The Dread Tiering System Revisions

[Agnaa]

Where would semantics changes like accepted 6-D characters (for reasons that aren't R>F, transcending dimensions, etc.) becoming 1-C instead of Low 1-C fall under? Would those just be simple edits without need for evaluation?

I'd like to say "yes", but there is the risk that people fail to realise that R>F/BDE stuff does actually affect them. It might be safer to at least have them brought up briefly in Ultima's ensuing thread, to get a sanity-check on whether a deeper dive is necessary.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, I mainly meant for other cases. Stuff involving your average higher dimensions, hypertimelines, etc. I don't mind either way, I just wanted to be sure

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So when are we commencing with these changes?

 

[Agnaa]

So when are we commencing with these changes?

Refer to the message I sent immediately after the last time you asked this, just yesterday:

I'd still like to have time to go through all the huge instruction pages he's written up.

Especially since, as far as I can tell, only two people so far (Everything12, Deagonx) have actually read those massive, vitally-important pages. I don't think we'd typically accept significant rewording changes to 7 different pages based on two evaluations (only one of which technically has voting rights on this sort of thing).

But if y'all don't wanna wait for me, I can't stop you.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

For my part: I already said that I don't have an issue with waiting. It's not like we're in any sort of rush to apply this. You can take the time you need, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

For my part: I already said that I don't have an issue with waiting. It's not like we're in any sort of rush to apply this. You can take the time you need, as far as I'm concerned.

Could you modify Low 1-C and 1-C in your sandbox to match option 4, given how we've unanimously voted for that?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Could you modify Low 1-C and 1-C in your sandbox to match option 4, given how we've unanimously voted for that?

k

 

[Agnaa]

I reckon I may as well post updates as I go through these. Only covering one page since that's all I have the time for right now.

Tiering System Changes​

1. Low 2-C now has this in its definition, "That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that, at the very least, dwarf an infinite amount of mass-energy." Given recent events, I'm concerned that people could interpret this as establishing Low 2-C for a collection of infinite 3-D universes, even if they're not established as separate spacetimes/causally isolated, by arguing that a collection of spaces must be higher-dimensional. Any thoughts on this?
2. Tier 1's general description was changed to "Characters whose degree of power extends to dimensional levels beyond the above." I kinda see why this was done, since the previous description mentioned these all being qualitative differences, or levels of infinity, but this description still says that the tier's completely comprised of dimensional levels, which is something these revisions have rejected. How about changing it entirely to something like "Characters whose degree of power extends to cosmological constructs beyond those above."?
3. The tiers from Low 1-C to 1-B had their definitions changed from referencing levels of infinity and real co-ordinate spaces, to referencing dimensional levels and N-D objects. I think this is a bad change, since it makes it sound like we're reverting to the old tiering system, where we allowed any invocation of higher dimensions, no matter how small the actual objects were and regardless of any evidence for superiorities. I'm not entirely sure why this was done, since levels of infinity and real co-ordinate spaces weren't really the target of these revisions.
4. High 1-B, 1-A, and High 1-A now describe modifiers being placed in these sorts of ways 'should have a "+" (High 1-B+) modifier next to their tier'. I think this is a misleading way to phrase it, since it makes it seem like the + should go in the tier section, while in truth it's the exact opposite. I think it should be phrased similarly to how it used to be, i.e. 'have a + modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+)'. Note that I don't take issue with terms like "High 1-B+" being used as shorthand elsewhere in the page.
5. I find it strange that the High 1-B+ description seems to go against a standard established in our old Low 1-A section; that being, series which have a "top" to a countably infinite series of dimensions should not have that layer, or any layers beyond the infinity-th, treated as uncountably infinite. I think this should either be changed to no longer imply that, or a discussion should be had on the merits of this change.
6. The new definition for 1-A includes "And should a character or object scale to infinitely many of such levels". I think such battleboarding jargon should be avoided in our explanation pages when possible, so I'd suggest rewording to "And should a character or object effect something equivalent to infinitely many of such levels".
7. I think the second paragraph of High 1-A's definition goes into the meta stuff more than it needs to. I think it should be trimmed down to just 'Similarly to 1-A, this tier can be generalized to higher levels of existence. Just as 1-A encompasses qualitative hierarchies, so too can there be meta-qualitative hierarchies. In addition, there can also be "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities, and so forth, endlessly.'
8. Similarly, I think the third paragraph should cut its meta chain off at two meta's.
9. I think Type IV multiverses is a bad thing to bring up for High 1-A, due to its mathematical grounding which would disqualify it.

Tiering System Wording Improvements​

These don't have anything to do with Ultima's changes, and are notable enough that I think I should run them past other people first.

1. I think 2-C should be changed from "small multiverses which can be comprised of several separate space-time continuums ranging anywhere from two to a thousand, or equivalents" to "small multiverses, comprised of two to a thousand separate space-time continuums, or an equivalent", and that 2-B should be changed from "larger multiverses which comprise from 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums" to "larger multiverses, comprised of 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums".
2. I think it's kinda weird that we break with the rest of the formatting of the Tiering System page by having the "1-A: Transcendent" section. This isn't a section for the tier 1-A, it's a section for the collection of Low 1-A, 1-A, and High 1-A. No other specific letter subset has a section like this, and I think it could be a smidge misleading; almost reading as an alternate name and description for that tier. I'd suggest deleting it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Low 2-C now has this in its definition, "That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that, at the very least, dwarf an infinite amount of mass-energy." Given recent events, I'm concerned that people could interpret this as establishing Low 2-C for a collection of infinite 3-D universes, even if they're not established as separate spacetimes/causally isolated, by arguing that a collection of spaces must be higher-dimensional. Any thoughts on this?

Might be fine. See below for the reason I put that in.

Tier 1's general description was changed to "Characters whose degree of power extends to dimensional levels beyond the above." I kinda see why this was done, since the previous description mentioned these all being qualitative differences, or levels of infinity, but this description still says that the tier's completely comprised of dimensional levels, which is something these revisions have rejected. How about changing it entirely to something like "Characters whose degree of power extends to cosmological constructs beyond those above."?

True.

The tiers from Low 1-C to 1-B had their definitions changed from referencing levels of infinity and real co-ordinate spaces, to referencing dimensional levels and N-D objects. I think this is a bad change, since it makes it sound like we're reverting to the old tiering system, where we allowed any invocation of higher dimensions, no matter how small the actual objects were and regardless of any evidence for superiorities. I'm not entirely sure why this was done, since levels of infinity and real co-ordinate spaces weren't really the target of these revisions.

"Levels of infinity" would give off the impression that the new Tiering System still works off on some ill-defined notion that can be equated both to dimensional levels and to metaphysical differences, as we did before. I don't mind changing it to something like "Higher-dimensional spaces that are infinitely superior," or somesuch. In fact, that's why I specified "Higher-dimensional objects that dwarf infinite mass-energy" prior to that in the page.

