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

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

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.

Apologies. I had no intentions to send that message that early.

Anyways. Well, I do agree that if we can separate the two it'd upscale to those who have shown those levels in their comics that DeMatteis explicitly made, considering as you said, they all are equally God. I personally think we can though. He explicitly says every-time he refers to God/Creator in his stories, he's referring to his version of God (Which means all of them, be it Seeker's Magician,. Divine Presence, and Divine Creator scale to and are the same thing in his view, which makes sense, considering how they are written and everything is a suprisingly consistent constant across his various works).

DeMatteis made it specifically ambiguous as to whether or not The Divine Creator was TOAA, but at the same time other than their weapons being love, they don't really share any similarities, especially with how they view the Marvel Universe as a whole (One views it as a Dream/Illusion, the other at best as a Author does a Work of Fiction. One has no contradictions scaling to DeMatteis' depiction of God, the other has a metric ton of contradictions and inconsistent portrayals across the various iterations)

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Apologies. I had no intentions to send that message that early.

Anyways. Well, I do agree that if we can separate the two it'd upscale to those who have shown those levels in their comics that DeMatteis explicitly made, considering as you said, they all are equally God. I personally think we can though. He explicitly says every-time he refers to God/Creator in his stories, he's referring to his version of God (Which means all of them, be it Seeker's Magician,. Divine Presence, and Divine Creator scale to and are the same thing in his view, which makes sense, considering how they are written and everything is a suprisingly consistent constant across his various works).

DeMatteis made it specifically ambiguous as to whether or not The Divine Creator was TOAA, but at the same time other than their weapons being love, they don't really share any similarities, especially with how they view the Marvel Universe as a whole (One views it as a Dream/Illusion, the other at best as a Author does a Work of Fiction. One has no contradictions scaling to DeMatteis' depiction of God, the other has a metric ton of contradictions and inconsistent portrayals across the various iterations)

I think his work on Cosmology such as the Nexus can be used with the rest of Marvel Cosmology set by Ewing, Hickman, etc….However, his depiction of the origin and his version of God is the most definitely unique.

It can work but I would put it like this: The One Above All is the limit to the Defenders. As they go up they watch more of what he represents implying a hierarchy. In the end, is the Ultimate Reality beyond even the Dominion and it is the same being; Divine Creator, and being beyond that is similar to how jumping out of the House frees you of narrative constraint and will you enter again the Oneness of God.

It's kind of like Doctor Fate, Dominion could be a Pralaya equivalence, and God has a sort of Avatar to connect the Soul to God after they reach that endless hierarchy beyond just the first thing the One Above All manifest as such with the House.

 

[Iiliminal]

Apologies. I had no intentions to send that message that early.

Anyways. Well, I do agree that if we can separate the two it'd upscale to those who have shown those levels in their comics that DeMatteis explicitly made, considering as you said, they all are equally God. I personally think we can though. He explicitly says every-time he refers to God/Creator in his stories, he's referring to his version of God (Which means all of them, be it Seeker's Magician,. Divine Presence, and Divine Creator scale to and are the same thing in his view, which makes sense, considering how they are written and everything is a suprisingly consistent constant across his various works).

DeMatteis made it specifically ambiguous as to whether or not The Divine Creator was TOAA, but at the same time other than their weapons being love, they don't really share any similarities, especially with how they view the Marvel Universe as a whole (One views it as a Dream/Illusion, the other at best as a Author does a Work of Fiction. One has no contradictions scaling to DeMatteis' depiction of God, the other has a metric ton of contradictions and inconsistent portrayals across the various iterations)

Goku negs

 

[CanineAnnoyer]

Some people are saying this will give High 1-A Homestuck. Can any you confirm this?

 

[Railgun]

Also Tier 0 Creator, fight me!!!

I was thinking the same thing

 

[JimedBro2020]

Sir, why you suckin' my d*ck, stepbro?

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

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.


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)

Out of pure curiosity though, how come you believe DeMatteis’ depiction of God is Tier 0 ? I have personal reasons why I believe that to be the case but I’d like to hear yours if you have the time.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Sir, why you suckin' my d*ck, stepbro?

lol the casual homophobic response

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

Out of pure curiosity though, how come you believe DeMatteis’ depiction of God is Tier 0 ? I have personal reasons why I believe that to be the case but I’d like to hear yours if you have the time.

He said it depicts the phislophsy of the Monad and perhaps the Gnostic route of the One(Monad). Where it is the origin point to the most fundamental point from which everything came. Given that God is the True Illusion/Reality that transcends the second illusion by Maya and is the one true soul of reality beyond the Illusion.

