Nasuverse - Swirl of the Root Tier and Reasoning Re-Evaluation

[Chasekilleen]

I am starting to feel like I am being trolled. Anyway this is getting nowhere. But I would like to know what Ultima and FireStorm's thoughts are?

 

[Makenai]

No, its not. If its simply saying dimensional theory overall it does not depend on what is in verse, because it simply includes all of them inherently. As I mentioned in my first post saying "X is beyond the system by which dimensions are described" means "X is beyond the system by which dimensions are described" isn't nlf, its reading comprehension. If it is quite literally just beyond that entire system, or the apex of said system, then it doesn't matter what specific numbers of dimensions exist, or what specific theories exist as its position does not change relative to them, hence applying according to the faq

Negative Theology exist in Nasuverse but the buzzword 'Negative Theology' never appear a single time in verse. Likewise Dimensional Theory is just a buzzword if the theory doesn't actually presented or exist in the verse. I'm not saying Root doesn't qualify for 1-A but extraordinary claim need extraordinary evidence.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

No, its not. If its simply saying dimensional theory overall it does not depend on what is in verse, because it simply includes all of them inherently. As I mentioned in my first post saying "X is beyond the system by which dimensions are described" means "X is beyond the system by which dimensions are described" isn't nlf, its reading comprehension. If it is quite literally just beyond that entire system, or the apex of said system, then it doesn't matter what specific numbers of dimensions exist, or what specific theories exist as its position does not change relative to them, hence applying according to the faq

This is disingenuous, dimensional theory describes the dimensions of a given reality, it doesn't describe dimensions that don't exist in reality. Hilbert space for example is a dimensional theory that describes dimensions that can range from any amount from finite number to countably infinity and can go to uncountably infinitely many dimensions, which in turn describes quantum states of a quantum system, unless it's specified what dimensional theory it is I don't see why it would include all of dimensional theory doesn't describe every dimension.

Because one of them is the equivalent of being beyond the concept of dimensions, the very foundations of dimensions, and the other is just being beyond the currently existing dimensions in the verse. You cannot simplify them as one and the same.

This is a better example but also depends on how the concept works if it's something like a universal from platonic realism in metaphysics then regardless of how many dimensions existing in reality anything with has properties of dimension-ness would he included in the universal hence the universal would describe it.

Mix that with the dimensional theory stuff, and I find this downgrade attempt pretty baffling overall. I obviously disagree.

This is reasonable

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

This is disingenuous, dimensional theory describes the dimensions of a given reality, it doesn't describe dimensions that don't exist in reality. Hilbert space for example is a dimensional theory that describes dimensions that can range from any amount from finite number to countably infinity and can go to uncountably infinitely many dimensions, which in turn describes quantum states of a quantum system, unless it's specified what dimensional theory it is I don't see why it would include all of dimensional theory doesn't describe every dimension.

This is a better example but also depends on how the concept works if it's something like a universal from platonic realism in metaphysics then regardless of how many dimensions existing in reality anything with has properties of dimension-ness would he included in the universal hence the universal would describe it.

This is reasonable

Even if this downgrade passes, there are at least a few layers to the root (I think the context is infinite, but the vsbw downplays a lot) which would make the root at least low 1-b

However, the root needs to be split into two keys as to not contradict itself.

the root has apophasis yet true magic directly accesses it for power, roas soul passes through and the holy grail can open a path to it.
This can be fixed

split the root into two keys, one with its lower concpetual form, and the other being true emptiness /kara, a distinction needs to be made, or the entire thing implodes

 

[Deagonx]

I would assume it doesn't meet the current requirements. You would need a blatant statement for actual/hypothetical infinite transcendence. Being at the summit of all dimensional theories would also be scrutinized for NLF. As far as I know, they only describe/portray up to 8 dimensions in the series.

• Is the "Spiral of Origin", the grand mass of nothingness that all concepts in existence sprang forth from, and is where everything returns when it is destroyed.
• Exists at the summit of all dimensional theories, existing independently of its definitions.
• It is completely transcendent of the rest of reality, an unrestrained domain free from binary opposition.

