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

[Deagonx]

Nlf is winning the battle again

Rightly so. Indescribability being tier 0 by default is wild

 

[Theoretical]

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

I don't think it speaks about it being a void rather than its infinity being a denial of end/without limits

 

[Deagonx]

I don't think it speaks about it being a void rather than its infinity being a denial of end/without limits

As best as I can tell, "its infinity is a denial of end" is a nonsensical phrase. What are you trying to say?

 

[Theoretical]

Rightly so. Indescribability being tier 0 by default is wild

Just another day for a philosophical work to be a victim of nlf

 

[Deagonx]

Just another day for a philosophical work to be a victim of nlf

One should only interpret it as victimhood if you feel like the philosophies are cheapened/degraded simply because they are not being incorporated into our tiering system in such a way that results in them being able to freely destroy an uncountably infinite amount of infinite-dimensional universes at will. Which is probably not what Plato/whoever had in mind.

 

[Theoretical]

As best as I can tell, "its infinity is a denial of end" is a nonsensical phrase. What are you trying to say?

I don't feel like explaining all of that, again but sure any infinity of recursion technically has limits as a result of a higher one existing but for the root there's no infinity greater than it hence for all that which have such limits for the roots infinity it wouldn't be confined to such.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

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

I got permission from Firestorm,you can check his wall
The root being Nasu + 1 is just straight up illogical.

Everything in the nasuverse is captured on a conceptual level. this includes dimensions

 

[Theoretical]

One should only interpret it as victimhood if you feel like the philosophies are cheapened/degraded simply because they are not being incorporated into our tiering system in such a way that results in them being able to freely destroy an uncountably infinite amount of infinite-dimensional universes at will.

Relax I was trolling

Which is probably not what Plato/whoever had in mind.

Now cmon its not like the author of most verses scaled here made it in such a way that they wanted it to scale to high 1-A in a site called vs battle wiki or whatnot.

 

[Qawsedf234]

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.

I remember someone giving me a quote saying that there were paths to the Root, but upon getting to the path and reaching the Root it was no longer the root. I can't find the quote, but that's the biggest thing that turned me to being pro-1A on a previous thread. I'll try to find it.

 

[Deagonx]

infinity of recursion

Okay, this is the kind of thing I mean. This phrase -- removed from your personal background of knowledge which gives it meaning -- appears to be entirely incoherent despite my honest effort to try and see what you're trying to communicate to me. Whenever I read your posts I have this experience, you use phrases like "infinity of recursion" or "denial of end" or "inaccessible to all intelligibility" that don't appear to mean anything.

The goal of communication is to impart understanding on the party being communicated with. Using esoteric phrases from your pet philosophical models that no one else will understand is not helpful.

but for the root there's no infinity greater than it

Well, that is the claim being made, certainly, but having read quite a lot of scans about the root, I feel like almost 75+% of these grandiose statements being made about it are coming from thin air.

 

[Deagonx]

I remember someone giving me a quote saying that there were paths to the Root, but upon getting to the path and reaching the Root it was no longer the root. I can't find the quote, but that's the biggest thing that turned me to being pro-1A on a previous thread. I'll try to find it.

Thanks, that would be a crucial scan. I have read some of the upgrade threads, like Crimsons, Tdjwo's, and Marshadows, but I haven't seen anything like that yet.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I remember someone giving me a quote saying that there were paths to the Root, but upon getting to the path and reaching the Root it was no longer the root. I can't find the quote, but that's the biggest thing that turned me to being pro-1A on a previous thread. I'll try to find it.

I think you're mixing two scans together.

「　」 [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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

How would this qualifies for this rule? Can you elaborate? Because I don't see any infinite theoretical dimensions/layers in this verse.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think you're mixing two scans together.

No, it was about reaching the Root through achieving a pinnacle of a concept or idea. But by doing so you close off that road and even when you reach the Root it's not the same as the true thing.

 

[Qawsedf234]

How would this qualifies for this rule?

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.

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

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

No, it was about reaching the Root through achieving a pinnacle of a concept or idea. But by doing so you close off that road and even when you reach the Root it's not the same as the true thing.

The TM wiki says something like this, but I cant find the usual citation.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

"That is Shiki's ability. Just like Asagami Fujino, she has a unique channel that can see things normal humans can't. Eyes that can glimpse the spiral of origin, itself a microcosm of the greater world.

A scan that i think may serve useful

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@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

I'm a bit confused, I won't lie. If my memory doesn't fail me, my contentions on the Shinza thread largely had to do with arguments about dimensions, not anything to do with negative theology, as my post here aimed to discuss. I was indeed approached a few times about whether or not Masada could be 1-A for similar reasons as the Root (Negative theology shenanigans), but my issues were less "This doesn't qualify" and more "I don't think this satisfies the thing that qualifies." Ask Tarang123 later, if you want confirmation of this.

