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

[Ultima_Reality]

Yeah, I never said that criteria was particularly hard to achieve? The point of that was to clear the criteria of "the stuff we put the character above is actually mentioned in the verse". If the verse makes a dimensional argument it will often be the case that it naturally mentions higher dimensions of finite number. Same criteria for infinite and cardinal many dimensions is more rarely fulfilled, though.

But of course, it's just one of the mentioned criteria, in any case.

If it's meant in a mathematical sense of dimensions (as in, theoretical dimensions are included so that possible limits of physics or supernatural power and stuff play no role) then I can agree with that. Like, that's what the compromise with Agnaa was all about. So as long as you keep it to Low 1-A instead of High 1-A, we are mostly in agreement on that.

Oh, joy. Seems like the difference in our viewpoints wasn't as fundamental as I thought they were at first, after all. I was largely confused there because earlier you dismissed my claim that dimensions in the abstract can't have a limit as being speculative, but seeing your points now it seems I should've specified a -finite- limit. Happy we actually share some common ground after all.

Though, this still leads to some weirdness in my view. In any verse, we, generally speaking, would assume the continuum exists, no? That's kind of what we do as soon as we assume R. So how come such statements would stop at Low 1-A to you? If c exists, then why wouldn't a space with c-many dimensions also exist, mathematically?

I feel like that already fails at the matter of qualitative superiority. Like, this seems to detail a beyond dimensional existence, but I see no evidence of infinite superiority above even the three dimensional universe, much less a multiverse or even bigger constructs.

Eh? How come? Especially given the hypothetical says this:

It was not that he was too big to be bound by them. No, their insignificance was far more fundamental than that. A simple matter of size did not explain this..

Which is what I was getting at in previous points of the discussion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Oh, joy. Seems like the difference in our viewpoints wasn't as fundamental as I thought they were at first, after all. I was largely confused there because earlier you dismissed my claim that dimensions in the abstract can't have a limit as being speculative, but seeing your points now it seems I should've specified a -finite- limit. Happy we actually share some common ground after all.

Well, I actually do think abstract dimensions can have a finite limit. (a string theorist talking about theoretical dimensions might have other ideas than a mathematician) It's just that I'm willing to compromise under those specific circumstances.

Though, this still leads to some weirdness in my view. In any verse, we, generally speaking, would assume the continuum exists, no? That's kind of what we do as soon as we assume R. So how come such statements would stop at Low 1-A to you? If c exists, then why wouldn't a space with c-many dimensions also exist, mathematically?

First, you would need to assume that the fiction knows that cardinality is a thing. The real numbers were invented before cardinality was, so their existence doesn't mean that their cardinality is used as such.

Then you would need to assume that they consider spaces as things that can contain infinite dimensions. Infinite dimensional spaces are a lot less "spatial". While things like distance can exist, the euclidean distance as such can't really. If you look at the space of infinite sequences for instance you can't just sum up the squares of all sequence entires and take the root to get a norm anymore.

Then the proof that dimensions are well-defined works differently. In finite dimensions it works via induction. I.e. it is as easy as "if I can have n, then I can have n+1 too". For infinite ones that doesn't work. In fact, that every vector space has a basis (which is required to have a definition of dimension) is equivalent to the axiom of choice. I.e. if you don't take the axiom of choice there may be infinite dimensional spaces that are non-dimensional in nature.

And can you for example tell me an explicit coordinate system for the R^R? As the prior point indicates actually modelling the dimensional axis of infinite D spaces explicitly is in general impossible. So hands on construction of infinite dimensional things is very different.

Another aspect to consider is the computational one. An infinite-dimensional space carries infinite information different from finite-dimensional ones. I could sing a song of how infinite-dimensional computations need lots of special tricks to work.

This also goes into the intuitive region, where infinite dimensional spaces are much harder to imagine. From my experience doing math I can say that generally there are three "levels" to most mathematical topics. First the easy case in 1D, then the generalization in arbitrary finite dimensions and then the infinite dimensional ones that need special care and you can just hope that no weird exception arises.

And yeah, ultimately it comes back around to the question of: In what realm was this statement considered? If finite higher dimensions are explicitly mentioned I have a relatively easy time believing that the statement took more of those into consideration. So I can compromise on including those. However, my certainty goes down quickly regarding infinite ones and even more regarding higher cardinalities. Like, has an average person heard of higher dimensions? Yeah, probably a little in context of physics or so. Have they heard of cardinalities? I'm sceptical. The idea that the existence of the continuum implies the existence of |R| many dimensions requires a mathematical insight I wouldn't default to assuming the statement employed. If I asked my math student which dimensionality the R -> R function space has, he would probably just look at me weird and ask how functions can have dimensions... or guess 1, because he mistakes it for the dimensions of R. (Probably the latter by how I know him lol)

Aaaanyway, I think there is usually a large leap from finite to infinite in virtually any context.

Eh? How come? Especially given the hypothetical says this:

It was not that he was too big to be bound by them. No, their insignificance was far more fundamental than that. A simple matter of size did not explain this..

