• 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"

the thing is R > F mean you see something as completely fiction, unreal; adding more dimensions/axes to something fictional, unreal doesn't magically make it turn from being unreal to being real, that what Ultima arguing, equalizing that adding more dimensions = being more real make no sense at all, nor matter how much you adding more, it doesn't stop you from being unreal, that is the different between quantitative and qualitative, and it isn't NLF at all, we currently equalizing R > F = +1 dimension isn't to prevent NLF or because we trying to be accurate, but because we fear, we scare of some verses could get extremely high tier via simple logical train of thoughts
 
Vietthai96 said:
the thing is R > F mean you see something as completely fiction, unreal; adding more dimensions/axes to something fictional, unreal doesn't magically make it turn from being unreal to being real, that what Ultima arguing, equalizing that adding more dimensions = being more real make no sense at all, nor matter how much you adding more, it doesn't stop you from being unreal, that is the different between quantitative and qualitative, and it isn't NLF at all, we currently equalizing R > F = +1 dimension isn't to prevent NLF or because we trying to be accurate, but because we fear, we scare of some verses could get extremely high tier via simple logical train of thoughts
Click to expand...
Well fiction and lower dimensional have some same atribute and same substansial if you brought that to physical reality. Basically fiction is abstract information compare to the physical world, and lower dimensional such as 2D 1D 0D is literally abstract math abstract geometric compare to physical world. They two not really exist in physical sense, they exist just as abstract concept. Making fiction is -1 dimensional is not really a false assumption, even if the two abstraction is different
 
Gasper said:
I thought CSAP has math at High 1-B at peak.
Click to expand...
No their entire thing is the weirdly made up "Icarcus set" which is the "highest" anything can be, so ofc, they just arbitrarily say their strongest verses scale to it.

I remember seeing a "Most powerful verses in Fiction" locked room in their Discord and they had Final Fantasy at the top with it being the "Icarus Set"

From what I remember, they have this random essay made by this angry Mathematician student where he rants for 93 pages and vaguely mentions an "Icarus set" mid-way through.

There's also the random wiki page with 0 citations which mentions Rank into Rank Axiom Icarus set, but the whole thing is just arbitrary anyway.
 
Isn't this wiki concept revolves around philosophical realism concept (there are a lot of school regarding this) ? i guess other than realism those can't be tiered imo. Also what is CSAP ?
 
The best way to understand the suggestion is to explore the conceptual possibilities. Let's say that you are the maker of a fictional world that has a degree of reality to itself, but not to our reality. The hierarchy of that fictional world, no matter how big, would never manifest into reality. For those thinking about dimensional differences, there are dimensional differences in each of those hierarchies and they only make up the structure of each one, not between themselves.

Just like you can create a story about 3D persons, you can do about 4D, 5D, 6D, and so on. Yet, they won't ever go beyond their own fictional hierarchy. Yet, your own reality can have a dimensional hierarchy of its own and you are 3D. There could be 4D or above beings you can't perceive, but they are still an extension of your "physical reality". In the same way, if your physical world is in fact fictional to a higher hierarchy, it can also have its own dimensional hierarchy.

Generalizing a lot, there are like 3 major ways to depict fiction/reality interactions. And funny enough, you get all 3 in DC Comics.

The first is that all fiction is the same degree of reality, but the ideas of each reality can move across their 3D worlds and move across 4D bleed and reach other worlds as ideas that are depicted in fictional worlds. In extreme cases, you have Earth-Prime where matter can't move because of a fictive barrier that only allows ideas to pass through. So in this case, there's no qualitative superiority in the nature of reality and the fictional element is merely because people get ideas inspired, unknowingly, from what happens in other real universes.

The other is depicting dimensional differences as fictional differences. The point of this is inspired by the idea that our drawings are 2D, and we, 3D beings, make them. This, of course, is not true. We don't draw 2D, we draw 3D by moving 3D particles across a panel and arranging them in a way that the general 2D cross-section represents the fictional idea we have, but it's not the same as the fictional idea itself. However, since the idea exists and a lot of comic book writers decided to move on with that (Such as Grant Morrison), that became a very common depiction of reality-fictional metaphor that was what we used before. But, when you think about it, dimensional difference is just an extension of physical existence, not something beyond it.

