This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
I do not care about this at all, assuming that it's a purely lexical change with nothing else supplanting the old term.
"All" is so extremely broad that I do not support this.
I don't really care too much, there's only 89 pages here. Which isn't so few that I'm certain, nor is it so many that I oppose it.
I completely and utterly disagree with this. I had a discussion with Ultima about this on Discord, which ended with him being unable to refute my points, after which he didn't bring it up again.
Same as #4.
Since I disagree with #4 and #5, I also disagree with this.
Since I disagree with #4, #5, and #6, I also disagree with this.
The thing we equalize reality-fiction differences to is arbitrary, but I've continually held that it vastly inflates certain verses, at the expense of others that explain things far more, to automatically assume that R>F differences are above all of mathematics.
I also think it's incoherent to define a standard based on "transcending dimensionality entirely" since that's impossible to prove.
If these things are already addressed, feel free to point me to the places, or the number of the "counterargument" in the OP which addresses them.
As for why it took me so long to post here, refer to this video.
Btw. while I wait for Ultima to get back to my other points (and that clarification regarding that one thing DDM said) I want to add a question for him:
Ultima said that he is not actually against the idea to tier things by the lowest viable interpretation. It seems to me as if the arguments against the counterpoints in the OP largely depend on the idea that there is no logically consistent theory regarding R>F that does not have R>F difference rated above all dimensions (or quantitative measurements of size in general).
So if I were to demonstrate the existence of a viewpoint of how R>F works that does not require it to transcend all dimensions, would you agree that your proposal should be rejected? Yes or no?
I have been debating anti-fantasy for too long and think it's time to throw some mystery in. (Little Umineko reference) I.e. I should probably present a complete explanation of my own perspective and for that I will try to figure out how far back I need to start (to enable as much brevity as possible). So I might ask a few questions like that. Or maybe not, we will see. Edit: Gonna be busy 'til friday, so next replies from me then
So I only had time to read the op and not the full thread so forgive me if what I say is already addressed.
I think reality fiction difference being such a high tier brings into question how we utilize reality equalization, imagine if there's a verse where a character is dreaming and since the dream is the main focus, the real world could be qualitatively superior, but then that's giving a high tier for the focus of the story being on a dream while the character otherwise is not impressive. I think this would be the biggest grievance, sending characters to the upper rungs of the tiering system based on where the focus of the story takes place even if from a different frame of reference they are pretty low powered.
I don't quite know how to avoid that when there are cases of fictional beings interacting with the "real world".
the dimensional superiority being 1-A is less weird tho. I can side with it
It's too early to tag people to vote, if that's what you're doing. I have not even addressed all of Ultima's arguments in the OP yet (on his request I didn't address all at once to keep posts reasonably short), while Agnaa has not even explained his points as he is waiting for a summary.
On top of what DT said about the counterarguments being incomplete, it seems really wack to ask people to vote without directing them to the counterarguments that already exist.
To be fair, if people are asked to evaluate a thread like this then their should be expectation that they at least look through the discussion that has been had about the topic. If not, that is solely their choice, and if they don't think the counter argument sufficient or see that the conversation is ongoing then whether they comment is also up to them.
I will say that I didn't really want a mass-ping to happen, as of yet. But, what's done is done, I suppose.
I'll be addressing all the stuff above in (relatively, I hope) short order. Since people are already here, tackling every individual thing in its own box is going to make this unreadable, so, I'll try to distill the debate that's been had so far to the best of my ability.
To be fair, if people are asked to evaluate a thread like this then their should be expectation that they at least look through the discussion that has been had about the topic. If not, that is solely their choice, and if they don't think the counter argument sufficient or see that the conversation is ongoing then whether they comment is also up to them.
It's too early to tag people to vote, if that's what you're doing. I have not even addressed all of Ultima's arguments in the OP yet (on his request I didn't address all at once to keep posts reasonably short)
Agnaa having yet to explain his points is fair. As for you: We've already went over the entirety of the first 2/3rds of the OP, so the only thing left for you to "address," really, is the counterpoint list (And, mind you, throughout this debate, I had no need to even appeal to it at any point)
Distilling the arguments so far, I also notice that all your points ultimately fall back into one (Or all) of three things:
1. "These parameters are not sufficient to prove the high levels of power you claim they have" (Which is being discussed, already)
2. "Accepting this Tiering System would lead to undesirable consequences, which the current Tiering System does not have" (Which is also being discussed, already)
3. "The Tiering System you propose commits the same errors as the one it's intended to replace, and as such it is not actually an improvement over it" (Also being discussed, already)
So, I assume that these are your fundamental issues with my proposals. Said issues, evidently, are already laid out in the debate we've been having up until this point, so, on that basis, it is indeed fair to see who is it that people agree with so far, between you and I. Though I agree it's too early to end this thread outright.
The problem is that your sheer superiority isn't based on anything if you take away the control. You don't have an actual size comparision and just alieness is left.
