On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, I would much prefer a higher diversification and specification for our highest mathematical tiers. I thought that you stated that my concerns would be accommodated in this and a few other regards that we discussed earlier, Ultima.

If my concerns are accommodated, I obviously strongly support your revision.

They will, yes. The inclusion of the above definition of Low 1-A is one step toward that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, but that seems to mash together our old tiers Low 1-A, 1-A, 1-A+, High 1-A, and 0 into a single tier.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Okay, but that seems to mash together our old tiers Low 1-A, 1-A, 1-A+, High 1-A, and 0 into a single tier.

Oh, technically the Low 1-A I proposed is just the highest possible end of the old Tier 0. The other delinerations, save the "baseline" of the old Tier 0 (Which as I told you, are basically just an extension of High 1-A and thus redundant) are something I plan on including, still. (Though that may perhaps involve a tweaking of the tier arrangements that I'm personally open to)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems fine then.

However, we still have to finish the stamina, intelligence, and range bolding project, and also initiate our massive infobox adding project at some point, and I am going on a quite long vacation soon, so applying your tiering system changes could take quite a while.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Okay. That seems fine then.

However, we still have to finish the stamina, intelligence, and range bolding project, and also initiate our massive infobox adding project at some point, and I am going on a quite long vacation soon, so applying your tiering system changes could take quite a while.

I'm fine with that. Though I expect this thread to be done in the next few days, and I also expect the follow-up thread dealing with Tier 0 to be done much more quickly than this one. Overall I think the lengthier part of these revisions will be the discussion of the applications, and how they are to be applied.

 

[Antvasima]

I still support the fundamental principle of Ultima's revision, as long as it focuses on solving my concerns about our current system that I tried to explain to Ultima and DontTalk in private.

Will it do so, Ultima?

However, as I think I have stated previously, my support is also contingent on that I receive assurances that we will keep all of our current tiering system definitions with different titles than currently, in addition to tiers for Ultima's new definitions; and I also want assurances that we take precautions by installing very good safeguard definitions so lots of characters do not reach our highest tiers via unreliable claims or statements, for example.

I also definitely do not want us to open the doors for allowing the creation of top tiered pages featuring mostly irrelevant self-insert characters such as Grant Morrison, Akira Toriyama, and otherwise. That should still be prohibited. We should focus on featuring fiction, not pretend that real world humans are omnipotent entities via their physical bodies who can go around beating up any characters that they want to. That has far too strong delusional power-tripping Suggsverse wibes for my tastes.

Well, the way I understood things previously, I was given assurances by Ultima that we would not lose the precision of our current tiers by mashing them together with each other.

I just want to make certain regarding this and the other issues of concern that I mentioned above.

Also, I want us to continue to only make exceptions to the self-insert rule if it genuinely is absolutely necessary, such as in the case of Andrew Hussie. I definitely do not want us to do a fanon mishmash that turns Grant Morrison into the supreme being of DC Comics again, for example.

The only remaining question that I would like a confirmation regarding is that we will not suddenly have to compress our current tier definitions. We need to create more tiers when your revision is eventually applied, as well as move them around a bit, rather than merge them together.

Just a reminder of our old discussion.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Just a reminder of our old discussion.

Of course, I didn't forget.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm fine with that. Though I expect this thread to be done in the next few days, and I also expect the follow-up thread dealing with Tier 0 to be done much more quickly than this one. Overall I think the lengthier part of these revisions will be the discussion of the applications, and how they are to be applied.

Okay. I do not think that it seems like a good idea to mostly iron out such important changes while I am away though.

Of course, I didn't forget.

Thank you.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Okay. I do not think that it seems like a good idea to mostly iron out such important changes while I am away though.

Thank you.

Do you mind moving this conversation to private messages, if possible? Page lengths have significantly shortened, so I don't think I want this thread to become even more cumbersome than it already is (Especially when we're at the voting stage already, where the summaries ought to be clearly visible). If so, I suggest we also delete the above conversation after moving the highlight messages to our PMs.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That "3-D to 4-D" analogy is not very good because, obviously, there is no space of "infinity-minus-one" dimensions, and you can indeed define a measure directly on the space in question. So it's not like, if you define size on an infinite-dimensional space at all, you're actually only defining it based on a lower-dimensional perspective.

You can also define the 3D Hausdorff measure directly on a 4D space. What makes it a "physical"-like definition of size is that it gives proper size estimates from that perspective, instead of essentially trying to measure volume by how much area it has, which infinite D measures tend to do.

As you know: The principle mentioned above is basically just the fact that, if you have a ball of arbitrary positive radius in infinite-dimensional space, you can also find that it's the sum of infinite balls of smaller radii. And since these balls are all of equal volume, and adding a number to itself infinite times always gives ∞, the only way to have the first ball be finite in volume is for the smaller balls to have size 0. Otherwise it has size ∞, and so do the balls inside it.

And then, of course, you can also say each ball acting as a summand of that collection is the sum of yet another infinite collection of balls, and you can say the same for each of the balls in that collection, and so on.

Trippy, for sure, but by no means a problem for us. Nor is it "physically meaningless" as far as we're concerned. It just means everything in the space is infinite, which is a far cry from something like the trivial topology, which is just mathspeak for "Let's take some set X and pretend its members and subsets don't exist. Act like X and the empty set are the only things around."

In terms of spacetime structure both appear equally arbitrary and meaningless to me.

Though the argument itself is weird, anyway. Do you think infinite-dimensional spaces have to be non-physical, or something? Given you implied that the only measures that can be had on them are ones that don't quantify physical size at all, like the probability measure (Which measures... the probability of events)

My point is that they are not what most people would imagine under a physical space. Are they physical? Matter of opinion. Should we assume they are considered in the average concept of physical space as default? Nah.

What matters is decided based on "It's a space with dimensions in it." We can chat for a while about how wacky infinite-dimensional spaces are, if you like (I don't even mean this in a deriding way, btw. Legitimately interesting topic), but ultimately it's hardly relevant if we're talking about things like "This character transcends the very quality of having dimensions at all," and things with the same result.

As said, I think they are not what people would consider physical spaces to be like. Their default inclusion in any "all dimension" considerations is in my opinion as questionable as including all topological spaces in them. (recall, both are technically "dimensional")

Alright, Agnaa and I sorted things out off-site. At this stage, there is nothing to be done save summarize our respective points and cast it to the votes. So, if you please: @DontTalkDT @Agnaa (And make it as short and sweet as possible)

So time to do a full summary for voting then? In that case, I will let you go first, as my summary inevitably has to pick up yours in parts. (Would be weird for me to pick up an aspect you don't address in your summary)
In that regard, I would ask you to include something regarding your opinion on the default nature of R>F we should assume (Y'know, the stuff regarding my last long post).
And of course outlines on which evidence lands you where and so on and so forth, as thoroughly and precisely as possible.

And I suppose we should keep the structural stuff Deagonx mentioned earlier in mind.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So time to do a full summary for voting then? In that case, I will let you go first, as my summary inevitably has to pick up yours in parts. (Would be weird for me to pick up an aspect you don't address in your summary)

Not necessarily, seeing as whatever summary I make will ultimately be a just a compressed version of the things already in the OP (Excluding the Point-Counterpoint List). And we have already had an extensive enough conversation that you can already pick up on stuff from there as well (Grath did point out that, if you feel I've misunderstood you, you can explain how, after all).

All-in-all, I will go last.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sorry, but it makes no sense for the counterpoint summary to be made before the summary of the proposal.
And your summary should really address the concerns that have been brought up during the thread. There's so much beyond the OP that has been debated.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Sorry, but it makes no sense for the counterpoint summary to be made before the summary of the proposal.
And your summary should really address the concerns that have been brought up during the thread. There's so much beyond the OP that has been debated.

I would like to have summaries of my own counterpoints to you included in my the summary of the proposal, as well. I can't exactly have that, of course, if you don't list your own counterarguments first.

Perhaps I make a summary of the proposal itself, with the arguments for it outlined, and then you make a post summarizing your own counterpoints, followed by another post by myself summarizing mine?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, you definitely have to start, as I don't want to be the one summarizing your points, for reasons that should be obvious by now - you complained the entire thread every time I did that.

Thing is, if you respond to my counterpoints, then I would want to respond to your counterpoints and we would just get into an infinite chain of replying to each other's counterpoints of counterpoints.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Thing is, if you respond to my counterpoints, then I would want to respond to your counterpoints and we would just get into an infinite chain of replying to each other's counterpoints of counterpoints.

I don't mind starting with a summary of the proposal alone, then.
That said, I'll nevertheless draw from the counterpoints you've presented in the thread up until this point (Since your counterpoint summary will ultimately just be a compressed version of those, too), same with Agnaa's. That seems to be the most sensible way of cutting off the chain, overall, and if I've misconstrued you anywhere, you can point it out in your summary.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So you mean you will include the counterpoints I made in the thread right in your first summary? I don't mind that at all. In fact, would be best if you do.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, you definitely have to start, as I don't want to be the one summarizing your points, for reasons that should be obvious by now - you complained the entire thread every time I did that.

Thing is, if you respond to my counterpoints, then I would want to respond to your counterpoints and we would just get into an infinite chain of replying to each other's counterpoints of counterpoints.

I'm surprised that after two months you two haven't been able to find the essence of your disagreement. Once you find that, it's easy to summarize both sides without needing an infinite regress of counterarguments.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm surprised that after two months you two haven't been able to find the essence of your disagreement. Once you find that, it's easy to summarize both sides without needing an infinite regress of counterarguments.

Well, not sure what to say. I would love to find those, too. Would certainly make things easier.
But, like, if I look at our last exchange, Ultima considers what I think are some of my least important arguments most relevant. It already fails at a basic step as that.

So unless we want more debate, just finding a way to summarize stuff and vote seems best.