 

[Anzu_Hanashiro]

So has the transcendent in quality finally been accepted as 1-A?

 

[Robo432343]

no

 

[Lilixa]

So what is the easiest way to differentiate between world is illusion (due to R>F or QS) and world is illusion (due to nominalism) ?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I think visuals will also allow people to see why I think R>F transcendence is an absurdity. This is what it would look like tier wise:



And mind you, all these layers can be literally identical in terms of depiction, physics, etc. etc. the only difference is one layer sees the other as fiction. And the higher layer doesn't even need to be able to interact or affect the lower layers.

 

[Hasty12345]

I can’t see the writing, it’s too small

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I can’t see the writing, it’s too small

The writing in side the box, or the tier labels?

I only added the tier labels. You can see a bigger picture here.

 

[Hasty12345]

The writing in side the box, or the tier labels?

I only added the tier labels. You can see a bigger picture here.

Ahh thank you, I can read those

 

[Hasty12345]

I dont know if im reading these charts correctly.

Im interpreting the green arrows on the right to mean progressively stacked dimensional hierarchies and Ultima is basically saying no matter how many infinite dimensional hierarchies you stack, they will always be less than a metaphysically more “real” plane of existence?

Is that how you’re supposed to interpret the diagrams?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I dont know if im reading these charts correctly.

Im interpreting the green arrows on the right to mean progressively stacked dimensional hierarchies and Ultima is basically saying no matter how many infinite dimensional hierarchies you stack, they will always be less than a metaphysically more “real” plane of existence?

Is that how you’re supposed to interpret the diagrams?

Yes.

 

[Hasty12345]

Well in that case, I still agree with Ultima. At least as far as it’s better than our current system.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I think the biggest question, is nobody has accurately explained why "being more real" = greater attack potency. This seems to be treated as just law.

 

[Hasty12345]

I think the biggest question, is nobody has accurately explained why "being more real" = greater attack potency. This seems to be treated as just law.

I think it’s akin to something like a dream affecting reality.

The realm in which the lower realm, permitted the verse also meets other criteria such that a power relation is established, appears as a dream or another fundamentally less “real” should be weaker than the more real plane.

Arguably, you can take the position since energy is only defined for physical systems, you can’t inherently prove any metaphysical system is capable of any AP. I think that’s just a concession on the part of fictional tiering.

From what I’ve read and what others have told me, it’s even possible to go as far as to collapse all physical spaces under the same tiers into high 3-A. Idk any crazy maths so I’m just regurgitating the thoughts of likely far more conservative scaling philosophies here.

 

[SweetDao]

I think the biggest question, is nobody has accurately explained why "being more real" = greater attack potency. This seems to be treated as just law.

I think it's an arbitrary choice? Realness works on a different spectrum than dimensionality and attack potency, obviously. Humans that see the whole verse as fiction would still die by getting run over by a car, yet they would be 1-A by virtue of seeing the verse below as non-existent, which, yes, explained like that seems really weird.

I feel like it's a matter of existential value rather than attack potency. A 1-A human would be "more real" than Goku, but if they were to fight on equal ground, Goku would easily win. If Goku loses, it's not because of lacking strength, but lacking a higher existential value. (Also, in that particular setup, it would either end up as the human winning because he's "higher" than Goku, or as a stalemate, because both would be unable to interact with the other.)

At least, that's how I see it, so maybe I'm wrong idk.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I think visuals will also allow people to see why I think R>F transcendence is an absurdity. This is what it would look like tier wise:



And mind you, all these layers can be literally identical in terms of depiction, physics, etc. etc. the only difference is one layer sees the other as fiction. And the higher layer doesn't even need to be able to interact or affect the lower layers.

i thought tier 11 is suppose to be 2D and to 0D
while tier 12 is being fiction to baseline reality which makes them less than even 0 dimensional

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I think the biggest question, is nobody has accurately explained why "being more real" = greater attack potency. This seems to be treated as just law.

Because that's how fiction typically treats it. If fiction treated it differently, so would we.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The realm in which the lower realm, permitted the verse also meets other criteria such that a power relation is established, appears as a dream or another fundamentally less “real” should be weaker than the more real plane.

I am challenging the very idea of the criteria.

But this example contradicts itself in larger context of our index system. There are many works of fiction where dreams affect reality. There are many works of fiction where dreams are seen as just as real as reality. Why should viewing a reality as a dream gain a tier, when we have so many examples of works viewing dreams as reality.