This seems to be the crux of the disagreement between us. You think that control and capacity to interact with a lower reality is fundamental to whether a Reality-Fiction Transcendence is considered tierable. Whereas I don't believe they have any importance. As I've shown above, the wiki's policy pages (Including its explanatation on R>F Transcendence) favor me in this case, not you.
If you don't have anything besides your word to back up your claims that control is of fundamental importance, then I believe we're done here.
This also extends to the arguments about Beyond-Dimensional Existence. Since your opinions on how it works seem be rooted on the same principle.
Also, I see that it's high time to address your counterpoints. Like, you say there are school of thoughts were you are wrong, but you just say they are invalid and shouldn't be used because you think they make no sense? Wow.
Honestly the week (And 5 days) I spent away from the wiki made me mull over those arguments of mine a bit more. Yeah, I've realized that having a fully neutral Tiering System is essentially impossible. We'll inevitably need to reject some schools of thought in favor of others (For example, we already reject Finitism by saying infinities can exist), so, yeah, lol. I waffled a bit there, I admit.
So, on that basis: Yeah, I do think the viewpoints you're propounding don't make much sense. Demonstrating that they don't, in fact, is the purpose of this thread.
Also: Saying concepts are bound to what physically exists doesn't disprove the Tiering System I am proposing. A core part of my arguments, after all, is that you don't need a High 1-B structure to be around to qualify for 1-A. That's something to be settled in the other parts of this discussion.
Btw. while I wait for Ultima to get back to my other points (and that clarification regarding that one thing DDM said) I want to add a question for him:
Ultima said that he is not actually against the idea to tier things by the lowest viable interpretation. It seems to me as if the arguments against the counterpoints in the OP largely depend on the idea that there is no logically consistent theory regarding R>F that does not have R>F difference rated above all dimensions (or quantitative measurements of size in general).
So if I were to demonstrate the existence of a viewpoint of how R>F works that does not require it to transcend all dimensions, would you agree that your proposal should be rejected? Yes or no?
You mention that you want to demonstrate "the existence of a viewpoint of how R>F works." You've done something similar already, with Beyond-Dimensional Existence. In that case, you presented a haphazard scenario in which characters -could- be described as "superior to dimensions," but only on a very rough technicality that doesn't really fall under any actual use of the term, and thus doesn't constitute a true example of superiority over dimensionality, either.
I don't expect this to be any different. Seems fairly likely that you will provide some example that is really only "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" on a technicality, and not actually R>F as the concept is defined and used.
So I am not going to stake these proposals on whatever you come up with, no. But to extend an olive branch, and avoid the above concerns, I will dictate the terms of this discussion.
To put it bluntly: I want your counterexample to be actual, proper Reality-Fiction Transcendence, which is to say I don't want it to be something that looks like R>F, but really isn't. That is:
I don't want viewpoints that, really, are not valid readings of any case of Reality-Fiction Transcendence whatsoever (E.g. "Clearly, the fiction is the size of ink to this character, so the difference between them is finite" or "Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference.")
I don't want examples where a reality/fiction dichotomy is simply used as an analogy for some generic superiority (E.g. "Just as a painting could never harm reality, so, too could he never harm this being")
I don't want examples that don't qualify for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence to begin with, even under the current parameters (Up there, you tried to use Doki Doki Literature Club as a counterexample. However, DDLC is something we reject as a valid case of R>F altogether)
I don't want examples that are really just Plot Manipulation and don't involve any form of R>F
I don't want examples involving idiosyncratic definitions of what "Fiction" and "Reality" mean.
I don't want cases where Reality-Fiction is simply equated to a dimensional difference, or the like, and vice-versa, to be used as "counterexamples" (E.g. "Well, fiction is generally considered to be 2-D to us...")
As a consequence of the above (And a summation of the spirit of this list), I don't want faux Reality-Fiction, either. So, holographic principles, reality-as-simulation theories and the like are out of consideration as potential counterexamples
Furthermore, I don't want hyper-specific hypotheticals that only work within their own context, and don't apply to any actual verse.
And most importantly: I don't want you to beg the question. Which is to say: I don't want you to treat "This character technically has only demonstrated trancendence over n-dimensional space" as meaning "We don't know that they are greater than any space of higher dimension." Since this is, after all, the very thing which we are discussing, and as such trying to use it as an argument-ender would be just presupposing the validity of your own conclusion.
So, overall, the counterexample must abide by the notion of "Layer X literally does not have realness to Layer Y" (I.e. The gap between X and Y must necessarily be metaphysical and purely qualitative), such that, even if Layer Y has dimensions of some kind, those aren't the same dimensions as the ones in Layer X, but indeed a separate set of dimensions that is "more real" than all of Layer X, too (i.e. Even a 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional object in Layer Y would transcend Layer X)
If the counterexample you have in mind falls under any of the above cases, then unfortunately you don't have anything to say to me, and neither I to you. If it doesn't, and actually meets the definition I prescribed, then I'm all ears.
The superiority is still part of their nature and they definitely are nondimensional due to it (straight up said to be beyond the concept of distance and time).
