Some concerns regarding current Tiering System standards (1-A and up)

[Regidian]

Most of the verse that this concern are already tier 0 or tier 1-A/High 1-A

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

But just saying "Type 4 multiverse" or having "all mathematical structures" would be NLF right?

 

[NIK_FARIS]

But just saying "Type 4 multiverse" or having "all mathematical structures" would be NLF right?

Well, yeah, they have to really show that it in fact based on it consistently first.

 

[Jibz]

That seems like a serious potential problem then.

A better way to see it would be a serious potential solution, to the issue of misguided ratings. We're all so quick to draw negative connotations when Ultima has handed us a solution, on a silver platter.

 

[Antvasima]

Maybe. I will see what DontTalk, Agnaa, and the other knowledgeable members here think.

 

[Agnaa]

But just saying "Type 4 multiverse" or having "all mathematical structures" would be NLF right?

I asked Ultima for an example of what would qualify, and he provided this:

Anna's face worked. "They are considering constraints on the ultimate manifold."

Maura suspected that she was going to struggle with the rest of this conversation. "The manifold of what?"

"Universes. It is of course a truism that all logically possible universes must exist. The universe, this universe, is described - umm, that's the wrong word - by a formal system. Mathematics. A system of mathematics." Maura frowned. "You mean a Theory of Everything?"

Anna waved a hand, as if that were utterly trivial, and her beautiful wings rustled.

"But there are many formal systems. Some of them are less rich, some more. But each formal system is logically consistent internally, describes a possible universe, which therefore exists." .

I modified that example to something more like a description of omnipotence, and with some technical language removed, and Ultima still said it would qualify:

Anna's face worked. "They are considering the constraints on God."

Maura suspected that she was going to struggle with the rest of this conversation. "God has constraints?"

"Even being able to do anything, one can only do what is logical. God can do and create whatever He desires, unless that would break the fundamental rules of logic." Maura frowned. "You mean like creating a rock too big for Him to lift?"

Anna waved a hand, as if she'd heard that response a thousand times, and her beautiful wings rustled.

"Of course, but there's a lot more to it than that. Which is why the priests have convened." .

 

[Antvasima]

Well, in that case I am extremely uneasy with loosening our requirements to this degree.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

I asked Ultima for an example of what would qualify, and he provided this:

I modified that example to something more like a description of omnipotence, and with some technical language removed, and Ultima still said it would qualify:

I mean, that verse has woodin cardinals or something at least.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, that verse has woodin cardinals or something at least.

Yeah, but the difference seems to be that I (and some others) would only give that a high tier because woodin cardinals are known to physically exist. While Ultima (and some others) think such a statement isn't necessary, since it would implicitly include constructs that big by infinities existing in the verse in the first place.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Agnaa.

 

[Jibz]

I mean, that verse has woodin cardinals or something at least.

No it doesnt

Yeah, but the difference seems to be that I (and some others) would only give that a high tier because woodin cardinals are known to physically exist. While Ultima (and some others) think such a statement isn't necessary, since it would implicitly include constructs that big by infinities existing in the verse in the first place.

There are other statements that corroborate the notion of MUH in Manifold

 

[RatherClueless]

Both of those are often worked in the framework of ZFC

Besides the point

Set theories that only provide us with two infinities (N and the continuum) to work with don't normally allow us to make theorems about the real numbers or sets thereof

You do realize that Euclidean spaces is a Polish space, right? So please answer my question. Why is the foundation of manifolds not enough to tier something based on, well, manifolds?

Do you mind?

I do. And not just because you chose to skip 90% of the actual argument, since what me and Agnaa talked about was only tangential to that anyways. Elaboreated the point you were reffering to on discord since I dont wanna derail this too much.

Mind elaborating?

Sure, but first of all

there isn't really any long trend of being contradicted across fiction that we can appeal to, in the first place. All of that just sounds like it serves my point, instead of yours.

Dont use this as an agrument. "long trends" were never the (main) issue with inflated stats. Agnaa already did a perfectly well job at explaining that. Honestly, I think you fail to realize just how absurd some of our standards are when it comes to inflation. Just gonna give you one from personal experience.