If you pick 5D imps when they were depicted as physical dimensions, they are 5D exactly because they encompass the 3D dimensions, it's just that they encompass
2 more. In any way, higher-dimensional existence is the extension of physical existence into more physical directions than a lower-dimensional physical existence, but still the same type of existence. If a 5D being were to destroy the three dimensions of space we live, if they share these three dimensions, the 5D would in fact become 2D, because they exist in the same level of physical existence.

The third type is actual fictional/reality interaction in that the two are completely different natures and the physical hierarchies exist inside each of them. It's kind of how Grant Morrison depicted themself in Animal Man. As the author's avatar said, no matter how many "realer worlds" they depicted on the page, they would never really be the world of reality they're from because they're still depicting it only in fiction, not reality. So the difference between reality and fiction it's not that of a fictional expansion because no matter how much you expand fiction, it'll never reach reality.
 
Last edited:
Fixxed said:
I like DT's argument about transduality. Transduality is indeed transcend reality and fiction from it very nature
Then we will make transduality 1A again if that proposal being apply
Click to expand...
Transduality actually transcends the duality concepts spread over the all plane of reality found only in the verse.


Make this 1-A and half the wiki is 1-A
 
Ant wrote this

Just a note that I think that this revision seems very beneficial for our tiering system, and it seems to much more closely align with what I have learned about how real world spirituality and metaphysics work, so I personally currently strongly support it, as long as we do not lose any degree of our current tiering specifications/accuracy during the transition.
Click to expand...

Personally, I do not want a tier system based on subjective biased notions.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Ant wrote this



Personally, I do not want a tier system based on subjective biased notions.
Click to expand...
Sorry but what do you think the Tiering system is based on if not real life concepts? What is transdualism? Concepts? Platonism? Void Manipulation not being scientific or objective for 500.

And pointing out that Ant has learned how real life Spiritualism and metaphysics works has nothing to do with the system being "subjective", in fact, what is subjective is how the current system arbitrarily equivocates things that shouldn't be equivocated, Ant learning something shouldn't come into the equation.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Ant wrote this



Personally, I do not want a tier system based on subjective biased notions.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's really what Ant meant. There is a difference between "Base a Tiering System wholly on these notions" and "Account for these notions in a way that doesn't lead to absurdities." If you asked anyone remotely educated on those matters whether an aspatial object can be "equivalent" to the volume of something spatial, the answer would of course be unequivocally "No." That hasn't much to do with how specific schools of spirituality or religion or whatever else model their cosmologies, so much as with how very elementary logic works.
 
Last edited:
Executor_N0 said:
The current system is already based on subjective biased notions. All that changes is the source of the inspiration and the consequences to n-number of fictional worlds being analysed by it.
Click to expand...
But a system whose foundation is globally accepted by everybody is more or less better than a system that doesn't even have a solid foundation and whose logic is based on philosophy and subjective judgments.


If the foundation is objective and accepted by everyone, you can correct errors within the system much more easily, because the foundation of the building is very solid, but in a philosophical system with little foundation, no matter how good the logic and thinking is, it will remain in the air because it cannot be underlined, and it will cause huge disagreements on the wiki because it is "subjective". No matter how beautiful the exterior architecture and structure of a building, if it does not have a good foundation, it will collapse.
 
Georredannea15 said:
If the foundation is objective and accepted by everyone, you can correct errors within the system much more easily, because the foundation of the building is very solid, but in a philosophical system with little foundation, no matter how good the logic and thinking is, it will remain in the air because it cannot be underlined, and it will cause huge disagreements on the wiki because it is "subjective". No matter how beautiful the exterior architecture and structure of a building, if it does not have a good foundation, it will collapse.
Click to expand...
Something not being strictly based on mathematics doesn't mean that it is subjective. And, more importantly, a foundation being "objective" insofar as it is a self-consistent framework is ultimately meaningless if its principles are being applied to places where they don't belong, and so on that basis the system you are defending is not, itself, coherent. Some things simply can't be mathematically or physically computed, and that's just how it be.
 
Georredannea15 said:
But a system whose foundation is globally accepted by everybody is more or less better than a system that doesn't even have a solid foundation and whose logic is based on philosophy and subjective judgments.