Which is what I was getting at in previous points of the discussion.

That statement fundamentally says two things.

First, a simple matter of size doesn't explain the difference made. That much is already given by BDE Type 1. Size differences just generally don't explain BDE, so we get nothing from that.

The other is that the dimensions are insignificant to the character. "Insignificant" is way too vague of a statement to reason qualitative superiority, even just for the three mentioned dimensions. Like, does insignificant even mean a power difference here? I wouldn't be sure. It could just mean that the concepts are of no relevance to the non-spatial character, not that he is power-wise superior to all those who can destroy only dimensional spaces. And even if it is a statement of power "insignificant" is not specific enough to reason qualitative superiority. It could be a large but not infinite difference. The same way a human might call the power of a bug insignificant.

In fact, this in spirit somewhat reminds me of a statement from The Unexplored Summon made in regard to laws:

Is anything impossible?

And if so, is that due to the individual, due to society, due to the world, or due to logic or physical laws?

Hee hee hee. Sorry. It is a little cruel for the strongest of the strong to ask a question like that. Please don’t let it get to you, brother.

Nothing is impossible for me.

I am a true queen. I am not bound by logic or the physical laws; they obey my very existence. You could say the “world” is just one of my many unimportant servants.

Even that's not referring to a qualitative superiority over the setting.

Anyway, yeah, I don't think that would get you further than BDE Type 1 without being more explicit.

 

[Antvasima]

If anybody wonders, Ultima and I agreed to delete all of the derailing posts here, including my own, to focus on the main discussion, so I just tried to carry out that task. That is all.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, I actually do think abstract dimensions can have a finite limit. (a string theorist talking about theoretical dimensions might have other ideas than a mathematician) It's just that I'm willing to compromise under those specific circumstances.

Eh, that sounds like a different context entirely if we're talking statements as all-encompassing as "All dimensions in mathematics" or "The notion of dimensions in general." For example, when physicists posit 11 dimensions for string theory, they're saying "The math tells us that strings have to vibrate in this many axes to generate the universe as we see it right now." They're not really pushing aside higher number of abstract dimensions entirely, so much as they're saying it's all not really useful for their purpose (Which is making a theory that adequately models reality)

But, regardless, that seems like a nitpick, no?

First, you would need to assume that the fiction knows that cardinality is a thing. The real numbers were invented before cardinality was, so their existence doesn't mean that their cardinality is used as such.

Cardinality is just the concept of "How many things are there in this bag?", so I don't think that's particularly an issue that concerns us. Certainly, the judgements that we make about the fiction from the outside, using the real world as a reference point, may not necessarily be identical to the raw facts of the fiction itself, so much as they're jusy what we deem to best approximate them, but things like cardinality are too basic to dismiss or handwave in that manner, imo.

Overall it seems to boil back to the author intent argument, to a degree, which I think is fairly silly due to the reasons already said (The author's mindset isn't really knowable, and even if it was, we wouldn't apply it to the verse proper unless something explicitly tied the two together). I work by a chain of implication: The existence of an amount of things equal to the set of all real numbers would imply the cardinality of the real numbers (Since those are one and the same thing), and once that is a set, it spirals out.

In view of that, I also don't really get how infinite-dimensional spaces being wacky compared to finite-dimensional ones ties into much. It's utterly irrelevant, at least independently from the "What the author probably knew about" thing.

The other is that the dimensions are insignificant to the character. "Insignificant" is way too vague of a statement to reason qualitative superiority, even just for the three mentioned dimensions. Like, does insignificant even mean a power difference here? I wouldn't be sure. It could just mean that the concepts are of no relevance to the non-spatial character, not that he is power-wise superior to all those who can destroy only dimensional spaces. And even if it is a statement of power "insignificant" is not specific enough to reason qualitative superiority. It could be a large but not infinite difference. The same way a human might call the power of a bug insignificant.

The statement in this case would be referring to the nature of the being, of course. That is to say it would be a case where their physiology is tied to their AP (Being the source of it), rather than the two standing as independent things and the statement just so happening to refer to the latter. This sort of nitpicking doesn't really work here. Like, come on. It explicitly lays out the difference between 2-D and 3-D and says such a relationship doesn't begin to the describe the scope of the difference between that being and 3-D space, because the degree in which he is greater than it is not simply a matter of "He's infinitely larger!"

So, pushing all of that aside, why exactly isn't it adequate?

And since you'd still want the statement to be more explicit, I welcome you to rewrite the hypothetical a bit, into something that you'd say qualifies. Sorta trying to carve a minimum here, so, although I don't really concede that the hypothetical doesn't qualify, I want to see what would to you.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Overall it seems to boil back to the author intent argument, to a degree, which I think is fairly silly due to the reasons already said (The author's mindset isn't really knowable, and even if it was, we wouldn't apply it to the verse proper unless something explicitly tied the two together). I work by a chain of implication: The existence of an amount of things equal to the set of all real numbers would imply the cardinality of the real numbers (Since those are one and the same thing), and once that is a set, it spirals out.