Character does a jump which mentions drag.
Calculates speed needed including drag
Calculates impulse based on the feat that was created with that jump
The verse has SoL statements (even if kinda vague)

Rejected for likely inflating the stats. How often do you think feats like that were even calced to fall under "trend in fiction"? Honestly, I doubt there are even more than 1 or 2 users (excluding me) here that could even make a calc like that.

Anyways. I'll elaborate. By making this our standard you are asking people to prove a negative. It is just as if we were to make SoL KE our standard and were to slap AoE fallacy on anything that contradicts it. It'd be nigh impossible to disprove without the verse going into detail about how this wouldn't apply. If there are no statements about the structure of the multiverse to even prove it is that big, how would you possibly go about debunking such a claim? No matter how absurd it may be in the verse, for as long as it is not explicitly contradicted, we'd just roll with it. TL;DR burden of proof is on you, but this standard would shift it on the opponents of the upgrade, which is, with all due respect, dumb. That should never ever be the default.

There are other statements that corroborate the notion of MUH in Manifold

Not about other statements. I already said this on discord (and pretty sure to you specifically as well). Ultima used this quote and this quote alone as a baseline for what qualifies. Nothing else. So this is what we will hold him by. How in detail Manifold goes beyond this quote is utterly irrelevant.

I pointed out that the quote said that all logical universes were based on math, rather than all formal systems creating a universe and that it said there are "many" formal systems rather than "an infinite amount" or anything of equal meaning. He told me I shouldn't nitpick a specific verse (even though he was the one who used it as a baseline for his standards), since he argues this as a whole. When I asked him to give a different example, even one he can make up himself, he never did.

So unlit then, this is what we will hold him by and nothing else.

 

[Jibz]

Not about other statements. I already said this on discord (and pretty sure to you specifically as well). Ultima used this quote and this quote alone as a baseline for what qualifies. Nothing else. So this is what we will hold him by. How in detail Manifold goes beyond this quote is utterly irrelevant.

I was just clarifying to Agnaa

I pointed out that the quote said that all logical universes were based on math, rather than all formal systems creating a universe and that it said there are "many" formal systems rather than "an infinite amount" or anything of equal meaning

Its all logically consistent/coherent formal systems

He told me I shouldn't nitpick a specific verse (even though he was the one who used it as a baseline for his standards), since he argues this as a whole. When I asked him to give a different example, even one he can make up himself, he never did.

I am not Ultima i do not need to know this.

So unlit then, this is what we will hold him by and nothing else.

Literally just clarifying so the verse im carrying atm isnt misconstrued. There is plenty justification for MUH Manifold. Some include:

TOE name drop in Time, albiet its one formal system describing a universe rather than the cosmology.

Cosmology referred to as an infinite ensemble in Origin

Cosmology is described as having a basis in maths, with physical structures in the verse being made up of math (Stars are given as an example —> Made up of prime numbers)

These are two prominent examples off the top of my head, i could probably find more. Regardless of what Ultima said lets not act like the justification of MUH manifold will be just that.

 

[Swerzye29038]

Besides the point


You do realize that Euclidean spaces is a Polish space, right? So please answer my question. Why is the foundation of manifolds not enough to tier something based on, well, manifolds?


I do. And not just because you chose to skip 90% of the actual argument, since what me and Agnaa talked about was only tangential to that anyways. Elaboreated the point you were reffering to on discord since I dont wanna derail this too much.


Sure, but first of all


Dont use this as an agrument. "long trends" were never the (main) issue with inflated stats. Agnaa already did a perfectly well job at explaining that. Honestly, I think you fail to realize just how absurd some of our standards are when it comes to inflation. Just gonna give you one from personal experience.


Rejected for likely inflating the stats. How often do you think feats like that were even calced to fall under "trend in fiction"? Honestly, I doubt there are even more than 1 or 2 users (excluding me) here that could even make a calc like that.

Anyways. I'll elaborate. By making this our standard you are asking people to prove a negative. It is just as if we were to make SoL KE our standard and were to slap AoE fallacy on anything that contradicts it. It'd be nigh impossible to disprove without the verse going into detail about how this wouldn't apply. If there are no statements about the structure of the multiverse to even prove it is that big, how would you possibly go about debunking such a claim? No matter how absurd it may be in the verse, for as long as it is not explicitly contradicted, we'd just roll with it. TL;DR burden of proof is on you, but this standard would shift it on the opponents of the upgrade, which is, with all due respect, dumb. That should never ever be the default.


