On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[Ultima_Reality]

I thought you were moving all Cardnial Sers to High 1-B. Are we still keeping Inaccessible Cardnials are 1-A and higher?

Sorry, I should've been more precise with my words: Tier 0 can be just reflective of what it currently is in the sense of it being "Transcends High 1-A in the same manner that High 1-A transcends lower tiers." So, just as High 1-A is above the quality defining 1-A levels, Tier 0 is above the qualities defining High 1-A levels. Otherwise: Yeah, all cardinals would go down to High 1-B.

You explained how we can rework the entire system to handle a problem that's not really a problem.

So you agree with me when I characterize you as saying "Blatant false equivalences, category errors, self-contradictions and just overall bad logic are not problems"? Apologies if I come across as strawmanning you but frankly that seems to be the direct logical consequence of what you're saying right now.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm going to repeat myself a bit, but personally, I am more inclined to view R>F layers as a strictly relational power dictated by the nature of those two realms, rather than an independent power assigned to the character themselves. In any match we would create, fair battle assumptions would demand that they exist on the same layer of reality, as putting an R>F layer in between two characters is a stomp. After all, it is fairly obviously the case that anyone is capable of creating fiction.

With that perspective in mind, it's easier to see why we liken this to a dimensional jump, because it allows the "higher layer" to have meaning and still confer power even when the character is placed on "equal footing" with a character who does not have an overt R>F relationship with anything.

It's late here and I have to work early, so I will respond in more detail down the line, but I have to say that at this time I don't think this change would be good, depending on what the precise details would be.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I really don't think they're problems in the first place.

You're basically saying "Blatant false equivalences, category errors, self-contradictions and just overall bad logic are not problems." It'd be understandable if they were unavoidable, but I just explained how they are very much avoidable.

Regarding the discussion over whether or not this is a problem - the last few replies make me think that you two are working off of different definitions of 'a problem".

You are free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm hearing. Qawsedf is referring to 'a problem' in the sense of 'what causes troubles and confusions for users and/or discussions'. Ultima is referring to 'a problem' in the sense of 'what doesn't hold up logically'. I point this out, because the past few replies have been variations on "This hasn't caused us any troubles, therefore it's not a problem" followed up by "But this doesn't make logical sense, therefore it is a problem", and I don't believe this line of questioning will get anywhere if we aren't even on the same page about what it is that makes something worth fixing.

For my own 2 cents on the matter, I agree with Ultima on this. I'm not usually one to impose that others had 'ought' to value something - I have certain fundamental objections to the concept - but I believe we have a duty to ensure our pages are logically coherent. We aren't just an indexing wiki, but one of (if not the) most major powerscaling indexing wikis. Many people turn to our pages, and our tiering system, as a framework for interpreting powerscaling 'objectively'. When that framework is flawed as to be outright invalid, I would think it's our responsibility to fix it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Regarding the discussion over whether or not this is a problem - the last few replies make me think that you two are working off of different definitions of 'a problem".

You are free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I'm hearing. Qawsedf is referring to 'a problem' in the sense of 'what causes troubles and confusions for users and/or discussions'. Ultima is referring to 'a problem' in the sense of 'what doesn't hold up logically'. I point this out, because the past few replies have been variations on "This hasn't caused us any troubles, therefore it's not a problem" followed up by "But this doesn't make logical sense, therefore it is a problem", and I don't believe this line of questioning will get anywhere if we aren't even on the same page about what it is that makes something worth fixing.

For my own 2 cents on the matter, I agree with Ultima on this. I'm not usually one to impose that others had 'ought' to value something - I have certain fundamental objections to the concept - but I believe we have a duty to ensure our pages are logically coherent. We aren't just an indexing wiki, but one of (if not the) most major powerscaling indexing wikis. Many people turn to our pages, and our tiering system, as a framework for interpreting powerscaling 'objectively'. When that framework is flawed as to be outright invalid, I would think it's our responsibility to fix it.