 

[Antvasima]

Do you mind moving this conversation to private messages, if possible? Page lengths have significantly shortened, so I don't think I want this thread to become even more cumbersome than it already is (Especially when we're at the voting stage already, where the summaries ought to be clearly visible). If so, I suggest we also delete the above conversation after moving the highlight messages to our PMs.

I would prefer to not delete our public agreements regarding such important issues, but will try to minimise my interference beyond that, and do not mind if we talk in private instead.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I would prefer to not delete our public agreements regarding such important issues, but will try to minimise my interference beyond that, and do not mind if we talk in private instead.

Oh, it's fine, it doesn't really matter now anyway, since I'll post my summary pretty soon at this rate.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So, to divide it into parts:

Spoiler: Beyond Dimensions

Currently, the high-end Tiering System does two things:

• It grounds itself on mathematical dimensions. So that Low 1-C is mapped to, at minimum, 5-D space. High 1-B is mapped to infinite-dimensional space. Low 1-A is mapped to space with uncountably infinite dimensions. And so on for the rest of the tiers, including Tier 0.
• It acknowledges characters who exist entirely above spatial dimensions (Not higher-dimensional, but ontologically above dimensions entirely).

However, it also does something else: It thinks that it is fine to take those characters, who are above spatial dimensions, and equate them to some large dimensional space. So, for example, if you are above dimensions in a cosmology with 5 dimensions, you are rated as equivalent to a 6-D object. On that basis, you need infinite dimensions in your cosmology, or a statement like "Now matter how many dimensions are added, this thing will be above them," to qualify for 1-A based on such things.

And even for some more extreme statements, like "Beyond the concept of dimensions," you have a similar treatment. Here, for example, I had to make a rather elaborate argument to get a realm described as "beyond even the concept of dimensions" accepted as 1-A (Meaning that, currently, it is equated to a space with uncountably infinite dimensions)

Agnaa, in his summary above, expressed the belief that this is because statements of "Above dimensions" aren't necessarily to be interpreted as meaning something truly beyond-dimensional, and can be taken as simply referring to further higher dimensions instead, while "beings truly beyond dimensions" are 1-A. This is incorrect, as seen here:

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

for example, a character stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context.

So we currently truly do believe that characters lying above spatial dimensions altogether can be simply Low 1-C.

The reason for the above is two-fold:

• The Tiering System argues that you can be above only the dimensions that exist in your cosmology, while not being above the ones that don't, and can't exist by the verse's physics.
• It is further argued that, since infinite-dimensional spaces and above have very weird properties that differ from finite-dimensional ones, they are not to be included in "The standard concept of space/dimension." Therefore, even statements of the latter kind can be accurately gauged by equating them to transcending only spaces of finite dimension

Essentially, it boils down to a more basic principle: "Equating such things to differences in dimensionality is a valid lowball, and so in lieu of stronger evidence, we go with that lowball."

I maintain that this is nonsense, and that being above dimensions means exactly that: Being above dimensions, regardless of whether those dimensions exist in your verse or not, and regardless of whether it's a finite number of dimensions, or an infinite one. That is to say: Equating either of the above to dimensional jumps of any kind is -not- a valid lowball. Why? Well:

Firstly, we need to introduce a fact: It is, in fact, impossible to equate things with dimensions to things that have no dimensionality at all (Not even zero-dimensionality). If you have a thing that has no size and dimension, you cannot say something like "It is equivalent to the size of this cube of 3 m³ over there." It is even less possible, then, to equate things that are altogether above dimensions to things that have dimension.

Spoiler: Addendum

The only way the above might be possible is if the character is not truly above dimensions with regards to their state of existence. That is: They simply lack dimensions, and that's it. And their AP is thus derived from feats of raw destruction. It's not their non-dimensional nature that's being equated to dimensional things, in that case. We're just rating them based on their feats of affecting dimensional things, which is, of course, fine.

It might be possible to interpret sufficiently vague "Beyond dimensions" statements as the above, though, which I've acknowledged here before as a possibility worth considering during evaluations, but which ultimately doesn't hurt the principle of the proposals at all.

And when I mean "Above dimensions," I mean in the sense of, for example: A void of nonexistence that's entirely without dimensions (Whether spatial, temporal or... otherwise), and which is simultaneously depicted as dwarfing and encompassing all of dimensional space. Another example would be characters who are superior to the basic phenomenon of spatial differentiation itself; for example, God from Unsong at one point has this exchange:

“TELL ME, JOB, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR RIGHT AND LEFT HANDS?”

“Uh…one is on my right, and the other is on my left. And they’re mirror images of each other.”

“I AM BEYOND SPACE. TO ME THERE IS NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT NOR MIRRORED REFLECTION. IF TWO THINGS ARE THE SAME, THEY ARE ONE THING. IF I CREATED TWO PERFECT UNIVERSES, I WOULD ONLY HAVE CREATED ONE UNIVERSE. IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE A UNIVERSE FROM THE PERFECT UNIVERSE, IT MUST BE DIFFERENT IN ITS SEED, ITS SECRET UNDERLYING STRUCTURE.”

So, those things aren't just a matter of "They lack dimensions and also happen to have the raw power to blow up all the dimensions in their verse" No, they are ontologically above space and dimension itself. They transcend the very phenomenon of "Points in space marking separate locations."
It would not be possible, for example, for them to have that power drained from them, or partitioned, or anything of that like, because it's not some energy inside of them, it's just their existence itself. Might as well ask any of us if we could just cease to exist if we wanted to. Which is to say: Their superiority over dimensions (Some non-dimensional analogue of "size" by which they are 'bigger' than dimensions) springs from their lack of dimensions, to begin with.

And this also gets into one of the objections against these proposals: That, technically, all we are doing is equating the "power" of these things to dimensional spaces, not their "size," and that therefore no incoherence is being committed. I find this a rather poor answer, since for the above cases, the "size" of those things would itself be their power. As such, comparisons between those things would be as good as the statement in the cube analogy I've made above (Which is to say, nonsense).

Furthermore, "power" in the current Tiering System is really just grounded on the size of the space which you can affect, and that is, itself, grounded on dimensions and volumes. So it all circles back to dimensional size, in the end, and if something is above that, you cannot equate the two.

Now, we've established what it is, and that equalizing it to a dimensional difference is impossible. For the reason I hold that it should be considered above any dimensions whatsoever (Finite or infinite, physically existent or not, etc), I refer to this explanation I've made, which also serves as a reductio ad absurdum applied to the claims which the Tiering System makes.

Why "Beyond the concept of dimensions" ought to be treated as such draws from the above, and has the advantage of being a little.more obvious on what it means. For that, I refer to this explanation instead, which boils down to: If you transcend the idea, the definition, the notion, the quality of "dimension" itself, then you are, definitionally, above any spaces of any amount of dimensions. Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 4 or 6 or aleph_2 or an inaccessible cardinal.

As noted before, the argument against this is basically that infinite-dimensional spaces have weird properties that differ them quite a bit from finite-dimensional spaces, and that as such, they would operate outside of the standard concept of "space" and "dimension." That's simply not true, though: Weird as they are, they still are spaces with dimensions in them, and therefore fall under the basic definition of "dimensionality" all the same.

To draw from the hypothetical I used to explain the previous point: Saying this is like if you had a verse with an atom-sized cosmology, and a character pulled up saying "I am above the very concept of size and dimensions," and then you reasoned that, since the physics of atoms (Quantum mechanics) are completely different from the physics of planets (Relativity), you can't possibly say that the character is above a planet, even if they transcend the concept of size and dimension itself. Which is frankly silly and borders on a non-sequitur.

Of course, "transcend the notion of dimensions" includes "transcending dimensions" (And I'd in fact argue that there is no real distinction to be found between the two in an ordinary case, for reasons you can find in the post linked next to the screenshots above), so everything that's said of the latter applies to the former. So this part of the argument should be taken in combination with the earlier one, and not seen isolatedly from it.

I imagine another possible objection would be that concepts can be existentially limited to whatever physically exists in your verse's cosmology. That's not really true: If, by "concept," you mean the very definition, essence and intension of a term (As said: Xness, as opposed to merely X), saying it is limited only to what physically exists is fundamentally nonsensical for reasons already explained in the screenshots above, which also outline the inherent absurdities that come about if one wishes to make this treatment of them into a default thing.
Of course, people also seem to have this idea that a "concept" is some nebulous non-physical "thing" that permeates reality and is also emergent from it in some way (Which is what most characters with Abstract Existence are, at the end of the day). That, in fact, is a non-standard definition of a concept, and would in fact be a case where "concept" does not mean "The intension of a term" or "The quality of being X," which is the relevant definition for this argument. (But as I've explained in the screenshots above, and the post linked next to it, transcending the extension of the term "dimension" necessarily means transcending the intension, as well, so the point is unchanged)

As such, the proposal is that being above dimensionality in the senses described above is indeed being above any cardinal number of dimensions whatsoever, and in fact above our current definition of Tier 0.
Due to the logistical problems with applying that while keeping 0 the highest tier, I maintain we should knock down cardinal number spaces in general to below the 1-A range, and make it the recipient for superiorities of a more truly "qualitative" degree (As in, hinging wholly on existential quality, not quantity, as dimensions do)

Spoiler: Reality-Fiction Transcendence

Here is another thing that the Tiering System does: It accepts the existence of characters with Reality-Fiction Transcendence, which is to say, characters that see things as being literally fictional to them, and as such infinitely below themselves. To quote the page:

Reality-Fiction Transcendence is a state where a being is qualitatively superior to another world, as a result of seeing the world as fiction and thus being more 'real' than said world. Due to this, the character will be treated as completely superior to the cosmology it transcends, and all characters limited to it, and will thus be granted a higher tier.