In fact, an actual example of us dismissing potential author intent or lack thereof that comes to mind right now is the case of The Downstreamers, from Manifold. The author of the verse, Stephen Baxter, has a degree in mathematics, and in another story of his for a separate verse, mentioned Woodin Cardinals, which are very large numbers; well into Tier 0, in fact. At the same time, in Manifold, he had the Downstreamers create a structure containing all mathematically coherent worlds.

For a time we reasoned that the story that mentions Woodin Cardinals and Manifold were in the same verse, and so we upgraded the Downstreamers to pretty outlandish levels of Tier 0 on the basis that, since all mathematically possible universes existed, then surely they created universes with a woodin cardinal's worth of dimensions, or whatever else. But then it turned out that the two were not canon to each other, and so we nerfed them back to Low 1-A, despite, in the author's mind, the Downstreamers' multiverse absolutely containing large cardinals (Since "all of mathematics" in his thinking would include those)

This is just the reverse case here. If we can't use "The author probably knows about this" to upgrade verses (Even in cases where we literally know for a fact that they do have knowledge of the relevant concept), then we can't use "The author probably didn't know about this" to nerf verses either. We just tier the statements by what they are, without influence of that. If you want to argue "Well, the existence of those things doesn't necessarily follow by induction from the premises you gave," then do so without trying to talk about stuff like "What the verse knows" or "What the average person knows."

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Yeah it seems really dumb to go through all these hoops when we can just refer to the written text and gather whatever evidence to support tier 1 ratings.

Like you don't need a degree in complex math to arrive at a decently complex description of higher order realms. In fact for the most part, it isn't even the authors that directly arrive at these conclusions anyway, since we ourselves apply our standards on the objective evidence and arrive at our own conclusions of the depicted ratings.

DT's suggestion is nothing if not limiting on how we apply our standards to objective evidence. If we cannot apply the full extent of our knowledge upon the verses we evaluate, why do we even bother trying to evaluate them anyway?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Eh, that sounds like a different context entirely if we're talking statements as all-encompassing as "All dimensions in mathematics" or "The notion of dimensions in general." For example, when physicists posit 11 dimensions for string theory, they're saying "The math tells us that strings have to vibrate in this many axes to generate the universe as we see it right now." They're not really pushing aside higher number of abstract dimensions entirely, so much as they're saying it's all not really useful for their purpose (Which is making a theory that adequately models reality)

But, regardless, that seems like a nitpick, no?

I'm just pointing out that it depends on how dimensions are explained exactly. Like, "all dimensions in mathematics" is probably fine. Unless the verse has some weird philosophical views on mathematics.

"The notion of dimensions in general" begs for more context, though, as we have no idea which notion is referred to. Like, even mathematics has several different definitions of dimensions, so not everyone means the same notion in every context. And physics just comes on top. I think there some more clarity that theoretical stuff and stuff beyond what's possible in physics is included should be had in addition to that statement.

Cardinality is just the concept of "How many things are there in this bag?", so I don't think that's particularly an issue that concerns us. Certainly, the judgements that we make about the fiction from the outside, using the real world as a reference point, may not necessarily be identical to the raw facts of the fiction itself, so much as they're jusy what we deem to best approximate them, but things like cardinality are too basic to dismiss or handwave in that manner, imo.

When I say cardinality I mean in the sense of "the knowledge that there are different sizes of infinity", something I bet the majority of people on Earth don't know.

In that regard, as said, we can't just take statements and assume they should be interpreted absolutely literally. Even a narrator speaks like a human and not with constant mathematical precision. Blowing up such statements by our own knowledge of what it should technically mean, is no better than blowing up statements of Omnipotence to Tier 0 based on our own knowledge of what omnipotence should include.

Overall it seems to boil back to the author intent argument, to a degree, which I think is fairly silly due to the reasons already said (The author's mindset isn't really knowable, and even if it was, we wouldn't apply it to the verse proper unless something explicitly tied the two together).

And, as already explained, taking an interpretation likely to be higher than the author statement can't be the solution to not knowing what a statement meant. The lowest reasonable interpretation would always be one that is lower or equal to what was actually meant. And, while we don't go for the author intend, we go for the lowest reasonable interpretation of the statement, not the most literal one.

I work by a chain of implication: The existence of an amount of things equal to the set of all real numbers would imply the cardinality of the real numbers (Since those are one and the same thing), and once that is a set, it spirals out.

Problem is, that chain of reasoning only holds in mathematics. In fact, you could just employ mathematical reasoning to proof infinite dimensions just from ZF. Or you could go a step further and say "they also know subset, so potency sets exist and hence a bunch of more cardinals".

The problem is that you view this as a game where you can apply as much reasoning to fiction as you like. But fiction doesn't work like that. It doesn't have the integrity of allowing all mathematical conclusions in it to just be true.

What you're doing is similar to watching a stone in an anime drop and recalculating the gravitational constant of the verse that way. Technically one can do that, but at that point you're putting more thought into it than the show. You stop evaluating what the fiction shows us and start evaluating the fiction based on what you reason it should show us.