That seems to be a fair reading of the situation, yes. Thank you for mediating.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So you agree with me when I characterize you as saying "Blatant false equivalences, category errors, self-contradictions and just overall bad logic are not problems"?

Your view from what I got with your first response to me is that the Tiering System should be able to categorize all of fiction and therefore be built to handle it.

My view is that's not possible and at some point concessions will have to be made because fiction sounds similar but isn't identical and nor can everything can fit in a box.

I disagree with you attacking my character but I also know it's due to a fundamental difference in how we view things so I didn't see a point in arguing it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I disagree with you attacking my character but I also know it's due to a fundamental difference in how we view things so I didn't see a point in arguing it.

I apologize if I came across as such. To clarify: Any attacks I make are intended to be aimed strictly at the arguments, not at anyone. If I accidentally slip-up, I suppose that's my bad.

Nevertheless: I feel Grath has already summarized my thoughts on this situation fairly well in her post above. You mention that fiction "doesn't fit into a single box" in your post, but is putting everything in a single box, without regarding for the actual characteristics it has, not exactly what the current Tiering System does? I can agree concessions should be made when necessary, but I don't agree that concessions should be arbitrarily made where they are not needed.

 

[Executor_N0]

Also, how would a cosmology scale if it has dimensions, but each higher dimension is treated like an r>f jump (e.g, a higher one can read a lower one like a record, and edit it at will). On top of this cosmology would be an area free from dimensionality ( in the concept of the verse). Would these r>f layers all be layers into 1-A? or would only the pinnacle free from dimensionality be 1-A

For that, it's the answer to Counterpoint 13. It depends on what the franchise really goes into. Is it a metaphysical realm that is equated to a higher dimension (Something that is truly non-physical that merely uses higher dimensions as a metaphor for its existence), or is it a higher dimension that is equated to r>f for better understanding? It depends on what is the case in the series. If there's any validity for it having a physical comparison, then it would just be basic higher-dimensional stuff.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Executor_N0 doesn't it being a "higher-dimension" retroactively makes it invalid to 1-A to begin with since the point of 1-A is dimensionality itself cannot define your being?

 

[Executor_N0]

@Executor_N0 doesn't it being a "higher-dimension" retroactively makes it invalid to 1-A to begin with since the point of 1-A is dimensionality itself cannot define your being?

It depends on what is being said to be a higher dimension. It gets a lot on semantics. If I use "higher dimension" as a generic word to refer to a higher reality without the baggage of physical dimensions, technically I could. Will that be helpful to our case ? No, but it's no different to higher dimensions having r>f depictions as a metaphor even if that isn't really how things are.

So, if there a very clear depiction of transcendence of physical, and yet it's called a higher-dimension, it could work if that naming is accepted as just being a misnomer to get he idea around.

In the end, even though not 1-to-1 logically, there's a lot of overlap between higher physical dimensions and higher metaphysical layers because of how fictions overlapped the two. So you really have times when they are used if they mean the same, when it isn't.

So just like underdeveloped metaphysical references aren't 1-A when we have very clear dimensional aspects, completely explained metaphysical transcendence should work fine if it's clearly explained even if it's called a higher-dimension.

 

[Theglassman12]

It might be just me but I feel like having R>F stuff be equated to 1-A should work if the verse has some idea of higher dimensions, otherwise I feel like way too much verses can just reach to this level with little to no leeway if we were to take the R>F stuff at face value.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It might be just me but I feel like having R>F stuff be equated to 1-A should work if the verse has some idea of higher dimensions, otherwise I feel like way too much verses can just reach to this level with little to no leeway if we were to take the R>F stuff at face value.

If it meets the established criteria, then there's no issue. Something isn't exactly wank if you can prove it, after all.

I'm going to repeat myself a bit, but personally, I am more inclined to view R>F layers as a strictly relational power dictated by the nature of those two realms, rather than an independent power assigned to the character themselves. In any match we would create, fair battle assumptions would demand that they exist on the same layer of reality, as putting an R>F layer in between two characters is a stomp. After all, it is fairly obviously the case that anyone is capable of creating fiction.

