- 3,035
- 2,239
Yes, Agnaa, I was aware. I’m just pointing out the obvious.I know. He was asking a hypothetical, and I was answering it.
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.
Yes, Agnaa, I was aware. I’m just pointing out the obvious.I know. He was asking a hypothetical, and I was answering it.
The 1000 year long freeze on the verse as a whole.Why wasn’t SMT already tier High 1-A if the Atziluth is “Fundamentally beyond the concept of higher dimensions”?
(From what I briefly understand, it was a matter of how it was described?)
i think High 1-A+What do you guys think will happen to The Mathiverse, will it be low 1-A or is there a chance to scale it to higher tiers?
Wow, first comment you made without saying "Goku solos." Nice character development.i think High 1-A+
It’s hard to say the brief overview would be Low 1-A but it can go as high as High 1-A+ when it encompasses all maths, space, time, manifolds, and every possibility.What do you guys think will happen to The Mathiverse, will it be low 1-A or is there a chance to scale it to higher tiers?
Self Reference Engine. I don’t know but I could maybe say Maya from Seekers and Pralaya from DC.Who currently qualifies for High 1-A+
Bump.Will Dnd's Luminous Being qualify for tier 0, or will he pretty much still be under high 1-A?
Probably just High 1-A. The being in question should be completely detach and non-interactable without being “it” again.Bump.
For now, it’s looking very even since the latest Admin decided to disagree. Though, Ultima should reply to some statements but then again, he has to get through DT and Agnaa.Ultima it's replying to debunks on tier 0 revision thread, is there any chance that tier 0 revision will get rejected?
There is always a chance.Ultima it's replying to debunks on tier 0 revision thread, is there any chance that tier 0 revision will get rejected?
I don’t get how you’re missing the point on possible worlds. It was explained by Ultima pretty well. I think Deagon concerns hold more precedent because of how “Monadism” would work for a tiering system which seems wonky and he made pretty good example. Your argument for that is not really hard to answer. I feel like you’re missing the point and accounting for all possible axioms as some sort of second base reasoning on how High 1-A+ and 0 would have a sort of contradiction of all “possibility from the former and one that can not be possible by rules of logic by the latter. He decided to give a change to that and it makes sense.I hope for any amount of movements towards my view on the subject, or to have my concerns disproven.
Because Ultima's explanation is insufficient; the monad being one set of axioms indicates that a greater collection would be something that encompasses all sets of axioms.I don’t get how you’re missing the point on possible worlds. It was explained by Ultima pretty well. I think Deagon concerns hold more precedent because of how “Monadism” would work for a tiering system which seems wonky and he made pretty good example. Your argument for that is not really hard to answer. I feel like you’re missing the point and accounting for all possible axioms as some sort of second base reasoning on how High 1-A+ and 0 would have a sort of contradiction of all “possibility from the former and one that can not be possible by rules of logic by the latter. He decided to give a change to that and it makes sense.
In correlation to what he proposed of the Monad(Tier 0) then, yes. The distinct point to make is that all things originate from the ineffable point in accordance with the rule of logic. A certain monad of a lower order which is disproven to be transcendent of the hierarchy entirely would at least encompass a certain point. Though High 1-A+ was fixed to make sure that a collection of axioms would belong to it since it’s only transcendent by 0 by the logic that the highest you can get with any/all possibilities within reason is within the hierarchy which is defined by High 1-A+. Like anything or everything High 1-A+ is still a result of 0 just because 0 is beyond it while being paradoxically be the sole cause of everything. So it would encompass all those sorts but High 1-A+ function within a certain variable as he mentions:Because Ultima's explanation is insufficient; the monad being one set of axioms indicates that a greater collection would be something that encompasses all sets of axioms.
I do think Deagon point on described “ineffable” or “parts/whole” to 0 does make sense. It goes over how 0 could even possibly be explained, if it’s not meant to be constraint by definition or descriptionSo High 1-A+ is probably best qualified as "The space of all contingent things," in that vein.
Contradictions and irregular logic will exist. Though the point of 0 isn’t to undermine it because nothing truly can come to it. It’s rather just what it is as the only description for it is “itself.” Any or all logic could only briefly explain the tier in a term that fits a hierarchy which it’s completely detached from.It doesn't really matter if something's possible within one set of axioms and not another; that thing would just exist under the subset within the series of one set of axioms, yet not the other. And the things existing outside/above it would be the axioms themselves (as they're not matters of possibility subject to themselves, just assertions/bases for how reality can work), and anything more fundamental than that, which similarly, wouldn't care about not being possible within the rules of logic of some axioms.
Just that one can’t encompasses all possibilities. How he explained 0 seems to make sense and his retake on High 1-A+. However, I will say that your concern does put some perspectives he needs to work on 0 but until another voting session comes, I don’t think it’s impossible to explain your questions and concern on that regard.Which part of this do you disagree with?
I get your concern. The best thing to do is wait for his response, I guess.I mean, I think one theoretically could encompass all possibilities, but the tier we equalise that to, and the amount of evidence we require for that equalisation, may not be appropriate.
Naturally there would always be some sort of tier for that. As that’s the easiest approach to explain some sort of Godhood that explicitly is meant to be transcendent of whatever framework is given.I take more issue with Ultima's suggested system than I did with Verbose Indexing Wiki's system despite it including a tier beyond all describable possibilities.
Obviously.Will this new tiering system downgrade most of tier 0 characters?
Of course!Will this new tiering system downgrade most of tier 0 characters?
It looks easy but it isn'tFor clarification, i'm asking because to me, it looks pretty easy to achieve tier 0 now.
Nah. It's a lot harder now. No more "reaching tier 0 by transcending High 1A the same way it's transcends 1A" type of tiering anymore which was pretty easy.For clarification, i'm asking because to me, it looks pretty easy to achieve tier 0 now.
I think the witch domain will probably be 1-A to 1-A+, and Auau will be high 1-AWould Uminiko be affected by the tiering system change?
A powerscaling youtuber talked about the potential changes.
Epilepsy warning for the video.