• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Executor_N0 said:
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".
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is a fair comparison. We do not define a universe as being 4d space-time continuum. We may default a universe to that, but it's not a strict definition.

Also colloquially, a universe is described as "The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." This definition fits all of your examples whether the universe is a 4D, 5D, 11D etc.

The reason I invoked the True Scotsman Fallacy, is because we aren't using the colloquial definition of fiction. And now we are claiming that things that are called fiction aren't "true fiction". All those universes you described have quantifiable differences and can fit in the common definition of a universe.

This thing about, "true fiction" does not fit in the common definition and there is no quantifiable difference between what we would call not true fiction and what's called true fiction.
 
Because the idea that a fiction can have Mahlo Cardinal yet remains fiction
Would that put the Reality over that fiction tier 1-A or tier 0 and why

The same way Dimension can go as high as you want them to be or transcend them as much as you want them to be but as long as its still fiction its just 1 layer of fiction

Because after all
Those are still Quantities
Not Qualities

Wouldn't it be unfair for one who has more qualitative superiority to be below those with just one simply because their quantities are way higher in math in their fiction?
 
Last edited:
Any time you say something along the lines of "A>B" you are inherently quantifying them, albeit very loosely and not in the sense that Ultima is describing. Also, all cardinals are just numbers, you don't "have numbers" by themselves... instead, you use those numbers to describe other things.
 
Then what's the point in separating Quantitative and qualitative?
If all in all in the end it's just quantifying.

From what I understand R>F would no longer be about quantity due to inherent realness being different from more dimensional numbers.

If that is the case regardless of the number of dimensions whether it is traditional or higher infinity that would still be quantity rather than quality similar to how uncountable infinite snapshots or uncountable infinite numbers of a lower dimensional something would be a higher infinity of something due to quantity enough to go into a higher tier without inherently being higher dimensional but from what I understand we arbitrarily put them at 1-A now and kinda equivalent to transcending dimension as a whole as the baseline

But if you can somehow make quantity equivalent to quality by use of higher infinities (Aleph-2 or higher)then why would we arbitrarily put it at 1-A then and not where we do now?

And even if we stay in that system would we still equate them as similar in potency but unable to interact with each other similar to our system now makes someone 1-C in dimension cannot harm low 1-C in R>F
And at the same time, low 1-C in R>F cannot reach 1-C in dimension
 
Last edited:
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I don’t think this is a fair comparison. We do not define a universe as being 4d space-time continuum. We may default a universe to that, but it's not a strict definition.

Also colloquially, a universe is described as "The universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." This definition fits all of your examples whether the universe is a 4D, 5D, 11D etc.

The reason I invoked the True Scotsman Fallacy, is because we aren't using the colloquial definition of fiction. And now we are claiming that things that are called fiction aren't "true fiction". All those universes you described have quantifiable differences and can fit in the common definition of a universe.

This thing about, "true fiction" does not fit in the common definition and there is no quantifiable difference between what we would call not true fiction and what's called true fiction.
Click to expand...
It's still fiction, it's just not the one for the purposes of the tiering. If another name could be used, it wouldn't make things different because calling it fiction matters nothing.
 
It's a valid interpretation. The use of "fiction/dream" here is easily understood as the same as Plato's Realm of the Forms but in the opposite direction in a hierarchy. It wouldn't be impossible to, in fact, have fictions/dreams that are in fact transcendent to the "real world", and not "bellow it". In fact, I'm working on a cosmology blog for a series that exactly has "fiction/dreams/thoughts" as the upper layer of reality.
 
Executor_N0 said:
It's a valid interpretation. The use of "fiction/dream" here is easily understood as the same as Plato's Realm of the Forms but in the opposite direction in a hierarchy. It wouldn't be impossible to, in fact, have fictions/dreams that are in fact transcendent to the "real world", and not "bellow it". In fact, I'm working on a cosmology blog for a series that exactly has "fiction/dreams/thoughts" as the upper layer of reality.
Click to expand...
yeah i agree about that. Some verse use idealism, nominalism, or even nihilism as part of their story which give their cosmology same characteristic like dimensional inferiority.
 
Not that my reply would substitute one from @Ultima_Reality but I have something I wanted to say about this.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
“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?
Click to expand...
It’s an extension of Death of the Author; an author CAN AND WILL establish a r>f relationship without understanding what that actually entails.