Your problem is that what you really want to say is not that they are just superior due to their non-dimensional nature, but that they are superior in a fashion that is independent of the size of the thing they compare to.
(...)
In a feat based system what I'm talking about is one and the same.
Honestly, I'm not sure if you understand my arguments, or if you even understand what this debate is about.
I am arguing that Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence is inherently above all dimensions, regardless of whether those exist in the verse or not (And thus is Tier 0 in the current Tiering System, but 1-A in the Tiering System I am proposing). As a counterexample to this notion, then, you present me... Characters that don't have Type 2 BDE, nor are tiered as if they do. I don't believe I have to explain what is wrong with that.
So, in short:
Being superior to the very quality of having dimensions. The thing that the FAQ (wrongly) says is Low 1-C in a 4-D cosmology = 1-A = Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence
Being nondimensional + Having the firepower to destroy all the dimensions of your verse. Something that could be accomplished by a Low 2-C character in a 4-D cosmology = Not1-A = Type 1 Beyond-Dimensional Existence
If you ask "What does being superior to the quality of having dimensions even mean?", or something of that sort, then, yeah, we're done. Because at that point you don't even know what Type 2 BDE is.
What's there to elaborate? The objects have next to nothing in common. The things you wish to do with the empty set can be done with fiction in the same way.
Elaborate on why "X isn't real to Y" can't be analogized to the empty set. I would say that verses where the cosmology goes "What you conceive of as reality is actually illusory. The things you believe exist actually don't. And there is a higher, truer world above that illusion" can be analogized to it just fine.
I mean: A cube, a plane, a line and a point are all equally real. Thus, being "less real" than even a single one of them (Even the highest, the cube) means you are less real than, and thus inferior to, all of them. The only thing "below" a 0-D point would be the empty set, so you can say the analogy is strengthened by that.
Honestly, for a start, shifting to another scenario doesn't resolve things. At best, you have shown that Plato's cave and R>F in book form are two different scenarios, in which case the latter would then still need to be ranked above all layers by your logic.
Furthermore, it's a fairly arbitrary equivalence you bring up and I may as easily argue that R>F is like Type 2 Concepts: Abstract things in an abstract world tied to physical reality.
It wouldn't, no. What my point demonstrates is that a reality/unreality dichotomy doesn't require what you say it requires. Which is to say:
(i) "Y is not real to X"
doesn't imply
(ii) "X can add any amount of layers of reality/unreality between itself and Y."
A R>F Transcendence only satisfies (i), and whether it also satisfies (ii) is something that must be clarified separately. And if you ask for my opinion on that matter, then "Above all possible character strings" and the like is something only a Tier 0 (i.e. A being with all the properties I've listed above) can truly satisfy. And I don't think I need to tell you that the average R>F character fails all the requirements I wrote down for 0.
It's also not an arbitrary equivalence at all because Plato's Cave and R>F are both examples of a kind of superiority whose nature is ontological, not physical. Reality/Unreality dichotomy, as said.
I don't want viewpoints that, really, are not valid readings of any case of Reality-Fiction Transcendence whatsoever (E.g. "Clearly, the fiction is the size of ink to this character, so the difference between them is finite" or "Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference.")
I think I have some idea what you mean by this, where they talk about reality and fiction, but not in ways that would apply to this wiki? Makes sense, for Reality-Fiction to apply, it must be Reality and fiction as considered by the standards. Unless I'm wrong in what you mean.
The rest makes perfect sense and I'm in agreement with the logic behind them.
Basically unrealistically excessive lowballs of what a R>F Transcendence would be. Stuff like "Fiction is just ink or grafite on paper, and ink/grafite is finite to us, so the real world is only finitely larger than the fiction."
I think I have some idea what you mean by this, where they talk about reality and fiction, but not in ways that would apply to this wiki? Makes sense, for Reality-Fiction to apply, it must be Reality and fiction as considered by the standards
I've been told that Ultima won't respond to me until he's done talking to DT, so I'm gonna unfollow this thread.
Please DM me on Discord or on-site to notify me of when that's over. Mentioning me in this thread or posting on my message wall will not work since I'm not checking my notifications.
Agnaa having yet to explain his points is fair. As for you: We've already went over the entirety of the first 2/3rds of the OP, so the only thing left for you to "address," really, is the counterpoint list (And, mind you, throughout this debate, I had no need to even appeal to it at any point)
Yeah, but I have been avoiding any argument that relates to the counterpoint list, so that is a really big chunk of the arguments. That includes things related to points we were discussion that relate to the counterpoints.
Basically, everything is half-debated and I have yet to even write my counter proposal.
You mention that you want to demonstrate "the existence of a viewpoint of how R>F works." You've done something similar already, with Beyond-Dimensional Existence. In that case, you presented a haphazard scenario in which characters -could- be described as "superior to dimensions," but only on a very rough technicality that doesn't really fall under any actual use of the term, and thus doesn't constitute a true example of superiority over dimensionality, either.
