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

[JimedBro2020]

At this point, we'll just have to wait and see how this new system would be in practice, whether it be a yay or nay. As practice would usually lead to more results than concepts.

 

[ArcaneAbyss]

I get the concerns.

On one side, we can understand that a R > F qualitative difference can mean that the lower order dimension can contain 4, a thousand, a million, countably infinite or uncountably infinite embedded dimensions and it wouldn't make a difference because that lower order world would still be perceived as fictional by the higher order world.

On the other side, there are verses with supposed smaller physical cosmologies (Umineko compared to SCP, apparently as cited here) but due to the R > F metaphysics for Umineko, they would get the higher tier despite that. I don't know how accurate the comparison between the two verses actually are, but I can see the concern.
This topic isn't old. Similar discussions about omnipotent characters have also dealt with whether they're all equal or they should be judged based on how big/complex the worlds they have full control over (obviously also significantly different, but you can see the parallels).

My answer to this is... quite frankly, I don't care.




Okay, that's half-joking. I think there are more active, interested minds that would be seeking to resolve that. Hopefully.

Thing is, since those who see the lower realms as fiction are still part of the cosmology, it will automatically propel the cosmology as well.

 

[Lynieryz]

I didn't understand the point of immutability in tier 0, for example in the case of omnipresent characters they necessarily change and even so it doesn't disqualify them and no work I know demonstrates true immutability even in the case of characters that are not omnipresent, moving is change, thinking is change, etc.

To be immutable the character cannot even be a character in the first place.

And worse, you can't become a Tier 0, you always have to be and how will concepts that emerged after this character apply to him? If they are applied to him then he has changed and if they are not applicable to him then he cannot be quantified and is also not tier 0.

And isn't the concept of immutability itself something that was born after the character? So why does it matter?

Does anyone know why immutability matters? It's completely contradictory.

 

[Blunt_Claw]

no one is going summarize 500000+ words

I'mma try it.

Reality-Fiction Transcendence layers and Higher Dimentional Existence layers should not be equalized because something with dimentions being fiction (or in other words literally non-existent) to you would also make the hierarchy of dimentions it exists within non-existent to you,therefore making you transcend dimentions all together. RFT superiority should be greater than Dimentional superiority and they should not be treated as equivalent.

Also Tier 0 has a billion prerequisites now and is almost impossible to get as a result.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I didn't understand the point of immutability in tier 0, for example in the case of omnipresent characters they necessarily change and even so it doesn't disqualify them and no work I know demonstrates true immutability even in the case of characters that are not omnipresent, moving is change, thinking is change, etc.

To be immutable the character cannot even be a character in the first place.

And worse, you can't become a Tier 0, you always have to be and how will concepts that emerged after this character apply to him? If they are applied to him then he has changed and if they are not applicable to him then he cannot be quantified and is also not tier 0.

And isn't the concept of immutability itself something that was born after the character? So why does it matter?

Omnipresent characters don't necessarily have to change. That'd only be the case if they were omnipresent by virtue of the universe (Or more generally, the "changeable" part of the cosmology) being their body, or somesuch, which can't be the case for a Tier 0 under the proposed system.

And you're right that a Tier 0 can't undergo sequential operations (Like moving and thinking are for us), yeah. It would rather have to act through (Or, rather, be) a single, eternal, always-happening operation. Now, this operation could really be anything: It could be an unconscious emanation, or a creative act. Who knows.

As for concepts: Depends on which way you mean. A Tier 0 character in principle would have those concepts as expressions of itself, rather than being expressions of these concepts (Lest it be subordinated to them and thus fail all the requirements for the tier). So you can say it'd be like the "model" on which these conceptions are based, and thus be the absolute form of them.

"Transcending mutability and immutability" is fun and all, but it doesn't really mean you can act like a mutable thing, so functionally speaking, it's not very different from immutability. The notion itself is also inherently logic-breaking, and for the sake of keeping the tiers as "neutral" as possible, I'd rather avoid making such things a part of their definitions (My proposal for Tier 0 doesn't actually violate any of the laws of logic, believe it or not). In-verse specifics can have it so Tier 0 characters can break logic and whatnot, but that's really just personal criterion.

