Removal of "Negative Theology" Scaling

[Firestorm808]

Just so that there's no confusion, it is currently 1-A, not High 1-A.

I thought we didn't have a resource page that gave a tier standard for this.

 

[Deagonx]

I thought we didn't have a resource page that gave a tier standard for this.

We don't but the verses that currently use it have 1-A

 

[Agnaa]

In short, I disagree with Tdjwo's post.

Detailed equivalences have been argued for many theological/philosophical ideas and mathematical/logical ones. But these inevitably change over time as more mathematical/logical ideas are developed; since the theological/philosophical ones are vague, while the mathematical/logical ones have concrete sizes that we must work to properly detail.

To assume that every single invocation of these concepts should be tiered exactly the same as a few modern philosophers argue, despite them for the vast majority of their history being associated with a generic "infinity" (which we lowball to High 3-A) doesn't seem like a great idea. They're just all different ways of describing being "all-powerful" or "unknowable" across different systems. Those different systems have different limits; why take the highest one that anyone has ever conceived? That requires assuming (usually baselessly) that the author knows of that correspondence, agrees with it, and thinks it applies to that series.

Also, just saying "it's the same tier as Absolute Infinity" isn't enough, since we don't have a concrete tier we give to it, since it's not even a well-defined mathematical concept. Unsong is a series that extremely explicitly invoked Cantor's description of Absolute Infinity

This reading we derive from Georg Cantor, the German mathematician who explored the cardinality of infinite sets. He found that though the natural numbers – 1, 2, 3 and so on – were infinite, still there were fewer of them than there were “real” numbers like root 2, pi, and 0.239567990052… Indeed, not only were there two different levels of infinity, but it seemed likely that there were an infinite number of different infinities (and maybe one extra, to describe the number of infinities there were?)

Cantor began talking about how his discoveries were direct and personal revelations from God, who wished him to preach the gospel of infinity so that an infinite Deity could be better understood. He posited an Absolute Infinite, beyond all the forms of infinity he had discovered, with which God might be identified. Finally, he declared:


“I have never proceeded from any Genus supremum of the actual infinite. Quite the contrary, I have rigorously proved that there is absolutely no Genus supremum of the actual infinite. What surpasses all that is finite and transfinite is no Genus; it is the single, completely individual unity in which everything is included, which includes the Absolute, incomprehensible to the human understanding. This is the Actus Purissimus, which by many is called God.”


When he finally made his discoveries public, he chose a curious notation:


“It has seemed to me for many years indispensable to fix the transfinite powers or cardinal numbers by some symbol, and after much wavering to and fro I have called upon the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph. The usual alphabets seem to me too much used to be fitted for this purpose; on the other hand, I didn’t want to invent a new sign.”


A pragmatic account, utterly without reference to a two-thousand-year-old tradition of using the aleph to signify God. Nothing is ever a coincidence. The genealogies say his grandparents were Sephardic Jews, and if they weren’t kabbalists I will eat my hat.

Even this was barely enough to reach High 1-A, staff evaluations were split evenly on it.

The 1-A argument was "We don't know if the brief mention of alephs corresponds to them physically existing in a way relevant for tiering; so we just have 'infinite levels of greater infinities, then one extra, which is God', which would put God at 1-A".

The High 1-A argument was "Alephs were mentioned and invoked as a description of God, so they're relevant to tiering. Since there were described to be infinitely many of those, then one extra, and most alephs lie in 1-A, that puts God at High 1-A".

The reasoning you give is very far away from something that would be accepted for even High 1-A. To try to suggest it as being 0 is inconceivable.

 

[Tdjwo]

When you mention logical ideas, I suppose you're explicitly referring to mathematical ideas because that seems to be what you're implying. Let us note that not all mathematical theories are proven to be logical or objective, nor are they proven to be possible. Absolute Infinity itself isn't something generally seen as logical nor is it accepted by everyone as a logical idea yet we implement it into this tiering system as long as the context for it is proven to exist within the verse regardless if it's true or not. The same should also apply to Negative theology. Negative Theology isn't vague. It's pretty clear that the notion of "size" itself is considered irrelevant so you would never see anywhere where Negative theology is given a specific size of "infinity". It's always going to be concluded or implied that we would bever be able to properly measure the quantity of its size.