Not about other statements. I already said this on discord (and pretty sure to you specifically as well). Ultima used this quote and this quote alone as a baseline for what qualifies. Nothing else. So this is what we will hold him by. How in detail Manifold goes beyond this quote is utterly irrelevant.

I pointed out that the quote said that all logical universes were based on math, rather than all formal systems creating a universe and that it said there are "many" formal systems rather than "an infinite amount" or anything of equal meaning. He told me I shouldn't nitpick a specific verse (even though he was the one who used it as a baseline for his standards), since he argues this as a whole. When I asked him to give a different example, even one he can make up himself, he never did.

So unlit then, this is what we will hold him by and nothing else.

So in short, it’s unjustified wank, as I suspected.

 

[RatherClueless]

Its all logically consistent/coherent formal systems

Not what it said in the quote. It says that all logical universes are based on math and that all these formal systems are logically coherent. Not that all logically coherent formal sytsems imaginable create a universe. Every Ford is a car, but not every car is a Ford. Same thing.

Kinda besides the point anyways.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Invoking No-Limits-Fallacy is pretty erroneous here, in my view, because what that is is just the principle of characters not being allowed to go beyond the amount of evidence they are drawing from, which is a moot point if a statement is already pretty believable by virtue of being backed up by some amount of proper context and if the pool of evidence that statement is drawing from also has its roots in default assumptions made by us (I believe you even defended sticking to ZFC as a system multiple times, in the past). It would be NLF to claim a character has infinite power or that a space is infinite based on inferences that take from insufficient evidence, but if, in both cases, infinity is outright invoked, and backed up by additional context, then NLF wouldn't be applicable in the first place.

'Beyond the amount of evidence they have drawn from'? Both cases are equivalent in that regard. Both have not demonstrated power on even the same level of infinity as the tier they should be ranked as and both are only indicated to be such by what is logical extrapolation from statements the verse gives (which of course are reliable i.e. in proper context). None has actually more evidence than the other.

ZFC isn't a magic word that makes the NLF go away. Yes, we assume standard mathematics exist in universes. Guess what else we do assume to exist? Standard logic. A ZFC based argument isn't any better, premise wise, than any other logical argument. Hence it is also not any more exempt from the NLF.

And 'if infinity is outright invoked'? So if Fiamma, say, affected a High 1-C Magic God and their higher infinities of power extrapolating it to Tier 0 would not be a NLF? Nah, it would be a NLF just as much. You are pretending as if all infinity is the same, although you very much know better. The amount of evidence needed to get to even higher levels of infinity doesn't get less just because you have already reached some level of infinity.

That's generally the issue here. You are basically arguing that the standards of reasoning get less strict as we get to higher tier. That what would be a NLF to a 3D character isn't one for a 1-A one anymore because they are already strong.
It's the opposite. Requirements get stricter as the tier increases.

Horrible comparision. Omnipotence, at its basest, just means "all-powerful" or "all-mighty," and the number of different interpretations of what exactly the term entails are so many that picking any of them is something that is not warranted in the majority of cases. It's just a word that happened to have a lot of baggage thrown on its back throughout the years, and unless we have reason to adopt any of that baggage, we take that to be exactly what it is: Just a word. Not at all comparable to what I am proposing, which all involves fairly specific definitions.

Not at all horrible comparison, since we had long since decided that Omnipotence without feats isn't tiering relevant, regardless of how well explained the concept is. It would need to include specific explanations regarding certain levels of infinity to matter, but then it is all about those explanations not about the omnipotence in itself.

Even by our current standards, they would have to be High 1-B or Low 1-A at worst, given that cartesian products are fairly easy to prove even in extremely weak frameworks, and those characters would then have free access to that. From what I can tell, that seems to be just a matter of us not believing they have logical omnipotence to begin with, so, I should ask: Who are these characters?

Nah, because we don't tier people by logical omnipotence at all.

Magic Gods in ToAru come to mind. Their power covers all possibilities, to the point that the main barrier Othinus had to overcome to gain 'full power' (i.e. practical use of her abilities) was that being able to do literally everything logically implies also being able to fail. So she had to make a device that limits her power to success.

