The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"

[Ultima_Reality]

With a lesser world, there must be a higher world existing beyond it that’s ”more real”. Additionally, there must be no continuity between them (so like you can‘t get there via Dimensional Travel or something?).

To quote my summary of the revisions:

For an illustrative example of this, take this scene from Mike Carey's The Unwritten as a reference point, where the Leviathan is described as "too real" and "too solid" compared to the world below it. Another way to think of it is to picture the following: A character with Nonexistent Physiology, except their nonexistence is depicted as making them intrinsically inferior to things that exist. That's how a character with a R>F Transcendence ought to see things below themselves.

The matter of "continuity" is basically what I said above. The higher realm can't be the sum (Or be expressible as the sum) of things lesser than itself.

2) “Realer” character has to be transcendently more powerful than the “lesser real” world.

That applies largely to the more "normal" types of would-be R>F Transcendence, where the "real world" is depicted as just some place where authors and readers and whatever else live.

In those cases, it's important to have something suggesting that they're being treated as something utterly dwarfing the "fiction" world. The Superman Beyond scene I've used as an example is one instance of it being treated as such. In contrast, take this scene, where, although there is fourth-wall breaking, the readers of the comic are clearly treated as just regular humans, and as inferior to the things they're reading about.

3) The “lesser real” character can never be able to interact or harm the “realer“ character on their own. If they can, it’s gotta be through a valid outside mean (like an amp from a “realer” character or some kinda artifact?), otherwise, you’re faced with a contradiction.

Yeah.

 

[Daoist_Pepe]

I have a question. Since the R>F standards will become more strict, will characters(that are not 1-A) with a false R>F be downgraded or will they still be viewed as a level of infinity above their verse? E.g Character A has a Low 1-C rating for viewing space-time as a gameboard/film/tv channels. Will character A be downgraded or will his rating stay the same?
Refresher of what Ultima considers False R>F

Before writing this summary, I took the time to do some digging and found that some characters are currently accepted as holding a Reality-Fiction Transcendence over a reality due to some pieces of evidence that are rather underwhelming. These profiles, for instance, treat purely visual depictions of characters viewing reality as TV channels, or a film, as gameboards, as evidence of R>F.

As I've said before, I more or less completely reject the usage of such things as primary evidence for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Those would be relegated to being supplementary evidence, at best, but alone would never suffice. And as has already been said, I likewise have very little sympathy for gag feats and the like.

I agree with Ultima's vision of R>F but if characters with false R>F get downgraded i feel like there will be chaos.
I am more inclined to create R>F type 1 and 2 like BDE. Type 1 will be deemed false R>F and will be seen as cosmology +1, while type 2 will cover Ultima’s idea(1-A).

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think they'd just get straight up downgraded unless they can prove that the R>F they have falls under Ultima's new standards

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I'm still wondering if you can scale from 0. I know the nature of 0 is unchangeable but would an aspect of that still be at least High 1-A? Or would it need to be scaled from fits Cosmology because 0 is beyond may structure as proposed by Ultima.

 

[Ren1999]

I think they'd just get straight up downgraded unless they can prove that the R>F they have falls under Ultima's new standards

if it is downgraded then more and more tier 1 characters will become tier 2, because almost 90% of the tier 1 verses on this wiki R>f are not like the new standard ultima.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

In those cases, it's important to have something suggesting that they're being treated as something utterly dwarfing the "fiction" world. The Superman Beyond scene I've used as an example is one instance of it being treated as such. In contrast, take this scene, where, although there is fourth-wall breaking, the readers of the comic are clearly treated as just regular humans, and as inferior to the things they're reading about.

Would the Presence from the Lucifer series count for 0? The analogy that the Void is part of him was explained during #75 and not to mention the Void contained in the mind of God as said in Overture. Scoria reference God as an absolute point as any point of distance and time amounts to 0 to God.

He treated in his true form when he is not being behind shape or working through aspects as a sort of nomadic entity. Not to mention the Monad concept exists indirectly due to the series being primarily based on that and Judiac belief. If Michael is the Demiurge then the Presence is somewhat Aeon-Teleos or the One. Any opinion on that?

 

[Isaiah_ZaMangaka]

The matter of "continuity" is basically what I said above. The higher realm can't be the sum (Or be expressible as the sum) of things lesser than itself.