I share your assessment. The statements listed are fanciful, but it's precisely the kind of language that is prone to getting stretched as far as it can be taken.

However, even the wording itself is problematic. Note that it isn't actually outside these dimensional theories, it is at their summit, their peak. Which means DT is right, you'd have to take a look at what kind of dimensional theories are being referred to. If it existed at the summit of M-Theory, that certainly wouldn't be infinite dimensions.

The conceptual transcendence -- as we have established -- is not enough for 1-A, and being transcendent to the rest of reality can be accomplished with a single level of transcendence.

Something else rather important, you don't even need to accept that its beyond and outside of dimensional theory via being outside of the world. If you are the apex of dimensional theory (again the entire system by which dimensions are described) you're inherently above any possible extensions of dimensions, and thus fit the criteria for 1-A with the faq in mind, especially when combined with stuff meaning its necessarily beyond any descriptions and attributes

Particularly, I disagree with this, and I don't think it's a reasonable extrapolation from the information we have. The phrase "at the top of dimensional theory" does not automatically result in transcendence of infinite dimensions, without concrete knowledge that the "dimensional theory" in question extends to infinite dimensions.

 

[Deagonx]

Also, this thread has become hard to read due to the clutter. This is a staff thread, so I'm going to clean up and remove comments that are low-effort intrusions from people interested in the verse, but leave the ones that actually provide information. I'm also going to remove the ones that are off-topic, since we should only be talking about the root here, preferably.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I share your assessment. The statements listed are fanciful, but it's precisely the kind of language that is prone to getting stretched as far as it can be taken.

However, even the wording itself is problematic. Note that it isn't actually outside these dimensional theories, it is at their summit, their peak. Which means DT is right, you'd have to take a look at what kind of dimensional theories are being referred to. If it existed at the summit of M-Theory, that certainly wouldn't be infinite dimensions.

The conceptual transcendence -- as we have established -- is not enough for 1-A, and being transcendent to the rest of reality can be accomplished with a single level of transcendence.

The root being constrained by dimensions in nasu contradicts its nature, its outside of everything

 

[Deagonx]

The root being constrained by dimensions in nasu contradicts its nature, its outside of everything

That's fine, but being outside of everything is not a shortcut to 1-A, it only speaks to the transcendence of those things.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

However, even the wording itself is problematic. Note that it isn't actually outside these dimensional theories, it is at their summit, their peak.

The dimensional theory statement shouldn't be used at all unless you combine with negative theology like Ultima did, but the idea that it's confined by dimensional theory as suggested by descriptions is not really an anti feat if those descriptions don't apply to it but something lesser than it.

Which means DT is right, you'd have to take a look at what kind of dimensional theories are being referred to.

This part is true

The conceptual transcendence -- as we have established -- is not enough for 1-A, and being transcendent to the rest of reality can be accomplished with a single level of transcendence.

Negative theology isn't the traditional conceptual transcendence, conceptual transcendence can lead to only a single level of transcendence but the transcendence of negative theology isn't only due to the limits of whatever is in the cosmology but rather the nature of it.

But considering how problematic it is it being a single level of transcendence is fine, I would say it's high 1-A but such a standard doesn't exist for now unless there's a thread made for that, because Ultima saying it can lead to an infinite regress still wouldn't accurately represent what it is so it being a single layer of transcendence is reasonable if it's due to the tiering system standards.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Where does it mention as a whole? The fact that it says to be at the apex of dimensional theory means that it is still bound and within the confines of dimensional theory. It says it is at the apex point, NOT beyond dimensional theory. If it says beyond or above all of dimensional theory then the Japanese raw would use 支配する instead of 頂点 like all the scans are saying in the raw version.

The only scan that's remotely close to what you are arguing is the English version of Fate Stay Night, where it implies to the fact that the Swirl of Root is above all dimensional theories, not the raw Japanese scans. Hence why I said in an earlier thread why Beast Lair translators didn't do it justice.