If the author claims that X character views Y character as fiction, yet it’s blatantly obvious that they don’t adhere to the restrictions that come with that, then we can conclude that it isn’t actually a r>f relationship in the realest sense.

Let’s say I create something. A thing. Does the fact that I created it let me dictate what it is ? Let’s say I want my thing to be an apple. Sure, I claim it’s an apple, but it just so happens that the thing is blue and rectangular. More often than not, in-lore evidence > claims (no matter who’s making said claims).

So “to define what is truly fictional” it would be something that is established to be fictional and doesn’t have any apparent contradictions to it being so.
Iamunanimousinthat said:
And of course, in a neutral space, characters would keep the circumstances of their verses that give them power and ability.

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?
Click to expand...
This “putting them in a neutral space” point also ties into the above. Remember how I said “blatantly obvious that they don’t adhere to the restrictions that come with that,” your point is a perfect example of this. Your hypothetical is not possible, because if it were to be demonstrated in a work, that would be evidence showing that the character with the supposed transcendence… doesn’t actually have it. A contradiction. A “real” being inherently cannot manifest in a state where they could be on the same level as a “fictional” one. If they did, that’s evidence against them being “realer” to begin with.

Personally, I (a real being) am yet to interact with any of my dreams in a neutral space, but hey, I’ll put it on my bucket list.
 
Catzlaflame said:
It’s an extension of Death of the Author; an author CAN AND WILL establish a r>f relationship without understanding what that actually entails.

If the author claims that X character views Y character as fiction, yet it’s blatantly obvious that they don’t adhere to the restrictions that come with that, then we can conclude that it isn’t actually a r>f relationship in the realest sense.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't really call this "an author will do X without understanding what it means" because we are the ones giving the meaning to a word that makes sense to us. It's really that the system that is being proposed uses that word with a very direct meaning that might not be always what an author is going to do. Not really an idea of "the author doesn't know what he's talking about".

It's fine to see the difference between what certain words mean in our system and how they might be used by an author, but the fact the authors, or us, use different meanings to certain words is not an example of "the author is wrong". Doing that is putting too much good faith in the system that really isn't built with that in mind.
 
Executor_N0 said:
I wouldn't really call this "an author will do X without understanding what it means" because we are the ones giving the meaning to a word that makes sense to us. It's really that the system that is being proposed uses that word with a very direct meaning that might not be always what an author is going to do. Not really an idea of "the author doesn't know what he's talking about".

It's fine to see the difference between what certain words mean in our system and how they might be used by an author, but the fact the authors, or us, use different meanings to certain words is not an example of "the author is wrong". Doing that is putting too much good faith in the system that really isn't built with that in mind.
Click to expand...
It does seem like that but DOTA applies to any work. No matter how the Author intended it to be, they have “no” say at all. This is why the interpretation with the readers is ultimate even if it's wrong or not what the authors intended.

Best way to look at it is either to debunk or ignore those interpretations. Do remember though we can't use the author's words, the work of the author is the source material. Obviously, if it goes against the source material then the said “interpretation” is wrong. Even if the author's statement works with his story, it is specifically the story that needs to be referenced.

Perhaps, you're not arguing against this but I'm just saying any work of literature has DOTA. The author may not be wrong but we can not use it. Seems weird but that's how it works though if you don't believe in DOTA then you're free to use their statements.
 
TheGreatJedi13 said:
Then what's the point in separating Quantitative and qualitative?
If all in all in the end it's just quantifying.

From what I understand R>F would no longer be about quantity due to inherent realness being different from more dimensional numbers.

If that is the case regardless of the number of dimensions whether it is traditional or higher infinity that would still be quantity rather than quality similar to how uncountable infinite snapshots or uncountable infinite numbers of a lower dimensional something would be a higher infinity of something due to quantity enough to go into a higher tier without inherently being higher dimensional but from what I understand we arbitrarily put them at 1-A now and kinda equivalent to transcending dimension as a whole as the baseline

But if you can somehow make quantity equivalent to quality by use of higher infinities (Aleph-2 or higher)then why would we arbitrarily put it at 1-A then and not where we do now?