When you compare Negative Theology to some other philosophical/theological ideas, you would find out that it's one of the theologies whose ideas and teachings are generally held on the same description by the consensus of those knowledgeable regarding the topic. The definition of Negative Theology is clear. It's all about trying to describe God in negation to what he truly is because no description can ever be enough to adequately describe it. Once you know the definition, it becomes pretty easy to understand. You wouldn't find any other place where the description of negative theology differs wholely from what it actually is. After all, the teachings of negative theology predicate most mathematical studies, and it has been passed down for ages now both in religions and philosophy yet they all still imply the same and are described the same way. Just like how Cantor's Absolute infinity has a standard definition, description and methodology, negative theology also has its own, and I believe, that's all that truly matters.

My previous comment regarding the direct comparisons between Cantor's Absolute Infinity and Negative Theology was made for a purpose. Everyone here is currently deciding on a tier for this theology based on regular restrictions and limitations used on similar or previous topics while forming/assuming its descriptions on what levels of "Infinity" it's supposed to transcend or be left at. Not only is this flawed in the sense of what Negative Theology is supposed to represent, but it's also resulting in an unnecessary intricacy as to where it's supposed to be left while trying to maintain an objective logic as much as possible. But this would never be possible because no amount of "levels of infinity" propositions we give it would come close to any objective determinacy due to the indeterminant nature of negative theology. This is why the best and most logical action we can take regarding this issue, is by comparing it to the closest possible theory that's already accepted on this site.

Like I showed in my previous comment, Absolute infinity and Negative Theology are "one-of-the-same" when it comes to their theological symbolism and description made by Cantor himself. When we take a closer look at all the descriptions applied to Absolute Infinity, we would realize how identical they are to Negative theology itself which I already showed. Thus, instead of us beating around the bush trying to "assume" what levels of infinity negative theology transcends or maxes at, comparing it with an existing theory which holds the closest components and characteristics of negative theology would make more sense and produce objectively better results that's closer to whatever assumptions we could make regarding negative theology.

As for the entire section regarding God (Unsong), I'm not at all knowledgeable on this character but I know that Absolute Infinite by itself, is an inaccessible cardinal by default due to its nature of being incomprehensible to every transfinite cardinal. That's why I'm comparing it to Negative theology which also has the same descriptions and characteristics (without the mathematical stuffs) of what makes Absolute Infinity an inaccessible cardinal. Like I said earlier, Negative Theology is literally just a buffed-up theological version of the mathematical Absolute Infinity.

 

[Agnaa]

When you mention logical ideas, I suppose you're explicitly referring to mathematical ideas because that seems to be what you're implying.

I don't, that's why I mentioned both.

Let us note that not all mathematical theories are proven to be logical or objective, nor are they proven to be possible. Absolute Infinity itself isn't something generally seen as logical nor is it accepted by everyone as a logical idea yet we implement it into this tiering system as long as the context for it is proven to exist within the verse regardless if it's true or not. The same should also apply to Negative theology.

As I pointed out, when we use it, we don't give it tier 0 automatically. If the verse just brings it up without elaborating, it could end up as low as High 3-A.

That's how we're also arguing for Negative Theology to be treated.

Negative Theology isn't vague. It's pretty clear that the notion of "size" itself is considered irrelevant so you would never see anywhere where Negative theology is given a specific size of "infinity". It's always going to be concluded or implied that we would bever be able to properly measure the quantity of its size.

The vague part is how to interpret that. Should we interpret that as meaning that it's tier 0, or that it's Unknown?

Is it more like the universe of sets (larger than any set constructible within ZFC), or like the busy beaver numbers (eventually these finite numbers become inconsistent with ZFC, but that doesn't make them larger than all numbers in ZFC; they're still finite after all).

To emphasize, you can be unable to be described by a system, even one based mostly around size, without being larger than everything in that system.

When you compare Negative Theology to some other philosophical/theological ideas, you would find out that it's one of the theologies whose ideas and teachings are generally held on the same description by the consensus of those knowledgeable regarding the topic. The definition of Negative Theology is clear. It's all about trying to describe God in negation to what he truly is because no description can ever be enough to adequately describe it. Once you know the definition, it becomes pretty easy to understand. You wouldn't find any other place where the description of negative theology differs wholely from what it actually is.

Yeah, but the extrapolations of what exactly that implies, what other conclusions can be drawn, etc. that are important. It's similar to omnipotence in that way.