With that perspective in mind, it's easier to see why we liken this to a dimensional jump, because it allows the "higher layer" to have meaning and still confer power even when the character is placed on "equal footing" with a character who does not have an overt R>F relationship with anything.

Firstly: This interpretation is not something that actually works under the current Tiering System. When a character with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence is rated at X, that is the case because of the transcendence in question. We don't "remove" this transcendence when putting them in a VS Match, and neither do we suddenly start denying that they see lesser things as unreality, either. To deny either of those conditions is to deny them of their tier. So, no, we don't place them at "equal footing" with anything: If they stomp a character, they stomp a character, and that's that.

As such, this doesn't work as a defense of the current status quo. But of course, I am aware your general philosophy doesn't exactly fit in with the rest of the site, so I don't fault you for holding views unfortunately incompatible with the system.

Secondly: To argue that R>F layers are not "the character's independent power" is incorrect. A Reality-Fiction Transcendence is definitionally caused by an inherent property of the character: Their realness.

Thirdly: Even if the above were true, not all cases of qualitative superiorities revolving around a "unreality vs reality" dynamic imply any sort of "relational power." For example: Suppose you have a cosmology where the world in truth is illusory, and then the Supreme God is the "true" reality above this. In such a case, the God is not an ordinary being from its own viewpoint, and nor is it something simply participating in a higher state of reality. Rather, it is the higher state itself and so cannot be separated from it.

 

[Fixxed]

Sorry for comment but i have a question

What about if you beyond the "quantitative superiority", like "no matter how infinity" "no matter the dimensionality" and some feats like that. Is can be 1A or qualitative superiority???

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Executor_N0 doesn't it being a "higher-dimension" retroactively makes it invalid to 1-A to begin with since the point of 1-A is dimensionality itself cannot define your being?

It's pretty much just a matter of "This character is claimed to have property X but evidently doesn't." Like, say: "This character is stated to be FTL but evidently isn't because everything contradicts that."

In this case, it's "This realm is claimed to be a higher-dimensional space but evidently isn't because it has demonstrably none of the characteristics of one."

Sorry for comment but i have a question

What about if you beyond the "quantitative superiority", like "no matter how infinity" "no matter the dimensionality" and some feats like that. Is can be 1A or qualitative superiority???

Exceeding dimensionality would be 1-A under this, yes. Although you wouldn't need statements like "No matter how many dimensions" and whatnot, anymore.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

By the way: This thread is nearing 100 posts, so, if you are a regular user, don't post here without permission. And even then only post if you have something actually productive to add to the discussion. Minor questions about the specifics of this revision can go to my message wall.

 

[Ovy7]

Disclaimer: got tagged by IdiosyncraticLawyer. If this is not enough, them my post can be deleted.

OT:

Ultima, you need an editor.

The changes seem fine to me, from a brief reading of the thread. I always though that equating r>f to 1 dimensional jump is kinda of a weird standard.

About the verses using cardinality: if they are all moved down into 1-B, then there would be some insane difference in it. You will have verses that have an infinite number of dimensions put in the same tier with verse that are like mahlo cardinal or something similar (unless I've misunderstood and those verses that use inaccessible cardinals and such would remain High 1-A/0).

Also High 1-B+ sounds bad.

 

[Antvasima]

As I mentioned earlier here, my only real concern is that I don't want us to lose any specifics in our current system during the transition to our new one, so I would much prefer if we create a sufficient number of extra tiers to accommodate for that.

Creating a tier 12 in conjunction also seems like a good idea.

 

[Deagonx]

Firstly: This interpretation is not something that actually works under the current Tiering System. When a character with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence is rated at X, that is the case because of the transcendence in question. We don't "remove" this transcendence when putting them in a VS Match, and neither do we suddenly start denying that they see lesser things as unreality, either. To deny either of those conditions is to deny them of their tier. So, no, we don't place at "equal footing" with anything: If they stomp a character, they stomp a character, and that's that.

