On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[DontTalkDT]

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

Just wanted to comment something before things proceed

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.

Would it be superior or inferior to R>F?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Just wanted to comment something before things proceed

Preferably, comment something of actual substance. If you just strawman the post, then that's a bad look for both of us.

Would it be superior or inferior to R>F?

Honestly? I'd deem all qualitative superiorities to be ontological ones. Including transcendences over dimensions. So, equal.

Why? Well, once you are superior to dimensionality, by definition, you have no time and no space. So you obviously can't be superior to other things in terms defined by those two. For example, you can't have more volume than something if you have no volume to begin with.

Once you have no time and no space, what, exactly, is left of you? Your existence. Your "being"ness, if you will. If existence is all you have, then necessarily you can only be superior to other things in terms of your existence. In other words, the gap between a character who transcends dimensionality and a character who doesn't can only be an ontological one.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Honestly? I'd deem all qualitative superiorities to be ontological ones. Including transcendences over dimensions.

Why? Well, once you are superior to dimensionality, by definition, you have no time and no space. So you obviously can't be superior to other things in terms defined by those two. For example, you can't have more volume than something if you have no volume to begin with.

Once you have no time and no space, what, exactly, is left of you? Your existence. Your "being"ness, if you will. If existence is all you have, then necessarily you can only be superior to other things in terms of your existence. In other words, the gap between a character who transcends dimensionality and a character who doesn't can only be an ontological one.

I... have a feeling that doesn't answer the question?
Like, ok, so they are only superior in terms of their existence... so who is superior in those terms? A transdual character or a character that views reality as fiction? Who is further above baseline and how would we decide who wins if they fight? How do they interact?

And to ask a similar question: What about omnipotence? Would that not, too, be a qualitative superiority (in your sense of that term)? How would omnipotence compare to other kinds of qualitative superiority?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I... have a feeling that doesn't answer the question?
Like, ok, so they are only superior in terms of their existence... so who is superior in those terms? A transdual character or a character that views reality as fiction? Who is further above baseline and how would we decide who wins if they fight?

It does answer the question. But if you require me to be more explicit...

Basically, take this criterion: "This thing is of a completely different nature from dimensioned realms, and this utter difference is identical to its superiority over them. Therefore, they can't be reached by generalizations of those realms." Then ask yourself: "Can we say that this character, at bare minimum, would fit this bill?"

If this bare minimum is reached, and nothing else, then such a character would be rated at baseline 1-A, and following this, we just layer things hierarchically. A transdual character and a character with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in my view, only reach the bare minimum, so I'd consider them both to be at the baseline for the tier in lieu of anything else.

Your other question's interesting, though! And it actually delves into a point I was saving for when you and others came to input here

And to ask a similar question: What about omnipotence? Would that not, too, be a qualitative superiority (in your sense of that term)? How would omnipotence compare to other kinds of qualitative superiority?

For clarity: Do you mean statements of omnipotence, or philosophical notions of omnipotence?

 

[DontTalkDT]

It does answer the question. But if you require me to be more explicit...

Basically, take this criterion: "This thing is of a completely different nature from dimensioned realms, and this utter difference is identical to its superiority over them. Therefore, they can't be reached by generalizations of those realms." Then ask yourself: "Can we say that this character, at bare minimum, would fit this bill?"

If this bare minimum is reached, and nothing else, then such a character would be rated at baseline 1-A, and following this, we just layer things hierarchically. A transdual character and a character with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in my view, only reach the bare minimum, so I'd consider them both to be at the baseline for the tier in lieu of anything else.

Your other question's interesting, though! And it actually delves into a point I was saving for when you and others came to input here

Wouldn't, logically speaking, a transdual character be above the difference between reality and fiction?

For clarity: Do you mean statements of omnipotence, or philosophical notions of omnipotence?

Philosophical notions of omnipotence mentioned in fiction would necessarily come in the form of statements? So... both? Like, I obviously talk about how we handle actual tiering if it appears in fiction, not how true omnipotence outside of a vs debate context would be evaluated.

Let's take the magic gods from ToAru as an example: They are said to be omnipotent, specifically in the sense that they are able to do absolutely everything, to the point that omnipotence paradoxes occur due to being able to do everything including the possibility of being able to lose against your will. (And there are ways for them to overcome that paradox) They can rewrite the laws of nature and change mathematics if they so please.

---

Extra question: What about concepts? Would having power above all concepts in existence also qualify?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hm... I take it that these are preliminaries before the actual debate starts, yes? Judging by the fact you haven't read the post itself. Given that, I'd like to pin down something before proceeding, here.

Up there, you said this:

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.

I responded with this:

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.

Do you contest this counterargument? Further: Do you acknowledge that what you said was a strawman of the original argument?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Hm... I take it that these are preliminaries before the actual debate starts, yes? Judging by the fact you haven't read the post itself. Given that, I'd like to pin down something before proceeding, here.

Up there, you said this:



I responded with this:



Do you contest this counterargument? Further: Do you acknowledge that what you said was a strawman of the original argument?

No comment for the time being. I'm just trying to figure out the consequences of your proposed revision and the logic it operates by in practice.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

No comment for the time being. I'm just trying to figure out the consequences of your proposed revision and the logic it operates by in practice.

Then I likewise refrain from answering the above, for the time being. Engage with the original post, first, and then we will hammer out these little nuggets of information. The logic of which the revision operates is already well-outlined in there.

Whenever you get around to it, also: Don't make a similarly large wall of text. I'm preeeeeettty sure neither us, nor the audience, want this thread to be an exchange of Bibles. So, let's do each other this courtesy and make our posts as succint as possible.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Then I likewise refrain from answering the above, for the time being. Engage with the original post, first, and then we will hammer out these little nuggets of information. The logic of which the revision operates is already well-outlined in there.

Personally, I would find it useful to know for the debate of whether the proposal should be implemented.
I have the impression that the logic you propose may have consequences some people consider undesirable and it would be valuable to the discussion to point those out.
But if you really prefer to write them after my first proper reply that's fine, too.

Whenever you get around to it, also: Don't make a similarly large wall of text. I'm preeeeeettty sure neither us, nor the audience, want this thread to be an exchange of Bibles. So, let's do each other this courtesy and make our posts as succint as possible.

I can try, but be aware that this means that I can not engage with every point in detail, so don't expect I do.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I have the impression that the logic you propose may have consequences some people consider undesirable and it would be valuable to the discussion to point those out.
But if you really prefer to write them after my first proper reply that's fine, too.

Pointing out ramifications is more than fair. But it's only proper to do so after you actually know what the basic lynchpins are. The fact you responded without even reading the OP already tells me we started this discussion on the wrong foot, so I'd like to reset this, if you will.

I can try, but be aware that this means that I can not engage with every point in detail.

As long as you don't misrepresent existing points, that's of course fine. Better a long debate made of many small posts than a "short" debate made of book-length essays.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As long as you don't misrepresent existing points, that's of course fine. Better a long debate made of many small posts than a "short" debate made of book-length essays.

Well, I feel like you will inevitably think I misrepresent points when I don't also address all arguments related to them and the arguments related to those, but sure.
I guess starting with the addressed counterpoints is best, before I bring up new counterpoints. Which of the 16 counterpoints should I best address first in your opinion? I mean, except #16 as that point is objectively true.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mean, except #16 as that point is objectively true.

Nuh uh

Well, I feel like you will inevitably think I misrepresent points when I don't also address all arguments related to them and the arguments related to those, but sure.
I guess starting with the addressed counterpoints is best, before I bring up new counterpoints. Which of the 16 counterpoints should I best address first in your opinion? I mean, except #16 as that point is objectively true.

Starting with the counterpoints is probably not a good idea, seeing as a lot in them hinges on the rest of the post. Ideally, you'd take in the overall logic of the OP first, and then move on to the counterpoints. #1, #2 and then #4-9 are fairly central, so, focus on those.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Starting with the counterpoints is probably not a good idea, seeing as a lot in them hinges on the rest of the post. Ideally, you'd take in the overall logic of the OP first, and then move on to the counterpoints. #1, #2 and then #4-9 are fairly central, so, focus on those.