As for the entire section regarding God (Unsong), I'm not at all knowledgeable on this character but I know that Absolute Infinite by itself, is an inaccessible cardinal by default due to its nature of being incomprehensible to every transfinite cardinal.

That's not at all how we treat it on this wiki; that's why I brought up Unsong. And even IRL that seems like a bad definition of it.

 

[Tdjwo]

I don't, that's why I mentioned both.

Alright

As I pointed out, when we use it, we don't give it tier 0 automatically. If the verse just brings it up without elaborating, it could end up as low as High 3-A.

That's how we're also arguing for Negative Theology to be treated.

Negative theology is all about it's description. If it's incomprehensible, ineffable, cannot be described by words and numbers, notions of size cannot be adequately implemented into it, then it's clear that its logically above High 3A. Simplifying Negative theology based on how we treat a standard High 3A description fundamentally goes against the definition of negative theology.

I also said we could simply put it at High 1A if tier 0 isn't considered logical (even though I think it being 0 is completely justifiable).

The vague part is how to interpret that. Should we interpret that as meaning that it's tier 0, or that it's Unknown?

Is it more like the universe of sets (larger than any set constructible within ZFC), or like the busy beaver numbers (eventually these finite numbers become inconsistent with ZFC, but that doesn't make them larger than all numbers in ZFC; they're still finite after all).

Based on how our tier 0 works, rating negative theology as "Unknown" is unnecessary because tier 0 is already described as having no "end points" or limitations to it. So if Negative theology was Tier 0, then I don't think it would be contradictory.

To emphasize, you can be unable to be described by a system, even one based mostly around size, without being larger than everything in that system.

Yes, that's true. But there's a difference between simply being undescribable by a system in comparison to being undescribable by that system while transcending everything that makes up that system which is how negative theology works.

Funnily enough, negative theology works in the sense that it cant be described by even numbers. So if in cardinality, a number can't be described by another number, it wouldn't necessarily have to mean that it's transcendent of all number sets. But in negative theology, something that can't even be described even by numbers while transcending it, would mean it's above everything that is made up of or described with numbers.

I know chatgpt isn't always reliable, but you get what I'm trying to imply.

Yeah, but the extrapolations of what exactly that implies, what other conclusions can be drawn, etc. that are important. It's similar to omnipotence in that way.

What it implies is simple. It's total superiority above everything possible or existing without being inferior to anything else. Let's think about it this way; if we removed every description of negative theology that correlates with the descriptions Georg Cantor directly gives Absolute infinity, ie, "Absolute infinity transcending human cognitive powers," or "Absolute infinity being unknowable", or "Absolute infinity being inexpressible," or "Absolute infinity having no determination or being undeterminable" or Absolute Infinity not being graspable, do you still think Absolute infinity would be considered Absolute? Wouldn't it lose its entire meaning and purpose? All these descriptions are what make this infinity absolute. Without them, it's just another infinity. Negative theology is the same. Without all these descriptions, negative theology isn't negative theology.

That's not at all how we treat it on this wiki; that's why I brought up Unsong. And even IRL that seems like a bad definition of it.

IRL, Absolute infinity is a number inconceivable to infinite and transfinite cardinals. I thought this wiki treats it as High 1A by default as long as there's a physical property embodying it.

 

[Agnaa]

Negative theology is all about it's description. If it's incomprehensible, ineffable, cannot be described by words and numbers, notions of size cannot be adequately implemented into it, then it's clear that its logically above High 3A. Simplifying Negative theology based on how we treat a standard High 3A description fundamentally goes against the definition of negative theology.

Giving it any tier, including Tier 0, would go against the definition, by that logic. You would be describing its size.

Yes, that's true. But there's a difference between simply being undescribable by a system in comparison to being undescribable by that system while transcending everything that makes up that system which is how negative theology works.

That doesn't seem to be what negative theology is about. I can get how you could say "Describing it as indescribable isn't describing it", but I don't get how you can add in "Describing it as having a size greater than this rigidly-defined mathematical construct isn't a description". Now you're giving it two descriptions!

Funnily enough, negative theology works in the sense that it cant be described by even numbers. So if in cardinality, a number can't be described by another number, it wouldn't necessarily have to mean that it's transcendent of all number sets. But in negative theology, something that can't even be described even by numbers while transcending it, would mean it's above everything that is made up of or described with numbers.

I don't understand what point you're making here.

