• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ultima_Reality

?????????
VS Battles
Administrator
5,809
14,403
Hi all.

New Pages​

So:

(P.S. Second one is the biggest, leave it for last if needed.)






Besides those: There are a couple that need minor adjustments. This one needs to be renamed to "Set Theory Explanation Page," or something along those lines, since cardinal numbers and the like are not the basis of the higher tiers anymore, so there is no sense in calling it an explanation page for the whole Tiering System at this point. This one, in my opinion, should be deleted. It seems to be an ancient precursor to the page for Reality-Fiction Transcendences, which, evidently, is obsolete now.

In the Higher-Dimensional Existence page, these tidbits should be removed:

  • Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.
  • Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

And in the Acausality page:

Though the character is completely independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond its feats.

While true acausality such that one is completely unbounded by and independent from cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.

The second paragraph is false and should be removed, since tier 0s do, indeed, have unqualified immutability and acausality now. The first one seems to emanate from the same rough rationale as the second, so it ought to be removed as well, or at the very least adjusted: I suggest simply noting, for now, that a qualified immutability is permissible for non-0 characters, whereas unqualified immutability is reserved for omnipotents. Like so:

Note that being utterly and totally immutable is something that, strictly speaking, is only guaranteed for characters with a Tier 0 rating, while lesser characters can only have likewise lesser forms of the ability by their own nature. They may, however, have a particularly potent form of immutability bestowed upon them by a Tier 0.

This should be all, for now. I kept this restricted to the essential explanation pages for the Tiering System. More revisions to other pages will come, shortly after the core of the revisions is applied.

About Tier 11​

So, just for the sake of confirmation here: There will be no Tier 12. While it would be significantly neater, Tier 11 is empty enough as is, and given that much of the characters in it are ones that have a qualitative inferiority to conventional reality, "Upside-down 1-A" will remain a subset of 11-C, for practicality's sake.

Tier 0 Page Formatting​

As it turns out, Tier 0s are kinda weird. Given they don't function at all like characters of any other tier, their labelling will have to be a little different.

At first, I considered just making it so Tier 0 pages have no sections for Lifting Strength, Striking Strength, and so on, but I realized that's no good – What if the profile has non-0 keys, after all? So, I decided on the following instead:

  • Speed, by default, is set at Omnipresent.
  • Striking Strength, Lifting Strength and Stamina are set at Irrelevant
  • Range is set at Boundless

Now, "How much can a Tier 0 lift?" or "How hard can a Tier 0 punch?" are genuinely meaningless questions, since they transcend both lifting and punching, but they can nevertheless create things that lift and punch, as well as cause effects that practically amount to these things. Something like "Inapplicable" wouldn't really be the most appropriate label, in my eyes, since it neglects the fact they don't simply lack the ability to do these things, but are infinitely beyond it, too. So, Irrelevant seems best.

As for how their Powers and Abilities are to be structured, they'll be more or less like this:

Powers and Abilities: Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience (Optional). Specific applications that have been demonstrated are: [Regular list of powers here].

Omniscience is optional because a Tier 0 doesn't have to be an active conscious mind. Regular powers will still be listed because we, of course, are an indexing wiki, and a character being technically able to do anything is no excuse to not index what they're shown doing.

Reorganization of the Tiers​

This is arguably the trickiest part of this thread, but bear with me. Over the course of the Tiering System revisions, I ended up deciding that a reorganization of the tiers will be required. As far as I am concerned, rearranging 1-A to 0 will not be needed, but the lower tiers are another story entirely.

After a bit of thinking, I decided to divide the potential future layouts into the following options (Taking into account suggestions by some). Bear in mind that the options below aren't meant to be restrictive, so if anyone has suggestions of their own, I'm happy to hear them out.

Option 1​


This is the option that has been provisionally referred to throughout the revisions. That is:

Low 1-C to High 1-B = Remains the same.

High 1-B+ = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions. All higher cardinal numbers land here.

Low 1-A = Sum total of all ordinary quantitative structures in mathematics. The Universe of Sets.

Option 2​


Low 1-C = 5-D (Most abundant category. Merits its own specific tier)

1-C = 6-D to 9-D (Rare. Can all be shoved down into levels of a single tier)

High 1-C = 10-D to 11-D

1-B = 12-D to Infinite-D

High 1-B = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions.

High 1-B+ = Spaces corresponding to inaccessible cardinals and up.