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?

If we took it to its broadest possible extent, yes (And there are a couple other reasons that you can make use of to argue it leads to Tier 0), but that doesn't necessarily mean a lowball can't be reached by a chain of direct implication (i.e What I've explained in my post). For example, a Reality-Fiction Difference, taken to its full extent, would amount to a Tier 0 feat, but we can lowball it to various lower tiers depending on how the verse demonstrates it as spanning. If an author entity can write up an infinite regress of stories-in-stories, then they'd rated around the 1-A range on that merit. Same principle here, more or less.

 

[Theoretical]

Whenever I read your posts I have this experience, you use phrases like "infinity of recursion" or "denial of end" or "inaccessible to all intelligibility" that don't appear to mean anything.

First of all no it doesn't not mean anything, denial of end is just something that was said in the source material so I quoted that to give my interpretation, intelligibility relates to conception in philosophy and is distinct from sensible which relates to the physical world, infinity of recursion should be easier to understand I just means infinities stacked recursively an example can be made with higher dimensions.

Recursion is regularly used in mathematics, denial of end is just nasu's weird way of conveying whatever he says and intelligibility is regularly used in Plato, Aristotle and dionysius's works.

Using esoteric phrases from your pet philosophical models that no one else will understand is not helpful.

I sincerely apologize but you could've pointed that out earlier

I feel like almost 75+% of these grandiose statements being made about it are coming from thin air.

I don't understand what you mean when you say they are coming from thin air.

 

[Tarang123]

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.

It's definitely a case-by-case thing, but I was just putting out an example and explaining why the two things are different and shouldn't be treated the same.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I'm a bit confused, I won't lie. If my memory doesn't fail me, my contentions on the Shinza thread largely had to do with arguments about dimensions, not anything to do with negative theology, as my post here aimed to discuss. I was indeed approached a few times about whether or not Masada could be 1-A for similar reasons as the Root (Negative theology shenanigans), but my issues were less "This doesn't qualify" and more "I don't think this satisfies the thing that qualifies." Ask Tarang123 later, if you want confirmation of this.

Do you agree on the fact that the root needs to be split into two keys? Negative theology doesnt work otherwise, because characters have acessed the root before, and there are multiple statements of a "greater world" or higher level

 

[Deagonx]

If we took it to its broadest possible extent, yes (And there are a couple other reasons that you can make use of to argue it leads to Tier 0), but that doesn't necessarily mean a lowball can't be reached by a chain of direct implication (i.e What I've explained in my post). For example, a Reality-Fiction Difference, taken to its full extent, would amount to a Tier 0 feat, but we can lowball it to various lower tiers depending on how the verse demonstrates it as spanning. If an author entity can write up an infinite regress of stories-in-stories, then they'd rated around the 1-A range on that merit. Same principle here, more or less.

Eh, well it's more or less for a similar reason why I think R>F difference likely shouldn't be treated the way it is. That aside, while I can see how R>F difference can be mediated to the specific effects/implications it is demonstrated to have within a verse, I struggle to see how we can accomplish the same thing when we're talking about tiering things like "beyond any describable thing."

 

[Tarang123]

How would this qualifies for this rule? Can you elaborate? Because I don't see any infinite theoretical dimensions/layers in this verse.

It doesn't need to directly mention them. Look at the FAQ. It needs to make clear that even an infinite amount of dimensions makes no difference to a place/person

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

How would this qualifies for this rule? Can you elaborate? Because I don't see any infinite theoretical dimensions/layers in this verse.

• "That is Shiki's ability. Just like Asagami Fujino, she has a unique channel that can see things normal humans can't. Eyes that can glimpse the spiral of origin, itself a microcosm of the greater world.

• Concepts are layered, as I've shown previously

Concepts described as infinite stream that trace back to the root

just a few examples

 

[ImmortalDread]

It doesn't need to directly mention them. Look at the FAQ. It needs to make clear that even an infinite amount of dimensions makes no difference to a place/person

But it did not make it clear...?

 

[Regidian]

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.

Just a thing here, all possibilities occur in Nasuverse it's a thing with INS.

"Scathach-Skadi: Unlike my Norse mythology, which viewed the world as born dualistic, other religions often had a defined concept of primordial chaos. Heaven and earth, warm and cold, good and evil, all united harmoniously. Therefore the primordial chaos is a grandmother of the world, which includes all possibilities... The Imaginary Number Space is a space that contains as many possibilities as it. I believe the primordial chaos contains all possibilities for it has everything mixed in it, while Imaginary Numbers contain all possibilities for they are unobservable. Thus, this is the inner side of our world, unobservable territory. A place not even detectable by the currently existing laws of physics. Meaning all possibilities can be hypothesized there."-

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

But it did not make it clear...?