I don't expect this to be any different. Seems fairly likely that you will provide some example that is really only "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" on a technicality, and not actually R>F as the concept is defined and used.
I will remind you that anything you assume this to entail will need to be explicitely proven by the fiction then, instead of being assumed to come automatically with R>F statements.
So I am not going to stake these proposals on whatever you come up with, no. But to extend an olive branch, and avoid the above concerns, I will dictate the terms of this discussion.
To put it bluntly: I want your counterexample to be actual, proper Reality-Fiction Transcendence, which is to say I don't want it to be something that looks like R>F, but really isn't. That is:
I don't want viewpoints that, really, are not valid readings of any case of Reality-Fiction Transcendence whatsoever (E.g. "Clearly, the fiction is the size of ink to this character, so the difference between them is finite" or "Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference.")
I don't want examples where a reality/fiction dichotomy is simply used as an analogy for some generic superiority (E.g. "Just as a painting could never harm reality, so, too could he never harm this being")
I don't want examples that don't qualify for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence to begin with, even under the current parameters (Up there, you tried to use Doki Doki Literature Club as a counterexample. However, DDLC is something we reject as a valid case of R>F altogether)
I don't want examples that are really just Plot Manipulation and don't involve any form of R>F
I don't want examples involving idiosyncratic definitions of what "Fiction" and "Reality" mean.
I don't want cases where Reality-Fiction is simply equated to a dimensional difference, or the like, and vice-versa, to be used as "counterexamples" (E.g. "Well, fiction is generally considered to be 2-D to us...")
As a consequence of the above (And a summation of the spirit of this list), I don't want faux Reality-Fiction, either. So, holographic principles, reality-as-simulation theories and the like are out of consideration as potential counterexamples
Plot Manipulation is a valid example as it demonstrates the philosophic principles with which verse treats the principle of meta-fiction. If a fiction explains that it views plot in a certain way that naturally extends to its view what transcending said plot equates to (i.e. R>F transcendence). You can't separate the treatment of fiction from the treatment of plot.
Verses that equate dimensions and R>F seem like valid counterexamples. That's basically stating that they don't intend to use your system.
You need to explain your last point closer as for what you consider the difference between your "proper" R>F and those things. By current standards, we typically would consider viewing the world as a video game as R>F. What about dreams, for instance?
I don't think that is a valid requirement as far as looking for a default standard goes. The entire debate is about what to assume regarding verses for which we do not have enough information.
Also, you have not demonstrated that any verse explicitly intends to follow your theory yet, either.
And most importantly: I don't want you to beg the question. Which is to say: I don't want you to treat "This character technically has only demonstrated trancendence over n-dimensional space" as meaning "We don't know that they are greater than any space of higher dimension." Since this is, after all, the very thing which we are discussing, and as such trying to use it as an argument-ender would be just presupposing the validity of your own conclusion.
So, overall, the counterexample must abide by the notion of "Layer X literally does not have realness to Layer Y" (I.e. The gap between X and Y must necessarily be metaphysical and purely qualitative), such that, even if Layer Y has dimensions of some kind, those aren't the same dimensions as the ones in Layer X, but indeed a separate set of dimensions that is "more real" than all of Layer X, too (i.e. Even a 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional object in Layer Y would transcend Layer X)
Like I said above, if that is a requirement you put, the verse has to prove that is the case before we apply your standards.
So are you sure you want to put as an explicit standard that the verse has a statement that its higher reality realm has entirely separate dimensions that are more real and that it is stated that the gap is purely metaphysical and purely qualitative and that even a 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional object in Layer Y would transcend Layer X? That, in other words, anything that has no explicit statement in that regard should not be considered for your proposal?
Because currently you have not suggested that any such statements are required, but propose that your standard should be applied to R>F as default.
Like, one of the big problems with your proposal is that most R>F things have no evidence regarding all that at all.
It wouldn't, no. What my point demonstrates is that a reality/unreality dichotomy doesn't require what you say it requires. Which is to say:
(i) "Y is not real to X"
doesn't imply
(ii) "X can add any amount of layers of reality/unreality between itself and Y."
A R>F Transcendence only satisfies (i), and whether it also satisfies (ii) is something that must be clarified separately. And if you ask for my opinion on that matter, then "Above all possible character strings" and the like is something only a Tier 0 (i.e. A being with all the properties I've listed above) can truly satisfy. And I don't think I need to tell you that the average R>F character fails all the requirements I wrote down for 0.
It's also not an arbitrary equivalence at all because Plato's Cave and R>F are both examples of a kind of superiority whose nature is ontological, not physical. Reality/Unreality dichotomy, as said.
Not all ontological equivalences are of the same nature, so your comparison between Plato's Cave and a book-based R>F falls flat. They are different natures of qualitative differences.
In the context of a "the universe is a story in my book" scenario in particular, you only get (i) if you also get (ii). If you can't write about metafiction in your book, then that means there are limits to what you can write. With a literal unreality that wouldn't happen, nothing could prevent you from just adding the words in your book. It would mean the limited scope of a story prevents you from doing something, indicating that it isn't literal unreality.
