The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[Quasar002]

Could someone help me with a character based on apophatic theology? He does not fall under level 0, as he is not considered the supreme entity or anything like that. But I wanted to know if he could reach level 1-A or high 1-A.

Here it is called apophasis, which, unlike unreal void, is incognizable and nothing can be said about it:

The void they occupy, however alien, however strictly unreal it may be, is at least known and familiar. The new, the indescribable which has invaded the City now, cannot be called any of these things. It is a region – a sphere, as far as its dimensions can be measured – of ‘apophatic space’, a term which simply means that nothing whatsoever can be said about it.

We are told that apophasis is neither existence nor non-existence, real nor unreal, living nor non-living. It is equally true and equally false:

Sprouting in Bonehall District in the West, this unknown has grown with exponential speed, incorporating all within its path. Within the first hour Bonehall and Sacradown, Jospin and Typeminster Districts and Clarevold Park had all become unspeakable as well; Kempes District, ArenaVille and Memorial Park passed beyond knowing within a few hours. One could not positively say that they no longer existed, for the apophasis was neither existence nor non-existence, just as it was neither real nor unreal, living nor non-living. It was equally possible – and equally untrue – to say that everybody within the sphere of indeterminacy was unharmed, dead, cancelled, or somehow transfigured.

Attempts to communicate with it using telepathic, linguistic, and noospheric techniques have failed. Not even with the Universal Machine (which is basically a conceptual composite of humanity) did it work:

Attempts to communicate with the Anonymity, drawing on the most advanced linguistic, diplomatic and telepathic techniques of the Lasthuman Noosphere, met with blank unacknowledgement. Efforts to hold it back with science, even with the active cooperation of that embodiment of all technology which suddenly made itself known to the Citizens as the Universal Machine, were hopeless.

Due to its apophatic nature, it can only be mentioned negatively, see:

The Anonymity is so large now that it no longer appears as a sphere: indeed, without space there is nothing for it to be spherical in.

Instead there are two regions: void which is known and non-void which is unknown and unknowable. And in the former, just outpacing the latter’s encroachment, a woman’s figure turns to face the Anonymity.
Her body is alabaster-white, her stone toga rippling impossibly in her windless flight. For now, her speed and that of the expanding other are identical, and the goddess Civitata faces the end of all her knowledge, an angel hovering before a wall of neither-nothing-nor-not-nothing.

It cannot be said that the Anonymity speaks, in fact, no other statement can really be made about it:

The Anonymity could not be said to speak, any more than any other statement can validly be made about it. Facing it, words form in Civitata’s imagination, speculations as to what it might say were it somehow, impossibly, capable of articulation; and for the moment she decides to assume that it is not she who is imagining them.

I don’t know the level the character might reach here on the wiki, as I don’t know how to classify apophatic theology, so I would like help from someone who knows.

 

[Iiliminal]

Is this doctor who

 

[Quasar002]

Is this doctor who

Yes.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Does anyone know where the Ultimate Ensemble universe would scale at now? High 1-B, High 1-B+, Low 1-A?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Does anyone know where the Ultimate Ensemble universe would scale at now? High 1-B, High 1-B+, Low 1-A?

Low 1-A though for things like that I suggested to Ultima, he make it Low 1-A+.

 

[Apotheosis69]

Did not know Low 1-A+ was even a thing. Thought only 1-A+ was.

If that's the case, then wouldn't Absolute Infinity and all of Set Theory be Low 1-A+ then?

What kind of things did you suggest? Just for clarification

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Did not know Low 1-A+ was even a thing. Thought only 1-A+ was.

What kind of things did you suggest?

Low 1-A+ isn’t a thing. I came up with it because there’s always a modifier for Tier 1. I just suggested how Low 1-A embodies some class of sets that oversee structure of
quantitive values. Low 1-A+ would focus rather than just some few or many sets of class in a quantitative manner. It would be the collection of all quantitative class as the entire embodiment of quantitative value just before qualitative value.

 

[Apotheosis69]

That sort of ties to my suggesstion that there should be 2-A+ (for Uncountably Infinite Universe Space-times) AND 2-A being renamed to High Multiverse level rather than Multiverse level+.

Cus Low 1-C being accessible for uncountably infinite Universes but the cosmology still being 4-D, to me makes 0 sense.

AND there being Low 1-B, Similar to 2-B where its 12-D to 1000-D. Cus I think 1-B is way too broad of a Tier as it is.

 

[Agnaa]

That sort of ties to my suggesstion that there should be 2-A+ (for Uncountably Infinite Universe Space-times) AND 2-A being renamed to High Multiverse level rather than Multiverse level+.

Cus Low 1-C being accessible for uncountably infinite Universes but the cosmology still being 4-D, to me makes 0 sense.

If we say that timelines are 4-D, they'd typically have to be displaced on an extra dimensional axis, but the size on that axis would typically be zero, as they'd be point-like in that direction.

