter universes — universes too many to count, universes exotic beyond our imagining — and many, many of them will harbor life and mind.

Because it was the wrongfuture. Michael looked around the sky. He pointed to the lumpy, spreading edge of the unreality bubble. There. Can you see that? It's already starting… "What is?" The budding. . . The growth of the true vacuum region is not even. There will be pockets of the false vacuum — remnants of our universe — isolated by the spreading true vacuum. The fragments of false vacuum will collapse. Like—
 
I don't like this. I think 1-A is vagueish at best and the evidence it is comes not from the book but from a paper.

High 1-A is a no-no-no.
 
Well, I defined why a Type IV multiverse is beyond dimensions, and why the book quite literally does explain exactly why, alongside that previous thread that was mentioned.
 
But I am pretty sure that 1-A is considered to be above mathematics. And again, that's a paper describing how one guy interprets Type IV Multiverses.
 
As far as I have understood, 1-A is beyond mathematics, yes. It might be best if I ask DarkLK for input here.
 
1-A isn't above mathematics, that was argued already about 1-A's definition and thrown out. As shown in the initial PDF, all Platonic entities in a Type IV Multiverse exist, including those of aspatial and atemporal nature. All forms of logic, all extrapolations of said logic. Nothing except a tier 0 and possibly a High 1-A can be beyond mathematics, because even 1-A's can be defined and given attributes, even if those are not physical. And the paper in the OP isn't an interpretation, it was made by the creator of the theory.
 
@Ant

You don't remember our discussion on why 1-A is not necessitatively beyond mathematics? It was the basis for you removing "in the realm of metaphysics" from 1-A's definition. It is clearly mentioned in the OP's PDF how aspatial and atemporal realities, being Platonic mathematical entities, exist, as well as every other logical possibility that can be formulated, in a Type IV multiverse.

Then I provided proof with text from the book why what is being described aligns with the Type IV theory.
 
but how can you prove that this applies to the Downstreamers? You are saying that

"This paper says that X is Type IV Multiverse"

"This sounds like Type IV Multiverse

"So it obviously scales to what the first paper with 0 relation to the Manifold Trilogy is saying"
 
Being a Type IV Multiverse is 1-A with proper execution. I'm still not seeing why High 1-A is even remotely considered.

Ven clearly told me, Ultima, Lucky, and GKS, in private that a Type IV Multiverse is a fodder level Composite Hierarchy, and that the likes of THEOMNIGOD, SorA, Lionel Suggs, and the kind gents over at All-Dimensions and Verses/Dimensions wiki can come up with theoretically high end Composite Hierarchies that encompass true endlessness and they would still be 1-A on Vs. Battles Wiki.

Our system; our rules.
 
The quotes I provided above (and indeed, the ones in the other thread) link up with a Type IV multiverse, even down to the definitions used, however.

Here's further proof in the definition of the MUH, which is the underlying theory of the Ultimate Ensemble:


"In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by the cosmologist Max Tegmark."

"Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world""

This links up directly with:

"Anna's face worked. "They are considering constraints on the ultimate manifold." Maura suspected that she was going to struggle with the rest of this conversation. "The manifold of what?" "Universes. It is of course a truism that all logically possible universes must exist. The universe, this universe, is described — umm, that's the wrong word — by a formal system. Mathematics. A system of mathematics." Maura frowned. "You mean a Theory of Everything?" Anna waved a hand, as if that were utterly trivial, and her beautiful wings rustled. "But there are many formal systems. Some of them are less rich, some more. But each formal system, logically consistent internally, describes a possible universe, which therefore exists." Maura tried to follow that. "Give me an example of a formal system." "The rules of geometry. I mean, Euclid's geometry." "High school stuff." Anna looked at her with reproof. "I never went to high school, Maura." "I'm sorry." "Some of these universes, as described by the formal systems, are rich enough to support self-aware substructures. Life. Intelligence. And some of the universes aren 't rich enough. A universe described by Euclidean geometry probably isn't, for example. Therefore it can't be observed. What the group down there is trying to establish is whether a universe that cannot be observed, though it exists, may be said to have a different category of existence." Anna glanced at Maura. "Do you understand?"


@Sera

No offense meant, but I don't think Ven is necessarily a cosmologist nor a physicist. There is no "wank," here, nor do I ever engage in such things. I simply hope to assess each particular instance of something alongside the arbitrary boundaries which have been constructed in relation to this system. There is no equivalence with a real scientific theory to that of those, well, frankly atrocious pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific works. I additionally do not appreciate the condescension you may be demonstrating toward me. I am well versed in VBW's system, having argued about its fundamentals with Ant and DarkLK themselves, facilitating, logically, a change in the definition of 1-A. And not for my own purposes, contrary to what anyone may assume.

That being said, if 1-A is a safer, logical end, that is what I will defend.
 
I agree that High 1-A is absurd.

Anyway, DarkLK has replied:

"Sorry, I do not have time.

Although there seems to be a lot of information in this topic that pertains to the work itself only indirectly.

I can be wrong though."
 
So he seems to agree with Matthew.
 
Basically the work itself definitely supports At least High 1-B. 1-A is super maybe and High 1-A is a no.
 
We can wait for DarkLK to say literally the exact same thing if you want, but seriously. "Beyond mathematics". What mathematics? We use dimensionality and perspectives here. Like Ven said long ago and I'll repeat right now. It's the same as metaphysics, being metaphysical =/= 1-A by default. Bleach has metaphysics. Bleach isn't 1-A.

The same should apply to mathematics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
  • Locked
Manifold Revision: Downstreamers P&A
Replies
13
Views
1K
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
757
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
Celestial_Pegasus
11 Eyes Gods are 1-A or Higher?
Replies
20
Views
3K
Creaturemaster971
Creaturemaster971
GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Type 1 Concept for space and dimensions in Honkai
Replies
34
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Hellformer
Does this qualify for a type 4 multiverse/Low 1-A?
Replies
25
Views
1K
BestMGQScalerEver
BestMGQScalerEver
Back
Top