To be clear: Not every kind of fiction can be expected to be manipulated by writing, e.g. a dream can't. However, for this particular kind of fiction, it lies in its nature that it is possible as the fiction doesn't exist in a fashion other than the writing. Inability to write something means you are performing a supernatural act, that can stop your hand if you are acting beyond your power.
If you drop the idea that a fictional story can be handled like a fictional story in reality would, adding supernatural elements to the act of writing a story, then there is no reason to retain the assumption that its unreality is treated the same as unreality is in reality. Accordingly, there is little reason to assume that other limitations regarding the scope of the story can't exist.
Anyway, don't have much time this week. Will get to the rest and to the overall explanation of my points sometime later.
Basically, there's fiction as the idea itself on its own that has no actual physical value. And then there are limited physical elements whose arrangement is able to be interpreted by us as something that simulates actual existence.
Actual dreams as merely the electric waves flowing in our brains are a physical existence. The drawing on a page is a physical existence. The computer code for game software is a physical existence. So, they aren't examples of Physical/Metaphysical comparison. The idea itself behind those things if it had something akin to existence in another level of reality (Be it lower or higher than the baseline reality) could be a Physical/Metaphysical comparison.
Doubtful. Eventually, the debate will come to a stop as we realize we have nothing more to say to each other. It happened in the Low 1-A thread (Or would have, if not for my feistiness, I'll confess), and I don't expect it to be different this time around.
Having parallel conversations just makes the thread a mess to read through, imo, and this goes double for a debate that abruptly stops and gets replaced by another before resuming once more. There is no guarantee Agnaa and I will be done talking before you come back in, either.
I would not expect staff members to read through a 6+ page thread either way. The better solution here is to have the debates and then summarize one's points when voting time starts.
Also consider that I will inevitably have things to contribute when you finally debate Agnaa anyway.
And it feels kinda weird to exclude other staff from the debate.
I would not expect staff members to read through a 6+ page thread either way. The better solution here is to have the debates and then summarize one's points when voting time starts.
Also consider that I will inevitably have things to contribute when you finally debate Agnaa anyway.
If you point is "We can just summarize each relevant point and counterpoint when voting time begins because nobody will read this anyway," then that is, in fact, something we can already do. It's not a solution to the problem you are saying exists, because by that logic we may as well not even have this debate.
Overall, a linear, straightforward discussion is the best approach all around, if we want to have a debate at all. No one is really being excluded because they'll just have the opportunity to pitch in later, anyway.
Anyway, whatever the case, I'll reply to the above shortly. Either later today (If I'm feeling particularly in the mood) or relatively early tomorrow. Giving this heads-up because I spent a whole 12 days without responding, so, yeah.
May I make a suggestion? Is it possible to visualize your ideas? I believe that presenting suggestions visually could enhance understanding. Many members begin illustrating their cosmologies to simplify and convey their ideas more effectively.
Yes, I am aware that an illustration can't be 100% equivalent to an idea, but it could be a helpful strategy to simplify it for new members.
Users are already finding it difficult to understand the current tiering system, and yours is significantly more complicated. I'm concerned that we may have to manage over 100+ Questions and Answers threads for years.
May I make a suggestion? Is it possible to visualize your ideas? I believe that presenting suggestions visually could enhance understanding. Many members begin illustrating their cosmologies to simplify and convey their ideas more effectively.
Yes, I am aware that an illustration can't be 100% equivalent to an idea, but it could be a helpful strategy to simplify it for new members.
Users are already finding it difficult to understand the current tiering system, and yours is significantly more complicated. I'm concerned that we may have to manage over 100+ Questions and Answers threads for years.
Everything can be illustrated. If Einstein's theory (or string theory) can be visualized, I don't see why it would be impossible here (unless you claim this to be more complexed than this famous theory). One must attempt it before deeming/declaring it impossible. Besides, I don't think I said it can be done with ease. I said, an attempt is worth it, if you are spending two hours writing 5000 words to prove one aspect of abstract.
This proposal is based on the fact that the likes of true reality-fiction transcendence, truly transcending dimensions, and other such types of transcendence when accurately displayed can't be equated to any mathematical concept. So therefore they stand above any cosmology hierarchy based on maths, with the wiki's tiering structure being shuffled around to accommodate this logic.
The simplest way to understand this, in my opinion, is with Plato's Cave.
I think everyone knows the general idea, you have the shadows being projected by things that truly exist in a cave. But you need to understand that the intent behind it is that Plato wants to depict the difference between something that is physical and temporary and something that is metaphysical and eternal (More on the exact definition of eternity in a future blog post).
Therefore, the exact difference between the ideas and the physical world is not literally the shadows because the shadows and the objects projecting the shadows reside in the same state of existence, they are both physical events. However, you can understand the representation of the shadow as something that isn't the object itself, the idea behind the shadow.