Yes, certainly, under the current system, but my point is to address the general concept of R>F transcendence as it actually is. When I talk about "equal footing" I mean in the sense that they are placed in a neutral plane of existence, rather than having an R>F layer between them. Rather than the Superman/Mike Tyson example, I can think of an even more direct and apt comparison: Who would win in a fight: J.K. Rowling or Harry Potter?

Now, of course, if we were to actually consider this we would be forced to do so from the perspective that Harry Potter exists on the same level of reality as his author. J.K. Rowling is not a super-deity, she's just an author. She only has more power than Harry Potter because she is real and he is a fictional character she invented, but that relationship would not hold in a match up and certainly if we pitted J.K. against a fictional character she didn't write.

Secondly: To argue that R>F layers are not "the character's independent power" is incorrect. A Reality-Fiction Transcendence is definitionally caused by an inherent property of the character: Their realness.

I'd completely disagree with the notion that a character's "realness" is inherent. Relative to us an author character is just as unreal as any other character. The same logic could be used to argue that a normal character who is not written as being "beneath" an additional author has the same level of realness as an author insert, and that any characters placed an additional layer underneath that, rendering all of them Tier 11 or something like that.

Of course, I'm not advocating for applying this to the tiering system (because it'd be impractical, even if accurate) rather I am just showing the inherent flaw in the logic that a fictional character's "realness" is an inherent property rather than a relational one. Relative to us, author inserts exist a single R>F layer below us, but so do most fictional characters. R>F layers are not an inherent power level that belongs to the characters of the higher layer, it is a relationship between two layers. Anyone is capable of creating fiction, and anyone is capable of imagining a multiverse.

You contend that the verse "treats it like a power" therefore we should, but it would be just as valid to say that the verse "treats it" like an R>F layer, or that it writes from the perspective of characters beneath this author-type character. Storytelling is often about perspectives, and writing from the perspective of doubly-unreal characters would demonstrate a power differential due to that relationship, even if from the perspective of the author-insert they're just a normal person.

Thirdly: Even if the above were true, not all cases of qualitative superiorities revolving around a "unreality vs reality" dynamic imply any sort of "relational power." For example: Suppose you have a cosmology where the world in truth is illusory, and then the Supreme God is the "true" reality above this. In such a case, the God is not an ordinary being from its own viewpoint, and nor is it something simply participating in a higher state of reality. Rather, it is the higher state itself and so cannot be separated from it.

Of course, if we limited the discussion to things that were true for all cases of R>F depictions we wouldn't be able to say much at all. Even under our current system, sufficient clarifying information can overcome the low-end default of "one dimensional jump" so it is not as though we are never willing to recognize when an R>F character does in-fact slingshot well above a single jump, it's just not the default assumption.

And I of course recognize the desire for accuracy in our tiering system, but most things above 3-A are just gibberish that we made up. Our approach to dimensional tiering itself is completely untethered from any notion in reality. The notion of a 4-D object being "heavier" or taking more force to destroy is purely fictional. Applying cardinality to physical objects is also just something we made up.

 

[Planck69]

As I mentioned earlier here, my only real concern is that I don't want us to lose any specifics in our current system during the transition to our new one, so I would much prefer if we create a sufficient number of extra tiers to accommodate for that.

Creating a tier 12 in conjunction also seems like a good idea.

Might be a hassle but would it be possible to simply merge some of the sub tiers to free up space? Our current 6-D Low 1-C, 1-C, High 1-C and 1-B don't have a reason to be separated for instance.

 

[Crabwhale]

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Might be a hassle but would it be possible to simply merge some of the sub tiers to free up space? Our current 6-D Low 1-C, 1-C, High 1-C and 1-B don't have a reason to be separated for instance.

The point of having those sub-tiers is to make it so that characters of vastly different dimensionalities aren't clumped together. However, the numbers are currently quite disproportionate, so I'm open to adjusting them as needed.