For example, if a character were to view an entire space-time continuum as fiction, they would be superior to such an extent that finite, or even basic infinite, differences in power cannot overcome their superiority. Thus, they would be treated as more than infinitely greater, such as in this case Low 1-C. The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity.

In order to qualify they must view the world as a some actual form of 'fiction', i.e. to them what happens in the fiction is not real and of no physical consequence to their being and also otherwise is of no greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human. However, the medium in which they view the world as fiction generally does not matter, as it being fiction is enough for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence to be considered.

The current System, of course, also equates that to the addition of one more dimension, for the same principle as above: "It is a valid lowball for the concept, and so in lieu of more evidence, we go with the lowball."

Yeah, so, It's not really a valid lowball here, either: Reality-Fiction Transcendence essentially operates on the idea that the lower plane is not real to you, and thus utterly incapable of harming you on account of its unreality (Which also means that, as said on the page, the gap between the two is "strictly one of quality, not quantity").
Equating this to a dimensional jump is erroneous because, ultimately, an object of n dimensions and an object of n+1 dimensions are equally real. An object of finite dimensions and an object of infinite dimensions are equally real, too. An object of infinite dimensions and an object of uncountably infinite dimensions are, in fact, also equally real.

They're ontologically not on different levels at all, and as such being ontologically above even a single one of those does, in fact, mean you are above them all. Consider the reverse case: A cube, a square, a line and a point are all equally real. Thus being on a lower ontological level than any single one of them likewise means you're beneath them all.

Now, why exactly do I say that they're "equally real," or "ontologically in the same level"? Well, because there's a continuity between them; they're all composed of each other. A line is composed of points, a square is composed of lines, a cube is composed of squares. Spacetime is composed of 3-D cross-sections, each of which is one instant of the universe. Even infinite-dimensional space is really just the sum of all spaces of dimension n where n is any natural number.

And you can, of course, see this by adding together very large numbers of universes: If you had uncountably infinite 4-D universes, you'd be able to fill a 5-D volume (You'd have a Low 1-C multiverse). If you had an inaccessible cardinal's worth of universes, you'd be able to fill a space with an inaccessible cardinal's worth of dimensions (You'd have a High 1-A multiverse). And so on.

Bottom line is: All those spaces, no matter how impressively large in dimensionality they may be, still see smaller things as existent parts of themselves, regardless of how minuscule those parts are. A 3-D universe would still be material in 4-D space, if only minutely so, and the same applies to all higher dimensionalities. Contrast that, then, with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Reality is not the sum of a bunch of fictional things, nor can it be expressed as such. To go from fiction to reality is a total discrete jump that doesn't have the element of continuity described above at all. It's not an extension of physical reality, as dimensional expansions are, but something altogether above it.

This might be tempting to associate with a Finite vs Infinity relation, where infinity can't be gotten from summing up finite things, but it's not at all the same: An infinite thing can be gotten if you have an infinite amount of finite things. So even an infinite thing is, nevertheless, a composite of things that individually are smaller than itself. Even infinite sets still have finite subsets. Reality has no fictional portion of itself, though.

And that's something you clearly see in a lot of cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Most of the time, the "higher world" in question is a realm of existence that's 3-D from its own point of view. while the lower fictional plane has fully-fledged higher-dimensional objects like spacetimes and whatnot. Makes very little sense to say, then, that there's any continuity between the two worlds in the manner described above. In that case, the two layers have separate sets of dimensions, and thus can't really be related by dimensional gaps at all.

In fact, given the above detail (That something a R>F layer below reality would in fact have to be below even 0-D things), a lower R>F layer would be better likened to the empty set (∅), as in mathematics, it is indeed the only thing you can say is "less" than a 0-D point.
And as it turns out, you can't multiply the empty set by something to get a non-empty set. If you try to do ∅ x κ where κ is any non-0 cardinal whatsoever (Finite, infinite, uncountably infinite. You name it), your result will always be ∅ itself.

As such, I maintain that Reality-Fiction Transcendence should likewise be above any and all dimensional differences. It, too, will be part of the new 1-A tiers being proposed here, which as mentioned before will be largely for superiorities that are strictly "qualitative," rather than quantitative.

Now, full disclosure: A misunderstanding arose earlier that seemed to suggest I want to rate Reality-Fiction Transcendence based on "How it is in real life." That is not true. In fact, I would say that such a thing doesn't really exist (Because R>F Transcendence does not exist IRL. The fictional works we make are not "lower worlds")

That said: A question that arose before is with regards to how much validity is there in equating different types of qualitative superiority. For example, there seems to be no obvious connection between Beyond-Dimensional Existence and R>F Transcendence, so isn't equating the two as much of an error as equating either of those two to dimensional differences?
The answer to that is: As of recently, Reality-Fiction Transcendences and Beyond-Dimensional Existences are, strictly speaking, not being equated at all. As explained here, the latter finds its first stop in the proposed Tier Low 1-A. Reality-Fiction Transcendences necessarily include BDE, but BDE alone is not a sufficient justification for equality to a R>F Transcendence.

(Most verses with BDE realms will accidentally define them in ways that make it so they're equal to R>F realms, anyway, but conceptually, the above is still true)

This applies upwards, as well. For instance, I proposed a High 1-A tier for superiorities that are fundamentally above qualitative transcendences, just like those are fundamentally above quantitative gaps. So the proposals do, in fact, include several mechanisms to prevent (Or at the very least minimize) the same false equivalences done by the current Tiering System.

Another objection given to the above is whether all cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence actually meet the above requirements. Essentially arguing that what I am outlining above is, in fact, a very high-end interpretation of the concept and not at all what should be defaulted to. This has some merit but ultimately is flawed at the core, as well, namely because:

1. The Reality-Fiction Transcendence page already outlines it as something completely separate from quantitative gaps ("The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity."), which dimensions are included in, and so quantitative interpretations of Reality-Fiction Transcendence are, in fact, simply not Reality-Fiction Transcendence, even if they look the same.

2. I am not arbitrarily baking "Is above all possible dimensional differences" into the definition of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in the above arguments. I am outlining a set of properties and then concluding that from these properties. Premise and conclusion are not to be conflated here.

But... with that said, I've come to realize that people indeed take Reality-Fiction Transcendence far, far more lightly than I do, presumably because the association with something as meager as a dimensional jump has led them to become unconcerned with what the concept of it entails.

Before writing this summary, I took the time to do some digging and found that some characters are currently accepted as holding a Reality-Fiction Transcendence over a reality due to some pieces of evidence that are rather underwhelming. These profiles, for instance, treat purely visual depictions of characters viewing reality as TV channels, or a film, as gameboards, as evidence of R>F.

As I've said before, I more or less completely reject the usage of such things as primary evidence for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Those would be relegated to being supplementary evidence, at best, but alone would never suffice. And as has already been said, I likewise have very little sympathy for gag feats and the like.

As for what would qualify, a list of questions one should ask themself is:

• Does the higher world actually see the lower world as something immaterial, and insubstantial? Is there any continuity between it and the lower world, as there is with higher and lower-dimensional spaces, or even with finite and infinite things? Can there be?
• Is this actually being depicted as a matter of power, or, more precisely, something analogous to "size"?
• Can lesser existences unexplainedly interact or potentially interact with the higher existences, on their own, without any external (Or otherwise anomalous) assistance at play?

The first one finds itself more easily apparent in the more "mystical" or "metaphysical" instances of R>F Transcendence. For example, in cosmologies where the universe is defined as being illusory, and there is a "more real" reality existing above it. Chronicles of Narnia is a good example of a such thing (Drawing from the concept of the Platonic Cave), and so is this scene from Persona 2: Eternal Punishment.
Here you see that, by "illusion," what's needed is not something like the Matrix, which is really just a virtual space created by manipulations ultimately rooted in physical things (Brain electricity and etc, meaning the illusion is in fact just as "real" as the world behind it). What's needed is the world, itself, being devoid of substance (Existence) to a higher reality, even if it nevertheless has some mode of existence of its own.

For an illustrative example of this, take this scene from Mike Carey's The Unwritten as a reference point, where the Leviathan is described as "too real" and "too solid" compared to the world below it. Another way to think of it is to picture the following: A character with Nonexistent Physiology, except their nonexistence is depicted as making them intrinsically inferior to things that exist. That's how a character with a R>F Transcendence ought to see things below themselves.

For more ordinary forms of R>F, this would in turn be inferred by asking yourself yet another question: Is this higher world, quite literally, just a "real world"? Are those characters just people? Authors and readers and consumers of media? Are they not just cosmic entities being non-literally portrayed as such? An example of a verse where the answer to this is "Yes" would be, again, The Unwritten, and the very image of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence article should give one a pretty good initial idea of what's expected from this type of R>F. Though, mind you: You can be simultaneously a literal author and a genuine cosmic entity. These two are not mutually exclusive deals at all.

This could be asked of beings who dream realities into existence, too. For example, one such character that would most certainly never qualify for a genuine Reality-Fiction Transcendence is the One Being from Mortal Kombat, who is stated to create reality with its dreams, and yet also is reality: The realms composing the universe are splintered fragments of it. Suggesting that its dreaming stuff is no Reality-Fiction Transcendence at all, and in fact just a feat of Subjective Reality.

The second one is straightforward, and is only really a factor in the second forms of R>F described above: Is the "real world" really being depicted as something transcendentally powerful, compared to the fictional reality? A good example of what I mean by this would be this scene from Final Crisis: Superman Beyond, where Superman reaches out to try and grasp what is implied to be the reader of the comic, and describes it as "something immense beyond understanding." The Luminous Being from Dungeons and Dragons would be yet another instance of this.