To break it down to it's simplest forms:

Viewing a reality as a dream = higher tier
Viewing a dream as a reality = no higher tier

Why is this the case?

I think it's an arbitrary choice? Realness works on a different spectrum than dimensionality and attack potency, obviously. Humans that see the whole verse as fiction would still die by getting run over by a car, yet they would be 1-A by virtue of seeing the verse below as non-existent, which, yes, explained like that seems really weird.

I feel like it's a matter of existential value rather than attack potency. A 1-A human would be "more real" than Goku, but if they were to fight on equal ground, Goku would easily win. If Goku loses, it's not because of lacking strength, but lacking a higher existential value. (Also, in that particular setup, it would either end up as the human winning because he's "higher" than Goku, or as a stalemate, because both would be unable to interact with the other.)

You are leaving out the third option, where the two are put in a neutral space and Goku obliterates him.

Btw, what is existential value? How do you define it?

Because that's how fiction typically treats it. If fiction treated it differently, so would we.

That is not how all fiction treats it. There are many works where fictional beings and real world beings are treated as equals. Not to mention, there are verses where "more real" isn't synonymous with more power.

Also, a fiction may depict R>F as a being synonymous with being stronger, but we are the ones who have decided that "stronger" means a higher tier. There are many cases where tier 2 characters transform or get a new form that is considered to be stronger and transcendent, but we don't give them higher tiers. This a deliberate decision on our parts.

i thought tier 11 is suppose to be 2D and to 0D
while tier 12 is being fiction to baseline reality which makes them less than even 0 dimensional

I wasn't shore if tier 11 was going to be changed or they would add a new tier 12.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

That is not how all fiction treats it. There are many works where fictional beings and real world beings are treated as equals. Not to mention, there are verses where "more real" isn't synonymous with more power.

Also, a fiction may depict R>F as a being synonymous with being stronger, but we are the ones who have decided that "stronger" means a higher tier. There are many cases where tier 2 characters transform or get a new form that is considered to be stronger and transcendent, but we don't give them higher tiers. This a deliberate decision on our parts.

@Ultima_Reality

 

[SweetDao]

You are leaving out the third option, where the two are put in a neutral space and Goku obliterates him.

Fair... I kinda forgot such an option could exist, my bad. Yeah, you're right, if they are put in a neutral space, meaning, a space where both existence would be equalized, then Goku would beat him.

But isn't doing so, kinda losing the purpose of the human in the initial postulate? He was never "stronger" than Goku, but he was "more real" than him, making Goku irrelevant in his eyes.

Btw, what is existential value? How do you define it?

I'll try to be quick because I don't want a massive wall of text... Reminder that it's just my mindless ramblings.

A hierarchy of realness (just like any hierarchy, tbf) works under a system of "referent and referred". Obviously, despite the fact that we are not talking about "quantitative superiority" anymore, we're obligated to use some sort of quantitative denomination to explain the superiority of layers between each other. The 13th layer is more real than the 12th while he's fiction to the 14th for example.

In this situation, what's the difference between a dimensional hierarchy and a realness one? Well, nothing, you just get "+1" compared to the one below you. (or more depending on the context, obviously). It goes without saying that this "+1" is completely different in nature than, for example, gaining an additional spatial axis. However, when you have a hierarchy, you must abide by an internal logic, if not, there is no hierarchy. "Existential value", "realness", "R<F layers" or whatever you can call it is only the consequences of such a thing.

If it's just one specific place that is "R>F" or more real than the rest of the verse, it's a quality. If there are more, it's a quantitative notion.

You don't gain power or anything special, you're just within a layer where your reality is real compared to things below you. Just like layers below or above you. Realness ends up becoming nothing more than a value. Yet, you can't ignore what makes the character (the human in our assumption) special in the first place. That would be like removing to a 12D character, it's 9 additional spatial dimensions.

Splitting the tiering system starting from the "tier 1" in both categories. "Existential transcendence" and "Spatial transcendence" so that both intrinsic qualities are respected would be better, I feel. 1-A for any "legitimate" R>F seems like a bit much personally.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

But isn't doing so, kinda losing the purpose of the human in the initial postulate? He was never "stronger" than Goku, but he was "more real" than him, making Goku irrelevant in his eyes.

I think this clearly proves me point. Stronger and more real are not synonymous. Remember we are giving these characters tiers within Attack Potency. Attack Potency is about strength and power. What can you create, destroy, affect?

