- 4,912
- 5,431
when they get past glock level. They're the most fodder magic verse.whens 1-A harry potter
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
when they get past glock level. They're the most fodder magic verse.whens 1-A harry potter
Monad (not one that human think) itself is without a description. It is the same as the absolute omnipotence.Um. Question. I’m aware of The Root and everything, but wouldn’t describing The Root as a Monad be an example of the type of ‘descriptions’ that The Root completely surpasses and creates a Idea with those descriptions ?
Technically "Omnipotence" (Defined as "Limitless power") wouldn't really exist as a separate attribute within the Tier 0, since its utter undifferentiation would prevent it from having any such plurality within itself (So "Omnipotence," "Omnipresence," and whatever others would just be referring to one and the same thing). But that's less because it's "beyond omnipotence" and moreso because we can't conceive of omnipotence to begin with. So it's a distinction between "Our mental notion of Omnipotence as lesser beings" and "Omnipotence as it really is in-and-of-itself," not "Omnipotence" vs "Beyond omnipotence."
Why are you here Mr. Pant Power, go back to the CRT.
No need, I've already made Ultima concede. Just wait for the next post you'll read, his suggestion will have a quite new seed.Why are you here Mr. Pant Power, go back to the CRT.
What did he concede to?No need, I've already made Ultima concede. Just wait for the next post you'll read, his suggestion will have a quite new seed.
Making the Yap God concede?No need, I've already made Ultima concede.
They have r>f over multiverses. The axis is a bonus and currently doesn't grant them any tier due to a statement of their superiority over each other than +1 direction being unknown. It only grants them HDE (large size) and my question is regarding the new changes.Good question but no.
Looks like a case where their nature is 5/6-D and power is 1-A (assuming the R>F is truly legit for this verse)
This was why I suggested to tweak BDE definition and add BDE Type 3 to accommodate "Dimensions beyond dimensions"
Edit: Also if they have countless axis their nature should be "countless"-D, was the 5/6D from r>f or a lowball to quantify "countless" axis? The former sounds suspicious.
My second main issue (first one being putting BDE above all mathematics); putting R>F as equivalent to BDE.What did he concede to?
Out if curiosity was there anything you agreed with Ultima on?My second main issue (first one being putting BDE above all mathematics); putting R>F as equivalent to BDE.
Mostly things that aren't very material, like whether certain statements qualified, or how to treat certain potential challenges, that I wasn't sure he held a sensible view on.Out if curiosity was there anything you agreed with Ultima on?
C'mon man, I got it done in less than 2 weeks, while moving houses, over Christmas/New Year's.Finally lol, felt like it was gonna go on forever.
Nah you fr put in work 4th quarter lmaoC'mon man, I got it done in less than 2 weeks, while moving houses, over Christmas/New Year's.
All characters with R>F Transcendence are beyond dimensionality, but not all characters beyond dimensionality have a R>F Transcendence, pretty much. If you have sufficient evidence of the former you're fine even without the latter.So, to qualify for 1-A in the new system, you need to have both a R/F transcendence, and be stated to be superior to dimensionality?
Alright, thanksAll characters with R>F Transcendence are beyond dimensionality, but not all characters beyond dimensionality have a R>F Transcendence, pretty much. If you have sufficient evidence of the former you're fine even without the latter.
IndeedI do want to see how the standards for qualitative superiority (both R>F transcendence and Existential Superiority)will be written out. It should be clear and concise. Most preferably a checklist.
Yes. Thats why this is the commoners thread.So, um, this is probably extremely obvious, but is it just the staff that’s going to vote ?
1-AWhere will platonic world of forms fall in this new tiering system?
That still depends on the space in question. Non-metric spaces can still be finite as well. Here's an example of one.Where will non-metric spaces and platonic world of forms fall in this new tiering system?
An argument can be made for the Good being High 1-A, I think, but the rest of them would only be 1-A... but just wait until the inevitable verse that decides to say "Oh yeah actually they're actually all High 1-A lol"
The Good is 0.An argument can be made for the Good being High 1-A, I think, but the rest of them would only be 1-A... but just wait until the inevitable verse that decides to say "Oh yeah actually they're actually all High 1-A lol"
R>F is a state of power and existence in this system... So, if you were throwing R>F at X, but your existence depends on or is within X, I think that would be an anti-feat. So... If you supposedly have R>F but are still a 5D being or in it, I guess that would be an anti-feat Same as BDE and TD.Good question but no.
Looks like a case where their nature is 5/6-D and power is 1-A (assuming the R>F is truly legit for this verse)
This was why I suggested to tweak BDE definition and add BDE Type 3 to accommodate "Dimensions beyond dimensions"
Edit: Also if they have countless axis their nature should be "countless"-D, was the 5/6D from r>f or a lowball to quantify "countless" axis? The former sounds suspicious.
Nah. The axiom isn't monoist, also it is explicitly surpassable.wtf
tier 0 megami tensei
Uh what's The Good ?
The simplest and quickest way to describe it would be like "the Platonic Form of Platonic Forms".Uh what's The Good ?
Hm. I see. Makes sense. But why would it be 0 ?The simplest and quickest way to describe it would be like "the Platonic Form of Platonic Forms".
Probably with the way that it's described, i.e. aspatial/atemporal/acausal, & all the platonic forms merely participating/mimicking it in the way the particulars mimic the forms. I've also heard that platonic forms are themselves transdual but I don't know that I believe that yet.Hm. I see. Makes sense. But why would it be 0 ?