In contrast, there can be characters who are depicted as literal authors and so on, but whose exact relationship with the fictional world is... vague, at best. In many such cases, you could very well interpret them as simply living externally to these worlds, and as having control over them, not involving total ontological transcendence at all. In which case, they'd be similar to the example of the One Being given above, simply swap dreams with books or whatever you like.

The third one is just as important as the above two, and in most cases will probably be what makes or breaks whether your R>F Transcendence is 1-A or not: Are beings from the fictional reality interacting with the "real world" despite having no business doing that? As an example: In Bravely Default, the real world is an actual important plot-point, referred to as the "Celestial Realm" where the gods live. It appears to be very much a literal real world, so much so that, at the end of the game, the 3DS camera turns on and projects the player's face over the background as a showcase of the Celestial Realm. Furthermore, the characters are referred to as lesser beings compared to the Celestials, who as said before, are also "gods" to them.

So, that seems to have a good case for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, right? No, not really, because a plot-point in the game is also that the villain, Ouroboros, hatched a scheme to link together a bunch of alternate universes, in the hopes of consuming them and, in doing so, increase his power enough to breach into the Celestial Realm. That implies continuity between the higher world and the lower one in the sense described above, which is, of course, unacceptable. Another example would be this, which, of course, dispenses all explanation.

Of course, given the above-mentioned factors, such things would have to be very definitely explained in a revised version of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page. As has been said: Not everything that looks like R>F is R>F in a genuine sense (Including many things we currently accept as sufficing for it), and so I would very much like to note that down.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So, to divide it into parts:

Spoiler: Beyond Dimensions

Currently, the high-end Tiering System does two things:

• It grounds itself on mathematical dimensions. So that Low 1-C is mapped to, at minimum, 5-D space. High 1-B is mapped to infinite-dimensional space. Low 1-A is mapped to space with uncountably infinite dimensions. And so on for the rest of the tiers, including Tier 0.
• It acknowledges characters who exist entirely above spatial dimensions (Not higher-dimensional, but ontologically above dimensions entirely).

However, it also does something else: It thinks that it is fine to take those characters, who are above spatial dimensions, and equate them to some large dimensional space. So, for example, if you are above dimensions in a cosmology with 5 dimensions, you are rated as equivalent to a 6-D object. On that basis, you need infinite dimensions in your cosmology, or a statement like "Now matter how many dimensions are added, this thing will be above them," to qualify for 1-A based on such things.

And even for some more extreme statements, like "Beyond the concept of dimensions," you have a similar treatment. Here, for example, I had to make a rather elaborate argument to get a realm described as "beyond even the concept of dimensions" accepted as 1-A (Meaning that, currently, it is equated to a space with uncountably infinite dimensions)

The reason for the above is two-fold:

• The Tiering System argues that you can be above only the dimensions that exist in your cosmology, while not being above the ones that don't, and can't exist by the verse's physics.
• It is further argued that, since infinite-dimensional spaces and above have very weird properties that differ from finite-dimensional ones, they are not to be included in "The standard concept of space/dimension." Therefore, even statements of the latter kind can be accurately gauged by equating them to transcending only spaces of finite dimension

Essentially, it boils down to a more basic principle: "Equating such things to differences in dimensionality is a valid lowball, and so in lieu of stronger evidence, we go with that lowball."

I maintain that this is nonsense, and that being above dimensions means exactly that: Being above dimensions, regardless of whether those dimensions exist in your verse or not, and regardless of whether it's a finite number of dimensions, or an infinite one. That is to say: Equating either of the above to dimensional jumps of any kind is -not- a valid lowball. Why? Well:

Firstly, we need to introduce a fact: It is, in fact, impossible to equate things with dimensions to things that have no dimensionality at all (Not even zero-dimensionality). If you have a thing that has no size and dimension, you cannot say something like "It is equivalent to the size of this cube of 3 m³ over there." It is even less possible, then, to equate things that are altogether above dimensions to things that have dimension.

Spoiler: Addendum

The only way the above might be possible is if the character is not truly above dimensions with regards to their state of existence. That is: They simply lack dimensions, and that's it. And their AP is thus derived from feats of raw destruction. It's not their non-dimensional nature that's being equated to dimensional things, in that case. We're just rating them based on their feats of affecting dimensional things, which is, of course, fine.

It might be possible to interpret sufficiently vague "Beyond dimensions" statements as the above, though, which I've acknowledged here before as a possibility worth considering during evaluations, but which ultimately doesn't hurt the principle of the proposals at all.

And when I mean "Above dimensions," I mean in the sense of, for example: A void of nonexistence that's entirely without dimensions (Whether spatial, temporal or... otherwise), and which is simultaneously depicted as dwarfing and encompassing all of dimensional space. Another example would be characters who are superior to the basic phenomenon of spatial differentiation itself; for example, God from Unsong at one point has this exchange:



So, those things aren't just a matter of "They lack dimensions and also happen to have the raw power to blow up all the dimensions in their verse" No, they are ontologically above space and dimension itself. They transcend the very phenomenon of "Points in space marking separate locations."
It would not be possible, for example, for them to have that power drained from them, or partitioned, or anything of that like, because it's not some energy inside of them, it's just their existence itself. Might as well ask any of us if we could just cease to exist if we wanted to. Which is to say: Their superiority over dimensions (Some non-dimensional analogue of "size" by which they are 'bigger' than dimensions) springs from their lack of dimensions, to begin with.

And this also gets into one of the objections against these proposals: That, technically, all we are doing is equating the "power" of these things to dimensional spaces, not their "size," and that therefore no incoherence is being committed. I find this a rather poor answer, since for the above cases, the "size" of those things would itself be their power. As such, comparisons between those things would be as good as the statement in the cube analogy I've made above (Which is to say, nonsense).

Furthermore, "power" in the current Tiering System is really just grounded on the size of the space which you can affect, and that is, itself, grounded on dimensions and volumes. So it all circles back to dimensional size, in the end, and if something is above that, you cannot equate the two.

Now, we've established what it is, and that equalizing it to a dimensional difference is impossible. For the reason I hold that it should be considered above any dimensions whatsoever (Finite or finite, physically existent or not, etc), I refer to this explanation I've made, which also serves as a reductio ad absurdum applied to the claims which the Tiering System makes.

Why "Beyond the concept of dimensions" ought to be treated as such draws from the above, and has the advantage of being a little.more obvious on what it means. For that, I refer to this explanation instead, which boils down to: If you transcend the idea, the definition, the notion, the quality of "dimension" itself, then you are, definitionally, above any spaces of any amount of dimensions. Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 4 or 6 or aleph_2 or an inaccessible cardinal.

As noted before, the argument against this is basically that infinite-dimensional spaces have weird properties that differ them quite a bit from finite-dimensional spaces, and that as such, they would operate outside of the standard concept of "space" and "dimension." That's simply not true, though: Weird as they are, they still are spaces with dimensions in them, and therefore fall under the basic definition of "dimensionality" all the same.

To draw from the hypothetical I used to explain the previous point: Saying this is like if you had a verse with an atom-sized cosmology, and a character pulled up saying "I am above the very concept of size and dimensions," and then you reasoned that, since the physics of atoms (Quantum mechanics) are completely different from the physics of planets (Relativity), you can't possibly say that the character is above a planet, even if they transcend the concept of size and dimension itself. Which is frankly silly and borders on a non-sequitur.

Of course, "transcend the notion of dimensions" includes "transcending dimensions" (And I'd in fact argue that there is no real distinction to be found between the two in an ordinary case, for reasons you can find in the post linked next to the screenshots above), so everything that's said of the latter applies to the former. So this part of the argument should be taken in combination with the earlier one, and not seen isolatedly from it.

I imagine another possible objection would be that concepts can be existentially limited to whatever physically exists in your verse's cosmology. That's not really true: If, by "concept," you mean the very definition, essence and intension of a term (As said: Xness, as opposed to merely X), saying it is limited only to what physically exists is fundamentally nonsensical for reasons already explained in the screenshots above, which also outline the inherent absurdities that come about if one wishes to make this treatment of them into a default thing.
Of course, people also seem to have this idea that a "concept" is some nebulous non-physical "thing" that permeates reality and is also emergent from it in some way (Which is what most characters with Abstract Existence are, at the end of the day). That, in fact, is a non-standard definition of a concept, and would in fact be a case where "concept" does not mean "The intension of a term" or "The quality of being X," which is the relevant definition for this argument.

As such, the proposal is that being above dimensionality in the senses described above is indeed being above any cardinal number of dimensions whatsoever, and in fact above our current definition of Tier 0.
Due to the logistical problems with applying that while keeping 0 the highest tier, I maintain we should knock down cardinal number spaces in general to below the 1-A range, and make it the recipient for superiorities of a more truly "qualitative" degree (As in, hinging wholly on existential quality, not quantity, as dimensions do)

Spoiler: Reality-Fiction Transcendence

Here is another thing that the Tiering System does: It accepts the existence of characters with Reality-Fiction Transcendence, which is to say, characters that see things as being literally fictional to them, and as such infinitely below themselves. To quote the page:





The current System, of course, also equates that to the addition of one more dimension, for the same principle as above: "It is a valid lowball for the concept, and so in lieu of more evidence, we go with the lowball."

Yeah, so, It's not really a valid lowball here, either: Reality-Fiction Transcendence essentially operates on the idea that the lower plane is not real to you, and thus utterly incapable of harming you on account of its unreality (Which also means that, as said on the page, the gap between the two is "strictly one of quality, not quantity").
Equating this to a dimensional jump is erroneous because, ultimately, an object of n dimensions and an object of n+1 dimensions are equally real. An object of finite dimensions and an object of infinite dimensions are equally real, too. An object of infinite dimensions and an object of uncountably infinite dimensions are, in fact, also equally real.

They're ontologically not on different levels at all, and as such being ontologically above even a single one of those does, in fact, mean you are above them all. Consider the reverse case: A cube, a square, a line and a point are all equally real. Thus being on a lower ontological level than any single one of them likewise means you're beneath them all.

