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

[demonwarrior2266]

The amount of verses that use cardinals on our site is countable on one hand. Giving them more than one tier is just unnecessarily bloating things.

Fair, although I mean arent they three tiers right now as is? Being 1-a, high 1-a, and 0? It also doesn't have to be a whole section of the tiering list but i feel like 1 tier is just not expansive enough for large the range of cardinalities is, and even including the ones that exist on the site currently. Putting the current 1-As and 0s in the same tier just doesn't sit right.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Fair, although I mean arent they three tiers right now as is? Being 1-a, high 1-a, and 0? It also doesn't have to be a whole section of the tiering list but i feel like 1 tier is just not expansive enough for large the range of cardinalities is, and even including the ones that exist on the site currently. Putting the current 1-As and 0s in the same tier just doesn't sit right.

The "range of cardinalities" is infinite because you can always add more axioms to set theory, so that's not an argument.

 

[demonwarrior2266]

The "range of cardinalities" is infinite because you can always add more axioms to set theory, so that's not an argument.

Out of the range that are reasonable to, and do, exist within the writing of certain verses, is what I mean. Like putting the current 0s and shoehorning them into the same tier as 1-A seems to be a disservice. Im not implying an infinite tiering system for all large cardinal axioms, but I am saying that separating things like Aleph from inaccessible, and maybe inaccessible from all further cardinals (maybe not that one but still) seems to do the current tiering system more justice. Because these points of tiering differentiation would be more reasonable for categorizing verses into as opposed to a tier for each large cardinal property.

I still think that one tier is not expansive enough for the 3 tiers that currently exist to include cardinals (of which these 3 tiers have like 500 characters when added together).

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Out of the range that are reasonable to, and do, exist within certain verses, is what I mean. Like putting the current 0s and shoehorning them into the same tier as 1-A seems to be a disservice. Im not implying an infinite tiering system for all large cardinal axioms, but I am saying that separating things like Aleph from inaccessible, and maybe inaccessible from all further cardinals (maybe not that one but still) seems to do the current tiering system more justice. Because these points of tiering differentiation would be more reasonable for categorizing verses into as opposed to a tier for each large cardinal property.

I still think that one tier is not expansive enough for the 3 tiers that currently exist to include cardinals (of which these 3 tiers have like 500 characters when added together).

Almost none of those 500 characters are there for mathematical reasons; almost all of them are there for ontological reasons that our current system equates with math.

 

[demonwarrior2266]

Almost none of those 500 characters are there for mathematical reasons; almost all of them are there for ontological reasons that our current system equates with math.

Well what I mean is that all things equivalent to the idea I'm talking about to get their own tier, regardless of reasoning to get them to that tier. Not all of those characters would be pushed to the further parts of Ultima's proposed tiers, would they?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Well what I mean is that all things equivalent to the idea I'm talking about to get their own tier, regardless of reasoning to get them to that tier. Not all of those characters would be pushed to the further parts of Ultima's proposed tiers, would they?

I don't know a single character whose tier depends solely on cardinality. Ontology is nearly always there too.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Personally I think the notion of trying to scale characters to random large cardinals is absurd on its own, but if you were to do that, you might as well separate the tiers because of the massive gap between some of them. Like... the gap between aleph-0 and an inaccessible cardinal beyond aleph-0 is hard to comprehend and to communicate in a way that makes sense. People like to say it's the same gap between aleph-0 and finite numbers but that doesn't do it justice at all, and that's again only with basic inaccessibles. The cardinals beyond that are even more complex and contrived.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Womp womp

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Personally I think the notion of trying to scale characters to random large cardinals is absurd on its own, but if you were to do that, you might as well separate the tiers because of the massive gap between some of them. Like... the gap between aleph-0 and an inaccessible cardinal beyond aleph-0 is hard to comprehend and to communicate in a way that makes sense. People like to say it's the same gap between aleph-0 and finite numbers but that doesn't do it justice at all, and that's again only with basic inaccessibles. The cardinals beyond that are even more complex and contrived.

This is already addressed. If we're to do such things, we'd have to shove another tier in every time a verse scales to a higher cardinal, which is not a well-kept tiering system at all.

 

[Daoist_Pepe]

Ultima wasn't lying when he said Agnaa replies quickly. Seeing how quick Agnaa is in constructing a good response, the thread might be concluded before the new year.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

This is already addressed. If we're to do such things, we'd have to shove another tier in every time a verse scales to a higher cardinal, which is not a well-kept tiering system at all.

