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

[Iamunanimousinthat]

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.

Thats the current system we have now. Shin megami tensei has 1-A based on this.

This system is getting rid of that equalization. A lot of tier 1s are gonna be tier 2s or below

 

[Everything12]

This is avatar Arceus current tier justification:

Low Complex Multiverse level (Arceus is the "God who transcends everything" whose realm is beyond both time and space. Being farther than Giratina's reach, and the realms of The Creation Trio, including Giratina's which lacks the concept of both time and space, and Palkia's which has domain over both the parallel dimensions and the directions, with the Creation Trio members also being their own realms themselves.)

I actually don't even think that first scan is R-F related, more "when we say they transcend space-time, we mean it."

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This is avatar Arceus current tier justification:

I actually don't even think that first scan is R-F related, more "when we say they transcend space-time, we mean it."

I don’t think there has been a conversation on where characters or spaces that trancend spacetime/dimensions, but are apart of the baseline fit in the new system.

 

[Everything12]

I don't think their will be any changes to space-time stuff, beyond the whole true reality-fiction is outside any extension of space-time and dimensions.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This system isn’t just for reality fiction, its for qualitative superiority as a whole, though the conversation between ultima and dt has dissolved in that.

 

[Everything12]

Actually, I just remembered (reread the thread) and it say that true dimensional transcendence, like true realty-fiction, would be a qualitative difference. I'm not going to push that, but I guess I can find amusement their while I properly do the true form's CRT.

 

[Metalballrun]

Based on this:



a whole lot of things would not qualify for R>F Transcendencce

These are all based NGL

 

[Ben_CleverName]

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.

Measure Theory and Set Theory are not mutually exclusive concepts. To say otherwise shows an ignorance of both subjects. The part about Measure Theory governing size in general math is not only wrong, it's stupid. Size has different meanings under different contexts.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

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.

Bruh, this isn't even a matter of butchering math. TheSilverKing is just flat-out wrong here lol

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Measure Theory and Set Theory are not mutually exclusive concepts. To say otherwise shows an ignorance of both subjects. The part about Measure Theory governing size in general math is not only wrong, it's stupid. Size has different meanings under different contexts.

Bruh, this isn't even a matter of butchering math. TheSilverKing is just flat-out wrong here lol

Yes, agreed. I will bring up with the other staff about adding a note explaining why this line of reasoning is utterly invalid.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I AM GOING TO BE THE KING OF THE WANKERS!

 

[Churchill]

Okay, so basically after seeing a nerd off between ultima aristotle reality and don'tTalk galileo DT, I have a bit of a question.

If characters scaling to structures equivalent to the sizes of uncountably infinite dimensions get taken to a proposed High 1-B+ tier, how about characters scaling to even larger set sizes, say, an infinite replacement of an already established "High 1-B+" structure, stacked power set size explosions and large cardinals ranging from the inaccessibles to the ladder of these models.
They by definition don't operate under the rules of the former's construction.

Will the "High 1-B+" be forced to be saturated with those as well since the next tier up is strictly r>f?

Apologies if that was already addressed in the original thread, my brain gets partially scrambled and madness hax just by looking at those texts lmao

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Okay, so basically after seeing a nerd off between ultima aristotle reality and don'tTalk galileo DT, I have a bit of a question.

If characters scaling to structures equivalent to the sizes of uncountably infinite-dimensional get taken to a proposed High 1-B+ tier, how about characters scaling to even larger set sizes, say, an infinite replacement of an already established "High 1-B+" structure, stacked power set size explosions and large cardinals ranging from the inaccessibles to the ladder of these models.
They by definition don't operate under the rules of the former's construction.

Will the "High 1-B+" be forced to be saturated with those as well since the next tier up is strictly r>f?

Apologies if that was already addressed in the original thread, my brain gets partially scrambled and madness hax just by looking at those texts lmao

set theory mid, all of those in the high 1-B tier.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Will the "High 1-B+" be forced to be saturated with those as well since the next tier up is strictly r>f?

Yes.

 

[Churchill]

Yes.

Woah that's massive..don't you think there're so many things being condensed In there? There're so many dimensions being put there it's crazy to imagine it contains from Low 1-A to many ladders above 0

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Woah that's massive..don't you think there're so many things being condensed In there? There're so many dimensions being put there it's crazy to imagine it contains from Low 1-A to many ladders above 0

The number of verses that use set theory is already very small. It's perfectly reasonable to give them only one tier.

 

[Churchill]

The number of verses that use set theory is already very small. It's perfectly reasonable to give them only one tier.

Yeah, conventionally.
But I'm not exactly knowledgeable about so many op verses.
My surprise stems from the sheer density of the High 1-B+ tier. I really don't know all that many verses but damn, it's super super dense.
There were new rules of definition, "transcendental" ladders and layers of ladders that dwarf the former to insignificance in the High 1-A tier alone, even more crazier in the tier 0. Then all that under 1 tier? The power variance under 1 label seems unfathomable

 

[Ben_CleverName]

One can reasonably assume Set Theory exists in a verse if it has history similar to ours.