Ultimately, it's quite simple, just because you can reason something should be a certain way, it doesn't mean a fictional universe draws all the same conclusions. It's not a machine drawing every possible step of reasoning the moment it establishes something.

So yeah, you can't just infer that different sizes of infinity are considered in statements in fiction, if the fiction itself does never acknowledge that. Because humans don't work like that. We have different grades of knowledge and opinions and philosophies, so if we want to understand something we are told we have to consider those things. We can't just take everything we're told to mean what it would mean if we ourselves said it.

An omniscient narrator is omniscient regarding the verse, not omniscient regarding real-life truths.

In view of that, I also don't really get how infinite-dimensional spaces being wacky compared to finite-dimensional ones ties into much. It's utterly irrelevant, at least independently from the "What the author probably knew about" thing.

One point we were talking about was whether we take Low 1-A or 1-A. I.e. whether putting the cut-off point at "above finite dimensions" or "above aleph_2". That they are "wacky" is relevant as it shows a much simpler argument: Finite dimensions are "easy" to grasp, infinite very hard.

That when some higher dimensions exist there could be some more is a more direct inference than that there could be infinite, especially since infinite ones are so much harder to understand. Hence it makes sense that a statement that has considered basic finite dimensions might not have considered the more complex infinite case. (Heck, some mathematical definition of dimensions don't extend to infinite either...)

So, at a basic level, I think in terms of a knowledge basis the difference between finite and infinite is bigger than between one cardinality and the next.

The statement in this case would be referring to the nature of the being, of course. That is to say it would be a case where their physiology is tied to their AP (Being the source of it), rather than the two standing as independent things and the statement just so happening to refer to the latter. This sort of nitpicking doesn't really work here. Like, come on. It explicitly lays out the difference between 2-D and 3-D and says such a relationship doesn't begin to the describe the scope of the difference between that being and 3-D space, because the degree in which he is greater than it is not simply a matter of "He's infinitely larger!"

So, pushing all of that aside, why exactly isn't it adequate?

Problem with the question is that I don't know what "physiology is tied to their AP" is supposed to mean in context of the verse. It's a bit like saying "now assume that the nature of wetness is linked to AP".

I would similarly ask you to rewrite it so that it actually says exactly how a fiction would write what you think that is supposed to mean in a clear way.

But let's say for example we add "He has infinitely more power than what would be necessary to destroy any dimension that doesn't describe him" to the statements, as an example.

Then I would ask "how many dimensions are there in the verse?" and go above +1 above that, as I would assume that dimensions that the verse doesn't have aren't taken into that consideration. (i.e. does a dimension that doesn't exist not describe you? Not sure if that's a yes)

Let's further say we change the above addition to "He has infinitely more power than what would be necessary to destroy any dimension that doesn't describe him, including even the higher dimensions that are only described in mathematics".

Then I would be fine with Low 1-A.

And since you'd still want the statement to be more explicit, I welcome you to rewrite the hypothetical a bit, into something that you'd say qualifies. Sorta trying to carve a minimum here, so, although I don't really concede that the hypothetical doesn't qualify, I want to see what would to you.

For Low 1-A pretty much what I put above.

For High 1-A? Either add "is above every cardinal there is" or some explanation that is clearly equivalent to that. For the exact case of equivalent statements one would need to look case-by case. I would say main criteria is that it isn't just "several different infinities exist", but actually grasps the scope of cardinals to some extent, considering how vast the cardinal hierarchy is and how it needs various construction ideas to reach certain levels in it.

The precise border is obviously fuzzy.


Anyway, to ask a question in turn, have we by now agreed that statements need an indicator that purely theoretical dimensions are considered, instead of just meaning dimensions and dimensionality in the scope of physically existing concepts?

Yeah it seems really dumb to go through all these hoops when we can just refer to the written text and gather whatever evidence to support tier 1 ratings.

[...]

DT's suggestion is nothing if not limiting on how we apply our standards to objective evidence. If we cannot apply the full extent of our knowledge upon the verses we evaluate, why do we even bother trying to evaluate them anyway?

I never said we can't apply the extent of our knowledge on verses, though? My point was that you have to consider what a statement was supposed to mean and, in face of unclarity, go for a reasonable low-end.

I think it's not much different to how we have a standard that we don't give out Tier 0 (or other high tiers) just for a character being Omnipotent, but instead limit ourselves to what the Omnipotent character has in terms of actual feats. Sure, you could say "let's not have that standard and instead just evaluate case-by-case", but does that lead to anything better? Seems like that would just lead to lost of debates how "logically my omnipotent character should be tier 0". Not having any guidelines seems impractical and if that's what we're going with we would have to delete lots of staff from the Tiering FAQ...

I don't think "if the fiction with 5D spaces never mentioned any construct we would evaluate as even 1-A don't extrapolate general statements to High 1-A" is as much limiting as it is basic scrutiny. The whole debate was about cases where the fiction does not show or state anything more explicit than "beyond dimensions", i.e. cases where there is not much objective evidence. For cases where the verse was specific we wouldn't have the debate, as I'm all for specific evidence getting corresponding tiers.