Now, why exactly do I say that they're "equally real," or "ontologically in the same level"? Well, because there's a continuity between them; they're all composed of each other. A line is composed of points, a square is composed of lines, a cube is composed of squares. Spacetime is composed of 3-D cross-sections, each of which is one instant of the universe. Even infinite-dimensional space is really just the sum of all spaces of dimension n where n is any natural number.

And you can, of course, see this by adding together very large numbers of universes: If you had uncountably infinite 4-D universes, you'd be able to fill a 5-D volume (You'd have a Low 1-C multiverse). If you had an inaccessible cardinal's worth of universes, you'd be able to fill a space with an inaccessible cardinal's worth of dimensions (You'd have a High 1-A multiverse). And so on.

Bottom line is: All those spaces, no matter how impressively large in dimensionality they may be, still see smaller things as existent parts of themselves, regardless of how minuscule those parts are. A 3-D universe would still be material in 4-D space, if only minutely so, and the same applies to all higher dimensionalities. Contrast that, then, with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Reality is not the sum of a bunch of fictional things, nor can it be expressed as such. To go from fiction to reality is a total discrete jump that doesn't have the element of continuity described above at all. It's not an extension of physical reality, as dimensional expansions are, but something altogether above it.

This might be tempting to associate with a Finite vs Infinity relation, where infinity can't be gotten from summing up finite things, but it's not at all the same: An infinite thing can be gotten if you have an infinite amount of finite things. So even an infinite thing is, nevertheless, a composite of things that individually are smaller than itself. Even infinite sets still have finite subsets. Reality has no fictional portion of itself, though.

And that's something you clearly see in a lot of cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Most of the time, the "higher world" in question is a realm of existence that's 3-D from its own point of view. while the lower fictional plane has fully-fledged higher-dimensional objects like spacetimes and whatnot. Makes very little sense to say, then, that there's any continuity between the two worlds in the manner described above. In that case, the two layers have separate sets of dimensions, and thus can't really be related by dimensional gaps at all.

In fact, given the above detail (That something a R>F layer below reality would in fact have to be below even 0-D things), a lower R>F layer would be better likened to the empty set (∅), as in mathematics, it is indeed the only thing you can say is "less" than a 0-D point.
And as it turns out, you can't multiply the empty set by something to get a non-empty set. If you try to do ∅ x κ where κ is any non-0 cardinal whatsoever (Finite, infinite, uncountably infinite. You name it), your result will always be ∅ itself.

As such, I maintain that Reality-Fiction Transcendence should likewise be above any and all dimensional differences. It, too, will be part of the new 1-A tiers being proposed here, which as mentioned before will be largely for superiorities that are strictly "qualitative," rather than quantitative.

Now, full disclosure: A misunderstanding arose earlier that seemed to suggest I want to rate Reality-Fiction Transcendence based on "How it is in real life." That is not true. In fact, I would say that such a thing doesn't really exist (Because R>F Transcendence does not exist IRL. The fictional works we make are not "lower worlds")

That said: A question that arose before is with regards to how much validity is there in equating different types of qualitative superiority. For example, there seems to be no obvious connection between Beyond-Dimensional Existence and R>F Transcendence, so isn't equating the two as much of an error as equating either of those two to dimensional differences?
The answer to that is: As of recently, Reality-Fiction Transcendences and Beyond-Dimensional Existences are, strictly speaking, not being equated at all. As explained here, the latter finds its first stop in the proposed Tier Low 1-A. Reality-Fiction Transcendences necessarily include BDE, but BDE alone is not a sufficient justification for equality to a R>F Transcendence.

(Most verses with BDE realms will accidentally define them in ways that make it so they're equal to R>F realms, anyway, but conceptually, the above is still true)

This applies upwards, as well. For instance, I proposed a High 1-A tier for superiorities that are fundamentally above qualitative transcendences, just like those are fundamentally above quantitative gaps. So the proposals do, in fact, include several mechanisms to prevent (Or at the very least minimize) the same false equivalences done by the current Tiering System.

Another objection given to the above is whether all cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence actually meet the above requirements. Essentially arguing that what I am outlining above is, in fact, a very high-end interpretation of the concept and not at all what should be defaulted to. This has some merit but ultimately is flawed at the core, as well, namely because:

1. The Reality-Fiction Transcendence page already outlines it as something completely separate from quantitative gaps ("The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity."), which dimensions are included in, and so quantitative interpretations of Reality-Fiction Transcendence are, in fact, simply not Reality-Fiction Transcendence, even if they look the same.

2. I am not arbitrarily baking "Is above all possible dimensional differences" into the definition of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in the above arguments. I am outlining a set of properties and then concluding that from these properties. Premise and conclusion are not to be conflated here.

But... with that said, I've come to realize that people indeed take Reality-Fiction Transcendence far, far more lightly than I do, presumably because the association with something as meager as a dimensional jump has led them to become unconcerned with what the concept of it entails.

Before writing this summary, I took the time to do some digging and found that some characters are currently accepted as holding a Reality-Fiction Transcendence over a reality due to some pieces of evidence that are rather underwhelming. These profiles, for instance, treat purely visual depictions of characters viewing reality as TV channels, or a film, as gameboards, as evidence of R>F.

As I've said before, I more or less completely reject the usage of such things as primary evidence for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Those would be relegated to being supplementary evidence, at best, but alone would never suffice. And as has already been said, I likewise have very little sympathy for gag feats and the like.

As for what would qualify, a list of questions one should ask themself is:

• Does the higher world actually see the lower world as something immaterial, and insubstantial? Is there any continuity between it and the lower world, as there is with higher and lower-dimensional spaces, or even with finite and infinite things? Can there be?
• Is this actually being depicted as a matter of power, or, more precisely, something analogous to "size"?
• Can lesser existences unexplainedly interact or potentially interact with the higher existences, on their own, without any external (Or otherwise anomalous) assistance at play?

The first one finds itself more easily apparent in the more "mystical" or "metaphysical" instances of R>F Transcendence. For example, in cosmologies where the universe is defined as being illusory, and there is a "more real" reality existing above it. Chronicles of Narnia is a good example of a such thing (Drawing from the concept of the Platonic Cave), and so is this scene from Persona 2: Eternal Punishment.
Here you see that, by "illusion," what's needed is not something like the Matrix, which is really just a virtual space created by manipulations ultimately rooted in physical things (Brain electricity and etc, meaning the illusion is in fact just as "real" as the world behind it). What's needed is the world, itself, being devoid of substance (Existence) to a higher reality, even if it nevertheless has some mode of existence of its own.

For more ordinary forms of R>F, this would in turn be inferred by asking yourself yet another question: Is this higher world, quite literally, just a "real world"? Are those characters just people? Authors and readers and consumers of media? Are they not just cosmic entities being non-literally portrayed as such? An example of a verse where the answer to this is "Yes" would be The Unwritten, and the very image of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence article should give one a pretty good initial idea of what's expected from this type of R>F. Though, mind you: You can be simultaneously a literal author and a genuine cosmic entity. These two are not mutually exclusive deals at all.

This could be asked of beings who dream realities into existence, too. For example, one such character that would most certainly never qualify for a genuine Reality-Fiction Transcendence is the One Being from Mortal Kombat, who is stated to create reality with its dreams, and yet also is reality: The realms composing the universe are splintered fragments of it. Suggesting that its dreaming stuff is no Reality-Fiction Transcendence at all, and in fact just a feat of Subjective Reality.

The second one is straightforward, and is only really a factor in the second forms of R>F described above: Is the "real world" really being depicted as something transcendentally powerful, compared to the fictional reality? A good example of what I mean by this would be this scene from Final Crisis: Superman Beyond, where Superman reaches out to try and grasp what is implied to be the reader of the comic, and describes it as "something immense beyond understanding." The Luminous Being from Dungeons and Dragons would be yet another instance of this.

In contrast, there can be characters who are depicted as literal authors and so on, but whose exact relationship with the fictional world is... vague, at best. In many such cases, you could very well interpret them as simply living externally to these worlds, and as having control over them, not involving total ontological transcendence at all. In which case, they'd be similar to the example of the One Being given above, simply swap dreams with books or whatever you like.

The third one is just as important as the above two, and in most cases will probably be what makes or breaks whether your R>F Transcendence is 1-A or not: Are beings from the fictional reality interacting with the "real world" despite having no business doing that? As an example: In Bravely Default, the real world is an actual important plot-point, referred to as the "Celestial Realm" where the gods live. It appears to be very much a literal real world, so much so that, at the end of the game, the 3DS camera turns on and projects the player's face over the background as a showcase of the Celestial Realm. Furthermore, the characters are referred to as lesser beings compared to the Celestials, who as said before, are also "gods" to them.

So, that seems to have a good case for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, right? No, not really, because a plot-point in the game is also that the villain, Ouroboros, hatched a scheme to link together a bunch of alternate universes, in the hopes of consuming them and, in doing so, increase his power enough to breach into the Celestial Realm. That implies continuity between the higher world and the lower one in the sense described above, which is, of course, unacceptable. Another example would be this, which, of course, dispenses all explanation.

Of course, given the above-mentioned factors, such things would have to be very definitely explained in a revised version of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page. As has been said: Not everything that looks like R>F is R>F in a genuine sense (Including many things we currently accept as sufficing for it), and so I would very much like to note that down.

By the by, I notice that I may have left some things potentially open-ended, so, to the people who will come here to vote: If you've any questions about the above proposals, put them out here and I'll answer (When all the summaries are ready and the voting actually starts, of course). Hopefully my responses help you make up your mind about these revisions.

