• 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"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no say when it comes to tallies and such, but I do agree with all of Ultima's revisions outside of Tier 0.

As for Tier 0, if you believe in a formal logical system of tiering that is the most sound and consistent it can possibly be, then it is admittedly extremely difficult to argue against Ultima's proposal for Tier 0, I will say.

But, if you don't see limits on indexing and fiction, or perhaps believe in illogical or informal tiering, then you, like me, will be quite reluctant to agree with that tier being the apex of what can be. There's also the hurdle of accepting that the scope of cosmology doesn't actually correlate to Tier 0 anymore. In fact, everything essentially has an equal shot at getting there, jumping past other verses with more expansive natures and ontology. That is a bit much to ask from a site that typically goes with the baseline of interpretation, rather than the apex of interpretation, like what is being suggested.
 
Phoenks said:
There's also the hurdle of accepting that the scope of cosmology doesn't actually correlate to Tier 0 anymore.
Click to expand...
It doesn't correlate to 1-A either, proof of that is in the assumption that you don't need explicit infinite-dimensional (or higher-dimensional) statements in order to have things that reach the tier. I can understand not wanting to take the position of assuming something is literally omnipotent if it's coming from an otherwise unimpressive verse but the logic isn't all that different. In either instance, you'd be arguing that you first need to prove the existence of something that is inherently lesser than it in order to assume that it is as it's described.
 
Urgh, Low 1-A/1-A is quite a bit different in my opinion. I can understand the logic behind what you're saying, but in the case of things ontologically superior to space-time, I think that is objectively provable with descriptions alone. Without even needing to go into the philosophical interpretation or anything of the sort.

If you are conceptually transcendent of space-time down to its foundation, and all context supports that, I don't really think there is interpretation to be had. You just objectively wouldn't be bound in space whatsoever. There is no need to even mention specific orders of dimensionality. They wouldn't apply. This happens across all levels of realness relative to the lower-layer as well. The qualities of lower-worlds simply aren't applicable whatsoever to higher-worlds with higher-qualities.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
No I was actually bedridden for a while. Shit was terrible.

I'm back from the sickness dimension, though, so, I guess the fun resumes now.
Click to expand...
For JTTW, are you sure Dharmakaya should count as 0? As for Lovecraft, I think Az and Yog should just be High 1-A+ with the Supreme Archetype specifically left unknown. I mean I think we have to favor Yog in a specific context but it doesn't seem to be universally agreed within different interpretations.
 
Last edited:
I get God from Seekers because it heavily resembles Adi Shankara’s view on an attributeless Brahman. It was accepted that both Brahman are the same and only difference is Brahman with quality is views from the lower world as opposed to the greater one views from a higher perspective.

Sankara's Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
VeryGoofyToddler said:
For JJTW, Are you sure Dharmakaya should count as 0?
Click to expand...
Quite sure.

VeryGoofyToddler said:
As for Lovecraft, I think Az and Yog should just be High 1-A+ with the Supreme Archetype specifically left unknown. I mean I think we have to favor Yog in a specific context but it doesn't seem to be universally agreed within different interpretations.
Click to expand...
I still do think Yog is legitimately 0, but over the course of the past 3 weeks I've become more indifferent to that. I'm willing to defend it but I can take it or leave it, at the end of the day.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Quite sure.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I support you're take on that. I’d agree it's 0.
Ultima_Reality said:
I still do think Yog is legitimately 0, but over the course of the past 3 weeks I've become more indifferent to that. I'm willing to defend it but I can take it or leave it, at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
I don't think Yog is completely separable from the verse especially not with all the confusion as to who the ultimate pinnacle of the verse is. I think being the “Supreme Archetype” is just too ambiguous to be taken seriously and who rules the Ultimate Void seems like a better title.
 
Phoenks said:
If you are conceptually transcendent of space-time down to its foundation, and all context supports that, I don't really think there is interpretation to be had. You just objectively wouldn't be bound in space whatsoever. There is no need to even mention specific orders of dimensionality. They wouldn't apply. This happens across all levels of realness relative to the lower-layer as well. The qualities of lower-worlds simply aren't applicable whatsoever to higher-worlds with higher-qualities.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I always believed in that notion. Though context and references are always a good thing to have.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Quite sure.


I still do think Yog is legitimately 0, but over the course of the past 3 weeks I've become more indifferent to that. I'm willing to defend it but I can take it or leave it, at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Glad you're well now Ultima. Welcome back to powerscaling hfil.

Does the existence of Ainur around Eru's Throne prove an issue for tier 0? Sorry, still not 100% sure on his qualifications.
 
I see zero reason, based on the explanations on the page, for it to be tier 0.

It's not complete wholeness/unity. It's not a monad. It's just nothingness, that takes on the shell of all possible character strings.
 
Phoenks said:
A set of all possible character strings is a set of all qualities. That's how I see it.
Click to expand...
Tier 0 isn't any form of "transcending all qualities", it's being a monad.

Really, the true form's description sounds more like Ultima's proposed bottom of the tiering system. Making that tier 0 just because it can take on a High 1-A+ form would be quite ludicrous, imo.
 
Agnaa said:
Tier 0 isn't any form of "transcending all qualities", it's being a monad.

Really, the true form's description sounds more like Ultima's proposed bottom of the tiering system. Making that tier 0 just because it can take on a High 1-A+ form would be quite ludicrous, imo.
Click to expand...
Tier 0 is being a "monad" via transcending all qualities and distinctions, Agnaa. That's like the most basic principle of the tier.

Encompassing all possible character strings across an unlimited amount of worlds and reality layers would be High 1-A+ based on Ultima's tiering system. It'd encompass all qualities, embodying a set of them. Pretty sure he even verbatim states SRE's shell is a good example.