High 1-B, 1-A, and High 1-A now describe modifiers being placed in these sorts of ways 'should have a "+" (High 1-B+) modifier next to their tier'. I think this is a misleading way to phrase it, since it makes it seem like the + should go in the tier section, while in truth it's the exact opposite. I think it should be phrased similarly to how it used to be, i.e. 'have a + modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+)'. Note that I don't take issue with terms like "High 1-B+" being used as shorthand elsewhere in the page.

True.

I find it strange that the High 1-B+ description seems to go against a standard established in our old Low 1-A section; that being, series which have a "top" to a countably infinite series of dimensions should not have that layer, or any layers beyond the infinity-th, treated as uncountably infinite. I think this should either be changed to no longer imply that, or a discussion should be had on the merits of this change.

There actually sort of was a discussion on this, a bit ago, where it was pointed out that the space of all sequences has uncountably infinite dimensions, whereas the space of all finite sequences is what's countably infinite-dimensional. For some reason, the implications this had to the old Low 1-A seem to have never been written down in the Tiering System page proper.

The new definition for 1-A includes "And should a character or object scale to infinitely many of such levels". I think such battleboarding jargon should be avoided in our explanation pages when possible, so I'd suggest rewording to "And should a character or object effect something equivalent to infinitely many of such levels".

Don't mind it.

1. I think the second paragraph of High 1-A's definition goes into the meta stuff more than it needs to. I think it should be trimmed down to just 'Similarly to 1-A, this tier can be generalized to higher levels of existence. Just as 1-A encompasses qualitative hierarchies, so too can there be meta-qualitative hierarchies. In addition, there can also be "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities, and so forth, endlessly.'
2. Similarly, I think the third paragraph should cut its meta chain off at two meta's.

Fine with this.

I think Type IV multiverses is a bad thing to bring up for High 1-A, due to its mathematical grounding which would disqualify it.

Yeah, I can see how it can be misleading. My line of thinking is that a verse might acknowledge "mathematics" as also encompassing broader stuff, like the laws of logic and such (Manifold, to my knowledge, is a verse that does this), hence I mentioned "the highest form" of the concept, to cover all bases.

I think 2-C should be changed from "small multiverses which can be comprised of several separate space-time continuums ranging anywhere from two to a thousand, or equivalents" to "small multiverses, comprised of two to a thousand separate space-time continuums, or an equivalent", and that 2-B should be changed from "larger multiverses which comprise from 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums" to "larger multiverses, comprised of 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums".

Fine with this.

I think it's kinda weird that we break with the rest of the formatting of the Tiering System page by having the "1-A: Transcendent" section. This isn't a section for the tier 1-A, it's a section for the collection of Low 1-A, 1-A, and High 1-A. No other specific letter subset has a section like this, and I think it could be a smidge misleading; almost reading as an alternate name and description for that tier. I'd suggest deleting it.

I do think it's important to emphasize that 1-A and its sub-tiers are in another category entirely from the rest of Tier 1, but you're right that it might be a little misleading.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Low 2-C now has this in its definition, "That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that, at the very least, dwarf an infinite amount of mass-energy." Given recent events, I'm concerned that people could interpret this as establishing Low 2-C for a collection of infinite 3-D universes, even if they're not established as separate spacetimes/causally isolated, by arguing that a collection of spaces must be higher-dimensional. Any thoughts on this?

I believe "Uncountable Infinite snapshots" was the main highlighted for the new baseline for Low 2-C. The old reason was that having at least Observable Universe amounts of space combined with having a temporal dimension. But temporal dimensions would contain infinite snapshots by default for the same reason all lines contain infinite points by default. And thus, the "3-A sized body of space" becomes unnecessary if it's basically stacked infinite number of times regardless of universe sized or planet sized. Though I may be misunderstanding the proposal.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I believe "Uncountable Infinite snapshots" was the main highlighted for the new baseline for Low 2-C. The old reason was that having at least Observable Universe amounts of space combined with having a temporal dimension. But temporal dimensions would contain infinite snapshots by default for the same reason all lines contain infinite points by default. And thus, the "3-A sized body of space" becomes unnecessary if it's basically stacked infinite number of times regardless of universe sized or planet sized. Though I may be misunderstanding the proposal.

Tier 2 wasn't in the aim of the revisions, so our weird present standards for Low 2-C remain unchanged for now.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Tier 2 wasn't in the aim of the revisions, so our weird present standards for Low 2-C remain unchanged for now.

Fair, I merely brought it up since I just saw Agnaa's post. Wasn't my intention to discuss it on this thread specifically.

 

[Antvasima]

Big thanks to Agnaa and Ultima for helping out here. I am glad that you both seem to mostly agree about the suggested modifications.

 

[GrathOfLux]

Ultima Reality/thing

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ultima Reality/thingy

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ultima Reality/i h

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ultima Reality/e kh

vsbattles.fandom.com

Ultima Reality/m

vsbattles.fandom.com

I've given each of these a read. I've already talked with Ultima off-site about my obnoxious grammar fixations and the errors I picked up on, but otherwise, the pages themselves are of good quality in their current state. I do agree with most of the points made by Agnaa above about the Tiering System page, but a lot of that comes down to issues with particular word choices and how they may be interpreted/misinterpreted. I'm not really picky about how the individual passages are phrased as long as the intention behind them is clear and concise, and I believe what has already been discussed by Agnaa and Ultima is sufficient in this regard.

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.

The introduction of the Tiering System Explanation Page will also have to be edited, since it claims that it is an explanation for the Low 1-A and higher tiers. That should be a fairly easy and uncontroversial edit if the renaming is agreeable, though, which I'm fine with. I also have no issue with deleting the Composite Hierarchies page.

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

That's fine.

And in the Acausality page:

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:

I've no issue with removing both paragraphs and replacing it with the text you've suggested.

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:

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.

No real troubles with all of this. Personally, I would have advocated for all forms of qualitative inferiority to be sorted into a Low 11-C tier, to distinguish that such beings would be qualitatively inferior to even an 11-C being and thus not on the same level. Either way, the 0 tier page formatting looks good.

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.

---

Of the available configurations, I like Option 4 the most. I wouldn't mind Option 1 either, if only to alleviate the edits for 6-D characters, but I wouldn't advocate for Option 2 or 3. Neither seem very practical at face-value.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Ultima Reality/e kh

vsbattles.fandom.com

I have some minor questions:

1) As mentioned before, by a certain "excess of size," in which an object (Or collection of objects) is simply too large to be a dimensional space in the conventional sense. For instance, the Universe of Sets, which contains all mathematical set-structures, and therefore all spaces in which dimensions are defined, being larger than all such spaces. Characters of this nature are Low 1-A.

Type 11 (Inaccessible): Characters whose size cannot be reached by progressively "stacking" infinities on top of each other.

Will BDE Type - 2 get Large Size Type 11(or equivalent) by default?
Will it also be immune to Dimensional Manipulation by default?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ultima Reality/e kh

vsbattles.fandom.com

I have some minor questions:


Will BDE Type - 2 get Large Size Type 11(or equivalent) by default?
Will it also be immune to Dimensional Manipulation by default?

