• 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.
Ikelaggan said:
Literally no, hierarchical means order of rank. The 3rd and 4th of the dimensions makes that pretty self-evident.
Click to expand...
Dimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other. You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure yes Dimensions are not Hierarchical
that is why there are mentions of higher dimensions that are not reflective of potency yet they are still considered higher dimensions/ not fake higher dimensionals
it is mentioned in the FAQ. but for us in terms of higher dimension, we make some explicit requirements for it to qualify as potency or tiers
such as the well-known universal in size in that dimension or infinitely far superior in a way that the lower objects are infinitesimal compared to it (in layman's term treated as a non-measurabl[No meaningful volume] size in comparison to it)
 
Ben_CleverName said:
Dimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other. You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.
Click to expand...
Yes dimensions in a vacuum aren't ordinal without ordering them in sequence first, but their still composed of vectors coordinates in premise which in Ultima's proposal the new 1-A should be above all vector coordinate spaces as a axiom
 
Ikelaggan said:
Yes dimensions in a vacuum aren't ordinal without ordering them in sequence first, but their still composed of vectors coordinates in premise which in Ultima's proposal the new 1-A should be above all vector coordinate spaces as a axiom
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with that (minus the weird "vacuum" part)... but I'm confused, were you not just arguing for them being ordinal? They can't be hierarchal without an "order" to them. Did I misunderstand or something?
 
Ben_CleverName said:
Yes, I agree with that (minus the weird "vacuum" part)... but I'm confused, were you not just arguing for them being ordinal? They can't be hierarchal without an "order" to them. Did I misunderstand or something?
Click to expand...
Yes, ordinals was my argument until I realized that dimensions regardless if their ordinal or not would still be bound by the premise of being at least compromised of vectors.
 
Ben_CleverName said:
Dimensions are not ordinal either outside of specific contexts which makes them ordinal. The dimension of a vector space is explicitly defined in a cardinal sense. This is literally on the Wikipedia page for dimension, meanwhile I can't find any mentionings of "hierarchies" or "ordinal". There is no "first", "second" or "third" dimension. All you need to do to prove this is to draw two different lines somewhere, with one moving left-and-right and another moving up-and-down to see that there isn't an explicit order to them, those axes exist independently from each other.
Click to expand...
So if I understand this correctly the important part is how many dimensions a character has,not which dimensions they have.

An 8th dimensional character is 8D not because they exist in the "8th dimension" but because they exist in a total of 8 dimensions.
Ben_CleverName said:
You can have a six-dimensional space and two 3D objects occupying that space, with both objects occupying completely different axes than each other.
Click to expand...
Both objects in this example are 3D since they have a total of 3 dimensions.
Even though they exist within different dimensions,they are still equivalent to eachother in dimensionality.

Dimensions not being inherently ordinal seems to be one of the reasons why Ultima came to the conclusion of R>F being above dimensionality in the first place.
 
Blunt_Claw said:
So if I understand this correctly the important part is how many dimensions a character has,not which dimensions they have.

An 8th dimensional character is 8D not because they exist in the "8th dimension" but because they exist in a total of 8 dimensions.

Both objects in this example are 3D since they have a total of 3 dimensions.
Even though they exist within different dimensions,they are still equivalent to eachother in dimensionality.

Dimensions not being inherently ordinal seems to be one of the reasons why Ultima came to the conclusion of R>F being above dimensionality in the first place.
Click to expand...
There are some contexts where dimensions can be made ordinal but when we think of things in the sense of 4D, 5D, etc... it's usually cardinal. There are a lot of verses that like to assume a sort of ordinal placement with them (Like DC, I guess, but frankly I think it's weird that the Fifth Dimension in DC is considered Low 1-C anyway) but that's usually just a verse-specific thing. That's also why you don't tend to see things like -1-dimensional or 3.5-dimensional without redefining some things.
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
I have a question! Will size and dimensionality still be equated after this?
Click to expand...
Who exactly is your question meant for? Anyone in particular? Regardless of who you're asking, I want to offer my input. Strictly speaking, size and dimensionality are not the same things, but when speaking about them in a spatial sense they correlate a lot, and for tiering, they might as well be the same. I think this post from askdifference.com sums it up nicely.
Understanding the size of an object often requires knowing its dimensions, but dimensions alone do not describe the size. Size can imply overall space occupancy or capacity, while dimensions provide the detailed measurements of each aspect of an object's shape.
Click to expand...
This does beg the question though: What about similarly related concepts, like distance, direction, magnitude, space, etc? They aren't the same things as dimensionality either, but they're all deeply connected in a certain sense. It shouldn't be hard to see the similarities between these things.
 
