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

[Georredannea15]

Touhou does have R > F stuff, which I had originally planned for getting the verse to 1-C alongside some other stuff (it was a very chaotic day in the Touhou revision server when Ultima's thread dropped). So I've been forced to reexamine the logic behind the R > F stuff from a new perspective to make sure it all fits within the new system. There are a lot of anti-feats, but those can hopefully be explained away with how the series explains the mechanics of things becoming more or less real depending on what conceptual state they're in, as well as how one achieves those states. Apart from that, it seems to meet every other criteria, although I won't know for certain until the new guidelines are written out and applied (and I get a chance to see where other verses succeed and fail).

Nah, that's for something else entirely.

I am sure that the R>F bullshit in this system will be much more difficult than the current R>F. Because R>F in this system also requires BDE to be mandatory. You are either with it or you are nothing.


I think that will be dealt with in part 2, but I can tell you that at least it will become difficult. But let's see, I can't wait to see which verses will downgrade, lose their R>F properties and other things

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I am sure that the R>F bullshit in this system will be much more difficult than the current R>F. Because R>F in this system also requires BDE to be mandatory. You are either with it or you are nothing.


I think that will be dealt with in part 2, but I can tell you that at least it will become difficult. But let's see, I can't wait to see which verses will downgrade, lose their R>F properties and other things

Wait, I thought the BDE2 requirement was a misunderstanding?

 

[Agnaa]

Characters with R>F will not need to have statements of BDE, if I understand Ultima's system correctly.

However, they are rated above characters with BDE that don't have statements of being more real, and they will be downgraded if they're shown to be within the dimensionality of less-real things (or more likely, if their real realm is shown to be an extension of the dimensionality of the place they see as less real).

 

[Vietthai96]

Iirc, isn't there are 2 types of R > F??, R > F that is 1-A and other is +1D???

 

[Agnaa]

I don't know if Ultima will be maintaining the latter type. I figured he'd just have it be 1-A or nothing.

 

[Daoist_Pepe]

Iirc, isn't there are 2 types of R > F??, R > F that is 1-A and other is +1D???

I think this answers your question

 

[NHTkenshin2]

I too I'm pretty shocked no one said anything about the empty set argument tbh. Like that was one of the first things I questioned, honestly.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I am sure that the R>F bullshit in this system will be much more difficult than the current R>F. Because R>F in this system also requires BDE to be mandatory. You are either with it or you are nothing.

To clarify: You can have BDE without R>F, but genuine R>F can't really be had without BDE, since its properties require that it have that to begin with. Not to say R>F statements need to include "Beyond dimensions" to qualify, though. Mostly talking about the actual qualities of the tiers.

 

[Everything12]

I mean you can also be beyond the "fictional" dimensions of the lower reality, but still abide by the "real" dimensions of your reality. Though that probably would require some distinction to clarify that the dimensions they follow aren't just an extension of the fiction as you have talked about.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mean you can also be beyond the "fictional" dimensions of the lower reality, but still abide by the "real" dimensions of your reality. Though that probably would require some distinction to clarify that the dimensions they follow aren't just an extension of the fiction as you have talked about.

Of course, but I'd just consider that a form of BDE, myself. Different from characters who aren't "above dimensions" in any sense.

ah btw Ultima, quick question before I call it a night.

Not sure if you remember that one infinite regression question I had about a week ago, but my follow up question is, considering the scenario I gave, what tier does that sound like?

Honestly I don't understand the scenario very much. Can you elaborate?

 

[Everything12]

I guess beyond the concept of dimensions, but still following a different higher concept of dimensions is technically a form of Beyond-Dimensional Existence.

 

[Agnaa]

Of course, but I'd just consider that a form of BDE, myself. Different from characters who aren't "above dimensions" in any sense.

Above all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*

*unless those dimensions have the quality "more real"

I do find it strange that you work with reasoning like that, while also:

1. Asserting that they are really Above All Dimensions.
2. Treating omnipotent/divinely simple/etc. characters as also encompassing all possible hierarchies of real-ness.

Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

Above all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*

*unless those dimensions have the quality "more real"

I do find it strange that you work with reasoning like that, while also:

1. Asserting that they are really Above All Dimensions.
2. Treating omnipotent/divinely simple/etc. characters as also encompassing all possible hierarchies of real-ness.

Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?

because you can have r>f with BDE? That doesnt really seem problematic

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?

You kind of answered yourself there. Some
dimensions don't work conventionally and for the most part, are just vectors point occupying space. As for context, “a dimension” that adheres to a level than just a spatial dimension that goes with finite space. Obviously that “dimension” isn't something with an obvious physical property and shouldn't be treated as something “spatial” but as whatever it is in the Cosmology.

Possibilities branch to everything on any level since if something “is” then it's possible. All “concepts” means “all” including dimensions as an abstract concept or as the whole thing that envelops all definitions of it. I don't see where this part is being confused.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

From what I remember from the OG question, it was basically transcendent entity creates an infinite regression until they downgrade their nature into that which allows them to enter the lower fictional world

Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.

Above all dimensions and the concept of dimensions*

*unless those dimensions have the quality "more real"

I do find it strange that you work with reasoning like that, while also:

1. Asserting that they are really Above All Dimensions.
2. Treating omnipotent/divinely simple/etc. characters as also encompassing all possible hierarchies of real-ness.

Why does "all concepts"/"all possibilities" encompass all levels of real-ness of those, but "all dimensions" doesn't?

I wouldn't place statements of "Beyond all concepts"/"Beyond all possibilities" as being inherently Tier 0. And neither would I say the root of Tier 0 is "It's above all concepts." Though, that's talking about practice. With regards to the theory of it: When you speak of "All concepts/possibilities" relative to Tier 0 (Pretty much what I called "High 1-A+" earlier), you'd be talking about things like the collection of all possible worlds, or the collection of all character strings and sentences, in which case it obviously would simply include ontological superiorities. No reason it wouldn't.

And overall I would say that the dimensions existing in a higher R>F plane would very much be operating on a different notion of dimensionality than those of a lower R>F plane, in virtue of the gap between the two layers being qualitative in the first place. If you have Realm A and Realm B, and a set of dimensions in Realm A is > all dimensions in Realm B (Even if that set is one of 2 dimensions and Realm B has 91710 dimensions) by virtue of the gap between realms being purely quality-based, then Realm A does indeed contain a different quality of "dimension" than Realm B, definitionally.

 

[ByAsura]

I talked about this with Executor before, but he recommended that I ask about it here due to the no-space/time aspect.

Very sorry for being long-winded, but there's a lot of context needed, especially since the Vortex's nature is inherently contradictory (it's both outside of space-time, yet space-time is part of it—neither entirely connected, nor entirely detached from it).

Time in Doctor Who is granular, so the 'interstitial time' that exists between these granules is an entirely different form of time (outside/beyond normal reality) that exists as part of the Time Vortex, which is variously described as multi-, poly-, and transdimensional.

Unlike space-time (which are one within the Vortex), it doesn't technically progress, hence why it's called no-space and no-time, and it contains geometries and colours too complex for the normal universe. People thrown into the interstitial time are often scattered from one end of causality to the other (connected to 'everywhere, nowhere', and 'everywhen, nowhen'). Despite this, it's also a mishmash of temporal zones that crackles with unfixed, flowing time and events that have never existed/never will exist.

The Vortex is beyond most forms of mathematical description, 'outside any normal frame of reference', etc. By comparison, the ocean of time (a Low 1-C, MCU-esque structure, even if you don't include warp space) that it supports is merely a shadow—part of the ocean that is interstitial time—and a 'larger than average singularity' compared to the explicitly infinite Vortex.

Not only that, but it contains other dimensions, including hyperspace (a fourth dimensional, non-Euclidian universe that has warped enough physical laws for FTL travel) and the astral plane (where all space-time in the universe is one).

What kind of qualitative superiority and lack of space-time buffoonery could I get for something like that? Executor believed it was at least one dimensional level of transcendence (i.e, the difference between Low 2-C and Low 1-C).

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I talked about this with Executor before, but he recommended that I ask about it here due to the no-space/time aspect.

Very sorry for being long-winded, but there's a lot of context needed, especially since the Vortex's nature is inherently contradictory (it's both outside of space-time, yet space-time is part of it—neither entirely connected, nor entirely detached from it).

Time in Doctor Who is granular, so the 'interstitial time' that exists between these granules is an entirely different form of time (outside/beyond normal reality) that exists as part of the Time Vortex, which is variously described as multi-, poly-, and transdimensional.

