- 20,105
- 10,899
I’m a bit lost on Derp’s suggestion. Are you saying that the new type 3 would include every non conventional duality or just that it transcends normal Transduality?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The 4 one?Sera's last post was asking for example from different verses having the level of Transduality Derp is describing, and no further answer to it has been made.
Actually... that's the point. Every tier 0 is a NLF. Omnipotence is the true NLF and I've seen a lot of people arguing about characters who were "omnipotent" and then the talking got into the fact that there's characters who are "MORE OMNIPOTENT" than others.Bump.
Also, I would like to ask that as tier 0 is no longer "omnipotence" nor "truly beyond dimensions in every way", shouldn't the name of the tier be changed? Boundless is quite misleading as our current policy makes such claim an NLF.
IIRC it was brought up a long time ago that "Apeiroverse level" could be used, that term would in its definition just relate the tier to a very high level of dimensional layers. Plus I'm sure that the tier name is way too generic either way to appear by looking it up on the internet without specifying that it relates to VSBW in particular.We can keep Boundless. I remember that we couldn't come up with a better sounding alternative title.
I think it would be better to say that the limit would be to what the tier's definition would cover since its minimal requirements, rather than that also applying to whoever is within this tier. That's like taking a 10-C, and just because it's that tier it's now on the highest end of that tier, it just doesn't work like that, and it's kinda derailing now as that issue already got solved, although I'm mainly saying this for clarification.When we talk about "Boundless", and when I said "every tier 0 is a NLF", I talk about the fact that there's no limits that can't be transcended. If we say, as an example, in regards of AP, "Unlimited", there we have a NLF. Using "Boundless" seems like the best way to say "There's no limit that can be applied to said character".
Also... Getting rid of BDE is a high bet. What does the others think about that?
Merely participating in a many-valued partition with more than two aspects (for instance, True/False/Indeterminate) wouldn't inherently qualify anyone for that. At the bare minimum, it needs to be demonstrated that the character in question transcends not only all dualities of concepts or what have you, but the very distinction between duality and unity. Alternatively (and perhaps more intuitively), a character can qualify by directly superseding all distinctions in a system where essential universal qualities are divided into three or more pieces, provided that the consequences of holding such an ontological position are made clear.I’m a bit lost on Derp’s suggestion. Are you saying that the new type 3 would include every non conventional duality or just that it transcends normal Transduality?
I would love to give scans or quotes or anything to prove that we have multiple verses that meet the requirements for the level of transduality I just described up there. Unfortunately, I am not very knowledgeable on many of the candidates, especially not the ones which are obscure and far from mainstream, so I can only ask you to be patient while I get in contact with the people that actually know things about these verses. What I can say is that type 1 transduality is so obscure that I legitimately haven't found a single example of it, so I would not care if that was removed.Transduality (and Acausality for that matter) have been made increasingly more difficult to understand (from a powerscaling perspective) than they are supposed to be. Primarily because someone keeps finding obscure or non-applicable interpretations of these concepts to...forgive the bluntness, wank one character's hax as being superior to another with the same hax.
The easiest way to convince me of anything is to show me, not describe it. I'm a show, don't tell kinda lady. If KingPin (or anyone else for that matter) can show me scans from say 3-5 different verses where the level of transduality he is describing actually exists and the consequences/effects of having transduality at that level are clear, then I'm all for it and happy to apply it. Otherwise it's just hearsay.
From what I can tell, the current topics of discussion in this thread are:So can somebody summarise every important discussion subject that has been raised here and needs to be decided please?
I don't know how Sera or anyone else feels about type 1 transduality, but like I said before, I haven't found a single case of it, so I'm not sure if it's necessary.Well, if we change and get rid of types of transduality, we need committed members who are willing to go through all of the pages that have the ability listed, and modify them in an organised manner that does not cause confusion.
You'll have to get some people who want it gone completely to explain why they think that. As for the other two:I would appreciate some elaboration/explanation regarding the beyond-dimensional existence changes.
