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

[Phoenks]

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 .

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

 

[Lynieryz]

"Dreams are just brain electricity, so seeing something as one is a finite difference."

Most verses do not treat dreams in this way, with several beings who do not have a brain being able to dream.

This alone seems to be something that affects almost no verse.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

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

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

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

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

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.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

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.

Does this also not run into contradictions because they'll encompass "Character x cannot effect any being in anyway"

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

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.

... Huh. Two things:
1: Thank you for answering.
2: I'm not sure how I feel about this information, because this concept is exactly similar to how I described a personal project of mine. It's not the same thing mind you, but it encompasses the exact same thing.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Does this also not run into contradictions because they'll encompass "Character x cannot effect any being in anyway"

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.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

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.

 

[Executor_N0]

The way Ultima depicts fiction in the revision isn't much different from Platonic forms, but in the opposite direction. It's basically, what is the nature of our thoughts? What is that we are thinking about something? Like, not the drawing on the page, but what the drawing on the page represents. Does it have some kind of existence we can define by our thoughts? It's the same question about the problem of universals, it's just that Ultima is generalizing to it being either superior or inferior to baseline reality.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

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.

That's kind of what happens already with R>F and verse equalization.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I can't be the only one thinking that tier 1 has gone past an event horizon of becoming too verbose for its own good, and it's now on a collision course with the singularity of overcomplicated things. Of which no common grounds can truly be reached, because people either lose interest, avoid it like the plague for not wanting to read, disdain the tier or nod along to the views of a select few.

Those select few being indeed the few able to even figure out what exactly the tier is meant to or trying to be. And I say this being a long time sci-fi fan, so not exactly unusual to read such things, but I can't help thinking that sometimes these high tier contents should be more accessible and comprehensible to the community as a whole.

Been here for hardly 1 year and I already found so many people having a problem with tier 1, staff included, that it makes me wonder about its future from time to time.

 

[Executor_N0]

The logical problems and complaints about Tier 1-A stuff always existed from what I remember. What happened was that for a long time, most of the Tiering System was mostly fixed in general structure with very few drastic changes like what we have now (I remember a few Tier 2 revisions back then that lasted half a year being discussed IIRC).

Ever since the Forum moved and some of the staff members moved on from the Wiki, right now the Tiering System is passing for the most amount of revisions at such a fast pace that very few people can keep up. Like, the whole question about Tier 2 and Low 1-C in regards to multiversal space or extra-temporal dimensions was revised 10 times since the forum moved or something like that? It seems that this stuff is always changing (And I thought it was something easy to solve just by the logic of "the least amount of axis needed to describe all points in the verse space-time").

 

[Magicomethkuon]

That was informative and gave me much context, thank you. At the end of the day I'd say my worry is about the tier reaching a level of complexity where things and questions in regards to it, can't or won't be solved outside of a few user's feedback. Staff or otherwise. In the long run that could throw a wrench in a number of revisions and progress of the tier with time.

The current thread reflects a part of this worry, addressing tier 1 situations could be a matter lasting for months since it needs mainly the inputs of DT and Ultima. In a worst case scenario where the users who are the main authority and, in a way, translate the ideas behind this tier leave, I think there are many things that could turn upside down or be left unresolved. With no clear answers on what standard exactly the system follows or decides upon, for long periods of time.

A code, after all, should be accessible to users.
Of course, if these forums have history with such scenarios already, that thought worries me less now than before.

 

[Greatsage13th]

What are character strings?

 

[TheSilverKing14]

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.

 

[Ultima_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

The great filter sweeps over all...

 

[TheSilverKing14]

The great filter sweeps over all all...

Listen man, High 3-A and Low 2-C are also illegitimate

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.

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.

This is also not legit for the same reasons stuff like Low 1-C etc.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Then why is 2A the peak/not nonsense, as you mentioned?

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

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

Another reason is that set theory is not used for size. Thus, the higher infinite volumes of space that battleboarders generally use are bunk

Huh.. can you elaborate on the set theory part?

 

[TheSilverKing14]

Then why is 2A the peak?

Because an infinite amount of anything like say an infinite amount of nails would be the same size as an infinite amount of universes.

 

[Everything12]

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.