---

Overall, immutability is a requirement insofar as it's a necessary consequence of the definition of Tier 0 I've prescribed. You can't really have said definition without including immutability.

 

[Lynieryz]

Omnipresent characters don't necessarily have to change. That'd only be the case if they were omnipresent by virtue of the universe (Or more generally, the "changeable" part of the cosmology) being their body, or somesuch, which can't be the case for a Tier 0 under the proposed system.

And you're right that a Tier 0 can't undergo sequential operations (Like moving and thinking are for us), yeah. If the character in question is an intelligence at all (I expect most characters who qualify for it to be impersonal forces), then they'd rather have to act through (Or, rather, be) a single, eternal, always-happening operation. Now, this operation could really be anything: It could be an unconscious emanation, or a creative act. Who knows.

As for concepts: Depends on which way you mean. A Tier 0 character in principle would have those concepts as expressions of itself, rather than being expressions of these concepts (Lest it be subordinated to them and thus fail all the requirements for the tier). So you can say it'd be like the "model" on which these conceptions are based, and thus be the absolute form of them.

"Transcending mutability and immutability" is fun and all, but it doesn't really mean you can act like a mutable thing, so functionally speaking, it's not very different from immutability. The notion itself is also inherently logic-breaking, and for the sake of keeping the tiers as "neutral" as possible, I'd rather avoid making such things a part of their definitions (My proposal for Tier 0 doesn't actually violate any of the laws of logic, believe it or not). In-verse specifics can have it so Tier 0 characters can break logic and whatnot, but that's really just personal criterion.

---

Overall, immutability is a requirement insofar as it's a necessary consequence of the definition of Tier 0 I've prescribed. You can't really have said definition without including immutability.

The idea that concepts emerged after a character's existence challenges the relevance of immutability itself. If these characters exist outside concepts, time and existence, defining them by traits that don't matter to them becomes problematic.

Why is immutability among a gigantic number of concepts arbitrarily applied as a rule because yes, when the lack of a logical reason for immutability be a rule proposes the same for all concepts?

In your logic, every concept should be a necessary rule, you only decided that immutability would be the only one because yes, there is nothing that makes this concept superior to any other.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

It's basically like saying featherine solos scp or mathiverse because both uses math and are more linear and because featherine transcends dimensions DESPITE the fact umineko has a lesser cosmology and hierarchial structure than both

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The idea that concepts emerged after a character's existence challenges the relevance of immutability itself. If these characters exist outside concepts, time and existence, defining them by traits that don't matter to them becomes problematic.

Why is immutability among a gigantic number of concepts arbitrarily applied as a rule because yes, when the lack of a logical reason for immutability be a rule proposes the same for all concepts?

In your logic, every concept should be a necessary rule, you only decided that immutability would be the only one because yes, there is nothing that makes this concept superior to any other.

It's not particularly problematic, no, because there is something preventing the existence of a similarity between those traits as seen in a Tier 0 (In an absolute fashion) and those traits as manifested in things lesser than a Tier 0. To the extent you can say the latter are lesser expressions of the former. Generally speaking, I do agree that there has to be at least some relation between a Tier 0 and things beneath it, for it to be quantifiable at all.

But overall: You're correct, yes. No concept can apply to a Tier 0 in the same way it applies to a non-Tier 0. This is something I already made clear in the bit where I talked about how a Tier 0 can't be part of a hierarchy (Not even as its highest member). The character, in principle, would have to be totally self-sufficient, and not have its superiority to lesser things be simply a difference in degree at all. And there is no problem with any of this.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

It's not particularly problematic, no, because there is something preventing the existence of a similarity between those traits as seen in a Tier 0 (In an absolute fashion) and those traits as manifested in things lesser than a Tier 0. To the extent you can say the latter are lesser expressions of the former. Generally speaking, I do agree that there has to be at least some relation between a Tier 0 and things beneath it, for it to be quantifiable at all.