Well, then let me write out as much as I can think of about the overall logic that doesn't relate to counterpoints first.

First, the empty set stuff: Technically, the empty set is not a good mathematical equivalence to nothingness, but I won't get into that as I think the whole analogy is not very relevant.
As I already expressed in my very first post, R>F and dimensions in fiction are independent hierarchies in my opinion. We do an equalization based on relative gaps. Roughly trying to tier equally impressive feats the same. i.e. two higher realities are about equal. It was never supposed to be a mathematically accurate process or be used to equalize things in any fashion other than power. It is a compromise on how to shove two unrelated system into one, as we would like to not have too many feats that are considered just untierable. Nor do we actually went a power chart with different kinds of levels of infinity. All power should be comparable.
In that context, I ask once again that you answer the questions I asked earlier. Because I wish to see if and how your proposal even resolves shoving different systems into one. Obviously, if your system doesn't resolve the problem properly, that severely weakens the basis of your proposal.

In your whole dimensionless superiority section you, to some extent, shift the question into the assumption: You assume that the character has demonstrated superiority over all dimensions by their nature, therefore it is superior to all dimensions by nature.
However, I think you are missing a middle category of beings. Besides aspatial entities that are not superior to any space by nature and aspatial entities that are superior to all dimensions by nature, there can also be aspatial entities that are superior to only a certain number of dimensions by nature. There is no logical contradiction in such an entity.
As such I would ask you for an example of a character that is of the second but not third type, and the quotes that get it there, without said character already qualifying for the corresponding Tier by current standards. Of course, I am mainly interested in a case that isn't simultaneously a different type of qualitative superiority, as we don't have to debate this case if it doesn't exist in an independent form.
(One could argue this relates to counterpoint 2, as it follows from the idea of not rating a character extremely high if there is an alternative. But I just hope you don't intend to use it like that)

That aside, I wish to just get an explicit statement regarding something: Does your logic mean that R>F should be assumed that the writer can manipulate its fiction in any way that a real life author could? I believe that is a consequence of your ideas, but I wish to make sure.

Another thing you don't explicitly address: How do you justify layers of qualitative superiority, given your reasoning?

That aside, we don't need a Tier below 11-C. Tier 11-C is already the tier covering everything below, regardless of nature.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

First, the empty set stuff: Technically, the empty set is not a good mathematical equivalence to nothingness, but I won't get into that as I think the whole analogy is not very relevant.
As I already expressed in my very first post, R>F and dimensions in fiction are independent hierarchies in my opinion. We do an equalization based on relative gaps. Roughly trying to tier equally impressive feats the same. i.e. two higher realities are about equal. It was never supposed to be a mathematically accurate process or be used to equalize things in any fashion other than power. It is a compromise on how to shove two unrelated system into one, as we would like to not have too many feats that are considered just untierable. Nor do we actually went a power chart with different kinds of levels of infinity. All power should be comparable.
In that context, I ask once again that you answer the questions I asked earlier. Because I wish to see if and how your proposal even resolves shoving different systems into one. Obviously, if your system doesn't resolve the problem properly, that severely weakens the basis of your proposal.

I just had an offsite discussion on this topic that made me want for a little clarity of terms here. So, before I answer that post, let me ask: Is a Reality-Fiction Transcendence a relationship where the lower side is literal unreality/nonexistence (In a way that entails inferiority), and the higher one is existence? The FAQ, for instance, says "They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality."

So, would you say a higher R>F layer is a realm that is, to our notion of "reality," what our notion of "reality" is to nonexistence? Or something along those lines?

 

[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.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT

Probably best to let us finish this first before tackling that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Just keep it in mind please.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I just had an offsite discussion on this topic that made me want for a little clarity of terms here. So, before I answer that post, let me ask: Is a Reality-Fiction Transcendence a relationship where the lower side is literal unreality/nonexistence (In a way that entails inferiority), and the higher one is existence? The FAQ, for instance, says "They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality."

So, would you say a higher R>F layer is a realm that is, to our notion of "reality," what our notion of "reality" is to nonexistence? Or something along those lines?

I don't quite understand the question.
A R>F layer is stuff like "the universe is just a story in a book" or "the universe is just my dream".
I believe how you wish to interpret what exactly that is, is part of the debate.
Personally, I don't plan to commit to any assumptions on its nature other than "something fictional like that can never harm the real thing, no matter how boosted. So it's at least an infinite difference." That includes me not assuming that the author can add things to the story beyond what is shown, which I believe you wish to argue otherwise.

I will say that fiction is logically not synonymous with nothingness. All nothingness is identical, but there are different stories is fiction, for example.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't quite understand the question.
A R>F layer is stuff like "the universe is just a story in a book" or "the universe is just my dream".
I believe how you wish to interpret what exactly that is, is part of the debate.

Not "How I wish to interpret," so much as "How the wiki interprets it, already." I've already quoted a part of the FAQ that describes the lesser side of a R>F Interaction as (being seen as) "literal unreality."

And, mind you:

un - denoting the absence of a quality or state; not

reality - the state or quality of having existence or substance.

So your silence on the matter is a bit strange. You have to, at the very least, commit to what the wiki officially says.

In your whole dimensionless superiority section you, to some extent, shift the question into the assumption: You assume that the character has demonstrated superiority over all dimensions by their nature, therefore it is superior to all dimensions by nature.
However, I think you are missing a middle category of beings. Besides aspatial entities that are not superior to any space by nature and aspatial entities that are superior to all dimensions by nature, there can also be aspatial entities that are superior to only a certain number of dimensions by nature. There is no logical contradiction in such an entity.

"To some extent"? Expand on that wording, since it seems to imply I am not fully shifting the question into the assumption.

As for the point itself: I already addressed that in the OP. And you really didn't even interact with that. You just gave circular reasoning.

To illustrate: I said "B (The "middle category" of beings) doesn't exist because of X, Y and Z (My reasons)" and you responded to that with "That is incorrect, because you fail to take into account the fact B exists" (Bad logic) instead of "This is incorrect because X, Y and Z are unsound/don't imply B doesn't exist" (Good logic).

As I already expressed in my very first post, R>F and dimensions in fiction are independent hierarchies in my opinion. We do an equalization based on relative gaps. Roughly trying to tier equally impressive feats the same. i.e. two higher realities are about equal. It was never supposed to be a mathematically accurate process or be used to equalize things in any fashion other than power. It is a compromise on how to shove two unrelated system into one, as we would like to not have too many feats that are considered just untierable. Nor do we actually went a power chart with different kinds of levels of infinity. All power should be comparable.

I already addressed this in the OP.

I'd also want to ask what you mean by "comparable," though. Do you mean "Roughly equal" or "Able to be compared at all"? Because there are two options here:

A) If it's the latter: Rating qualitative superiorities as above quantitative superiorities doesn't make the two incomparable. X > Y is still a comparison.

B) If it's the former: That's an empty thing to say. "Well, they are not at all the same thing, but they should be comparable because... they should!"

You could also mean "They need to be roughly equal in order to be compared at all." Which doesn't follow for the reason listed in A)

In that context, I ask once again that you answer the questions I asked earlier. Because I wish to see if and how your proposal even resolves shoving different systems into one. Obviously, if your system doesn't resolve the problem properly, that severely weakens the basis of your proposal.

Going into this by steps: Firstly, it resolves the issue by marking a concrete division between qualitative superiorities and quantitative ones, with the former being always above the latter, instead of mixed together with it, as it is right now.

Secondly, I assume your concern is "How are we to compare different types of qualitative superiority," yes?

