• 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"

Agnaa said:
Again, if you're saying that "possible worlds" is according to one set of axioms, it is plausible for a series to invoke a collection of "possible worlds" which explicitly extend over all axioms (i.e. having different such sets for different axioms), which would be broader than High 1-A+/0 under your system, causing an issue.

That sort of thing seems pretty coherent to me, so whichever weird way you decide to treat it (either ignoring such statements completely, putting them as equal to monads despite explicitly being above them, or taking a far lower interpretation of Low 1-A or something) is something I'd see as a flaw in the system.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that just be special kind of Type 4 Multiverse which should be High 1-A/or Tier 0? Unless R>F or monad is established in the series wouldn't it be far fetched to assume it to be High 1-A? Just wondering.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
It seems he still has the majority though.
Click to expand...
I know. He was asking a hypothetical, and I was answering it.
Reiner04 said:
Wouldn't that just be special kind of Type 4 Multiverse which should be High 1-A/or Tier 0? Unless R>F or monad is established in the series wouldn't it be far fetched to assume it to be High 1-A? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
If a cosmology greater than that which a monad can create is tiered lower than or equal to a monad, that's a contradiction.
 
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?)
 
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?
 
One thing I’m unsure about the Self-Reference Engine is the ‘every possible fictional story’ tidbit. Because if that implicates ‘every fictional story that is possible to be told’, or what it’s more likely to be ‘every fictional story that can be created’, then that’s absolutely bonkers and should definitely be High 1-A+ as well as the character string stuffs
 
I hope for any amount of movements towards my view on the subject, or to have my concerns disproven.
 
Agnaa said:
I hope for any amount of movements towards my view on the subject, or to have my concerns disproven.
Click to expand...
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.
 
VeryGoofyToddler said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.

Which part of this do you disagree with?
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
So High 1-A+ is probably best qualified as "The space of all contingent things," in that vein.
Click to expand...
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 description
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Agnaa said:
Which part of this do you disagree with?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get your concern. The best thing to do is wait for his response, I guess.
Agnaa said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
665
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
0
Views
368
VictoriaGenesisBOA
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
153K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
How many of you guys believe in the tiering system?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top