So, back to business, I guess:
You did not address my point, you only nitpicked my definition of terms. And I have not even made a proper reply on your argument, just trying to ask why we should treat maths verse different from philosophical verses, it was just a simple question
The point still stands, what makes Tegmark universal model any different from all the other myths out there that cannot be proven scientifically?
We don’t grant Tier 0 to any work that mentions a “Christian God” or “Judaism” and I think the same should go for mathematical verses too, it should be as they are shown and what they are shown to perform in the series.I
The difference between either is fairly obvious, and it's something I've already expressed in my response to DontTalk up there: Religion is oftentimes cluttered with a myriad different interpretations and definitions branching off of a single text (Or multiple texts), none of which are inherently more valid or truthful than the other for our purposes. What sets a Type IV Multiverse apart from such things in this context is that it does have one specific, technical, set-in-stone definition, which, if deviated from, makes that thing not a Type IV Multiverse anymore.
This is something that our current standards already reflect. If we were to find a verse where a universe is described as having aleph-2 dimensions, we'd treat it as such, because aleph-2 is a technical concept with a well-defined meaning, instead of something nebulous and subject to interpretation and debate, like, say, a religious figure is.
By that same principle, "it's just a theory" is a fairly weak argument, given I am addressing hypothetical cases where this exact theory is, in fact, true. And I think this becomes clearer when I point out that, in principle, a verse wouldn't need something to be explicitly called a Type IV Multiverse to qualify for what I'm talking about, just to match its definition.
As for you last question: Manifold is an example, yes, although admittedly I wrote this thread without much thought or care for what verses it may affect.
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.
Alrighty then:
A type 4 multiverse is just as fictional as any mythology out there. No reason to treat them differently just because one is more common than others or because of your personal believes on what is more fundamental. If you want a tier, especially one that just lets you skip through almost almost half the tiering system, ignoring all the checks and balances, you need
I feel like my response to Pain up there already can serve as a response to the first bit of this. As for the rest, I guess I can elaborate on it a bit further down, since the responses I would give to this intersect with the ones I have in mind for other parts of your pasts.
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 know that, yes, and I'm saying that all three of the (categories of) spaces you listed are built upon a set-theoretical framework, and, further, one where they form sets to begin with, that's my point here: If we want an uncountably infinite set to even provably exist, you're gonna need the very same principles that result in spaces that reach up to all levels of 1-A.
This doubles as my answer to your question, too. Euclidean spaces are by and large defined using set-theoretic backdrops (Again, as far as I know. I welcome correction), and so in that context, if you want the existence of such a space (As opposed to just the elements of that space) to be a provable fact in your theory, you need to use the axioms I listed above, the same axioms that I am using to further my argument, and this is fairly important, given how uncountably infinite sets play a big part even in the lower parts of our Tiering System. So, to address your first comments, I don't see how any of this is beside the point, no.
I also dunno what you mean by the "tier something based on manifolds" bit, either.
Dont use this as an agrument. "long trends" were never the (main) issue with inflated stats.
They seem to be the most prominent one, at least, as you can see by going on a quick stroll on our pages for everything that Agnaa used as an example for his argument up there. Most of them seem to say the exact same thing, to quote two of them:
Most electricity in fiction is not real lightning. Often it is supernatural in nature, and is possibly not even electricity. Therefore lightning is only accepted as such under certain circumstances.
Within fiction, a Big Bang is usually portrayed as a massive release of energy, instead of an expansion of space-time itself.
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.
Hm, that sounds like an interesting case to look over. Do you have any thread that I can read through, to familiarize myself with it?
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.
This is not the most meaningful fallacy you can appeal to, in this case, given that a negative proof is mostly invoked when someone is demanded to prove the nonexistence of something that, by all accounts, has been provided with no logical basis behind its potential existence to begin with. You'd have a point if all I said was "You can't prove that these principles don't apply in this verse, therefore they do," but I did go further than that alone by pointing out that they are just naturally needed to assert certain things that we already take for granted, both for our Tiering System and for any verse above Tier 3 (i.e The existence of an uncountable set).
I don't see how that analogy holds, either. Something going at Speed of Light (Or, really, any high enough speed) without any of the kinetic effects that would be expected of it in real life is something whose absurdity is demonstrable and urges us to analyze the case with more scrutiny. Meanwhile, what exactly would its equivalent be, in this case? What absurdity would cause us to take a more cautious stance?
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.
That's certainly an interesting point, yeah, although in principle you could still poke holes in it by arguing that those arguments are not so logically sound, to begin with: To appeal to
the father of the No-Limits Fallacy here, you can say that, if contrasted with boundlessness in the truest sense, any sample we can take and analyze would be insufficient to infer that something is actually at that point, and so statements that deal with that are automatically disregarded in favor of a lower bound, which gives us a provable limit to work with.
I believe the example you gave with Fiamma would fall under that same principle. It's not really possible to prove that a character's power is boundless (Or expands towards boundlessness) in the broadest possible sense, and so we steer clear of that avenue and go with a lower-end. I don't think this is necessarily the case with a Type IV Multiverse and similar things, since you can, in fact, settle for a lowest logical end for them, as we already (attempt to) do, pretty much. (Although I realize that this train of thought probably weakens my argument for it being Tier 0 as opposed to just High 1-A, same with apophatic theology and blah blah)
I'd also note that, under that principle, something wholly encompassing or transcending mathematics may not necessarily be a NLF if a tier specifically for such things exists (For instance, I don't think you held the argument with Fiamma as being a valid way to scale him even back when 1-A was completely beyond the system of lower tiers, and certainly beyond what our current 0 extends to), but then I'd be just daydreaming about things fundamentally outside the scope of this thread, so, best not to tread those waters, either way.
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.
You seem to be misunderstanding me a bit. I was moreso making a comparision to a situation that may occur in a lower-tiered setting: In this case, arguing that a character or a space is High 3-A is a NLF if you are -inferring- that their power/size/whatever is infinite base on insufficient evidence, but someone outright stating that they are, in fact, infinite, is not. That is to say, NLF is a fallacy that inherently deals with faulty
inferences, and may not necessarily have an answer for statements that happen to set a character at a specific endpoint already.
But then again, I suppose that may fall under the line of thought above.
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.
Ah, I see, so you are applying that same standard even to more well-cut definitions of the term (Based on both this post and the one below). I suppose it's not as bad as I first thought, but I don't think it's very fruitful to bring that up here, still, given how this (Based on the "regardless of how well explained the concept is") seems to be the exact kind of thing this thread is arguing against, to begin with.
Not sure if I entirely get what you mean by the bolded part, though. Can you elaborate?
