Low 1-A Wiki Wide Tiering Revision, Beyond Dimensions.

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

Are you willing and able to continue to help out here?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know, I gave a suggestion for the places that would most likely need changes, but since I disagree with DT and don't fully understand his standards, idk how to implement them.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is unfortunate.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump. Given how Ultima's first Marvel cosmology thread is over now, I hope Ultima and DT can resume this discussion now.

 

[Antvasima]

Bump. Given how Ultima's first Marvel cosmology thread is over now, I hope Ultima and DT can resume this discussion now.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Relates to the wider debate, but sure we can focus on the specific cases:

1. is, without much more context but enough for the superiority to be at least identified as proper qualitative superiority, in my opinion to be ranked as however many dimensions the verse is known to have +1. That's because such a statement can easily refer to actually existent dimensions, and not include abstract dimensions that only exist in some mathematicians head.

2. is, if being the source scales to AP, to be ranked at the level of creating all dimensions the verse is known to have. I think being the source of dimensions quite clearly refers to just the existing ones.

3. is a bit incomplete... let's say the full statement is "no matter how many dimensions there are the character can destroy them". That I would put to Low 1-A. I think the reasonable low-end to interpreting "no matter how many" is "any finite quantity of". I don't think it should include infinite and much less cardinals, if no further explanation is given than such a statement.

4. I would default to the highest shown in the verse, unless we have somehow been told there can be unlimited ones. As a reason, consider the statement "no matter how high a building you climb on, you won't reach space". That's a reasonable statement to make and of course buildings here would be understood to only take into account what exists or is currently possible, not theoretical stuff like space elevators. In a similar manner, if a fiction has 10 stages of transcendence I would read this as meaning "no matter how high in the 10 known stages" and hence not include stages that may or may not actually exist or could exist beyond that.

Basically based on this DT argument that people agree on.

To reach outversal, you must mention infinity.

No if and except.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Basically based on this DT argument that people agree on.

To reach outversal, you must mention infinity.

No if and except.

You seem to have not given the earlier part of the thread (End of the last page or so) much of an in-depth look. We did indeed reach a compromise in which characters can be 1-A as long as it's made clear they're above even theoretical dimensions, and not just the dimensions physically existing in-verse, regardless of whether or not infinite are mentioned. Largely, the disagreement that followed was whether it was fine to extrapolate that further, into High 1-A and not just 1-A. That discussion to my recollection was halted.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

Thought we agreed to postpone this? Since, if I recall, it was deemed to be technically a derailing of the thread's original purpose.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

You seem to have not given the earlier part of the thread (End of the last page or so) much of an in-depth look. We did indeed reach a compromise in which characters can be 1-A as long as it's made clear they're above even theoretical dimensions, and not just the dimensions physically existing in-verse, regardless of whether or not infinite are mentioned. Largely, the disagreement that followed was whether it was fine to extrapolate that further, into High 1-A and not just 1-A. That discussion to my recollection was halted.

But DT said that it only extends to the dimensions shown in the verse???

 

[Agnaa]

But DT said that it only extends to the dimensions shown in the verse???

You're misunderstanding. It typically only extends to the dimensions shown in the verse, but he said he was willing to extrapolate further from a few, very specific statements.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

You're misunderstanding. It typically only extends to the dimensions shown in the verse, but he said he was willing to extrapolate further from a few, very specific statements.

1. was however many dimensions the verse is known to have +1.
2. was however many dimensions the verse is known to have.
4. was however many planes of existence the verse is known to have.

3. Is... well, 1-B if we take it as "no matter how many dimensions there are they can destroy them".

If it's "They can destroy all finite dimensions at once" we have to think about that whole sequence space business, i.e. whether the space of finite sequences or space of infinite sequences is better. If finite sequences is better (incomplete space, but in exchange only the union) then it's High 1-B. If infinite sequence space is better (complete space and natural continuation of the product space idea, but some points contained that are not in any finite-dimensional space) then it's Low 1-A.
And if we ask for the ranking of "Transcends all finite dimensional spaces" we would be either Low 1-A or 1-A depending on which option we take.

Honestly, I'm kinda jumping back and forth between which option I prefer right now. Low 1-A might make more sense after all... Then again, this might again be drifting off from what the thread was about? In that case it will become a topic for a next thread... honestly, might be best to handle it separately

Where did he said that?

Well, 1., 2. and 4. stay as I explained earlier. And 3. would be upper-end 1-B, like Agnaa said.

 

[Agnaa]

Where did he said that?

In the part about 3.

As you can see, he doesn't talk about it being capped to something in the verse. He's just unsure if it should go to 1-B, Low 1-A, or 1-A (depending on the statement). And iirc, he eventually settled on 1-A working for some statements (that part about it just being 1-B was before his statement about it landing at Low 1-A or 1-A).

