- 10,748
- 6,476
Explain
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Tier 0 Mathiverse
- Thread starter Andytrenom
- Start date
- 540
- 302
Following this.
We demand explanation.
We demand explanation.
- 2,447
- 166
Following
- 5,554
- 2,327
Math
- 5,461
- 12,442
The madman did it.
Anyways, I put the Mathiverse at Tier 0 largely because it is supposed to be an all-encompassing totality which contains all forms of mathematics, and is specifically stated to contain all sets within itself.
Now, I am aware this may sound a bit vague and all, but I personally think those statements can be taken at face value due to the fact that the book was actually written by a mathematicia, who even previously wrote a book where he discussed the development of Set Theory and the concept of infinite cardinal numbers (in this case, the Alephs), and mentioned several large cardinals which would qualify for Tier 0 if used to denote the size of a space. So, in this case, the author does indeed have knowledge of the terms he's using.
Considering what the Mathiverse is supposed to be, and how it also encompasses both formal and informal logic as well + the statements of already containing anything able to be categorized under the aforementioned terms, I am pretty sure it can indeed stay Tier 0.
Anyways, I put the Mathiverse at Tier 0 largely because it is supposed to be an all-encompassing totality which contains all forms of mathematics, and is specifically stated to contain all sets within itself.
Now, I am aware this may sound a bit vague and all, but I personally think those statements can be taken at face value due to the fact that the book was actually written by a mathematicia, who even previously wrote a book where he discussed the development of Set Theory and the concept of infinite cardinal numbers (in this case, the Alephs), and mentioned several large cardinals which would qualify for Tier 0 if used to denote the size of a space. So, in this case, the author does indeed have knowledge of the terms he's using.
Considering what the Mathiverse is supposed to be, and how it also encompasses both formal and informal logic as well + the statements of already containing anything able to be categorized under the aforementioned terms, I am pretty sure it can indeed stay Tier 0.
- 12,591
- 2,348
its methOgbunabali said:
- 5,638
- 2,009
This is incredibly stupid and I love it.
- 5,461
- 12,442
Eh, the relevant thing that makes it Tier 0 is basically only a single excerpt, and the rest would be basically just linking the entire book, since the whole plot is that the Space Hopper can access any space in the Mathiverse and uses it to teach some miscellaneous abstract maths to a 2-D girl.GLHF22 said:
I say putting it as the profile quote is enough, really.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #12
@UR One thing I'm concerned about is if that reasoning would work well with our usual stance on author intent, which is ignoring it in favor of what's shown in the work itself. I personally don't mind but I do think this will need some proper discussion
What is the relevant quote btw?
What is the relevant quote btw?
- 5,461
- 12,442
What is the Mathiverse? The Mathiverse transcends Time and Space... it transcends Intelligence and Extelligence... it transcends Thought; it transcends Transcendence itself. Within it - and 'within' is definitely the wrong word, for concepts such as 'inside' and 'outside' apply to individual Spaces, not to the unfathomable reaches of the mathiverse - are not just all Spaces and Times that have existed, or all Spaces and Times that will exist, or even all Spaces and Times that could exist. It also contains (wrong word, again) all Spaces and Times that could not exist, if only as a grim warning of the dangers of the nonexistent. The Mathiverse contains all numbers. The Mathiverse contains all shapes. The Mathiverse contains all geometries. The Mathiverse contains all vectors, matrices, permutations, combinations, integrations, separations, projections, injections, functions, functors, functionals, algebraic group schemes, supermanifolds, K-theories, M-theories, M-sets, power sets, subsets, supersets, and plain, ordinary, common-or-garden sets. The Mathiverse contains all data structures. The Mathiverse contains all processes. The Mathiverse contains all formal descriptions of logical structures. The Mathiverse contains all informal descriptions of illogical structures. If one day somebody managed to invent a new kind of thing, something that wasn't a Space or a Time but somehow belonged in the same category (Now that you mention it, the Mathiverse contains all categories)... Anyway, if someone managed to do what I've just said, then whatever they came up with would have been present in the Mathiverse all along (Except, as you've guessed, "would", "have", "been", "present", "all", "along" and "in" are the wrong words, we can probably accept "the" though) |
It even explicitly contains all possible sets and holds both formal and informal logic within itself, which are the framework in which those objects (sets) are defined by way of axioms and syntax and whatnot, so I don't really see an issue.