Even with countably infinitely many that would still hold true, but once you reach uncountably infinitely many, the size on that axis would be non-zero. By which metric, we say that they're Low 1-C. The cosmology wouldn't be 4-D, as the collection of timelines itself would have non-zero size on more than four axes.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If we say that timelines are 4-D, they'd typically have to be displaced on an extra dimensional axis, but the size on that axis would typically be zero, as they'd be point-like in that direction.

Even with countably infinitely many that would still hold true, but once you reach uncountably infinitely many, the size on that axis would be non-zero. By which metric, we say that they're Low 1-C. The cosmology wouldn't be 4-D, as the collection of timelines itself would have non-zero size on more than four axes.

You’re half right, but I’ll let you discuss that with the person you’re responding to.

With that being said, my point on Low 1-A+ is very accurate and concise with how we treat concepts that scale slightly higher than what we treat Low 1-A, right?

 

[Apotheosis69]

If we say that timelines are 4-D, they'd typically have to be displaced on an extra dimensional axis, but the size on that axis would typically be zero, as they'd be point-like in that direction.

Even with countably infinitely many that would still hold true, but once you reach uncountably infinitely many, the size on that axis would be non-zero. By which metric, we say that they're Low 1-C. The cosmology wouldn't be 4-D, as the collection of timelines itself would have non-zero size on more than four axes.

I can understand that point. But man, I would be lying if I said that that "feels right". Even while it would have non-zero sizes on more than four axis, it doesn't dimensionally transcend that into a higher plane, at least from what I'm aware. Ofc correct me if I'm wrong. That and I still stand that 2-A should be renamed to High Multiverse level.

And that whole 1-B thing too...

 

[Agnaa]

With that being said, my point on Low 1-A+ is very accurate and concise with how we treat concepts that scale slightly higher than what we treat Low 1-A, right?

Accurate, maybe. Concise, no. Something that justifies a Low 1-A+ tier at that level, hell no.

I can understand that point. But man, I would be lying if I said that that "feels right". Even while it would have non-zero sizes on more than four axis, it doesn't dimensionally transcend that into a higher plane, at least from what I'm aware. Ofc correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know what you mean by "dimensionally transcend", you can qualify for high-tiers simply by affecting the entirety of an N-dimensional space, "transcendence" is only needed for small-scale effects on a higher-dimensional space.

And that whole 1-B thing too...

We used to have Low 1-B, but it was removed for having too few characters. I expect your suggestion would do the same.

Plus, we only have the 2-C/2-B distinction to stop the tiers from having too many characters.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Accurate, maybe. Concise, no. Something that justifies a Low 1-A+ tier at that level, hell no.

I think the Low 1-A section is missing a link. Hence why the category of things “larger” than the Universe of Sets wouldn’t really make sense, if it falls in the same category. It’s best to separate it like High 1-A+ type 1 and 2.

One representing a class of sets(ZFC, Von Neumann, and other class of set theory and by products of some axioms). While the latter with be a collection of all quantitative sets which branches out to any class of set theory and any quantitative value in the same way High 1-A+(type 2) encompasses all possible contingency and possibility rather some arbitrarily large world.

Like High 1-A+ it can exist on the same level, just on a bigger grandeur than the smaller type.

 

[Agnaa]

There aren't enough of each, and they aren't different enough, to justify that distinction.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

There aren't enough of each, and they aren't different enough, to justify that distinction.

There can be empty tiers and that’s entirely fine and the justification doesn’t need to warrant pages and pages of explanation. Hence why the “+” modifier for thing like 1-A(1-A+) and High 1-A(High 1-A+) are rather short and self-explanatory.

Given many verses such as World of Darkness, I can tell you what is killing the stars, Ruckerverse based some of their structure on purely mathematics and its limit when coming into more conceptual thing. Even, if nothing scales to it because they’re either higher or lower doesn’t deter that there isn’t enough justification, rather I just think it’s not all that much necessary. However, not adding a “+” modifier for Low 1-A doesn’t sit right, so I suggest regardless of how much reasoning we can put to making that tier, we can at least try, no?

 

[Agnaa]

There should not be empty tiers unless they're necessary for the reasonable structure of our system (i.e. if 11-A and 11-C had characters, but 11-B didn't, we would still keep it). Your suggestion is not in line with that.

The justification doesn't need pages of description, but it needs to be a noteworthy step. Yours isn't.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

The justification doesn't need pages of description, but it needs to be a noteworthy step. Yours isn't.

Agnaa, you leave me no choice but to call it.

I call for a “vote of consensus!”

 

[MrKerf]

Agnaa, you leave me no choice but to call it.

I call for a “vote of consensus!”

Gasp!

 

[Apotheosis69]

We used to have Low 1-B, but it was removed for having too few characters. I expect your suggestion would do the same.