What it implies is simple. It's total superiority above everything possible or existing without being inferior to anything else.

In the same way you could say that "omnipotence" just implies "being able to do everything possible".

IRL, Absolute infinity is a number inconceivable to infinite and transfinite cardinals. I thought this wiki treats it as High 1A by default as long as there's a physical property embodying it.

As far as I'm aware, that's not true.

Your arguments are no better than the ones for putting omnipotence, modal realism, reality-fiction differences, transduality, absolute infinity, being "above all stories", being "above all thoughts", being "above everything that can be imagined", and so on at tier 0.

You can make a consistent system where you put every single all-encompassing description like that at the top. But we're not interested in doing that, and we're not going to make an exception for negative theology, since its arguments are equally weak.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Jesus, this thread's been extending for longer than expected.

So start with: Tdjwo's arguments are largely things I don't think work under the current underpinnings of the Tiering System (If you make negative theology instantly Tier 0, you'd also have to make R-F Interactions Tier 0, and that's a can of worms no one is really interested in getting into), but there's a few things here and there that I find objectionable overall, so, I'll probably chime in on this thread later (It's late here and the week is starting). Been distracted by other projects of mine as of recently, so, haven't been paying attention to this thread at all.

 

[Antvasima]

So do @DontTalkDT , @Agnaa , and @Ultima_Reality all agree with each other here?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I forgot this thread existed, I won't lie.

Anyway, as said prior, I am largely in agreement with Agnaa with regards to the debate between him and Tdjwo, but I think some of the points he and a few others made are a tad objectionable, so, I want to clear that up.

I'm distracted with other threads right now, so, will probably type up a post here later today, though.

 

[Deagonx]

I think DarkGrath made the most sense and is a safe middle ground.

 

[Antvasima]

This is a very interesting topic.

To give a (hopefully) non-contentious take on this situation - if there is no direct evidence (or otherwise, at least an implication) that variants of this "indescribable nature" make the entity/character qualitatively superior to what can be described, then I don't believe it is appropriate to apply a tier to it in the first place. If we did, we'd be begging the rather simple question of why we are even considering them more "powerful" in the first place. However, I've not seen anyone disagree with this notion so far in this thread, so I don't want to focus on it.

I'd rather focus on how we would tier this in cases where there is evidence that this "indescribable nature" amounts to qualitative superiority, as I believe this is very dependent on how exactly this qualitative superiority is portrayed. Ultima made quite an insightful point on this topic:


If we can show that an entity being "indescribable" specifically makes it qualitatively superior to the descriptions that can be applied to it, and this includes descriptions that describe its transcendence, then tiering based on this infinite regress makes sense. In an overly simplistic sense: a character could describe such a being as "within my reality", and it would transcend that. A character could describe it as "transcending my reality", and it would transcend that. A character could describe it as "transcending the reality that transcends my reality", and it would transcend that. We can deduce that this pattern could be followed forever, and given that it is superior to all descriptions of it, it would have to be superior to infinite transcendences.

That being said, while this makes sense on paper, I doubt this is applicable to every similar circumstance within fiction. In regard to this, I believe Agnaa made quite an insightful point as well:


Regarding the former example I mentioned (a character trying to describe a transcendent entity), this post from Agnaa made me realise one issue with applying this "infinite regress" principle; all of the descriptions, even if made about higher levels of reality, are all bound to the level of reality that the descriptions are made in. That person may be imagining higher transcendences, but for all we know, that is just their imagined concept of it - such thoughts are not necessarily reflective of actual higher levels of reality, just reflective of a version of those higher levels that can be interpreted and understood by someone in a lower level. Any of us can think about higher levels of reality, but our concepts of those higher levels are limited by the constraints of our own level. In that sense, this infinite regression of thoughts can all take place in one level of reality, with the entity simply sitting one level above that.

Now that I've repeated the same small selection of words enough times to make the instructor for "The Missile Knows Where It Is" blush, what does this all mean?

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does not imply any qualitative superiority to its descriptions, no tier should be granted. This should be fairly self-explanatory.

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does imply qualitative superiority, but no further context is given, it would be more reasonable to treat all attempted descriptions of that entity as relegated to the level of reality the description is made in. As such, the entity should be considered "that level of reality + 1".

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", this does imply qualitative superiority, and there is evidence that this principle applies even when describing levels of reality higher than ones own, it would be reasonable to acknowledge the "infinite regress" issue and state that they would transcend all countably infinite transcendences, which I believe would tier this at 1-A.