Not necessarily. I believe Ultima intended to introduce High 1-B+, and his current revisions are for 1-A specifically. You could make High 1-B+ into something akin to what 1-A+ currently is, then choose to delegate all of the large cardinals (that is to say, the cardinals so large that they actually DO require axioms to assure their existence) to Low 1-A. The gap between High 1-B+ and Low 1-A would be massive, but it would still be smaller than the gap between 1-A and Low 1-A in this instance... at least when you compare the baselines.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Not necessarily. I believe Ultima intended to introduce High 1-B+, and his current revisions are for 1-A specifically. You could make High 1-B+ into something akin to what 1-A+ currently is, then choose to relegate all of the large cardinals (that is to say, the cardinals so large that they actually DO require axioms to assure their existence) to Low 1-A. The gap between High 1-B+ and Low 1-A would be massive, but it would still be smaller than the gap between 1-A and Low 1-A in this instance... at least when you compare the baselines.

That would be misleading. 1-A as a whole is meant to be strictly ontological, so adding a Low 1-A that's quantitative would make no sense.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

It's a suggestion that I don't feel inclined to argue for or against. My main point was that you wouldn't necessarily be forced into creating a new tier when you can recycle the old ones you already have to accommodate the changes as necessary. Though I think an argument could be made for large cardinals being "special" in a way that warrants separating them from regular uncountable infinities, if we still want to argue about people scaling to numbers lol

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It's a suggestion that I don't feel inclined to argue for or against. My main point was that you wouldn't necessarily be forced into creating a new tier when you can recycle the old ones you already have to accommodate the changes as necessary. Though I think an argument could be made for large cardinals being "special" in a way that warrants separating them from regular uncountable infinities, if we still want to argue about people scaling to numbers lol

They're not "special" in the eyes of most fiction, so they shouldn't be to us.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Yet they have been, and will continue to be until Ultima's revisions are completed and implemented. And I'm not exactly using the word "special" to invoke a sense of coolness or something arbitrary like that. The gap between an inaccessible cardinal greater than aleph-0 and aleph-0 itself is bigger than the gap between aleph-0 and finite numbers, yet you still have several distinct tiers separating the two of them (High 1-B and tiers below). And that's only for cardinals whose most relevant feature is that they are inaccessible. I'm not opting for separate tiers between inaccessibles & those "beyond" inaccessibles, I'm opting for a tier that separates between normal numbers and numbers that are literally so big that they cannot be proven under most axioms, and again that's really only for whether you want to go with scaling characters to no-context cardinals in the first place which I think is kind of cringe altogether.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Yet they have been, and will continue to be until Ultima's revisions are completed and implemented. And I'm not exactly using the word "special" to invoke a sense of coolness or something arbitrary like that. The gap between an inaccessible cardinal greater than aleph-0 and aleph-0 itself is bigger than the gap between aleph-0 and finite numbers, yet you still have several distinct tiers separating the two of them (High 1-B and tiers below). And that's only for cardinals whose most relevant feature is that they are inaccessible. I'm not opting for separate tiers between inaccessibles & those "beyond" inaccessibles, I'm opting for a tier that separates between normal numbers and numbers that are literally so big that they cannot be proven under most axioms, and again that's really only for whether you want to go with scaling characters to no-context cardinals in the first place which I think is kind of cringe altogether.

Aleph-0 and finite numbers are common in fiction while inaccessibles aren't, so we have detailed tiers for the former and not the latter. It's as simple as that, and you bring nothing new to the table.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Aight, I is in the mood now

so what do yall think of Beyond Dimensional Existence (Type 3) to accommodate R>F.

 

[Vietthai96]

I think it is logical

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Aight, I is in the mood now

so what do yall think of Beyond Dimensional Existence (Type 3) to accommodate R>F.

Type 2 would accommodate it just fine.

 

[Agnaa]

Beyond Beyond Dimensional Existence Existence.

 

[Vietthai96]

Make a new page called Transcend Dimensional Existence

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Just call it R>F Existence smh.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Type 2 would accommodate it just fine.

Nah the current types deal with things without dimensions at all

R>F still possesses dimensionality. but on a level beyond its less real or fictional setting with its own nature of dimensionality. In such a way that arbitrarily stacking dimensions in that fictional or less real setting will never reach the more real one due to their fictional nature.

I recommended just making a new type for "dimensions beyond dimensions" while leaving type 2 definitions for shit that transcends the concept of space or whatever.

---

Just call it R>F Existence smh.

I was also tasked with working on this when i tried to make HDE accommodate R>F in a staff thread lmao. just waiting for a certain brazilian to review my page and overhaul, i mean correct it.