I fully intend to answer these questions, but before I do: You mentioned before that you suspect these proposals will lead to undesirable consequences. Going by the explanations above, what do you believe these consequences would be? You don't have to try and read my mind, of course. Just want to know your own thoughts on what we'd be forced to do if this were to be accepted, so far, as well potential contradictions that you think might arise out of that.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

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 Saikou pretty much brought up a new proposal that sounds better IMO.

 

[Antvasima]

I think Saikou pretty much brought up a new proposal that sounds better IMO.

Please elaborate.

 

[KingNanaya]

Please elaborate.

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.

believe it was this

 

[Antvasima]

I much prefer to being specific, such as by rating characters one degree below base reality in a reality-fiction transcendence hierarchy as 12-A, characters any finite higher number of reality-fiction transcendence hierarchies below base reality as 12-B, and characters any infinite number of reality-fiction transcendence hierarchies below base reality as 12-C.

The point is not to mix together characters of extremely different natures, but to be as specific as we are realistically able to be, and find logical distinctions to separate them by, even if there are comparatively few of them that have pages in our wiki.

 

[Elizhaa]

Currently, I am fine with the OP, from what I read.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not "How I wish to interpret," so much as "How the wiki interprets it, already." I've already quoted a part of the FAQ that describes the lesser side of a R>F Interaction as (being seen as) "literal unreality."

And, mind you:

un - denoting the absence of a quality or state; not

reality - the state or quality of having existence or substance.

So your silence on the matter is a bit strange. You have to, at the very least, commit to what the wiki officially says.

You are already proposing a change of the standards, though, so I consider it weird to try to hang on to the existing standards.
As a person that was involved in writing most of the wikis R>F standards, I can furthermore tell you that we never really have debated that to mean anything that deep. It's just an alternative to saying fiction, for verses that might have similar ideas without calling it fiction. It was an afterthought, not a big conscious decision to add that word to declare fiction as being the same as nothingness. Whether unreality even means nothingness, when we were to ignore the spirit of the text, is pretty debatable.
Cambridge dictionary defines reality as "the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be". Negating that, unreality just means imagination, making the term synonymous to fiction. Google (Oxford languages) defines unreality directly as "he quality of being imaginary, illusory, or unrealistic."
So... yeah, don't cling to that word.

I mean, really, it's pretty weird to tell me what my position in a rule change revision should be. The best you could possibly get from this point of debate is that we both wish to make changes, but that really doesn't advance the discussion in any way.

In any case, I believe fiction and nothingness not being the same as just a fact. Two things are identical exactly then iff they have all the same properties. It's not further hard to come up with a property that some dream has and nothingness doesn't.

"To some extent"? Expand on that wording, since it seems to imply I am not fully shifting the question into the assumption.

I say to some extent, since you make an argument that not A is B at least. If that were a tautology, you would have completely shifted the question into the assumption, but my next point was that it actually isn't. So it's close to that but not quite.

As for the point itself: I already addressed that in the OP. And you really didn't even interact with that. You just gave circular reasoning.

To illustrate: I said "B (The "middle category" of beings) doesn't exist because of X, Y and Z (My reasons)" and you responded to that with "That is incorrect, because you fail to take into account the fact B exists" (Bad logic) instead of "This is incorrect because X, Y and Z are unsound/don't imply B doesn't exist" (Good logic).

Quote the part then, because I don't see where you gave a counter-argument to that.

I already addressed this in the OP.

Same as the last. Specify which counter-argument you are referring to.

I'd also want to ask what you mean by "comparable," though. Do you mean "Roughly equal" or "Able to be compared at all"? Because there are two options here:

A) If it's the latter: Rating qualitative superiorities as above quantitative superiorities doesn't make the two incomparable. X > Y is still a comparison.

B) If it's the former: That's an empty thing to say. "Well, they are not at all the same thing, but they should be comparable because... they should!"

You could also mean "They need to be roughly equal in order to be compared at all." Which doesn't follow for the reason listed in A)

To A): I never said your system doesn't compare things. I just explained that we do composite hierarchies because we wanted to be able to compare characters even where there is no rigorously true way to do it.
To B): Well, the thing is I would argue they are not comparable, not in the way you propose either.
If you ask me what the true state of things is, then I believe that there could be 100D characters that can't interact with some that sees the 3D universe as fiction, while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all, making the two beings unable to fight each other. And neither may be able to do anything against someone transdual and vice versa.
The first character basically has 100 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels, while the second one has 3 dimension levels, 1 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels and the third has 3 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 1 transduality levels. And technically you can not put all of them on a single scale to compare their powers.
Problem is, that is absolutely garbage for a vs-community. It makes indexing convoluted and high tier characters couldn't fight each other. So instead we just sum up all the different levels of the characters and call the sum their "levels of infinity" and say that things which are equally infinite can fight each other.

Going into this by steps: Firstly, it resolves the issue by marking a concrete division between qualitative superiorities and quantitative ones, with the former being always above the latter, instead of mixed together with it, as it is right now.

That are two kinds of superiority system. But what you are calling qualitative superiorities are actually a number of by nature very different systems. So how do you resolve those without using the exact rough equalization tools you deny for usage when it comes to the dimension hierarchy in particular?

Secondly, I assume your concern is "How are we to compare different types of qualitative superiority," yes?

I fully intend to answer these questions, but before I do: You mentioned before that you suspect these proposals will lead to undesirable consequences. Going by the explanations above, what do you believe these consequences would be? You don't have to try and read my mind, of course. Just want to know your own thoughts on what we'd be forced to do if this were to be accepted, so far, as well potential contradictions that you think might arise out of that.

I, indeed, have no interest in trying to read you mind. I think what I wrote above should already give you one idea. Inconsistent application of ideas is another. And I believe a general sense of the standards being far from a fair conservative estimate could also be something some people dislike.
There are more, but I'm not gonna try to be exhaustive.

As a reminder, the questions were:

1. Is power over all concepts / transcendence of them also a qualitative difference?
2. How do you justify the existence of layers at qualitative levels?
3. Wouldn't transdual character by their very nature be beyond any dual difference of reality and fiction?
4. What about omnipotence? (See the example I brought up as one guidepoint)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You are already proposing a change of the standards, though, so I consider it weird to try to hang on to the existing standards.

In any case, I believe fiction and nothingness not being the same as just a fact. Two things are identical exactly then iff they have all the same properties. It's not further hard to come up with a property that some dream has and nothingness doesn't.

I don't plan to change all of the standards, only to make existing standards consistent with themselves.

Unreality and nothingness not being exactly the same also isn't really relevant when you consider that unreality/fiction definitionally is an absence of something (And I know plenty of verses where it's explicitly stated to be like that, too). And an absence of a thing can't add up to the existence of that thing. Non-substance can't add up to substance. Same argument ultimately applies.

Same as the last. Specify which counter-argument you are referring to.

You said "We do an equalization based on relative gaps. Roughly trying to tier equally impressive feats the same." I went on a pretty long diatribe on how that involves false equivalences (And is therefore fallacious). Hit Control+F and type in "false equivalence" and you'll find it.

Quote the part then, because I don't see where you gave a counter-argument to that.

The entirety of that section was me presenting counterarguments to that idea, so quoting it would be impractical. If needed, reread it. Though there is the fact I already reiterated one of said counterarguments, in a post that you directly responded to, so claiming "I don't see where you gave a counterargument to that" is plain weird.

But regardless, here's another (Which is just a reformulation of the same general ideas in the OP):

Spoiler

Showing that there is logical contradiction in that is pretty simple. Let's say something (We'll call it X) is superior to dimensionality, and let's also entertain the notion that it can only be above some dimensionalities, but not all. And let's also say it comes from a verse with only 4 dimensions, so that it is above these dimensions.

Spoiler

Now, what is it equal to? For now, we aren't sure. But we can know what it is not equal to: It can't be equal to 5-D space, and saying otherwise would just be commiting a category error. 6-D? Category error too. 70-D? Also a category error. Infinite-D? Category error.