And, in general, this is as much about my suggestion to be conservative with extrapolation as it is about Ultima's to just drop High 1-A on most "beyond dimensionality" statements, even if the verse has never shown or mentioned anything remotely that high.

Like you don't need a degree in complex math to arrive at a decently complex description of higher order realms. In fact for the most part, it isn't even the authors that directly arrive at these conclusions anyway, since we ourselves apply our standards on the objective evidence and arrive at our own conclusions of the depicted ratings.

Yeah, but as I extended in my debate with Ultima we still have to interpret statements and just because we don't care much for author intent we can't just take all statements at face value. What the author meant is always one valid interpretation, but we have more we could take. However, is there ever a situation where we should interpret a statement as definitely meaning something higher than what was intended? We usually use the lowest reasonable interpretation and I think the one that covers the scope of what the author intended would be at least contained among the reasonable interpretation. Ultimately, I think interpreting it like a person that only has school knowledge in mathematics would is a reasonable interpretation, until the fiction adds context that demands more.

I totally I agree that it's plausible that someone could come up with infinite cardinal dimension stuff without a degree in mathematics, but I think it's not too much to ask that the work actually mentions that stuff or something equivalent if that's what's intended.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I think you completely missed the point that I was trying to get across. Using the monkey on a typewriter analogy, the monkey will eventually write out an apt description of higher dimensions even if it did not mean to. Intent or no, if we know, can identify, and interpret a reasonable argument for higher dimensions given the text we are presented with, then why wouldn't we?

What you're trying to propose will rip knowledge and context from us when we try to evaluate fiction and essentially dumb down a huge chunk of the wiki. Remember, we aren't evaluating author intent alone, we are also evaluating the story as it is presented to us. You can't expect us to bury our heads into a book like an ostrich and ask them "Do you know what a cardinal is?". If the text describes what we can reasonably ascertain to be higher dimensions, we should just treat them as such. To not do so would be a display of ignorance on our part, which from the outside looking in, makes us look like fools.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think you completely missed the point that I was trying to get across. Using the monkey on a typewriter analogy, the monkey will eventually write out an apt description of higher dimensions even if it did not mean to. Intent or no, if we know, can identify, and interpret a reasonable argument for higher dimensions given the text we are presented with, then why wouldn't we?

What you're trying to propose will rip knowledge and context from us when we try to evaluate fiction and essentially dumb down a huge chunk of the wiki. Remember, we aren't evaluating author intent alone, we are also evaluating the story as it is presented to us. You can't expect us to bury our heads into a book like an ostrich and ask them "Do you know what a cardinal is?". If the text describes what we can reasonably ascertain to be higher dimensions, we should just treat them as such. To not do so would be a display of ignorance on our part, which from the outside looking in, makes us look like fools.

So from what I understand, we're suddenly gonna need to be spoonfed information about higher dimensions rather than being able to simply extrapolate such information like the critically thinking human beings we are?

Yeah no

 

[Theglassman12]

If that's really the change being proposed by DT, how exactly is this any different from saying that space-time as a whole isn't 4-D because the author didn't explicitly said it's 4th Dimensional despite how space-time is commonly accepted as such? Put me in a hard disagree with DT's points.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Oh yeah, I should make things clear. I'm not the most well-versed in Tier 1 stuff but for my money's worth, I'm with Ultima

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

So from what I understand, we're suddenly gonna need to be spoonfed information about higher dimensions rather than being able to simply extrapolate such information like the critically thinking human beings we are?

Yeah no

If that's really the change being proposed by DT, how exactly is this any different from saying that space-time as a whole isn't 4-D because the author didn't explicitly said it's 4th Dimensional despite how space-time is commonly accepted as such? Put me in a hard disagree with DT's points.

So what you guys stance on this thread?

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

If the verse state something like higher infinity, cardinal or something similar via metaphor and flowery language. Or even take them with more context within the verse.

Sure, they can be 1-A or High 1-A.

But remember.

This thread adress the tier for any characters who have statement like this:

What kind of statements will this CRT affect?

1. "Beyond any dimensions"
2. "Source of Dimensions"
3. "No matter how many Dimensions"
4. "No matter how high is the plane of existence"

Without much context in the verse, to be tiered to Low 1-A because we should equalize the structure to High 1-B as the number of dimensions in the statements to be defaulted to countable infinite.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

If the verse state something like higher infinity, cardinal or something similar via metaphor and flowery language. Or even take them with more context within the verse.

Sure, they can be 1-A or High 1-A.

But remember.

This thread adress the tier for any characters who have statement like this:



Without much context in the verse, to be tiered to Low 1-A because we should equalize the structure to High 1-B as the number of dimensions in the statements to be defaulted to countable infinite.

Then it becomes context dependent and we refer to the material in question to determine if such statements are legitimate.

If a mostly 9-C verse with grounded themes suddenly hits us with a biggaversal statement then we'd likely take it with a grain of salt. But if a verse has consistent statements and portrayals of higher dimensional themes then we'd likely give it more consideration.

