- 8,678
- 5,556
Yeah, 1-A it is, then.
-
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
- 15,332
- 7,559
Ultima appears to make sense.
- 15,332
- 7,559
> 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.
"True" platonic forms are not inherently 1-A in the new system, either. That was just because we assumed transcending the concepts of space and time was automatically 1-A. We no longer do that.
"True" platonic forms are not inherently 1-A in the new system, either. That was just because we assumed transcending the concepts of space and time was automatically 1-A. We no longer do that.
- 14,888
- 12,399
True platonic forms of space and time contain and transcend all possible expressions of space and time, which is 1-A even under the current system and is almost certainly the accepted reasoning for 1-A for multiple verses.
- 15,332
- 7,559
> True platonic forms of space and time contain and transcend all possible expressions of space and time
As far as the original basis of platonism went, it simply transcended the concepts of space and time the way the Ancient Greeks defined it, which would be Low 1-C under the new system. The old system, however, viewed the exact same thing as 1-A, regardless of extensions.
Additionally, transcending all "possible extensions" of space and time requires defining what exactly those extensions are in-universe. In the new system, such a statement would only be 1-A if the extensions in question encompassed a many-layered cosmology.
As far as the original basis of platonism went, it simply transcended the concepts of space and time the way the Ancient Greeks defined it, which would be Low 1-C under the new system. The old system, however, viewed the exact same thing as 1-A, regardless of extensions.
Additionally, transcending all "possible extensions" of space and time requires defining what exactly those extensions are in-universe. In the new system, such a statement would only be 1-A if the extensions in question encompassed a many-layered cosmology.
- 8,087
- 1,541
Kepekley and Ultima make more sense in my opinion.
- 5,466
- 12,480
This seems like the sort of thing that even Ultima would auto-reject for 99% of other verses (that 1% being TP).
Heh.
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.
My stance on this is basically what Mori outlined in the comment just above your own. The Mathiverse's statements refer to pretty specific objects and structures, and given how it's supposed to be a collection of all mathematics and explicitly includes all formal systems (which are the frameworks in which objects such as sets are defined in the first place), it feels disingenuous to arbitrarily exclude a feel things just because it makes them higher-tiered, especially when the author is familiar with them and would obviously encapsulate them under all those descriptions. As I said, the statements are already there, it's just a matter of whether or not we take them at face value.
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'd actually argue it could remain High 1-A, since it contains and transcends both formal and informal logical systems, which form the basis and framework for much of mathematics, including aspatiotemporal universes + set-theoretical shit that exists in the Mathiverse itself. Considering that transcending the framework in which 1-A stuff is defined is like, the textbook definition of High 1-A, I'd say that is definitely worth noting.
Nevertheless, you make a good point regarding it being a location, and I guess I should update myself on the wiki's standards any of these days. Well, I've yet to get my hands on the full book, so until a few days from now on I can't really confirm whether the Space Hoppers really scale to the entirety of the Mathiverse or not. It being deleted is something I can't really object on those grounds.
Heh.
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.
My stance on this is basically what Mori outlined in the comment just above your own. The Mathiverse's statements refer to pretty specific objects and structures, and given how it's supposed to be a collection of all mathematics and explicitly includes all formal systems (which are the frameworks in which objects such as sets are defined in the first place), it feels disingenuous to arbitrarily exclude a feel things just because it makes them higher-tiered, especially when the author is familiar with them and would obviously encapsulate them under all those descriptions. As I said, the statements are already there, it's just a matter of whether or not we take them at face value.
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'd actually argue it could remain High 1-A, since it contains and transcends both formal and informal logical systems, which form the basis and framework for much of mathematics, including aspatiotemporal universes + set-theoretical shit that exists in the Mathiverse itself. Considering that transcending the framework in which 1-A stuff is defined is like, the textbook definition of High 1-A, I'd say that is definitely worth noting.
Nevertheless, you make a good point regarding it being a location, and I guess I should update myself on the wiki's standards any of these days. Well, I've yet to get my hands on the full book, so until a few days from now on I can't really confirm whether the Space Hoppers really scale to the entirety of the Mathiverse or not. It being deleted is something I can't really object on those grounds.