Can you prove these translations are inaccurate outside of "hurdurr i dont agree"? This will get nowhere otherwise.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The dimensional theory statement shouldn't be used at all unless you combine with negative theology like Ultima did, but the idea that it's confined by dimensional theory as suggested by descriptions is not really an anti feat if those descriptions don't apply to it but something lesser than it.


Negative theology isn't the traditional conceptual transcendence, conceptual transcendence can lead to only a single level of transcendence but the transcendence of negative theology isn't only due to the limits of whatever is in the cosmology but rather the nature of it.

But considering how problematic it is it being a single level of transcendence is fine, I would say it's high 1-A but such a standard doesn't exist for now unless there's a thread made for that, because Ultima saying it can lead to an infinite regress still wouldn't accurately represent what it is so it being a single layer of transcendence is reasonable if it's due to the tiering system standards.

THe problem is negative theology does not work unless we split the root into twp keys, as there are methods of accessing it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I got permission from @Deagonx privately.

A profound discourse regarding the matter at hand took place within this thread regarding the permissibility of granting a 1-A ranking to verses by means of mere addition or deletion of dimensions, without a complete overhaul of the said verses. It was decided that characters must be unaffected by the addition/removal of an infinite number of dimensions.

I have appended a comment to this discussion and would like to deliberate on its contents, given that the verse under consideration involves theories and mathematical concepts.

Those are simply theories, you need to elaborate them in verse (for canonicity reasons)

Distinguishing between mentioning a theory and expounding upon it in verse is significant. This differentiation exists for a valid purpose. To illustrate, the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) can potentially be extended to high 1-B. However, in the context of Arceus's verse, the theory is not only mentioned but also elaborated upon and taken to the level of 2-A.

This is an exceedingly significant discourse, as permitting the scaling of theories without a definitive framework for their operation could lead to a considerable degree of confusion and complications with respect to scaling. This is one of the reasons why we have discontinued the practice of granting a tier 1 classification to entities solely on the basis of their ability to transcend space-time.

The topics of dimensional theory, apophatic theology, and negative theology have been referenced multiple times in this discussion. However, in accordance with the standards outlined by the VSBW, it is imperative that these concepts be firmly established within the canon, with regards to their functionality, explanation, and context. A thorough examination of these matters is necessary. I recommend creating a cosmology page, and analyze if all sources are cited there.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@Antvasima I will comment later, but I agree with the OP
@Ultima_Reality The root scans you sent, I sent things similar also in the shinza thread and even more, the root has lesser prove than shinza but you disapprove of shinza's rating, so this is a double standard on your part. Especially the dimensional theory since it means something else entirely based on Chase TL of it

Can you prove these translations are inaccurate outside of "hurdurr i dont agree"? This will get nowhere otherwise.

He speaks japanese and has been reliable when it comes to TL, so I will take his opinion of a translation valid.

 

[Qawsedf234]

For the thread a few points:

• The work doesn't say "All Dimensional Theories" just "Dimensional Theory" which requires someone to prove what Dimensional Theory the franchise is using
• But overall I'm not seeing it effecting anything. Like Ultima said the Root itself has plenty of evidence of existing beyond everything else in a way that qualifies for 1-A

Overall I'm not seeing a downgrade here. The fact that there's geometric dimensions in-universe and the idea of a higher or greater space can never reach the Root because it would no longer be the Root would require at least Low 1-A scaling if nothing else.

 

[Deagonx]

Negative theology isn't the traditional conceptual transcendence, conceptual transcendence can lead to only a single level of transcendence but the transcendence of negative theology isn't only due to the limits of whatever is in the cosmology but rather the nature of it.

So, I'm going to need a couple of things here:

1) The cliffnotes version of what negative theology is

2) Clear evidence that it exists within Nasu

3) An indication that VSB staff have actually agree that it's 1-A

Can you prove these translations are inaccurate outside of "hurdurr i dont agree"? This will get nowhere otherwise.

