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

[Theoretical]

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

Quantum mechanics doesn't need infinite dimensional hilbert space lol but many world interpretation does need the infinite dimensional Hilbert space.

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

Negative theologies indescribability pertains to God's transcendence ontologically not just being beyond descriptions, the roots nature is tied to dionysius's approach to negative theology and neoplatonic I could explain more if you want to know why.

But basically in neoplatonism things which are simpler describe complex things and simpler things are ontologically greater than complex things which makes it scalable, take universals for example or whatnot but strictly from platonic realism.

As for (3) the idea of God being transcendent over reality is not because of the limits of reality but God's nature that's why I explained without ineffability thesis being posited, someone being indescribable and inconceivable can only grant a person a singular transcendence over reality.

But conventional ineffability is distinct from negative theology ineffability.

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.

Well you wouldn't find the information you need in Wikipedia's, I have book of dionysius who taught neoplatonic works and negative theology as a result because it's invoked in the hierarchy of intelligibility of neoplatonism being referred to as "the one".

And it's the same person who invoked the ineffability thesis that says no predicates can be given to the Godhead. The root is consistent with dionysius's approach of negative theology not only by the ineffability thesis but

The root being

That which has divine simplicity, because the God head in neoplatonism lacks parts because God is distinct from his creation that which has parts and as a being that lacks parts God has divine simplicity, this is consistent with the root being said to be nothingness that which lacks properties here and there's more supporting evidence for that, and being implied to the simplest of them all here and with arcueid referring to it only as "the one" which is what the Godhead is called in neoplatonism but also says because we've become so complex we can't reach "the one" because "the one" is simple, similar statements where made in knk as well.

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.

Negative theology is more philosophical than it is theological, and I agree scaling using theology especially without the Inverse material acting as supporting evidence for it hyper-literally scaling would be problematic, but the nasuverse does a fairly good job at accurately representing negative theology.

 

[Theoretical]

The concept of Negative Theology shouldn't get a tier, because it just depends.

I wouldn't say it depends but negative theology is just outright problematic when you try to make it correspondent with the standards of the tiering system

 

[ImmortalDread]

Negative theology is more philosophical than it is theological, and I agree scaling using theology especially without the Inverse material acting as supporting evidence for it hyper-literally scaling would be problematic, but the nasuverse does a fairly good job at accurately representing negative theology.

But here is a bigger issue, where in the standards, we still scale negative theology to tier 1 if it is better elaborated? You fairly did not address this point, yet.

 

[Deagonx]

That which has divine simplicity, because the God head in neoplatonism lacks parts because God is distinct from his creation that which has parts and as a being that lacks parts God has divine simplicity, this is consistent with the root being said to be nothingness that which lacks properties here and there's more supporting evidence for that, and being implied to the simplest of them all here and with arcueid referring to it only as "the one" which is what the Godhead is called in neoplatonism but also says because we've become so complex we can't reach "the one" because "the one" is simple, similar statements where made in knk as well.

That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with tiering?

 

[Qawsedf234]

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

Something being flowery doesn't stop it from being scaled.

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.

This style of philosophy and Neo-Platoism stuff is just prone to this sort of language. It's why Gnostisicm can sound weird and why deep level theology or philosophy in this area can become world salad like with Theortical's post.

It doesn't mean it can't be applied, but the core concept of the theology will include this type of languge.

 

[Theoretical]

That's all well and good, but what does it have to do with tiering?

Thing being above other ontologically implies tiering tho? That's how ontology works that's why even when universal are not something physically they'd scale above all that which is physical because they are ontologically greater than the physical things that which they explain.

You fairly did not address this point, yet.

I'm not gonna address that unfortunately, I already said negative theology is problematic I was just explaining its nature or whatnot which is why I repeatedly said I'm neutral but I think Ultima's proposal is reasonable.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Something being flowery doesn't stop it from being scaled.


This style of philosophy and Neo-Platoism stuff is just prone to this sort of language. It's why Gnostisicm can sound weird and why deep level theology or philosophy in this area can become world salad like with Theortical's post.

It doesn't mean it can't be applied, but the core concept of the theology will include this type of languge.

The only issue is as it stands is ultimately this translation on the “at the top of the dimensional theory” statement since it implies it isn’t outright transcend or something. At least, not in its entirety

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

 

[Deagonx]

This style of philosophy and Neo-Platoism stuff is just prone to this sort of language. It's why Gnostisicm can sound weird and why deep level theology or philosophy in this area can become world salad like with Theortical's post.

It doesn't mean it can't be applied, but the core concept of the theology will include this type of languge.