I think DarkGrath made the most sense and is a safe middle ground.

So this then?

 

[Deagonx]

Yes

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Deagonx]

I will recap everyone's opinions as best as I can tell. It seems the most widespread agreement is for "cosmology + 1" for NT, in absentia of more explicit statements that suggest an infinite hierarchical regress, which could be 1-A if explicit enough.

I would personally go for 1 higher infinity, unless the fiction is more explicit.

So, in summary. I'm fine with scaling based on negative theology and similar things if we can ascertain that it, in some way, leads to an infinite regress that results in something functionally equal to transcending an infinite hierarchy. Otherwise, I don't believe indescribability really indicates anything, tiering-wise, since "descriptions don't apply to you" isn't the same as "You are greater than any descriptions that are attempted to be made of you."

This makes sense to me. (to DT)

As a default i would take it with omnipotence, where it's just X + 1.

But as Ultima has mentioned, it just depends on the context of the verse for higher ratings. There are examples where a setting with this cosmology would be 1-A or higher and that's fine.

As mentioned above, these tend to be the topics over my head, but DontTalkDT is making sense and honestly both sides are making some valid points between DeagonX and Ultima. Not sure who I should side with between the two of them though.

To give an opinion, I'm sure we're all on the same page where without further context implying going past multiple layers of infinity or something, the starting assumption is just one level past the current portrayed cosmology.

I agree with DT.

I don't believe that a verse establishing that attempts to reach descriptions of it are futile, or even that they lead to an infinite regress, should establish it at 1-A. We don't know that each of these "thoughts" is equivalent to a jump of one dimension, so we shouldn't say that being beyond an infinite regress of them should be tiered as equivalent to being above an infinite amount of dimensions.

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does not imply any qualitative superiority to its descriptions, no tier should be granted. This should be fairly self-explanatory.

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", and this does imply qualitative superiority, but no further context is given, it would be more reasonable to treat all attempted descriptions of that entity as relegated to the level of reality the description is made in. As such, the entity should be considered "that level of reality + 1".

In cases where an entity is "indescribable", this does imply qualitative superiority, and there is evidence that this principle applies even when describing levels of reality higher than ones own, it would be reasonable to acknowledge the "infinite regress" issue and state that they would transcend all countably infinite transcendences, which I believe would tier this at 1-A.

So essentially, the feeling is that "indescribability" by itself is not tierable, but if there is evidence that this indescribability infers superiority, we can tier it x + 1 above the existing cosmology. Further, if there is explicit evidence that the indescribable superiority applies even to descriptions of levels of reality higher than one's own, that can be used to conclude an infinite regress of transcendence which would be tiered at 1-A.

I feel there is considerable agreement more or less, as we all mostly seem to agree that NT Superiority cannot be automatically extrapolated to 1-A without something concrete in the verse stating that this applies to higher levels of reality beyond one's own.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, this is a bit awkward. Nevertheless:

Regarding the former example I mentioned (a character trying to describe a transcendent entity), this post from Agnaa made me realise one issue with applying this "infinite regress" principle; all of the descriptions, even if made about higher levels of reality, are all bound to the level of reality that the descriptions are made in. That person may be imagining higher transcendences, but for all we know, that is just their imagined concept of it - such thoughts are not necessarily reflective of actual higher levels of reality, just reflective of a version of those higher levels that can be interpreted and understood by someone in a lower level. Any of us can think about higher levels of reality, but our concepts of those higher levels are limited by the constraints of our own level. In that sense, this infinite regression of thoughts can all take place in one level of reality, with the entity simply sitting one level above that.

I don't believe "the descriptions of higher levels of reality are bound to one level of reality" is something of an impediment, strictly speaking.

Obviously, you wouldn't be tiered off of exceeding the sentences describing things, per se, but off exceeding whatever the contents of those sentences may be.

To give an example of what I mean: Imagine a character strolls through a bookstore, picks up an in-universe comicbook, and reads about the superhuman feats of a character in the story. They then proceed to mock these feats and claim that they're all beneath themselves. Obviously, we wouldn't say "Clearly they're saying they're stronger than the drawings on the page, so this is a 10-C statement." We'd say "They're claiming to be stronger than what the comicbook's narrative is conveying. The contents of it."