- 5,554
- 2,327
So does the Mathiverse contain itself? Hmmmmm
- 5,461
- 12,442
Probable.
- 16,605
- 1,757
So this is a set of all sets thing, where it includes itself?
If I'm gonna be honest, I can definitely see the potential for tier 0 but... these seem rather loose compared to the rigorous standards that are usually applied to tier 0s, or even High 1-As.
It seems like this sort of thing could have been used to justify pulling something similar with 40k, but with language instead of mathematics. Something something the warp having levels of existence so numerous that something as limited as Language itself cannot describe them. Or you can take [ ] from the Nasuverse, which has any sort of description or idea that can be applied to it immediately defaulted to a lower state in any form of language or idea, yet that is assumed to probably only be 1-A. Even trying to name it just defaulted to a lesser state, and god knows about many people have tried to call it things along the lines of infinite and boundless in canon.
Or it kinda feels like saying that because someone transcends the concept of infinity, therefore it is above any being that can be described via the use of infinities or hierarchies. Like how people used to wank Lucifer Morningstar back on G+ for example, saying that he was greater than any force that can be stacked using different kinds of infinities, including most High 1-As.
If our standards are getting looser, then I guess I'm ok with it, I'm just... surprised is all
If I'm gonna be honest, I can definitely see the potential for tier 0 but... these seem rather loose compared to the rigorous standards that are usually applied to tier 0s, or even High 1-As.
It seems like this sort of thing could have been used to justify pulling something similar with 40k, but with language instead of mathematics. Something something the warp having levels of existence so numerous that something as limited as Language itself cannot describe them. Or you can take [ ] from the Nasuverse, which has any sort of description or idea that can be applied to it immediately defaulted to a lower state in any form of language or idea, yet that is assumed to probably only be 1-A. Even trying to name it just defaulted to a lesser state, and god knows about many people have tried to call it things along the lines of infinite and boundless in canon.
Or it kinda feels like saying that because someone transcends the concept of infinity, therefore it is above any being that can be described via the use of infinities or hierarchies. Like how people used to wank Lucifer Morningstar back on G+ for example, saying that he was greater than any force that can be stacked using different kinds of infinities, including most High 1-As.
If our standards are getting looser, then I guess I'm ok with it, I'm just... surprised is all
- 16,605
- 1,757
Also, him being written by a mathematician should have nothing to do with the validity of the tiering. From a philosophical view, I think it's good to keep in mind, but that should be kept seperate from how we tier them. We don't give theologian writers immediate validity to their verses dealing with omnipotence for example, and this should be no different.
- 5,461
- 12,442
I am not sure if I really get your point, though. The Mathiverse is pretty literal in its definitions and is extensively described as being the conglomerate of all mathematics, and the story goes quite in-depth about what it contains and transcends, as seen above. This is different from Lucifer and Warhammer's statements, which can be easily interpreted as fanciful hyperbole, especially the latter's, which is borderline nonsensical if taken as a literal indicator of the sheer quantity of dimensions present in the Materium.
As for Akasha, as far as I am aware, the Kabbalah-ish shenanigans regarding it being outside of all attributes and definitions only guarantee it baseline 1-A because there is nothing higher for it to contrast with. For instance, if it was fully unspeakable and unknowable in relation to 1-A stuff, then I am fairly sure that it would be High 1-A, the same way it is 1-A as a safe lowball for being relative to Low 1-C to 1-C stuff. As you can see, it's all really relative and dependent on the verse's setting, meanwhile, here we are dealing with things that basically make up the foundation of the tiering system in the first place.