Do not talk to people like that. You need to stop getting so worked up when Nasu is being discussed, this isn't the first time.

More specifically these parts:

Right. The Spiral of Origin, or more simply the Root. Sometimes it's referred to as 「　」, the thing for which there can be no reference. It is the source of everything, the 'zero' from which all matter and phenomena flow. Ah, but now that I'm trying to put it into words, I'm realizing that's not a good idea. After all, even the idea of 'zero' has baggage that makes it unsuitable as a comparison.

If you really wished to pronounce this term, call it “Kara.”
Its meaning varied depending on each individual’s understanding. To put it in simple terms, it was the Spiral of Origin.
However, since the Spiral of Origin was called the Spiral of Origin, it was no longer “ ”.
To properly express this term was a source of headache during the production of the drama CDs.

So this is to say that the Root, by nature, exceeds any descriptions of itself. More specifically, if you attempt to impose a description on it, that description will automatically refer to something lesser than, and ultimately separate from its essence, because that essence is ultimately the thing for which there can be no reference. As the text says: Sometimes it was called the Spiral of Origin. But since the Spiral of Origin is a well-defined term, it's now below what the Root really is. This is to say that even defining it as the transcendent and absolutely empty source of all is a reduction of its nature.

By definition, then, even acknowledging that this is so and referring to it as simply 「　」 also leads to you reducing what it actually is, and acknowledging that you are doing that also leads to that same result, because all verbal expression ultimately fails to approach it.

I am not clear on the framework through which this kind of information is interpreted as a specific tier.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

THe problem is negative theology does not work unless we split the root into twp keys, as there are methods of accessing it.

It was rejected to nonsensical reasons which contradicts negative theology, doesn't matter much for now what should be addressed is how the root would go about scaling with these new standards not it being split into two keys

The topics of dimensional theory, apophatic theology, and negative theology have been referenced multiple times in this discussion. However, in accordance with the standards outlined by the VSBW, it is imperative that these concepts be firmly established within the canon, with regards to their functionality, explanation, and context. A thorough examination of these matters is necessary. I recommend creating a cosmology page, and analyze if all sources are cited there.

Negative theology is fine in the nasuverse the root contains every property that a being with ineffability should have outside of being treated as the same as something that's described but that's not due to source material but certain idiots cough not understanding how negative theology works

But Ultima's proposal is reasonable

Overall I'm not seeing a downgrade here. The fact that there's geometric dimensions in-universe and the idea of a higher or greater space can never reach the Root because it would no longer be the Root would require at least Low 1-A scaling if nothing else.

This is reasonable too

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

1) The cliffnotes version of what negative theology is

I don't think negative theology has versions unless you're talking ab different elements of negative theology all of which form the collective idea that is known as negative theology

2) Clear evidence that it exists within Nasu

Well

All of this is in accordance with how negative theology works too

3) An indication that VSB staff have actually agree that it's 1-A

I'm unsure about this, that's why I'm neutral as to whether or not it should stay as 1-A in accordance with the standards of wiki, but Ultima made a reasonable proposal

I am not clear on the framework through which this kind of information is interpreted as a specific tier.

Well the notion that a description for it doesn't refer to it relates to negative theology, it works in a way that it solidifies "God" being transcendent and inaccessible epistemically and ontologically, hence any predicates for [] such as [zero] are predicates for [] hence the predicate of zero cannot be [] because [] is that which cannot be applied any predicates and cannot be described as a result of its divine ineffability and transcendent nature.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

@Antvasima I will comment later, but I agree with the OP
@Ultima_Reality The root scans you sent, I sent things similar also in the shinza thread and even more, the root has lesser prove than shinza but you disapprove of shinza's rating, so this is a double standard on your part. Especially the dimensional theory since it means something else entirely based on Chase TL of it

He speaks japanese and has been reliable when it comes to TL, so I will take his opinion of a translation valid.