This thread, alone, is also better left to tackle the basic concept of "Qualitative superiorities are always above any and all quantitative superiorities. Here's how you qualify for them." That said, for the sake of full transparency, here is a view of what I plan to cover in the thread following this one, should it be accepted.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that was a great summary, Ultima. I obviously strongly agree with you. Thank you.

Tell us here when we should summon the other administrators for voting.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, to divide it into parts:

Spoiler: Beyond Dimensions

Currently, the high-end Tiering System does two things:

• It grounds itself on mathematical dimensions. So that Low 1-C is mapped to, at minimum, 5-D space. High 1-B is mapped to infinite-dimensional space. Low 1-A is mapped to space with uncountably infinite dimensions. And so on for the rest of the tiers, including Tier 0.
• It acknowledges characters who exist entirely above spatial dimensions (Not higher-dimensional, but ontologically above dimensions entirely).

However, it also does something else: It thinks that it is fine to take those characters, who are above spatial dimensions, and equate them to some large dimensional space. So, for example, if you are above dimensions in a cosmology with 5 dimensions, you are rated as equivalent to a 6-D object. On that basis, you need infinite dimensions in your cosmology, or a statement like "Now matter how many dimensions are added, this thing will be above them," to qualify for 1-A based on such things.

And even for some more extreme statements, like "Beyond the concept of dimensions," you have a similar treatment. Here, for example, I had to make a rather elaborate argument to get a realm described as "beyond even the concept of dimensions" accepted as 1-A (Meaning that, currently, it is equated to a space with uncountably infinite dimensions)

The reason for the above is two-fold:

• The Tiering System argues that you can be above only the dimensions that exist in your cosmology, while not being above the ones that don't, and can't exist by the verse's physics.
• It is further argued that, since infinite-dimensional spaces and above have very weird properties that differ from finite-dimensional ones, they are not to be included in "The standard concept of space/dimension." Therefore, even statements of the latter kind can be accurately gauged by equating them to transcending only spaces of finite dimension

Essentially, it boils down to a more basic principle: "Equating such things to differences in dimensionality is a valid lowball, and so in lieu of stronger evidence, we go with that lowball."

I maintain that this is nonsense, and that being above dimensions means exactly that: Being above dimensions, regardless of whether those dimensions exist in your verse or not, and regardless of whether it's a finite number of dimensions, or an infinite one. That is to say: Equating either of the above to dimensional jumps of any kind is -not- a valid lowball. Why? Well:

Firstly, we need to introduce a fact: It is, in fact, impossible to equate things with dimensions to things that have no dimensionality at all (Not even zero-dimensionality). If you have a thing that has no size and dimension, you cannot say something like "It is equivalent to the size of this cube of 3 m³ over there." It is even less possible, then, to equate things that are altogether above dimensions to things that have dimension.

Spoiler: Addendum

The only way the above might be possible is if the character is not truly above dimensions with regards to their state of existence. That is: They simply lack dimensions, and that's it. And their AP is thus derived from feats of raw destruction. It's not their non-dimensional nature that's being equated to dimensional things, in that case. We're just rating them based on their feats of affecting dimensional things, which is, of course, fine.

It might be possible to interpret sufficiently vague "Beyond dimensions" statements as the above, though, which I've acknowledged here before as a possibility worth considering during evaluations, but which ultimately doesn't hurt the principle of the proposals at all.

And when I mean "Above dimensions," I mean in the sense of, for example: A void of nonexistence that's entirely without dimensions (Whether spatial, temporal or... otherwise), and which is simultaneously depicted as dwarfing and encompassing all of dimensional space. Another example would be characters who are superior to the basic phenomenon of spatial differentiation itself; for example, God from Unsong at one point has this exchange:



So, those things aren't just a matter of "They lack dimensions and also happen to have the raw power to blow up all the dimensions in their verse" No, they are ontologically above space and dimension itself. They transcend the very phenomenon of "Points in space marking separate locations."
It would not be possible, for example, for them to have that power drained from them, or partitioned, or anything of that like, because it's not some energy inside of them, it's just their existence itself. Might as well ask any of us if we could just cease to exist if we wanted to. Which is to say: Their superiority over dimensions (Some non-dimensional analogue of "size" by which they are 'bigger' than dimensions) springs from their lack of dimensions, to begin with.

And this also gets into one of the objections against these proposals: That, technically, all we are doing is equating the "power" of these things to dimensional spaces, not their "size," and that therefore no incoherence is being committed. I find this a rather poor answer, since for the above cases, the "size" of those things would itself be their power. As such, comparisons between those things would be as good as the statement in the cube analogy I've made above (Which is to say, nonsense).

Furthermore, "power" in the current Tiering System is really just grounded on the size of the space which you can affect, and that is, itself, grounded on dimensions and volumes. So it all circles back to dimensional size, in the end, and if something is above that, you cannot equate the two.

Now, we've established what it is, and that equalizing it to a dimensional difference is impossible. For the reason I hold that it should be considered above any dimensions whatsoever (Finite or infinite, physically existent or not, etc), I refer to this explanation I've made, which also serves as a reductio ad absurdum applied to the claims which the Tiering System makes.

Why "Beyond the concept of dimensions" ought to be treated as such draws from the above, and has the advantage of being a little.more obvious on what it means. For that, I refer to this explanation instead, which boils down to: If you transcend the idea, the definition, the notion, the quality of "dimension" itself, then you are, definitionally, above any spaces of any amount of dimensions. Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 4 or 6 or aleph_2 or an inaccessible cardinal.

As noted before, the argument against this is basically that infinite-dimensional spaces have weird properties that differ them quite a bit from finite-dimensional spaces, and that as such, they would operate outside of the standard concept of "space" and "dimension." That's simply not true, though: Weird as they are, they still are spaces with dimensions in them, and therefore fall under the basic definition of "dimensionality" all the same.

To draw from the hypothetical I used to explain the previous point: Saying this is like if you had a verse with an atom-sized cosmology, and a character pulled up saying "I am above the very concept of size and dimensions," and then you reasoned that, since the physics of atoms (Quantum mechanics) are completely different from the physics of planets (Relativity), you can't possibly say that the character is above a planet, even if they transcend the concept of size and dimension itself. Which is frankly silly and borders on a non-sequitur.

Of course, "transcend the notion of dimensions" includes "transcending dimensions" (And I'd in fact argue that there is no real distinction to be found between the two in an ordinary case, for reasons you can find in the post linked next to the screenshots above), so everything that's said of the latter applies to the former. So this part of the argument should be taken in combination with the earlier one, and not seen isolatedly from it.

I imagine another possible objection would be that concepts can be existentially limited to whatever physically exists in your verse's cosmology. That's not really true: If, by "concept," you mean the very definition, essence and intension of a term (As said: Xness, as opposed to merely X), saying it is limited only to what physically exists is fundamentally nonsensical for reasons already explained in the screenshots above, which also outline the inherent absurdities that come about if one wishes to make this treatment of them into a default thing.
Of course, people also seem to have this idea that a "concept" is some nebulous non-physical "thing" that permeates reality and is also emergent from it in some way (Which is what most characters with Abstract Existence are, at the end of the day). That, in fact, is a non-standard definition of a concept, and would in fact be a case where "concept" does not mean "The intension of a term" or "The quality of being X," which is the relevant definition for this argument.

As such, the proposal is that being above dimensionality in the senses described above is indeed being above any cardinal number of dimensions whatsoever, and in fact above our current definition of Tier 0.
Due to the logistical problems with applying that while keeping 0 the highest tier, I maintain we should knock down cardinal number spaces in general to below the 1-A range, and make it the recipient for superiorities of a more truly "qualitative" degree (As in, hinging wholly on existential quality, not quantity, as dimensions do)

Spoiler: Reality-Fiction Transcendence

Here is another thing that the Tiering System does: It accepts the existence of characters with Reality-Fiction Transcendence, which is to say, characters that see things as being literally fictional to them, and as such infinitely below themselves. To quote the page:





The current System, of course, also equates that to the addition of one more dimension, for the same principle as above: "It is a valid lowball for the concept, and so in lieu of more evidence, we go with the lowball."

Yeah, so, It's not really a valid lowball here, either: Reality-Fiction Transcendence essentially operates on the idea that the lower plane is not real to you, and thus utterly incapable of harming you on account of its unreality (Which also means that, as said on the page, the gap between the two is "strictly one of quality, not quantity").
Equating this to a dimensional jump is erroneous because, ultimately, an object of n dimensions and an object of n+1 dimensions are equally real. An object of finite dimensions and an object of infinite dimensions are equally real, too. An object of infinite dimensions and an object of uncountably infinite dimensions are, in fact, also equally real.

They're ontologically not on different levels at all, and as such being ontologically above even a single one of those does, in fact, mean you are above them all. Consider the reverse case: A cube, a square, a line and a point are all equally real. Thus being on a lower ontological level than any single one of them likewise means you're beneath them all.

Now, why exactly do I say that they're "equally real," or "ontologically in the same level"? Well, because there's a continuity between them; they're all composed of each other. A line is composed of points, a square is composed of lines, a cube is composed of squares. Spacetime is composed of 3-D cross-sections, each of which is one instant of the universe. Even infinite-dimensional space is really just the sum of all spaces of dimension n where n is any natural number.

And you can, of course, see this by adding together very large numbers of universes: If you had uncountably infinite 4-D universes, you'd be able to fill a 5-D volume (You'd have a Low 1-C multiverse). If you had an inaccessible cardinal's worth of universes, you'd be able to fill a space with an inaccessible cardinal's worth of dimensions (You'd have a High 1-A multiverse). And so on.

Bottom line is: All those spaces, no matter how impressively large in dimensionality they may be, still see smaller things as existent parts of themselves, regardless of how minuscule those parts are. A 3-D universe would still be material in 4-D space, if only minutely so, and the same applies to all higher dimensionalities. Contrast that, then, with a Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Reality is not the sum of a bunch of fictional things, nor can it be expressed as such. To go from fiction to reality is a total discrete jump that doesn't have the element of continuity described above at all. It's not an extension of physical reality, as dimensional expansions are, but something altogether above it.