1. Low 1-C: 735
2. 1-C: 349
3. High 1-C: 87
4. 1-B: 71

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

As I mentioned earlier here, my only real concern is that I don't want us to lose any specifics in our current system during the transition to our new one, so I would much prefer if we create a sufficient number of extra tiers to accommodate for that.

Creating a tier 12 in conjunction also seems like a good idea.

I think if you want to create extra tiers, instead of deleting tier 0, we use it as the tier for Ultima's proposal and keep the other tiers relatively unchanged.
(Create a 0-C 0-B, etc)

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think if you want to create extra tiers, instead of deleting tier 0, we use it as the tier for Ultima's proposal and keep the other tiers relatively unchanged.
(Create a 0-C 0-B, etc)

This is addressed in Ultima's proposal. It's simply a weird way to treat this issue, as it would result in Tier 0 being more bloated than 1-A.

As said before, what this means, bluntly speaking, is that anyone with an actual qualitative transcendence (E.g. Reality-Fiction Transcendences, transcendence over dimensionality, etc) over lesser realms would, in the current arrangement of the tiers, be Tier 0, and high into it at that. This is an obvious issue. Why? Because there are a lot of verses who have not just characters with qualitative superiority over lesser things, but also hierarchies of qualitative superiority, and things beyond these hierarchies, and things beyond those things, too. If we shoved such a wildly variable array of characters into a single tier, we would fall into the same issue that caused 1-A to be divided into four tiers all these years ago.

So, would the solution be to split 0, then? We could, but I think that's stupid. The Tiering System in general is built with the idea of having a single endpoint in mind. That's why the tiers count backwards from 10, instead of forwards. Splitting this endpoint into high and low-ends defeats the whole purpose of this, so I don't believe this would be the best course of action, no.

Ontop of that, there are more characters whose high tiers derive from metaphysics than characters whose high tiers derive from mathematics, and this discrepancy basically doubles when entering 1-A and above. As such, if we were to simply upgrade all qualitative superiorities to Tier 0, it would result in there being more Tier 0s than there are 1-As, High 1-As and Low 1-As. And I don't think I'm the only one who sees the logistical problems with that.

Furthermore, there is already a tier that is listed as an entirely separate category from the rest of Tier 1: 1-A. So with that in mind, what would my suggestion, be, pray tell? Well, in short: Make 1-A the tier for qualitative superiorities, and kick all quantitative superiorities down to the rest of Tier 1.

 

[KLOL506]

The point of having those sub-tiers is to make it so that characters of vastly different dimensionalities aren't clumped together. However, the numbers are currently quite disproportionate, so I'm open to adjusting them as needed.

1. Low 1-C: 735

Quick question: How many of these Low 1-Cs are 6D? Those are the ones that really matter here. Not 5D Low 1-C, but 6D Low 1-C.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Quick question: How many of these Low 1-Cs are 6D? Those are the ones that really matter here. Not 5D Low 1-C, but 6D Low 1-C.

I don't have a quick way to check for that other than going through every profile one at a time, which I definitely don't have time for.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't have a quick way to check for that other than going through every profile one at a time, which I definitely don't have time for.

I suppose I can look for people who can determine that.

 

[Phoenks]

Wow. Good job Ultima, this echoes pretty much all the thoughts I've had about the Tiering System over the years. I always thought it was strange how firmly we based our system in dimensionality, when so many series couldn't be more clear about how little spatial properties and coordinates mean to their characters and cosmologies.

Not to say I didn't see the value in having a mathematically sound system, since at the surface level that would be the best way to be the least bias, considering mathematics are how we objectively quantify things in our own reality. But, I feel that it's become very clear that mathematics can't always properly measure fiction in the same way.

And yeah, Reality-Fiction gaps are among the best examples of this. I don't know whose idea it was originally to equivalate them to dimensional gaps, but that line of logic is... so horribly wrong. Fiction when compared to reality is an existence that could be equivalated to "nothing" or even something below that conceptually. And taking "nothing" and trying to apply math to it doesn't ever get you anywhere. Unlike what happens when you apply mathematics to something that is quantifiable in some way. So the difference here is extremely clear.