My surprise stems from the sheer density of the High 1-B+ tier. I really don't know all that many verses but damn, it's super super dense.

It is rather dense, yes, but it's not any more dense than the old High 1-B would've been before when 1-A was still "beyond dimensionality"... the wiki just didn't put that much emphasis on Set Theory and the nature/existence of higher infinities so nobody really thought about it.

 

[Churchill]

One can reasonably assume Set Theory exists in a verse if it has history similar to ours.

It is rather dense, yes, but it's not any more dense than the old High 1-B would've been before when 1-A was still "beyond dimensionality"... the wiki just didn't put that much emphasis on Set Theory and the nature/existence of higher infinities so nobody really thought about it.

Not exactly?
The "old" High 1-B only consisted of countably infinite set of higher dimensions.
This new High 1-B+ tier contains the former Low 1-A, which is an aleph 1 collection of infinite dimensions. It also contains an aleph 2 to any higher aleph number of higher infinite dimensions, it also contains the multiversal+ variant of 1-A. Then it further contains new cardinals, that are now superior to set theory and the definitions used to construct them. That is the inaccessibles (weakly, strongly, hyper, hyper hyper... inaccessible cardinals). Under this alone, there are layers that, if attained, dwarfs the former to insignificance. Then you enter mahlos and tier 0, new frameworks independent of the definitions used to construct the latter. Then there're layers and ladders dwarfing and dwarfing and dwarfing going higher and higher...

In short, its way more dense in comparison to the "former" High 1-B it's so insane it's not even comparable

 

[Executor_N0]

Basically, anything in the 1-A now is a metaphysical existence that is qualitatively superior to any quantitative object in the lower physical reality. No matter how much you stack physical infinities, they are of the same quality, and therefore, there's no way to equate it to the 1-A stuff.

It's more "dense" only in the sense of measuring the quantities, but what could really be done? Create dozens of High 1-B variants to those kinds of sets? It could be possible, but then it would be defined by how many series need them to work with.

 

[Churchill]

Basically, anything in the 1-A now is a metaphysical existence that is qualitatively superior to any quantitative object in the lower physical reality. No matter how much you stack physical infinities, they are of the same quality, and therefore, there's no way to equate it to the 1-A stuff.

It's more "dense" only in the sense of measuring the quantities, but what could really be done? Create dozens of High 1-B variants to those kinds of sets? It could be possible, but then it would be defined by how many series need them to work with.

I've always felt like r/f should be superior to size by me(us) simply observing "fiction". But now improvement has been attempted to be formalised, the devil advocate part of me seems to be revolting for no reason lol.
As much as I hope a reasonable solution can be brought forth, I fear it may be overly idealistic, so I agree with you, Assassin.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Not exactly?
The "old" High 1-B only consisted of countably infinite set of higher dimensions.
This new High 1-B+ tier contains the former Low 1-A, which is an aleph 1 collection of infinite dimensions. It also contains an aleph 2 to any higher aleph number of higher infinite dimensions, it also contains the multiversal+ variant of 1-A. Then it further contains new cardinals, that are now superior to set theory and the definitions used to construct them. That is the inaccessibles (weakly, strongly, hyper, hyper hyper... inaccessible cardinals). Under this alone, there are layers that, if attained, dwarfs the former to insignificance. Then you enter mahlos and tier 0, new frameworks independent of the definitions used to construct the latter. Then there're layers and ladders dwarfing and dwarfing and dwarfing going higher and higher...

In short, its way more dense in comparison to the "former" High 1-B it's so insane it's not even comparable

I don't recall anything suggesting that the old High 1-B was only limited to aleph-0 dimensions. It was just "infinite dimensions -> transcends the concept of dimensionality".

It's also kind of weird that you're comparing aleph-omega dimensions to aleph-0 spacetimes/timelines but that's whatever.

What do you mean by "superior to Set Theory"? Inaccessible cardinals are also part of Set Theory, they just aren't part of the standard axioms of Set Theory. Inaccessibles are also uncountable, and Mahlo cardinals are inaccessible and uncountable. They definitely aren't wholly "independent" of previous definitions.

 

[Churchill]

I don't recall anything suggesting that the old High 1-B was only limited to aleph-0 dimensions. It was just "infinite dimensions -> transcends the concept of dimensionality".

It's also kind of weird that you're comparing aleph-omega dimensions to aleph-0 spacetimes/timelines but that's whatever.

What do you mean by "superior to Set Theory"? Inaccessible cardinals are also part of Set Theory, they just aren't part of the standard axioms of Set Theory. Inaccessibles are also uncountable, and Mahlo cardinals are inaccessible and uncountable. They definitely aren't wholly "independent" of previous definitions.

Oh, you misunderstand the tiering system.
High 1-B is strictly a countably infinite set of higher dimensions. Low 1-A is an aleph 1 of that.
Aleph omega sticks will literally have the same size as aleph omega universes. It's not weird.