Spoiler

So, since we entertain the above notion, we know that X is superior to 4-D space, and only 4-D space. But it's not equal to 5-D space, either, nor any dimensional spaces above that. So X is... above 4-D but below 5-D? That seems absurd, yet it's a logical consequence of your ideas. So it's clear that said ideas are absurd, too.

You could also try to say "It's superior to 4-D but unable to be compared to any higher dimensionality," but that's incoherent, too, due what I said in the post I just linked above

The above is really only able to be countered if you go with the "We can equate things that aren't the same just fine" thing. That's, of course, just invoking a false equivalence (And thus fallacious), so I ask you: If you dismiss that thing, is the above argument sound, in your mind?

To A): I never said your system doesn't compare things. I just explained that we do composite hierarchies because we wanted to be able to compare characters even where there is no rigorously true way to do it.

Just making sure. I didn't go "This is what you're saying!", mind you. I asked "Is this what you mean?"

Well, the thing is I would argue they are not comparable, not in the way you propose either.
If you ask me what the true state of things is, then I believe that there could be 100D characters that can't interact with some that sees the 3D universe as fiction, while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all, making the two beings unable to fight each other. And neither may be able to do anything against someone transdual and vice versa.

The first character basically has 100 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels, while the second one has 3 dimension levels, 1 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels and the third has 3 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 1 transduality levels. And technically you can not put all of them on a single scale to compare their powers.

Explain why they cannot be compared. The closest you came to giving an explanation for this, in that post, was when you said "while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all." Otherwise you just treat it as some obvious fact, something which it isn't.

That are two kinds of superiority system. But what you are calling qualitative superiorities are actually a number of by nature very different systems. So how do you resolve those without using the exact rough equalization tools you deny for usage when it comes to the dimension hierarchy in particular?

Answer to that is below. I'll break down each question in turns, though I'll only answer them all in full in the last one.

Is power over all concepts / transcendence of them also a qualitative difference?

Power over them? Depends on what the concepts are. If they're the "mental constructs" type, then I don't see why having power over them would be anything more than Mind Manipulation, for example.

Transcending them? Yeah, though there are types of concepts and likewise different results for transcending them. I'll explain below.

Wouldn't transdual character by their very nature be beyond any dual difference of reality and fiction?

Depends. Nondualism is inherently a philosophical concept and so there's quite a few slightly different takes on it, none of which we have any authority to say is "The most valid."

I know some interpretations where the answer to that question is "Yes," but in a way that'd apply to someone with a R>F Transcendence, too. I know of some where the question itself doesn't make sense, and so on. I could name and explain each of them, too, if needed, but the end answer is the same: Not necessarily.

What about omnipotence? (See the example I brought up as one guidepoint)

If taken at their absolute maximal interpretations, all those three things you just asked me about are the same thing. If something truly is above all concepts, it can't be surpassed. If something is truly transdual, it likewise can't be surpassed. So, technically, you really just asked me about omnipotence three times in a row. They would all, logically speaking, of course be in the highest tier of a Tiering System, no matter what that may be.

Now, as said: These are the maximal interpretations. For example, you can transcend all Aristotelian Universals (Type 2 Concepts, in wiki jargon), and since those are, by definition, bound to what exists in the material world, doing that is the exact same thing as transcending the physical cosmology of your verse, in which case it'd be just 1-A at most under my proposals. And then there's, of course, the pesky "Logically can't be surpassed" deal that plagues the maximal interpretation.

Likewise with Transduality. A very common concept is that there is a foundation to reality that is this non-dual, completely undifferentiated oneness with no parts or division whatsoever, be those spatial, temporal or metaphysical. Clearly, there logically can be nothing surpassing this, or else it isn't truly undifferentiated in all ways. Yet quite a few verses introduce something that is supposed to be such a oneness... And then have it be surpassed anyway. This is obviously some Lionel Suggs-type shit which ultimately just invalidates itself. The concept might as well be dust after that. Maximal interpretation gets discarded here, too.

And yet these "fake oneness"-type of characters usually do have traits assigned to them that aren't ever contradicted in the same way. In my experience they'll often be described as above spatial concepts like "Up/Down," "Left/Right" and etc, which indicates they must at least be beyond spatio-temporal dimensionality. In which case, they're 1-A under my proposals, too. You starting to notice a pattern here?

So, TL;DR the vast majority of would-be examples of these concepts in fiction either are not necessarily as high as their face-value interpretations to begin with, and/or have some flaw in their portrayal that prevents them from being so, in which case they either totally invalidate themselves or end up falling back to the bare minimum of the proposed 1-A rating.

How do you justify the existence of layers at qualitative levels?

With the above explained, you can apply this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just a small note for information. Yesterday I made a big summary of the big ToAru revision I had worked on for month and that is still ongoing. Today I posted it. With some luck lots of staff will give their vote so that we can conclude the main topic of that, so that I won't have to split my attention between that and this thread (which is why I did that now). That occupied my time. Tomorrow I will be too busy with real life work to comment here as I have a deadline on Thursday, so my next reply will probably come Thursday evening.
Edit: Alright, my BD stuff left me exhausted. Gonna need a feeeeew more hours.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that I think that this revision seems very beneficial for our tiering system, and it seems to much more closely align with what I have learned about how real world spirituality and metaphysics work, so I personally currently strongly support it, as long as we do not lose any degree of our current tiering specifications/accuracy during the transition.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't plan to change all of the standards, only to make existing standards consistent with themselves.

It's a revision big enough that we really don't need to use existing standards as arguments anymore.

Unreality and nothingness not being exactly the same also isn't really relevant when you consider that unreality/fiction definitionally is an absence of something (And I know plenty of verses where it's explicitly stated to be like that, too). And an absence of a thing can't add up to the existence of that thing. Non-substance can't add up to substance. Same argument ultimately applies.

Well, you may as well delete your entire empty set analogy from the OP, though. And we'll see if it truly doesn't get relevant.

You said "We do an equalization based on relative gaps. Roughly trying to tier equally impressive feats the same." I went on a pretty long diatribe on how that involves false equivalences (And is therefore fallacious). Hit Control+F and type in "false equivalence" and you'll find it.

Back to you. I already acknowledged that it isn't a fundamentally true equivalence. However, as I also already said, your approach is equally a false equivalence. Because (and for reasons see my prior posts) neither size, R>F, BDE, transduality nor size are actually equalizable.
The equivalence we have isn't of fundamental truth, but justified as a good working method for comparing, fundamentally incomparable but similarly impressive, feats.

The entirety of that section was me presenting counterarguments to that idea, so quoting it would be impractical. If needed, reread it. Though there is the fact I already reiterated one of said counterarguments, in a post that you directly responded to, so claiming "I don't see where you gave a counterargument to that" is plain weird.

But regardless, here's another (Which is just a reformulation of the same general ideas in the OP):

Spoiler

Showing that there is logical contradiction in that is pretty simple. Let's say something (We'll call it X) is superior to dimensionality, and let's also entertain the notion that it can only be above some dimensionalities, but not all. And let's also say it comes from a verse with only 4 dimensions, so that it is above these dimensions.

Spoiler

Now, what is it equal to? For now, we aren't sure. But we can know what it is not equal to: It can't be equal to 5-D space, and saying otherwise would just be commiting a category error. 6-D? Category error too. 70-D? Also a category error. Infinite-D? Category error.

Spoiler

So, since we entertain the above notion, we know that X is superior to 4-D space, and only 4-D space. But it's not equal to 5-D space, either, nor any dimensional spaces above that. So X is... above 4-D but below 5-D? That seems absurd, yet it's a logical consequence of your ideas. So it's clear that said ideas are absurd, too.

You could also try to say "It's superior to 4-D but unable to be compared to any higher dimensionality," but that's incoherent, too, due what I said in the post I just linked above

The above is really only able to be countered if you go with the "We can equate things that aren't the same just fine" thing. That's, of course, just invoking a false equivalence (And thus fallacious), so I ask you: If you dismiss that thing, is the above argument sound, in your mind?