If the foundation is objective and accepted by everyone, you can correct errors within the system much more easily, because the foundation of the building is very solid, but in a philosophical system with little foundation, no matter how good the logic and thinking is, it will remain in the air because it cannot be underlined, and it will cause huge disagreements on the wiki because it is "subjective". No matter how beautiful the exterior architecture and structure of a building, if it does not have a good foundation, it will collapse.
Click to expand...
I think it should be noted that in general our wiki only accept philosophical realism, right ? anti-thesis of realism like nominalism would simply get rejected by our wiki. So we already create some boundary limit to what kind of philosophical school that we are using.
 
Westcoast5005 said:
Quick question wouldn’t inaccessible cardinals work in the same way as r>F
Click to expand...
Not quite? For example, a strongly inaccessible cardinal has the property of being "inaccessible" because it is neither the successor, nor the power set, of any number smaller than itself. But nevertheless the gap between a set whose cardinality is an inaccessible and a smaller set is still a quantitative one. It still boils down to "Add this many things to increase the size of that collection."
 
Executor_N0 said:
The current system is already based on subjective biased notions. All that changes is the source of the inspiration and the consequences to n-number of fictional worlds being analysed by it.
Click to expand...
I hate this argument because it isn’t true. We take feats from fiction and try to apply real life physics to calc things. Of course, because of fiction, we use assumptions, generalizations, and approximations as it is almost impossible to do a real world 1:1. But there is still some objective basis we can extrapolate from.

Spirituality and metaphysics is purely subjective and the rules, definitions, and concepts change depending on which dogma, doctrines, or definitions you want to use. There is nothing objective to extrapolate from other than personal preferences. We would be taking a very subjective thing, and applying those metrics to all fictional works. Works that also use incorporate their own spirituality would screwed over by daring to be unique.

“It’s all subjective” There is difference between, how many kilograms can this charscter can lift if they are able to kick a planet like a soccer ball vs. how strong is this character who has reached nirvana.

Udlmaster said:
Sorry but what do you think the Tiering system is based on if not real life concepts? What is transdualism? Concepts? Platonism? Void Manipulation not being scientific or objective for 500.
Click to expand...
I said “subjective biased notions” for a reason. Emphasis on the biased.

And its funny you say this because, I for one hate transdualism and want to nerf it and neg it to oblivion because it is subjective biased and illogical ability. I also have problems with using specific platonic ideas of concepts instead of a general one.

Void manipulation and concept manipulation are not scientific but they are not biased. Fiction is filled with many examples of these that we can formulate a baseline idea of how to define this ability and what it entails. We do not say, this character is 1-A because they have void manipulation do we?

Udlmaster said:
what is subjective is how the current system arbitrarily equivocates things that shouldn't be equivocated, Ant learning something shouldn't come into the equation.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this a case of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Dimensionality and Qualitative superiority shouldn’t be equivocated but also at the same time, people have decided that Qualitative Superiority is stronger and has a greater attack capacity than dimensionality? Make it make sense. If they can’t be compared then you cannot say one has greater attack capacity than the other. Be consistent.
 
Georredannea15 said:
But a system whose foundation is globally accepted by everybody is more or less better than a system that doesn't even have a solid foundation and whose logic is based on philosophy and subjective judgments.


If the foundation is objective and accepted by everyone, you can correct errors within the system much more easily, because the foundation of the building is very solid, but in a philosophical system with little foundation, no matter how good the logic and thinking is, it will remain in the air because it cannot be underlined, and it will cause huge disagreements on the wiki because it is "subjective". No matter how beautiful the exterior architecture and structure of a building, if it does not have a good foundation, it will collapse.
Click to expand...
The current system is not. In fact, I recall various members leaving the Wiki after the tiering system left dimensional transcendence as the basis and moved to cardinals and after that, the amount of members who decided to just stop dealing with tier 1 stuff just increased. It might be seen as accepted by various right now, but it was not an immediate decision.

And it's not objective, in the moment we make equivalences of qualities as a quantity that are not compared, we are making a subjective choice of "most of the time, they are used as the same", even if that isn't exact. The very idea that we put that character with "X level of infinite power" is "more power than y with Z level of infinite power", is already a subjective choice.

