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

[RatherClueless]

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.

So you'd be fine with it if it was clear which text it is referring to? Does that mean you advocate for scaling to characters that come from one, clear work of fiction, such as the mythos?

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:

I tried long and hard to think of an analogy, but couldn't think of anything better, so bear with me.

In sports like football, soccer, ice hockey etc you have rules against or limiting physical contact and foul play. These kinds of things happening during games is however not the reason as to why these rules exist. All they do is give them validity. Even if everyone was to always play nice they would and should exist to prevent someone exploiting the lack of such rules. You obviously don't want to wait with creating such a rule until someone starts to beat up players during the game.

In that same sense, we should not wait until we need such a rule if we can just do things right from the get go.

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.

I feel like you missed the point here. It was never about whether they can be worked into ZFC. If I wanted to make that point I would have talked about set-theoretic topology, such as normal moore spaces. The point is that there are well behaved systems with vastly lower endpoints perfectly valid for our purposes. Taking the powerset of a Euclidean space won't give you a bigger Euclidean space. So let me ask again. Why is the very thing that is used to describe universes insufficient to describe universes?

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?

Was on Agnaa's and DT's wall. Would have to look for it.

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?

That's exactly the issue though. Due to the nature of fiction this issue would logically exist within these tiers too, yet we can't point them out, as we lack irl comparisons. Claiming a system is flawless and thus doesn't need checks and balances, not because it provably lacks absurdity, but because absurdity is unprovable, is whack. Quite frankly, such a system in which you can't even tell apart consistency from inconsistency needs regulations far more than something where you can clearly see it (The harder it is to regulate something, the stricter the regulations you can make should be, to make up for the ones you can't make). To look back at the sports example; Just because nobody notices that the players beat each other up doesn't mean those rules shouldn't be made.

 

[Agnaa]

Was on Agnaa's and DT's wall. Would have to look for it.

While there was some conversation about the calc on my wall, in short, it wasn't about why the calc was rejected. There was no talk about it on DTs wall, from what I could see.

 

[Galaxi789]

I know I shouldn't be here but we shouldn't see what he thinks

DontTalkDT​

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to help out further here please?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/some-concerns-regarding-current-tiering-system-standards-1-a-and-up.135076/post-4724994

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to help out further here please?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/some-concerns-regarding-current-tiering-system-standards-1-a-and-up.135076/post-4724994

What do you personally think of it Ant? Has your stance changed?

 

[Agnaa]

Was on Agnaa's and DT's wall. Would have to look for it.

While there was some conversation about the calc on my wall, in short, it wasn't about why the calc was rejected. There was no talk about it on DTs wall, from what I could see.

I found the conversation on DT's wall; it took place a few months after the calc was removed from the profile. It was a discussion about the physics being used, not about the on-site legality. Still, one can read it here, and here's a summary...

• Rather: Can we use a result incorporating drag to get a higher result? It could get these values.
• DontTalk: That doesn't sound accurate, did you account for these potential issues? Also, satellites go around Earth despite being launched at far lower speeds. Also also, your data isn't presented properly.
• Rather: They were accounted for. Satellites constantly provide thrust, while a human jumping needs to do it all at once. I'll go get the better data.
• DontTalk: You should post the equations used. Also, a manhole cover reached space, and a railgun theoretically would be able to shoot a 1250kg object into space at far lower speeds.
• Original Calcer: Here's the better data. Reaching orbit isn't the same as traveling to another place on the planet. Humans may have a worse drag coefficient than the objects you're talking about, and lighter things slow down more, so they need higher initial speeds; that's why with a human mass such a jump would require FTL speeds, while higher masses go down through relativistic and high hypersonic.

After which DT didn't respond.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you personally think of it Ant? Has your stance changed?

From what I recall, I still agree with DontTalk.

 

[Maxeez]

Was this forgotten ? Or did I miss something

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody write an easy to understand summary/reminder regarding what we need to do here and our conclusions so far please?

 

[Agnaa]

Ultima wants to rate certain feats and concepts (such as the mathematical universe hypothesis, modal realism, possible worlds, apophatic theology) and anything greater than them as scaling to all mathematics, and he wants this to be lowballed to all of ZFC even if that isn't explicitly stated in the verse, as ZFC is required for basic things such as "three-dimensional space" to exist, which every verse has. He thinks that this would mean putting them at either High 1-A or 0.

Others in the thread have opposed it due to it inflating ratings based off little evidence in the verses themselves.

Ultima himself seems to have greatly decreased his usage of the wiki recently, so idk how quickly we can expect a response from him.

 

[Maxeez]

Shouldn't these concepts still qualify for such tiers if they are clearly explained/mentionned in the verse with proper evidences ? By that, I do not mean that the verse has to mention that it contains all types of mathematical concepts but instead the concepts like apophatic theology/modal realism etc.

 

[Agnaa]

Not as things currently are. As things currently are (and as people responded to the OP), they should adequately mention which mathematical objects exist, for things like "Created everything that is mathematically possible" to scale to them.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima wants to rate certain feats and concepts (such as the mathematical universe hypothesis, modal realism, possible worlds, apophatic theology) and anything greater than them as scaling to all mathematics, and he wants this to be lowballed to all of ZFC even if that isn't explicitly stated in the verse, as ZFC is required for basic things such as "three-dimensional space" to exist, which every verse has. He thinks that this would mean putting them at either High 1-A or 0.

Others in the thread have opposed it due to it inflating ratings based off little evidence in the verses themselves.

Ultima himself seems to have greatly decreased his usage of the wiki recently, so idk how quickly we can expect a response from him.

Thank you for the reminder.

From what I recall, I disagreed with Ultima and agreed with DontTalk and yourself.

 

[Grand_Saver_Ritsuka]

Ultima wants to rate certain feats and concepts (such as the mathematical universe hypothesis, modal realism, possible worlds, apophatic theology) and anything greater than them as scaling to all mathematics, and he wants this to be lowballed to all of ZFC even if that isn't explicitly stated in the verse, as ZFC is required for basic things such as "three-dimensional space" to exist, which every verse has. He thinks that this would mean putting them at either High 1-A or 0.

Others in the thread have opposed it due to it inflating ratings based off little evidence in the verses themselves.

Ultima himself seems to have greatly decreased his usage of the wiki recently, so idk how quickly we can expect a response from him.

pardon me, but what is ZFC?

 

[Antvasima]

Presumably this:

Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Agnaa]

Zermelo-Fraenkel with the Axiom of Choice. Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is the most well-defined and comprehensive theory of math which keeps its assumptions few and basic. Including the Axiom of Choice is more common, and is seen as standard.

I don't know all the implications that the Axiom of Choice has on our tiering system.

I think I remember Aeyu being somewhat against us using ZFC instead of ZF, due to it being an extra unnecessary assumption, with Ultima being for using ZFC, but I may be confusing this conversation with one about us assuming that the continuum hypothesis is true. I don't have much of an opinion, since idk what practical changes if any it'd cause.

EDIT: This post originally had a lot of incorrect information, which has now been removed.

 

[Maxeez]

bump, I guess.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we close this thread again?

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe? Rather and I weren't more convinced from Ultima's latest post, and he can re-open the thread if he wants.

 

[Maxeez]

I'd say just ping him one last time, if he doesn't reply during the whole saturday then it should be closed until he re-open it ? Up to you guys, ig.

 

[Jibz]

Just close it, and he can re-open it when he wants to

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like somebody else here closed this thread while I was away. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.