That is, by and large, what I mean here. If even the contents of descriptions informing qualitative superiority are, themselves, qualitatively inferior to what the character actually is, I'd treat the case in a similar fashion.

 

[Deagonx]

It's definitely not my intention to stifle discussion, but I do think it's fair to say that with 7 agrees on generalizing to x + 1 scaling, we should act on this. It's of course possible that another thread could be made in the future to change it to something else.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It seems the agreements largely focused around hypothetical bare minimums that don't even allow us to infer anything other than one level of infinity (Or don't allow us to infer anything at all). Agnaa and Grath, however, both showed skepticism even with regards to cases where an infinite regress of statements is conveyed. I think it's fine to open a window for discussion on those cases. Not like the thread is growing legs and running away.

 

[Deagonx]

Not like the thread is growing legs and running away.

That's true but the conclusions of this thread are sort of hanging over a few profiles, and there's more than enough staff agreement to enact the changes even if we counted Agnaa and Grath as explicit disagrees, but Agnaa said he agreed with DT and Grath's stance is largely the same, with the addition of a possible route to 1-A, which is I think a good compromise (as it's not one that I or DT included).

 

[Ultima_Reality]

with the addition of a possible route to 1-A, which is I think a good compromise

Yeah, and I'd like to discuss this compromise a bit further, myself. Nobody else really inputted on it that much, from what I can see, just on the barebone cases that we wouldn't hand that over to, regardless.

 

[Deagonx]

I suppose it's fine to wait for some of the people I quoted to comment on the compromise. My personal stance is against it, I think we should stick to x + 1, but I am willing to accept it as a path to reaching a conclusion.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I suppose it's fine to wait for some of the people I quoted to comment on the compromise

Yeah, pretty much. Grath herself is welcome to input on my (sort of) objections to her points, as well.

 

[GrathOfLux]

I don't believe "the descriptions of higher levels of reality are bound to one level of reality" is something of an impediment, strictly speaking.

Obviously, you wouldn't be tiered off of exceeding the sentences describing things, per se, but off exceeding whatever the contents of those sentences may be.

To give an example of what I mean: Imagine a character strolls through a bookstore, picks up an in-universe comicbook, and reads about the superhuman feats of a character in the story. They then proceed to mock these feats and claim that they're all beneath themselves. Obviously, we wouldn't say "Clearly they're saying they're stronger than the drawings on the page, so this is a 10-C statement." We'd say "They're claiming to be stronger than what the comicbook's narrative is conveying. The contents of it."

That is, by and large, what I mean here. If even the contents of descriptions informing qualitative superiority are, themselves, qualitatively inferior to what the character actually is, I'd treat the case in a similar fashion.

An interesting point.

To be honest, I don't believe the bookstore analogy here quite works. Notably, I'd say the difference between the bookstore analogy and the problem we're dealing with here is that the character in the bookstore is fully capable of accurately conceptualising the feats they are seeing, while I'd argue a 3-dimensional entity isn't capable of accurately conceptualising higher dimensions.

To explain what I mean in more illustrative terms, consider how we tend to think of higher dimensional concepts ourselves. For a simple example, a tesseract - a tesseract, as you'd know, is effectively our concept of a "4th dimensional cube". But when thinking about a tesseract, or "conceptualising" it ourselves, we can only imagine analogues to a 4th dimensional cube. In other words, we can describe what a 4th dimensional cube is like only by using 3rd dimensional constructs as an analogy. It's impossible to conceptualise a 4th dimensional object in our minds as it truly is - all of our mental concepts of higher dimensions are dependent on our ability to only think of things on a 3 dimensional scale at most.

The same applies to our descriptions of "layers" in dimensionality, as we often put it. Our descriptions of layers, and how dimensions fit into those layers, are dependent on our ability to conceptualise these constructs only to the extent that they can be represented in a 3 dimensional form. I would argue this is a far cry from the bookstore analogy, where a person can indeed look at a comic book and accurately conceptualise what the feat would look like in the real world.

What I'm positing is that, because our mental constructs and means of understanding higher dimensions are limited by our ability to think of these concepts only by 3 dimensional analogies at most, that an entity being superior to any other individual's mental conception of them isn't inherently more than just one layer above the other individual. If that other individual is a 3-dimensional entity, then while they can describe higher dimensions, all of their concepts of higher dimensions are limited by the capacity to understand them on a 3-dimensional scale. Anything above a 3-dimensional scale, then, is outside of their mental concepts.