When you are setting up axioms, you are making subjective choices. They might seem very obvious at first and work most of the time they are applied, but never forget that by definition, they are all assumptions. The challenge is to make the least amount of assumptions that can faithfully represent the most number of fictional works. Right now, some works aren't represented fairly when they could and that won't affect most of the other works.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Sorry, but this a case of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Dimensionality and Qualitative superiority shouldn’t be equivocated but also at the same time, people have decided that Qualitative Superiority is stronger and has a greater attack capacity than dimensionality? Make it make sense. If they can’t be compared then you cannot say one has greater attack capacity than the other. Be consistent
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, any instance of "qualitative superiority" in any verse will inevitably compare it to quantitative things, just by virtue of the fact literally every single verse in fiction has, as its basic setting, a reality like ours. So comparisions being made is non-negotiable. What kind of comparisons those must be is what's the subject of debate.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Something not being strictly based on mathematics doesn't mean that it is subjective. And, more importantly, a foundation being "objective" insofar as it is a self-consistent framework is ultimately meaningless if its principles are being applied to places where they don't belong, and so on that basis the system you are defending is not, itself, coherent. Some things simply can't be mathematically or physically computed, and that's just how it be.
Click to expand...
I recall you/Rather making an example of something that would inherently be beyond dimensionality even without the need for more than three dimensions being mentioned.

"[. . .] His world was built upon three simple dimensions, forming all that was around them. Each one reaching out far beyond what the eye could see, yet he stood atop of them. No. Atop was not the right word, as it described a location. X, Y and Z. While everything that moved within this world could be attributed with such corresponding values, yet to him they held no meaning. It was not that he was too big to be bound by them. No, their insignificance was far more fundamental than that. A simple matter of size did not explain this. Something that can be described by X Y and Z can still partially be described by X and Y. He was different. An existence beyond those basic constrains of time and space. [. . .]"

Would this still qualify as 1-A under the system you suggest?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I hate this argument because it isn’t true. We take feats from fiction and try to apply real life physics to calc things. Of course, because of fiction, we use assumptions, generalizations, and approximations as it is almost impossible to do a real world 1:1. But there is still some objective basis we can extrapolate from.

Spirituality and metaphysics is purely subjective and the rules, definitions, and concepts change depending on which dogma, doctrines, or definitions you want to use. There is nothing objective to extrapolate from other than personal preferences. We would be taking a very subjective thing, and applying those metrics to all fictional works. Works that also use incorporate their own spirituality would ****** over by daring to be unique.

“It’s all subjective” There is difference between, how many kilograms can this charscter can lift if they are able to kick a planet like a soccer ball vs. how strong is this character who has reached nirvana.
Click to expand...
And for up to tier 3 that is right. But the moment you get into Tier 2 or above, it's all subjective because there's no exact science to deal with how those types of characters would affect each other. There's a reason various Wikis wouldn't use dimensional tiering or even cardinal tiering. All that matters is the system being applied, the logic behind it, and how well that system represents any given fictional universe. For the most part, what we do fit with how it's portrayed in various fictional universes, so it makes sense to use them. But if there are still universes that aren't being represented faithfully, it should be possible to expand the structure of the system to fit the concepts in that universe.

And I don't know why you are saying we will just take any spirituality and metaphysics and extrapolate to 1-A when that clearly isn't the case. If a work directly showcases a superiority against physical expansion, it could be. If not, it wouldn't. It doesn't even need to mention spirituality and metaphysics. It's just the of "This state of existence is not one that is achieved with an increase in physical values because if inherent superiority".
 
Executor_N0 said:
And for up to tier 3 that is right. But the moment you get into Tier 2 or above, it's all subjective because there's no exact science to deal with how those types of characters would affect each other. There's a reason various Wikis wouldn't use dimensional tiering or even cardinal tiering. All that matters is the system being applied, the logic behind it, and how well that system represents any given fictional universe. For the most part, what we do fit with how it's portrayed in various fictional universes, so it makes sense to use them. But if there are still universes that aren't being represented faithfully, it should be possible to expand the structure of the system to fit the concepts in that universe.