I also found it strange that things like Cthulhu Mythos, and so many others series have all these mathematical quantifiers attached to their cosmologies on this site when verses like that make it so, SO evidently clear that these concepts of math, dimensionality, and quantifiability as a whole couldn't be farther from what's represented by their concepts and ideas.

Because of that I've always felt our system to be ridiculously limited. It got to the point now that to even get these higher tiers you almost needed these hyper-specific mathematical terminologies, explicit mentions of transfinite values, hierarchies of infinite dimensions, and etc to be mentioned via statements in a series. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

Like how can we acknowledge that things can be "Beyond-Dimensional" but then still insist that no matter what, they are equivalent to some degree of spatial dimensionality. Even just that alone is wild to me lol.

Anyway, I agree with the suggestions provided by Ultima, and I hope, that, at the very least, this sparks some discussions that lead to the bettering of the Tiering System, and the site at large.

In regards to the tiers Low 1-C to High 1-B, btw.

I believe 5-D should be its own tier (Low 1-C). 6-D to 9-D should be there own tier (1-C). And 10-D to 27-D should be there own tier (High 1-C).

That should cover the big, common cosmology types. I think these would be relevant splits. 5-D makes up most of Low 1-C as is, and is generally where verses with more elaborate explanations on their cosmology end up capping out. 6-D to 9-D is rare overall but this split would combine most series with a few layers above the standard universe. 10-D to 27-D covers all the theoretical quantum physics type cosmologies. (I might be wrong on it being 27? It might be 26 or 28, not sure)

28-D to any higher finite would be 1-B.

Aleph-0 would be High 1-B.

And I think that higher cardinalities of dimensionality than that could just be High 1-B+ There's hardly that many verses which would qualify for this anyway. So it should be fine.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

10-D to 27-D covers all the theoretical quantum physics type cosmologies. (I might be wrong on it being 27? It might be 26 or 28, not sure)

Bosonic string theory has 25 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 26 dimensions, superstring theory has 9 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 10 dimensions, and M-theory has 10 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 11 dimensions. Given their relative frequencies, I'd be in favor of defining Low 1-C as 5D, 1-C as 6D-11D, High 1-C as 12D-26D, and 1-B as ≥27D.

 

[Phoenks]

Bosonic string theory has 25 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 26 dimensions, superstring theory has 9 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 10 dimensions, and M-theory has 10 spatial axes and 1 temporal axis for a total of 11 dimensions. Given their relative frequencies, I'd be in favor of defining Low 1-C as 5D, 1-C as 6D-11D, High 1-C as 12D-26D, and 1-B as ≥27D.

Thanks for the correction.

I would say that there's no need to combine 10 and 11-D into the same tier as 6-D to 9-D, given that they would then make up the majority of that tier for themselves.

Whilst the number of verses that have 12 to 26-D cosmologies is very low in comparison to 10 to 11-D, so combining them makes more sense.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Ultima is a real hero.

I obviously agree 100% with his post here and am in favor of any changes this would entail. Full support.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Of course, if we limited the discussion to things that were true for all cases of R>F depictions we wouldn't be able to say much at all. Even under our current system, sufficient clarifying information can overcome the low-end default of "one dimensional jump" so it is not as though we are never willing to recognize when an R>F character does in-fact slingshot well above a single jump, it's just not the default assumption.

And I of course recognize the desire for accuracy in our tiering system, but most things above 3-A are just gibberish that we made up. Our approach to dimensional tiering itself is completely untethered from any notion in reality. The notion of a 4-D object being "heavier" or taking more force to destroy is purely fictional. Applying cardinality to physical objects is also just something we made up.