Thing being above other ontologically implies tiering tho? That's how ontology works that's why even when universal are not something physically they'd scale above all that which is physical because they are ontologically greater than the physical things that which they explain.

The only part that I am objecting to is using this kind of philosophy to assert a higher degree of transcendence than a single layer of infinity. If we are arguing that the Root is more than just "Nasuverse + 1" degrees of infinity, I think we need more concrete evidence than Negative Theology. That's my stance on it, at least.

 

[Theoretical]

It's why Gnostisicm can sound weird and why deep level theology or philosophy in this area can become world salad like with Theortical's post.

Philosophy doing philosophy things

The only issue is as it stands is ultimately this translation on the “at the top of the dimensional theory” statement since it implies it isn’t outright transcend or something. At least, not in its entirety

I mean if you're using it as a combination along with negative theology than I guess it not being beyond dimensional theory but rather the pinnacle of it would invalidate what Ultima said, outside of that the description of it being at the top of dimensional theory wouldn't apply to it via its nature.

But it wouldn't make sense for the root to still be within the confinements of dimensional theory if it lacks spatial and temporal properties, and like Paul said it makes less sense for dimensional theory that describes the world to be outside of the world which is what the translation suggested to be the case.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

But it wouldn't make sense for the root to still be within the confinements of dimensional theory if it lacks spatial and temporal properties, and like Paul said it makes less sense for dimensional theory that describes the world to be outside of the world which is what the translation suggested to be the case

Thing is, it wasn’t referring as “The world” to be outside of the world, it is referring to a higher power that resides at the peak which tells me that isn’t what being said.

 

[Theoretical]

The only part that I am objecting to is using this kind of philosophy to assert a higher degree of transcendence than a single layer of infinity. If we are arguing that the Root is more than just "Nasuverse + 1" degrees of infinity, I think we need more concrete evidence than Negative Theology. That's my stance on it, at least.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any other evidence outside of it creating something that foundates dualities conceptually, is it being unrestrained from binary opposition then there's also the statement of it being distinct from infinities within the nasuverse which are created from recursion existing as true infinity or whatnot, but the last time I used that the response to that was that it only refers to infinities Inverse hence it would only be 1 layer above infinities in the nasuverse.

 

[ImmortalDread]

• Exists at the summit of all dimensional theories, existing independently of its definitions.

May I see evidences of their definition within the verse?

 

[Qawsedf234]

The only issue is as it stands is ultimately this translation on the “at the top of the dimensional theory” statement since it implies it isn’t outright transcend or something. At least, not in its entirety

I mean, the sentence right after thst states the power is outside of space and the Cosmos so I don't think it means that the Root is limited to dimensions.

this kind of philosophy to assert a higher degree of transcendence than a single layer of infinit

But it's not just infinity+1. No description and no amount of stance closes can have anything or anyon reach the Root. It's why Ultima said he's against the Downgrade. It fits the infinite hierarchy aspect of a 1-A justification.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Qawsedf234

However, these do not refer to any form of infinite hierarchy, which the OP has already acknowledged should be minimized.
As a matter of fact, you have already concurred with the remark in that discussion.

Or am I missing something?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I mean, the sentence right after thst states the power is outside of space and the Cosmos so I don't think it means that the Root is limited to dimensions.


But it's not just infinity+1. No description and no amount of stance closes can have anything or anyon reach the Root. It's why Ultima said he's against the Downgrade. It fits the infinite hierarchy aspect of a 1-A justification.

"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

“outside of this world” is assuming it involves Earth IIRC so not sure on this.

 

[Theoretical]

Thing is, it wasn’t referring as “The world” to be outside of the world, it is referring to a higher power that resides at the peak which tells me that isn’t what being said.

It still suggests that dimensional theory which describes the world is exist outside of the world, didn't really say it implies the world is outside of the world. That also means the root didn't create everything if it's still confined to something that already existed that being some dimensional theory if its still confined to it how could it have created it if it's existence is contingent upon whatever theory that is by virtue of being confined by it.

 

[Deagonx]

No description and no amount of stance closes can have anything or anyon reach the Root.

I am not clear on what the second part of your comment means, but being indescribable shouldn't automatically be equated to an infinite hierarchy.

 

[Qawsedf234]

However, these do not refer to any form of infinite hierarchy,

They do, since its mentioned multiple times concepts and people trying to reach the Root or be assigned to the Root results in it no longer being the Root.

It's why Ultima was against the downgrade. The only other thing I said is that the comment and situation would warrant at least a Low 1-A rating.