- 14,888
- 12,399
My stance on this is basically what Mori outlined in the comment just above your own.
Can you sincerely say that you'd apply the same thing outside of mathematical examples, though?
Would you accept verses scaling to religious or philosophical constructs if we can prove that the author knows about the high tier stuff in them, even if the text itself doesn't include statements that would give high tiers?
Feel free to ignore this part if it scales things beyond where it's logically reasonable, but would you accept scaling to characters from other verses if the author knows what feats from the original text are being scaled to? Why/why not for both of these questions?
I personally think we ought to only look at the text itself, and any direct WOG statements backing up things implied in the story, when evaluating profiles.
Can you sincerely say that you'd apply the same thing outside of mathematical examples, though?
Would you accept verses scaling to religious or philosophical constructs if we can prove that the author knows about the high tier stuff in them, even if the text itself doesn't include statements that would give high tiers?
Feel free to ignore this part if it scales things beyond where it's logically reasonable, but would you accept scaling to characters from other verses if the author knows what feats from the original text are being scaled to? Why/why not for both of these questions?
I personally think we ought to only look at the text itself, and any direct WOG statements backing up things implied in the story, when evaluating profiles.
- 1,826
- 366
My high school GPA is Tier 0 because of Math
- 8,927
- 3,439
This is closer to Reverse Death of The Author. Or, not, depending on the side.Mr. Bambu said:
One side, being supporting Tier 0, is more directly taking into account what the author was definitely referring to.
...
Furthermore, equating religious structures (that are extremely heavily up to interpretation and bring an enormous amount of controversity over such interpretations) to mathematics is incredibly disingenuous.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,578
- 19,010
"One side, being supporting Tier 0, is more directly taking into account what the author was definitely referring to."
hence my point about death of the author. I'm aware of what you're suggesting and I'm suggesting that I disagree. for one reason, death of the author.
to be clear, we do this in every other verse. we ignore real world context even if it seems likely they are referring to that real world context. SMITE doesn't gain tiers from real world religion and I fail to see how the striking comparison is "incredibly disingenuous".
hence my point about death of the author. I'm aware of what you're suggesting and I'm suggesting that I disagree. for one reason, death of the author.
to be clear, we do this in every other verse. we ignore real world context even if it seems likely they are referring to that real world context. SMITE doesn't gain tiers from real world religion and I fail to see how the striking comparison is "incredibly disingenuous".
- 8,927
- 3,439
I can see how it's a false comparison, for the reasons I outlined originally. Religion is a matter that's incredibly controversial and many modern religions are banned in their own right, as well as incredibly subject to interpretation. I don't know SMITE, so I can't comment on that.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,578
- 19,010
based on the discussions both have us have seen in them arguing over the tiering systems awhile back, one could pretty easily argue Tier 0 and those below are are subject to interpretation.Moritzva said:
using real world comparisons should be avoided where possible. that's the beginning and end of my take, this extends from 11-C to 0.
- 5,466
- 12,480
@Agnaa
Would you accept verses scaling to religious or philosophical constructs if we can prove that the author knows about the high tier stuff in them, even if the text itself doesn't include statements that would give high tiers?
I believe the divide happens here because of the fact religion and philosophy are incredibly subjective fields whose more esoteric aspects are constantly debated and reinterpreted. Even its tiering is a subject that is extremely controversial by nature and can massively shift depending on the lenses with which you view it. Mathematics is a different beast altogether, and it's concepts are fairly objective and well-defined within the frames where they are established, and it's no secret that some of them are what define and represent a great deal of the tiers.
Feel free to ignore this part if it scales things beyond where it's logically reasonable, but would you accept scaling to characters from other verses if the author knows what feats from the original text are being scaled to? Why/why not for both of these questions?
I wouldn't say so, unless the author explicitly mentions those feats in an out-of-universe manner, and even then, scaling such as this is very shifty and goes against our crossover rules. Math isn't exactly a verse, it's how we measure verses: You wouldn't say 1 and 2 are characters in a narrative, wouldn't you?