Took me a while to get it but i understand now (with the help of good ol’ Chat GPT), thanks for the clarification.

That applies largely to the more "normal" types of would-be R>F Transcendence, where the "real world" is depicted as just some place where authors and readers and whatever else live.

In those cases, it's important to have something suggesting that they're being treated as something utterly dwarfing the "fiction" world.

Ahhh ok, understood.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Nah, just a single R>F and you pass.

you misunderstood his question
He's asking the requirements for R>F to qualify would be difficult or nah but according to ultima it might be quiet difficult.
Same goes with beyond dimensional requirements

Also necro this page didn't notify me of any new replies wth

 

[Phoenks]

So is Tier 0 an encompassment of all qualities, a negation of all qualities, both of those things? Or is it logical omnipotence? Perfect plurality? Negative theology? Ineffability?

All of the above?

Still a little confused.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Also, for something that ontologically above Dimension- there will be stricter standard for them.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Pretty sure Ultima went over why this isn't enough for his version of R>F.

I'm pretty sure ishtar was doing way more than just tv show veiwing a reality, mostly reality warping kidnapping of the phantom thieves shenanigans.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Persona have R>F, but still got beaten by a fence lol.

1-A fence.

 

[Hjxdvd]

At the very least it seems like CM will be High 1-A

Dreamlands already surpass every extension of space-time, which would be 1-A. There's an endless hierarchy of them which are separated by qualitative superiorities, so 1-A+ if that's still a thing.

The Ultimate Void is unreachable by the Dreamlands and seems to also be fundamentally superior in nature due to being outside of the laws and physics present in the dreams. I'd guess that's High 1-A.

After that things get confusing.


Pretty sure Ultima went over why this isn't enough for his version of R>F.

Yog is Tier 0 under Ultima's system, we already went over this.

Not sure if Carter scale, though. He might have a key.

 

[Tdjwo]

If I'm following this correctly, according to Ultima's new tier 0 requirement, there can't be more than 1 tier 0 being in the same verse since it wouldcreate contradicitions. The only way here can be more than 1 is if they are the same character but different types eg, avatar and original

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Persona have R>F, but still got beaten by a fence lol.

1-A fence.

Joker got beaten by some police officers. Truly fodder

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So is Tier 0 an encompassment of all qualities, a negation of all qualities, both of those things? Or is it logical omnipotence? Perfect plurality? Negative theology? Ineffability?

All of the above?

Still a little confused.

Divine simplicity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

All of the things you mentioned are one thing (Except "perfect plurality." Dunno what that means)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Would the Presence from the Lucifer series count for 0? The analogy that the Void is part of him was explained during #75 and not to mention the Void contained in the mind of God as said in Overture. Scoria reference God as an absolute point as any point of distance and time amounts to 0 to God.

He treated in his true form when he is not being behind shape or working through aspects as a sort of nomadic entity. Not to mention the Monad concept exists indirectly due to the series being primarily based on that and Judiac belief. If Michael is the Demiurge then the Presence is somewhat Aeon-Teleos or the One. Any opinion on that?

I find that extremely doubtful. Yahweh certainly is a "manifest" version of some deeper underlying principle (Brought into shape by dreams), but he also:

1. Changes (Seen when he leaves creation behind, and outright "detaches" himself from it)

2. Can grant his same position and state of existence to other beings that henceforth become his equals

3. Can be potentially replaced (As seen with the Titan Brothers who became the new faces of God after the Presence left creation, which also ties into how his power does derive from dreams)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm still wondering if you can scale from 0. I know the nature of 0 is unchangeable but would an aspect of that still be at least High 1-A? Or would it need to be scaled from fits Cosmology because 0 is beyond may structure as proposed by Ultima.

Also, you can't scale "down" from a Tier 0, no. If you're like, a direct aspect of the Tier 0 that shares of the same being and substance as it, then logically speaking you should be Tier 0 yourself.

 

[Deidalius]

I wonder, will the Narnia lion qualify for Tier 0?

 

[Robo432343]

tier 0 simba

 

[SubaruN2000]

I'd more precisely define an ontological superiority as being just "Your state of existence is so superior that you can't really be expressed as the sum of anything lesser than yourself."