 

[Theoretical]

However, these do not refer to any form of infinite hierarchy, which the OP has already acknowledged should be minimized.

Pretty sure Ultima's explanation posits that it having that divine ineffability would exist beyond a hypothetical infinite hierarchy, which doesn't physically exist Inverse to which he also said if anyone has a problem with it they should take it up with him so you should probably just respond to what he said and just refute it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

What is the reasoning behind categorizing the outside world as 1-A?
Could you please provide me with the definition of dimensional theory as it pertains to the canon of the verse?

They do, since its mentioned multiple times concepts and people trying to reach the Root or be assigned to the Root results in it no longer being the Root

This response fails to address the argument that simply being outside of something does not automatically grant a 1-A classification.
In that case, why would you concur with the note?

It has to be clear in some fashion that even if an infinite or unlimited number of dimensions/layers are added or removed, it would make no difference to the character. The same applies to similarly large jumps in other tiers, like from 1-A to 1-A+ etc.

Pretty sure Ultima's explanation posits that it having that divine ineffability would exist beyond a hypothetical infinite hierarchy, which doesn't physically exist Inverse to which he also said if anyone has a problem with it they should take it up with him so you should probably just respond to what he said and just refute it.

Refute what? He did not even prove why divine ineffability would exist beyond a hypothetical infinite hierarchy within the verse's canonicity and its context.

 

[Qawsedf234]

am not clear on what the second part of your comment means,

Whenever I'm on mobile I fat finger my phone so much I end up writing like a document that's been run through Google Translate like 8 times.

What I mean is that people physically, through portals or through mage craft try to reach the Root or assign it to something. But by doing either they end up not going to the actual Root, because once it's assigned, once you try to comprehend the thing it no longer is the Root but a lesser thing. It's not just infinity+1. No amount of higher levels can reach it.

This response fails to address the argument that simply being outside of something does not automatically grant a 1-A classification.

But it's not outside of something, it's beyond all things in a way that fits the definition.

 

[Reiner04]

Sorry but the thread is clogging and cluttering. Perhaps it's a staff discussion for a reason and unnecessary comments should be deleted (including this mine). I can say @Theoretical and other non staff supporters of the verse should be allowed and other staff members. But non staff shouldn't. Where it scales is staff thingy, context and arguing is of supporters.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But it's not outside of something, it's beyond all things in a way that fits the definition.

Which goes against the note you concurred.

 

[Deagonx]

But by doing either they end up not going to the actual Root, because once it's assigned, once you try to comprehend the thing it no longer is the Root but a lesser thing. It's not just infinity+1. No amount of higher levels can reach it.

Do you have a link where I can see the full body of evidence for this concept? Because what I've read doesn't suggest that.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Sorry but the thread is clogging and cluttering. Perhaps it's a staff discussion for a reason and unnecessary comments should be deleted (including this mine). I can say @Theoretical and other non staff supporters of the verse should be allowed and other staff members. But non staff shouldn't. Where it scales is staff thingy, context and arguing is of supporters.

Alright. Anyone without a clear sign-off from another staff will have their comments deleted.

 

[Theoretical]

What is the reasoning behind categorizing the outside world as 1-A?
Could you please provide me with the definition of dimensional theory as it pertains to the canon of the verse?

Nobody is using dimensional theory I already told Paul his argument for that is disingenuous saying "dimensional theory describes dimensions hence it would include every dimension" or something along those lines and Ultima doesn't strictly use dimensional theory as well

This response fails to address the argument that simply being outside of something does not automatically grant a 1-A classification.
In that case, why would you concur with the note?

That's... Not what me, him and Ultima are suggesting tho.

Refute what? He did not even prove why divine ineffability would exist beyond a hypothetical infinite hierarchy within the verse's canonicity and its context

What do you mean when you say "verses canonicity and its context" it seems unintelligible or maybe it's just me but please clarify.

 

[Theoretical]

Do you have a link where I can see the full body of evidence for this concept? Because what I've read doesn't suggest that.

The links I explaining the nature of negative theology does somewhat suggest that because that "being" by virtue of the "ineffability thesis" is inaccessible to all of "intelligibility" which relates to that "beings" ontological scale, that is to say if you're saying the root is 3 dimensional it wouldn't apply to it but something lesser than it, if you say 4 dimensional it wouldn't apply to it but something lesser than it and this will go on infinitely. That is why Ultima said it implies an infinite regress in that sense.

And again the response that it's only limited to the verses extent would also be a misrepresenting of negative theology because it's nature is like that independently of the limits of reality, that is to say even when reality has its own limits that "being" is not transcendent because of the limits of reality but strictly because of the beings nature as being transcendent.