Would you accept verses scaling to religious or philosophical constructs if we can prove that the author knows about the high tier stuff in them, even if the text itself doesn't include statements that would give high tiers?
I believe the divide happens here because of the fact religion and philosophy are incredibly subjective fields whose more esoteric aspects are constantly debated and reinterpreted. Even its tiering is a subject that is extremely controversial by nature and can massively shift depending on the lenses with which you view it. Mathematics is a different beast altogether, and it's concepts are fairly objective and well-defined within the frames where they are established, and it's no secret that some of them are what define and represent a great deal of the tiers.
Feel free to ignore this part if it scales things beyond where it's logically reasonable, but would you accept scaling to characters from other verses if the author knows what feats from the original text are being scaled to? Why/why not for both of these questions?
I wouldn't say so, unless the author explicitly mentions those feats in an out-of-universe manner, and even then, scaling such as this is very shifty and goes against our crossover rules. Math isn't exactly a verse, it's how we measure verses: You wouldn't say 1 and 2 are characters in a narrative, wouldn't you?
- 3,452
- 787
Aren't peoples issues with the verses raitings also applicable to Twin Peaks? (Iaptus already brought this up)
Probably the wrong thread to bring it up in.
Probably the wrong thread to bring it up in.
- 648
- 97
Wait what? I read your later post so I guess you do agree that certain theologians have different definitions of omnipotence than others but what if cs lewis made a statement about omnipotence? He uses omnipotence in its purest form (as in "anything is possible", I cant remember if theres anything more complex to it than that) and solves the problem of omnipotence by saying that logically impossible actions mean nothing more than random words thrown together (e.g. What if I asked someone to hKsjxnJdne.h*?). Just want to know where we draw the line.Iapitus The Impaler said:
And if we're really going to go pure hardcore Death of the Author then we should take the authors word as it is, with omnipotent meaning the most common definition it has. Not saying we should, I just dont see how death of the author supports not taking experts for their word just because people who arent knowledgeable about omnipotence related philosophy (that's subjective too) often make oversights.
- 14,888
- 12,399
I believe the divide happens here because of the fact religion and philosophy are incredibly subjective fields whose more esoteric aspects are constantly debated and reinterpreted... Mathematics is a different beast altogether, and it's concepts are fairly objective and well-defined within the frames where they are established... You wouldn't say 1 and 2 are characters in a narrative, wouldn't you?
Religions still have some things that aren't very esoteric and vague that can be easily scaled to without much debate. Such as certain deities creating storms, some of them having created the stars, etc.
Mathematical concepts are well defined - what they mean for the attack potency/size of a verse that contains them is a whole other story. The quote that The Mathiverse's statistics comes from isn't as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. It describes transcendence and containment of extremely vague concepts
Hard, pure, objective mathematics cannot talk about the size of intelligence, extelligence, thought, or transcendence. Pure mathematics can't talk about what spaces and times can and can't exist (as pure mathematics relies only on its own axioms and fundamental logic, having no reliance on our reality and what's possible in it).
There are some more straightforward things, if you assume that "contains" means "this structure exists" rather than "a representation of this structure exists". But even those sometimes talk about mathematical structures that are so loose that they are boundlessly extendable, such as how it contains all categories, but to be fair it doesn't seem like you use these super NLF things, just other things that extend ridiculously high.
Overall I can see why you believe it, but I'm not happy with having characters so far above tier 0 that they see tier 0 the same way it sees tier 11-C but a number of times so large that it's misleading to call it "infinite" [see note for what I mean]. Considering how much evidence we usually demand for high tiers I'm not happy to substitute textual evidence with references to external concepts, no matter how objective they are, to give tiers that no other approach to storytelling could ever reach.
[note] To clarify, it transcends tier 0 the way tier 0 transcends the rest of the tiering system much more than an infinite number of times.
You can order infinities, these are called cardinals. By simply going one infinity higher the size increases an unfathomable amount. The number of times tier 0 is transcended is more than the number of these cardinals.
Beyond those cardinals are the inaccessible cardinals, that have to be axiomatically declared and can never be reached from below. The number of times tier 0 is transcended is more than the number of these inaccessible cardinals.