Mathematics are quite different from things as malleable and subjective as Theology and Omnipotence, the latter of which being a term we simply disregard altogether, at this point. Most things in math are constructed under a solid framework built from defined axioms, and the objects in the framework simply abide to the implications that arise from the existence said axioms. To call them objective is a bit of a stretch, but under the system in which they are defined, they may as well be.
The point of the author being a mathematician who is knowledgeable about most concepts that define our higher tiers is that he isn't throwing around empty words which he doesn't know the meaning of; the statements are already there, and his background would just allow us to more reliably take them at face value, instead of analyzing them with skepticism and nitpicking them to death, as we do with basically everything else with no background context.
As for Akasha, as far as I am aware, the Kabbalah-ish shenanigans regarding it being outside of all attributes and definitions only guarantee it baseline 1-A because there is nothing higher for it to contrast with. For instance, if it was fully unspeakable and unknowable in relation to 1-A stuff, then I am fairly sure that it would be High 1-A, the same way it is 1-A as a safe lowball for being relative to Low 1-C to 1-C stuff. As you can see, it's all really relative and dependent on the verse's setting, meanwhile, here we are dealing with things that basically make up the foundation of the tiering system in the first place.
Mathematics are quite different from things as malleable and subjective as Theology and Omnipotence, the latter of which being a term we simply disregard altogether, at this point. Most things in math are constructed under a solid framework built from defined axioms, and the objects in the framework simply abide to the implications that arise from the existence said axioms. To call them objective is a bit of a stretch, but under the system in which they are defined, they may as well be.
The point of the author being a mathematician who is knowledgeable about most concepts that define our higher tiers is that he isn't throwing around empty words which he doesn't know the meaning of; the statements are already there, and his background would just allow us to more reliably take them at face value, instead of analyzing them with skepticism and nitpicking them to death, as we do with basically everything else with no background context.
- 948
- 212
I don't think philosophy should be taken literally but, instead, taken as a reference for the things should be used for tiering. When we talk about language we can all agree the baseliness it has.
Also, if the writer wrote other things that the verse itself implies, I think it should be used to take it as a reference for the verse and its tiering. Because tiering Twin Peaks it would have been a pain, since Lynch didn't made it directly referenced for that.
Also, if the writer wrote other things that the verse itself implies, I think it should be used to take it as a reference for the verse and its tiering. Because tiering Twin Peaks it would have been a pain, since Lynch didn't made it directly referenced for that.
- 16,605
- 1,757
@Ultima
My point is, I think that it could definitely be tier 0, I'm just surprised that the standards are loose enough to allow it to be. Like, there are verses that if he asked me how powerful they are on site vs off-site, I would give different answers because of the standards of the wiki. If you asked me off site, I would almost certainly agree that it is tier 0, but I'm surprised that they line up in this case. So, is the only difference between them detail then? I think the point of the latter statement is that it is supposed to be absurd, and the previous, if I recall (I am not an expert and I'm remembering threads from a long time ago) that the Lucifer statements didn't seem to be in some flowery context.
From my ongoing research, it would be Akasha that is beyond all the attributes that it listed and described as, where as [ ] would be even above that. After seeing this I'm pretty confident that some of the Nasu supporters and I are gonna easily be able to get [ ] decently into 1-A, when I thought before it was gonna be a fight tooth and nail lol.
I said the theologian thing because they often do go into detail on what exactly they mean by omnipotence. For example, some authors and theologians define omnipotence as "being able to do anything that is not self-contradictory." If he specifically outlined all of these terms within the work than it flies, but otherwise I would see it as the same as many of the works that are clearly written by people who study Taoism, and kinda just presuppose that the reader has as well (iirc the Ergenverse is an example of this). For example, we don't assume that just because a work was written by a Platonic Scholar that his references to platonic concepts would therefore be type 1 concepts.