Can a state of nonexistence/nothingness qualify for ontological superiority? Like say theres a verse with R>F layers (higher layers more real and ontologically above lower ones and all that), then realms of nothingness and nonexistent characters who are literally "nothing" that transcends the quality of realness and transcends all "things"? Would the latter qualify for high 1-A, or would this be contradictory since the lower layers are supposed to be nonexistent to the higher layers?

What about characters who are above the concept/definition of ontology and existence or things like that, what tier would they be?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Can a state of nonexistence/nothingness qualify for ontological superiority? Like say theres a verse with R>F layers (higher layers more real and ontologically above lower ones and all that), then realms of nothingness and nonexistent characters who are literally "nothing" that transcends the quality of realness and transcends all "things"? Would the latter qualify for high 1-A, or would this be contradictory since the lower layers are supposed to be nonexistent to the higher layers?

If they were literally "nothing," then it wouldn't be possible for them to be above anything, so, yeah. Any character who claims to be so can only really be "nothingness" in a qualified sense.

What about characters who are above the concept/definition of ontology and existence or things like that, what tier would they be?

0, in principle.

 

[SubaruN2000]

If they were literally "nothing," then it wouldn't be possible for them to be above anything, so, yeah. Any character who claims to be so can only really be "nothingness" in a qualified sense.

Maybe not literally nothing but like NEP type 3 ("nonexistent" but displays existent properties) or type 2 (neither nonexistent or existent)? Would those states of nothingness be valid for ontological superiority for the example I gave?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I have a question. Since the R>F standards will become more strict, will characters(that are not 1-A) with a false R>F be downgraded or will they still be viewed as a level of infinity above their verse? E.g Character A has a Low 1-C rating for viewing space-time as a gameboard/film/tv channels. Will character A be downgraded or will his rating stay the same?
Refresher of what Ultima considers False R>F

I agree with Ultima's vision of R>F but if characters with false R>F get downgraded i feel like there will be chaos.
I am more inclined to create R>F type 1 and 2 like BDE. Type 1 will be deemed false R>F and will be seen as cosmology +1, while type 2 will cover Ultima’s idea(1-A).

Also, I would consider those "false" R>F Transcendences to depend wholly on context to be tiered. For example, I'd say it's fine to consider Mr. Mxyzptlk's film/gameboard stuff as +1 dimensional jump, since contextually those things are meant to analogize how he sees the third dimension from his 5-dimensional perspective.

Meanwhile, the Xenoblade guy will probably get yeeted entirely. I'd give no tier to this at all.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Maybe not literally nothing but like NEP type 3 ("nonexistent" but displays existent properties) or type 2 (neither nonexistent or existent)? Would those states of nothingness be valid for ontological superiority for the example I gave?

Yeah.

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

Divine simplicity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

All of the things you mentioned are one thing (Except "perfect plurality." Dunno what that means)

Wouldnt that mean that axiom gets tier 0 off the persona 2 manga while the rest of the verse is like 1-A

 

[CloverDragon03]

Meanwhile, the Xenoblade guy will probably get yeeted entirely. I'd give no tier to this at all.

Tragic

Though tbf I think this may also be a case where there's more to it but said justification was just straight up never added. I definitely plan to re-evaluate this

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Wouldnt that mean that axiom gets tier 0 off the persona 2 manga while the rest of the verse is like 1-A

Can't, seeing as Stephen states that humanity can eventually surpass the Axiom (And the story portrays him as having been proven right) and the fact its existence springs from things ultimately lesser than itself (It's the collective unconsciousness of humanity at its most primal)

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

Can't, seeing as Stephen states that humanity can eventually surpass the Axiom (And the story portrays him as having been proven right) and the fact its existence springs from things ultimately lesser than itself (It's the collective unconsciousness of humanity at its most primal)

I honestly dont see Stephen's wording as much of a problem since it's explicitly just his interpritation and I dont remember the games ever portraying him as correct either

Since when did axiom spring forward from things lesser than itself? Ik vsbw gatekeeps more obscure scans but did I miss a page?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Since when did axiom spring forward from things lesser than itself? Ik vsbw gatekeeps more obscure scans but did I miss a page?