I think there's at least 10 times this system of "cannot be reached from below" is repeated before we can accurately describe the number of times The Mathiverse transcends baseline tier 0.
I wouldn't say so, unless the author explicitly mentions those feats in an out-of-universe manner, and even then, scaling such as this is very shifty and goes against our crossover rules.
I wasn't so much thinking crossovers, but references to public domain works like the Cthulu Mythos, or inclusions of other characters like a certain JJBA character and a certain SCP.
Also, maybe those crossover rules need to be changed if we allow out-of-text stuff as long as the author knows about it and it's objective.
Religions still have some things that aren't very esoteric and vague that can be easily scaled to without much debate. Such as certain deities creating storms, some of them having created the stars, etc.
Mathematical concepts are well defined - what they mean for the attack potency/size of a verse that contains them is a whole other story. The quote that The Mathiverse's statistics comes from isn't as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. It describes transcendence and containment of extremely vague concepts
| it transcends Intelligence and Extelligence... it transcends Thought; it transcends Transcendence itself. |
| Within it... 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 |
There are some more straightforward things, if you assume that "contains" means "this structure exists" rather than "a representation of this structure exists". But even those sometimes talk about mathematical structures that are so loose that they are boundlessly extendable, such as how it contains all categories, but to be fair it doesn't seem like you use these super NLF things, just other things that extend ridiculously high.
Overall I can see why you believe it, but I'm not happy with having characters so far above tier 0 that they see tier 0 the same way it sees tier 11-C but a number of times so large that it's misleading to call it "infinite" [see note for what I mean]. Considering how much evidence we usually demand for high tiers I'm not happy to substitute textual evidence with references to external concepts, no matter how objective they are, to give tiers that no other approach to storytelling could ever reach.
[note] To clarify, it transcends tier 0 the way tier 0 transcends the rest of the tiering system much more than an infinite number of times.
You can order infinities, these are called cardinals. By simply going one infinity higher the size increases an unfathomable amount. The number of times tier 0 is transcended is more than the number of these cardinals.
Beyond those cardinals are the inaccessible cardinals, that have to be axiomatically declared and can never be reached from below. The number of times tier 0 is transcended is more than the number of these inaccessible cardinals.
I think there's at least 10 times this system of "cannot be reached from below" is repeated before we can accurately describe the number of times The Mathiverse transcends baseline tier 0.
I wouldn't say so, unless the author explicitly mentions those feats in an out-of-universe manner, and even then, scaling such as this is very shifty and goes against our crossover rules.
I wasn't so much thinking crossovers, but references to public domain works like the Cthulu Mythos, or inclusions of other characters like a certain JJBA character and a certain SCP.
Also, maybe those crossover rules need to be changed if we allow out-of-text stuff as long as the author knows about it and it's objective.
- 5,466
- 12,480
Apologize for the late response. Anyways:
Religions still have some things that aren't very esoteric and vague that can be easily scaled to without much debate. Such as certain deities creating storms, some of them having created the stars, etc.
I wasn't so much thinking crossovers, but references to public domain works like the Cthulu Mythos, or inclusions of other characters like a certain JJBA character and a certain SCP.
Once again, I'd say it depends, as fictional characters are extremely subjective constructs, and authors may interpret them as far weaker or stronger than we do. If someone with the power to summon fictional characters from their own verse is capable of summoning Spider-Man, we obviously wouldn't put an High 8-C rating in their profile if said Spider-Man proceeds to be constantly portrayed as 9-B in the story, even if the author is a huge Spider-Man fan or something.
I believe a good example of this would be Sundered, which is a video game based on the Lovecraftian Mythos where Nyarlathotep is the final boss, and is mostly just portrayed as a giant monster who shoots lasers around and whose best feat is causing a vague end of the world both in background lore and in a bad ending. We obviously wouldn't rate such a vastly low-scale depiction of the character as 1-A.
I mostly just believe scaling to the scope of things such as large cardinals is valid in this case because, well, they are simply numbers, as enormous as they are, and their whole function is to indicate the size of sets. They are very much not as subjective as characters when it comes to their scale, as I've already said.