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Low 1-A might make more sense after all... Then again, this might again be drifting off from what the thread was about? In that case it will become a topic for a next thread... honestly, might be best to handle it separately.

In the part about 3.

As you can see, he doesn't talk about it being capped to something in the verse. He's just unsure if it should go to 1-B, Low 1-A, or 1-A (depending on the statement). And iirc, he eventually settled on 1-A working for some statements (that part about it just being 1-B was before his statement about it landing at Low 1-A or 1-A).

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I think we must finish this thread first.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes. We're waiting for DT to come back so he can apply the appropriate changes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think since we reduced the scope of what the treat debates, the things that are up to debate now match our current standards?
What I could do is to add something to the tiering system FAQ reflecting the answers of the 4 questions. (with the basic answer for question 3, since the other needs some more debate IMO, which together with the other stuff we omitted should probably happen in a later thread)

 

[Antvasima]

I think since we reduced the scope of what the treat debates, the things that are up to debate now match our current standards?
What I could do is to add something to the tiering system FAQ reflecting the answers of the 4 questions. (with the basic answer for question 3, since the other needs some more debate IMO, which together with the other stuff we omitted should probably happen in a later thread)

Can you elaborate/explain further please?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I think since we reduced the scope of what the treat debates, the things that are up to debate now match our current standards?
What I could do is to add something to the tiering system FAQ reflecting the answers of the 4 questions. (with the basic answer for question 3, since the other needs some more debate IMO, which together with the other stuff we omitted should probably happen in a later thread)

I glad.

Please do then.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

BUMP

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

This thread is dying
Bump

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Bump

 

[Overlord_Darkness]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

I asked DontTalk for further help here via Discord earlier.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

This sucks

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if DontTalk is too busy IRL right now, there isn't much to do about it.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Bump

 

[StrymULTRA]

Please guys just get it done I need a consensus for this CRT which based on the exact same thing lol.

(Maybe adding Magic the Gathering to the OP in verses involved?)

 

[Antvasima]

I have reminded DontTalk about this thread recently.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump

Why are you bumping? We're just waiting for DontTalk, and if someone hasn't read a thread, they don't get new notifications for each message.

If you're going to bump, do it more sparingly.

Please guys just get it done I need a consensus for this CRT which based on the exact same thing lol.

(Maybe adding Magic the Gathering to the OP in verses involved?)

There's already a consensus about the policy moving forward, it's just about whether we need to rewrite any pages, and if so, how.

 

[StrymULTRA]

There's already a consensus about the policy moving forward, it's just about whether we need to rewrite any pages, and if so, how.

I see, if this is the case I'd advise you to call staff members to go there.

Because I do not think we can do things "1-B, likely 1-A" for cosmology, given how big of a tier this is, ngl.

 

[Agnaa]

I thought staff members were already called to that thread? I know I was.

tl;dr of the new standards seems to be that almost nothing makes the jump to 1-A without already establishing a High 1-B construct. The few things that could are very explicit that they generalise, like "no matter how many dimensions". Just being "beyond any dimensions", "source of dimensions", "concept of dimensions", etc. doesn't do more than a +1 over the existing cosmology.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I thought staff members were already called to that thread? I know I was.

tl;dr of the new standards seems to be that almost nothing makes the jump to 1-A without already establishing a High 1-B construct. The few things that could are very explicit that they generalise, like "no matter how many dimensions". Just being "beyond any dimensions", "source of dimensions", "concept of dimensions", etc. doesn't do more than a +1 over the existing cosmology.

Nope, only Weekly and Ultima. But latter does not want to show up, despite pulling his usual "will see today" (which never happens).

Though if this kind of rating is 1-A now, then that thread needs attention, because it has a statement which could potentially qualify.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I thought staff members were already called to that thread? I know I was.

tl;dr of the new standards seems to be that almost nothing makes the jump to 1-A without already establishing a High 1-B construct. The few things that could are very explicit that they generalise, like "no matter how many dimensions". Just being "beyond any dimensions", "source of dimensions", "concept of dimensions", etc. doesn't do more than a +1 over the existing cosmology.

This makes me a bit curious with regards to other kinds of statements.

For example, we ended up compromising that statements like "Above all dimensions in math" would be fine to extrapolate into the 1-A range, given the logic that, if you can have n dimensions, then you can also have n+1 dimensions. So how would we treat, say, characters who are stated to be above mathematics? Would we first require the verse to talk about dimensions as math structures, or something like that? Statements that are by nature inclusive of what we'd accept but don't explicitly mention it are a good point of inquiry, I'd say.

This question is honestly interesting, too:

What about transcending the concept of dimensions?

I think we're a bit too bogged down by our own internal terminology when it comes to things like this. Like, when a user here thinks of "the concept of dimensions," most likely they think of "concept" in the sense of an abstract force that shapes reality. Basically, when we think of "concept" in the VSBW sense, we're thinking of a Universal, which is a good deal more specific.