The root being independent of dimensions implies that heavily

 

[Theoretical]

Just a thing here, all possibilities occur in Nasuverse it's a thing with INS.

With that being said the possibilities being from quantum theory and existing as parallel worlds it should entail the existence of the infinite dimensional Hilbert space If you understand how quantum mechanics works but I prefer not to speak.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Alright, it seems people are already flooding this with tangential topics, so, I ask that all regular users kindly leave the thread. The exception will be @Paul_Frank, since he's the one who has actually been maintaining the Nasuverse profiles, and @Chasekilleen, since he purportedly speaks Japanese and takes direct issues with the translations used to justify the rating. Any side-comments that add nothing to the discussion will be promptly deleted, thank you.

Eh, well it's more or less for a similar reason why I think R>F difference likely shouldn't be treated the way it is. That aside, while I can see how R>F difference can be mediated to the specific effects/implications it is demonstrated to have within a verse, I struggle to see how we can accomplish the same thing when we're talking about tiering things like "beyond any describable thing."

I've explained that neatly enough in my first post, but I can probably reiterate it. As the verse states, any description assigned to the Root is, by its nature, automatically lesser than the true scope of it. For example it is called "The Spiral of Origin," but as said: "However, since the Spiral of Origin was called the Spiral of Origin, it was no longer “ ”."

Likewise you can also attempt to refer to it as "zero," the emptiness from which all phenomenon are sourced, but: "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." That is, even describing it as a transcendental thing is not actually something that touches on its nature, because by trying to encase it in words, you're already limiting what it actually is. If such is the case, then by definition, even the act of acknowledging that what you are describing is lesser and attempting to refer to it as " " is something that won't cut it either, and neither will a further layer of abstraction ontop of that. From this it's not really hard to see how this extends ad-infinitum.

So, by direct implication, there is an infinite regress of ideas concerning the Root, all of which are lesser than the Root proper. As you pointed out, taking this to the broadest possible extent would indeed result in Tier 0, but something having an interpretation that reaches ginormous heights doesn't mean we can't try to lowball it using only what the verse directly presents. Same principle as R-F Interaction, since that, similarly, can be construed as being above whatever you can possibly think of. We don't necessarily take an all-or-nothing approach with these things, as is.

 

[Deagonx]

That is, even describing it as a transcendental thing is not actually something that touches on its nature, because by trying to encase it in words, you're already limiting what it actually is

I get that, I do, but I think we must recognize the logical limitations of such a concept, whilst doing our best to respect and understand it in context. I don't feel that we need to get too far off track about this concept, but I feel as though this notion of indescribability shouldn't be treated with the magnitude or grandiosity with which it is currently being treated. It seems like too far of a leap to conclude that due to this, the being itself is above all actual substantiation of things that could be described by words, simply because -- for some esoteric reason -- the root itself can't truly be described with words.

So, by direct implication, there is an infinite regress of ideas concerning the Root, all of which are lesser than the Root proper. As you pointed out, taking this to the broadest possible extent would indeed result in Tier 0, but something having an interpretation that reaches ginormous heights doesn't necessarily mean we can't try to lowball it using only what the verse directly presents. Same principle as R-F Interaction, since that, similarly, can be construed as being above whatever you can possibly think of. We don't necessarily take an all-or-nothing approach with these things, as is.

I understand that, I guess what I mean is: I can envision a concrete method through which R>F can be downshifted to something more grounded in the context of the verse it is used in, but I struggle to find a comparable parallel for how we rein in this "beyond words" thing. Either we take it literally to Tier 0 or we don't use it for tiering. The concept of a middleground -- in theory -- is clear to me, but as for the actual mechanism or framework through which we would do that? I'm drawing a total blank.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

So, by direct implication, there is an infinite regress of ideas concerning the Root, all of which are lesser than the Root proper

I agree with this point, especially since this scan exists

"That is Shiki's ability. Just like Asagami Fujino, she has a unique channel that can see things normal humans can't. Eyes that can glimpse the spiral of origin, itself a microcosm of the greater world.

But, I can dive even deeper than she. Or rather... I suppose you could say that I myself am that spiral."

 

[Paul_Frank]

Jesus there's so many messages now

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.

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.

Both of these are basically saying the same thing so I'll explain it while quoting both

I think you sorta just missed my entire point. It's not saying dimensional theory as in one specific one like you seem to be thinking, it's overall dimensional theory which is the system by which dimensions are described, explained and defined. The things you listed are subsets of it.