This might be tempting to associate with a Finite vs Infinity relation, where infinity can't be gotten from summing up finite things, but it's not at all the same: An infinite thing can be gotten if you have an infinite amount of finite things. So even an infinite thing is, nevertheless, a composite of things that individually are smaller than itself. Even infinite sets still have finite subsets. Reality has no fictional portion of itself, though.

And that's something you clearly see in a lot of cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence: Most of the time, the "higher world" in question is a realm of existence that's 3-D from its own point of view. while the lower fictional plane has fully-fledged higher-dimensional objects like spacetimes and whatnot. Makes very little sense to say, then, that there's any continuity between the two worlds in the manner described above. In that case, the two layers have separate sets of dimensions, and thus can't really be related by dimensional gaps at all.

In fact, given the above detail (That something a R>F layer below reality would in fact have to be below even 0-D things), a lower R>F layer would be better likened to the empty set (∅), as in mathematics, it is indeed the only thing you can say is "less" than a 0-D point.
And as it turns out, you can't multiply the empty set by something to get a non-empty set. If you try to do ∅ x κ where κ is any non-0 cardinal whatsoever (Finite, infinite, uncountably infinite. You name it), your result will always be ∅ itself.

As such, I maintain that Reality-Fiction Transcendence should likewise be above any and all dimensional differences. It, too, will be part of the new 1-A tiers being proposed here, which as mentioned before will be largely for superiorities that are strictly "qualitative," rather than quantitative.

Now, full disclosure: A misunderstanding arose earlier that seemed to suggest I want to rate Reality-Fiction Transcendence based on "How it is in real life." That is not true. In fact, I would say that such a thing doesn't really exist (Because R>F Transcendence does not exist IRL. The fictional works we make are not "lower worlds")

That said: A question that arose before is with regards to how much validity is there in equating different types of qualitative superiority. For example, there seems to be no obvious connection between Beyond-Dimensional Existence and R>F Transcendence, so isn't equating the two as much of an error as equating either of those two to dimensional differences?
The answer to that is: As of recently, Reality-Fiction Transcendences and Beyond-Dimensional Existences are, strictly speaking, not being equated at all. As explained here, the latter finds its first stop in the proposed Tier Low 1-A. Reality-Fiction Transcendences necessarily include BDE, but BDE alone is not a sufficient justification for equality to a R>F Transcendence.

(Most verses with BDE realms will accidentally define them in ways that make it so they're equal to R>F realms, anyway, but conceptually, the above is still true)

This applies upwards, as well. For instance, I proposed a High 1-A tier for superiorities that are fundamentally above qualitative transcendences, just like those are fundamentally above quantitative gaps. So the proposals do, in fact, include several mechanisms to prevent (Or at the very least minimize) the same false equivalences done by the current Tiering System.

Another objection given to the above is whether all cases of Reality-Fiction Transcendence actually meet the above requirements. Essentially arguing that what I am outlining above is, in fact, a very high-end interpretation of the concept and not at all what should be defaulted to. This has some merit but ultimately is flawed at the core, as well, namely because:

1. The Reality-Fiction Transcendence page already outlines it as something completely separate from quantitative gaps ("The gap between the higher world and the lower world would be strictly one of quality, not quantity."), which dimensions are included in, and so quantitative interpretations of Reality-Fiction Transcendence are, in fact, simply not Reality-Fiction Transcendence, even if they look the same.

2. I am not arbitrarily baking "Is above all possible dimensional differences" into the definition of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in the above arguments. I am outlining a set of properties and then concluding that from these properties. Premise and conclusion are not to be conflated here.

But... with that said, I've come to realize that people indeed take Reality-Fiction Transcendence far, far more lightly than I do, presumably because the association with something as meager as a dimensional jump has led them to become unconcerned with what the concept of it entails.

Before writing this summary, I took the time to do some digging and found that some characters are currently accepted as holding a Reality-Fiction Transcendence over a reality due to some pieces of evidence that are rather underwhelming. These profiles, for instance, treat purely visual depictions of characters viewing reality as TV channels, or a film, as gameboards, as evidence of R>F.

As I've said before, I more or less completely reject the usage of such things as primary evidence for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Those would be relegated to being supplementary evidence, at best, but alone would never suffice. And as has already been said, I likewise have very little sympathy for gag feats and the like.

As for what would qualify, a list of questions one should ask themself is:

• Does the higher world actually see the lower world as something immaterial, and insubstantial? Is there any continuity between it and the lower world, as there is with higher and lower-dimensional spaces, or even with finite and infinite things? Can there be?
• Is this actually being depicted as a matter of power, or, more precisely, something analogous to "size"?
• Can lesser existences unexplainedly interact or potentially interact with the higher existences, on their own, without any external (Or otherwise anomalous) assistance at play?

The first one finds itself more easily apparent in the more "mystical" or "metaphysical" instances of R>F Transcendence. For example, in cosmologies where the universe is defined as being illusory, and there is a "more real" reality existing above it. Chronicles of Narnia is a good example of a such thing (Drawing from the concept of the Platonic Cave), and so is this scene from Persona 2: Eternal Punishment.
Here you see that, by "illusion," what's needed is not something like the Matrix, which is really just a virtual space created by manipulations ultimately rooted in physical things (Brain electricity and etc, meaning the illusion is in fact just as "real" as the world behind it). What's needed is the world, itself, being devoid of substance (Existence) to a higher reality, even if it nevertheless has some mode of existence of its own.

For an illustrative example of this, take this scene from Mike Carey's The Unwritten as a reference point, where the Leviathan is described as "too real" and "too solid" compared to the world below it. Another way to think of it is to picture the following: A character with Nonexistent Physiology, except their nonexistence is depicted as making them intrinsically inferior to things that exist. That's how a character with a R>F Transcendence ought to see things below themselves.

For more ordinary forms of R>F, this would in turn be inferred by asking yourself yet another question: Is this higher world, quite literally, just a "real world"? Are those characters just people? Authors and readers and consumers of media? Are they not just cosmic entities being non-literally portrayed as such? An example of a verse where the answer to this is "Yes" would be, again, The Unwritten, and the very image of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence article should give one a pretty good initial idea of what's expected from this type of R>F. Though, mind you: You can be simultaneously a literal author and a genuine cosmic entity. These two are not mutually exclusive deals at all.

This could be asked of beings who dream realities into existence, too. For example, one such character that would most certainly never qualify for a genuine Reality-Fiction Transcendence is the One Being from Mortal Kombat, who is stated to create reality with its dreams, and yet also is reality: The realms composing the universe are splintered fragments of it. Suggesting that its dreaming stuff is no Reality-Fiction Transcendence at all, and in fact just a feat of Subjective Reality.

The second one is straightforward, and is only really a factor in the second forms of R>F described above: Is the "real world" really being depicted as something transcendentally powerful, compared to the fictional reality? A good example of what I mean by this would be this scene from Final Crisis: Superman Beyond, where Superman reaches out to try and grasp what is implied to be the reader of the comic, and describes it as "something immense beyond understanding." The Luminous Being from Dungeons and Dragons would be yet another instance of this.

In contrast, there can be characters who are depicted as literal authors and so on, but whose exact relationship with the fictional world is... vague, at best. In many such cases, you could very well interpret them as simply living externally to these worlds, and as having control over them, not involving total ontological transcendence at all. In which case, they'd be similar to the example of the One Being given above, simply swap dreams with books or whatever you like.

The third one is just as important as the above two, and in most cases will probably be what makes or breaks whether your R>F Transcendence is 1-A or not: Are beings from the fictional reality interacting with the "real world" despite having no business doing that? As an example: In Bravely Default, the real world is an actual important plot-point, referred to as the "Celestial Realm" where the gods live. It appears to be very much a literal real world, so much so that, at the end of the game, the 3DS camera turns on and projects the player's face over the background as a showcase of the Celestial Realm. Furthermore, the characters are referred to as lesser beings compared to the Celestials, who as said before, are also "gods" to them.

So, that seems to have a good case for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, right? No, not really, because a plot-point in the game is also that the villain, Ouroboros, hatched a scheme to link together a bunch of alternate universes, in the hopes of consuming them and, in doing so, increase his power enough to breach into the Celestial Realm. That implies continuity between the higher world and the lower one in the sense described above, which is, of course, unacceptable. Another example would be this, which, of course, dispenses all explanation.

Of course, given the above-mentioned factors, such things would have to be very definitely explained in a revised version of the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page. As has been said: Not everything that looks like R>F is R>F in a genuine sense (Including many things we currently accept as sufficing for it), and so I would very much like to note that down.

...have you really decided to add the practical example I have repeatedly asked you for this entire thread now?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

...have you really decided to add the practical example I have repeatedly asked you for this entire thread now?

1. It's your job to know these things. You have helped set up the Tiering System and, as I've repeatedly said, I am introducing no new concepts to it, only rescaling what is already there. None of this stuff should be a novelty to you.

2. Go on with your summary.

 

[DontTalkDT]

1. It's your job to know these things. You have helped set up the Tiering System and, as I've repeatedly said, I am introducing no new concepts to it. None of this stuff should be a novelty to you.

2. Go on with your summary.

I am supposed to know the examples you have in mind for your beyond existence argument without you posting them? What? Am I a mind reader? Honestly, you apparently had an example prepared so it would have cost you 0 effort to post it.
It's not like every Type 2 BDE character would qualify as an example, seeing as they currently don't need to be superior to spacetime on every level.