But overall: You're correct, yes. No concept can apply to a Tier 0 in the same way it applies to a non-Tier 0. This is something I already made clear in the bit where I talked about how a Tier 0 can't be part of a hierarchy (Not even as its highest member). The character, in principle, would have to be totally self-sufficient, and not have its superiority to lesser things be simply a difference in degree at all. And there is no problem with any of this.

in conclusion, neco-arc is tier 0, yes?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

in conclusion, neco-arc is tier 0, yes?

True!

 

[Lynieryz]

It's not particularly problematic, no, because there is something preventing the existence of a similarity between those traits as seen in a Tier 0 (In an absolute fashion) and those traits as manifested in things lesser than a Tier 0. To the extent you can say the latter are lesser expressions of the former. Generally speaking, I do agree that there has to be at least some relation between a Tier 0 and things beneath it, for it to be quantifiable at all.

But overall: You're correct, yes. No concept can apply to a Tier 0 in the same way it applies to a non-Tier 0. This is something I already made clear in the bit where I talked about how a Tier 0 can't be part of a hierarchy (Not even as its highest member). The character, in principle, would have to be totally self-sufficient, and not have its superiority to lesser things be simply a difference in degree at all. And there is no problem with any of this.

So how is immutability a rule? There simply no reason to be a requirement, what you yourself proposed already rules out the need for immutability in the character's self-sufficiency.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So how is immutability a rule? There simply is no reason to be a requirement, what you yourself proposed already rules out the need for immutability in the character's self-sufficiency.

Not sure I understand your point here. If what you want to say is "Immutability shouldn't be a requirement because the character should transcend all concepts, including the concept of Immutability," then I already addressed that in the fourth paragraph here.

 

[ULTRASHRONK]

@Ultima_Reality put me on what you read to become so good at powerscaling.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality put me on what you read to become so good at powerscaling.

There you go.

 

[Lynieryz]

Not sure I understand your point here. If what you want to say is "Immutability shouldn't be a requirement because the character should transcend all concepts, including the concept of Immutability," then I already addressed that in the fourth paragraph here.

"The justification for immutability being a rule is non-existent and any concept is in the same position as immutability and therefore should also be a rule"

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

i forgot if this was answered, but what if the verse treats higher dimensions like of r>f layers? e.g higher character views lower dimension as a record, can do a bunch of wacky shit with it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

"The justification for immutability being a rule is non-existent and any concept is in the same position as immutability and therefore should also be a rule"

Yeah, that sounds like the exact thing I already addressed (In the linked post). Not too sure of what else you want me to say, here.

i forgot if this was answered, but what if the verse treats higher dimensions like of r>f layers? e.g higher character views lower dimension as a record, can do a bunch of wacky shit with it.

Verses that conflate the two kinds of superiority are easily evaluated by simply tiering them based on which of the two the transcendent thing in question is most closely aligned with.

For example, if Realm X is described as "a higher dimension" or as "higher-dimensional," yet doesn't display any of the actual properties expected of a genuine higher-dimensional space, while also displaying all of the properties expected of a Reality-Fiction Transcendence (E.g. Seeing lesser things as literally lacking existence, and/or being "more real" than them), then it would be tiered as a qualitative superiority.

On the other hand, if Realm X is stated to be a higher-dimensional space and is described in ways analogous to a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, while otherwise behaving exactly as a higher-dimensional space would be expected to (E.g. The difference between it and the lower realms is demonstrated as a physical one), then it would be tiered as a quantitative superiority.

A realm somehow exhibiting all the properties of both is, inherently, a contradiction. So, if a verse has that happen, we can always go for the good old "At least X, possibly/likely Y."

 

[Lynieryz]

Yeah, that sounds like the exact thing I already addressed (In the linked post). Not too sure of what else you want me to say, here.

You didn't give a justification for immutability being a rule, you said that your system needs it but you didn't say why the system needs it.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Perhaps you’re right. As it stands right now, I’m not convinced by DTs arguments at all.