1. Yeah, though I'll probably expand those types a bit, later.

2. Yeah, insofar as the character is greater than any single dimensional space. Most applications of the ability (e.g. Reducing dimensionality) probably don't make sense when applied to characters like that, either.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Are we sure that we won't need explanations regarding composite hierarchies and the corresponding equivalence formulations in the Tiering System?
I imagine that not necessarily all infinity level jumps are literal jumps in dimensionality or qualify as qualitative superiority in the new tiering related sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Are we sure that we won't need explanations regarding composite hierarchies and the corresponding equivalence formulations in the Tiering System?
I imagine that not necessarily all infinity level jumps are literal jumps in dimensionality or qualify as qualitative superiority in the new tiering related sense.

This seems like a good point.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Are we sure that we won't need explanations regarding composite hierarchies and the corresponding equivalence formulations in the Tiering System?
I imagine that not necessarily all infinity level jumps are literal jumps in dimensionality or qualify as qualitative superiority in the new tiering related sense.

The page itself seems to exclusively refer to the "metaphysically superior" kind of cosmological layer when it talks about hierarchies. With physical and metaphysical differences being separated, you'd have to do a complete rewrite of the page for it to fit in.

I don't know how worth it that is, though. I think the only examples of valid "Different, but equivalent" superiorities is stuff that also constitutes a physical difference and which also terminates in a dimensional jump, at the end of the day, so, like how an uncountably infinite number of 4-D universes isn't quite a 5-D object, but it's enough universes to fill up a 5-D volume, regardless. Maybe another example would be "This universe and its spacetime are contained inside an atom of a higher universe"-type cosmologies.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The page itself seems to exclusively refer to the "metaphysically superior" kind of cosmological layer when it talks about hierarchies. With physical and metaphysical differences being separated, you'd have to do a complete rewrite of the page for it to fit in.

It's meant more general, it just uses the primary examples of the time, but sure, it would need a rewrite.

I don't know how worth it that is, though. I think the only examples of valid "Different, but equivalent" superiorities is stuff that also constitutes a physical difference and which also terminates in a dimensional jump, at the end of the day, so, like how an uncountably infinite number of 4-D universes isn't quite a 5-D object, but it's enough universes to fill up a 5-D volume, regardless. Maybe another example would be "This universe and its spacetime are contained inside an atom of a higher universe"-type cosmologies.

Yeah, something like the latter. That's in no way how dimensions work, so you can't really say the characters would have a tier for affect x-dimensional space in actuality, but it wouldn't be qualitative either.
Contradicted qualitative superiorities, where the fiction takes what ordinarily would be one but explains it in a fashion that indicates that they think of it as a size rather than as quality difference, would be another example.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It's meant more general, it just uses the primary examples of the time, but sure, it would need a rewrite.

Yeah, something like the latter. That's in no way how dimensions work, so you can't really say the characters would have a tier for affect x-dimensional space in actuality, but it wouldn't be qualitative either.
Contradicted qualitative superiorities, where the fiction takes what ordinarily would be one but explains it in a fashion that indicates that they think of it as a size rather than as quality difference, would be another example.

Yeah, I can see a use for the page, then. I'm not opposed to a rewritten version of it on that basis. Though I'd define the latter case-scenarios a bit more precisely; for example, a verse emphatically stating a void is aspatial, atemporal, etc, but also depicting it through spatial imagery (e.g. Depicting the universe as a tiny object amidst a massive backdrop) wouldn't really be a contradiction, by my lights, so much as a consequence of non-dimensional stuff being by nature impossible to visually depict. But I'm not sure cases like these are what you've in mind.

I'd also qualify the "That's not at all how dimensions work" bit, slightly. Obviously you're correct as a whole, but, say: In The Dark Tower, it's stated that the entirety of a universe's spacetime, from past to future, exists inside a single moment of a higher universe's time-flow, so much so that when you burn a twig you're "incinerating an eternity of eternities." In that case there's a pretty clear link you can make between this and the general idea of higher time dimensions as we take it on the wiki, since that one atom-universe would then have uncountably infinite time-states in the higher timeline, too. So it's not quite higher time dimensions in the normal sense, but it's so close that it isn't very distinguishable practically speaking.

 

[Agnaa]

True.

Don't mind it.

Fine with this.

I'll edit your draft accordingly.

Might be fine. See below for the reason I put that in.

"Levels of infinity" would give off the impression that the new Tiering System still works off on some ill-defined notion that can be equated both to dimensional levels and to metaphysical differences, as we did before. I don't mind changing it to something like "Higher-dimensional spaces that are infinitely superior," or somesuch. In fact, that's why I specified "Higher-dimensional objects that dwarf infinite mass-energy" prior to that in the page.

I don't think "levels of infinity" implies that in context, but I also don't think it's the best wording.

As discussed off-site, I think "Higher-dimensional spaces that are uncountably infinitely superior" is a solid place to land at. Still, I won't apply this yet.

There actually sort of was a discussion on this, a bit ago, where it was pointed out that the space of all sequences has uncountably infinite dimensions, whereas the space of all finite sequences is what's countably infinite-dimensional. For some reason, the implications this had to the old Low 1-A seem to have never been written down in the Tiering System page proper.

This smells like use of a noncentral example. Most fictional series would just say "there are infinitely many dimensions", not "this space contains every sequence of finitely many dimensions" or "this space contains every sequence of dimensions, including every arrangement of spaces with infinitely many dimensions". We shouldn't be writing our general rules about additional layers to infinite hierarchies based on these extremely niche situations.

Yeah, I can see how it can be misleading. My line of thinking is that a verse might acknowledge "mathematics" as also encompassing broader stuff, like the laws of logic and such (Manifold, to my knowledge, is a verse that does this), hence I mentioned "the highest form" of the concept, to cover all bases.

Does this actually avoid the issue of composition from lower units? I think it'd just be a contradiction.

I do think it's important to emphasize that 1-A and its sub-tiers are in another category entirely from the rest of Tier 1, but you're right that it might be a little misleading.

Not gonna change this part until I hear more definitive thoughts on it.

I'll seize this opportunity to comment on some of the other drafts.

Tiering System FAQ Changes​

In the third paragraph under the question "How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?", an invocation of "qualitative superiorty" was changed to "dimensional level". I think places like these would better be served by weaving in terminology like "quantitative superiority". Since as the previous question said, dimensions themselves don't mean much, and any proper elaboration would be kinda weird (i.e. "qualifying dimension superiority").

I noticed that in cutting some sections, we lost some information that may still be important. To give some specific tl;drs, "transcending a 1-A to the degree they transcend a normal human is just another step within 1-A, not a jump to High 1-A" and "predating the concepts of space and time isn't 1-A".

Tiering System FAQ Wording Improvements​

Since there's a lotta grammar/spelling fixes, I'm just gonna put them in a list without much explanation.