 

[Deagonx]

The links I explaining the nature of negative theology does somewhat suggest that because that "being" by virtue of the "ineffability thesis" is inaccessible to all of "intelligibility" which relates to that "beings" ontological scale, that is to say if you're saying the root is 3 dimensional it wouldn't apply to it but something lesser than it, if you say 4 dimensional it wouldn't apply to it but something lesser than it and this will go on infinitely.

If that really was the case, would that not immediately grant tier 0? As any such descriptions we would given a tier 0 being would immediately be lesser than it?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Nobody is using dimensional theory I already told Paul his argument for that is disingenuous saying "dimensional theory describes dimensions hence it would include every dimension" or something along those lines and Ultima doesn't strictly use dimensional theory as well

Alright, so this topic can be ended. I hope no one mention it once again.

What do you mean when you say "verses canonicity and its context" it seems unintelligible or maybe it's just me but please clarify.

It means that the definition of said theory should be explained in verse and not on Wikipedia.

If that really was the case, would that not immediately grant tier 0? As any such descriptions we would given a tier 0 being would immediately be lesser than it?

Yap, if we are going to rate the NLF statements, then I am trying to understand what it prevents getting the highest rating. All tiers above 1 are still bound by sizes.

 

[Theoretical]

If that really was the case, would that not immediately grant tier 0? As any such descriptions we would given a tier 0 being would immediately be lesser than it?

As the wiki staff members and regular members would say "NLF" which I don't think it is but there's nothing I can do about that, I think high 1-A would be a better lowball but Ultima couldn't get around Dt calling it "nlf".

 

[ImmortalDread]

Alright. Anyone without a clear sign-off from another staff will have their comments deleted.

May I respectfully inquire about something that has piqued my curiosity? Do you not feel that by allowing exceptions within the Nasuverse, we are deviating from the note that you previously acknowledged, which explicitly prohibits such exceptions?

 

[Theoretical]

It means that the definition of said theory should be explained in verse and not on Wikipedia.

The way in which it is explained in the nasuverse itself is already consistent with dionysius's works which suggest all of that to be the case soo....

Quantum mechanics doesn't need infinite dimensional hilbert space lol but many world interpretation does need the infinite dimensional Hilbert space.

Negative theologies indescribability pertains to God's transcendence ontologically not just being beyond descriptions, the roots nature is tied to dionysius's approach to negative theology and neoplatonic I could explain more if you want to know why.

But basically in neoplatonism things which are simpler describe complex things and simpler things are ontologically greater than complex things which makes it scalable, take universals for example or whatnot but strictly from platonic realism.

As for (3) the idea of God being transcendent over reality is not because of the limits of reality but God's nature that's why I explained without ineffability thesis being posited, someone being indescribable and inconceivable can only grant a person a singular transcendence over reality.

But conventional ineffability is distinct from negative theology ineffability.

Well you wouldn't find the information you need in Wikipedia's, I have book of dionysius who taught neoplatonic works and negative theology as a result because it's invoked in the hierarchy of intelligibility of neoplatonism being referred to as "the one".

And it's the same person who invoked the ineffability thesis that says no predicates can be given to the Godhead. The root is consistent with dionysius's approach of negative theology not only by the ineffability thesis but

The root being

That which has divine simplicity, because the God head in neoplatonism lacks parts because God is distinct from his creation that which has parts and as a being that lacks parts God has divine simplicity, this is consistent with the root being said to be nothingness that which lacks properties here and there's more supporting evidence for that, and being implied to the simplest of them all here and with arcueid referring to it only as "the one" which is what the Godhead is called in neoplatonism but also says because we've become so complex we can't reach "the one" because "the one" is simple, similar statements where made in knk as well.

Negative theology is more philosophical than it is theological, and I agree scaling using theology especially without the Inverse material acting as supporting evidence for it hyper-literally scaling would be problematic, but the nasuverse does a fairly good job at accurately representing negative theology.

^^

 

[Deagonx]

As the wiki staff members and regular members would say "NLF" which I don't think it is but there's nothing I can do about that, I think high 1-A would be a better lowball but Ultima couldn't get around Dt calling it "nlf".

Either we take your approach at face-value, and it's tier 0, or we don't, and we can't use it for tiering.

 

[ImmortalDread]

May I ask before I comment, are those all relevant scans?

 

[Theoretical]

Either we take your approach at face-value, and it's tier 0, or we don't, and we can't use it for tiering.

I could agree with that

May I ask before I comment, are those all relevant scans?