Now that I've said "concept" enough to make Plato blush, I am curious what your thoughts on this posit are.

 

[Agnaa]

It seems the agreements largely focused around hypothetical bare minimums that don't even allow us to infer anything other than one level of infinity (Or don't allow us to infer anything at all). Agnaa and Grath, however, both showed skepticism even with regards to cases where an infinite regress of statements is conveyed. I think it's fine to open a window for discussion on those cases. Not like the thread is growing legs and running away.

As I said, I'd want there to be concrete reasons to think of each thought in the infinite regress of statements as being equivalent to an uncountably infinitely large jump.

The book store example does nothing for me in that regard. I'm not objecting to statements potentially being able to relate to characters without those statements being physically actualised, I object to assuming that the infinite regress of statements involves ones about power in the first place.

As I see it, you'd want to assume that statements relating to dimensional jumps would be included by default, while I wouldn't assume that.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Mr._Bambu gave me permission to post in this thread.

I intend to create a page in the near future that will address this matter, akin to the omnipotence we possess currently in the site. I will incorporate our guidelines and our perspective there, elucidating the nature of negative theology, and its relevance and connection to fiction.

Negative Theology

vsbattles.fandom.com

Not completed (I still need to research, since wiki apparently does not explain its origin very well in my perspective) – keyword: "my perspective".

@DarkGrath apologies if I copied your last 3 options, I will be formulating it in my very own soon, just collecting thoughts.

For meanwhile, I suggest something we can do at least now, in the tiering system, we can denote the following:

Being "indescribable" or any similar reasoning (for instance, negative theology) is not nearly enough to reach this tier on its own; however, such statements can be used as supporting evidence in conjunction with more substantial information.

In the section 1-A, we did the same for “omnipotence”. Not saying, that we should immediately close the thread and not leave @Ultima_Reality to debate on it, but alternatively since we at least agree all on this part.

 

[Antvasima]

@Mr._Bambu gave me permission to post in this thread.

I intend to create a page in the near future that will address this matter, akin to the omnipotence we possess currently in the site. I will incorporate our guidelines and our perspective there, elucidating the nature of negative theology, and its relevance and connection to fiction.

Negative Theology

vsbattles.fandom.com

Not completed (I still need to research, since wiki apparently does not explain its origin very well in my perspective) – keyword: "my perspective".

@DarkGrath apologies if I copied your last 3 options, I will be formulating it in my very own soon, just collecting thoughts.

For meanwhile, I suggest something we can do at least now, in the tiering system, we can denote the following:

In the section 1-A, we did the same for “omnipotence”. Not saying, that we should immediately close the thread and not leave @Ultima_Reality to debate on it, but alternatively since we at least agree all on this part.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @PrinceofPein @Everything12 @Planck69 @Ovy7 @TheUnshakableOne @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Kerwin0831 @RatherClueless

What do you think about ImmortalDread's draft page so far?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Looking at other (Similarly neglected) threads that are higher up on my priority list than this one right now, so, I'll give my input later today.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The sandbox isn't finished, and I still need to complete it. However, I'm open to hearing the perspectives of staff members, especially if anyone disagrees with the idea of having a page similar to omnipotence.

I believe I should compile a list similar to @Agnaa. I have numerous responsibilities for this community too, so I must arrange my priorities accordingly.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think about ImmortalDread's draft page so far?

I'm not sure if we should have a modern religions section, but it is used to explain the concept. So I guess it looks alright.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I mean, the concept is still practiced on those religions till now. I guess it has importance regarding its definition. If you think, its needless, I will be happy to remove it.

Altho, do you agree with the notion of having the page? This is essential to know, since if everyone disagree with it, I would be likely to drop the idea. Altho, I personally think, it won't harm to clarify it and explain our stance (as in VSBW standpoint) like we did for omnipotence.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Altho, do you agree with the notion of having the page?

I'm not against having a page.

 

[Antvasima]

It is best to not explicitly mention any modern religions in your page, yes.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Sure, it can be removed.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for being reasonable.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Alright, so, catching up with some slack...

As I said, I'd want there to be concrete reasons to think of each thought in the infinite regress of statements as being equivalent to an uncountably infinitely large jump.

The book store example does nothing for me in that regard. I'm not objecting to statements potentially being able to relate to characters without those statements being physically actualised, I object to assuming that the infinite regress of statements involves ones about power in the first place.