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Aleph-0 and finite numbers are common in fiction while inaccessibles aren't, so we have detailed tiers for the former and not the latter. It's as simple as that, and you bring nothing new to the table.

Can you find a piece of fiction that explicitly states "this infinity that we're working with is aleph-0"? Aleph numbers are not the only notion of infinity. In most cases I would even assume that infinity is in reference to limits or something similar, which, no, infinity in limits is not aleph-0, or any aleph, really. To see this in action you can just multiply by 0. Aleph-0 * 0 is 0 whereas "infinity" * 0 is undefined. It's also kind of weird that you say I'm bringing "nothing new to the table" as though my ideas are irrelevant or off-topic. I am literally expanding upon ideas that Ultima himself already had. I know this, both because of what he has said on the thread and because of what we have spoken about in private.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

R>F still possesses dimensionality. but on a level beyond its less real or fictional setting with its own nature of dimensionality. In such a way that arbitrarily stacking dimensions in that fictional or less real setting will never reach the more real one due to their fictional nature.

Dimensionality is just directions. The phrase, "arbitrarily stacking directions in that fictional or less real setting will never reach the more real one due to their fictional nature" doesn't really make sense.

Real and Unreal have nothing to do with directions. You can swap out real and unreal with red and blue and say things like, "arbitrarily stacking dimensions in that blue or less blue setting will never reach the more red one due to their bluish nature". And it will still be true.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Dimensionality is just directions. The phrase, "arbitrarily stacking directions in that fictional or less real setting will never reach the more real one due to their fictional nature" doesn't really make sense.

Real and Unreal have nothing to do with directions. You can swap out real and unreal with red and blue and say things like, "arbitrarily stacking dimensions in that blue or less blue setting will never reach the more red one due to their bluish nature". And it will still be true.

less red setting* hehe.

How don't they have nothing to do with "directions"? You don't agree that the more real entity has no bearing in a fictional setting?

 

[Vietthai96]

Dimensionality is just directions. The phrase, "arbitrarily stacking directions in that fictional or less real setting will never reach the more real one due to their fictional nature" doesn't really make sense.

the thing isn't about dimension is just direction, but its nature, and stacking what is fictional on each other, no matter what, doesn't change their nature, which is fictional. You can stacking as many as data in a computer as you want, it will never break the "4th wall" and reach to you in the real world just by doing that

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

less red setting* hehe.

How don't they have nothing to do with "directions"? You don't agree that the more real entity has no bearing in a fictional setting?

They have nothing to do with it, because what makes something real and unreal is arbitrary. The story just decides what is real and unreal.

You can have two identical worlds. Everything exactly the same. But one is unreal and one is real. Real and Unreal aren't things you can add up to or reach. They are characteristics that are either applied or they aren't. Nothing will make something more real unless the story outright says it is.

No matter how many x there is, you will never be real. IS true for any variation for x. Dimensions, puppies, universes, etc. etc.

You can do the same things for things like abstract. No matter how many dimensions you arbitrarily stack, you will never become abstract. Are we going to claim that because no amount of dimensionality will make something that's not abstract, abstract, that being abstract requires a greater attack potency from dimensions?

the thing isn't about dimension is just direction, but its nature, and stacking what is fictional on each other, no matter what, doesn't change their nature, which is fictional. You can stacking as many as data in a computer as you want, it will never break the "4th wall" and reach to you in the real world just by doing that

This comparison doesn't work here because the data is just as real as the person sitting at the computer. Also, Ultima has stated that the "fictional world' isn't the actual medium that the real world uses to interact with it it (data on the computer), the fictional world exists "somewhere" as an actual thing. (especially since he dropped the fiction is nothingness) and the medium just represents it.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Beyond Beyond Dimensional Existence Existence.

Higher Existential Existence

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Also, it's kind of an interesting take to argue that dimensions and realness are not equivalents but the very basis of these back and forth requires them to have equivalents.

More dimensions = greater attack potency
More real = greater attack potency

The argument is that the "the sum of all and any type of of dimensions" will always have lesser attack potency than being more real. And this is based on the fact that no amount of dimensions arbitrarily stacked, will make a setting more real. But the reverse is true. You can take any setting, and arbitrarily make it more real, and the amount of dimensions in that setting will remain the same.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

They have nothing to do with it, because what makes something real and unreal is arbitrary. The story just decides what is real and unreal.

You can have two identical worlds. Everything exactly the same. But one is unreal and one is real. Real and Unreal aren't things you can add up to or reach. They are characteristics that are either applied or they aren't. Nothing will make something more real unless the story outright says it is.