I mean, quotes are collapsed, so quoting would be no issue, but ok.

Let's work with what we have then. So I agree that equating a non-dimensional entity to be dimensional doesn't work (in terms of nature, not in terms of power). A non-dimensional being that is superior to some dimensions, but to others, would still have, as you call it, "Inaccessibility-by-Alienness" regarding the other dimensions.

Now, your argument about why that can't be is, as far as I see:

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.

But that obviously adds additional burden of proof. There is an evidence gap between "alien to all, superior to some" and "alien to all, superior to all".

As an example: True Magic Gods in ToAru have spacetime being inapplicable to them due to their power being too large to be contained in the world. So the attribute of spacetime is inapplicable to them for the very reason they are superior to it: Their power is just too large.
However, the problem here is that the container is too small for the power. A larger container could hold it, it's just that spacetime in ToAru is only 11D and no larger one is available.
So adding more dimensions would be a bigger container that could potentially contain their power and hence no general superiority can be found here.
Of course, providing a larger container alone would not automatically drag them out of their aspatial state of being, though, so "Inaccessibility-by-Alienness" continues to be the case.

Now, in No true Scotsman fashion, I fully assume you will just say that counterexamples such as this should just not be ranked as above all dimensions, as they have direct evidence against the idea.
But proof-wise the opposite should be the case, really. Rather than expecting a devil's proof by requiring the fiction to spell out possible complications, the burden of proof should be on the fiction to clarify in some way that such a case does not exist.
And if you want to refer to a counterpoint now, feel free to do so, then I will get to address those. Personally, I think the example transitions nicely into counterpoint 2.

Explain why they cannot be compared. The closest you came to giving an explanation for this, in that post, was when you said "while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all." Otherwise you just treat it as some obvious fact, something which it isn't.

I assume you agree that 100D characters wouldn't be able to hit something more real than them without "infinity equalization".
So, you want evidence of there being a character that has R>F over something and is not able to manipulate 100D space despite it?

Well, that's easy. Kawakami-verse during the City era has Great Britain, and that country alone, be fictional to the rest of the world. A powerful being made it so.
And we know it can't be extended to 100D space, as the power of plot merged with Ether in a prior era and even the strongest Ether Manipulator can only control it on a universal scale. (And the one that created GB probably was much weaker)

Umineko is another obvious example. They link their R>F to the size difference between dimensions. So obviously 1 jump isn't equal to 100D.

Also roughly any R>F that is based on virtual reality. Like, I think I/O it was called? Or I guess Doki Doki Literature Club! technically applies? Since the computational cost for anything scales up with size, a simulation can't handle spaces of arbitrary sizes.

Or just use the dynamic page list
<DPL>
category = Plot Manipulation Users
notcategory = Tier 2
notcategory = Tier 1
</DPL>
that gives you plenty of examples of plot manipulators who can't even manipulate their whole world.

Examples aside, why would we even assume any given plot manipulator can write something about 100D space? Do you wish to assume that a R>F author can write about anything they please in their book and make it reality in a lower world?
Your argument in the OP relies greatly on the equivalence of a R>F level to some dimensional space (although, again, we are not saying they are actually the same), but which argument do you have for plot manipulators being able to affect all dimensions without any equivalence?

Depends. Nondualism is inherently a philosophical concept and so there's quite a few slightly different takes on it, none of which we have any authority to say is "The most valid."

I know some interpretations where the answer to that question is "Yes," but in a way that'd apply to someone with a R>F Transcendence, too. I know of some where the question itself doesn't make sense, and so on. I could name and explain each of them, too, if needed, but the end answer is the same: Not necessarily.

I refer you to Counterpoint 8. It is only a logical consequence of the most basic definition of transduality as "transcendence of duality". Not being above it would mean to simultanously be beyond all duality, yet to be bound by one, which is obviously nonsense... right?
You say there are differing viewpoints, but so are for R>F automatically affecting all dimensions.

If taken at their absolute maximal interpretations, all those three things you just asked me about are the same thing. If something truly is above all concepts, it can't be surpassed. If something is truly transdual, it likewise can't be surpassed. So, technically, you really just asked me about omnipotence three times in a row. They would all, logically speaking, of course be in the highest tier of a Tiering System, no matter what that may be.

Now, as said: These are the maximal interpretations. For example, you can transcend all Aristotelian Universals (Type 2 Concepts, in wiki jargon), and since those are, by definition, bound to what exists in the material world, doing that is the exact same thing as transcending the physical cosmology of your verse, in which case it'd be just 1-A at most under my proposals. And then there's, of course, the pesky "Logically can't be surpassed" deal that plagues the maximal interpretation.

I will point out that in most cases those are only assumed to be bound to the material world due to lack of any other feats. There is no real reason for that other than not assuming they apply to things other than what they have feats for. Very similar to the reason we currently do assume any of those metaphysical things are bound to just the realm they demonstrated.

Likewise with Transduality. A very common concept is that there is a foundation to reality that is this non-dual, completely undifferentiated oneness with no parts or division whatsoever, be those spatial, temporal or metaphysical. Clearly, there logically can be nothing surpassing this, or else it isn't truly undifferentiated in all ways. Yet quite a few verses introduce something that is supposed to be such a oneness... And then have it be surpassed anyway. This is obviously some Lionel Suggs-type shit which ultimately just invalidates itself. The concept might as well be dust after that. Maximal interpretation gets discarded here, too.

This seems in conflict to your counterpoint 2. Or maybe Counterpoint 7, I guess. You say that since many verses break logic here we should assume that even a verse that doesn't have explicit evidence for it might.

And before you say that there are less examples of R>F being treated inconsistently to your proposed theory: Nope. Every non-infinite plot manipulator is in the category of R>F being restricted by distance/size in some way. To the point that they do not even have proper transcendance. They are easy to clear away as just not ranking them 1-A for obvious reasons, but they count towards fictions that employ R>F in a fashion contradicting your idea.

In the first place: In spirit of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, you would need to compare the amount of verses that contradict R>F being automatically above space of any size to verses that actually explicitly confirm that notion. Not the verses that just don't mention one or the other.

And yet these "fake oneness"-type of characters usually do have traits assigned to them that aren't ever contradicted in the same way. In my experience they'll often be described as above spatial concepts like "Up/Down," "Left/Right" and etc, which indicates they must at least be beyond spatio-temporal dimensionality. In which case, they're 1-A under my proposals, too. You starting to notice a pattern here?

Yes. You assume you have a wide-spanning enough overview over all fo fiction to calculate a "probability of explicit contradiction", which you then argue to indicate the "probability of actual contradiction".

So, TL;DR the vast majority of would-be examples of these concepts in fiction either are not necessarily as high as their face-value interpretations to begin with, and/or have some flaw in their portrayal that prevents them from being so, in which case they either totally invalidate themselves or end up falling back to the bare minimum of the proposed 1-A rating.

It's funny how you use the exact same arguments here as I do against your proposal, except that you tag on the assumption that the flaws you bring up being more frequent.

With the above explained, you can apply this.

I have something to say about that, but it's best if I bring it up after you clarify why you assume any R>F character can write about any number of dimensions in their story. If you want you can just do that clarification first, so that I can give you this explanation then.

 

[Antvasima]

Would this be an acceptable revision if we add several official precaution clarifications to avoid highly exaggerated scaling, DontTalk?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Would this be an acceptable revision if we add several official precaution clarifications to avoid highly exaggerated scaling, DontTalk?

Those never work because one can always explain it away. Well, unless they scale to regular humans or something equally obvious.
I'm not even sure what would qualify as highly exaggerated here, given how the entire point of the revision is to skip any number of infinity levels without the need of feats for skipping any of them other than nature. The jump is so incredibly large that it essentially equally impressive no matter where the character started (except the character already having the rating, of course).