As I see it, you'd want to assume that statements relating to dimensional jumps would be included by default, while I wouldn't assume that.

I wasn't responding to your objections there. I was responding to Grath's, which was "That regress of statements would be bound to one level of reality," which was a different point from yours, to my understanding.

That said, what do you mean by "statements relating to dimensional jumps" exactly? Do you mean to say that, if NT applies, you wouldn't necessarily consider the statement giving qualitative superiority as including itself among the list of statements the character is superior to?

It brings to mind an interesting scenario that came up while I was debating with DontTalk about another topic (While this very thread was around, even). Basically, we were arguing about this scan. While I was focusing on the "Beyond what mathematics can explain" bit, DontTalk objected to the whole statement by saying that, since it says the thing is "beyond language" while itself describing it with language, it must be just flowery language and not to be taken literally at all.

So, to what extent would we be allowed to use the "Saying that something is beyond description is itself a description" logic here? Because in that case we had a very prominent staff member openly using it as part of a counterargument.

To explain what I mean in more illustrative terms, consider how we tend to think of higher dimensional concepts ourselves. For a simple example, a tesseract - a tesseract, as you'd know, is effectively our concept of a "4th dimensional cube". But when thinking about a tesseract, or "conceptualising" it ourselves, we can only imagine analogues to a 4th dimensional cube. In other words, we can describe what a 4th dimensional cube is like only by using 3rd dimensional constructs as an analogy. It's impossible to conceptualise a 4th dimensional object in our minds as it truly is - all of our mental concepts of higher dimensions are dependent on our ability to only think of things on a 3 dimensional scale at most.

The same applies to our descriptions of "layers" in dimensionality, as we often put it. Our descriptions of layers, and how dimensions fit into those layers, are dependent on our ability to conceptualise these constructs only to the extent that they can be represented in a 3 dimensional form. I would argue this is a far cry from the bookstore analogy, where a person can indeed look at a comic book and accurately conceptualise what the feat would look like in the real world.

What I'm positing is that, because our mental constructs and means of understanding higher dimensions are limited by our ability to think of these concepts only by 3 dimensional analogies at most, that an entity being superior to any other individual's mental conception of them isn't inherently more than just one layer above the other individual. If that other individual is a 3-dimensional entity, then while they can describe higher dimensions, all of their concepts of higher dimensions are limited by the capacity to understand them on a 3-dimensional scale. Anything above a 3-dimensional scale, then, is outside of their mental concepts.

I think "conceptualizing" something, in the sense of entertaining its mental idea in the abstract, isn't really quite the same as imagining something's physical features, which is what your example of a tesseract touches upon most closely. It's true, we can't imagine what a tesseract physically looks like, but we can conceptualize its properties (And represent them mathematically, even), which is in principle what a statement about it truly conveys.

So I don't think the argument of "These conceptualizations would be bound by our 3-dimensional understanding of those things" really works, because they, well, aren't. Our ability to conceive of things isn't so limited, even if our ability to picture things is.

---

As for other matters: I don't think a whole page for Negative Theology is really necessary, no. It feels like ultimately such a niche thing that it could be explained succinctly in an already-existing page.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm going to withhold judgement on the page until it's finished.

I wasn't responding to your objections there. I was responding to Grath's, which was "That regress of statements would be bound to one level of reality," which was a different point from yours, to my understanding.

That said, what do you mean by "statements relating to dimensional jumps" exactly? Do you mean to say that, if NT applies, you wouldn't necessarily consider the statement giving qualitative superiority as including itself among the list of statements the character is superior to?

Something like that, yeah. In the same way that I wouldn't consider "Is beyond {an exact description of our site's entire tiering system}" to be a part of the statements.

It brings to mind an interesting scenario that came up while I was debating with DontTalk about another topic (While this very thread was around, even). Basically, we were arguing about this scan. While I was focusing on the "Beyond what mathematics can explain" bit, DontTalk objected to the whole statement by saying that, since it says the thing is "beyond language" while itself describing it with language, it must be just flowery language and not to be taken literally at all.

So, to what extent would we be allowed to use the "Saying that something is beyond description is itself a description" logic here? Because in that case we had a very prominent staff member openly using it as part of a counterargument.

I endorse the use of that counterargument.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I think we can agree at reality +1 with NT.