When the new system passes (and also currently) a character will have higher attack potency for where they exist, and it has nothing to do with with what they create, destroy, or affect.

Fair... I kinda forgot such an option could exist, my bad. Yeah, you're right, if they are put in a neutral space, meaning, a space where both existence would be equalized, then Goku would beat him.

But isn't doing so, kinda losing the purpose of the human in the initial postulate? He was never "stronger" than Goku, but he was "more real" than him, making Goku irrelevant in his eyes.


I'll try to be quick because I don't want a massive wall of text... Reminder that it's just my mindless ramblings.

A hierarchy of realness (just like any hierarchy, tbf) works under a system of "referent and referred". Obviously, despite the fact that we are not talking about "quantitative superiority" anymore, we're obligated to use some sort of quantitative denomination to explain the superiority of layers between each other. The 13th layer is more real than the 12th while he's fiction to the 14th for example.

In this situation, what's the difference between a dimensional hierarchy and a realness one? Well, nothing, you just get "+1" compared to the one below you. (or more depending on the context, obviously). It goes without saying that this "+1" is completely different in nature than, for example, gaining an additional spatial axis. However, when you have a hierarchy, you must abide by an internal logic, if not, there is no hierarchy. "Existential value", "realness", "R<F layers" or whatever you can call it is only the consequences of such a thing.

If it's just one specific place that is "R>F" or more real than the rest of the verse, it's a quality. If there are more, it's a quantitative notion.

You don't gain power or anything special, you're just within a layer where your reality is real compared to things below you. Just like layers below or above you. Realness ends up becoming nothing more than a value. Yet, you can't ignore what makes the character (the human in our assumption) special in the first place. That would be like removing a 12D character, it's 9 additional spatial dimensions.

Splitting the tiering system starting from the "tier 1" in both categories. "Existential transcendence" and "Spatial transcendence" so that both intrinsic qualities are respected would be better, I feel. 1-A for any "legitimate" R>F seems like a bit much personally.

Thanks for explaining. There isn't really anything to argue as you explained it quite well from your perspective. But I will say, the +1 with dimensional hierarchy equates to an extra degree of uncountably infinite volume while the the +1 in qualitative hierarchy is just "more real".

One is definable, while the other is abstract. I can take two fictions, and say which one has higher volumes of space and which one doesn't. But I think its erroneous to take two fictions and say, which one is more real and which one is less real.

 

[SweetDao]

One is definable, while the other is abstract. I can take two fictions, and say which one has higher volumes of space and which one doesn't. But I think its erroneous to take two fictions and say, which one is more real and which one is less real.

That's why I feel splitting the current TS when reaching tier 1 stuff is better. Don't get me wrong, it would undoubtedly have problems, just like what Ultima is trying to do, but at least it would be less "egregious" than saying any legitimate "R>F" is 1-A (which, technically, it is, but that's another topic...)

Like, idk, what's the problem with doing this for example :

Low 1-C : blablable equated to 5D or 6D
Low 1-C Bis/B : Equated to a layer or two of realness above the main universe/reality.
(Don't see both of them as equivalent, see them as two separate paths that works under their own logic which don't necessarily need to be interconnected with the other.)

And you could go like that to 1-A and High 1-A too. In such a way, the qualities of both the specifics way of transcending are respected, while not giving one an advantage over the other. The main problem with that method would obviously be versus match, but since VSBW is first and foremost an indexing wiki, I'll say, idk, equalize existence, maybe.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I am challenging the very idea of the criteria.

But this example contradicts itself in larger context of our index system. There are many works of fiction where dreams affect reality. There are many works of fiction where dreams are seen as just as real as reality. Why should viewing a reality as a dream gain a tier, when we have so many examples of works viewing dreams as reality.

To break it down to it's simplest forms:

Viewing a reality as a dream = higher tier
Viewing a dream as a reality = no higher tier

Why is this the case?


You are leaving out the third option, where the two are put in a neutral space and Goku obliterates him.

Btw, what is existential value? How do you define it?


That is not how all fiction treats it. There are many works where fictional beings and real world beings are treated as equals. Not to mention, there are verses where "more real" isn't synonymous with more power.

Also, a fiction may depict R>F as a being synonymous with being stronger, but we are the ones who have decided that "stronger" means a higher tier. There are many cases where tier 2 characters transform or get a new form that is considered to be stronger and transcendent, but we don't give them higher tiers. This a deliberate decision on our parts.


I wasn't shore if tier 11 was going to be changed or they would add a new tier 12.