And yes, set theory stops the realm before large cardinals. That's how it is

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Oh, you misunderstand the tiering system.
High 1-B is strictly a countably infinite set of higher dimensions. Low 1-A is an aleph 1 of that.

When I said "Old High 1-B" earlier, I was talking about High 1-B before VSB moved on to defining Tier 1 by specific cardinalities, not the High 1-B that we're using right now.

Aleph omega sticks will literally have the same size as aleph omega universes. It's not weird.

In terms of cardinality, they would, but you don't usually measure the physical volume or hypervolume strictly through cardinals. Dimensionality (usually) is defined by cardinality. Either way, Low 1-A is a measure of how many dimensions something has (aleph-1) whereas 2-A is a measure of how many (4D) universes there are.

And yes, set theory stops the realm before large cardinals. That's how it is

No it doesn't. The fact that they are even called large cardinals in the first place should be proof enough that they're linked to Set Theory. ZFC is not the totality of Set Theory.

 

[Churchill]

When I said "Old High 1-B" earlier, I was talking about High 1-B before VSB moved on to defining Tier 1 by specific cardinalities, not the High 1-B that we're using right now.

Oh, my b. I didn't get your intention of the pre ultima revision of the system

In terms of cardinality, they would, but you don't usually measure the physical volume or hypervolume strictly through cardinals. Dimensionality (usually) is defined by cardinality. Either way, Low 1-A is a measure of how many dimensions something has (aleph-1) whereas 2-A is a measure of how many (4D) universes there are.

This doesn't invalidate anything I said tho? Does it?

No it doesn't. The fact that they are even called large cardinals in the first place should be proof enough that they're linked to Set Theory. ZFC is not the totality of Set Theory.

Obviously I wasnt talking about the entire umbrella of cardinal arithmetics.
I merely mean basic set theory.
DT has repeatedly stated it goes up to 1-A+ and I was merely going off that

 

[Ben_CleverName]

This doesn't invalidate anything I said tho? Does it?

You said that they would be precisely the same size as each other. Cardinality doesn't hold as much bearing over physical size as something like volume or hypervolume or the like. If all you care about is "cardinality" then you might as well just measure up the points that make them up, in which case 1D = 2D = 3D = 4D . . .
This line of reasoning also implies that things that are as small as individual atoms are the same size as stars since both objects have the same "cardinality" of R^3.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

I merely mean basic set theory.

OK but what does basic set theory mean here exactly? If all you meant to say is that they can't be proven under standard axioms of Set Theory then I don't understand why you wouldn't just say that as opposed to saying that it's "beyond Set Theory" and then restating it afterward. Maybe that sort of thing would be obvious for some people to pick up on but I see people misrepresenting Set Theory all the time on the internet and I've seen similar statements being made without the added context that they weren't speaking literally about it.

 

[Lilixa]

question, if character got higher existence from lower existence, it would not qualify right ?

 

[Lilixa]

tbh set theory that i know are called "naive set theory" which i believe it still exist under classical logic (truth and false) umbrella. Also non-classical logic got criticized a lot by philosophers so i want to stay away from that.

also ZFC is enough for me.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Behold! Visuals!

 

[Executor_N0]

It works well as visuals for how effectively the hierarchy works. I was thinking it would need to explain the concept from the ground up, but I guess that works for most people.

 

[Everything12]

Honestly, when we talking about diagram. I thought we would be talking about stuff you would create in Paint in a minute. This stuff is actually nice looking.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Behold! Visuals!

I think it works, but you might want to put dimensions in quotations because they'd have to be using the word colloquially in some form for this to not just be incoherent. But also, why are some words so awkwardly spaced apart from each other?

Edit: I have big dumb, I thought I was replying to the person who made the chart when it was apparently ImmortalDread. Regardless my suggestions are still up there, but yeah.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I think it works, but you might want to put dimensions in quotations because they'd have to be using the word colloquially in some form for this to not just be incoherent. But also, why are some words so awkwardly spaced apart from each other?

Edit: I have big dumb, I thought I was replying to the person who made the chart when it was apparently ImmortalDread. Regardless my suggestions are still up there, but yeah.

yea dread made that, he did a good job

 

[Churchill]

yea dread made that, he did a good job

Waifu dreams destroyed

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Has the definition of superiority ever been out right defined on this site?

I think leaving that definition vague serves as a problem.

 

[Everything12]

Well the problem is that dimensional superiority is through size, while the likes of Reality-Fiction superiority is through realness. So their exists no one explanation beyond equalising two distinct concepts, which this is all about fixing.

 

[Deidalius]

I still don't get why realness and size were treated as equal methods to become stronger in the first place.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Superiority still needs to be defined. Whether it is superiority via size or realness. Other wise it is just an empty word. What exactly does it mean to be superior?

 

[Everything12]

I still don't get why realness and size were treated as equal methods to become stronger in the first place.

Wel I wasn't around when this first started, but I imagine it was an attempt to "balance" the two concepts, and then the wiki grew to have a bit of a math fixation which put extra emphasis on the likes of uncountable infinites and sets.