Mathematical concepts are well defined - what they mean for the attack potency/size of a verse that contains them is a whole other story. The quote that The Mathiverse's statistics comes from isn't as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. It describes transcendence and containment of extremely vague concepts.
There isn't any particular reason to group them together with the more straightfoward statements regarding the containment actual mathematical objects, though, the weird metaphysical descriptions are one thing, those are another.
There are some more straightforward things, if you assume that "contains" means "this structure exists" rather than "a representation of this structure exists". But even those sometimes talk about mathematical structures that are so loose that they are boundlessly extendable, such as how it contains all categories, but to be fair it doesn't seem like you use these super NLF things, just other things that extend ridiculously high.
Yeah, I just go with the natural extensions of the concepts which are stated to be contained in the Mathiverse (such as "all power sets" and whatever else), I guess, mainly because:
Overall I can see why you believe it, but I'm not happy with having characters so far above tier 0 that they see tier 0 the same way it sees tier 11-C but a number of times so large that it's misleading to call it "infinite". Considering how much evidence we usually demand for high tiers I'm not happy to substitute textual evidence with references to external concepts, no matter how objective they are, to give tiers that no other approach to storytelling could ever reach.
I figure this is because most Tier 0s are supposed to be vague, philosophical characters whose showings are extremely scattered and only form a coherent picture once pieced together into a whole. A good example of this being The Amaranth.
Meanwhile, the Mathiverse differs from them in the sense that its statements are clear-cut: It's supposed to be absurd and to encompass all of mathematics, as exemplified by the very plot of the book, and so the author just names every mathematical object and structure he can think of to exemplify the scale of the thing, some of which just happen to extend absurdly far, and so here we are.
Religions still have some things that aren't very esoteric and vague that can be easily scaled to without much debate. Such as certain deities creating storms, some of them having created the stars, etc.
I wasn't so much thinking crossovers, but references to public domain works like the Cthulu Mythos, or inclusions of other characters like a certain JJBA character and a certain SCP.
Once again, I'd say it depends, as fictional characters are extremely subjective constructs, and authors may interpret them as far weaker or stronger than we do. If someone with the power to summon fictional characters from their own verse is capable of summoning Spider-Man, we obviously wouldn't put an High 8-C rating in their profile if said Spider-Man proceeds to be constantly portrayed as 9-B in the story, even if the author is a huge Spider-Man fan or something.
I believe a good example of this would be Sundered, which is a video game based on the Lovecraftian Mythos where Nyarlathotep is the final boss, and is mostly just portrayed as a giant monster who shoots lasers around and whose best feat is causing a vague end of the world both in background lore and in a bad ending. We obviously wouldn't rate such a vastly low-scale depiction of the character as 1-A.
I mostly just believe scaling to the scope of things such as large cardinals is valid in this case because, well, they are simply numbers, as enormous as they are, and their whole function is to indicate the size of sets. They are very much not as subjective as characters when it comes to their scale, as I've already said.
Mathematical concepts are well defined - what they mean for the attack potency/size of a verse that contains them is a whole other story. The quote that The Mathiverse's statistics comes from isn't as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. It describes transcendence and containment of extremely vague concepts.
There isn't any particular reason to group them together with the more straightfoward statements regarding the containment actual mathematical objects, though, the weird metaphysical descriptions are one thing, those are another.
There are some more straightforward things, if you assume that "contains" means "this structure exists" rather than "a representation of this structure exists". But even those sometimes talk about mathematical structures that are so loose that they are boundlessly extendable, such as how it contains all categories, but to be fair it doesn't seem like you use these super NLF things, just other things that extend ridiculously high.
Yeah, I just go with the natural extensions of the concepts which are stated to be contained in the Mathiverse (such as "all power sets" and whatever else), I guess, mainly because:
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) |
I figure this is because most Tier 0s are supposed to be vague, philosophical characters whose showings are extremely scattered and only form a coherent picture once pieced together into a whole. A good example of this being The Amaranth.