"There are cases where fiction and reality are seen as equal" is a pretty meaningless argument against the concept of Reality-Fiction Transcendence because, in those cases, "fiction" simply really isn't a thing to begin with, and it's all just "reality." It's kind of a non-sequitur all around. Likewise, "There are verses where being fictional doesn't make you weaker" would just have us question what, exactly, makes those things "fictional" to begin with.

"but we are the ones who have decided that "stronger" means a higher tier." Yeah, no shit. We could, in principle, shove all of Tier 1 and Tier 2 into a single tier, but that'd just be useless and impractical, because that'd just mean you have a single, extremely dense tier with several large gaps within it, and no way to meaningfully differentiate those gaps. Thus we separate them.

Overall, I think the "It's all just perspective" argument against Reality-Fiction Transcendence is pretty weak. First and foremost because it doesn't actually eliminate the gap between two layers of R>F, so much as it makes it a muddy endeavor to pick and choose which layer is the Tier 1 one and which is the Tier 11 one. The difference in scope between levels remains the exact same, just "mirrored" to a different direction depending on how you look at it.

Secondly, because it fails to take into account that not all verses with R>F work like that. For example, you have Umineko, where the Reality-Fiction Hierarchy does, in fact, have an objective metric that differentiates its layers, namely the amount of restrictions your existence and power has. So, for example, you have humans (With the most restrictions) in the bottom layer and Creators (With no restrictions whatsoever) in the top layer. I wouldn't say this case is one where the superiority one layer has to another is purely perspective-based. Same goes for cases of R>F that are more metaphysically-inclined and less based on metafiction.

And to this, comes the fact that "If you put the real character and the fictional character on a neutral ground, the two would be on the same level" doesn't always hold true, either. There are, indeed, verses where the very idea is nonsensical, because the "fictional character" can't exist in the higher layer without being endowed with realness (And thus amped), and likewise the "real character" can't descend into a lower layer without forsaking their own reality (And thus being nerfed). In which case, it's impossible for the two states of existence to "intermingle" solely by having characters shift locations.

So, in my eyes, those criticisms don't actually attack the basic idea of R>F

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

So, in my eyes, those criticisms don't actually attack the basic idea of R>F

I get what he's trying to say but those points weren't very strong. It's more cheery picking, if I were to be honest.

 

[Hasty12345]

I am challenging the very idea of the criteria.

But this example contradicts itself in larger context of our index system. There are many works of fiction where dreams affect reality. There are many works of fiction where dreams are seen as just as real as reality. Why should viewing a reality as a dream gain a tier, when we have so many examples of works viewing dreams as reality.

Those verses clearly wouldn’t qualify though in the same way verses now with x many dimensions with no QS don’t qualify.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Those verses clearly wouldn’t qualify though in the same way verses now with x many dimensions with no QS don’t qualify.

We still got no 8D Popeye so that's kinda hard to argue against.

 

[Hasty12345]

We still got no 8D Popeye so that's kinda hard to argue against.

You can probably find heaps of counter examples on profiles, that doesn’t make the standards wrong, it makes the profiles wrong.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

There are cases where fiction and reality are seen as equal" is a pretty meaningless argument against the concept of Reality-Fiction Transcendence because, in those cases, "fiction" simply really isn't a thing to begin with, and it's all just "reality." It's kind of a non-sequitur all around. Likewise, "There are verses where being fictional doesn't make you weaker" would just have us question what, exactly, makes those things "fictional" to begin with.

“Fictional” The thing that makes them fictional is because the work refers it as such. This is getting into a true scottsman territory where we will be saying, “even though this work defines this thing as fictional within it’s setting, its not truly fictional by our standards”.

Can you define what truly fictional will be then?

but we are the ones who have decided that "stronger" means a higher tier." Yeah, no shit. We could, in principle, shove all of Tier 1 and Tier 2 into a single tier, but that'd just be useless and impractical, because that'd just mean you have a single, extremely dense tier with several large gaps within it, and no way to meaningfully differentiate those gaps. Thus we separate them.

You didn’t address my actual point or speak within the context of why I said that.

Lawyer made the point that, in some works R>F is treated as state of being stronger. I made the point that not all things that are treated as state of being stronger are decided to be a higher tier.

Overall, I think the "It's all just perspective" argument against Reality-Fiction Transcendence is pretty weak. First and foremost because it doesn't actually eliminate the gap between two layers of R>F

I think this argument weak. I have yet to see a definition of R>F that can define the gap between layers without perspective. If you can then what what is that definition?