No there's more

 

[Qawsedf234]

Do you have a link where I can see the full body of evidence for this concept? Because what I've read doesn't suggest that.

These were given to me before

Shiki woke up in another world, enclosed between the walls of the apartment. She cut through the impossible space of the impossible walls with a single swing.

Infinite is not Emptiness. In order for something to be infinite it must be defined as finite. If the concept of finite is not present then the concept of infinity would be absent. Since everything in the world are finite, therefore the concept of infinity can be observed.

Within the infinity of abyss where Ryougi Shiki was thrown into, she severed the impossibility of finite itself. However, the concept of finite should not exist within infinity. Therefore it should be impossible to cut through something that doesn't exist right? Thus, escaping from that abyss should of been impossible.

But, if there is no such thing as the concept of finite then it would not infinity, but rather "Emptiness" itself.

Ashamed of himself (Araya Souren), the infinity of abyss which should of been absolute was nothing more than a narrow dark room to his opponent (Shiki).

"The only denial of end that exists is the true nothingness of「　」" - The Garden of Sinners [Empty Boundaries] Volume II (page 214]

"The Spiral of Origin, it is the place where everything originated from, where everything is prepared, and thus, it is the place of nothingness. And that is my true nature, I am merely connected to it [Spiral of Origin]. This means that we are same existence wouldn't it?
That is why I am able to do anything. I can rearrange the laws of molecules that's invisible to the human eye, I am able to manipulate the gene tree of various organisms. Rearranging this world is nothing but a sweat, I can not only rebuild this very world but I am able to crush it from another new world."
Shiki says this as her lips twists, letting out a small chuckle as if she's mocking herself for saying something so ridiculous.

This scan regarding Yin-Yang binaries in Fate

「　」 [Others]
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.

Scan saying that you can't describe the Root

There's more but I'm having trouble remembering where they are. It all comes down to The Root (which is「　」in the above text) being indescribable and unreachable.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Do you not feel that by allowing exceptions within the Nasuverse, we are deviating from the note that you previously acknowledged, which explicitly prohibits such exceptions?

What do you mean by allowing exceptions? The Nasuverse wouldn't be an exception, it would qualify for this rule not be immune to a rule.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

The only part that I am objecting to is using this kind of philosophy to assert a higher degree of transcendence than a single layer of infinity. If we are arguing that the Root is more than just "Nasuverse + 1" degrees of infinity, I think we need more concrete evidence than Negative Theology. That's my stance on it, at least.

Its more than + 1

you could say nasu + unknown amount but theres a few scans that imply infinite

 

[Deagonx]

Infinite is not Emptiness. In order for something to be infinite it must be defined as finite. If the concept of finite is not present then the concept of infinity would be absent. Since everything in the world are finite, therefore the concept of infinity can be observed.

Within the infinity of abyss where Ryougi Shiki was thrown into, she severed the impossibility of finite itself. However, the concept of finite should not exist within infinity. Therefore it should be impossible to cut through something that doesn't exist right? Thus, escaping from that abyss should of been impossible.

But, if there is no such thing as the concept of finite then it would not infinity, but rather "Emptiness" itself.

Straightforward enough. Infinite is part of a duality with finite, and without the dual concept, infinity is just "emptiness" or a void.

"The only denial of end that exists is the true nothingness of「　」" - The Garden of Sinners [Empty Boundaries] Volume II (page 214]

This reads as incoherent to me.

"The Spiral of Origin, it is the place where everything originated from, where everything is prepared, and thus, it is the place of nothingness. And that is my true nature, I am merely connected to it [Spiral of Origin]. This means that we are same existence wouldn't it?
That is why I am able to do anything. I can rearrange the laws of molecules that's invisible to the human eye, I am able to manipulate the gene tree of various organisms. Rearranging this world is nothing but a sweat, I can not only rebuild this very world but I am able to crush it from another new world."
Shiki says this as her lips twists, letting out a small chuckle as if she's mocking herself for saying something so ridiculous.

Pretty bog-standard "creator god" stuff.

Scan saying that you can't describe the Root

There's more but I'm having trouble remembering where they are. It all comes down to The Root (which is「　」in the above text) being indescribable and unreachable.

Well, I'm tracking the indescribable part, that much is clear, but this notion of it being entirely unreachable, and thus additional layers of infinity couldn't reach it, and anything that reaches it must be reaching something that is not truly it, or etc, that seems to be unsourced. Which is a problem, since that aspect seems to be the crux of whether or not this word salad is tierable or not.

 

[Theoretical]

Nlf is winning the battle again