And under those lenses, it does make sense to think of "the concept of dimensions" as restricted to however many dimensions there are in-verse. For instance the Universal of "dimension" under a view where concepts are coterminous with reality would be exactly that (So, if 8 dimensions are all that exists, ever existed and will ever exist, the concept of dimension would cover only those 8 dimensions)

But what about the interpretation of "concept" as in, an idea? A conception? Something that's thought about? That kind of stuff seems like it'd fall in the same bucket as "All dimensions in math," provided it's actually literal and all-encompassing, and not shit like "Above Joe's idea of dimensions" (Joe is the illiterate bum living behind the local Walmart)

 

[Agnaa]

This makes me a bit curious with regards to other kinds of statements.

For example, we ended up compromising that statements like "Above all dimensions in math" would be fine to extrapolate into the 1-A range, given the logic that, if you can have n dimensions, then you can also have n+1 dimensions. So how would we treat, say, characters who are stated to be above mathematics? Would we first require the verse to talk about dimensions as math structures, or something like that? Statements that are by nature inclusive of what we'd accept but don't explicitly mention it are a good point of inquiry, I'd say.

Did we end up compromising on statements like that?

I remember disagreeing with that logic explicitly, and I think DT did too.

I think we're a bit too bogged down by our own internal terminology when it comes to things like this. Like, when a user here thinks of "the concept of dimensions," most likely they think of "concept" in the sense of an abstract force that shapes reality. Basically, when we think of "concept" in the VSBW sense, we're thinking of a Universal, which is a good deal more specific.

And under those lenses, it does make sense to think of "the concept of dimensions" as restricted to however many dimensions there are in-verse. For instance the Universal of "dimension" under a view where concepts are coterminous with reality would be exactly that (So, if 8 dimensions are all that exists, ever existed and will ever exist, the concept of dimension would cover only those 8 dimensions)

But what about the interpretation of "concept" as in, an idea? A conception? Something that's thought about? That kind of stuff seems like it'd fall in the same bucket as "All dimensions in math," provided it's actually literal and all-encompassing, and not shit like "Above Joe's idea of dimensions" (Joe is the illiterate bum living behind the local Walmart)

As explained before off-site, I don't like that route either, since then we have to ask, above whose idea of "dimensions"?

And I know that 95% of the cases you're gesturing towards would just say "the concept of dimensions" with zero elaboration, not pointing to "concept" = "idea", let alone to whose idea it's talking about.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Did we end up compromising on statements like that?

Seems like we did, yeah, unless I missed something big. Here, from the third page:

My approach on the other hand is more conservative. I generally don't think such statements should be used to scale the verse more than 1 level of infinity higher than the largest structure mentioned in the verse (either mentioned to exist or mentioned to at least be possible to exist, depending on which statement is made). There are two exceptions to that.
The first exception is very niche statements that clearly explain some inference rule. E.g. if a verse states "we can at any point add one more dimensions" then probably any finite amount are possible and hence we can rank a character transcending all of them as Low 1-A.
The second is that if the statement is something like "above all dimensions in mathematics" and the fiction mentioned mathematical higher dimensions, then I am willing to extrapolate higher, but just up to Low 1-A (i.e. baseline above any number of finite dimensions) unless infinite dimensions are explicitly mentioned.

As explained before off-site, I don't like that route either, since then we have to ask, above whose idea of "dimensions"?

And I know that 95% of the cases you're gesturing towards would just say "the concept of dimensions" with zero elaboration, not pointing to "concept" = "idea", let alone to whose idea it's talking about.

That sounds a bit weird, though. Would we assume "concept" by default refers to "Universal," instead of just as in "conception"? And I understand that, yeah. I'm far less interested in specific cases and far more with the general scenario.

 

[Agnaa]

Ah, DT didn't just say "above all dimensions in math", he said "above all dimensions in math & those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere".

I won't accept walking that down to "above all math but 400 chapters earlier they mentioned 'dimensions' once" being treated as 1-A.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Come on DT

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

I will remind him.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ah, DT didn't just say "above all dimensions in math", he said "above all dimensions in math & those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere".

I won't accept walking that down to "above all math but 400 chapters earlier they mentioned 'dimensions' once" being treated as 1-A.

I suppose I'll wait until he comes around and clarifies what "those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere" entails here. If this post is anything to go by, for instance, it seems we're fine with using an inductive argument to generalize into countably infinite dimensions. And in here all he said was "We need to know that the verse is talking about a system of mathematics that includes higher dimensions."

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I suppose I'll wait until he comes around and clarifies what "those higher dimensions are elaborated on elsewhere" entails here. If this post is anything to go by, for instance, it seems we're fine with using an inductive argument to generalize into countably infinite dimensions. And in here all he said was "We need to know that the verse is talking about a system of mathematics that includes higher dimensions."

@DontTalkDT

 

[Luckyfun]

Bump