And that is basically the idea with the whole metaphysics and r>f Ultima is bringing up. There's a difference between physical expansion and metaphysical expansion.
If you draw within a page, you are spreading small 3D ink across the surface of a 3D page creating an image that is 3D in total existence, but with a 2D surface area that matters (Could also be a 3D one if someone wants to work with textured paper), but the idea you are representing with that image is not the same as the image.
So the "fiction" here is basically the same as the "idea", you are using physical existence to represent something that exists as an idea, but the two are not the same existence. You can't stack up drawings until they become the literal idea you were thinking, but you can use that to represent what exists in your mind, but they will never share the same state of existence.
So, basically the same as Plato's cave. The difference is that while Plato's cave depicts the superiority of an idea beyond matter (As the idea does not exist in either time or space, but it's beyond it), the way Ultima is depicted mostly is with inferiority, but the general idea is the same, the difference between things that exist in the same physical level and those that don't.
If you increase the number of dimensional axes that an object spreads across with significant size, you are still only expanding the same physical aspects. All those dimensions exist as part of a singular whole with the same existence, they are just displaced orthogonally to each other. Therefore, no matter how much you increase the number of dimensions, you'll never stop being that type of existence. So, they are a matter of quantity, not quality. That means, if you are a 3D being and become a 4D being, you are not beyond the very spatial axes themselves, in fact, you literally are defined by them.
If something is not defined by spatial axes, you can't just say it's the previous spatial axes plus one because that literally is something defined by spatial axes, it's not something not defined by them.
The simplest way to understand this, in my opinion, is with Plato's Cave.
I think everyone knows the general idea, you have the shadows being projected by things that truly exist in a cave. But you need to understand that the intent behind it is that Plato wants to depict the difference between something that is physical and temporary and something that is metaphysical and eternal (More on the exact definition of eternity in a future blog post).
Therefore, the exact difference between the ideas and the physical world is not literally the shadows because the shadows and the objects projecting the shadows reside in the same state of existence, they are both physical events. However, you can understand the representation of the shadow as something that isn't the object itself, the idea behind the shadow.
And that is basically the idea with the whole metaphysics and r>f Ultima is bringing up. There's a difference between physical expansion and metaphysical expansion.
If you draw within a page, you are spreading small 3D ink across the surface of a 3D page creating an image that is 3D in total existence, but with a 2D surface area that matters (Could also be a 3D one if someone wants to work with textured paper), but the idea you are representing with that image is not the same as the image.
So the "fiction" here is basically the same as the "idea", you are using physical existence to represent something that exists as an idea, but the two are not the same existence. You can't stack up drawings until they become the literal idea you were thinking, but you can use that to represent what exists in your mind, but they will never share the same state of existence.
So, basically the same as Plato's cave. The difference is that while Plato's cave depicts the superiority of an idea beyond matter (As the idea does not exist in either time or space, but it's beyond it), the way Ultima is depicted mostly is with inferiority, but the general idea is the same, the difference between things that exist in the same physical level and those that don't.
If you increase the number of dimensional axes that an object spreads across with significant size, you are still only expanding the same physical aspects. All those dimensions exist as part of a singular whole with the same existence, they are just displaced orthogonally to each other. Therefore, no matter how much you increase the number of dimensions, you'll never stop being that type of existence. So, they are a matter of quantity, not quality. That means, if you are a 3D being and become a 4D being, you are not beyond the very spatial axes themselves, in fact, you literally are defined by them.
If something is not defined by spatial axes, you can't just say it's the previous spatial axes plus one because that literally is something defined by spatial axes, it's not something not defined by them.
Very good explanation. I believe the above suggestion of making diagrams explaining R>F Transcendence, and how it relates to dimensions, was actually a pretty good idea. So, I had those charts made (Credits to @ImmortalDread. My thanks):
Not all ontological equivalences are of the same nature, so your comparison between Plato's Cave and a book-based R>F falls flat. They are different natures of qualitative differences.
In the context of a "the universe is a story in my book" scenario in particular, you only get (i) if you also get (ii). If you can't write about metafiction in your book, then that means there are limits to what you can write. With a literal unreality that wouldn't happen, nothing could prevent you from just adding the words in your book. It would mean the limited scope of a story prevents you from doing something, indicating that it isn't literal unreality.
To be clear: Not every kind of fiction can be expected to be manipulated by writing, e.g. a dream can't. However, for this particular kind of fiction, it lies in its nature that it is possible as the fiction doesn't exist in a fashion other than the writing. Inability to write something means you are performing a supernatural act, that can stop your hand if you are acting beyond your power. If you drop the idea that a fictional story can be handled like a fictional story in reality would, adding supernatural elements to the act of writing a story, then there is no reason to retain the assumption that its unreality is treated the same as unreality is in reality. Accordingly, there is little reason to assume that other limitations regarding the scope of the story can't exist.
This whole point has little substance. Namely because it assumes that my argument's validity hinges on Reality-Fiction Transcendences being identical to how we see fiction in real life, which isn't the case (The fictional works we make IRL are not "lower worlds").