 

[Antvasima]

I have updated our tally:

Agree with DontTalkDT: DontTalkDT, Antvasima, Qawsedf234, Firestorm808, Deagonx, AKM sama

Agree with Ultima_Reality: Ultima_Reality, Lonkitt, Sir_Ovens, Theglassman12, CloverDragon03, KLOL506, Moritzva

Neutral: Agnaa (Wants a middle ground of 1-A instead of Low 1-A or High 1-A but acknowledges that he's not particularly qualified to talk about this and has mostly conceded to DontTalk), DarkDragonMedeus (Agrees with Agnaa but also leans towards agreeing with DontTalk), Planck69, Damage3245

I highlighted the usernames of the staff members who have voting rights regarding important wiki policy revisions (This has been mentioned several times in other such threads, so no hostility please).

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Then it becomes context dependent and we refer to the material in question to determine if such statements are legitimate.

If a mostly 9-C verse with grounded themes suddenly hits us with a biggaversal statement then we'd likely take it with a grain of salt. But if a verse has consistent statements and portrayals of higher dimensional themes then we'd likely give it more consideration.

I agree with you.

I think without much context statement above are Low 1-A.

But with context, they can be higher. And if such context are legitimate or not. It can be lower.

 

[Moritzva]

I keep getting bothered about Tier 1 shit, and unfortunately as it will be relevant to FCOC sooner rather than later, I'm obligated to throw my hat in the ring.

Let me say that, first off, this entire subject has been a ******* headache to comb through. The OP's post is pretty reasonable and mild-mannered, but Ultima and DontTalk are engaging in something else entirely and it is a pain in the ass to read through. Is there not be a better way to read this than to deal with thirty text walls of tiering jibber-jabber and counterpoints upon counterpoints lacking the formatting to tell what points are being made? A thesis exists for a reason, and the lack of a proper OP for this debate only makes me less willing to engage with it.

But I have to.

For the past few years, I have been a backseat observer to the tiering changes that have slowly washed over the wiki, and I have to say that I strongly disagree with the direction it has and increasingly continues to take. The very concept of tiering characters has become increasingly overcomplicated, verbose, and inaccessible, to the point where it's no longer a useful tool for assessing characters' power levels. The current definitions behind our standards are pedantic and meaningless, to a sesquipedalian extent. It is essential to remember that the point of these standards is to provide clear and concise information on how we tier things, not to indulge in obfuscation.

Now, for a while, it's been fine enough and easy to ignore. No matter how much had changed on paper, in practice, not all that much had actually happened, and the changes were little more than a convoluted facade. This, in my opinion, is a step too far. I just can't agree with the ever-increasing of standards, increasingly relying on specific concepts and ideas above all despite the fact that a good majority of verses on this site don't give a rat's ass about the latest mathematical trend a teenager found by googling "biggest infinity ever."

Furthermore, a lot of DontTalk's arguments strongly rely on his own assumptions on the potential meaning of texts and statements, and takes an extremely nihilistic and overly negative stance on dimensions and superiority statements that come with it. While it is true that just saying "a character is above dimensions" is not grounds for higher tiering on its own, it is a context-dependent matter and DontTalk argues with preconceptions and biases towards large cardinals that I frankly just can't agree with in the slightest. The standards are rising to a ridiculous degree that essentially exclusively includes only a narrow selection of cosmologies and ideas that have decided to delve into specifically calling out mathematical concepts, and I'm just tired of it.

Let's not get so caught up in esoteric arguments and semantics that we lose sight of the bigger picture. And, if we're going to continue with this regardless, can we at least get proper thesis statements? ****, might as well ask me to read a textbook but not tell me what page your argument is on. Regardless, for the time being, I very strongly oppose what DontTalk is pushing for and I urge people to think about it and reconsider.

This is probably the first and last thing I'll say on this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your evaluation, and I agree about that our tiering system requirements need to become easier to understand.

Would it be possible to reach some kind of compromise solution here, just to ensure that there are some safeguards in place so excessively high tiers are not imposed for too limited reasons?

 

[Moritzva]

Thank you for your evaluation, and I agree about that our tiering system requirements need to become easier to understand.

Would it be possible to reach some kind of compromise solution here, just to ensure that there are some safeguards in place so excessively high tiers are not imposed for too limited reasons?

I would greatly appreciate if we could put a pin on this subject and create another thread for discussing the topic of fixing our definitions and standards, and most importantly of all, reducing unnecessary verbosity. At the very least, we should be attaching simplified explanations that are more likely to apply to the average verse (most of which don't explicitly call out cardinals and alephs) so that we don't end up unintentionally gatekeeping the system behind mathematical concepts that aren't always the most relevant in the first place.

In other words, it would do us some good if, instead of having Ultima and DontTalk hijack this thread and discuss major changes to our standards, we create a thread to discuss potential problems in a more clear manner that staff members can actually read more easily and contribute to. Seriously, even disregarding DontTalk and Ultima's exact points, this entire argument is so long-winded and difficult to follow that I can't in good consciousness recommend we enact any changes based on it, given that the actual OP of the thread doesn't have much to do with it at all and we've veered a fair bit off-topic. We'd be rushing into massive changes without giving it due process.