Yeah, I see some error in Ultima but the idea remains very concrete. While I don't get much of DT’s point nor do they properly address the more pressing issue. He has to look at it from Ultima’'s perspective while it seems his heavily focused on what R>F means within the context of dimensional jump which is already addressed properly by Ultimta.

Plus, the consensus seems to favor Ultima’s by quite a margin.

 

[Metalballrun]

Yeah I think I understand the idea behind immutability, but I'm fairly baffled just like everyone else because of how strict Tier 0 would be if that's an absolute requirement.
Also, the idea behind Boundless beings being incapable of change is funny (unless immutability only applies to external influences below Tier 0 but not to Tier 0s themselves).

This is probably against the rules, but I just wanna say that the Abrahamic God's immutability is a constant debate amongs believers. This topic might be like that as well.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah I think I understand the idea behind immutability, but I'm fairly baffled just like everyone else because of how strict Tier 0 would be if that's an absolute requirement.
Also, the idea behind Boundless beings being incapable of change is funny (unless immutability only applies to external influences below Tier 0 but not to Tier 0s themselves).

This is probably against the rules, but I just wanna say that the Abrahamic God's immutability is a constant debate amongs believers. This topic might be like that as well.

A lot of people have mentioned things like the apophatic theory and the Omnipotence quagmire as a sort of resolute to the idea of God’s immutability but those have been debunked. The simple premise is hard to determine because we only comprehend things lower or on our level.

I’ll speak for the comic side, I don't see any Marvel character reaching 0 with that logic. The only beings I see reaching it are, Doctor Fate's “Smile Behind the Universe”, Spectre's “Divine Presence”, Seeker's “Primal Ocean/God”, and Last One’s “Nameless One.” I could argue for the Magician/Divine Creator for Marvel but they rarely refer back to the Meher Baba “Dream” theory or Matteis's writing in general.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You didn't give a justification for immutability being a rule, you said that your system needs it but you didn't say why the system needs it.

I already explained why Immutability follows from the Tier 0 definition I gave here. This is the post where I explained the proposal, so I assumed you read it, given you seemed familiar with the premise of it, at least.

I’ll speak for the comic side, I don't see any Marvel character reaching 0 with that logic. The only beings I see reaching it are, Doctor Fate's “Smile Behind the Universe”, Spectre's “Divine Presence”, Seeker's “Primal Ocean/God”, and Last One’s “Nameless One.” I could argue for the Magician/Divine Creator for Marvel but they rarely refer back to the Meher Baba “Dream” theory or Matteis's writing in general.

DeMatteis' conception of God certainly is Tier 0, yeah. He did insert this conception into the Marvel Cosmology, but with my revisions conflating his "Divine Creator" with TOAA, the hope of Marvel actually reaching 0 kind of falls apart (Until Al Ewing introduces his "Godhead," that is)

 

[Ovy7]

Random question, what was the consensus for r>f going downwards from the baseline layer?

 

[Ovy7]

Also Tier 0 Creator, fight me!!!

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Random question, what was the consensus for r>f going downwards from the baseline layer?

I suggested a "Tier 12" for those cases (Which would also encompass characters who are below dimensionality, instead of above it). Basically 1-A but upside-down. People seem to not like the suggestion and want to keep those things at 11-C, though, so, that's how it be.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

DeMatteis' conception of God certainly is Tier 0, yeah. He did insert this conception into the Marvel Cosmology, but with my revisions conflating his "Divine Creator" with TOAA, the hope of Marvel actually reaching 0 kind of falls apart (Until Al Ewing introduces his "Godhead," that is)

I think it's simply better to leave Matteis's depiction of God alone since he based it on the Indian philosopher. That's why he always told us he was referring to his depiction of God and our depiction of said “God” is just as valid.

The only thing that fits between the two other than being referred to as God is they both use Love. There isn't meant to be a limit to his version while TOAA is questionable after Defenders: Beyond and perhaps Incredible Hulk.