I have always worked towards keeping our standards to using the minimal necessary assumptions beyond explicit feats and explanations. I really don't like seeing our conservative approach to tiering watered down when it comes to the highest tiers and things as subjective as metaphysics.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Thanks for the response. I'll get to it in the next few hours or so. In the meantime I, of course, ask that people abstain from potential parallel conversations.

 

[Antvasima]

Those never work because one can always explain it away. Well, unless they scale to regular humans or something equally obvious.
I'm not even sure what would qualify as highly exaggerated here, given how the entire point of the revision is to skip any number of infinity levels without the need of feats for skipping any of them other than nature. The jump is so incredibly large that it essentially equally impressive no matter where the character started (except the character already having the rating, of course).

I have always worked towards keeping our standards to using the minimal necessary assumptions beyond explicit feats and explanations. I really don't like seeing our conservative approach to tiering watered down when it comes to the highest tiers and things as subjective as metaphysics.

Okay. I trust your sense of judgement as usual, as you usually have the best combination of intelligence and wisdom among our staff in my experience, and I will obviously not try to overrule you, but please try to figure out a workable solution together with Ultima, if possible.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'll organize some of the above paragraphs into groups, seeing as the same answers go for a lot of them.

It's a revision big enough that we really don't need to use existing standards as arguments anymore.

A non-sequitur, really. Would only apply if I intended to fully uproot all of the standards.

This seems in conflict to your counterpoint 2. Or maybe Counterpoint 7, I guess. You say that since many verses break logic here we should assume that even a verse that doesn't have explicit evidence for it might.

And before you say that there are less examples of R>F being treated inconsistently to your proposed theory: Nope. Every non-infinite plot manipulator is in the category of R>F being restricted by distance/size in some way. To the point that they do not even have proper transcendance. They are easy to clear away as just not ranking them 1-A for obvious reasons, but they count towards fictions that employ R>F in a fashion contradicting your idea.

In the first place: In spirit of absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, you would need to compare the amount of verses that contradict R>F being automatically above space of any size to verses that actually explicitly confirm that notion. Not the verses that just don't mention one or the other.

Back to you. I already acknowledged that it isn't a fundamentally true equivalence. However, as I also already said, your approach is equally a false equivalence. Because (and for reasons see my prior posts) neither size, R>F, BDE, transduality nor size are actually equalizable.
The equivalence we have isn't of fundamental truth, but justified as a good working method for comparing, fundamentally incomparable but similarly impressive, feats.

Yes. You assume you have a wide-spanning enough overview over all fo fiction to calculate a "probability of explicit contradiction", which you then argue to indicate the "probability of actual contradiction".

You misunderstand me quite a bit here. I fully agree that the perfect extent of certain abilities, like Transduality for example, are completely different from even what I refer to as a qualitative superiority. Indeed, a truly transdual character can't really be said to have a "qualitative superiority" (Or even a "meta-qualitative" superiority, which is what I defined High 1-A as), because it would be above qualities to begin with. By that token, equating it to a qualitative superiority is as much of a category error as equating a qualitative superiority to a quantitative superiority.

So, if you get me a character that's essentially a perfect portrayal of Transduality, for example (Which is to say, most robust description possible with no contradictions to that status whatsoever), I'll have no issue with saying that character is Tier 0, for the same reasons I say R>F and BDE are inherently above dimensional jumps.

Largely, I just don't really think such characters are very numerous. It will happen, certainly, but not very often. So, no, I don't care much for probabilities.

Also I want to know what exactly the bolded part of the first thing is supposed to mean. Your wording confuses me.

It's funny how you use the exact same arguments here as I do against your proposal, except that you tag on the assumption that the flaws you bring up being more frequent.

It's truly unfortunate that I came across this way. Not at all my intention.

But that obviously adds additional burden of proof. There is an evidence gap between "alien to all, superior to some" and "alien to all, superior to all".

As an example: True Magic Gods in ToAru have spacetime being inapplicable to them due to their power being too large to be contained in the world. So the attribute of spacetime is inapplicable to them for the very reason they are superior to it: Their power is just too large.
However, the problem here is that the container is too small for the power. A larger container could hold it, it's just that spacetime in ToAru is only 11D and no larger one is available.
So adding more dimensions would be a bigger container that could potentially contain their power and hence no general superiority can be found here.
Of course, providing a larger container alone would not automatically drag them out of their aspatial state of being, though, so "Inaccessibility-by-Alienness" continues to be the case.

Now, in No true Scotsman fashion, I fully assume you will just say that counterexamples such as this should just not be ranked as above all dimensions, as they have direct evidence against the idea.
But proof-wise the opposite should be the case, really. Rather than expecting a devil's proof by requiring the fiction to spell out possible complications, the burden of proof should be on the fiction to clarify in some way that such a case does not exist.

I already addressed that, too:

Included in this type are thus characters whose tiers do not (And cannot) derive from their lack of spatial properties at all, but rather from direct feats of force. For example, we can have a character who is fully aspatial, but is only 6-B due to having a feat of destroying Britain. But we cannot have a character who is fully aspatial and simultaneously 6-B due to being as large as Britain; that is a contradiction. Additionally, note that since all their power derives from their external AP, rather than from their non-dimensional physiology, these characters cannot be said to be "superior to dimensionality" in the sense that the FAQ means, either.

You seem to operate on the idea that "Aspatial Nature + Unrelated AP" counts as "superiority over dimensionality." As said, though, it doesn't. Just like the character in the above hypothetical is not "Superior to Britain" due to its nature, just its external power. Similarly, you can have a character who is 3 cubic micrometers large and yet is so powerful that they can't make contact with a planet without destroying it. Are they "superior to a planet"? In terms of power, yeah. Are they superior to a planet due to their nature, though? Not really.

The Magic Gods sound like they're the same thing: They're not "superior to spacetime" in nature, just in power. If their power is identical to their nature, though, then yeah, I would consider them 1-A.

If we applied your logic, the FAQ would also say that "Above dimensions" feats would at minimum be Low 2-C in a cosmology with 4 dimensions, just like the Magic Gods are 11-D High 1-C in a cosmology with 11 dimensions. It doesn't say that, though, so clearly what I and the FAQ are talking about is different from what you're talking about.

Now, could a random, contextless "superior to dimensions" statement be interpreted as what you're talking about? It could, and I do think we should watch out for cases of that, even if these proposals were to be accepted. I don't want to do away with standards of evidence entirely. I'm mostly just concerned with cases where said standards of evidence are already met.

Well, you may as well delete your entire empty set analogy from the OP, though. And we'll see if it truly doesn't get relevant.

I don't have to, no, as the analogy still applies. As I said so myself: Even the empty set is not truly "nothing." Using it as an illustration of how absences of things work is fairly appropriate, even if said absences don't entail absolute nothingness.

So, you want evidence of there being a character that has R>F over something and is not able to manipulate 100D space despite it?

Examples aside, why would we even assume any given plot manipulator can write something about 100D space? Do you wish to assume that a R>F author can write about anything they please in their book and make it reality in a lower world?
Your argument in the OP relies greatly on the equivalence of a R>F level to some dimensional space (although, again, we are not saying they are actually the same), but which argument do you have for plot manipulators being able to affect all dimensions without any equivalence?

I have no interest in that, no. Lack of a capability to interact with a lower reality isn't an anti-feat for your superiority over it. You could have 0 power to interact with a lesser world and still be infinitely above it, of course (And I think an example of that would be a character who has a R>F Transcendence over a world, but as a reader, not an author, or something like that)

Overall, the arguments in the OP suffice. And never, at any point, did I include "X is a writer, therefore X can add anything they want to the lower world" among them.

I refer you to Counterpoint 8. It is only a logical consequence of the most basic definition of transduality as "transcendence of duality". Not being above it would mean to simultanously be beyond all duality, yet to be bound by one, which is obviously nonsense... right?
You say there are differing viewpoints, but so are for R>F automatically affecting all dimensions.