Make a new thread to discuss the larger topic about the verbosity and lack of clarity in our standards, give both sides some time to prepare while we narrow down issues, discuss calmly, and re-evaluate, and we properly sort out the problems with our tiering system and what should and should not be fixed.

Plus, it can give DontTalk some time to rest. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

If the verse state something like higher infinity, cardinal or something similar via metaphor and flowery language. Or even take them with more context within the verse.

Sure, they can be 1-A or High 1-A.

But remember.

This thread adress the tier for any characters who have statement like this:



Without much context in the verse, to be tiered to Low 1-A because we should equalize the structure to High 1-B as the number of dimensions in the statements to be defaulted to countable infinite.

The original intention of this thread is this.

So who agree with this exactly? Not DT argument, but my exact argument.

I need your help @Antvasima to ping some staff member and actually look at my argument and what my CRT is for.

 

[Moritzva]

The original intention of this thread is this.

So who agree with this exactly? Not DT argument, but my exact argument.

I need your help @Antvasima to ping some staff member and actually look at my argument and what my CRT is for.

Aie, that's another thing. People really have massively derailed this poor man's thread. I'm pretty disappointed that we, as staff, let this happen.

I don't really want to deal with this too much more, but Ant, if you want to talk about our tiering system, feel free to message me. It's clear we share some similar feelings on this in one way or another, after all.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your evaluation, and I agree about that our tiering system requirements need to become easier to understand.

Would it be possible to reach some kind of compromise solution here, just to ensure that there are some safeguards in place so excessively high tiers are not imposed for too limited reasons?

I would greatly appreciate if we could put a pin on this subject and create another thread for discussing the topic of fixing our definitions and standards, and most importantly of all, reducing unnecessary verbosity. At the very least, we should be attaching simplified explanations that are more likely to apply to the average verse (most of which don't explicitly call out cardinals and alephs) so that we don't end up unintentionally gatekeeping the system behind mathematical concepts that aren't always the most relevant in the first place.

In other words, it would do us some good if, instead of having Ultima and DontTalk hijack this thread and discuss major changes to our standards, we create a thread to discuss potential problems in a more clear manner that staff members can actually read more easily and contribute to. Seriously, even disregarding DontTalk and Ultima's exact points, this entire argument is so long-winded and difficult to follow that I can't in good consciousness recommend we enact any changes based on it, given that the actual OP of the thread doesn't have much to do with it at all and we've veered a fair bit off-topic. We'd be rushing into massive changes without giving it due process.

Make a new thread to discuss the larger topic about the verbosity and lack of clarity in our standards, give both sides some time to prepare while we narrow down issues, discuss calmly, and re-evaluate, and we properly sort out the problems with our tiering system and what should and should not be fixed.

Plus, it can give DontTalk some time to rest. Sounds like a good compromise to me.

The original intention of this thread is this.

So who agree with this exactly? Not DT argument, but my exact argument.

I need your help @Antvasima to ping some staff member and actually look at my argument and what my CRT is for.

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to talk with @Rakih_Elyan, myself, and @Moritzva via private messages and then start a new, more easily understood, staff forum thread for this purpose?

 

[Antvasima]

Aie, that's another thing. People really have massively derailed this poor man's thread. I'm pretty disappointed that we, as staff, let this happen.

I don't really want to deal with this too much more, but Ant, if you want to talk about our tiering system, feel free to message me. It's clear we share some similar feelings on this in one way or another, after all.

I have pinged DontTalkDT, and will ask him via Discord as well.

 

[Moritzva]

I'm glad we could come to a fair compromise on this matter, Antvasima. I understand your caution regarding higher tiers, and I more than understand feelings of annoyance towards the increasing verbosity, and I think both are subjects worth discussing. Perhaps in a megathread of sorts, where people can freely discuss these ideas, communicate, and ask questions before turning them into a thread (so we don't need to hijack threads like this anymore). I'll be heading to sleep now, but I'll answer any messages in DMs when I wake up.

For now, I implore all staff members to focus on OP's thread in specific, and leave DontTalk and Ultima's debate for a proper thread.

Edit: Also, as someone who came into this debate late, naturally a future thread on DontTalk and Ultima's argument should have votes reset, as both will have plenty of time to make coherent, clear points that staff members should have an easier time reading. This applies to me, too; it is entirely possible I'll change my mind upon reading things in a less messy way. A change of this magnitude should go through all processes and avenues, normally and properly.

 

[Antvasima]

Should we close this thread, and open a new one after DontTalk has discussed the issue with yourself, Rakih, and myself in private regarding what it should contain?

 

[Moritzva]

Should we close this thread, and open a new one after DontTalk has discussed the issue with yourself, Rakih, and myself in private regarding what it should contain?

I think Rakih noted he'd prefer people to actually respond to his original OP, and I already think we've severely messed up as staff members by allowing things to be so derailed, much less by our own bureaucrats and administrators. Given his original OP is a far more minor change, I think it is reasonable to keep this up and make it clear that this thread is for debating that subject, specifically.