And even if we stay in that system would we still equate them as similar in potency but unable to interact with each other similar to our system now makes someone 1-C in dimension cannot harm low 1-C in R>F
And at the same time, low 1-C in R>F cannot reach 1-C in dimension
Click to expand...
I'm using the word "quantity" in a different manner from what Ultima is describing. Ultima's main point is that you can't really point to a specific measure, like, say, a "Mahlo cardinal" to explain away the gap in power because any arbitrary value you plug in would not be enough to describe the gap... but if you know one is greater than another, you can still create a sort of measure/quantification between the two, even if the only info you have is that one is greater than another. That's all that "A>B" means. Even if we don't know how much greater A is than B we can still "quantify" them, in a sense, by saying one is greater than the other, but this is an atypical usage of the word.
 
while writing my comment i concluded some questions and found answers base on the principles Ultima established so I won't post my additional question or continuation

but one question still remains for me if we will equate Transcending dimension and R>F transcendence in a way that in debate or a vsbattle in this forum as capable of interacting or not due to how distinct their difference are despite being in the same tier of potency/strength.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
It does seem like that but DOTA applies to any work. No matter how the Author intended it to be, they have “no” say at all. This is why the interpretation with the readers is ultimate even if it's wrong or not what the authors intended.

Best way to look at it is either to debunk or ignore those interpretations. Do remember though we can't use the author's words, the work of the author is the source material. Obviously, if it goes against the source material then the said “interpretation” is wrong. Even if the author's statement works with his story, it is specifically the story that needs to be referenced.

Perhaps, you're not arguing against this but I'm just saying any work of literature has DOTA. The author may not be wrong but we can not use it. Seems weird but that's how it works though if you don't believe in DOTA then you're free to use their statements.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it doesn't apply, I said that had nothing to do with DOTA because it supposes the author and our system are talking 100% about the same thing, but the author got it wrong when that is not the case. It was just a matter of two things using the name word to mean different things.

But, one detail, DOTA isn't something that "applies to any work" and is "ultimate" in the sense you are saying. DOTA is a valid way of interpreting a work in the sense that anyone can extract meaning from anything, even if not intended by the author. That is all, it's a method of interpretation, it's a way of doing literary criticism. It's no different to choosing New Criticism over Historicism. It's a method of interpretation and the more you broaden your views about works, the more the lines between them can get blurry and the sense of DOTA might not be useful anymore (Just as there are cases when it's useful).
 
Executor_N0 said:
I'm not saying it doesn't apply, I said that had nothing to do with DOTA because it supposes the author and our system are talking 100% about the same thing, but the author got it wrong when that is not the case. It was just a matter of two things using the name word to mean different things.

But, one detail, DOTA isn't something that "applies to any work" and is "ultimate" in the sense you are saying. DOTA is a valid way of interpreting a work in the sense that anyone can extract meaning from anything, even if not intended by the author. That is all, it's a method of interpretation, it's a way of doing literary criticism. It's no different to choosing New Criticism over Historicism. It's a method of interpretation and the more you broaden your views about works, the more the lines between them can get blurry and the sense of DOTA might not be useful anymore (Just as there are cases when it's useful).
Click to expand...
When it's being applied is the key because any work does have it. There's no exception to that niche. It's whether you use it or not because some people don't believe in it. If you do, it always is being applied.
 
Last edited:
Saw what Ant said and I'm pleased but the point should not be to let it be “harder” to reach with the proposed revision. Simply given context or setting, characters get it if they truly do match it, there shouldn't be a safeguard per se. If a character does not meet such standards then they won't get it.

Like the system right now is fair to let characters who truly support the notion of how we scale. You either get it or not, chain scaling or illogical scaling will always be a thing that can be taken into account. You either get the tier or you don't. Saying it should be “harder” seems weird.
 
If you can Ant, please elaborate with us “commoners” what the main premise of that discussion was. Since we need to fill in the details while we wait for DT and Ultima to get their points across.
 
I don't agree with the ultima making r>f 1a, the current system is quite good. If such a thing happens, you will reject the higher spatial dimensions below 1a, the reason for this is the things required for the character to get r>f, for example a 3-dimensional vector for the R^n space. When we consider the space, if this 3-dimensional space is a phenomenon that only exists in the character's dream, this character should continue to expand to n-dimensional levels, that is, giving 1a for the rf, just like the character has 4d hde, completely makes the uncountable infinite and infinite n dimensions below 1a unreasonable. By definition, 1a is a layer that is inaccessible to all spatial dimensions (this is unreachable even if there are uncountable or countably infinite n dimensions.) So there is no need to disrupt the order in the wiki for something like this, and it is also higher than mathematical cardinals. Cardinals that expand to infinity levels must still have the same layer. For example, for a P(0) dimensional space, a P(P(0)) with higher infinity can be Since N2 or P(P(0)) has an uncountable infinite amount, it should by definition take l1a, so it is unnecessary to put this system into such a change.
 