The first point isn't really relevant to this thread. As I said, under the current Tiering System, even a hypothetical perfect showcase of R.F Transcendence would be only equivalent to a single dimensional jump on its own. So it's not really a matter of "Anti-feats usually make things like this lower," but of "We simply don't tier it correctly and would not tier it correctly even if no anti-feats existed at all." Case in point: God from Seekers into the Mystery is sitting at 1-C right now.

The second point is also clearly disingenuous. The Tiering System is just the process of analyzing things that happen in fiction and making a framework to evaluate that, and it happens that power beyond infinity is something far too widespread to be simply ignored. Locked into this necessity, we then work out the most reasonable framework to categorize it with. This framework still needs to be logically coherent, which the current Tiering System isn't.

Yes, certainly, under the current system, but my point is to address the general concept of R>F transcendence as it actually is. When I talk about "equal footing" I mean in the sense that they are placed in a neutral plane of existence, rather than having an R>F layer between them. Rather than the Superman/Mike Tyson example, I can think of an even more direct and apt comparison: Who would win in a fight: J.K. Rowling or Harry Potter?

Now, of course, if we were to actually consider this we would be forced to do so from the perspective that Harry Potter exists on the same level of reality as his author. J.K. Rowling is not a super-deity, she's just an author. She only has more power than Harry Potter because she is real and he is a fictional character she invented, but that relationship would not hold in a match up and certainly if we pitted J.K. against a fictional character she didn't write.

The bolded part doesn't seem to be true, since you used this whole train of thought as a way of potentially justifying (Or "making it easier to see") the current equalization of R>F Transcendences with dimensional jumps. But these are not arguments for that. These are arguments against the concept of tiering R>F Trancendences as a whole, which could also be equally applied even to the current "methods." So they are very much useless here.

I'd completely disagree with the notion that a character's "realness" is inherent. Relative to us an author character is just as unreal as any other character. The same logic could be used to argue that a normal character who is not written as being "beneath" an additional author has the same level of realness as an author insert, and that any characters placed an additional layer underneath that, rendering all of them Tier 11 or something like that.

A character's "realness" is inherent insofar as their state of existence is not something that (Without supernatural intervention, at least) can mingle with the "lesser" states, and vice-versa. By that token, an author character cannot reside in the fiction (They can't cease to be real) and the fictional character cannot reside in reality (They can't become what the higher world recognizes as "real")

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima is a real hero.

I obviously agree 100% with his post here and am in favor of any changes this would entail. Full support.

Inshallah.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Can we not actually make Tier 12 unironically.

Reminder that Tier 11 currently has 42 files. Out of those, 10 of them are 11-A due to being actually two-dimensional (and that's not counting ones that should probably be 10-C instead). 4 of those are 11-B due to being 1-dimensional. Only ONE of those is 11-C due to being zero-dimensional. The rest are Tier 11 due to being fiction within fiction.

So if we pushed everything like that to Tier 12, we'd end up with 10 people in 11-A, 4 people in 11-B, and 1 person in 11-C. That's an absurdly inefficient usage of tiers.

If it were up to me, I'd have the fictional beings in 11-C, and I'd move 0-D and 1-D people to 11-B. It's not the best way to arrange those tiers, but I really don't think there is any point in making a whole tier for each dimensions when 1-D and 0-D are so sparsely populated. Having 2-D people be its own tier (the most common one of these), 1-D and 0-D together for these rare cases and 11-C for all the fictional people would be better, I think.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Can we not actually make Tier 12 unironically.

Reminder that Tier 11 currently has 42 files. Out of those, 10 of them are 11-A due to being actually two-dimensional (and that's not counting ones that should probably be 10-C instead). 4 of those are 11-B due to being 1-dimensional. Only ONE of those is 11-C due to being zero-dimensional. The rest are Tier 11 due to being fiction within fiction.

So if we pushed everything like that to Tier 12, we'd end up with 10 people in 11-A, 4 people in 11-B, and 1 person in 11-C. That's an absurdly inefficient usage of tiers.