 

[TheSilverKing14]

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.

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.

 

[Everything12]

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.

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.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

May I be the one to point out the irony of acknowledging the system isn’t based entirely in scientific and mathematical logic but then we are also saying qualitative and quantitative superiority can never be equalized?

 

[Everything12]

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.

 

[Executor_N0]

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.

It's no different from alternate history hypotheses or thought experiments about the possibility of representing a system that doesn't fit with our logical way of thinking. If it can fit with what is expected from our world and experiences, good, it's nice to have a common ground, if not, it's not like we need an excuse to just disregard reality.

In the same way you don't need an excuse to just follow what our physical experience says. It's just a matter of what most people agree feels nice to deal with.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

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.

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.

 

[Executor_N0]

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.

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.

 

[Da3ggman]

 

[Everything12]

Eh, I don't think anyone is going to pretend their isn't some level of arbitrariness here. But it's basically, which of these completely made up and unrealistic system do we think will work best, presenting arguments to decide among ourselves which we think do so.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Fictional worlds have their own rules to abide by. From the highest tiers to applications of hax, we can't expect them to be a picture-perfect capture of reality. But we can (more or less) gauge what is more impressive, based on real world guidelines and the fictional world's own.

By definition, the interaction, destruction and creation of things deemed ❝nonsensical❞ or ❝impossible❞ by our real world's current understanding of the universe is more impressive than those feats, that we can gauge.

Concepts like infinity and structures so complex that we can't as reasonably fit them in that understanding should indeed have a more impressive rating. For crossing into that ❝realm of impossibility within a more simple universal model❞.

Also I don't think that the proposed revisions will make any situation of R>F inherently superior, only the ones that are proven to be concrete to an equal extent as the qualitative form of dimensional superiority. At which point, there would be no true reason to oppose it from my point of view, unless I also wanted to say that it's impossible to climb a ladder without going through each and every step of it first.

Many R>F verses will be found wanting to the standards. And with all due respect, I'll be having a laugh.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I am just waiting for the standards to be written out. That’s when the fun will be had.

 

[Everything12]

Not going to lie, I've already planned a CRT myself to poke at the new standards and see how it functions. 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.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

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.

You should let that happen actually, it'll be funny.

 

[Everything12]

You should let that happen actually, it'll be funny.

Problem is that I think Arceus (No not the avatar) (big shocker) is the character with the simplest explanation while actually have a chance to possible being applicable. So for me to truly understand the new system and to set a bar for future evaluation I think its best that it's done right, regardless of how amusing the alterative would big.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Well, good luck with that.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Problem is that I think Arceus (No not the avatar) (big shocker) is the character with the simplest explanation while actually have a chance to possible being applicable. So for me to truly understand the new system and to set a bar for future evaluation I think its best that it's done right, regardless of how amusing the alterative would big.

I had similar thoughts but the avatars would definitely be downgraded with the new system.

 

[Everything12]

I don't need luck, I just need to properly display the appropriate scans and explanations in a CRT that isn't bloated and hard to understand.

I had similar thoughts but the avatars would definitely be downgraded with the new system.

You do know that while 1-A Reality-Fiction could exist, the old Reality-Fiction will continue to exist, it just won't give 1-A (also half of Arceus' Low 1-C is from Space-Time anyway, with Reality-Fiction being the cherry on the cake)

Edit: Actual half was an overstament, it's like maybe 10%, and I wasn't joking about the cherry on top part. The tier of the avatar is pretty much solely based on Space-Time transcendence.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I don't need luck, I just need to properly display the appropriate scans and explanations in a CRT that isn't bloated and hard to understand.


You do know that while 1-A Reality-Fiction could exist, the old Reality-Fiction will continue to exist, it just won't give 1-A (also half of Arceus' Low 1-C is from Space-Time anyway, with Reality-Fiction being the cherry on the cake)

No it won’t. The whole system is about not equating quantitative superiority with qualitative superiority.

 

[Everything12]

It more that the new system acknowledges true reality-fiction is beyond dimensions, but it that doesn't mean it will refuse to acknowledge that 'fake' reality-fiction that still has qualitative superiority exist, but again, not relevant to avatar Arceus' rating.