I think Sera and DontTalk currently object to changing Irrelevant Speed the way you proposed and would rather just not have it at all. To be honest, I don't think anyone has proposed anything for Irrelevant Lifting Strength, just that it should be removed if Irrelevant Speed is being removed.I favour changing the irrelevant speed definition to something similar to what I suggested earlier in this thread, but am not sure what is suggested regarding irrelevant strength.
I'll just reiterate Aeyu's response to DT's point regarding High 1-A:Please elaborate/explain further regarding tiers High 1-A and 0 as well.
A proper class is basically a collection of objects so large that it cannot be measured within a given mathematical system. Examples would be the class of all sets, the class of all cardinal numbers, the class of all topological spaces, etc. As mentioned, their size depends on what the system assumes, as they would be equivalent to the smallest cardinal not in that system, but we can't be sure what a verse and its system of measurement assumes if it doesn't explicitly tell us, and we definitely can't say that all verses use the same system. That being said, mentions of specific cardinal numbers applied to the cosmology can still be valid for High 1-A unless it refers to the number of dimensions/layers, in which case it would be relegated to 1-A+. From there, levels of High 1-A would be attributed to greater models of the system which completely and utterly trivialize its lesser models.High 1-A's core definition is immeasurability, i.e., it is made from untangling old 1-A's definition from new 1-A. It can't be reached by any number of operations or layers of dimensions. Many High 1-As, in fact most or all, reach such a level via "transcendence of all forms of mathematics" or "being beyond all categories and labels" or "beyond all possible levels/layers that could exist" or "beyond all hierarchies", et al. A proper class fits well for this definition, given a proper class is too large to be a set, which also corresponds with the set of all dimensions, which itself is a proper class. The "size" of a proper class depends on the set theory we are using to define the proper class, but we really honestly don't need to declare some system that's being used, because that's assuming all verses work under ZFC, for instance, something that is a very arbitrary assumption used in the system right now. It doesn't have to be ZFC, but the assumption of it is bad enough to equate metaphysical, transcendental "beyond measure" type things. Less specific is a proper class, which is just "it exceeds whatever system of measurement the verse uses." This makes it more accurate with how we already treat High 1-A, in that we say it can't be reliably cross scaled between verses, and after that point generally relies on context from within the verse.
Yes, I get that. This reminds me that I still need to get those scans of trans-plurality that I promised Sera I would bring, but I've admittedly been having some trouble finding them myself, and it doesn't help that my attention has since been focused on other things.As I mentioned above, if we get rid of a specific type of transduality, and renumber the others, this easily creates considerable confusing and inaccurate information in our pages, so we need to plan a revision system to properly modify all of them and keep track of what has and has not been corrected yet.
On that note, we might need to discuss the distinction between type 1 and type 2. They were split by Ultima because of the tiering system revision, but I don't see any reason for it to be there. Again, it seems like the same issue as False/True Platonic Concepts and False/True General Transduality.I suppose that renaming beyond-dimensional existence may be the best solution then.
Sure. I'll notify him soon, hopefully.Can you check what DontTalkDT thinks that we should do regarding our tier High 1-A and 0 requirements as well please? He has a a potent mixture of extremely high intelligence and good sense of judgement in combination.
Aeyu is confident that no one would be downgraded by these revisions. Looking at the tier 0 files we have now and their relationship with High 1-A states of being, most if not all of them do seem to fit with the proposed new 0:My concern with Aeyu's suggestions is that they would make tier 0 so inaccessible that none of our character would qualify.
I... don't really have anything to say here. I'm not that knowledgeable on the tiering system.My own main objection to our current system is that it seems to allow for extreme shortcuts to access these tiers, so a single degree of reality-fiction transcendence can count as more impressive than an uncountably infinite amount of them from a certain viewpoint, for example, and I want us to be much stricter in that regard.
Transcendences over very small Low 2-C cosmologies have apparently also reached that high in a few cases, with the right mathematical wordings involved, which also turns on warning bells for me, but I am more uncertain in that regard.
I largely agree.If we are seriously considering to revise Tier 1 and 0 again, then I think a well worked out proposal should be made and posted in a separate staff thread. Doing something that large in the middle of some thread on other stuff seems like a bad idea.