Logical Impossibilities Clarification

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

My Major Question: What exactly qualifies as a "logical impossibility" under the revised tiering system?



I’ve seen characters accepted for performing contraries (things that are definitional opposites, like “square circle” or “married bachelor”). But then we also have cases of mutually exclusive contradictions, such as The Epilogue from Isekai at Peace, where The Epilogue is nullified yet it can still act, and the actual story states this as contradictory, not a higher level of resistance negation.



In any other context, Normally contradictions are treated as anti-feats, but there are definitely cases that explicitly treat these type of anti-feats as proof of their contradictory or paradoxical nature, or state that it's contradictory on purpose, such as The Epilogue.



So my concern is:

• If "logical impossibility" only refers to contraries, then mutually exclusive contradictions like this don’t qualify, and we need to state that explicitly.
• If it’s meant more broadly, then not only should The Epilogue is a textbook example of a logical impossibility that should count and be reevaluated to a higher tier than just being upgraded to High 1-A, but we should also be directly looking into other examples of such impossibilities on the Wiki as she is far from an isolated case.

So, please tell me, which interpretation is official? If it’s the narrower one, how do we handle feats that would qualify under the broader definition of logical impossibility ?

 

[Oliver_de_jesus]

Following, I have a verse where the multiverse has a logical impossibility which is the paradox of Multiverse theory

(Yes, this one: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https://external-preview.redd.it/hJRQQMBtJj_0XloD2AwISqUBsw3WCkbPZt1SIi2_qq8.jpg?auto=webp&s=1f72377c57d779797884d3f125fbee7a07e6267b)

So i curious

 

[Zeldris98764]

My Major Question: What exactly qualifies as a "logical impossibility" under the revised tiering system?

The short answer is that "performing a logical impossibility" isn't, by itself, a direct ticket to Tier 0. The context and nature of the feat are what matter. People often see a single contradictory feat and make a hasty generalization, jumping straight to Boundless without considering what the feat actually demonstrates.

I’ve seen characters accepted for performing contraries (things that are definitional opposites, like “square circle” or “married bachelor”). But then we also have cases of mutually exclusive contradictions, such as The Epilogue from Isekai at Peace, where The Epilogue is nullified yet it can still act, and the actual story states this as contradictory, not a higher level of resistance negation.

You're right to point out this distinction, but let's look at what's really happening here.

A character creating a "square circle" is typically a feat of high-level Reality Warping or Conceptual Manipulation. They are using their power to force two mutually exclusive concepts to coexist. This is an application of power within a system of logic, even if it's breaking the rules of that system. It demonstrates control over logic, but not necessarily transcendence of it.

Now, for your specific example:

In any other context, Normally contradictions are treated as anti-feats, but there are definitely cases that explicitly treat these type of anti-feats as proof of their contradictory or paradoxical nature, or state that it's contradictory on purpose, such as The Epilogue.

When a contradiction is an unintentional writing error (like a character stated to be "beyond time" being affected by a simple time stop), it's an anti-feat because it undermines the established cosmology.

However, when the narrative explicitly frames the contradiction as a core aspect of the character's nature, it's not an anti-feat; it's a feat of a specific ability. In the case of The Epilogue being nullified yet still acting, that sounds like a textbook example of Nonexistent Physiology (Paradoxical Nonexistence) or a very high level of regeneration/immortality (Mid-Godly/High-Godly). The system has a classification for this. The character exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. It's a paradox, yes, but it's a definable paradox that functions as a hax.

So my concern is:

• If "logical impossibility" only refers to contraries, then mutually exclusive contradictions like this don’t qualify, and we need to state that explicitly.
• If it’s meant more broadly, then not only should The Epilogue is a textbook example of a logical impossibility that should count and be reevaluated to a higher tier than just being upgraded to High 1-A, but we should also be directly looking into other examples of such impossibilities on the Wiki as she is far from an isolated case.

You're creating a false dichotomy. A "logical impossibility" sufficient for Tier 0 is not about performing a single contradictory action. Tier 0 is a state of being that is completely transcendent over the framework of logic itself.

A Tier 0 entity doesn't just "do the impossible." It exists in a state where the concepts of "possible" and "impossible" are utterly meaningless distinctions. It is beyond differentiation. The Epilogue's feat, while impressive, still operates within a framework where "nullified" and "acting" are distinct concepts that can be contradicted. A truly Boundless being would transcend the very concept of being "nullified" or "acting" in the first place.

So, to answer your final question:

So, please tell me, which interpretation is official? If it’s the narrower one, how do we handle feats that would qualify under the broader definition of logical impossibility ?

The official interpretation is that Tier 0 requires a character to be qualitatively beyond the system of logic itself. Performing a contradictory feat is not enough.

The Epilogue's feat is the former. It's a high-level hax that breaks established rules. It's why a High 1-A rating makes sense—it reflects a supreme level of power and conceptual hax that operates on a "meta" level, but it doesn't demonstrate the complete and total transcendence over all ontological and logical frameworks required for Tier 0.

Classify them as what they are: powerful, paradoxical hax like Nonexistent Physiology, high-level Regeneration, or Nonduality

 

[Agnaa]

My Major Question: What exactly qualifies as a "logical impossibility" under the revised tiering system?



I’ve seen characters accepted for performing contraries (things that are definitional opposites, like “square circle” or “married bachelor”). But then we also have cases of mutually exclusive contradictions, such as The Epilogue from Isekai at Peace, where The Epilogue is nullified yet it can still act, and the actual story states this as contradictory, not a higher level of resistance negation.



In any other context, Normally contradictions are treated as anti-feats, but there are definitely cases that explicitly treat these type of anti-feats as proof of their contradictory or paradoxical nature, or state that it's contradictory on purpose, such as The Epilogue.



So my concern is:

• If "logical impossibility" only refers to contraries, then mutually exclusive contradictions like this don’t qualify, and we need to state that explicitly.
• If it’s meant more broadly, then not only should The Epilogue is a textbook example of a logical impossibility that should count and be reevaluated to a higher tier than just being upgraded to High 1-A, but we should also be directly looking into other examples of such impossibilities on the Wiki as she is far from an isolated case.

So, please tell me, which interpretation is official? If it’s the narrower one, how do we handle feats that would qualify under the broader definition of logical impossibility ?

What the heck are you talking about?

Neither the Tiering System page, the Tiering System FAQ, or the Omnipotence page mention "logical impossibilities". What does that have to do with tiering?

What do you mean by characters being "accepted for performing contraries"? Accepted as what? Characters that can perform contraries? I'd sure hope so! But contextually there'd be a lot of variance on what ability that would grant, and it would never be of relevance to tiering.

Why would contradictions be treated as anti-feats? Anti-feats of what?

What is this fantasy land version of the tiering system you seem to be talking about?