Refer to the above.

I will point out that in most cases those are only assumed to be bound to the material world due to lack of any other feats. There is no real reason for that other than not assuming they apply to things other than what they have feats for. Very similar to the reason we currently do assume any of those metaphysical things are bound to just the realm they demonstrated.

Generally speaking, we interpret "concept" as meaning the philosophical notion of a "Universal," which is to say "Abstract thing that shapes reality and is independent of the mind." Universals don't necessarily have to extend beyond the contents of the material world. I am arguing the superiority of those metaphysical things necessarily has to be greater than certain gaps, though.

If you think my reasoning results in Universals also necessarily extending beyond the contents of the material world, then you're obviously free to argue for that. I'll listen.

 

[CrimsonStarFallen]

So, dimensional jumps, huge numbers and etc. won't get past High 1-B under this proposal

Does "huge numbers" include stuff like aleph-100 billion or aleph-omega whatevers or cardinals and what not? Just wanting to make sure here.

Regardless, yeah, I agree with qualitative jumps being 1-A. I assume you reach High 1-A or 0 with "hierarchies" of qualitative jumps?

 

[Theglassman12]

After a small discussion with Ultima, I’m getting a better grasp on the new standards for R>F being 1-A, so I’m fine with the changes.

Edit: just realized the BDE stuff was also part of the changes, that I’m fine with as well.

 

[DontTalkDT]

You misunderstand me quite a bit here. I fully agree that the perfect extent of certain abilities, like Transduality for example, are completely different from even what I refer to as a qualitative superiority. Indeed, a truly transdual character can't really be said to have a "qualitative superiority" (Or even a "meta-qualitative" superiority, which is what I defined High 1-A as), because it would be above qualities to begin with. By that token, equating it to a qualitative superiority is as much of a category error as equating a qualitative superiority to a quantitative superiority.

So, if you get me a character that's essentially a perfect portrayal of Transduality, for example (Which is to say, most robust description possible with no contradictions to that status whatsoever), I'll have no issue with saying that character is Tier 0, for the same reasons I say R>F and BDE are inherently above dimensional jumps.

Largely, I just don't really think such characters are very numerous. It will happen, certainly, but not very often. So, no, I don't care much for probabilities.

So you say that you literally suggest an omnipotence tier for any characters stated to be logically omnipotent in a not explicitly contradicted way, which they can land at without any feats, which automatically makes them superior to everyone else?
What happens if these characters fight then? Vs-debates between them are just pointless as feats and showings hold no relevance at that tier?

Also I want to know what exactly the bolded part of the first thing is supposed to mean. Your wording confuses me.

The point I'm making is that there are frequent cases in fiction of people having control over a story in a fashion limited by size and scale. I.e. they frequently don't support your idea that the moment you treat the story as fiction the scale of the world in it stops mattering to the control.
Meaning you're defaulting to high-end interpretations because you personally think they are the logical way such powers should work.

I already addressed that, too:



You seem to operate on the idea that "Aspatial Nature + Unrelated AP" counts as "superiority over dimensionality."

The example is not unrelated AP. There is a direction cause and effect relationship there.

As said, though, it doesn't. Just like the character in the above hypothetical is not "Superior to Britain" due to its nature, just its external power. Similarly, you can have a character who is 3 cubic micrometers large and yet is so powerful that they can't make contact with a planet without destroying it. Are they "superior to a planet"? In terms of power, yeah. Are they superior to a planet due to their nature, though? Not really.

The Magic Gods sound like they're the same thing: They're not "superior to spacetime" in nature, just in power. If their power is identical to their nature, though, then yeah, I would consider them 1-A.

What's "power identical to their nature" even supposed to mean?

Now, could a random, contextless "superior to dimensions" statement be interpreted as what you're talking about? It could, and I do think we should watch out for cases of that, even if these proposals were to be accepted. I don't want to do away with standards of evidence entirely. I'm mostly just concerned with cases where said standards of evidence are already met.

Honestly, you have yet to present any example for what you even consider minimum evidence. It's time to do that.
As it stands you're kinda dodging the problems by just sorting out all counterexamples as not being what you mean.

I don't have to, no, as the analogy still applies. As I said so myself: Even the empty set is not truly "nothing." Using it as an illustration of how absences of things work is fairly appropriate, even if said absences don't entail absolute nothingness.

It's a bad analogy for fiction.

I have no interest in that, no. Lack of a capability to interact with a lower reality isn't an anti-feat for your superiority over it. You could have 0 power to interact with a lesser world and still be infinitely above it, of course (And I think an example of that would be a character who has a R>F Transcendence over a world, but as a reader, not an author, or something like that)

Overall, the arguments in the OP suffice. And never, at any point, did I include "X is a writer, therefore X can add anything they want to the lower world" among them.

So you acknowledge that your Tier 1-A characters from this proposal could not interact with higher dimensional space without feats, yes?

Generally speaking, we interpret "concept" as meaning the philosophical notion of a "Universal," which is to say "Abstract thing that shapes reality and is independent of the mind." Universals don't necessarily have to extend beyond the contents of the material world. I am arguing the superiority of those metaphysical things necessarily has to be greater than certain gaps, though.

If you think my reasoning results in Universals also necessarily extending beyond the contents of the material world, then you're obviously free to argue for that. I'll listen.

Since all universals are the sum total of all properties, if you do not restrict to feats, they obviously need to be above all else, as something like fiction requires the property of fiction that would come from the concept of fiction. Same with reality. Or duality for that matter.
Heck, the verse having a concept related to logic would really proof Tier 0 in your system, wouldn't it? Logic applies to any level, after all.

---

Anyway, I said I had something to say regarding your reasoning for layers and here it is: By your reasoning, until contradicted, any R>F author is not limited by R>F layers.
Why?
Say there is Character A, an author who writes about an author who is the writer of reality.
Then there is Character B, an author who writes about reality.
Is Character A superior to Character B and if yes why?
By our current system, we would say Character A is superior, because we assume that since Character B hasn't demonstrated writing about an author that writes reality he is incapable of doing so.
However, by your system, we assume that R>F can do what is logical, no? So, until contradicted, we would take it as Character B being able to actually just insert a new line in his book that reads "all of reality was actually written by Character C, for whom it was just a book".
Therefore, Character B can do what Character A can, and just hasn't done so. Hence, they are actually the same strength.

And by similar reasoning, any other number of R>F layers of difference actually don't matter until contradicted. Layers only arise as relevant distinction if you strictly bind them to not be stronger than their explicit feats.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So you say that you literally suggest an omnipotence tier for any characters stated to be logically omnipotent in a not explicitly contradicted way, which they can land at without any feats, which automatically makes them superior to everyone else?
What happens if these characters fight then? Vs-debates between them are just pointless as feats and showings hold no relevance at that tier?

"Stated to be logically omnipotent"? Well, the definitions provided to Google by the Oxford Dictionary say "omnipotence" is:

"the quality of having unlimited or very great power."

Language, obviously, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Which is to say "Words mean whatever they're used as. There aren't hard rules dictating the meaning of words that we are obliged to follow." So, this being part of the definition of "Omnipotence," I don't think all characters stated to be omnipotent or similar would qualify for the above, no.

Secondly: I am positive that, when you say "Omnipotence," you think of a different thing from what I do. Specify what you have in mind when you use the word, so I can fully answer the question.

Otherwise: Feats do indeed hold relevance. As do showings, as I've explained above. As for how VS Threads between such characters would go: Yeah, they would in fact serve not much purpose, since all characters with the properties I outlined above would be perfectly equal.

In fact, if I put undifferentiated oneness vs undifferentiated oneness, then, per verse equalization, it would seem the VS Match would treat them as if they're the same being. I see no problem with that. I mean, who cares about Tier 0 vs matches, anyway? Certainly not me. And neither should anyone.