Plus, we only have the 2-C/2-B distinction to stop the tiers from having too many characters.

With the new Tier 1 Revision, a lot of characters are becoming 1-B. In due time with CRT's, I am betting money there will be too many Characters in 1-B, who will be like thousands to millions of dimensional layers apart.

 

[ByAsura]

If the regular universe and all its sets of dimensions are referred to as 'normal, finite dimensional space' by comparison to a separate universe/domain, does that suggest the other universe/domain is infinite dimensional?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

If the regular universe and its sets of dimensions are referred to as 'normal, finite dimensional space' by comparison to a separate universe/domain, does that suggest the other universe/domain is infinite dimensional?

No.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

Ngl, I didn't expect an admin of all people to ask this question

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Ngl, I didn't expect an admin of all people to ask this question

They’re humans too…..for the most part, except that ET called Agnaa.

 

[ByAsura]

Just have to make sure. I'm in a discussion with a dozen other people, and we're exploring our options.

Also, can I ask why it's not acceptable?

They’re humans too…..for the most part, except that ET called Agnaa.

It's ok. I'm not human, either.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Also, can I ask why it's not acceptable?

It’s not that it’s acceptable, but the basis of reasoning for considering things out of the “norm” shouldn’t qualify as being distinct.

What I mean you putting the hypothetical that the “regular universe has finite dimensional space.” Thus each separate universe or domain that’s not consider the “regular universe” would have infinite dimensions by proxy of the not being “that regale universe.” There’s some problem with this notion, the biggest being it lacks context;

1. Unless the context of setting from where you’re getting your hypothetical scenario makes it clear. How would we know if these separate universe are not parallel or exist in the same space that contains those set of dimensions? If that’s the case then why would the distinct universes and domain be any different, simply because they’re not “regular?”
2. We can’t base anything off of what’s given since your statement purely relies on being outside a finite dimensional universe means that anything whether superior to it in nature or not, would be pretty illogical. We can’t assume A for B because B is not A.

 

[ByAsura]

For context, it's not a parallel universe. It's an extra-dimensional, but somewhat connected, form of space-time that's already demonstrably infinitely superior to the regular universe.

In this case and context, it's 100% distinct and contrasted against the normal universe. It doesn't refer or apply to anything besides this specific extra-dimensional space.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

For context, it's not a parallel universe. It's an extra-dimensional, but somewhat connected, form of space-time that's already demonstrably infinitely superior to the regular universe.

Extra-dimensional in finite space wouldn’t make it infinite dimensional either way. Plus, being superior to space-time as oppose to being ontological superior to the very concept of time and space are two different things. The former would probably just land some sort of higher space-time while the latter would imply that universe/domain is completely superior to it in scale, nature, and existence.

In this case and context, it's 100% distinct and contrasted against the normal universe. It doesn't refer or apply to anything besides this specific extra-dimensional space.

Yeah, it doesn’t really change much, an extra dimensional in a finite dimensional space whether that universe is outside/separate of the main Universe wouldn’t land it anywhere. Unless the Universe is somewhat encompasses by these universe, if those universe are higher things and exist in a different plane, but that wouldn’t really guarantee its infinite dimensional. It would probably if the default Universe nature was finite dimensional space in which that’s all the space it has, so anything above that would in comparison to it be considered infinite dimensional.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

They’re humans too…

Nah, it's just me being kind of desensitized to this kind of thing, considering that I'm from another Wiki where mods are very knowledgeable on high-end tiers

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Nah, it's just me being kind of desensitized to this kind of thing, considering that I'm from another Wiki where mods are very knowledgeable on high-end tiers

It was really more of a joke on my end.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

It was really more of a joke on my end.

I know, just needed to clarify it a lil bit. I did have some misfortune of being misunderstood back in times, so yeah

 

[Hirotoswnn1x]

I would like to ask if this story is a High1-B+? Counted as High1-B+?

Higher worldviews become significantly more powerful where such power is locational.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I would like to ask if this story is a High1-B+? Counted as High1-B+?

No context.

Everyone, does this thread still need to be open?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

No context.

Everyone, does this thread still need to be open?

No.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

No context.

Everyone, does this thread still need to be open?

Yes

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

No.

Yes

Explain yourselves.

 

[Karabach-barabach]

I wrote "Yes" because I wanted to be the counter force for GoofyToddler's "No"

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Explain yourselves.

They were joking. I was not because this thread is 141 pages long, derailed to the ground, and if any question arises, just be better to get in contact with a mod or someone with knowledge. In essence, this thread outlived its usefulness.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

They were joking. I was not because this thread is 141 pages long, derailed to the ground, and if any question arises, just be better to get in contact with a mod or someone with knowledge. In essence, this thread outlived its usefulness.

@Antvasima @Ultima_Reality

 

[Antvasima]

I have locked it for you.