Option 3​


Low 1-C = 5-D

1-C = 6-D to 11-D

High 1-C = 12-D to Infinite-D

1-B = Uncountably infinite dimensions. Starts at aleph-1 dimensions, up to any aleph with a finite index.

1-B+ = Very uncountably infinite dimensions. Aleph-omega, so, pretty much where the old 1-A+ is.

High 1-B = Inaccessible cardinals and up. Pretty much where the old High 1-A is.

Option 4​


Low 1-C = 5-D (Most abundant category. Merits its own specific tier)

1-C = 6-D to 9-D (Rare. Can all be shoved down into levels of a single tier)

High 1-C and High 1-B: Stay the same.

High 1-B+ = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions. All higher cardinal numbers land here.

Low 1-A = Sum total of all ordinary quantitative structures in mathematics. The Universe of Sets.



The latter options, by and large, aim to preserve the old Tiering System's broader inclusion of mathematical categories among the ratings. While I am of the mind that this is a good idea, I am honestly not sure of the best way to practically do so, seeing as we only ever had so many characters corresponding to these specific mathematical concepts, power-wise, because we equated them to metaphysical layers. Now that we separated metaphysics from mathematics, representation of the latter seems quite sparse indeed. I very much request more suggestions on this front.

But, regardless, I leave the choice up to you all. I am of the opinion that Option 3 in particular is the least attractive all-in-all, myself. Wouldn't pick it.



And I believe that will be all for now.

 
Last edited:
The revisions are looking good to me; among those options, I'd probably go with option 2. Given the new revisions for 1-A, it does seem good to recognize gaps between that and the High 1-B and below. And I never really have been the biggest fan of 5-D being merged with 6-D given how common the former is compared to the latter, so merging 6-D with the 7-D to 9-D seems like a good idea. The rest option 3 covers, while not against the idea, but it seems to be quite a bit of moving around that doesn't really add much important gain IMO.

And yeah, I agree people like Mr Bambu, LordGriffin, and possibly many others should avoid the pings. Those interested will mainly come on their own volition.
 
Right, just wasn't sure because the only mention of Low 1-A was on option that didn't touch that topic, and though the Beyond-Dimensional Existence draft mentioned it the tiering system draft didn't really when describing Low 1-A.
Yeah, true enough on the last bit. I figured it'd be clear from how it's grouped under the same category as 1-A and High 1-A, but I guess rewriting it to be a bit clearer is good.
 
Based on what I've seen of how people like the twist the wiki's definitions, if you don't make things clear in writing they will try and use every loophole they can get and staff will just accept it because the page doesn't say otherwise. That's kinda how we work these days.
 
I definitely don't like option 3. Currently, I'm leaning towards something akin to option 2, but I don't really like how High 1-C and above are organized in it.
  1. In my opinion, High 1-C should cover 10-D to 26-D because that's the range of dimensions that different types of string theory have used, and a sizeable amount of verses use string theory as a basis for their cosmologies. Lumping in string theory with verses that use more dimensions than any physics model has ever modeled doesn't sit right with me.
  2. Shoving infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces down to 1-B and making High 1-B for an uncountable infinity of dimensions makes no sense to me. Hilbert spaces are relatively common in fiction that deal with higher mathematical dimensions, whereas the only work I've ever seen use an explicitly uncountable infinite number of dimensions is this. I would far more favor keeping 1-B and High 1-B like they are except for moving 1-B's lower bound up and reserving uncountable dimensions and above for High 1-B+.
 
I'm more of a fan of Option 1, as I think that option would be the least likely to be a chore to apply.

Speaking of, who brought up a Tier 12 and why? What is the purpose of that if Tier 11-C covers the lowest dimensonality possible (0-dimensional entities, aka points)?
 