Ben_CleverName said:
Who exactly is your question meant for? Anyone in particular?
Click to expand...
It's for anyone really. And yes, as you mention, size and dimensionality aren't the same thing. But in the current system:

1.having 5 dimensions,
2. being uncountably bigger than a universe
3. having uncountably infinite amount of universes

Are equated. They're all quantitative standards, so will they still be equated?
 
Iamunanimousinthat said:
It's for anyone really. And yes, as you mention, size and dimensionality aren't the same thing. But in the current system:

1.having 5 dimensions,
2. being uncountably bigger than a universe
3. having uncountably infinite amount of universes

Are equated. They're all quantitative standards, so will they still be equated?
Click to expand...
Nothing below High 1-B is changing, so yes.
 
12/02/23: As an update on the above: Yeah, I'm late. Going through a move and all, so, been occupied with helping that out for the past few days. The response itself is nearly done, so, expect it to be thrown here sometime tomorrow.
Click to expand...
Liar.
 
Damn, I really wanted R>F transcendence to be stronger than dimensional tiering. Oh well. To the superiority equalization status quo we go.
 
i think it is better to just make what csap do with it's system,bring back concept scaling and that it is
 
I just thought I'd create a tally of the current progress, if no one minds.

Agree​

Antvasima (Agrees as long as the new tiers have detailed requirements)​

Ultima_Reality (Thread Starter)​

DarkDragonMedeus (Agrees with 1-A being the tier for qualitative superiorities to dimensionality, initially neutral on R>F being 1-A by default before eventually agreeing with it too)​

DarkGrath (Agreed with everything at first, failed to change her mind after hearing the counters)​

Elizhaa (Agrees with everything)​

Sir_Ovens (Agrees with everything)​

Andytrenom (Agrees with 1-A being the tier for qualitative superiorities to dimensionality, disagrees with R>F being 1-A by default)​

Everything12 (Agrees with everything)​

Planck69 (Agrees with everything)​

CrimsonStarFallen (Agrees with everything)​

Theglassman12 (Agrees with everything)​

IdiosyncraticLawyer (Thinks productive changes should result from the CRT, defends all of Ultima's points)​

Phoenks (Agrees with everything)​

Executor_N0 (Agrees that Ultima's post reveals how the current system fails to effectively encompass all of fiction)​

CloverDragon03 (Agrees with everything)​

Neutral​

Crabwhale (Ain't reading allat)​

KLOL506 (Asked some questions, hasn't voted himself)​

AbaddonTheDisappointment (Asked some questions, hasn't voted himself)​

Disagree​

DontTalkDT (Thinks the notion of composite hierarchies already addresses Ultima's concerns regarding R>F equalization)​

Agnaa (Disagrees with everything)​

Qawsedf234 (Thinks it's unnecessary to create a new system aimed at categorizing all of fiction effectively, as such is impossible)​

Deagonx (R>F is simply better off likened to a single dimensional jump than something beyond dimensional scale)​



Yeesh... I knew this vote would end up lopsided, but this is an absolute slaughter in favor of Ultima💀.
 
NGL, I haven't read or kept up with the thread. I just glance over it and hear summaries from people that have kept up.
 
At the very least that clarified things that would and wouldn't qualify

simulations are still different from the stories the letters are telling IMO
because simulations simulate things as reality upon their limited capacity. to qualify a simulation to somehow be considered R>F
one would need to portray the simulation as the story rather than the simulation being simulated
 
TheGreatJedi13 said:
simulations are still different from the stories the letters are telling IMO
because simulations simulate things as reality upon their limited capacity. to qualify a simulation to somehow be considered R>F
one would need to portray the simulation as the story rather than the simulation being simulated
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree, yeah. Hence I said that, for a computer simulation to actually be R>F, the simulation and the thing it's simulating would have to be distinct. As I pointed out, if you treat the two as one and the same, it's quite literally not even an infinite difference at all. So using that as some counterexample to the notion that R>F is 1-A is just bizarre.
 
Lord_Farquaad69420 said:
Would platonic concepts be outer here then if the revision goes through
Click to expand...
In the same way lasers are Lightspeed, I suppose. As in, a verse that represents the full gamut of the original Theory of Forms is certainly 1-A (And 0) under the proposals, but fiction so rarely depicts it correctly that "Platonic" might as well be of the same value as "laser," feat-wise.
 
Since concepts would cover over all possible extension of something would someone who is literal concept of dimensions be High 1-B/High 1-B+?
Ultima_Reality said:
In the same way lasers are Lightspeed, I suppose. As in, a verse that represents the full gamut of the original Theory of Forms is certainly 1-A (And 0) under the proposals, but fiction so rarely depicts it correctly that "Platonic" might as well be of the same value as "laser," feat-wise.
Click to expand...
 
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
896
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
183K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Back
Top