1. "dimensions impact on tiering" > "dimensions impact tiering"
2. Make paragraph breaks consistent.
3. "in which timelines as a whole being changed" > "in which timelines as a whole are changed"
4. "uncountably infinite points" > "uncountably infinitely many points"
5. "uncountably infinite many" > "uncountably infinitely many"
6. "one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying" > "one would want a statement indicating that the alteration of timelines is subject to its own flow of time, or that"
7. "past with less timelines" > "past with fewer timelines"
8. "by an one-dimensional" > "by a one-dimensional"
9. "compare those informations to another fiction" > "compare that information to another piece of fiction"
10. "won't scale above a" > "won't be above a"
11. "due to these structures actually have the same" > "due to these structures actually having the same"
12. "achieve above the baseline 2-A" > "achieve greater than baseline 2-A"
13. "being bigger in size than" > "being larger than"
14. "understood as accurate representation" > "understood as an accurate representation"
15. "countably infinite dimensions" > "countably infinitely many dimensions"
16. "per default universes" > "by default, universes"
17. "happened. Other way around," > "happened. And for the other way around,"
18. "the purpose of Tiering their" > "the purpose of tiering their"
19. "timelines, per default, are" > "timelines, by default, are"

I think it's weird how we don't mention that infinite-dimensional beings should have infinite speed, under the FAQ section about higher-dimensional entities (not) getting immeasurable speed.

I think it's weird how the question on affecting multiple infinite multiverses only mentions that range can actually be treated as above-baseline for those feats if it's established that way canonically, while I believe our standards let us apply that to both AP and range, if the piece of fiction spells it out like that.

Dorammu might be a weird example, since it ends up saying "yet never actually displays any superiority over it, and is in fact vulnerable to time-based abilities due to his timeless nature" which is kind of a weird thing to say; why would being timeless make someone vulnerable to time-based abilities that they'd otherwise be immune to? Maybe that isn't actually how the character works, and it's instead meant to say something like "...vulnerable to time-base abilities despite his timeless nature".

Beyond-Dimensional Existence Changes​

The Phantom Zone seems like a laughably bad example with the picture given. Both by including things unrelated to lacking dimensions (lacking sensations, lacking hope, yet somehow still having thought), and by indicating the presence and relevance of dimensions (describing them as hovering in mist, having the time of dimensioned beings be relevant in them needing to find and seize on the opportunity of Jor-El being ill, seemingly still adhering to time themselves by viewing the time of their freedom as coming soon).

Why would you say that conceptual realms and voids of nothingness are verifiably ontologically greater in nature? I can kinda see where you'd get the former, since "conceptual realms" are often the underlying basis for physical reality and stand above it in that way, but that isn't always the case. And I have absolutely no clue why you'd view voids of nothingness as being ontologically greater; I'd think they'd more often be ontologically equal, or lesser, due to lacking that which the physical world has. A character that gets their existence erased isn't ascended, they're reduced. Typically speaking.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

As discussed off-site, I think "Higher-dimensional spaces that are uncountably infinitely superior" is a solid place to land at.

True.

This smells like use of a noncentral example. Most fictional series would just say "there are infinitely many dimensions", not "this space contains every sequence of finitely many dimensions" or "this space contains every sequence of dimensions, including every arrangement of spaces with infinitely many dimensions". We shouldn't be writing our general rules about additional layers to infinite hierarchies based on these extremely niche situations.

That's a pretty incoherent point. The hypothetical being rare doesn't mean it's not worth to note it down somewhere. Seeing as you're not even contesting the validity of it being a valid example of High 1-B+, I see no reason to remove it.

Does this actually avoid the issue of composition from lower units? I think it'd just be a contradiction.

I'd say so? Since then the verse would shift the scope of "Mathematics" away from the ordinary quantitative structures we think of to "Anything that doesn't break the scope of logic."

In the third paragraph under the question "How do temporal dimensions impact on tiering?", an invocation of "qualitative superiorty" was changed to "dimensional level". I think places like these would better be served by weaving in terminology like "quantitative superiority". Since as the previous question said, dimensions themselves don't mean much, and any proper elaboration would be kinda weird (i.e. "qualifying dimension superiority").

The difference from 9-B to 5-B is a quantitative superiority, too, so that's a pretty bad suggestion. I'd rather just call it "uncountably infinite level" or somesuch, in line my previous suggestion.

I noticed that in cutting some sections, we lost some information that may still be important. To give some specific tl;drs, "transcending a 1-A to the degree they transcend a normal human is just another step within 1-A, not a jump to High 1-A" and "predating the concepts of space and time isn't 1-A".

True.

Tiering System FAQ Wording Improvements

[YAP]

I don't particularly care. As I told Grath before, this is stuff that was already in the FAQ instead of being added in with these revisions.

The Phantom Zone seems like a laughably bad example with the picture given. Both by including things unrelated to lacking dimensions (lacking sensations, lacking hope, yet somehow still having thought), and by indicating the presence and relevance of dimensions (describing them as hovering in mist, having the time of dimensioned beings be relevant in them needing to find and seize on the opportunity of Jor-El being ill, seemingly still adhering to time themselves by viewing the time of their freedom as coming soon).

First objection is terrible ("It talks about it lacking things unrelated to dimensions" doesn't make it a bad example. Thought being non-dimensional is not anything extraordinary, also). Second objection has a valid nucleus to it but in practice is part of a mentality that might lead to more harm than good (Downgrading every verse that describes 1-A realms in spatio-temporal terms is very ridiculous). Third is probably the most interesting of the bunch, since it is an example of the time-scale of a dimensioned realm being treated as directly relevant to events taking place in the undimensioned reality, so it might be wack on that basis indeed. Change existing in a non-dimensional place at all is nothing damning, though.

Why would you say that conceptual realms and voids of nothingness are verifiably ontologically greater in nature? I can kinda see where you'd get the former, since "conceptual realms" are often the underlying basis for physical reality and stand above it in that way, but that isn't always the case. And I have absolutely no clue why you'd view voids of nothingness as being ontologically greater; I'd think they'd more often be ontologically equal, or lesser, due to lacking that which the physical world has. A character that gets their existence erased isn't ascended, they're reduced. Typically speaking.

Not inherently ontologically greater, no. The point is moreso that these things are non-composite, so the 'superiority' they'd hold over normal reality (If they are superior, to begin with) would be an ontological one by nature. Unless the verse featuring them means superiority in other respects than the ones relevant to us.

 

[Agnaa]

That's a pretty incoherent point. The hypothetical being rare doesn't mean it's not worth to note it down somewhere. Seeing as you're not even contesting the validity of it being a valid example of High 1-B+, I see no reason to remove it.

It is highly relevant!!!!

• Why do you now say that the top layer to an infinitely large hierarchy is uncountably infinite? Our old page explicitly rejected that.
• Well actually, if the hierarchy involves all possible permutations of an infinitely large hierarchy, it'd be uncountably infinite.
• Okay? But that seems like a non-central example.
• We should still note it down!

The important thing is the confusion it creates by using a non-central example, implying that more common examples would function the same way. You NEED to caveat this sort of thing.

The cause should not be written as "adding a layer to an infinite hierarchy", it should be written as "adding a layer to a hierarchy that already includes all possible permutations of a countably infinite hierarchy". Or smth like that.

I'd say so? Since then the verse would shift the scope of "Mathematics" away from the ordinary quantitative structures we think of to "Anything that doesn't break the scope of logic."

I wouldn't really think so, but it's kinda hard to say without actual text from concrete examples being shown.