The point I'm making is that there are frequent cases in fiction of people having control over a story in a fashion limited by size and scale. I.e. they frequently don't support your idea that the moment you treat the story as fiction the scale of the world in it stops mattering to the control.
Meaning you're defaulting to high-end interpretations because you personally think they are the logical way such powers should work.

I never really said anything about control, firstly, but about sheer superiority. Furthermore: I knew you were saying something along those lines, yeah. What I asked was: How exactly do those examples work? Your wording was a bit unclear to me.

The example is not unrelated AP. There is a direction cause and effect relationship there.

What's "power identical to their nature" even supposed to mean?

It means "Their superiority over dimensions derives directly from their undimensioned nature." In other words, their alienness and their superiority are in reality the same attribute, following that logical relation.

Think back to the hypothetical of the tiny planet-destroying character: Is its power "superior to a planet"? For sure. Is its ontological nature superior to a planet's nature? Eh, nah. They exist as much as the planet do. And in fact they're lesser than it in some aspects (Their size). I mean, this is just Qualitative Superiority 101, so the fact you're confused about the concept is weird to me.

At best, the example you gave seems like the reverse: "They're so powerful this timeline can't handle them, so they have to exist somewhere else." Which, mind you: Doesn't even sound like Beyond-Dimensional Existence of any kind to begin with.

Honestly, you have yet to present any example for what you even consider minimum evidence. It's time to do that.
As it stands you're kinda dodging the problems by just sorting out all counterexamples as not being what you mean.

The problem here is simple: You're talking about Type 1 Beyond-Dimensional Existence + AP (At best. At worst, you're talking about something that isn't even BDE). I'm talking about Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence, where the AP and the beyond-dimensional status of the character are one and the same, as explained above.

And so I'm not dodging anything, no. I already explained how what I'm talking about is already clearly mentioned in our official explanation pages (Such as the FAQ). So, let me ask you something: Do you think what you're talking about is what the FAQ is talking about when it says "Above dimensions"? If you do, then, with all due respect: You're either out of touch with these things, or you have some weird ideas about what BDE is.

It's a bad analogy for fiction.

Elaborate.

So you acknowledge that your Tier 1-A characters from this proposal could not interact with higher dimensional space without feats, yes?

Let me ask a question of my own, first: Do you agree that a lack of capability to interact with a lower plane doesn't contradict a superiority over it? By extension, do you agree that "X can't interact with Y" isn't anything showing X and Y can't be compared?

Since all universals are the sum total of all properties, if you do not restrict to feats, they obviously need to be above all else, as something like fiction requires the property of fiction that would come from the concept of fiction. Same with reality. Or duality for that matter.
Heck, the verse having a concept related to logic would really proof Tier 0 in your system, wouldn't it? Logic applies to any level, after all.

That whole point doesn't really mean much, to be honest, because an Universal could be glued to what exists in the material world. There's a whole school of thought regarding that, in fact. This isn't something we arbitrarily place lower from where it should be. It simply isn't necessarily that high even from a purely logical viewpoint.

And If Universals only encompass what exists physically, then if you transcend all Universals, you only get to transcend pretty mundane stuff: Time, Space, and etc. All of which you're already expected to be above by the time you hit 1-A under my proposals.

Of course, you could say "There are different views about R>F and BDE, too." Yeah, well, I am contesting the validity of these views. Will you contest the validity of the above schools of thought?

I also have no idea of what you mean by "A concept related to logic" or "logic applies to any level." Specify?

Anyway, I said I had something to say regarding your reasoning for layers and here it is: By your reasoning, until contradicted, any R>F author is not limited by R>F layers.
Why?
Say there is Character A, an author who writes about an author who is the writer of reality.
Then there is Character B, an author who writes about reality.
Is Character A superior to Character B and if yes why?
By our current system, we would say Character A is superior, because we assume that since Character B hasn't demonstrated writing about an author that writes reality he is incapable of doing so.
However, by your system, we assume that R>F can do what is logical, no? So, until contradicted, we would take it as Character B being able to actually just insert a new line in his book that reads "all of reality was actually written by Character C, for whom it was just a book".
Therefore, Character B can do what Character A can, and just hasn't done so. Hence, they are actually the same strength.

And by similar reasoning, any other number of R>F layers of difference actually don't matter until contradicted. Layers only arise as relevant distinction if you strictly bind them to not be stronger than their explicit feats.

Yeah, I am well aware that's what you had in mind. Put it simply: That's not really a logical consequence of my arguments, no. For example, swap "An author writing a story from a higher world" with a Plato's Cave scenario ("The world is illusory and the true reality is the world of abstract objects beyond it"), and it becomes far less obvious that this kind of transcendence implies a transcendence over all kinds of layers.

So, in short, you're not inferring that from "Sees lower worlds as fiction/unreality," but from "Is an author." Thus that's a thing you have to debate separately. You know how you often say we work with the minimum required things? I don't hold antipathy for that sentiment at all.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let me quickly address this first, since I want to know before I reply to the rest.

Let me ask a question of my own, first:
Do you agree that a lack of capability to interact with a lower plane doesn't contradict a superiority over it? By extension, do you agree that "X can't interact with Y" isn't anything showing X and Y can't be compared?

Your answer shouldn't depend on what I say about that, you know?

But yes, as you probably guessed, my next question would have been what your definition of superiority is exactly.

Like, my impression from what you say is that you essentially agree that things work like this:

If you ask me what the true state of things is, then I believe that there could be 100D characters that can't interact with some that sees the 3D universe as fiction, while there are also characters that see the universe as fiction and whose plot manipulation powers don't extend to higher D space at all, making the two beings unable to fight each other. And neither may be able to do anything against someone transdual and vice versa.
The first character basically has 100 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels, while the second one has 3 dimension levels, 1 R>F levels and 0 transduality levels and the third has 3 dimension levels, 0 R>F levels and 1 transduality levels. And technically you can not put all of them on a single scale to compare their powers.

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.

Well, maybe not in terms that you agree that we can't compare their powers, but in terms that those beings can't interact with one another.
It's just that you want to rank the non-size hierarchies above the size one, while keeping how they (do not) interact the same.

Like, if we can agree that the interactions should theoretically work like that, if we don't do any composite hierarchies, that's a pretty good first step.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Your answer shouldn't depend on what I say about that, you know?

I never said my answer depended on yours. And me asking a question doesn't indicate that.

But yes, as you probably guessed, my next question would have been what your definition of superiority is exactly.

Like, my impression from what you say is that you essentially agree that things work like this:

Well, maybe not in terms that you agree that we can't compare their powers, but in terms that those beings can't interact with one another.
It's just that you want to rank the non-size hierarchies above the size one, while keeping how they interact the same.

Like, if we can agree that the interactions should theoretically work like that, if we don't do any composite hierarchies, that's a pretty good first step

To clarify the situation, let me spin up a scenario:

Suppose you have two realms. Realm A and Realm B. Realm A is a universe much like ours, while Realm B is a transcendental place that has pretty much all of the properties we'd expect of something that fits the bill for "qualitative superiority." That is to say: Realm A is described as infinitely less than Realm B. To Realm B and its inhabitants, Realm A is literally a fiction, an illusion, something completely impotent, and nothing happening in Realm A can ever be of any consequence to Realm B because of this.

However, there's a catch: For all their infinite superiority over Realm A, the beings of Realm B can't really interact with it in any way. They can interact with each other, but not with lower realms or beings.

To me, Realm B would be Tier 1, without question. To you, though, it seems like Realm B wouldn't be able to be compared to Realm A because of its lack of ability to interact with it. Ergo, it seems that "superiority" to you hinges on the amount of control that the higher thing is able to exert over the lower. While, in my eyes, that doesn't matter in the slightest.

So while I do have an answer to your above question that's independent of whatever you say, the point is that, in my view, it's not really relevant. Whether my answer is "Yes" or "No" doesn't affect this debate at all.