And I don't know why you are saying we will just take any spirituality and metaphysics and extrapolate to 1-A when that clearly isn't the case. If a work directly showcases a superiority against physical expansion, it could be. If not, it wouldn't. It doesn't even need to mention spirituality and metaphysics. It's just the of "This state of existence is not one that is achieved with an increase in physical values because if inherent superiority".
Click to expand...
is it possible to implement non classical logic like trivialism and dialethism to the structure of the systems ?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
Since this was made a staff discussion, and most users can't comment on it, I thought it would be good, for the rest of us, to be able to speak their thoughts on it. It seems like something like this could potentially, change the tiering system and affect majority of the profiles on this site.

What are people's thoughts?

Here is the thread for those who don't know.
Click to expand...
Thank God Ultima brought up one of the inconsistencies I showed him on discord
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Something not being strictly based on mathematics doesn't mean that it is subjective. And, more importantly, a foundation being "objective" insofar as it is a self-consistent framework is ultimately meaningless if its principles are being applied to places where they don't belong, and so on that basis the system you are defending is not, itself, coherent. Some things simply can't be mathematically or physically computed, and that's just how it be.
Click to expand...
But there's something you're missing.

Basically, even though the logic is consistent and correct, there are situations that can be interpreted in a different and correct way, and for this, a solid and objectively accepted basis should be taken as a basis so that everyone can accept it and there are no differences of opinion, I gave an example before, but I'll give an example again.


For example, we have a watermelon, a green pencil and a yellow apple. When 3 people are asked "which of these is different from the others", person A might say "I think the pencil is different because the other watermelon and the apple are fruits", person B might say "I think the watermelon is different because the pencil and the apple come from the tree", person C might say "I think the apple is different because the watermelon and the pencil are green and the apple is a different color".

Although there are 3 different answers, they are all correct and logical, because there is no objective basis
Executor_N0 said:
The current system is not. In fact, I recall various members leaving the Wiki after the tiering system left dimensional transcendence as the basis and moved to cardinals and after that, the amount of members who decided to just stop dealing with tier 1 stuff just increased. It might be seen as accepted by various right now, but it was not an immediate decision.
Click to expand...
You may have misunderstood what I mean, yes, there may be mistakes in the system, I completely agree with this and I do not oppose it, but since the basis of the system is a solid foundation that is "accepted by everyone" in global, you can fix the problems in the system.(Nobody rejects 1+1=2 or something like that)

But, without such a foundation, as I have illustrated above, confusion and disagreements pile up and become complicated.

There are errors in the system =/= the foundation is faulty and likewise the system is logical =/= the foundation is solid

To both of you, please don't attack me, I'm scared.
 
Last edited:
I am no Math Wizard like Ultima or DT are (Or compared to yall who debate the ramification with such earnesty), so I speak with the disclaimer that I am truly a peasant in this regard. I speak purely from intuition and ignorance.

That said, I wonder if both the old and the new system coudnt be brought under 1 hat without invalidating each other. Maybe accept R>F (But you will probably have to tighten the requirement, lest you want random series where R>F is vaguely allued to, to make massive jumps) to be at the very most 1-A, while still allowing cardinals of sufficient size to also reach those tiers. I dont have any idea how that would be made acceptable on a logical scale such as Ultima thorougly explained in his thread, but maybe in a approach such as we accepts some illogicality to reduce the overall wrongness rather than to hamfist the new system into effect.
 
Georredannea15 said:
But there's something you're missing.

Basically, even though the logic is consistent and correct, there are situations that can be interpreted in a different and correct way, and for this, a solid and objectively accepted basis should be taken as a basis so that everyone can accept it and there are no differences of opinion, I gave an example before, but I'll give an example again.


For example, we have a watermelon, a green pencil and a yellow apple. When 3 people are asked "which of these is different from the others", person A might say "I think the pencil is different because the other watermelon and the apple are fruits", person B might say "I think the watermelon is different because the pencil and the apple come from the tree", person C might say "I think the apple is different because the watermelon and the pencil are green and the apple is a different color".

Although there are 3 different answers, they are all correct and logical
Click to expand...
well this is comparison based on properties of those objects. I think systems should encompasses those properties. So i think based on example it should be fine if people interpreted differently based on properties of those objects ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
1K
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
2K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
The Boundless tier can be defined as "Transcending Modern Mathematics"
Replies
1
Views
1K
demonwarrior2266
demonwarrior2266
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
161K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
How many of you guys believe in the tiering system?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top