I believe theres an official italian translation of fate zero, which is where the scan comes from, so to make it as accurate as possible, compare his tl with the official one.

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think negative theology has versions unless you're talking ab different elements of negative theology all of which form the collective idea that is known as negative theology

What I meant by "cliffnotes version" was a short description.

Well the notion that a description for it doesn't refer to it relates to negative theology, it works in a way that it solidifies "God" being transcendent and inaccessible epistemically and ontologically, hence any predicates for [] such as [zero] are predicates for [] hence the predicate of zero cannot be [] because [] is that which cannot be applied any predicates and cannot be described as a result of its divine ineffability and transcendent nature.

So if a godly being/entity is considered indescribable or doesn't have a name/names are considered inappropriate, that makes it negative theology? And thus 1-A or whatever tier we consider NT? I would consider that quite a stretch.

 

[Qawsedf234]

1) The cliffnotes version of what negative theology is

To quote

Apophatic theology derives its name from the Greek word apophanai, meaning “to say no.” Though regularly contrasted with “kataphatic theology,” which seeks to make positive statements about God, apophatic theology cannot be completely equated with negative theology, as is often done. While negating concepts that might be applied to God, apophatic theology affirms that the truth of who God is lies beyond both affirmations and negations about God.

Negative Theology is Negation in theology. Or to find out what X is you must find out what X isn't. If God is perfect and infinite, anything describable is therefore not perfect and finite and therefore can't be God.

 

[Deagonx]

Or to find out what X is you must find out what X isn't. If God is perfect and infinite, anything describable is therefore not perfect and finite and therefore can't be God.

Thank you.

In your opinion Qawsedf, do the scans we have support this? Certainly, we have scans that regard the root as not having a name -- indications that giving it a name would be inappropriate:

The phrase "the Vortex of Radix" is just a convenient name. Putting it as a phrase is wrong in the first place, so sometimes it's just referred to as [ ].

A stygian abyss that could not be put into words, and without words it shall remain: a cypher, simply " "

If you really wished to pronounce this term, call it "Kara." To put it in simple terms, it was the Spiral of Origin. However, since the Spiral of Origin was called the Spiral of Origin, it was no longer " "

What pops out at me, in this compare-and-contrast between Negative Theology and the root, is that while I can see some overlapping themes, I don't actually see the specific information that you describe or that I found when I looked it up. It's called negative theology because you can't describe it in terms of what it is, you must describe it in terms of what it isn't. It is described with negatives, not positive attributes. However, there's nothing really in these scans that talks about describing the root in terms of what it isn't. It's just overall called indescribable. Words can't be used to understand it.

The information we have suggests it can't be put into words, and that trying to do so is wrong. Is that breadcrumb of information -- by itself -- enough to conclude negative theology? With all the bells and whistles that this concept appears to entail? I am not so sure, but I'm far from an expert. I'm also not very clear on how or why this information would influence tiering.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I got permission from @Deagonx privately.

A profound discourse regarding the matter at hand took place within this thread regarding the permissibility of granting a 1-A ranking to verses by means of mere addition or deletion of dimensions, without a complete overhaul of the said verses. It was decided that characters must be unaffected by the addition/removal of an infinite number of dimensions.

I have appended a comment to this discussion and would like to deliberate on its contents, given that the verse under consideration involves theories and mathematical concepts.

This is an exceedingly significant discourse, as permitting the scaling of theories without a definitive framework for their operation could lead to a considerable degree of confusion and complications with respect to scaling. This is one of the reasons why we have discontinued the practice of granting a tier 1 classification to entities solely on the basis of their ability to transcend space-time.

The topics of dimensional theory, apophatic theology, and negative theology have been referenced multiple times in this discussion. However, in accordance with the standards outlined by the VSBW, it is imperative that these concepts be firmly established within the canon, with regards to their functionality, explanation, and context. A thorough examination of these matters is necessary. I recommend creating a cosmology page, and analyze if all sources are cited there.