Secondly, because it fails to take into account that not all verses with R>F work like that. For example, you have Umineko, where the Reality-Fiction Hierarchy does, in fact, have an objective metric that differentiates its layers, namely the amount of restrictions your existence and power has. So, for example, you have humans (With the most restrictions) in the bottom layer and Creators (With no restrictions whatsoever) in the top layer. I wouldn't say this case is one where the superiority one layer has to another is purely perspective-based. Same goes for cases of R>F that are more metaphysically-inclined and less based on metafiction.

How does this work against my point? It strengthens it.

From basing on just what you are saying, if you put the humans and creators in a neutral space, the creators would not lose their potency.

If the power is truly tied to the layers and cannot be equated to the persons, then the difference between the layers is more than just reality vs. fiction and itself cannot translate or be equated to the other differences between layers of other fictions.

And of course, in a neutral space, characters would keep the circumstances of their verses that give them power and ability.

But what ability and power is being more real?

And to this, comes the fact that "If you put the real character and the fictional character on a neutral ground, the two would be on the same level" doesn't always hold true, either.

That has never been my argument.

There are, indeed, verses where the very idea is nonsensical, because the "fictional character" can't exist in the higher layer without being endowed with realness (And thus amped), and likewise the "real character" can't descend into a lower layer without forsaking their own reality (And thus being nerfed). In which case, it's impossible for the two states of existence to "intermingle" solely by having characters shift locations.

The idea that you call nonsensical wasn’t the idea i proposed. I said put two characters in a neutral space.

This already null and voids your example. The fictional character may need to have “realness” to exist on the same level of the real character within their story. But in the hypothetical neutral space, it doesn’t need it to exist there. The fictional and real character can exist both in the neutral space simultaneously. Who is stronger? Are they equal? That’s impossible to know without greater context.

And this is two characters within the same story. When we bring characters from two independent states, how are you even going to quantify realness to say one is real enough to intermingle?

 

[FoxySonicMaster108]

Some people are saying this will give High 1-A Homestuck. Can any you confirm this?

As a supporter of the verse in question, we'll have to wait and see if to be honest. It'd be cool if it did happen, but Ultima's thread needs to go through first before that can even be considered.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Those verses clearly wouldn’t qualify though in the same way verses now with x many dimensions with no QS don’t qualify.

I know they wouldn’t qualify. They don’t qualify because they would contradict the idea that reality is greater than fiction.

I am questioning the need for that to be treated as law

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Verses where their in-verse version of fictional works actually have a corresponding parallel universe (Marvel, a multiverse where anything is possible because there are infinite possibilities for example) is NOT R>F

Verses where in verse fictional works are portrayed as actual worlds and are actually existentially less real/unreal compared to the higher setting IS R>F

Verses where dreams create parallel worlds (Sonic, Mario) is NOT R>F

Verses where dreams create actual existentially less real/unreal worlds compared to the higher setting/dreamer IS R>F

It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[Greatsage13th]

Verses where their in-verse version of fictional works actually have a corresponding parallel universe (Marvel, a multiverse where anything is possible because there are infinite possibilities for example) is NOT R>F

Verses where in verse fictional works are portrayed as actual worlds and are actually existentially less real/unreal compared to the higher setting IS R>F

Verses where dreams create parallel worlds (Sonic, Mario) is NOT R>F

Verses where dreams create actual existentially less real/unreal worlds compared to the higher setting/dreamer IS R>F

It's really not that hard to grasp.

Yel

 

[Executor_N0]

“Fictional” The thing that makes them fictional is because the work refers it as such. This is getting into a true scottsman territory where we will be saying, “even though this work defines this thing as fictional within it’s setting, its not truly fictional by our standards”.

Can you define what truly fictional will be then?

We can technically do this with any word if we just apply a bit of Socratic Questioning. The way for the approach in the tiering system is less to use the words and see them being used elsewhere and more about looking at the meaning we give in the tiering system and see if it applies to a certain work.

Like, we define the Universe as a 4-dimensional space-time continuum, but universes can be far greater than that and it's very common that people will misunderstand how this really works. Just a few weeks ago we had someone asking how a 5-D or higher universe could be Tier 1 when Tier 1 is for "multiverse". In the end, how we call stuff here does not matter, the meaning we give to those words are the things that matter. So if a work uses fiction to define the physical objects in the same space-time order, but are somehow limited, it'll not be strange to not accept any more than how we won't say a 11-D universe isn't Tier 1 because it's called a "universe".