- 8,111
- 1,555
I have no idea. I also have no idea how “above all possible character strings” is Tier 0. If anyone does please let me know .What's the deal with Plato's cave?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no idea. I also have no idea how “above all possible character strings” is Tier 0. If anyone does please let me know .What's the deal with Plato's cave?
Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?TIER 0 BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY CONFIRMED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Caught in a landslide. To escape from Reality.Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
- I don't want viewpoints that, really, are not valid readings of any case of Reality-Fiction Transcendence whatsoever (E.g. "Clearly, the fiction is the size of ink to this character, so the difference between them is finite" or "Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference.")
- I don't want examples where a reality/fiction dichotomy is simply used as an analogy for some generic superiority (E.g. "Just as a painting could never harm reality, so, too could he never harm this being")
- I don't want examples that don't qualify for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence to begin with, even under the current parameters (Up there, you tried to use Doki Doki Literature Club as a counterexample. However, DDLC is something we reject as a valid case of R>F altogether)
- I don't want examples that are really just Plot Manipulation and don't involve any form of R>F
- I don't want examples involving idiosyncratic definitions of what "Fiction" and "Reality" mean.
- I don't want cases where Reality-Fiction is simply equated to a dimensional difference, or the like, and vice-versa, to be used as "counterexamples" (E.g. "Well, fiction is generally considered to be 2-D to us...")
- As a consequence of the above (And a summation of the spirit of this list), I don't want faux Reality-Fiction, either. So, holographic principles, reality-as-simulation theories and the like are out of consideration as potential counterexamples
when you want a huge wall of text, always bet on ultima.Considering all of that was basically already in the post I can't imagine how big the F.A.Q will be to explain all the minute details of the new system.
I have no idea. I also have no idea how “above all possible character strings” is Tier 0. If anyone does please let me know .
Most verses do not treat dreams in this way, with several beings who do not have a brain being able to dream."Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference."
No I’m talking about what does all possible character strings even mean to qualify as a feat only Ultima’s depiction of Tier 0 can accomplish ? I’ve read the profile a few times and I’m still at a loss![]()
Self-Reference ENGINE (Character)
The Self-Reference ENGINE, also known as Nemo Ex Machina, is the eponymous narrator of the novel Self-Reference ENGINE, written by Toh EnJoe. It is a completely nonexistent construction, a distant descendant of the very first computing machines, the Analytical Engine and the Difference Engine...vsbattles.fandom.com
It means the character encompasses (or is beyond) all possible words, statements, and sentences that can be formed by language. For example, "Character X can destroy planes as big as inaccessible cardinals" is still a statement made from words and language, and would be thus among the possible statements that the character theoretically encompasses. A good representation of this concept is the Infinite Monkey Theorem.No I’m talking about what does all possible character strings even mean to qualify as a feat only Ultima’s depiction of Tier 0 can accomplish ? I’ve read the profile a few times and I’m still at a loss
Does this also not run into contradictions because they'll encompass "Character x cannot effect any being in anyway"It means the character encompasses (or is beyond) all possible words, statements, and sentences that can be formed by language. For example, "Character X can destroy planes as big as inaccessible cardinals" is a statement and would be thus among the possible statements that the character theoretically encompasses. A good representation of this concept is the Infinite Monkey Theorem.
... Huh. Two things:It means the character encompasses (or is beyond) all possible words, statements, and sentences that can be formed by language. For example, "Character X can destroy planes as big as inaccessible cardinals" is a statement made from language and would be thus among the possible statements that the character theoretically encompasses. A good representation of this concept is the Infinite Monkey Theorem.
Yes. The same happens with apophatic beings, who can only be described in negative. Though, if you are "beyond" the set of all possible words, then probably not even negative sentences like that should have an effect on the character.Does this also not run into contradictions because they'll encompass "Character x cannot effect any being in anyway"
That's kind of what happens already with R>F and verse equalization.I must say. This business seems to be rested upon the idea that we must treat all fiction as layered and that every piece of fiction can have a layer below or above, even if the fiction it self does not define itself as layered reality.
TBH, anything above multiversal+ from a math perspective is nonsense, and the reason is that measure theory, aka the domain that governs size in general in math, states that infinity in size is a final value that cannot be surpassed, which debunks the idea of higher infinite spaces in general. Another reason is that set theory is not used for size. Thus, the higher infinite volumes of space that battleboarders generally use are bunk and a bunch of illogical nonsense as logical as 2+2 = 75 beyond Omnipotence, etc. Also, assuming a fictional work uses one theory of higher dimensions when in real life there are countless theories that deal with that, like M theory, string theory, etc., is also silly to assume.
Says this
Comes to the conclusion 2-A is the peak instead of High 3-A
Listen man, High 3-A and Low 2-C are also illegitimateThe great filter sweeps over all all...
High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
This is also not legit for the same reasons stuff like Low 1-C etc.Low 2-C: Universe level+
Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting, creating, and/or destroying an area of space qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present, and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is a higher-dimensional "bulk" space that embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
measure theory, aka the domain that governs size in general in math, states that infinity in size is a final value that cannot be surpassed
Huh.. can you elaborate on the set theory part?Another reason is that set theory is not used for size. Thus, the higher infinite volumes of space that battleboarders generally use are bunk
Because an infinite amount of anything like say an infinite amount of nails would be the same size as an infinite amount of universes.Then why is 2A the peak?
This but it should be noted that Fiction does not give us an excuse to accept illogical stuff no matter what kind of pretentious stuff they try to dress it up as that's my two cents anyways.Basically you can't realistically get bigger than infinite size, but we are dealing with fiction here and they love to pull that stuff. So what your going to do but butcher math abit.
My opinion is if fiction is going to butcher infinity frequently and repeatedly, then unfortunately, to accurately index fiction we also have to do the same thing.This but it should be noted that Fiction does not give us an excuse to accept illogical stuff no matter what kind of pretentious stuff they try to dress it up as that's my two cents anyways.
It's not an accurate depiction of reality. Fiction doesn't need to give us an excuse for the simple reason that the very thing being done here already doesn't need an excuse. It's merely a way to try and figure out how to measure different franchises in a system that should be open enough to theoretically place them in tiers that represent what is done to them under a singular logic.This but it should be noted that Fiction does not give us an excuse to accept illogical stuff no matter what kind of pretentious stuff they try to dress it up as that's my two cents anyways.
yes, but this system requires the decision to believe that cosmologies with r>F are inherently superior. Personally as long as it’s admitted that this is an arbitrary thing and simply a preference, then I guess i can live with it.Eh, we are talking about Reality-Fiction interactions here. This was never going to be actually mathematical or scientific. We are just utilising their ideas, as well as philosophical ones, so to both understand how things that do not reflect our reality may perhaps actually work, as well as create a patchwork system that allows them and cosmological that are based on some form of scientific/mathematical logic to coexist.
I think that is going to happen. It's no different from the axioms already used for our current system. As Ultima said, the very fact the current system already accepts a single infinite exists, then it already means we made a choice in accepting the axiom of infinity and positioned the system as one that accepts Infinitism and not Finitism.yes, but this system requires the decision to believe that cosmologies with r>F are inherently superior. Personally as long as it’s admitted that this is an arbitrary thing and simply a preference, then I guess i can live with it.
You should let that happen actually, it'll be funny.And because I don't trust someone to rush ahead and post an attorcious CRT that butchers an attempt to achieve the new standard they don't understand or are able to articulate.