Why would those be High 1-A rather than higher into 1-A+?
I'd say such a thing is indeed what happens here. Conceptually speaking, the point of High 1-A (As I think you've been told not that long ago) is pretty much that the character transcends lesser states of existence to the extent that they exist in a new hierarchy of [whatever] altogether, and not just in an extension of an already-existing hierarchy.
I can only comment on the Law of Identity case and that specifically transcends the logical framework of R>F hierarchies in that it is explained to be, by its very nature, above every possible level of fiction.
There really isn't much of a distinction between what you say and what I am talking about. The Law of Identity, I would assume, does not get her High 1-A rating because of the size of the hierarchy (or theoretical hierarchy) she transcends, but because she is above the "quality" by which it is defined (R-F layers, in this case). I doubt you'd equate "all possible layers of fiction" to "As many layers as there are cardinals in ZFC," so clearly you're not making a quantitative argument there.
"Beyond" as a word doesn't imply qualitative superiority without further context.
The point is that she is not just above the actual hierarchy in the verse, but above its logical framework. That is the distinction the Tiering System makes.
I see a difference there. It's one thing to just have another kind of transcendance above a hierarchy and being transcendent to the hierarchy's logical framework.
It's specifically being above what can possibly be allowed by the logical framework, not just above the actual hierarchy.
There were plenty of staff members participating on this thread before. If needed, they can just be called back. No biggie there.
That point only really applies if you assume that the "different kind of transcendence" is just that, different, but not completely above, the kind of transcendence defining the lower hierarchy. By extension, meaning that the lower hierarchy could reach a level comparable to the one above if it were hypothetically expanded.
Yet the arguments you've done still show traces of these gripes of yours, like you saying "The hierarchy ideally shouldn't be significantly more limited than ZFC" (That's not the case, transcending even a countably infinite amount of layers is High 1-A if done correctly), or "This means that we'd allow even hierarchies factually smaller than ZFC to reach higher tiers!" (Only "factually smaller" in terms of layer count, and you yourself acknowledge that, with regards to High 1-A, that's not really everything we use to evaluate things)
I agree.
Can you show a scan that says that creatures beyond the hierarchy of dreams can, by nature, not be part of any theoretical higher dreams?
I don't really see how that argument would be strange. A creature can be above an infinite hierarchy of dreams yet still part of some higher entities' dream.
When I say ideally that was supposed to express that this isn't a necessary criteria. Knowing that the logical framework isn't just 5 levels of infinity big is just making things look a lot more reasonable.
It can't, no. If there's a system of layers defined by the kind of interrelationship they have with each other (Dreams, dimensions, and etc), then, as far as we are concerned, the "hierarchy" is the entirety of that, not whatever arbitrary subdivisions of it. If you have an infinite series of dreams and then a last dream ontop of it, that last dream is not above the hierarchy of dreams, it's a part of it.
By your own logic, it wouldn't really be any more reasonable one way or another. You know full well how much larger "All cardinals" is than "Infinite layers," quantity-wise.
To explain roughly how it works:
For a start, that wouldn't change that the character is above a 1-A+ hierarchy, as the removal of that 1 level will not change the prior thing to a lesser tier. If you remove 1 level from an infinite 1-A hierarchy, you still have an infinite 1-A hierarchy. So it doesn't change the fact that a character can transcend an infinite 1-A hierarchy by 1 level and yet have a level above that. That the infinite hierarchy mentioned in the fiction would somehow cover the extra 2 levels is a rather arbitrary assumption. It would be weird to believe that a hierarchy can not have sub-hierarchies.
Decide whether we go by the word of the current rules or by how I would like things to be. I'm currently arguing by current rules.
This mentions concepts are in the Arbiter. I thought they were the Superflow?
For the most part I don't see why in principle there can't be a dream of unmanifest energy or similar. Dreams themselves are rather abstract things.
It would not be an arbitrary assumption at all, no. A hierarchy is defined by the system of relationships between the ranks of it. If I have a 3-dimensional space contained by a 4-dimensional space and then add a 5-dimensional space around both, that 5-dimensional space is definitionally part of the overall dimensional hierarchy.
Different stories using differing languages, really. For instance, in stories that focus on the omniverse and such, the whole thing will sometimes be referred to as a "Firmament" (See this guy) and then the void(s) beyond as "wild space." Then in a story focusing more on lower scale stuff, single universes are "Firmaments" and the Superflow is "Wild Space."
You kinda missed the point entirely if that's your answer to it, since, as I said, the hierarchical positions of the realms are dictated entirely by how unmanifested they are. In this case, water is, in fact, superior due to being liquid. You can't have dreams above the omniverse for the same reason ice won't remain ice when you melt it back into water.
I think this should be sufficient evidence to justify High 1-A.
No point in bumping since we need new staff to come and look at the High 1-A stuff (
What about the High 1-A argument? Do you agree with Ultima (High 1-A) or DT (1-A+"+")? Because that's the only thing preventing this thread from being approved and finished.
Well asides from IdiosyncraticLawyer, the last vote on the High 1-A argument was on Monday (in favor of it).
I'm leaning High 1-A, but I'll wait for them to finish talking before I make my decision.
I'm pretty sure both Ultima and DT said they'd leave it up to the staff votes.
Then put me down for High 1-A. I've also taken the liberty of tagging some more staff to evaluate this.
Thank you, you absolute legend.
Thank you.
I get what DT is getting at, but at least for the Far Shore I don't see why it wouldn't still qualify for High 1-A due to it's nature.
And with that we're at 4 admins (@Ultima_Reality, @Sir_Ovens, @Elizhaa, @Qawsedf234) plus @IdiosyncraticLawyer who are in favor of high 1-A.
Welp, that's 5 staff in favor against 1 not, so is it enough for us to conclude this part?
Sadly only thread mod votes, admin votes and bureaucrat votes count for CRTs in general, so 4 against 1. (OP's own vote counts BTW, obviously)
Oh yeah I know, hence why I mentioned his vote separately. I checked the discussion rules.