I remember IdiosyncraticLawyer supported the idea of a "Tier 12" during Ultima's first Tiering System revision thread, but Ultima's not proposing that at all here so I'm not sure how relevant it is
 
I definitely don't like option 3. Currently, I'm leaning towards something akin to option 2, but I don't really like how High 1-C and above are organized in it.
  1. In my opinion, High 1-C should cover 10-D to 26-D because that's the range of dimensions that different types of string theory have used, and a sizeable amount of verses use string theory as a basis for their cosmologies. Lumping in string theory with verses that use more dimensions than any physics model has ever modeled doesn't sit right with me.
I agree with this.
  1. Shoving infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces down to 1-B and making High 1-B for an uncountable infinity of dimensions makes no sense to me. Hilbert spaces are relatively common in fiction that deal with higher mathematical dimensions, whereas the only work I've ever seen use an explicitly uncountable infinite number of dimensions is this. I would far more favor keeping 1-B and High 1-B like they are except for moving 1-B's lower bound up and reserving uncountable dimensions and above for High 1-B+.
Well, all structures of Hilbert space are orthonormal which can range from being finite to uncountable infinite-dimensional complete metric spaces. So segregating the countable and uncountable dimensional ratings isn't an extrapolation. However, grouping uncountable cardinalities with inaccessible cardinalities is quite an overstretch; more than the quantitative difference between enumerability and uncountability.
 
This seems good to me. Thanks a lot for your help with improving our wiki. 🙏❤️

I extremely greatly prefer option 1, as it would create by far the least amount of unnecessary work and confusion, and I do not think that it is at all appropriate to mix together 12-dimensional and infinite-dimensional characters into tier 1-B.

Meaning, options 2 and 3 do not seem comparatively good to me at all.

However, will the tiers above the Low 1-A point be sufficient for our purposes? You might have to use some combination of Low 1-A+, 1-A, 1-A+, High 1-A, High 1-A+, and 0, or similar, otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Well, all structures of Hilbert space are orthonormal which can range from being finite to uncountable infinite-dimensional complete metric spaces. So segregating the countable and uncountable dimensional ratings isn't an extrapolation. However, grouping uncountable cardinalities with inaccessible cardinalities is quite an overstretch; more than the quantitative difference between enumerability and uncountability.
Being a stretch in math isn’t the same thing as being unreasonable for how popular something is in fiction. If this is the kind of logic we’re using, surely we should merge everything from Low 1-C to 1-B?
 
I was given permission for @Antvasima to post here
I have quips with this part
In the Higher-Dimensional Existence page, these tidbits should be removed:
  • Simply viewing 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs as fiction does not qualify them as Higher-Dimensional, as they are still portrayed as regular 3-dimensional beings.
  • Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.
The HDE page/abilities is meant for characters with an extra Geometry axis, so like it states things like R>F and ontology does not grant HDE, as they certainly do not have another geometry axis, as stated by the current standards also. So I do not think it should be removed.

Aside that, I agree with option 2
 
The HDE page/abilities is meant for characters with an extra Geometry axis, so like it states things like R>F and ontology does not grant HDE, as they certainly do not have another geometry axis, as stated by the current standards also. So I do not think it should be removed.
The note itself is obsolete because characters with genuine R>F Transcendence just get BDE now. Hence I say we should remove it.

However, will the tiers above the Low 1-A point be sufficient for our purposes? You might have to use some combination of Low 1-A+, 1-A, 1-A+, High 1-A, High 1-A+, and 0, or similar, otherwise.
I'd say so, yeah. Don't think much will need to be changed with Low 1-A and up.
 
Reading through this, I am fine with the near entirety of it. I have some thoughts, however.

Tiering System:

So for 1-A specifically I do believe this is clear in terms of describing positive criteria, but I think it would be helpful to add something that explains very directly that "higher realm that is non-physical" is not remotely sufficient to qualify for this. My first thought upon reading this was "I'm going to see a lot of really shitty threads with random heavenly realms being purported to be "higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole" because they're non-physical.

------------------
Omnipotence:
I think the opener should be reworded so as to not overtly refer to religion.
The most defended position in contemporary philosophy and theology is to say that the causal power entailed by omnipotence does not extend to logical absurdities and contradictions.
This seems kind of a sensational claim. I think the same message would get across by saying something along the lines of "a common position in philosophy and theology is that..."

More broadly, the omnipotence page suffers greatly from a lack of brevity. I generally appreciate thoroughness, but people are going to get lost in this sea of text. There's too much background info on the philosophically history of the concept, and it's not clear why that information is needed to understand the tier or the requirements. It's probably not practical to sort that out on this thread, but if we can agree that some fat-trimming is necessary perhaps we can work on it in a different venue.