While I think this standard is rational, it seems a bit like we are ignoring death of the author too much. I'm not necessarily against us going and looking up how much the authors of specific works have researched various religious texts, but it feels very different from how we usually do things. Of course I am about taking context into a work, but the field of study that an author had feels like a stretch if nothing else. For an almost inverse example, Lovecraft managed to construct what is essentially a dimensional hierarchy for his cosmology before that was even properly understood.
My point is, I think that it could definitely be tier 0, I'm just surprised that the standards are loose enough to allow it to be. Like, there are verses that if he asked me how powerful they are on site vs off-site, I would give different answers because of the standards of the wiki. If you asked me off site, I would almost certainly agree that it is tier 0, but I'm surprised that they line up in this case. So, is the only difference between them detail then? I think the point of the latter statement is that it is supposed to be absurd, and the previous, if I recall (I am not an expert and I'm remembering threads from a long time ago) that the Lucifer statements didn't seem to be in some flowery context.
From my ongoing research, it would be Akasha that is beyond all the attributes that it listed and described as, where as [ ] would be even above that. After seeing this I'm pretty confident that some of the Nasu supporters and I are gonna easily be able to get [ ] decently into 1-A, when I thought before it was gonna be a fight tooth and nail lol.
I said the theologian thing because they often do go into detail on what exactly they mean by omnipotence. For example, some authors and theologians define omnipotence as "being able to do anything that is not self-contradictory." If he specifically outlined all of these terms within the work than it flies, but otherwise I would see it as the same as many of the works that are clearly written by people who study Taoism, and kinda just presuppose that the reader has as well (iirc the Ergenverse is an example of this). For example, we don't assume that just because a work was written by a Platonic Scholar that his references to platonic concepts would therefore be type 1 concepts.
While I think this standard is rational, it seems a bit like we are ignoring death of the author too much. I'm not necessarily against us going and looking up how much the authors of specific works have researched various religious texts, but it feels very different from how we usually do things. Of course I am about taking context into a work, but the field of study that an author had feels like a stretch if nothing else. For an almost inverse example, Lovecraft managed to construct what is essentially a dimensional hierarchy for his cosmology before that was even properly understood.
- 16,605
- 1,757
I sent Azy and Prom it through discord
- 5,461
- 12,442
@Iapitus
I don't think the standards have necessarily gotten looser, but rather that this and the statements which you mentioned belong to completely different cases. Lucifer's statement about him existing beyond infinity or whatever is already pretty heavily disputed off-site, so I won't delve into it, but as I said, Warhammer's statement isn't really elaborated upon, and is pretty clearly hyperbolic in nature such that we can fairly easily dismiss it as being just unquantifiably high into 1-B, as opposed to actually taking it literally.
Meanwhile, the Mathiverse is explicitly supposed to represent all of mathematics, and the story gives a pretty detailed description of the things which it contains, such as "all categories" and "all subsets and supersets", and so on and so forth. To limit the latter statements so that it refers only to finite sets just feels overly arbitrary and actively trying to get around the possibility of the thing belonging to a certain tier, instead of just analyzing it more naturally, if you get what I mean. The author being a mathematician is relevant here because the book is essentially an extended textbook that introduces miscellaneous abstract mathematics to the readers, and this just happens to be conveyed through a natrative, and given this, we can of course presume that what he means by "all of mathematics" is fairly vast, just take a look at the last statement in the excerpt I've posted above.
Yes, but for them to qualify as Type 1 concepts in the first place, they'd have to meet all of the new criteria that allow something to qualify for 1-A, which became far more rigorous under the current tiering system, especially since we abandoned the idea that Platonic Concepts are fundamentally 1-A a while ago. It's subjective, as I've said, unlike what is being dealt with right now, which pretty much forms the basis of much of the higher ends of Tier 1, but I think I am repeating myself, at this point.