The_forgetten said:
I don't agree with the ultima making r>f 1a, the current system is quite good. If such a thing happens, you will reject the higher spatial dimensions below 1a, the reason for this is the things required for the character to get r>f, for example a 3-dimensional vector for the R^n space. When we consider the space, if this 3-dimensional space is a phenomenon that only exists in the character's dream, this character should continue to expand to n-dimensional levels, that is, giving 1a for the rf, just like the character has 4d hde, completely makes the uncountable infinite and infinite n dimensions below 1a unreasonable. By definition, 1a is a layer that is inaccessible to all spatial dimensions (this is unreachable even if there are uncountable or countably infinite n dimensions.) So there is no need to disrupt the order in the wiki for something like this, and it is also higher than mathematical cardinals. Cardinals that expand to infinity levels must still have the same layer. For example, for a P(0) dimensional space, a P(P(0)) with higher infinity can be Since N2 or P(P(0)) has an uncountable infinite amount, it should by definition take l1a, so it is unnecessary to put this system into such a change.
Click to expand...
That's why I don't participate in ultima
 
The_forgetten said:
I don't agree with the ultima making r>f 1a, the current system is quite good. If such a thing happens, you will reject the higher spatial dimensions below 1a, the reason for this is the things required for the character to get r>f, for example a 3-dimensional vector for the R^n space. When we consider the space, if this 3-dimensional space is a phenomenon that only exists in the character's dream, this character should continue to expand to n-dimensional levels, that is, giving 1a for the rf, just like the character has 4d hde, completely makes the uncountable infinite and infinite n dimensions below 1a unreasonable. By definition, 1a is a layer that is inaccessible to all spatial dimensions (this is unreachable even if there are uncountable or countably infinite n dimensions.) So there is no need to disrupt the order in the wiki for something like this, and it is also higher than mathematical cardinals. Cardinals that expand to infinity levels must still have the same layer. For example, for a P(0) dimensional space, a P(P(0)) with higher infinity can be Since N2 or P(P(0)) has an uncountable infinite amount, it should by definition take l1a, so it is unnecessary to put this system into such a change.
Click to expand...
All of this has already been addressed.
 
Also, 1A and up being inaccessible to all spacial dimensions is false. What do you guys think those sweet alephs and cardinals and classes are for? Yep, counting dimensions/layers or nr. of universes. Ultima's point is that no matter how much stuff you add, something that is fictional would still remain fictional.
 
Ovy7 said:
Also, 1A and up being inaccessible to all spacial dimensions is false. What do you guys think those sweet alephs and cardinals and classes are for? Yep, counting dimensions/layers or nr. of universes. Ultima's point is that no matter how much stuff you add, something that is fictional would still remain fictional.
Click to expand...
The whole point of these revisions is to knock cardinals down to High 1-B+ and make 1-A truly inaccessible to all spacial dimensions.
 
Ant's concern about the tiers being bloated feels strange to me... if we find 10+ characters that match High 1-A/Tier 0 then that just means there are 10+ characters that reach that level... there's no reason why you should try to gatekeep higher tiers if the verses in question happen to align with the standards and this feels like it's going to result in appeal to ignorance, in other words "Well they only say that this character reaches this level but how can we know that it's true [even though there's 0 implication that it's false]?"
 
Ben_CleverName said:
Ant's concern about the tiers being bloated feels strange to me... if we find 10+ characters that match High 1-A/Tier 0 then that just means there are 10+ characters that reach that level... there's no reason why you should try to gatekeep higher tiers if the verses in question happen to align with the standards and this feels like it's going to result in appeal to ignorance, in other words "Well they only say that this character reaches this level but how can we know that it's true [even though there's 0 implication that it's false]?"
Click to expand...
It also don't help that out of the 47 teir 0 characters you got one verse bloating it up with 19 teir 0s in one verse. I'd definitely prefer teir 0 to just be THE endpoint no layers after that just to cut off those nerds that start using strong cardinal wank in teir 0.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
3K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
2K
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
What would debunk the basis of the VSBW tiering system
Replies
6
Views
2K
Urshani
Boy.Line
Qualification issues.
Replies
7
Views
629
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
177K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top