I also think it employs too much philosophical jargon. Sometimes jargon is unavoidable, but usually it can be converted to plain language and it ought to be where possible. Keeping in mind that this type of language is tough even for native speakers of English, and we have many on the forum who speak it as a second language (which, I'm aware includes you, but as you've said your control of the language is exceptional and you have spent a great deal more time than most engaging with philosophy and theology.) For instance:

Bluntly speaking, there cannot be a numerical multiplicity of Tier 0 beings.
This is just a small microcosm that I'm using to demonstrate the point, but we could simply say "there can't be multiple Tier 0 beings." I think similar such changes could add clarity (and brevity) throughout.

Similarly, this is something that could be worked on separately from this thread.

---------------------
FAQ:
The FAQ changes seem more or less uncontroversial.

---------------------
BDE:
The BDE page seems fine.

---------------------
R>F:
The R>F page seems good.


A lot of this will depend on how things play out on the forum. Phrasings that seem clear at first glance might later present an issue if it's being regularly misunderstood and misapplied in which case we can revisit certain things later to clarify, but I don't think there's significant issues with most of the drafts as written.
 
Tiering System:
So for 1-A specifically I do believe this is clear in terms of describing positive criteria, but I think it would be helpful to add something that explains very directly that "higher realm that is non-physical" is not remotely sufficient to qualify for this. My first thought upon reading this was "I'm going to see a lot of really shitty threads with random heavenly realms being purported to be "higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole" because they're non-physical.
Sounds good. The FAQ page effectively already says this, so, we can probably add a footnote saying:

It is important to note that a non-physical realm being described as somehow "higher" than a physical world is not sufficient reasoning for this. See [TIERING SYSTEM FAQ LINK HERE] and [BDE PAGE LINK] for more information. And neither is a character being referred to as a "higher existence," as that can be used in far more mundane contexts as well. (e.g. Humans can accurately be called "higher existences" than frogs)

I think the opener should be reworded so as to not overtly refer to religion.
Don't mind that.

This seems kind of a sensational claim. I think the same message would get across by saying something along the lines of "a common position in philosophy and theology is that..."
Don't mind that, either. I suppose I was unconsciously speaking from experience when writing that, but then again stuff like this is not exactly verifiable.

More broadly, the omnipotence page suffers greatly from a lack of brevity. I generally appreciate thoroughness, but people are going to get lost in this sea of text. There's too much background info on the philosophically history of the concept, and it's not clear why that information is needed to understand the tier or the requirements.
Mostly, the page is written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the concept whatsoever. For that reason, I'd say the heft of the page in that regard is not negotiable, unfortunately. I don't mind doing some trimming in other parts of it, though, yeah.

I also think it employs too much philosophical jargon. Sometimes jargon is unavoidable, but usually it can be converted to plain language and it ought to be where possible. Keeping in mind that this type of language is tough even for native speakers of English, and we have many on the forum who speak it as a second language (which, I'm aware includes you, but as you've said your control of the language is exceptional and you have spent a great deal more time than most engaging with philosophy and theology.) For instance:
I suppose my perception might be a bit warped in that regard. I don't mind trimming off excessive jargon if needed.
 
Being a stretch in math isn’t the same thing as being unreasonable for how popular something is in fiction. If this is the kind of logic we’re using, surely we should merge everything from Low 1-C to 1-B?
I never recall we'd strictly categorise our tiers according to popularity in fiction unless it's really necessary. And no, the dimensional tiering should be respectively categorised according to the string theory for 10-D to 26-D. Iirc there has been scientific context towards why 5-D to 9-D have their own tiers; aside from 5-D merged with 6-D as a single tier for Low 1-C which was the only occurrence I could think of that involves popularity.
 
Last edited:
Mostly, the page is written with the assumption that the reader has no prior knowledge of the concept whatsoever. For that reason, I'd say the heft of the page in that regard is not negotiable, unfortunately. I don't mind doing some trimming in other parts of it, though, yeah.
Alright, so, I trimmed as much as I could without losing the essence of it. Here.

As an aside: I also edited-in this into the Tiering System page draft. Adding in that little detail about Low 1-A and clarifying something about High 1-B+ after Lawyer made a comment about it up there. Nevertheless, though, I suppose that at this point I'll pitch-in myself: I'd rather go for Option 1, all-in-all.

And to nip something in the bud: Here's an extra I added into the FAQ.
 
I believe that's a good improvement, and I appreciate the clarifications.

I think it's fine to move forward with those as written. Often times problems with standards exist by virtue of the way they are misunderstood rather than how they are understood, so we'll see how things play out with revisions and if certain phrases or elements are being routinely misused we may need to revisit and say "Okay, we meant X, but there's enough wiggle room for Y that it's causing issues so let's close that up or reword it." But for now I'm content with how it is written.
 