I get what you mean, overall, but taking a look at the field of study of the author is helpful in this case, because it and the work in question are intimately related; the book is about mathematics, and thus we should analyze it through mathematical lens. It's just a matter of 1 + 1 = 2, in my view, there is no need to overthink it to that extent.
I don't think the standards have necessarily gotten looser, but rather that this and the statements which you mentioned belong to completely different cases. Lucifer's statement about him existing beyond infinity or whatever is already pretty heavily disputed off-site, so I won't delve into it, but as I said, Warhammer's statement isn't really elaborated upon, and is pretty clearly hyperbolic in nature such that we can fairly easily dismiss it as being just unquantifiably high into 1-B, as opposed to actually taking it literally.
Meanwhile, the Mathiverse is explicitly supposed to represent all of mathematics, and the story gives a pretty detailed description of the things which it contains, such as "all categories" and "all subsets and supersets", and so on and so forth. To limit the latter statements so that it refers only to finite sets just feels overly arbitrary and actively trying to get around the possibility of the thing belonging to a certain tier, instead of just analyzing it more naturally, if you get what I mean. The author being a mathematician is relevant here because the book is essentially an extended textbook that introduces miscellaneous abstract mathematics to the readers, and this just happens to be conveyed through a natrative, and given this, we can of course presume that what he means by "all of mathematics" is fairly vast, just take a look at the last statement in the excerpt I've posted above.
Yes, but for them to qualify as Type 1 concepts in the first place, they'd have to meet all of the new criteria that allow something to qualify for 1-A, which became far more rigorous under the current tiering system, especially since we abandoned the idea that Platonic Concepts are fundamentally 1-A a while ago. It's subjective, as I've said, unlike what is being dealt with right now, which pretty much forms the basis of much of the higher ends of Tier 1, but I think I am repeating myself, at this point.
I get what you mean, overall, but taking a look at the field of study of the author is helpful in this case, because it and the work in question are intimately related; the book is about mathematics, and thus we should analyze it through mathematical lens. It's just a matter of 1 + 1 = 2, in my view, there is no need to overthink it to that extent.
- 16,605
- 1,757
Sure, I just sent it to them first due to having added them on discord
- 16,605
- 1,757
I have sent it to all of them
- 8,677
- 5,530
I dunno why you think I'm any good with weird math philosophy, but I don't think we can scale to things not outlined in the story itself because the writer is a mathematician
- 8,927
- 3,439
I personally believe that the author very clearly had intent and ideas in mind when writing Mathiverse - when a mathematician writes books about every cardinal mathematical doo-dah you could think of, then writes a story that says "All math is under Mathiverse," it seems wrong to assume "Oh, he obviously wasn't including the cardinal math and other higher tiered math."
It requires context, and I can't say if it would be Tier 0 or not, but I can agree with using the mathematical concepts the author is clearly both aware of and abundantly experienced in as concepts the verse is above when he says "all math".
It requires context, and I can't say if it would be Tier 0 or not, but I can agree with using the mathematical concepts the author is clearly both aware of and abundantly experienced in as concepts the verse is above when he says "all math".
- 14,823
- 12,244
This seems like the sort of thing that even Ultima would auto-reject for 99% of other verses (that 1% being TP).
I am fundamentally against giving verses different tiers based on their author's background. If an author loosely describes a 1-A concept taken from religion, we don't and shouldn't treat it as 1-A unless they describe it strongly enough to have that backing, regardless of whether we know they're knowledgeable on those religious concepts or not. I think the same stuff should apply to math.
And going just by the statements, it seems like the text itself only strictly gives statements supporting 1-A (transcending and containing all times and spaces that can exist and all that can't exist), with anything further coming from the sorts of NLF statements we tend to reject like "Transcends transcendence" "Contains all {list of various mathematical things}"
I am fundamentally against giving verses different tiers based on their author's background. If an author loosely describes a 1-A concept taken from religion, we don't and shouldn't treat it as 1-A unless they describe it strongly enough to have that backing, regardless of whether we know they're knowledgeable on those religious concepts or not. I think the same stuff should apply to math.
