Being knowledgeable on the verses affected =\= being knowledgeable on the tiering system itself.
im knowledgeable enough on MUH and modal realism since its the crux of the scaling for Manifold. As for apophatic theology,
Very well, i’ll ask for permission.
We will, at some point, have to write down exactly how far we are willing to extrapolate beyond mere counting of levels of infinity. However, that is far beyond the scale of this thread and only tangentially related.
Should note that I still plan on responding, in a bit. Apologies for the delay on that regard. Been bedridden for the past 2-3 days.
Well actually if u have the full scan you'd know it said that they're saying a formal system essentially describes a universe there. And that since it does, and the verse specifies heavily that every possible universe exists, then every possible formal system would exist
I don't exactly agree with the type 4 multiverse being an nlf. It's like saying the set of all shoes is an nlf whilst the source specifically states the set contains every single pair of shoes, the Nike, the Jordan the addidas and in every single size. The type 4s explanation specifies all math, they type of math and some even say all math that is able to be denoted by human language exists inside of the type 4 multiverse.
If specific things (particular cardinals, ZFC, etc.) are mentioned, I am perfectly okay with scaling it to that.
Id like to mention a conversation i had with Agnaa on the discord. To preface the discussion was over MUH. And how the issue surrounding it was the fact it seemed like a NLF as to have the assumption that the author had knowledge on the particular cardinals at play in the story.. To this i had a question:
It's good for multiverse type IV but how would that work for apophatic theory and modal realism?
Doesn't the problem with that is that the tier 0 will be exclusive to mathematic verse? It seem to tell thay verse whitout math can't be tier 0 when apophatic theology has nothing to with math in first by ex
No, just have 3 separate hierarchies, each of which transcends and encompasses the last.
still looking for people's opinion to this notion.
if accepted of course
Tbh a possibly or likely rating ain't that much of a bad solution seeing as most ppl here don't want to give type iv multiverse a concrete tier which is also understandable as for apophatic theology seems fine to me idk ab modal realism however
From a glance, I think we're in agreement? At least in general and as far as the current state is concerned.
@DontTalkDT
Nothing, except waiting for Ultima in case he wants to continue arguing the matter.
As DT just said two posts ago, we're waiting on a further response from Ultima, but in general don't seem likely to implement this change.
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.
Alrighty then:
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.
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.
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:
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