For how exactly I am treating "fiction" and "realness," in this case, I refer you to Executor's explanation up there. That serves as an answer to other questions of yours, as well.
I will remind you that anything you assume this to entail will need to be explicitely proven by the fiction then, instead of being assumed to come automatically with R>F statements.
Like I said above, if that is a requirement you put, the verse has to prove that is the case before we apply your standards.
So are you sure you want to put as an explicit standard that the verse has a statement that its higher reality realm has entirely separate dimensions that are more real and that it is stated that the gap is purely metaphysical and purely qualitative and that even a 0-dimensional or 1-dimensional object in Layer Y would transcend Layer X? That, in other words, anything that has no explicit statement in that regard should not be considered for your proposal?
Because currently you have not suggested that any such statements are required, but propose that your standard should be applied to R>F as default.
Like, one of the big problems with your proposal is that most R>F things have no evidence regarding all that at all.
For any of what you just said to mean anything, you first have to demonstrate that all those things aren't necessary consequences of "Layer Y sees Layer X as literally nonexistent." If they are, then, no, a verse doesn't need to explicitly say any of those things for them to be true.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a verse that actually says "The gap between him and us is strictly one of quality, not of quantity! We can't beat him!!!!", for example, yet we're happy to say that this (The fact a R>F Transcendence is purely qualitative, and in no way quantitative) is true of any verse with R>F.
Plot Manipulation is a valid example as it demonstrates the philosophic principles with which verse treats the principle of meta-fiction. If a fiction explains that it views plot in a certain way that naturally extends to its view what transcending said plot equates to (i.e. R>F transcendence). You can't separate the treatment of fiction from the treatment of plot.
Verses that equate dimensions and R>F seem like valid counterexamples. That's basically stating that they don't intend to use your system.
Something with all the properties of both dimensions and R>F is inherently contradictory. Either it aligns more with physical dimensions, and is tiered as quantitative, or it aligns more with R>F, and is tiered as qualitative.
Plot Manipulation serving as a counterexample inherently hinges on your idea that R>F Transcendence and control over a lower reality are an inseparable pair, which isn't actually true.
Yeah, but I have been avoiding any argument that relates to the counterpoint list, so that is a really big chunk of the arguments. That includes things related to points we were discussion that relate to the counterpoints.
Basically, everything is half-debated and I have yet to even write my counter proposal
A question: Are you even defending the current Tiering System, at this rate? Because if you are, then the majority of the points you've raised are plainly invalid, and founded on an understanding of it that's exclusive to you. The To Aru Magic Gods "counterexample" to BDE, the "You need to be able to interact with a lower reality to be superior to it," and etc. are all things that betray a rather idiosyncratic view of how the wiki works.
In fact, that's a trend I've noticed all throughout this debate: You keep asking for proofs-of-concept for things that we (Yourself included) already deem conceptually valid, like Type 2 BDE, for example.
I will clarify, he is not. He remarked the following earlier in the discussion when you pointed out something he said contradicted the current wiki stance.:
You are already proposing a change of the standards, though, so I consider it weird to try to hang on to the existing standards.
I will clarify, he is not. He remarked the following earlier in the discussion when you pointed out something he said contradicted the current wiki stance.:
I'd rather receive direct confirmation from DontTalk himself instead of relying on others acting as interpreters of his words. What you just quoted doesn't clear the water for me, either.
As I said, I do not consider R>F layers to be greater than all dimensions in a "size"-manner. You can not reach R>F by stacking dimensions because they are different in nature, not because they are different in size. Similarly, I don't think any R>F proves superiority above any quantitative size, including those the verse does not have.
The problem is that your sheer superiority isn't based on anything if you take away the control. You don't have an actual size comparision and just alieness is left.
1. You can't reach R>F by stacking dimensions, but that's because the two are different in nature, not in size.
2. If you don't have control over a lower reality, even if you see it as fiction, you don't have actual superiority over it. You're just of a nature that's alien to the reality in question.
For them to work, both of these points require you to say that seeing something as fiction doesn't actually mean you are superior to it. And not even in the sense of "This is a purely perspective-based thing that doesn't say anything about the character's actual capabilities." No. You're effectively saying that being "more real" than some lower reality flat-out just means your nature is alien to that lower reality, and nothing else. By extension, this means you're saying Reality-Fiction Transcendence as we understand it doesn't really exist (?)
So the argument basically is "You can't get a R>F Transcendence by stacking dimensions, sure, but that's just because the R>F is more real, and being more real is alienness, not superiority." Which is to say: If being "more real" than something is superiority, and not just alienness, then R>F is indeed beyond dimension-stacking by virtue of how far above dimensions it is, not just by virtue of being alien or whatever. Thus 1-A under these proposals.
Needless to say, we (For good reason) take "greater realness" in that sense as being inherently superiority, so R>F is, in fact, objectively above dimensional jumps under the current logic used for it. For your position to stand, you have to present your own, completely different version of how it works, and then demonstrate that it's a valid way to read R>F at all. The same applies to your arguments about BDE.