The difference from 9-B to 5-B is a quantitative superiority, too, so that's a pretty bad suggestion. I'd rather just call it "uncountably infinite level" or somesuch, in line my previous suggestion.

Meh sure.

First objection is terrible ("It talks about it lacking things unrelated to dimensions" doesn't make it a bad example.

It kinda does, actually. If your example for Power Mimicry was a comic book scan, which devoted most of its time to describing Power Nullification and/or Power Absorption, with a single line for Mimicry, that could mislead people, and it'd be better to get one without that added weirdness.

Second objection has a valid nucleus to it but in practice is part of a mentality that might lead to more harm than good (Downgrading every verse that describes 1-A realms in spatio-temporal terms is very ridiculous). Third is probably the most interesting of the bunch, since it is an example of the time-scale of a dimensioned realm being treated as directly relevant to events taking place in the undimensioned reality, so it might be wack on that basis indeed.

Ye, the mist part was moreso supporting evidence, imo.

Not inherently ontologically greater, no. The point is moreso that these things are non-composite, so the 'superiority' they'd hold over normal reality (If they are superior, to begin with) would be an ontological one by nature. Unless the verse featuring them means superiority in other respects than the ones relevant to us.

Ah okay, perhaps a reword is in order. Something like "realms that cannot simply have a greater composition", maybe?

I'll apply the stuff you accepted, and anything you accept after this post, some time tomorrow. I'll hopefully get to RFT and the other small stuff then, too.

 

[Agnaa]

Housekeeping​

I went to make the "higher-dimensional structures that are uncountably infinitely superior" change, but I noticed a snag; I still think the ending part of those paragraphs (saying "In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to objects of N dimensions") is bad, since it makes it sound like typical invocations of those objects would qualify, when that's not the case at all. Would you mind if I swapped that back to R^N stuff?

For others in the thread, I still haven't made changes to:

• Deleting the separation that 1-A has from the other tiers (not 1-A as its own thing, but as an umbrella section covering Low 1-A/1-A/High 1-A), due to this being something we don't do anywhere else.
• Repopulating the FAQ sections about how "transcending a 1-A to the degree they transcend a normal human is just another step within 1-A, not a jump to High 1-A" and "predating the concepts of space and time isn't 1-A".
• Changing/removing the Dorammu example from the Tiering System FAQ, for reasons explained here.

Due to wanting more input.

Reality-Fiction Transcendence Changes​

Why does this now say that 'cases where the superiority in question is treated as "size-like" in some way are also great material to build a case for a genuine transcendence'? That sounds like it should be the opposite; like it's implying that the difference is only quantiative.

Reality-Fiction Transcendence Wording Improvements​

Batch wording fixes:

1. "transcended of their own, which is more fictional in turn" > "transcendent of their own, which is in turn fictional to worlds above it"
2. "view as fictional as" > "view as fictional since"
3. "rather than authors it" > "rather than authoring it"
4. "as a some actual form" > "as some actual form"
5. "to them what happens in the fiction is not real and of no physical consequence to their being and also otherwise is of no greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human" > "to them, what happens in the fiction is not real, and has no physical or greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human"
6. Fixing some capitalisation for words that start bracketed sentence fragments.
7. "completely live in" > "completely lives in"
8. "a characters cannot" > "characters cannot"
9. "are also not necessarily be able" > "are also not necessarily able"

Small Changes​

I'm fine with the Set Theory Explanation Page rename.

I agree with DT that the Composite Hierarchies page should just be rewritten.

I'm fine with the changes to the Higher-Dimensional Existence and Acausality pages.

I think the changes to the other pages should be discussed now, instead of rushed out after the core changes are applied. You left the exact changes to Lifting Strength, Stamina, and Range kinda vague, and I'd think Large Size might need changes, and we may also want to consider changes on ability pages to give them 1-A/0 versions.

I don't think Striking Strength for Tier 0s should be Irrelevant; our AP and SS ratings are equivalent for every other rating, and breaking that parity seems bad.

Omnipotence Changes​

Unlike the other pages, I won't go through a comparison with the original, since almost nothing is shared between them, and the changes to the system are so significant that I expect any losses in meaning to be intentional.

While the image you gave this is cool and all, I don't think it actually communicates anything about this topic, and so should be removed.

The stuff you discussed about Logical Space makes me wonder if it's worth chucking in a mention somewhere that if a being is established as being omnipotent over some logical spaces but not Logical Space itself, that it wouldn't reach Tier 0.

The quote of Paul Tillich isn't formatted the same way other quotes are, why?

Kinda weird for this page to say Tier 0 has no inverse, when you previously said, and consistently talked about, it having an inverse in some sort of absolute nothingness.

I'm displeased by some of the wording's resemblance to the ontological argument, i.e. This completely self-sufficient nature makes it a "Necessary Being," which is to say: A being that simply could not fail to exist. Especially since it runs against some other stuff included in the page, i.e. A Tier [B]0[/B] can be "possible" in the former sense, but not in the latter.

I'd say that immutability should also include disqualifying such entities which truly take actions, as that involves a progression between states. I know this was done to some extent under Creation, but I think more on it belongs here. Although I admit this could end up being misleading, and I don't know a great way to phrase it.

A lot of the Applications section feels kinda extraneous, particularly for abilities that aren't necessarily listed on a Tier 0's profile. Any particular reason for all this?

It seems contradictory to say that such a being would both be nowhere at all within space, and be everywhere in space. Best fixes I see are either clarifying that it would only nominally be present in all places, as the grounding for "being" which is exemplified in all space, as well as nominally present for all things beyond such spaces. Or by saying that it isn't omnipresent, as being within spaces would be a quality.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I know it was agreed Tier 0's are "Omnipresent" by default, which I agree with and it makes "Irrelevant" rating not needed. But I never really liked the term "Irrelevant" for LS and especially not for Striking Strength. It may be redundant, but I think Boundless sounds better for both statistics.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It is highly relevant!!!!

• Why do you now say that the top layer to an infinitely large hierarchy is uncountably infinite? Our old page explicitly rejected that.
• Well actually, if the hierarchy involves all possible permutations of an infinitely large hierarchy, it'd be uncountably infinite.
• Okay? But that seems like a non-central example.
• We should still note it down!

The important thing is the confusion it creates by using a non-central example, implying that more common examples would function the same way. You NEED to caveat this sort of thing.

The cause should not be written as "adding a layer to an infinite hierarchy", it should be written as "adding a layer to a hierarchy that already includes all possible permutations of a countably infinite hierarchy". Or smth like that.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The point is that High 1-B is a space in which there is an infinite number of sequences of coordinates, but no sequence that actually goes on forever. Meanwhile, the space in which there are such infinitely-long sequences has uncountably infinite dimensions.