 

[Swerzye29038]

So, I have a question relating to Manifold, which obviously would be affected by this. Is there any feat in the series that indicate anything higher than Low 1-C other than statements of "all logically possible universes" existing within it's cosmology?

 

[Vietthai96]

While i understand your points, i leaning toward disagree with the Type 4 Multiverse section, assuming all possible mathematic to be literal in meaning is kinda NLF for my taste, i think the verse need to me more specific when talking about a mathematic multiverse, not just slap a "all possible mathematic" and call it a day
Will response to the other point later, but this Type IV Multiverse point is kinda the biggest problem

 

[Antvasima]

That's generally the issue here. You are basically arguing that the standards of reasoning get less strict as we get to higher tier. That what would be a NLF to a 3D character isn't one for a 1-A one anymore because they are already strong.
It's the opposite. Requirements get stricter as the tier increases.

I extremely strongly agree with this sentiment, and consider it a major problem with our community that I have seen several members have the opposite view over the years.

 

[Regidian]

The problem seem to be mainly type IV Multiverse, or the two other have the same problem?

 

[Qawsedf234]

The problem seem to be mainly type IV Multiverse, or the two other have the same problem?

Going by the other Multiverses of Tegmark they would be High 3-A, at most 2-A and 2-A to High 1-B

 

[Urshani]

I agree with Ultima Reality

 

[Lukewoesal007]

Ultima's arguments make more sense to me. I agree.

 

[Bobsican]

Uh... this is a staff thread, if you're not staff, one of the last things to do unless stated otherwise is "I agree with X FRA"

 

[Swerzye29038]

Uh... this is a staff thread, if you're not staff, one of the last things to do unless stated otherwise is "I agree with X FRA"

just don't count it as a vote

 

[RatherClueless]

Going by the other Multiverses of Tegmark they would be High 3-A, at most 2-A and 2-A to High 1-B

Actually, this makes me wonder. Does a verse even need to mention a type 4 multiverse for us to consider it one or is "universes based on formal systems" enough?

Because if it is, doesn't that mean that any verse following the MWI would be H 1-B and going by the same pattern as this, without even needing to show that it's infinite dimensional?

 

[Regidian]

Going by the other Multiverses of Tegmark they would be High 3-A, at most 2-A and 2-A to High 1-B

I was talking about the modal realism and apophatic theology, if the concern apply to them too

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @RatherClueless

So have these suggested revisions been entirely rejected as potentially harmful, or are there any potential improvements to our current standards that can be derived from them?

 

[RatherClueless]

I don't think any common ground has been found so far. Not even what exactly the standards should be when it comes to Type 4 Multiverses, which should probably be discussed even before we can talk about what tier we should consider it as.

So while we haven't really agreed on anything so far, this might actually have an impact on how we treat verses with things such as a Type 4 Multiverse or anything comparable. Going to have to wait on Ultima to make a response first. Don't feel like this needs to be rushed either way though.

Edit: It'd be great if Ultima could provide a list of what in his opinion should be necessary, what can be supporting and what would be straight up contradicting to a Type 4 Multiverse. As of now we can only really guess based on the quote he gave us. He says we don't just carelessly give it to any verse, yet there are no clear standards. Not on a page on the wiki nor on this thread or even discord.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Jibz]

Uh... this is a staff thread, if you're not staff, one of the last things to do unless stated otherwise is "I agree with X FRA"

when blue names disagree —> Nobody complains or calls it out
when blue names say they agree “wtf this is a staff thread dude stop saying you agree!”

Let me them vote, it just wont be counted but will be a good measure of gauging opinions. Just because someone has a red tag next to their name doesnt make their opinion any better.

Anyways, since ive been knew about this, im leaning towards agree. Slightly iffy on if our rules should be so lax however. Makes more sense to do a case by case basis rather then one flat, fundemental break off point. And how apophatic indexing wont just be omnipotence v2.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that staff and highly knowledgeable members should handle this. It is too important and potentially highly destructive to let other members significantly influence it.

 

[RatherClueless]

Let me them vote, it just wont be counted but will be a good measure of gauging opinions. Just because someone has a red tag next to their name doesnt make their opinion any better.