Now, if that's what you intend to do (And you haven't clarified that it is, at any point), then I consider this something of a step fowards, since at that point we, at least, both agree that the current Tiering System is incoherent and needs to go.
Honestly not even a response to anything so much as a little thing to make the state of this discussion a bit more clear:
Here, you say:
1. You can't reach R>F by stacking dimensions, but that's because the two are different in nature, not in size.
2. If you don't have control over a lower reality, even if you see it as fiction, you don't have actual superiority over it. You're just of a nature that's alien to the reality in question.
For them to work, both of these points require you to say that seeing something as fiction doesn't actually mean you are superior to it. And not even in the sense of "This is a purely perspective-based thing that doesn't say anything about the character's actual capabilities." No. You're effectively saying that being "more real" than some lower reality flat-out just means your nature is alien to that lower reality, and nothing else. By extension, this means you're saying Reality-Fiction Transcendence as we understand it doesn't really exist (?)
So the argument basically is "You can't get a R>F Transcendence by stacking dimensions, sure, but that's just because the R>F is more real, and being more real is alienness, not superiority." Which is to say: If being "more real" than something is superiority, and not just alienness, then R>F is indeed beyond dimension-stacking by virtue of how far above dimensions it is, not just by virtue of being alien or whatever. Thus 1-A under these proposals.
Needless to say, we (For good reason) take "greater realness" in that sense as being inherently superiority, so R>F is, in fact, objectively above dimensional jumps under the current logic used for it. For your position to stand, you have to present your own, completely different version of how it works, and then demonstrate that it's a valid way to read R>F at all. The same applies to your arguments about BDE.
Now, if that's what you intend to do (And you haven't clarified that it is, at any point), then I consider this something of a step fowards, since at that point we, at least, both agree that the current Tiering System is incoherent and needs to go.
No time to get into detail this week, but if you read my prior arguments that should be answered already. Heck, fairly sure my first post basically explains the problem in your reasoning, although I expanded more on it afterwards.
I'm first and foremost saying that the assumption that R>F and the like are per default superior to quantitative differences, such as all notions of size, is invalid.
Where to go from there is another debate, if we are putting a revision on the table. The current system is based on reality equalization. Not sure if your system would have something like that for things like simulated-reality verses that have R>F without being 1-A or not btw.
Anyway, that we say that since it's most practical for comparing characters we keep using composite hierarchies is one possible outcome, but I'm not pressing for it from a logical perspective. That's basically a verse equalization issue and how verse equalization is performed is a matter of community consensus, more than strict logic.
If we do not then I'm open to other systems, but they need to reflect the fact that R>F beings (and those who can harm them) can not be said to have the power to destroy spaces of any size by default. (and, vice versa, higher D beings per default can't harm R>F)
No time to get into detail this week, but if you read my prior arguments that should be answered already. Heck, fairly sure my first post basically explains the problem in your reasoning, although I expanded more on it afterwards.
Anyway, mainly just here to clarify one thing:
I'm first and foremost saying that the assumption that R>F and the like are per default superior to quantitative differences, such as all notions of size, is invalid.
Where to go from there is another debate, if we are putting a revision on the table. The current system is based on reality equalization. Not sure if your system would have something like that for things like simulated-reality verses that have R>F without being 1-A or not btw.
Anyway, that we say that since it's most practical for comparing characters we keep using composite hierarchies is one possible outcome, but I'm not pressing for it from a logical perspective. That's basically a verse equalization issue and how verse equalization is performed is a matter of community consensus, more than strict logic.
If we do not then I'm open to other systems, but they need to reflect the fact that R>F beings (and those who can harm them) can not be said to have the power to destroy spaces of any size by default. (and, vice versa, higher D beings per default can't harm R>F)
If you set apart five minutes to go over this debate, you will notice:
1. My arguments largely all involve turning the Tiering System's own standards against it, since, as I've said: I don't intend to completely uproot the basic ideas of the system, only to make them consistent with themselves.
2. Your arguments, especially the ones you attempt to use to establish these claims as "facts," require you to detach yourself from the Tiering System's conceptions entirely, and start using your own.
So, no. "Where to go from there" is very much part of this same debate, because your arguments only become possible if you completely discard the current conceptions of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, Beyond-Dimensional Existence, and so on. It'd be ridiculous to reject a revision based on X, Y and Z and then go right back to using a framework where X, Y and Z aren't valid points. If you reject these proposals, you also have to reject the current Tiering System's basic underpinnings and go for something completely different from what we do currently.
(Mind you, also: I said that discarding the above notions makes your arguments "possible," but not necessarily valid, since I don't think they're particularly coherent on their own, either)
So, in general, I advise you to not argue "in the moment." Do think of a well-defined conclusion for your arguments (What I hope the "counter-proposal" you mentioned is supposed to be) and then stick to it, because otherwise you don't even have a coherent position to begin with. Please and thank you.