So, the space that contains (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), and so so and so forth, but doesn't contain an infinite sequence of 1s, is High 1-B. Meanwhile the space that actually does contain (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....) is High 1-B+. So, for example, a hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces that has no "infinitieth" member would be High 1-B, whereas a hierarchy that does have that would he High 1-B+

It kinda does, actually. If your example for Power Mimicry was a comic book scan, which devoted most of its time to describing Power Nullification and/or Power Absorption, with a single line for Mimicry, that could mislead people, and it'd be better to get one without that added weirdness

I don't think that's really comparable, since it's not like "Without horizons, without sensations, without hope" would really catch the eye of the unassuming reader. A scan describing/showing several different powers in a row would, but a scan containing other descriptions that aren't even tangential to the power they're supposed to drawn attention to (i.e. Aren't even talking about other powers at all) is very far from that.

Regardless, though, I'm not very attached to the use of that image. Largely just added it because leaving the page without a picture ticks me off, but I can remove it to avoid controversies.

I went to make the "higher-dimensional structures that are uncountably infinitely superior" change, but I noticed a snag; I still think the ending part of those paragraphs (saying "In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to objects of N dimensions") is bad, since it makes it sound like typical invocations of those objects would qualify, when that's not the case at all. Would you mind if I swapped that back to R^N stuff?

Don't mind it.

Repopulating the FAQ sections about how "transcending a 1-A to the degree they transcend a normal human is just another step within 1-A, not a jump to High 1-A" and "predating the concepts of space and time isn't 1-A".

Fine with this.

Reality-Fiction Transcendence Wording Improvements

Fine by me.

Why does this now say that 'cases where the superiority in question is treated as "size-like" in some way are also great material to build a case for a genuine transcendence'? That sounds like it should be the opposite; like it's implying that the difference is only quantiative.

Same deal as the BDE one. Basically "They treat beings from R>F layers as things somehow immeasurably vast or immense and etc." That's what I mean by "size-like."

I don't think Striking Strength for Tier 0s should be Irrelevant; our AP and SS ratings are equivalent for every other rating, and breaking that parity seems bad.

Striking Strength is a specialized form of AP that specifically notes how hard you punch. The power of a Tier 0 has nothing whatsoever to do with that (Since its "essence" isn't reducible to any external effects at all), so I think listing it as "Boundless" is misleading. Almost like we're saying there's such a thing as "Tier 0 punching strength." Same with Lifting Strength, really.

I think the changes to the other pages should be discussed now, instead of rushed out after the core changes are applied. You left the exact changes to Lifting Strength, Stamina, and Range kinda vague, and I'd think Large Size might need changes, and we may also want to consider changes on ability pages to give them 1-A/0 versions.

Those weren't the pages I was referring to in the OP, but as regards them: I'd say that, for the moment, placing an "Irrelevant" rating exclusive to Tier 0s in Lifting Strength and Striking Strength will suffice. That, ontop of making a proper division within Immeasurable Lifting Strength; right now, it says:

Lifting objects that are qualitatively superior to 3-dimensional space, and thus exceed basic infinite mass. Examples of this might be characters who inhabit a realm where even normal objects hold such superiority over an ordinary 3-D space, and who thus can be inferred to be able to lift them.

I suggest we change it to:

Lifting objects that are wholly superior to 3-dimensional space, and thus exceed basic infinite mass. This might range from characters who can somehow lift entire spacetime continuums, to characters who inhabit qualitatively superior levels of existence and thus surpass all dimensioned objects.

As for Large Size, the two highest types in it are Type 10 and 11, which are:

Type 10 (Higher-Order): Characters larger than a conventional multiverse, having size equivalent to higher infinities.

Type 11 (Inaccessible): Characters whose size cannot be reached by progressively "stacking" infinities on top of each other.

My suggestion is:

Type 10 (Higher-Order): Characters larger than a conventional multiverse, being either higher-dimensional spaces or structures roughly equivalent to such.

Type 11 (Inaccessible): Characters beyond physical size and composition entirely. That is: They are wholly irreducible to anything lesser than their own state of existence, and likewise, no "adding up" of lesser things whatsoever can attain to them.

Type 12 (Boundless): Characters who are unqualifiedly beyond size and magnitude, both physical size and the qualitative analogues found in '''1-A''' to '''High 1-A'''. This type is reserved for tier '''0'''.

Not too sure of what other power pages would need to be adjusted to directly conform to the new tiers. Nonexistent Physiology, perhaps, to make way for Tier 0-exclusive NEP?

Ah okay, perhaps a reword is in order. Something like "realms that cannot simply have a greater composition", maybe?

I suggest the following:

However, if they are applied to realms can be inferred to surpass the very composition of the lower reality (e.g. Realms that are, themselves, non-composite, such as conceptual domains, or voids of nothingness), then 1-A is the most appropriate rating for them.

While the image you gave this is cool and all, I don't think it actually communicates anything about this topic, and so should be removed.

Nah.

The stuff you discussed about Logical Space makes me wonder if it's worth chucking in a mention somewhere that if a being is established as being omnipotent over some logical spaces but not Logical Space itself, that it wouldn't reach Tier 0.

I don't think that's necessary, seeing as High 1-A+ and 0 are defined differently enough that anyone could very easily pick up which is supposed to be which.

The quote of Paul Tillich isn't formatted the same way other quotes are, why?

So the University of Chicago doesn't nuke my ass due to a breach of fair use, mostly, since that was the only quote that was neither under public domain nor something I could get permission to use from the publisher. Formatting it like this (i.e. Not having the quote be in a box separate from the rest of the text) is what their website instructs one to do.

Kinda weird for this page to say Tier 0 has no inverse, when you previously said, and consistently talked about, it having an inverse in some sort of absolute nothingness

Keep in mind that I wrote, in the page: "as it is too all-encompassing to have any sort of opposite lying outside of itself." Mostly the fact that you can't really have something falling beneath a Tier 0's immanence, which you can with 1-A and the like. You can't do that and still be a thing in any sense, pretty much. That's also what I was getting at with the "tierless absolute nothingness" I talked about before.

Granted: Some schools of philosophy (Neoplatonism and derivatives, mostly) do, in fact, feature a concept that basically is an "inverse Tier 0," yeah, insofar as it's a thing below all differentiation, instead of above it (Tier 12??) ((Pog???)), which nevertheless falls under the grounding of the Absolute in the lowliest way possible. I don't find any particular incoherence with the concept, myself, but no verse is ever going to feature that.

I'm displeased by some of the wording's resemblance to the ontological argument, i.e. This completely self-sufficient nature makes it a "Necessary Being," which is to say: A being that simply could not fail to exist. Especially since it runs against some other stuff included in the page, i.e. A Tier [B]0[/B] can be "possible" in the former sense, but not in the latter.

Did it really come out that way? "Could not fail to exist" in there really just means to say "If a Tier 0 exists, it exists, and nobody can do anything about it."

Maybe it can be changed to something like: "A being that simply could not be otherwise than it is."

I'd say that immutability should also include disqualifying such entities which truly take actions, as that involves a progression between states. I know this was done to some extent under Creation, but I think more on it belongs here. Although I admit this could end up being misleading, and I don't know a great way to phrase it.

Neither do I, really. I feel like this is probably best left to decide for individual cases.

A lot of the Applications section feels kinda extraneous, particularly for abilities that aren't necessarily listed on a Tier 0's profile. Any particular reason for all this?