While I don't think discounting non staff people for the sake of them being non staff is wise, simply taking their FRAs at face value is a bit . . . I think in a thread like this they should at the very least have contributed for their votes to be considered. Be it to gauge opinion or to actually come to an agreement.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if they are evidently highly knowledgeable about the subject, it is obviously fine if they contribute here.

 

[Jibz]

While I don't think discounting non staff people for the sake of them being non staff is wise, simply taking their FRAs at face value is a bit . . . I think in a thread like this they should at the very least have contributed for their votes to be considered. Be it to gauge opinion or to actually come to an agreement.

The arguments themselves arent that hard to grasp. Apophatic theology and modal realism are relatively simple to conceptualize and comprehend. MUH is debateable however, but literally anyone who cares enough to do a speck of research would be able to comment on this thread. It truly isnt that complicated.

Regardless, ”contribution is vague” giving your opinion is a form of contribution to dialects. Unless you mean theyd have to actually make some sort of stance or point outside of whats been stated already, which is an arbitrary rule, crafted only for your own benefit and to avoid being cynical. I do not care for it.

Tldr; i see no reason why a blue name shouldnt be able to cast a vote on apophatic indexing + Modal Realism. MUH i can see your stance so if one must show “knowledge” or “contribute” to be able to hold an opinion in the matter, that is fine as long as you explain what would be necessary to show.

 

[Antvasima]

We are not going to suddenly start let regular members, who have not been accepted to help with doing so by very high-ranking staff members or are honorary staff themselves, get to decide potentially greatly damaging changes to our fundamental standards. We have our staff forum as a very necessary safeguard, and the regular members who have not been invited or otherwise allowed to comment here should preferably not derail this thread any further. My apologies.

 

[RatherClueless]

People tend to "mindlessly" FRA even basic VS threads. This might sound a bit rude, but unless they can put their thoughts on why they agree with one side and not with the other in their own words, I dont think we should even bother with them. That should be the absolute bare minimum. Show that you understand the topic and arguments at hand. If it was up to me, I'd make that a requirements even for CRTs and VS threads, but whatever. Voting before this has been fully discussed is kinda silly regardless.

Anyways, this is getting kinda off topic. The fact that we are even allowing regular members to just participate (even if they have nothing of value to add) is quite lenient tbh.

Edit: If you want to continue this, take it to discord. This discussion just needlessly clutters this thread otherwise

 

[Jibz]

We are not going to suddenly start let regular members, who have not been accepted to help with doing so by very high-ranking staff members, or are honorary staff themselves, get to decide potentially greatly damaging changes

i never said this?

We have our staff forum as a very necessary safeguard, and the regular members who have not been invited or otherwise allowed to comment here should preferably not derail this thread any further. My apologies.

Literally what i was saying was that Normal users can voice their opinion regardless of wether or not its considered in the actual vote

People tend to "mindlessly" FRA even basic VS threads. This might sound a bit rude, but unless they can put their thoughts on why they agree with one side and not with the other in their own words, I dont think we should even bother with them.

If they agree then its because they find Ultima’s arguments more compelling. Infantilizing or assuming their mindless is just a preconcieved notion you hold

Show that you understand the topic and arguments at hand. If it was up to me, I'd make that a requirements even for CRTs and VS threads, but whatever. Voting before this has been fully discussed is kinda silly regardless.

Finding Ultima’s arguments more compelling is an inherent part of “FRA”. As for understanding. It. Is. Not. That. Hard. Modal Realism, apophatic theology is simple enough to grasp via a google search or a youtube video.

Anyways, this is getting kinda off topic. The fact that we are even allowing regular members to just participate (even if they have nothing of value to add) is quite lenient tbh.

Agreed, lets stop this before it gets out of hand and we have an entire page on points that dont need addressing. Just hope you hold the same standards if someone disagrees with the CRT.

Tldr; not saying let blue names vote count unless they smart, just saying they can state the fact they side with Ultima.

 

[Antvasima]

Jibz, please permanently stop derailing this thread. You have not been allowed to comment here.

 

[RatherClueless]

Well, he is one of the main knowledgeable members for (at least) two of the verse affected by this, so him commenting should be fine . . . just not on our standards for staff threads and regular member participation. That's a different thread for a different time I suppose.