If it's talking about the system itself overall as I was saying, (because again, it's very clear in the text it's not talking about a singular specific one) then it doesn't actually matter which ones are mentioned directly. It's the exact scenario the faq is describing where something would be unaffected by the addition of any amount of dimensions. If it's the apex of (or beyond using any amount of context and brainpower) dimensional theory, then by holding said position relative to the entire system, it doesn't actually matter if you suddenly describe infinite dimensional Hilbert space, or set theory or anything, because it's position relative to that concept as a whole doesn't change. That was my point as to why it doesn't need to specifically mention any of them

Essentially my point is that it follows the criteria laid out in the FAQ by not having a position relative to a specific dimension or specific number of dimensions, but the overarching framework where they can possibly be defined. In doing so, it's put in a situation where it doesn't actually matter how many dimensions are added, as it's still above any extension of the amount of dimensions, which is what the FAQ wants to be the case, mind you btw, this FAQ section is specifically for obtaining 1-A without showing an infinite hierarchy or infinite dimensions to begin with, the entire point of that is for things like this to be possible, so long as it is "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." which this suffices for

 

[Deagonx]

I think you sorta just missed my entire point. It's not saying dimensional theory as in one specific one like you seem to be thinking, it's overall dimensional theory which is the system by which dimensions are described, explained and defined. The things you listed are subsets of it.

If it's talking about the system itself overall as I was saying, (because again, it's very clear in the text it's not talking about a singular specific one) then it doesn't actually matter which ones are mentioned directly

Is the sole basis for the idea that "dimensional theory" refers to dimensionality as a whole coming from the lack of a "the?"

If so, I think you're extrapolating far far too much from the very limited information we have. We don't have any way of knowing that "peak of dimensional theory" is best interpreted in the incredibly specific and niche manner that you referenced.

It's at the peak of dimensional theory. The precise meaning of dimensional theory in this sentence is quite a big question mark, but from where I'm standing, nothing about it indicates transcendence of an infinite hierarchy of dimensions, nor indicating that it's above all conceivable dimensional theories possible.

I agree with theoretical that the most straightforward meaning would indeed limit it to the dimensions in the verse where this was said.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Is the sole basis for the idea that "dimensional theory" refers to dimensionality as a whole coming from the lack of a "the?"

If so, I think you're extrapolating far far too much from the very limited information we have. We don't have any way of knowing that "peak of dimensional theory" is best interpreted in the incredibly specific and niche manner that you referenced.

It's at the peak of dimensional theory. The precise meaning of dimensional theory in this sentence is quite a big question mark, but from where I'm standing, nothing about it indicates transcendence of an infinite hierarchy of dimensions, nor indicating that it's above all conceivable dimensional theories possible.

I agree with theoretical that the most straightforward meaning would indeed limit it to the dimensions in the verse where this was said.

It's also assuming that dimensional theory is the framework which dimensions rely upon. Except there's one major problem with that. Dimensional Theory does not necessarily define what the nature of dimensions is, but the approach of using them in certain theories. Dimensions aren't based on Dimensional Theory. Dimensional Theory is based on dimensions. Dimensions can be defined by something such as a coordinate system which is not a "Dimensional Theory".

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It's also assuming that dimensional theory is the framework which dimensions rely upon. Except there's one major problem with that. Dimensional Theory does not necessarily define what the nature of dimensions is, but the approach of using them in certain theories. Dimensions aren't based on Dimensional Theory. Dimensional Theory is based on dimensions. Dimensions can be defined by something such as a coordinate system which is not a "Dimensional Theory".

Dimensions are mostly based on physics and mathematics. Both physics and mathematics use infinite dimensional spaces. If you want to be technical, there are no limits to the amount of dimensions.

 

[Tarang123]

Dimensions are mostly based on physics and mathematics. Both physics and mathematics use infinite dimensional spaces. If you want to be technical, there are no limits to the amount of dimensions.

That's a hilariously huge leap in logic. The arguments weren't that the root is beyond physics and math, but that it's beyond dimensional theory.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

That's a hilariously huge leap in logic. The arguments weren't that the root is beyond physics and math, but that it's beyond dimensional theory.

They're heavily related to dimensional theory, you cant have one without the other

 

[Tarang123]

They're heavily related to dimensional theory, you cant have one without the other

That could be applied to any statement regarding dimensions. "I transcend dimensions" could then be translated to "I transcend physics and mathematics" and your logic would apply, but that clearly isn't a 1A argument, as transcending dimensions could be done by a 5D being to a 3D being.

 

[Firestorm808]

@DontTalkDT

Can you help clarify your interpretation on how the quantifiable requirements apply to the abstract concepts in this scenario?

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT

Can you help clarify your interpretation on how the quantifiable requirements apply to the abstract concepts in this scenario?

It's probably best to wait with that until the other 1-A thread is concluded, as that will affect it.