The True Form is the propagating force behind the shell. It is true nonexistence, because it lacks even the set of all qualities and transcends it. Just another way of being a monad.
 
Phoenks said:
Tier 0 is being a "monad" via transcending all qualities and distinctions, Agnaa. That's like the most basic principle of the tier.

Encompassing all possible character strings across an unlimited amount of worlds and reality layers would be High 1-A+ based on Ultima's tiering system. It'd encompass all qualities, embodying a set of them. Pretty sure he even verbatim states SRE's shell is a good example.

The True Form is the propagating force behind the shell. It is true nonexistence, because it lacks even the set of all qualities and transcends it. Just another way of being a monad.
Click to expand...
It absolutely doesn't qualify. It involves change
Right now, I am thinking about becoming even less existent. Strictly speaking, I am already not here. The proof of the existence of the mechanical void has already been demonstrated. What is not here is the empty husk ("抜殻") of my self. But if I should disappear even further, so that even this form no longer exists, then I will really not be here. I will not exist in any form.
Click to expand...
It's not an immutable monad with oneness with everything. It's nothingness whose husk is all character strings. It's changeable.

It feels like you're not really grappling with what I'm saying; there's no response there to "Being this nonexistent is what Ultima put at the bottom of the tiering system". You're just saying over and over again "This is just another way of being a monad".

I never once disagreed with it being High 1-A+, no need to rant about that aspect.
 
Agnaa said:
It's not an immutable monad with oneness with everything. It's nothingness whose husk is all character strings. It's changeable.

It feels like you're not really grappling with what I'm saying; there's no response there to "Being this nonexistent is what Ultima put at the bottom of the tiering system". You're just saying over and over again "This is just another way of being a monad".

I never once disagreed with it being High 1-A+, no need to rant about that aspect.
Click to expand...
The difference between this being the bottom of the tiering system or the top is that this degree of nonexistence is seemingly obtained by effectively transcending the High 1-A+ set of all qualities, rather than just being separate from it all.

I do not think there is any actual causality happening here, either. The narrative of SRE is always just its Shell, which does not correlate to its true state. It can't ever actually refer to its true form due to its inherent nature as some true nonexistence.
 
Phoenks said:
The difference between this being the bottom of the tiering system or the top is that this degree of nonexistence is seemingly obtained by effectively transcending the High 1-A+ set of all qualities, rather than just being separate from it all.

I do not think there is any actual causality happening here, either. The narrative of SRE is always just its Shell, which does not correlate to its true state. It can't ever actually refer to its true form due to its inherent nature as some true nonexistence.
Click to expand...
As long as it’s the source for everything including all High 1-A+ sets as well as detach from the entire hierarchy then it can be 0. Though absolute nothingness must be its nature itself and not some sort of quality as right now 0 is argued to be attribute-less though arguments are being made that it’s not a possible thing.

However, like Agnaa stated it must be unchanging and it can’t be reach.
 
Gasper said:
Will God (Unsong) stay 0?
Click to expand...
Ultima and I talked about it; probably not. There's a bunch of stuff indicating that R>F differences (or even God himself) are below/comparable to mathematics. Plus, the Atzmus is established as being a separate thing superior to God, but isn't itself described in monad terms. But he wants to reread everything to be sure.
Phoenks said:
The difference between this being the bottom of the tiering system or the top is that this degree of nonexistence is seemingly obtained by effectively transcending the High 1-A+ set of all qualities, rather than just being separate from it all.
Click to expand...
Hell, from what I'm reading on the page, it's not even established as transcending those writings. Just being separate and nonexistent.
Phoenks said:
I do not think there is any actual causality happening here, either. The narrative of SRE is always just its Shell, which does not correlate to its true state. It can't ever actually refer to its true form due to its inherent nature as some true nonexistence.
Click to expand...
That's going against the text itself, which describes transitions from one state to another. Point to something in the text establishing what you're saying.
 
So the only tier 0 characters that will stay as the same tier are The Amaranth, The Clear Light and IMTIM. Characters that will become tier 0 (that i know of) are Dharmakaya, God (Divine Comedy) and probably Marvel God and DC God.
 
Gasper said:
So the only tier 0 characters that will stay as the same tier are The Amaranth, The Clear Light and IMTIM. Characters that will become tier 0 (that i know of) are Dharmakaya, God (Divine Comedy) and probably Marvel God and DC God.
Click to expand...
Kinda weird if Amaranth would be 0, if it can be obtain unless it’s established that those who ascend to it were always part of its oneness.

Dharmakaya is still being discussed of whether it truly would count as Monadhood. As for Marvel God, it still needs to be established what this Marvel “Godhead” is suppose to be unless it’s equivalent to Kabbalah’s Ein Sof. Divine Creator and Divine Presence could be 0 since they mirror Adi Shankara’s view on Brahman.
 
StalkerCh said:
Okay do we have any info that what will tier 1A look like? I still dont have an idea about how they differentiate r>f requirements for each tier.
Click to expand...
Yeah, R>F can be a basis of getting it. You don’t really need to transcends infinite countable dimensions anymore. Say “more real than real” within enough context can give you R>F.
 
StalkerCh said:
So it means shittons of character will be ugraded to 1A? Oh god wiki is turning to CSAP
Click to expand...
Not really, it still requires much context behind it. Like the Dreaming in DC is described as more real than real and holds stories of all dreamer across Creation and is above the material plane. The vantage point from it would give it R>F as such someone like Dream would be 1-A.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
3K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
demonwarrior2266
Application of Ultima's CRT
Replies
4
Views
2K
Hypertornado099
Hypertornado099
  • Locked
What would debunk the basis of the VSBW tiering system
Replies
6
Views
2K
Urshani
Boy.Line
Qualification issues.
Replies
7
Views
752
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
180K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top