For reasons already explained in the page: No ability functions for a Tier 0 as it does for any lower character, so some of those items are listed as a matter of "If a Tier 0 does have that, it works like this."

It seems contradictory to say that such a being would both be nowhere at all within space, and be everywhere in space. Best fixes I see are either clarifying that it would only nominally be present in all places, as the grounding for "being" which is exemplified in all space, as well as nominally present for all things beyond such spaces. Or by saying that it isn't omnipresent, as being within spaces would be a quality.

The former is what is meant, yeah. Would be a contradiction if both contraries were said in the same respect, of course. I think a small addition solves the issue:

As it is not constrained to any particular, qualified, specific mode of existence, it is, in another respect, also everywhere, insofar as its being and presence necessarily can reach into any form of existence.

 

[Agnaa]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The point is that High 1-B is a space in which there is an infinite number of sequences of coordinates, but no sequence that actually goes on forever. Meanwhile, the space in which there are such infinitely-long sequences has uncountably infinite dimensions.

So, the space that contains (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....), and so so and so forth, but doesn't contain an infinite sequence of 1s, is High 1-B. Meanwhile the space that actually does contain (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....) is High 1-B+. So, for example, a hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces that has no "infinitieth" member would be High 1-B, whereas a hierarchy that does have that would he High 1-B+

I'm concerned that this comes from confusing the cardinality if points in a space with the cardinality of dimensions in a space.

Because if it does truly operate as you say, that leads to the absurd outcome where any aleph-null-dimensional space, were it to contain a single being with the size of the planck length on every dimension, would suddenly transmute itself into an aleph-one-dimensional space (and at that point, why wouldn't it yet again transmute itself even higher?)

Practically this makes things very difficult, since literally everything that occupies or effects the entirety of that aleph-null-dimensional space would automatically convert it to an aleph-one-dimensional space. Which would upgrade every High 1-B who doesn't simply have that rating due to Composite Hierarchies (and has never effected the entirety of the stack at once).

Same deal as the BDE one. Basically "They treat beings from R>F layers as things somehow immeasurably vast or immense and etc." That's what I mean by "size-like."

Meh, fine.

I suggest we change it to:

As for Large Size, the two highest types in it are Type 10 and 11, which are:

My suggestion is:

Seems good.

Not too sure of what other power pages would need to be adjusted to directly conform to the new tiers. Nonexistent Physiology, perhaps, to make way for Tier 0-exclusive NEP?

Hm, seeing you mention that makes me wonder whether we really want to create all these tier-0-exclusive versions of abilities, and to link them on tier 0 pages (all of them? or just ones that also mention those).

If so, then I'd suggest basically everything in the Applications section of your Omnipotence page.

I suggest the following:

One small grammar mistake aside, seems good.

Nah.

I don't think that's necessary, seeing as High 1-A+ and 0 are defined differently enough that anyone could very easily pick up which is supposed to be which.

This was more thinking about the "being who can do what's logically possible, and not what's logically impossible, when logically impossible tasks are established to be Real in some sense" sorta thing.

So the University of Chicago doesn't nuke my ass due to a breach of fair use, mostly, since that was the only quote that was neither under public domain nor something I could get permission to use from the publisher. Formatting it like this (i.e. Not having the quote be in a box separate from the rest of the text) is what their website instructs one to do.

Ah okay, understandable. And cool that you went through all that effort.

Keep in mind that I wrote, in the page: "as it is too all-encompassing to have any sort of opposite lying outside of itself." Mostly the fact that you can't really have something falling beneath a Tier 0's immanence, which you can with 1-A and the like. You can't do that and still be a thing in any sense, pretty much. That's also what I was getting at with the "tierless absolute nothingness" I talked about before.

Granted: Some schools of philosophy (Neoplatonism and derivatives, mostly) do, in fact, feature a concept that basically is an "inverse Tier 0," yeah, insofar as it's a thing below all differentiation, instead of above it (Tier 12??) ((Pog???)), which nevertheless falls under the grounding of the Absolute in the lowliest way possible. I don't find any particular incoherence with the concept, myself, but no verse is ever going to feature that.

What about the OC I'm currently writing for the FC/OC wiki?

Did it really come out that way? "Could not fail to exist" in there really just means to say "If a Tier 0 exists, it exists, and nobody can do anything about it."

Maybe it can be changed to something like: "A being that simply could not be otherwise than it is."

Yeah that sounds better to me.

Neither do I, really. I feel like this is probably best left to decide for individual cases.

I guess so. @Deagonx If anyone ever says "wahhh this isn't on the Omnipotence page" tell them about these posts.

For reasons already explained in the page: No ability functions for a Tier 0 as it does for any lower character, so some of those items are listed as a matter of "If a Tier 0 does have that, it works like this."

myeh, ig so. We are an indexing wiki after all.

The former is what is meant, yeah. Would be a contradiction if both contraries were said in the same respect, of course. I think a small addition solves the issue:

Suuuuure.

Unless something terrible happens, I should apply everything we agreed upon in the next 48 hours. After which, I'll write up a list of things that couldn't be applied for whatever reason.

 

[Deagonx]

@Deagonx If anyone ever says "wahhh this isn't on the Omnipotence page" tell them about these posts.

The last time I quoted a standard and then a comment by the staff member that wrote the standard providing the context, within the very thread that standard was made, I was told that I was relying on a "one-off comment by another staff member" instead of the actual standards.

Not saying that either of you should approach this differently with that in mind, but just for awareness, any ambiguity can and will be exploited in bad faith.

 

[Agnaa]

The last time I quoted a standard and then a comment by the staff member that wrote the standard providing the context, within the very thread that standard was made, I was told that I was relying on a "one-off comment by another staff member" instead of the actual standards.

Not saying that either of you should approach this differently with that in mind, but just for awareness, any ambiguity can and will be exploited in bad faith.

I know, but hopefully having two primary staff members saying "Yeah, this should be a part of it but it's hard to word" for ~4 posts should be a bit less exploitable.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Hm, seeing you mention that makes me wonder whether we really want to create all these tier-0-exclusive versions of abilities, and to link them on tier 0 pages (all of them? or just ones that also mention those).

If so, then I'd suggest basically everything in the Applications section of your Omnipotence page.

Meeeeeeeh. Too much work for little benefit, I think. Especially given that some of the pages (Creation, Omnipresence and Omniscience, namely) are so barebones they could also use more general touch-ups than "Include a type exclusive to 0s in the page," whereas Acausality already accounts for the new tiers.

Overall, the only pages I see needing tweaks to account for Tier 0 are Nonexistent Physiology and Immortality.

What about the OC I'm currently writing for the FC/OC wiki?

a

This was more thinking about the "being who can do what's logically possible, and not what's logically impossible, when logically impossible tasks are established to be Real in some sense" sorta thing.

True. We can probably include that under the "Relevant Questions" section, like so:

Q: Is it a disqualifier for a would-be Tier 0 to be incapable of doing certain things?

A: Depends. For reasons already extensively discussed, a character being unable to accomplish contradictions is no impediment whatsoever to being Tier '''0'''. In general, then, such things are only anti-feats if they imply a deficiency on the character's causal power, which is to say: There is some object or state-of-affairs X, existing in potentiality, that the character is incapable of bringing about. Contradictions are not such. However, if the verse does recognize contradictory objects as existing in potentiality, then that would indeed be a disqualifier.