To quote:

The original intention of this thread is this.

So who agree with this exactly? Not DT argument, but my exact argument.

I need your help @Antvasima to ping some staff member and actually look at my argument and what my CRT is for.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that we should probably focus on that instead then.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

It seems like we should refocus this thread to its original purpose. What do you think about the suggestions in the following post?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/post-5751794

 

[Moritzva]

Okay. I suppose that we should probably focus on that instead then.

Good call. I'll be going asleep for real this time. That being said, feel free to message me or ping me to threads on this matter. When we redo the thread and the votes, I'd like to read over the arguments and vote again, as it is important to Prom and I's work on FCOC as well.

Rakih, I apologize that things got derailed as much as they did. They shouldn't have, and hopefully things should be better now.

As for our other staff members, please stay on topic now. Let's not break our own rules any more than we already have.

 

[Moritzva]

Oh, one last thing. @Antvasima, I would like to talk to you briefly in DMs (when I wake up) regarding the deleted comments earlier in this thread, about Ultima's intentions, other users, and the like, as I have some opinions I'd like to share. Hopefully that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem, and thank you for helping out. I am well aware of that I messed up here. I apologise for that.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

It seems like we should refocus this thread to its original purpose. What do you think about the suggestions in the following post?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/post-5751794

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.

 

[Deagonx]

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 one. 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 exist beyond that.

Strongly agree.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale

It seems like we should refocus this thread to its original purpose. What do you think about the suggestions in the following post?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/low-1-a-wiki-wide-tiering-revision-beyond-dimensions.151894/post-5751794

I suppose that is a fine take.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

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.

This seems like an ok take.

Although, Tier 1 stuff isn't my thing so I can't provide any reasonable input in regards to debating what's best.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

This doesn't make sense to me. Low 1-A is not the tier you would get for being able to destroy any finite quantity of dimensions. That would actually just get you arbitrarily high into 1-B. If you wanna put a +1 to that, you'd get High 1-B. I don't think you ever get Low 1-A from that interpretation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This doesn't make sense to me. Low 1-A is not the tier you would get for being able to destroy any finite quantity of dimensions. That would actually just get you arbitrarily high into 1-B. If you wanna put a +1 to that, you'd get High 1-B. I don't think you ever get Low 1-A from that interpretation.

Oh yeah, you have a point. I wasn't quite careful with the exact formulation there. In fact, I was double not careful regarding something else as well, so I have to revise some stuff I said earlier, as I came up with a good argument for why it's wrong.

The case that I literally wrote there equates to "can destroy an n-dimensional space for every natural number n." In this you're correct. That would be arbitrarily high into 1-B, just below High 1-B, and we would not give it a +1 ('cause this statement implies to qualitative superiority over the spaces). But if we added transcendence then it would be High 1-B.

If it's instead "can destroy all the nested n-dimensional spaces at once" then it's something infinite dimensional, because the unification of all finite-dimensional spaces is infinite-dimensional. Here lies the second part I was not careful with. Let's say we, somewhat intuitively, identify the union of all finite-dimensional spaces with the space of infinite sequences R^N. (I say intuitively, as one could consider the 1D space as the subspace build by infinite sequences in which only the first entry may change, the 2D space the one where the first two may change etc. and with no specific limit regarding distance. i.e. only equipped with the product topology) Now, despite what it might look like at first, the cardinality of the dimension of R^N is not aleph_0, but aleph_1. (Here's a proper explanation on that.) But I kinda didn't think that far when I made my initial statement. (Edit: When I say unification here, I mean more in terms of "if one continues the cartesian product process for all dimensions", not the union in the mathematical sense. As said in my latest comment I'm somewhat on edge whether that or the actual union is better)

Hence, in the case of destroying all finite-dimensional spaces at once, the tier would be Low 1-A. Honestly, that's a much better reason to start the (Low) 1-A realm there instead of at aleph_0, than that separation argument or whatever it was...

With that in mind I then have to correct earlier statements I made as well. For this, and none of the other reasons that were given before, I agree that it makes sense to tier transcendence over arbitrarily many (finite) dimensions as 1-A (aleph_2), as being 1 infinity above the unification of finite-dimensional spaces is aleph_2, as the unification itself is aleph_1.

So, while for different reasons, I suppose I'm actually fine with your initial 1-A proposal.

 

[Antvasima]

So have you reached an agreement here then, DontTalk and Agnaa?

Also, would this still count as derailing the original purpose of this thread, so should a new staff forum thread be started regarding this subject by you instead, DontTalk?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So have you reached an agreement here then, DontTalk and Agnaa?

That's for Agnaa to say.

Also, would this still count as derailing the original purpose of this thread, so should a new staff forum thread be started regarding this subject by you instead, DontTalk?

I think the questions were part of the original purpose? I suppose a clarification that covers them should be added to the FAQ. If so that part should be on-topic. I suppose the more general debate would not be. I will create a follow-up thread once this one is concluded.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you very much for helping out.