-
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"
- Thread starter Iamunanimousinthat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
No. None of that was done under their own power.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
That particular terminology is rare, but Marvel's higher planes consistently view lower ones as literal unreality.
Marvel Comics Cosmology (World Hierarchy)
The following is a page dedicated to outlining the cosmology of Marvel Comics, focused primarily on presenting each of its layers in an hierarchical fashion, as well as exploring other important details of the setting. For the purposes of these explanations, at least a cursory knowledge of...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 3,505
- 1,370
- Thread starter
- #3,285
Who let Nyx into the House of Ideas?
- 8,510
- 1,846
Nyx is seemingly a special case as her original power derives from the House of Ideas itself, from what I can remember
- 842
- 511
Sup fat Russian dude
What does intrinsically possible mean, that's pretty ambiguous and doesn't specify the modal scope.
Logical omnipotence restricts the capacity to do anything that's only logically consistent, actualizing something that's both A and ¬A is logically contradictory and logically impossible. It'll be a categorical contradiction to say a being that instantiates logical omnipotence which is relative to whatever is logically possible has the capacity to actualize logical impossibilities.
No, Omnipotence doesn't necessarily result in monadhood especially logical omnipotence.
Except a being exemplifies what it means to be logically omnipotent doesn't create logically inconsistent categories, attributes, properties, beings and possibilities. So it's not the creator of all possibilities and all. So, it's only beyond categories and possibilities that are logically consistent.
Idk why is monadhood being likened to divine simplicity specifically the Thomas Aquinas version, when monadhood exceeds categories and being in a real sense and Thomas Aquinas never posits that for God and infact we know God has "essence". Essence is a category that is posited in actus purus to attest for God not having accidental properties.
- 842
- 511
Damn vsbw has not been cooking, "god can perform logical contradictions" but for example "god can't kill himself (can't perform logical contradictions)
The evolution of humanity has been halted, monadhood being likened to the divine simplicity Thomas Aquinas posited is something that I never thought I'd see.
Also how tf is 1-A beyond the concept of dimensions which clearly includes temporal dimensions, which is commonly used Bi-conditionally with change.
So how can we have changeable beings that are beyond temporal dimensions, even when logically speaking change is used Bi-conditionally with time.This would make time range as a domain over all possible worlds.
So high 1-A+, is not beyond the concept of dimensions or....???!
- 160
- 113
Ultima did say that all logically possible spaces are High 1-A+ if its like not fodder af in the verse like nasuverse
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,053
I agree.
Hopefully people come around to this sooner rather than later, so we don't undo the change in another 4 years.
- 842
- 511
All logical spaces would necessitate the existence of time, if that's the case then high 1-A+ is bound by dimensions?
Even if high 1-A+, which it shouldn't cause it's just incoherent. We have layers of r>f as a basis for 1-A and tiers beyond inspired by acosmism, it's incoherent too. If we supposed baseline 1-A follows acosmism, then there can't exist a layer beyond it. Because it will also treat what follows acosmism to be illusionary or not real, in other words now baseline 1-A doesn't follow acosmism.
You can't really use acosmism like that, if the ultimate reality is real and the material world is illusionary you can't really say there's an ultimate ultimate reality beyond the ultimate reality that views the ultimate reality as illusionary. It just means it's no longer the ultimate reality.
Since 1-A is taking r>f hyper-literally in a way that acosmism does, saying there are higher similar layers just contradicts the very notion which the current definition of 1-A hinges on.
- 3,505
- 1,370
- Thread starter
- #3,293
Special cases would be an antifeat. Especially when vision was able to phase through the door and enter the house to stop NYX. The house also being randomly in long island.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
No, they are not. It would only be an anti-feat if they did this solely under their own power.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I agree. I'm sure we could conclude that some elements of Monism as presented would be reflected in an omnipotent being but there'd no need for divine simplicity or immutability, etc.
Karabach-barabach
Username Only- 301
- 262
Nasuverse fan vs Divine Comedy enjoyer soon?
- 160
- 113
- 3,505
- 1,370
- Thread starter
- #3,298
Vision entered the house under his own power. Nyx gained her godhood via “earthly” means.
KingNanaya
He/Him- 3,133
- 4,314
I agree
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
No. Ultima, who introduced this requirement in the first place, explicitly said the Superflow still qualifies for High 1-A.
- 1,754
- 1,067
BTW, isn't the R>F topic already completed and closed? What do we need to wait for completion now?
- 7,904
- 14,966
I mean, in any case he and I are completely opposed on whether Negative Theology correlates to power at all. So there's that.Man
- 160
- 113
Why would ontological status not translate to power again?
- 3,505
- 1,370
- Thread starter
- #3,304
That doesn’t change what happened on paper in the comic books.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 3,256
- 3,961
What happened on paper supports it. @Ultima_Reality
- 842
- 511
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree saying "something is beyond descriptions" in a vacuum means nothing, but anytime an apophatic is expressed as being apophatic. It's a transcendence that's used in conjunction with whatever the predicates and descriptions instantiates.
E. G the description of a 3 dimensional being instantiating the 3 dimensional entity, being 3 dimensional and so forth.
What is being proposed for tier 0 again, monadhood or divine simplicity (from Thomas Aquinas), it can't be both because they're not compatible with each other.
Gnostics divine simplicity is not like that of Thomas Aquinas similarly the one from neoplatonism implies the same thing but there are clear differences. Like how essence, is emphasized as basis for the simplicity of the divine by Thomas Aquinas but both Plotinus and Pseudo-Dionysus posit the one to exceed essence.