The many worlds theory is used in nasu,

Quantum mechanics typically need infinite dimensional hilbert spaces in order to function.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Thank you.

In your opinion Qawsedf, do the scans we have support this? Certainly, we have scans that regard the root as not having a name -- indications that giving it a name would be inappropriate:







What pops out at me, in this compare-and-contrast between Negative Theology and the root, is that while I can see some overlapping themes, I don't actually see the specific information that you describe or that I found when I looked it up. It's called negative theology because you can't describe it in terms of what it is, you must describe it in terms of what it isn't. It is described with negatives, not positive attributes. However, there's nothing really in these scans that speaks to that.

The information we have suggests it can't be put into words, and that trying to do so is wrong. Is that breadcrumb of information -- by itself -- enough to conclude negative theology? With all the bells and whistles that this concept appears to entail? I am not so sure, but I'm far from an expert. I'm also not very clear on how or why this information would influence tiering.

Negative theology would grant a level of inaccessibility, as any method to reach/describe/define it is useless.
However the root has been reached, so a split is in order in my opinion, between kara and the root

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

So if a godly being/entity is considered indescribable or doesn't have a name/names are considered inappropriate, that makes it negative theology?

No unless it's something like this, which is a representation of the ineffability thesis which solidifies God being transcendent over reality regardless of the limits of the reality epistemically and ontologically, if it doesn't have something like that and this being is just said to be indescribable, having no names or being beyond conception then it wouldn't qualify for negative theology because that can be taken as it being beyond only the limits of reality rather than it being beyond conception and physical existence via its nature itself not the limits of reality

What I meant by "cliffnotes version" was a short description.

Well mb
(1) it's indescribable, inconceivable and incomprehensible
(2) them implementing the ineffability thesis with the symbol of [] which is for any description given to it won't be it because it is indescribable
(3) lastly it being transcendent and unreachable over anything in reality

 

[Deagonx]

The many worlds theory is used in nasu,

The many worlds theory isn't related to dimensionality, and the scan you posted doesn't actually support that. Crucially, the scan you posted specifies that these futures are only possibilities, and not all of them will occur.

Quantum mechanics typically need infinite dimensional hilbert spaces in order to function.

No it doesn't.

Negative theology would grant a level of inaccessibility, as any method to reach/describe/define it is useless.

Why are you telling me this?



-------------------

Well mb
(1) it's indescribable, inconceivable and incomprehensible
(2) them implementing the ineffability thesis with the symbol of [] which is for any description given to it won't be it because it is indescribable
(3) lastly it being transcendent and unreachable over anything in reality

Okay. My issue with the discourse is this: I don't see why (1) indescribability matters at all for the purposes of this wiki or why (3) should be treated as something other than a single degree of transcendence over that verse's reality.

 

[Qawsedf234]

In your opinion Qawsedf, do the scans we have support this?

I think they run the same idea. Negative Theology is more direct sure, but the Root has the same direction in my reading. Giving it a name means that it's no longer the Root, you can't reach the Root since getting to the Root means it's no longer the Root, etc. These all back a negative theology cosmology in my view.

Is that breadcrumb of information -- by itself -- enough to conclude negative theology?

With just those quotes, no. But on previous threads regarding a High 1-A upgrade for the Root most excerpts were posted that mentioned some of the things I said before. Those in conjuction with the above is what gives me the impression thst the Root works off negative theology.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The many worlds theory isn't related to dimensionality, and the scan you posted doesn't actually support that. Crucially, the scan you posted specifies that these futures are only possibilities, and not all of them will occur.


No it doesn't.

Quantum mechanics as an infinite‐dimensional Hamiltonian system with uncertainty structure: Part I

Schrödinger quantum mechanics is formulated as an infinite‐dimensional Hamiltonian system whose phase space carries an additional structure (uncertainty structu

pubs.aip.org

Why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?