No matter how many x there is, you will never be real. IS true for any variation for x. Dimensions, puppies, universes, etc. etc.

You can do the same things for things like abstract. No matter how many dimensions you arbitrarily stack, you will never become abstract. Are we going to claim that because no amount of dimensionality will make something that's not abstract, abstract, that being abstract requires a greater attack potency from dimensions?

Also, it's kind of an interesting take to argue that dimensions and realness are not equivalents but the very basis of these back and forth requires them to have equivalents.

More dimensions = greater attack potency
More real = greater attack potency

The argument is that the "the sum of all and any type of of dimensions" will always have lesser attack potency than being more real. And this is based on the fact that no amount of dimensions arbitrarily stacked, will make a setting more real. But the reverse is true. You can take any setting, and arbitrarily make it more real, and the amount of dimensions in that setting will remain the same.

First of all, are we still talking about Beyond Dimensional Existence here or attack potency?

 

[Georredannea15]

the thing isn't about dimension is just direction, but its nature, and stacking what is fictional on each other, no matter what, doesn't change their nature, which is fictional. You can stacking as many as data in a computer as you want, it will never break the "4th wall" and reach to you in the real world just by doing that

Btw the nature of spatial dimensions already consists of the directions in which they extend, i.e. the axes of motion. This is already their nature

 

[Phoenks]

Dimensions aren't inherently separate from realness, nah.

It's just that we now measure the 'realness' of dimensionality relative to the baseline level of reality. (Still a confusing subject)

You could have a fiction where there are infinite dimensions, and then a reality above that where there are infinite dimensions. However, the concept of dimensions in both of those layers of reality would be separated by some kind of existential superiority.

I mentioned in this thread before that there would simply be things like meta-space in place of space and such for these higher layers.

 

[Georredannea15]

Dimensions aren't inherently separate from realness, nah.

It's just that we now measure the 'realness' of dimensionality relative to the baseline level of reality. (Still a confusing subject)

You could have a fiction where there are infinite dimensions, and then a reality above that where there are infinite dimensions. However, the concept of dimensions in both of those layers of reality would be separated by some kind of existential superiority.

I mentioned in this thread before that there would simply be things like meta-space in place of space and such for these higher layers.

The problem is that what constitutes that reality is the axes of the dimensions extending in different directions of motion. That's what he's talking about because that's the nature of dimensions

 

[Ben_CleverName]

Dimensions are not directions, but they correlate heavily enough to where that's mostly just semantics anyway, at least under most definitions of the word "dimension".

Saying that A>C and B>C does not imply that A and B are equivalent. It just implies that they're comparable in the sense that they're both greater than C. That alone says nothing about how much greater A and B are or the extent to which A and B are alike. Regarding the inverse example of "no matter how much 'realer' it is, it wouldn't be given extra dimensions", that's besides the point. The dimensions of the "real" object are inherently superior to the dimensions of the unreal object per Ultima's arguments. They aren't the same type of dimensions. It wouldn't really make sense to try to assign "real" dimensionality to something that is inherently unreal, anyway.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Dimensions aren't inherently separate from realness, nah.

did anyone say otherwise?

 

[Georredannea15]

Dimensions are not directions, but they correlate heavily enough to where that's mostly just semantics anyway, at least under most definitions of the word "dimension".

Saying that A>C and B>C does not imply that A and B are equivalent. It just implies that they're comparable in the sense that they're both greater than C. That alone says nothing about how much greater A and B are or the extent to which A and B are alike. Regarding the inverse example of "no matter how much 'realer' it is, it wouldn't be given extra dimensions", that's besides the point. The dimensions of the "real" object are inherently superior to the dimensions of the unreal object per Ultima's arguments. They aren't the same type of dimensions. It wouldn't really make sense to try to assign "real" dimensionality to something that is inherently unreal, anyway.

Bro...

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It wouldn't really make sense to try to assign "real" dimensionality to something that is inherently unreal, anyway.

That was exactly my point

I recommended just making a new type for "dimensions beyond dimensions"

Which is synonymous to the meta-space @Phoenks proposed anyway, but i think modifying BDE is better.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Bro...

Technically speaking why do we keep defining dimensions as directions and not coordinates or axes of lengths. yeah directions are related but eh.. they aren't dimensions?

 

[Georredannea15]

Technically speaking why do we keep defining dimensions as directions and not coordinates or axes of lengths. yeah directions are related but eh.. they aren't dimensions?

Both are same things bro. Those coordinate axes are the directions of movement