- 7,904
- 14,966
I am not sure what you're trying to say here.
You should read the first post of the Tier 0 thread. As it's not an easy thing to summarize without leaving something out that might be important. Though this is a pretty good primer:
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,053
I think it's also relevant if they draw power from an R>F source, yet that power doesn't completely trump less real things.
If your R>F empowered plot manip is resisted by a completely less real character, that should be an anti-feat.
(I say that not to imply it happens in the case you're talking about, but to highlight that there's other ways of anti-feats occurring)
Then present his counterarguments for those anti-feats being pointed out.
Unless Ultima didn't properly notice those anti-feats, in which case, they're still relevant.
- 44
- 30
One might simply argue, that if a fiction fails to establish a monad that is per definiton monad, it should not be considered a monad regardless what the author thinks in their mind.
- 7,904
- 14,966
You're not wrong, per se, (though I caution against the peril of assuming there's a singular correct way of envisioning a Monad, given it's an extremely diverse subject even within theology and philosophy). However, we tend not to take this fatalist approach with anything else. Authors most often use philosophy and theology to introduce mystique and intrigue to their stories. It is rarely (almost never) the case that the author does a perfect job of portraying it, or restricts themselves from ultimately bastardizing it in some way.
As a result, we generally allow these designations to be used but only permit that they be indexed on our site so far as they have been demonstrated to have certain qualities. As in, we don't just assume they do because the word "Monad" or "Platonic" or "Omnipotent" is used.
I am concerned that, should the revision pass, that we will make some sort of unique exception for a Monad in this regard. I genuinely cannot imagine nearly any works of fiction, aside from those like Journey of the West which was more or less intended to explore religious concepts, saying anything about a character that would allow us to conclude it does not have metaphysical parts. It's a shockingly unintuitive concept, and one that I wouldn't be pleased with us assigning to a character just because they were said to have some other common Monadic element (like being the substrate of existence or etc).
For instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church (according to many) does not adhere to metaphysical simplicity, generally recognizing that the trinity constitutes a "real" distinction. They would, however, assign pretty much all of the other same characteristics. Like God is "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing" or "God's ousia has no necessity or subsistence that needs or is dependent on anything other than itself" They'd still adhere to negative theology, the whole bit.
So, the idea that we would render the Roman Catholic version of a Monad "Tier 0" but not the Eastern Orthodox version because they accept that the trinity is not reducible to unity (as that would make the trinity, in essence, an illusion in their view) is really wacky, and the particular issue with this is that I doubt most of the characters that will end up being assigned Tier 0 will explain in enough detail to determine whether or not they meet all these qualities. People will likely just say "welp looks like a Monad to me" and assume it.
Last edited:
- 3,505
- 1,370
- Thread starter
- #3,311
So basically I can create an archetype called one kick girl, who is a character that can defeat any enemy with one kick. Then I can declare that all one kick girls are tier 0, and any one kick girl that is shown not able to defeat an enemy with one kick, as not being a true one kick girl.
- 3,212
- 2,429
That example was atrocious but does get the idea.
- 44
- 30
It's a good example why a name does not matter, as long as it embodies the superiority which is all we want. However it does seem that one-kick as a designation lacks the inherent implied superiority simple name such as Monad would have. But you get what I mean, by being tier 0 one-kick, yeah...
- 842
- 511
The entity exceeds the definitions and what the definitions represent.
The monad has divine simplicity and exceeds attributes, what I'm confused about is whether or not divine simplicity is primarily used for tier 0 or if it's being beyond attributes/being beyond the duality of subject and object.
Looks like it's both, if so is logical omnipotence tier 0?. It would be counter intuitive if it was, since non-dualism typically restricts classicality or classical logic. There's also monadhood outright not being compatible with classical logic.
- 7,904
- 14,966
That, is in and of itself, a definition. It creates an attributional black hole where nothing we say, even the things that are meant to establish this framework in the first place, can be accepted. As far as I am concerned, that is illogical and self-defeating.
You'd have to ask Ultima, but I don't know that he would consider the two distinct.
- 3,008
- 2,266
Kind of a dumb question, but:
Why in the flying **** are we bringing up real currently worshiped religious deities in the discussion of Tier 0? Like, I can see bringing up "non-canon" interpretations of them (Journey To The West Buddha, Dante's Yahweh, etc.) being fine, but actually discussing whether or not The Holy Trinity or Dharmakaya counts brings it to another level of...insensitivity, to say the least.
Why in the flying **** are we bringing up real currently worshiped religious deities in the discussion of Tier 0? Like, I can see bringing up "non-canon" interpretations of them (Journey To The West Buddha, Dante's Yahweh, etc.) being fine, but actually discussing whether or not The Holy Trinity or Dharmakaya counts brings it to another level of...insensitivity, to say the least.
Agnaa
VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
- 15,676
- 14,053
From when I asked him, it is. If I remember correctly, he believes that no sensical omnipotence exists besides logical omnipotence. If a being can do it, it's logical. He would not put a being described as able to do "anything logically consistent" and "anything at all, including logically inconsistent things" on different tiers.
Who's doing that?
If you're talking about Deagon's references to real religious sects, those are to provide examples from actual verifiable philosophy about whether people treat monads that way.
- 3,008
- 2,266
That makes much more sense, thank you.
- 5,410
- 6,217
- 5,387
- 4,297
Dumbass Narrator just had to split them apart. Though, I guess the fact they could be split apart was in itself, an anti-feat.
- Status