I am looking for a simple way to understand why do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics, and when exactly do they become neccessary: in classical, quantum, or relativistic quantum

physics.stackexchange.com

 

[Qawsedf234]

Quantum mechanics typically need infinite dimensional hilbert spaces in order to function

They do not for the site. The thing you described is a basic 2-B to 2-A style multiverse. To get a Hilbert Space multiverse it has to mention Hilbert Space or heavily use its concepts.

 

[Deagonx]

But on previous threads regarding a High 1-A upgrade for the Root most excerpts were posted that mentioned some of the things I said before. Those in conjuction with the above is what gives me the impression thst the Root works off negative theology.

Ah, well I can't speak to that as I haven't seen them.

However, I am not of the inclination, personally, that this concept should be tiered unto itself. It strikes me as a very flowery and non-substantive, and everything I'm reading about it just gets more and more flowery without really getting into concrete specifics about what conclusions are being drawn about the thing as a result of negative theology, or how/why that gets us to a certain tier. I certainly see a clear case for transcendence above the verse, but I can't say I buy into this inaccessibility concept as a stand-in for 1-A or H1-A or 0 or anything else.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Ah, well I can't speak to that as I haven't seen them.

However, I am not of the inclination, personally, that this concept should be tiered unto itself. It strikes me as a very flowery and non-substantive concept, and everything I'm reading about it just gets more and more flowery without really getting into concrete specifics about what conclusions are being drawn about the thing as a result of negative theology, or how/why that gets us to a certain tier. I certainly see a clear case for transcendence above the verse, but I can't say I buy into this inaccessibility concept as a stand-in for 1-A or H1-A or 0 or anything else.

There is higher dimensional statements. One of them being Avalon’s statement being able to defend up to 6D which is Low 1C IIRC.

In any case, the concept does stems from philosophical roots and religious ones so it is understandable and even I remain skeptical since it involves metaphysics too.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

There is higher dimensional statements. One of them being Avalon’s statement being able to defend up to 6D which is Low 1C IIRC.

This is a bounded field, not the actual avalon, which was shown in fgo

 

[Qawsedf234]

However, I am not of the inclination, personally, that this concept should be tiered unto itself.

The concept of Negative Theology shouldn't get a tier, because it just depends. In a bare bones fantasy universe this theology can max out at Tier 2. The only reason this one gets Tier 1 is because the franchise has higher dimensions.

It strikes me as a very flowery and non-substantive

Well, yeah. It's a theological concept. They're supposed to be those things.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well, yeah. It's a theological concept. They're supposed to be those things.

So, according to this, they should not even be scaled.

 

[Tdjwo]

So, according to this, they should not even be scaled.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[Deagonx]

The only reason this one gets Tier 1 is because the franchise has higher dimensions.

Well, I fully agree with the root have qualitative superiority to the verse.

Well, yeah. It's a theological concept. They're supposed to be those things.

Perhaps I did not communicate effectively, but I've read a lot of theology that was not like this. These concepts tend to be padded with prose, but this is more along the lines of "divine simplicity" and the like, where the very purpose of such an idea seems unclear.

 

[ImmortalDread]

How did you reach this conclusion?

It is flowery?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

1Well, I fully agree with the root have qualitative superiority to the verse.


Perhaps I did not communicate effectively, but I've read a lot of theology that was not like this. These concepts tend to be padded with prose, but this is more along the lines of "divine simplicity" and the like, where the very purpose of such an idea seems unclear.

The only issue though now is what exactly the tier is for the Root as should it been 1A or Tier 1C

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It is flowery?

"According to occultism, there is a "power" that is at the top of the dimensional theory outside this world.

Coordinates at which all events originate. That is the 'Vortex of Root', the long-cherished wish of all mages... the place of God who can record everything in this world and create everything in this world, the beginning and the end of all things

It is in the thread for that matter as that was relevant information related to tiering the root.

 

[Tdjwo]

It is flowery?

It isn't. That's the nature of Apophatic Theology.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You may miss something, but where in the standards do we scale theories such as negative theology to tier 1? Because DT fairly said in his wall, we don't.