If it were up to me, I'd have the fictional beings in 11-C, and I'd move 0-D and 1-D people to 11-B. It's not the best way to arrange those tiers, but I really don't think there is any point in making a whole tier for each dimensions when 1-D and 0-D are so sparsely populated. Having 2-D people be its own tier (the most common one of these), 1-D and 0-D together for these rare cases and 11-C for all the fictional people would be better, I think.

In that case, given how few characters are actually 2-D, 1-D, and 0-D, why not simply make everything lower-dimensional 11-A and everything fiction within fiction 11-B?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Ultima_Reality How will this thread affect https://vsbattles.com/threads/removal-of-negative-theology-scaling.154924/ ?

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

In that case, given how few characters are actually 2-D, 1-D, and 0-D, why not simply make everything lower-dimensional 11-A and everything fiction within fiction 11-B?

...Then what becomes of 11-C? I don't think there is any real point to making 11-C be fictional characters nested even more deeply or anything (that only applies to SCP and one other verse to my knowledge), and we can't just skip over 11-C entirely. There is just no point in having another numbered tier entirely if we can't even fit our A, B and C in there.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

...Then what becomes of 11-C? I don't think there is any real point to making 11-C be fictional characters nested even more deeply or anything (that only applies to SCP and one other verse to my knowledge), and we can't just skip over 11-C entirely. There is just no point in having another numbered tier entirely if we can't even fit our A, B and C in there.

@Ultima_Reality Thoughts?

 

[Deagonx]

I think we should save the talk of lower tiers for letter. This is a huge topic on its own without digging into our organization of the tiers.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, I just noticed this.

At a glance, this seems to run into the logical error I frequently bring up in threads with Ultima: Something not being equalize to something else does not mean superiority.

A being beyond dimensionality can't be reached by adding more dimensions, but it can't necessarily reach all dimensions either. An attribute not being applicable is no evidence for you being stronger than all with the attribute. And then there is the whole issue of cosmologies being different...

R>F equalizing to dimensional jumps is no true correspondence, obviously. Technically, R>F and dimensional tiering should be on two separate power axis. Both being 5D and seeing a universe as fiction are being infinitely superior to it, but without feats neither should be able to affect the other. The 5D character can't punch something more real than it and the R>F character doesn't cover 5D space as part of the cosmology it transcends. I will say that, as usual, I consider assumptions that R>F should just be able to cover the dimensions because in real life dimensions don't matter for a writer as overextrapolation. It's too much enforcing our views on fictional verses.
1 level of infinity for R>F is a rough equalization, but I think it works better than value one of the several axis of being transcendent of something infinitely above the others.

Anyway, no time to read through giant wall of text right now, so feel free to ignore me until I actually get to doing that.


Edit: To ask a fun question in advance - How would transduality play into this? Characters that are said to transcend all duality are technically in a similar position to R>F, aren't they?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

At a glance, this seems to run into the logical error I frequently bring up in threads with Ultima: Something not being equalize to something else does not mean superiority.

A being beyond dimensionality can't be reached by adding more dimensions, but it can't necessarily reach all dimensions either. An attribute not being applicable is no evidence for you being stronger than all with the attribute. And then there is the whole issue of cosmologies being different...

That's something I already addressed. The logical error isn't present if the attribute being inapplicable to you is the very reason for your superiority to it. You speak often about how "Being alien isn't the same as being superior," but very rarely do you ever account for cases where the alienness and the superiority are one and the same.

I will say that, as usual, I consider assumptions that R>F should just be able to cover the dimensions because in real life dimensions don't matter for a writer as overextrapolation. It's too much enforcing our views on fictional verses.

I already addressed that in the OP. Counterpoints 5 and 7, specifically.

Overall: No offense, but you should have read the thing before actually posting this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

To ask a fun question in advance - How would transduality play into this? Characters that are said to transcend all duality are technically in a similar position to R>F, aren't they?

They'd be 1-A under these proposals, as well. In principle, being Transdual means you exceed distinctions that'd allow the existence of spatial dimensions, so, would fall under the same case as the things already explained.