And going just by the statements, it seems like the text itself only strictly gives statements supporting 1-A (transcending and containing all times and spaces that can exist and all that can't exist), with anything further coming from the sorts of NLF statements we tend to reject like "Transcends transcendence" "Contains all {list of various mathematical things}"
- 512
- 52
fair points.
- 14,823
- 12,244
Also, The Mathiverse is a location profile, and all location profiles were agreed to be deleted over a year ago. The only one that is here now is The Sphere of the Gods, which was accepted to stay as a cosmology page, under the condition that it's required for scaling in the verse.
The Mathiverse isn't like this so it should probably be deleted regardless.
The Mathiverse isn't like this so it should probably be deleted regardless.
- 16,605
- 1,757
I'm pretty sure it was agreed in a more recent thread that location profiles are fine if they are necessary to explain the cosmology of a verse
- 14,823
- 12,244
As far as I can tell, that's because Flatland doesn't reach past tier 10, but Flatterland (a sequel written over 100 years later by a completely different person, since the original reached the public domain) does have characters that can access parts of The Mathiverse, but I haven't heard that they scale to its full extent.GyroNutz said:
- 16,605
- 1,757
@Ultima
Perhaps it is has been an issue with me who just perceived them as far more strict than they actually are, who knows. I think the warhammer statement should at the very least allow for some high degree of High 1-B or Low 1-A if infinity is to be counted as things that can be described by human language, at least with this as a frame of reference. I think Agnaa more properly conveys the point I was trying to make tho
I still don't really think the author being a mathematician should matter. If it does essentially function as a textbook, then all of the definitions included from within this textbook should carry it alone. I'm sure that we could assume that someone who has studied Taoist or Platonic philosophy would know what they are talking about when they are talking about the Tao or Platonic forms, but we still take the verse on it's own. If we are gonna be changing it, then all I will say is it seems quite different
I don't think we ever truly tossed out the idea of platonic concepts being 1-A in nature, it was just that most verses hadn't actually displayed that they were sufficiently transcended of reality. If one could manage to somehow prove that they were truly platonic forms, then it would naturally mean they would be 1-A. You kinda have the chicken and the egg reversed here.
I don't think any sort of verse analysis would matter for if the verse which is functionally a text book was accurate to real world math, so all that should really matter is if all the definitions match up. You shouldn't need to rely on the fact that the author is a math professor. If the standards are changing, then I'm not apposed to it in and of itself, it's just that this probably should have been discussed more
Perhaps it is has been an issue with me who just perceived them as far more strict than they actually are, who knows. I think the warhammer statement should at the very least allow for some high degree of High 1-B or Low 1-A if infinity is to be counted as things that can be described by human language, at least with this as a frame of reference. I think Agnaa more properly conveys the point I was trying to make tho
I still don't really think the author being a mathematician should matter. If it does essentially function as a textbook, then all of the definitions included from within this textbook should carry it alone. I'm sure that we could assume that someone who has studied Taoist or Platonic philosophy would know what they are talking about when they are talking about the Tao or Platonic forms, but we still take the verse on it's own. If we are gonna be changing it, then all I will say is it seems quite different
I don't think we ever truly tossed out the idea of platonic concepts being 1-A in nature, it was just that most verses hadn't actually displayed that they were sufficiently transcended of reality. If one could manage to somehow prove that they were truly platonic forms, then it would naturally mean they would be 1-A. You kinda have the chicken and the egg reversed here.
I don't think any sort of verse analysis would matter for if the verse which is functionally a text book was accurate to real world math, so all that should really matter is if all the definitions match up. You shouldn't need to rely on the fact that the author is a math professor. If the standards are changing, then I'm not apposed to it in and of itself, it's just that this probably should have been discussed more
Similar threads