Let me remind you what I said about the need of an example:

I think it's pretty pointless to debate if, for all I am aware of, the kind of evidence you are going for doesn't exist. Instead of having a huge argument over whether such evidence can exist or not, you can just give an actual example to prove that it does exist, so I'm waiting for you to do that.

So now that you gave a practical example, obviously I will have to comment on whether or not I think that actually qualifies as sufficient evidence to justify the assumption your beyond dimensions idea is based on. That's pretty much the main issue I have with that entire point. Which opens a whole new branch of argumentation.

I could just include that in my summary if you don't wish to comment on that branch of argumentation at all.
Otherwise, your unwillingness to provide basic examples to illustrate your point until now bites us both in the ass, as it means we have to delay this further by actually having the debate about that now.
Your choice.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I am supposed to know the examples you have in mind for your beyond existence argument? What? Am I a mind reader? Honestly, you apparently had an example prepared so it would have cost you 0 effort to post it.

You're not supposed to read my mind, no, but as I've said: I am introducing no new concepts to the Tiering System whatsoever, only rescaling what's already there. In fact, all the way back on Page 6, I said this:

So, in short:

• Being superior to the very quality of having dimensions. The thing that the FAQ (wrongly) says is Low 1-C in a 4-D cosmology = 1-A = Type 2 Beyond-Dimensional Existence
  
• Being nondimensional + Having the firepower to destroy all the dimensions of your verse. Something that could be accomplished by a Low 2-C character in a 4-D cosmology = Not 1-A = Type 1 Beyond-Dimensional Existence

A question: Are you even defending the current Tiering System, at this rate? Because if you are, then the majority of the points you've raised are plainly invalid, and founded on an understanding of it that's exclusive to you. The To Aru Magic Gods "counterexample" to BDE, the "You need to be able to interact with a lower reality to be superior to it," and etc. are all things that betray a rather idiosyncratic view of how the wiki works.

In fact, that's a trend I've noticed all throughout this debate: You keep asking for proofs-of-concept for things that we (Yourself included) already deem conceptually valid, like Type 2 BDE, for example.

And back in Page 4, I said this:

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.

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.

And recently, I gave you a concrete scenario that I deem equivalent to "Beyond dimensions," in the form of an hypothetical character stated to be "Beyond all finite things." So, I have made my point more than clear to you, multiple times, throughout this discussion. Obviously, you also know what kind of "Beyond dimensions" stuff qualifies for (To use the current system's terms) a "qualitative superiority," or else you would not have helped erect a Tiering System that acknowledges it as a thing that exists, in its official FAQ page, at that!

And once more, I am forced to point out: 7 people, over the course of this thread, expressed agreement with my position (On BDE alone. Drops down to 6 if you include both BDE and R>F). This demonstrates, I believe, that what I am talking about is something well-understood in this community. The only one who seems a bit stumped by it, as it turns out, is you. (I mean, come on, it was literally our old idea of 1-A. Not even -that- long ago)

So I don't mean to be rude, by any means, but I feel I have to respond in kind to what you said: No, my ass is fine.

---

So, again: Your summary, please.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, you have explained it via more abstract analogies that didn't actually address my actual issue at all, as my point is very directly related to the practical implementation. I.e. you misunderstand what I am arguing and then just insist that you properly addressed it, instead of just providing a single example.

Anyways, I will interpret that as you having no interest into having debate on the points that arise from your example.

So I will write my summary now and just put the points in there.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Just saw this edit here. Didn't see you add it in.

It's not like every Type 2 BDE character would qualify as an example, seeing as they currently don't need to be superior to spacetime on every level.

To clarify: This seems to be a weird reading of what the Type 2 BDE page says. It says:

Characters whose nature is defined by lacking spatiotemporal features and being superior to them in nature. These characters aren't necessarily superior to spacetime on every level, but just within the scope which they are shown.

This is just saying that we don't accept characters with Type 2 BDE as being superior to every possible extrapolation of spacetime dimensions, but only the ones that exist in the verse, as a default. A.k.a The very thing I am arguing against, here.

You seem to be interpreting it as meaning that you can have a verse where you got a 7-D universe and a 4-D universe, and then a character who is only superior (In the BDE sense) to the spacetime of the latter, but not of the former.

That is, in fact, nonsensical (And honestly, even if true, would just be a sign that the current system is even worse than I thought). As seen here, even in the current status quo, Type 2 BDE would involve automatically scaling above all spacetimes in the verse. Being superior to only a single spacetime, but not others, would be Higher-Dimensional Existence, not BDE.

So, yes, every character with Type 2 BDE would serve as an example (Provided people aren't slapping it into every "Transcends time and space" statement under the sun, that is). Which is why I think your overt concerns over "practical implementation" are frankly unneeded. This stuff already is implemented. I'm just changing its tier.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just saw this edit here. Didn't see you add it in.


To clarify: This seems to be a weird reading of what the Type 2 BDE page says. It says:



This is just saying that we don't accept characters with Type 2 BDE as being superior to every possible extrapolation of spacetime dimensions, but only the ones that exist in the verse, as a default. A.k.a The very thing I am arguing against, here.

You seem to be interpreting it as meaning that you can have a verse where you got a 7-D universe and a 4-D universe, and then a character who is only superior (In the BDE sense) to the spacetime of the latter, but not of the former.

That is, in fact, nonsensical (And honestly, even if true, would just be a sign that the current system is even worse than I thought). As seen here, even in the current status quo, Type 2 BDE would involve automatically scaling above all spacetimes in the verse. Being superior to only a single spacetime, but not others, would be Higher-Dimensional Existence, not BDE.

So, yes, every character with Type 2 BDE would serve as an example (Provided people aren't slapping it into every "Transcends time and space" statement under the sun, that is). Which is why I think your overt concerns over "practical implementation" are frankly unneeded. This stuff already is implemented. I'm just changing its tier.

I would argue the contrary, but as you don't really want to do more debate on the example point I won't and just get to the summary.
Although, honestly, if you want to use the same level of evidence as we currently use for BDE Type 2 to get characters above every possible extension of dimensionality, then your argument is worse than I thought.

 

[Agnaa]

idk why Type 2 BDE is the point of equivalence here, I thought we still let some characters jump to 1-A without needing to establish infinitely many dimensions?

Why wouldn't those characters be the ones getting moved up (or rather, down, considering that would now start at Low 1-A)?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Although, honestly, if you want to use the same level of evidence as we currently use for BDE Type 2 to get characters above every possible extension of dimensionality, then your argument is worse than I thought.

At this point, I've little clue of what exactly you think "the level of evidence we currently use for Type 2 BDE" is, but regardless, for full disclosure before you post your summary, I did some more digging and made this list of characters who are currently listed as having Type 2 BDE.

As one can gather, there is a concerningly large handful of characters who are there, and yet don't actually qualify at all, even by the current system's (Fairly clear) standards on what "Superior to dimensions" means. So, if you think that I'd upgrade those characters to 1-A, that's a mistaken idea, because they just shouldn't have Type 2 BDE to begin with.
Which is why I said that every Type 2 BDE character qualifies as an example "Provided people aren't slapping it into every "Transcends time and space" statement under the sun, that is."

(Though, I know there's profiles even in the "Qualifying" list that are only there due to people updating the tiers but not the abilities or justifications. Some of the DC profiles there come to mind)

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out with your list.

I think that a revision thread to remove the ability from all pages where it has been inappropriately applied seem like a good idea then.

 

[DontTalkDT]

At this point, I've little clue of what exactly you think "the level of evidence we currently use for Type 2 BDE" is, but regardless, for full disclosure before you post your summary, I did some more digging and made this list of characters who are currently listed as having Type 2 BDE.

As one can gather, there is a concerningly large handful of characters who are there, and yet don't actually qualify at all, even by the current system's (Fairly clear) standards on what "Superior to dimensions" means. So, if you think that I'd upgrade those characters to 1-A, that's a mistaken idea, because they just shouldn't have Type 2 BDE to begin with.
Which is why I said that every Type 2 BDE character qualifies as an example "Provided people aren't slapping it into every "Transcends time and space" statement under the sun, that is."

(Though, I know there's profiles even in the "Qualifying" list that are only there due to people updating the tiers but not the abilities or justifications. Some of the DC profiles there come to mind)

Well, glad to hear you at least acknowledge that there is a gap between what you desire and what the current state of things is.

---

For those who want a timetable on when my summary is done: Finished the write-up for the BDE stuff. Should finish gathering all the points on the R>F stuff today (by my timezone, of course). Tomorrow I should be able to turn that into a proper text and then maybe or maybe not some extra time for proper structuring, spell checking and other rhetorical considerations.
Might seem slow, but I adopted a puppy just this thursday.

Spoiler: Isn't he cute?

He and my cat need a lot of attention right now, so yeah. Slows things down.

 

[Antvasima]

It is good that you are kind to animals, DontTalk.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I think that a revision thread to remove the ability from all pages where it has been inappropriately applied seem like a good idea then.

Given the factors I mentioned, this can happen either now or after this thread is finished. If you'd like me to I can make a separate thread to remove those misapplications, right now.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, glad to hear you at least acknowledge that there is a gap between what you desire and what the current state of things is.

---

For those who want a timetable on when my summary is done: Finished the write-up for the BDE stuff. Should finish gathering all the points on the R>F stuff today (by my timezone, of course). Tomorrow I should be able to turn that into a proper text and then maybe or maybe not some extra time for proper structuring, spell checking and other rhetorical considerations.
Might seem slow, but I adopted a puppy just this thursday.

Spoiler: Isn't he cute?

He and my cat need a lot of attention right now, so yeah. Slows things down.

Cute lil guy, also.

 

[Antvasima]

Given the factors I mentioned, this can happen either now or after this thread is finished. If you'd like me to I can make a separate thread to remove those misapplications, right now.

That seems like a good idea, yes. Thank you.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

No permission.