Selected Translations from: Shin Megami Tensei IV Final/Apocalypse Official World Setting Collection + Journey Towards the World of Mythology

Selected Translations from: Shin Megami Tensei IV Final/Apocalypse Official World Setting Collection + Journey Towards the World of Mythology (真・女神転生IV FINAL 公式設定資料集+神話世界への旅) Scans and HQ rips kind…

dijehtranslations.wordpress.com

Yamai: Even when talking about the creation of the universe, I think the birth of the Great Reason is beyond our ideals. The universe we can observe stretches over 130 billion light years, but we don’t know how it managed to appear from nothing. Gods like Izanagi, who birthed out of his eyes and nose, were perhaps a symbol of a farming culture, but they had a power that surpassed the humans’ power of understanding and I dare say that in the case of the Great Reason too, if emotions were to arise, those emotions themselves would become gods. I’m talking about that kind of creation. For example, the wish to be worshipped gave birth to YHVH, or seeing the fights between humans signified the appearance of Lucifer. I think this is similar to the trends and movements born out of people’s shared consciousness nowadays. Let’s look at Japan’s concept of cuteness: if it spread throughout the whole world, maybe it would lead to the birth of a new god. I had this vague thought that the backbone of the Great Reason would begin like a pure baby who would pick up various emotions through touch, gradually learning about its surroundings.

Shioda: So it’s something along the lines of a god born out of the collective unconscious which came from shared awareness?

Yamai: That’s right, don’t you all just love it? (laughs)

I honestly dont see Stephen's wording as much of a problem since it's explicitly just his interpritation and I dont remember the games ever portraying him as correct either

Stephen knows more about the Axiom than anyone else, and much of the information we receive about the Axiom comes from him to begin with. Given that, and the fact that proving him right about humanity's potential is essentially the point of the fight against him in Messiahs of the Diamond Realm, I'd say the statement being taken as correct is indeed just fine.

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

Selected Translations from: Shin Megami Tensei IV Final/Apocalypse Official World Setting Collection + Journey Towards the World of Mythology

Selected Translations from: Shin Megami Tensei IV Final/Apocalypse Official World Setting Collection + Journey Towards the World of Mythology (真・女神転生IV FINAL 公式設定資料集+神話世界への旅) Scans and HQ rips kind…

dijehtranslations.wordpress.com

Stephen knows more about the Axiom than anyone else, and much of the information we receive about the Axiom comes from him to begin with. Given that, and the fact that proving him right about humanity's potential is essentially the point of the fight against him in Messiahs of the Diamond Realm, I'd say the statement being taken as correct is indeed just fine.

The quote from the interview sort of misaligns with the games where CU was the thing to rise out of humanity while it developed(P3 Club Book) with the axiom in the same interview being defined as what created humanity to begin with. Not to mention this would imply that the axiom somehow would have to give humanity the ability to create itself with observation as that's what lets humanity put concepts within the framework of language and creates deities to begin with so I normally disregard this statement

Stephen being more knowledgeable on the cosmology doesnt really negate the fact that any statement he makes falls under "interpreting things his way"

But I doubt VSBW will change its interpretation of the verse just cuz someone pulled up to a thread and disagreed with a mod so if you want to go with that interpritation you could realistically just argue universe/world arcana being that since in Krowley's deck it pertains to Ein Sof which is word for word Pleroma from Jung's interpretation(Both are infinite nothingness that pre-date all of reality and holds all things within itself within itself while having no distuingishable qualities) with the universe in p3 being actually defined as nothingness(Fortune teller) and "The power that started it all and that will end it all" by Igor in the japanese version and the completion of fool's journey would signify achieving individuation which is what an individual's potential is in MegaTen and what Stephen be referring to with the statement he makes

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

btw sorry for the late replies drunk off 3 bottles of whisky and barely staying awake cuz I havent slept in a long time

 

[Agnaa]

But I doubt VSBW will change its interpretation of the verse just cuz someone pulled up to a thread and disagreed with a mod

Happens more often than you think, as long as you bring good arguments and sufficient evidence.

 

[Chaotic_Existentialist]

Happens more often than you think, as long as you bring good arguments and sufficient evidence.

SMT is too much work to shift your interpretation for. Used to believe some ******** bs like YHVH's Universe being a separate realm from the kabbalah and that archetypes transcend the atziluth all for the sake of wanking, but believe it or not shifting to more consistent views caused inconsistencies as well

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Hello.
I'm mostly here regarding the effect of platonic concept if done correctly.