Unlike space-time (which are one within the Vortex), it doesn't technically progress, hence why it's called no-space and no-time, and it contains geometries and colours too complex for the normal universe. People thrown into the interstitial time are often scattered from one end of causality to the other (connected to 'everywhere, nowhere', and 'everywhen, nowhen'). Despite this, it's also a mishmash of temporal zones that crackles with unfixed, flowing time and events that have never existed/never will exist.

The Vortex is beyond most forms of mathematical description, 'outside any normal frame of reference', etc. By comparison, the ocean of time (a Low 1-C, MCU-esque structure, even if you don't include warp space) that it supports is merely a shadow—part of the ocean that is interstitial time—and a 'larger than average singularity' compared to the explicitly infinite Vortex.

Not only that, but it contains other dimensions, including hyperspace (a fourth dimensional, non-Euclidian universe that has warped enough physical laws for FTL travel) and the astral plane (where all space-time in the universe is one).

What kind of qualitative superiority and lack of space-time buffoonery could I get for something like that? Executor believed it was at least one dimensional level of transcendence (i.e, the difference between Low 2-C and Low 1-C).

That sounds like it'd be just Low 1-C, yeah. The "no-space"/"no-time" aspect is interesting, but from how you describe it, it seems to be less something beyond dimensional space altogether (As the Void is), and moreso just a weird extension of spacetime itself.

Reminds me of the Hounds of Tindalos, which is a Lovecraft story where it's stated that "Time and space are illusory projections of a higher reality," which sounds 1-A-y, but contextually is really just talking about how the perception of temporal progression is a brain-generated illusion, since in truth all of past, present and future is just different sections of a single 4-D block. This seems to be a similar case, especially given you mention that it's called "no-time" because time doesn't progress there.

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.

Basically an infinite regression of layers. Apologies for the confusion, was half asleep at the time and I’m not sure if there are any examples like this in any verse before (well, at least from my experience)

 

[Agnaa]

I wouldn't place statements of "Beyond all concepts"/"Beyond all possibilities" as being inherently Tier 0. And neither would I say the root of Tier 0 is "It's above all concepts." Though, that's talking about practice. With regards to the theory of it: When you speak of "All concepts/possibilities" relative to Tier 0 (Pretty much what I called "High 1-A+" earlier), you'd be talking about things like the collection of all possible worlds, or the collection of all character strings and sentences, in which case it obviously would simply include ontological superiorities. No reason it wouldn't.

And overall I would say that the dimensions existing in a higher R>F plane would very much be operating on a different notion of dimensionality than those of a lower R>F plane, in virtue of the gap between the two layers being qualitative in the first place. If you have Realm A and Realm B, and a set of dimensions in Realm A is > all dimensions in Realm B (Even if that set is one of 2 dimensions and Realm B has 91710 dimensions) by virtue of the gap between realms being purely quality-based, then Realm A does indeed contain a different quality of "dimension" than Realm B, definitionally.

I was more gesturing towards omnipotence/divine simplicity. Unless you're trying to say that you wouldn't put such characters anywhere near tier 0 unless they already had High 1-A cosmologies or something.

And couldn't more real possible worlds, character strings, and sentences, be said to operate on a different notion of possibility? There's a reason why you're suggesting to rate Type IV Multiverses at Low 1-A instead of High 1-A+.

 

[Lasting900]

Why doesn’t SMT have High 1-A Tier?

(And does “+” and “low” even exist in those upper echelons? High 1-A+ and Low 0?)
- I thought, or understood, given the nature of these tiers those “modifiers” are redundant?

 

[Georredannea15]

To clarify: You can have BDE without R>F, but genuine R>F can't really be had without BDE, since its properties require that it have that to begin with. Not to say R>F statements need to include "Beyond dimensions" to qualify, though. Mostly talking about the actual qualities of the tiers.

That's what I was trying to say. If you have real R>F, you are also beyond all dimensions, which means you have to have BDE in the first place, but I think I may have misexplained myself above.

Anyway... Thank you, man!

 

[Georredannea15]

Characters with R>F will not need to have statements of BDE, if I understand Ultima's system correctly.

However, they are rated above characters with BDE that don't have statements of being more real, and they will be downgraded if they're shown to be within the dimensionality of less-real things (or more likely, if their real realm is shown to be an extension of the dimensionality of the place they see as less real).