 

[Ovy7]

I suggested a "Tier 12" for those cases (Which would also encompass characters who are below dimensionality, instead of above it). Basically 1-A but upside-down. People seem to not like the suggestion and want to keep those things at 11-C, though, so, that's how it be.

This would apply even if these layers have their own dimensionality, I guess. Same way a 4D from a higher layer can be 1A, one from a lower than baseline layer would be 11C?

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Also Tier 0 Creator, fight me!!!

Isn't that just the title of witches who go beyond when they reach that certain domain? That would probably scale Ange.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

This would apply even if these layers have their own dimensionality, I guess. Same way a 4D from a higher layer can be 1A, one from a lower than baseline layer would be 11C?

Pretty much, yeah.

I think it's simply better to leave Matteis's depiction of God alone since he based it on the Indian philosopher. That's why he always told us he was referring to his depiction of God and our depiction of said “God” is just as valid.

The only thing that fits between the two other than being referred to as God is they both use Love. There isn't meant to be a limit to his version while TOAA is questionable after Defenders: Beyond and perhaps Incredible Hulk.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, myself.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, myself.

With that being said Pralaya could be possibly 0. She is the Beyond-Beyond and the unconscious of God and the embodiment of the Illusion as Maya is to the Dream. She is the only being not dreamt by God although she is still part of him.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

With that being said Pralaya could be possibly 0. She is the Beyond-Beyond and the unconscious of God and the embodiment of the Illusion as Maya is to the Dream. She is the only being not dreamt by God although she is still part of him.

I find that doubtful, myself. If I recall correctly, DeMatteis does explicitly say that God (or "The Smile," as he calls it in that story) is beyond even Mahapralaya. She doesn't give me the impression of being co-equal with the Divine Presence.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I find that doubtful, myself. If I recall correctly, DeMatteis does explicitly say that God (or "The Smile," as he calls it in that story) is beyond even Mahapralaya. She doesn't give me the impression of being co-equal with the Divine Presence.

Well, God is always beyond everyone but even he dreamed of Creation through her. The God we see in Seekers manifested from the Primal Ocean which once was the ocean of nothing before becoming the ocean of love. She is the origin point for everything and transcends Maya who defines the Dream itself as the thebposspoite shadow of the Magician. She will consume the Creator in the end and repeat the Brahma Sleep until all comes back to the original state of God.

I think she fits the idea of Monad, pretty well. It's just that “God” is very paradoxical. Technically she is part of him where the Everything split into the latent of nothing that expands ad infitium. It's kind of like how Michael Demiurgos and Lucifer work with the Presence. While they match his power and will, they can not beat their own power source. Pralaya is just as infinite as he is but is also contained by it simply due to how God works which doesn't really limit Pralaya.

 

[Lynieryz]

I already explained why Immutability follows from the Tier 0 definition I gave here. This is the post where I explained the proposal, so I assumed you read it, given you seemed familiar with the premise of it, at least.

Spoiler: Explanation

Up there, I've expressed that I would have no issues with saying "a perfect portrayal of Transduality" would be Tier 0. However, upon further inspection, I realized one thing: Right now, we consider a character who simultaneously exists in two opposing states to be "transdual." So, in actuality, what I have in mind for the tier is well beyond even the default model of what we consider "Transduality" to be.

Specifically: Take a hypothetical character, and now, let us demand that it be totally undifferentiated, and in all senses "one" with regards to its existence, which does not admit any distinctions or compositions whatsoever. (For convenience's sake, let's call it a "Monad")

Right off the bat, this already prevents it from having either time or space: Space and measurement inherently implies composition/differentiation (A distinction between right and left. Up and down. Between this dimension and that dimension, etc), and so does time (As time is divided in moments. So there is me from 2 hours ago, me from now, me from 2 hours in the future, etc).

And so for this being to be without distinctions, it cannot have either of those things. We might thus say that it has no "quantitative distinction." However, in order to actually be totally undifferentiated, a being would need to take this a step further, namely: It would need to have no qualitative distinctions, either.