As currently in the wiki independence from the physicality of things or the concept where object participates in is enough for type 1. But there are cases where in as said it doesn't fully follow the philosophy of Platonic concept in a way that they are independent but do not exhibit nor show nature as explained such as (a perfect whole to be reached or achieved. Or neoplatonism and some such)

As now we stopped using platonic and false platonic to determine concept types but carries on some key things like independence from the physicality (theory of forms). Or whatever object is governs. Such as why it is possible for reality to exist first before a certain type 1 comes into existence as long as it is fully established to be completely unaffected by the object it governs etc while also fundamentally governing reality.

Would an argument of true Platonic concept be listed as ontological difference (1-A or something) be included on ways to achieve it. And would concept types remain the same but a true Platonic concept wouldn't just be type 1 but also has tiers for it?

Take note this is for those that fully abides by the philosophy and was described/shown to be and not flimsy verse specific interpretations of it that is limited only to what they take away or make inspiration from the original philosophy.

Edit: another question
Since BDE type 2 will get a pruning on profiles does affected profiles can be argued further to include more necessary details that might actually make them qualify?

 

[Phoenks]

I would say that a true platonic concept is definitely 1-A at the very minimum. They're completely independent and detached from the universe, and everything in the universe merely "participates" in them as imperfect replicas, that is to say that everything is just part of more "real" wholeness that are the forms themselves. Space and time are largely irrelevant to the conversation when discussing their ontology.

If a verse was to tastefully use them I could see them being good evidence for qualitative differences.

The difference between something participating in the form of "beauty," and the form of beauty itself, is definitely a qualitative difference.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I would say that a true platonic concept is definitely 1-A at the very minimum. They're completely independent and detached from the universe, and everything in the universe merely "participates" in them as imperfect replicas, that is to say that everything is just part of more "real" wholeness that are the forms themselves. Space and time are largely irrelevant to the conversation when discussing their ontology.

If a verse was to tastefully use them I could see them being good evidence for qualitative differences.

The difference between something participating in the form of "beauty," and the form of beauty itself, is definitely a qualitative difference.

Marvel has some faithful uses that would most definitely be 1-A but DC not really (probably).

Here for example in a doctor strange comic Fall Sunrise

Spoiler: Fall Sunrise

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I do remember DC having a dimension of idea which is what Mr mzxannoyingnametospell explained
Though in DC case they put it like heirarxhy of dimensional existence or something

This was during the whole world forger series/release

Where he kinda tricked supes to enter it but instead he got trapped in a starless area

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

I find that extremely doubtful. Yahweh certainly is a "manifest" version of some deeper underlying principle (Brought into shape by dreams), but he also:

1. Changes (Seen when he leaves creation behind, and outright "detaches" himself from it)

He chose it for himself. The reason why he did it was to test Michael and Lucifer and to make the message a Creation does not need him. Plus, it was really just an experiment to see how they would react and who would step up for the job.

2. Can grant his same position and state of existence to other beings that henceforth become his equals

It's not meant to make Lucifer an equal. It's meant to say he would be “him.” One unified entity possessed all the traits that he had. He won't be “Lucifer” anymore. He would be God as his Presence is still God. Lucifer won't know his experience or any separation.

3. Can be potentially replaced (As seen with the Titan Brothers who became the new faces of God after the Presence left creation, which also ties into how his power does derive from dreams)

This is not true. Lucifer tells the Titans that powers on that scale take time to be cemented. They weren't becoming Yahweh's equal, they were becoming Elohims’ of Creation by doing what Yahweh was placed to do. Yahweh never needed to be God as seen he can make all rules go back since the beginning. When is the reason the Void has the rule “everything” goes back as the Presence placed it there.

Dreams do not affect him. They just afro mention to help give him a face that humans could understand. He transcends everyone by an infinite margin and Void is part of him. He's the absolute point and he could just do anything. All things derived from him, his “aspect” of Yahweh is still Omnipotent but he wants to interact with Creation. Technically, they're all fiction to him and he doesn't need “any” of them including all Creations. Elaine as God could save all the Creations in the Void but Yahweh was the equal to Buddha in his Perfect Enlightenment state in Nirvana where he is the absolute point.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I think that a revision thread to remove the ability from all pages where it has been inappropriately applied seem like a good idea then.

So... uhh... who gonna do it

I don't mind doing it myself