So it's like a character seeing the X cosmology as a "fiction" to fit into this system, but still part of a less-real plane or a hierarchy, right?

 

[deonment]

Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "infinite regression" here at all.

I can only guess they mean something like tzimtzum

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Ok I took a brief look at that word (first time I’ve heard of it), I don’t think it matches what I mean but I will say it’s a really interesting concept

 

[Phoenks]

How would you treat hierarchies of simplicity that lead "up" to the Monad?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

How would you treat hierarchies of simplicity that lead "up" to the Monad?

you dont because they should be disconnected from any hierarchy

 

[Phoenks]

you dont because they should be disconnected from any hierarchy

I mean, let's say the monad is an all-encompassing "oneness"

This hierarchy would be leading down from it, so think like "two ness", "three ness", and etc. If you understand what I'm saying. It's a related concept in philosophy. Things like the "Dyad" were meant to refer to more complex things like matter, while the monad would be used for "god."

This isn't just a normal hierarchy. To ascend through it you would need to become ontologically more simple in nature. And once reaching the Monad, you are simply just the Monad.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler]

Make it four-ness as well.

 

[ToaruCounterfeitCRC]

Why would moving to this new system, where you simply need new buzzwords (platonic concepts, R>F differences, divine simplicity) to get the big tiers, help in any way?

Probably because the new system would eliminate disagreements on possible mathematical interpretations of the same buzzword composite hierarchy, albeit by sacrificing mathematical superiority altogether. (large math construct capped at low 1-A rip)

 

[Trigger]

That sounds like it'd be just Low 1-C, yeah. The "no-space"/"no-time" aspect is interesting, but from how you describe it, it seems to be less something beyond dimensional space altogether (As the Void is), and moreso just a weird extension of spacetime itself.

Reminds me of the Hounds of Tindalos, which is a Lovecraft story where it's stated that "Time and space are illusory projections of a higher reality," which sounds 1-A-y, but contextually is really just talking about how the perception of temporal progression is a brain-generated illusion, since in truth all of past, present and future is just different sections of a single 4-D block. This seems to be a similar case, especially given you mention that it's called "no-time" because time doesn't progress there.

What would this scale to?
Note: This was the qualifying ground for beyond dimensional existence type 2 for Veldanava from reincarnated as a slime.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Boy, what a good time to be Xianxia power scaler.

 

[Ikelaggan]

If the BDE list wasn't already already huge I wouldn't surprised by how much bigger the list for R>F qualifiers is gonna be

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Hello everyone came to ask a question. In the main thread it was written that even interacting with the more real...reality would be an antifeat. If that happens due to a reason does it stop it from becoming an antifeat?

 

[Ovy7]

I mean, if there are explanations for why it happened (like, due to a being from the higher realm having a hand in it), then it would no longer be an antifeat IMO.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I mean, if there are explanations for why it happened (like, due to a being from the higher realm having a hand in it), then it would no longer be an antifeat IMO.

What about them having an ability to do that? Does it negate the difference? Or is it accepted within fictional logic?

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Basically if they can interact with the higher entity on their own accord (even if it be absorption or an ability) it’d be an anti-feat.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Basically if they can interact with the higher entity on their own accord (even if it be absorption or an ability) it’d be an anti-feat.

Depending on their ability I would still think this would require more looking into, but I guess that's for when something like that comes up.

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

Ah btw this springs another question (albeit probably an obvious one tbh, but for the sake of clarity), if a ‘real’ being gave the ‘fiction’ being an energy that allows them to interact with other ‘real beings’ and then another ‘fiction’ being absorbs that same energy from the recipient, I assume that’s an anti-feat?

 

[Agnaa]

Ah btw this springs another question (albeit probably an obvious one tbh, but for the sake of clarity), if a ‘real’ being gave the ‘fiction’ being an energy that allows them to interact with other ‘real beings’ and then another ‘fiction’ being absorbs that same energy from the recipient, I assume that’s an anti-feat?

I don't think so.

If a more real being grants power, such interactions are no longer an anti-feat.

Anything done purely on the being's own terms is.

 

[Deagonx]

Anything done purely on the being's own terms is

Well in this case, the anti-feat would be that a "fictional character" is able to -- of their own capabilities -- absorb "real energy" from someone else.