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.

 

[DarkGrath]

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.