Which is to say: Even its characteristics and attributes would ultimately be identical to one another, and to its existence; there wouldn't be a set of attributes that, when added together, create such a being. This being would be a single, indivisible thing with no multiplicity in it at all. A Monad wouldn't be a sum or even the "fusion" of anything but instead the most basic and irreducible thing there is.

It's not difficult to practically demonstrate that attempting to assign qualities and definitions to such a thing would be a fool's errand. To start with, any proposition whatsoever requires a subject (The referent) and a predicate (Something about the referent). For example, "Socrates (Subject) is a man (Predicate)" or "The sky (Subject) is blue (Predicate)." And this extends not just to common language but also to mathematical logic, where some property P assigned to an object a can be expressed as P(a)

Now, propositions like these are meaningful because, obviously, subject and predicate are separate things (E.g. Socrates is not identical with the property of manhood itself, and neither is the sky identical to blueness). Consequently, they break apart when the two are one and the same: If "Socrates" and "Is a man" were to, in fact, have the same referent, then there would be no sentence to begin with. For perhaps a spicier example: A sentence like "God is omnipotent" would also also be a meaningless sentence when applied to a Monad, because if "God" and "Is omnipotent" are just different terms of the same referent, you, in fact, failed to say anything at all.

From this, it follows that such an entity would be undefinable, and really have no "qualities" at all. Or, speaking more precisely: It could technically be said to have a single quality, but since that one quality is completely devoid of any differentiation (And our minds inherently operate using the notion of parts/composition), it can hardly be classified as a "quality" in the way we'd understand the term.

As such, they would fit the bill for the definition of Tier 0 I've presented above.

Interestingly, something else a Monad would also need to lack would be the dichotomy between actuality and potentiality. That is: All of us have, inherently, a mix of actualities and potentialities. We all have things that we are, and things that we aren't, but could be (E.g. I could be cooking burgers right now, but I am not). This being would by necessity lack this distinction entirely, though, and so in it there are no "Could Be"s.

Furthermore, another distinction that it would lack would be the distinction between its power and its nature. For example, a character may be physically 3-dimensional but have Tier 1 Attack Potency, and thus their power is distinct from their nature. Such a thing would not be the case in this hypothetical, though: The being's power would necessarily be its nature.

Keep these two details in mind, as we go forwards.

That's the problem and what I'm questioning, you separating the lack of actuality and punctuality from everything you said, an illogical exception, It's a distinction you're giving that "The reason you're giving" applies to all concepts and not just immutability.

 

[Ovy7]

Isn't that just the title of witches who go beyond when they reach that certain domain?

Yes, kinda.

That would probably scale Ange.

Nope, not even close.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yes, kinda.


Nope, not even close.

Maybe we could connect some 7th Expansion within. Nevertheless, the human theory people had was pretty funny. Those who do transcend to that level should at the bare minimum be 1-A.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Pretty much, yeah.


Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, myself

Yeah I agree as well. The Divine Creator / DeMatteis’ depiction of God is so radically different to anything in Marvel. I’m unsure how DeMatteis’ depiction of

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Yeah I agree as well. The Divine Creator / DeMatteis’ depiction of God is so radically different to anything in Marvel. I’m unsure how DeMatteis’ depiction of

Well not really that different but different enough to distinguish the two.

The point is I don't think we can just use Matteis's logic alone to establish a separate Cosmology from the main one for Marvel. It's more connected to a holistic view than most of DC. If it were then it would specifically upscale the Divine Creator. However, we must include the God theory and everyone technically would be 0 because each soul has no separation from God.

This heavily upscales Franklin Richards and Job Burke and possibly the Nexus Guardians.

 

[Ovy7]

Maybe we could connect some 7th Expansion within

I don't think I get what you mean with this exactly...

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I don't think I get what you mean with this exactly...

I've found some of the things there kind of uncanon. Some of it's very flowery and hard to connect especially when we talk about Featherine.

 

[Ovy7]

I've found some of the things there kind of uncanon. Some of it's very flowery and hard to connect especially when we talk about Featherine.

What exactly? And I hope it's not from ReWrite, cause that's definitely not part of 07th.