 

[Agnaa]

Fair, fair, and fair.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm concerned that this comes from confusing the cardinality if points in a space with the cardinality of dimensions in a space.

Because if it does truly operate as you say, that leads to the absurd outcome where any aleph-null-dimensional space, were it to contain a single being with the size of the planck length on every dimension, would suddenly transmute itself into an aleph-one-dimensional space (and at that point, why wouldn't it yet again transmute itself even higher?)

Practically this makes things very difficult, since literally everything that occupies or effects the entirety of that aleph-null-dimensional space would automatically convert it to an aleph-one-dimensional space. Which would upgrade every High 1-B who doesn't simply have that rating due to Composite Hierarchies (and has never effected the entirety of the stack at once).

Not quite, no. DT's already explained it at length here, but in summary: The space of all finite sequences has no sequence of coordinates that goes on infinitely, as said, and so a being that occupies the coordinates (planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,...) would simply not be wholly within that space at all. There wouldn't be any transmuting to begin with because the "on every dimension" doesn't include any sequence of coordinates that's infinitely long.

Same way as how, if you walked a distance of 1 in the direction of the first axis, a distance of 1/2 in the direction of the second one, (1/2)^2 for the third, (1/2)^3 for the fourth, (1/2)^4 for the fifth and so on, you'd have walked a total distance of 2, and yet one that leads to the endpoint (1, 1/2, (1/2)^2, (1/2)^3, ...), which isn't part of the space.

 

[Agnaa]

Not quite, no. DT's already explained it at length here, but in summary: The space of all finite sequences

I don't understand enough about the underlying mathematics to tell why such an equivalence makes sense.

and so a being that occupies the coordinates (planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,planck length,...) would simply not be wholly within that space at all.

A space with countably infinitely many dimensions, but where nothing can emanate to or simultaneously exist on all of them does not sound typical, and so does not sound like the basic equivalence we should use. Are you saying that such a thing is simply not possible, and it would actually need to have uncountably infinitely many dimensions underlying it?

There wouldn't be any transmuting to begin with because the "on every dimension" doesn't include any sequence of coordinates that's infinitely long.

If "existing on every dimension" actually requires bumping up the cardinality of the space to make room for something like that, I'd think that this method of analysis just flies in the face of what's commonly used in fiction, and so should be generally ignored.

Same way as how, if you walked a distance of 1 in the direction of the first axis, a distance of 1/2 in the direction of the second one, (1/2)^2 for the third, (1/2)^3 for the fourth, (1/2)^4 for the fifth and so on, you'd have walked a total distance of 2, and yet one that leads to the endpoint (1, 1/2, (1/2)^2, (1/2)^3, ...), which isn't part of the space.

I get that, I just don't get how you think this is a usable approach for the tiering system.

You addressed none of my practical concerns.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

A space with countably infinitely many dimensions, but where nothing can emanate to or simultaneously exist on all of them does not sound typical, and so does not sound like the basic equivalence we should use. Are you saying that such a thing is simply not possible, and it would actually need to have uncountably infinitely many dimensions underlying it?

That's not how I would put it, no. To draw from the earlier comparison: A High 1-B character would just be something that simultaneously exists across an entire hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces, but one in which there is no ωth level to it. A character who exists across all these levels, and also in an ωth layer above all of them, would be High 1-B+, hence the way I described it in the Tiering System page draft: "A higher-order space that is above and beyond a countably infinite-dimensional realm but not above dimensions/physicality/composition." It's not that weird when you think of it in those terms.

 

[Agnaa]

That's not how I would put it, no. To draw from the earlier comparison: A High 1-B character would just be something that simultaneously exists across an entire hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces, but one in which there is no ωth level to it. A character who exists across all these levels, and also in an ωth layer above all of them, would be High 1-B+, hence the way I described it in the Tiering System page draft: "A higher-order space that is above and beyond a countably infinite-dimensional realm but not above dimensions/physicality/composition." It's not that weird when you think of it in those terms.

I don't think that's how it works. From the way it was described, if there was a dimension for every finite number, and a character existed on each of those dimensions, they would exist across infinitely many of those, and as such, wouldn't fit within the space of all finite sequences.

I can't grasp much, but I can at least grasp "all but finitely-many x_i equal 0". It doesn't require there to be an omega-th element, just an infinitely large set.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't think that's how it works. From the way it was described, if there was a dimension for every finite number, and a character existed on each of those dimensions, they would exist across infinitely many of those, and as such, wouldn't fit within the space of all finite sequences.

I can't grasp much, but I can at least grasp "all but finitely-many x_i equal 0". It doesn't require there to be an omega-th element, just an infinitely large set.

It does have an ω-th element. Obviously, in the set of sequences, (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to a coordinate in 1-dimensional space, (1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 2-dimensional space, (1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 3-dimensional space, (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 4-dimensional space, and so on and so forth. In the space of all finite sequences, this process just goes on and on, and there will never come a point in which all the infinite zeroes are filled out.

Meanwhile, in the space of all sequences, there is such an endpoint in which all the zeroes are filled, which is (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....). The first set mapped out to ordinal numbers only covers the finite ordinals, whereas the latter actually goes up to ω.

 

[Agnaa]

It does have an ω-th element. Obviously, in the set of sequences, (1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to a coordinate in 1-dimensional space, (1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 2-dimensional space, (1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 3-dimensional space, (1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,....) corresponds to coordinates in 4-dimensional space, and so on and so forth. In the space of all finite sequences, this process just goes on and on, and there will never come a point in which all the infinite zeroes are filled out.

Meanwhile, in the space of all sequences, there is such an endpoint in which all the zeroes are filled, which is (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....). The first set mapped out to ordinal numbers only covers the finite ordinals, whereas the latter actually goes up to ω.

How many elements are in the co-ordinate which covers every even-numbered-dimensional space? (0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1...)

 

[Ultima_Reality]

How many elements is in the co-ordinate which covers every even-numbered-dimensional space? (0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1...)

Infinite. And would also fall under the same boat as (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....).

I wonder if the issue is that you're thinking of it in terms of adding axes to a space, so that you're thinking I'm saying infinite dimensions + 1 dimension is High 1-B+. Is this it?

 

[Agnaa]

Infinite. And would also fall under the same boat as (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,....).

I wonder if the issue is that you're thinking of it in terms of adding axes to a space, so that you're thinking I'm saying infinite dimensions + 1 dimension is High 1-B+. Is this it?

Yes, because you've said exactly that:

That's not how I would put it, no. To draw from the earlier comparison: A High 1-B character would just be something that simultaneously exists across an entire hierarchy of ascending higher-dimensional spaces, but one in which there is no ωth level to it. A character who exists across all these levels, and also in an ωth layer above all of them, would be High 1-B+, hence the way I described it in the Tiering System page draft: "A higher-order space that is above and beyond a countably infinite-dimensional realm but not above dimensions/physicality/composition." It's not that weird when you think of it in those terms.