I never recall we'd strictly categorise our tiers according to popularity in fiction unless it's really necessary. And no, the dimensional tiering should be respectively categorised according to the string theory for 10-D to 26-D. Iirc there has been scientific context towards why 5-D to 9-D have their own tiers; aside from 5-D merged with 6-D as a single tier for Low 1-C which was the only occurrence I could think of that involves popularity.
It isn't a sensible divide because it would end up with infinite-dimensional beings lumped together with finite-dimensional ones and leave the higher tiers nearly devoid of characters, which isn't conducive to people being able to get a general idea of which power levels correspond to which tier at all.
 
i was given permission from @Antvasima to ask abt the new tiering so:
as of now to qualify for low 2-C youd have to destroy a timeline thats the size of at least 3-A (our observable universe)
but in the recent crts i saw that in the new tiering system you may achieve low 2-C by destroying timelines with the size less than the stanrdard 3-A
example is here so i want to know if this will ever pass or no
 
i was given permission from @Antvasima to ask abt the new tiering so:
as of now to qualify for low 2-C youd have to destroy a timeline thats the size of at least 3-A (our observable universe)
but in the recent crts i saw that in the new tiering system you may achieve low 2-C by destroying timelines with the size less than the stanrdard 3-A
example is here so i want to know if this will ever pass or no
Tier 2 isn't really immediately affected by these revisions. If I ever plan to tweak it a bit (Which I probably will), it'll come later.
 
I would greatly appreciate if other staff members are willing to consider accepting option 1 please, as it would cause much less drastic changes in the areas where they are not actually necessary. 🙏
Okay, I'm fine with option 1 for now. While I want to overhaul the other tiers at some point, it's not strictly necessary at the moment.
 
Hm.

@Antvasima

To clarify: How will votes work here? Technically, this is part of a site-wide revision, but it's also really just a ceremonial application of things that are already agreed upon (Save the discussion on tier reorganization). Given that, are we counting only admin votes and up, or can it also extend to other staff members now?
 
I agree with option 2.
I definitely don't like option 3. Currently, I'm leaning towards something akin to option 2, but I don't really like how High 1-C and above are organized in it.
  1. In my opinion, High 1-C should cover 10-D to 26-D because that's the range of dimensions that different types of string theory have used, and a sizeable amount of verses use string theory as a basis for their cosmologies. Lumping in string theory with verses that use more dimensions than any physics model has ever modeled doesn't sit right with me.
  2. Shoving infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces down to 1-B and making High 1-B for an uncountable infinity of dimensions makes no sense to me. Hilbert spaces are relatively common in fiction that deal with higher mathematical dimensions, whereas the only work I've ever seen use an explicitly uncountable infinite number of dimensions is this. I would far more favor keeping 1-B and High 1-B like they are except for moving 1-B's lower bound up and reserving uncountable dimensions and above for High 1-B+.
I agree with this as well.
 
I know my vote doesn’t matter here, but I prefer Option 2 with Lawyer’s suggestions here.
I definitely don't like option 3. Currently, I'm leaning towards something akin to option 2, but I don't really like how High 1-C and above are organized in it.
  1. In my opinion, High 1-C should cover 10-D to 26-D because that's the range of dimensions that different types of string theory have used, and a sizeable amount of verses use string theory as a basis for their cosmologies. Lumping in string theory with verses that use more dimensions than any physics model has ever modeled doesn't sit right with me.
  2. Shoving infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces down to 1-B and making High 1-B for an uncountable infinity of dimensions makes no sense to me. Hilbert spaces are relatively common in fiction that deal with higher mathematical dimensions, whereas the only work I've ever seen use an explicitly uncountable infinite number of dimensions is this. I would far more favor keeping 1-B and High 1-B like they are except for moving 1-B's lower bound up and reserving uncountable dimensions and above for High 1-B+.
 
I would greatly appreciate if other staff members are willing to consider accepting option 1 please, as it would cause much less drastic changes in the areas where they are not actually necessary. 🙏
Option 1 is completely fine.

Though, I’ll like to know whether the Universe of Sets (sum of all ordinary quantitive sets) correlates to Inaccessible cardinals; if it doesn’t, I’d like to know where’d we place inaccessible cardinal ratings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top