Meanwhile, the Mathiverse differs from them in the sense that its statements are clear-cut: It's supposed to be absurd and to encompass all of mathematics, as exemplified by the very plot of the book, and so the author just names every mathematical object and structure he can think of to exemplify the scale of the thing, some of which just happen to extend absurdly far, and so here we are.
- 3,452
- 787
As much as people can say like 'We can't use the fact the author is a mathematician to justify tiering' Most of the justification seems to come from in-verse statements so I tend to agree with Ultima myself.
- 14,888
- 12,399
I'll only respond to this part, because for everything else in your post all I have to say is "Yeah, fair."
I figure this is because most Tier 0s are supposed to be vague, philosophical characters whose showings are extremely scattered and only form a coherent picture once pieced together into a whole. A good example of this being The Amaranth.
I absolutely cannot stand vague philosophical ultra-powerful characters. The only time I can care one iota about them is when they're funny intentional parodies, like Najimi Ajimu. I could not care less about whether those types of characters reign supreme or not.
No, my reason for taking this position is relatively straightforward, but to condense it from my posts, I don't like it for two reasons:
I figure this is because most Tier 0s are supposed to be vague, philosophical characters whose showings are extremely scattered and only form a coherent picture once pieced together into a whole. A good example of this being The Amaranth.
I absolutely cannot stand vague philosophical ultra-powerful characters. The only time I can care one iota about them is when they're funny intentional parodies, like Najimi Ajimu. I could not care less about whether those types of characters reign supreme or not.
No, my reason for taking this position is relatively straightforward, but to condense it from my posts, I don't like it for two reasons:
- It uses the author's background knowledge and stuff outside of the text, which we don't tend to do, and I think we should not do (with the exception of WoG already implied or made incredibly reasonable by the text). Tiering mythology characters based on our current understand of cosmology rather than their own might be an example of this (but even without that example, I still think fundamentally we shouldn't do stuff like this).
- Those statements outside the text give the character a rating which far exceeds what it would have otherwise, which is usually enough to toss out WoG, but is made exceptionally bad in my eyes by occurring in the tiers where I heard we require the most evidence and backing.
- 5,466
- 12,480
I absolutely cannot stand vague philosophical ultra-powerful characters. The only time I can care one iota about them is when they're funny intentional parodies, like Najimi Ajimu. I could not care less about whether those types of characters reign supreme or not.
You missed my point, I believe. My point was that, yes, while the controversy of ridiculously high-tiers such as High 1-A and 0 do play a great part in the amount of evidence needed to prove them, another part of this is largely due to how vaguely-defined such characters are, and they usually have a dozen quotes attributed to them + scaling to the rest of their cosmology which all contribute to their tiering. This is also one of the main reasons behind why Tier 1 and above verses normally need explanation blogs detailing whatever contrived shit they have in their setting.
On the other hand, this thing is clear-cut and pretty explicitly deals with stuff that defines the basis of our Tiering System, and goes out of its way to specify how it also encompasses any extensions of the things that fall under the categories it contains (formal / informal structures, sets, manifolds and what have you). I know this may sound like a bit of a NLF to you, but let's be fair, 1-A and above is and will always be hued with a bit of NLF by definition, at least when it comes to applying those rankings to fictional characters, in which case we could go ultra conservative and lowball everything in a way that nothing goes past High 1-B other than a select few characters.
Of course, I am not saying that we should start instantly accepting any vague all-encompassing statements when it comes to higher tiers, far from it, but I do feel that the Mathiverse's descriptions are specific enough for it to qualify, and contextually, they are indeed justified by the narrative.
You missed my point, I believe. My point was that, yes, while the controversy of ridiculously high-tiers such as High 1-A and 0 do play a great part in the amount of evidence needed to prove them, another part of this is largely due to how vaguely-defined such characters are, and they usually have a dozen quotes attributed to them + scaling to the rest of their cosmology which all contribute to their tiering. This is also one of the main reasons behind why Tier 1 and above verses normally need explanation blogs detailing whatever contrived shit they have in their setting.
On the other hand, this thing is clear-cut and pretty explicitly deals with stuff that defines the basis of our Tiering System, and goes out of its way to specify how it also encompasses any extensions of the things that fall under the categories it contains (formal / informal structures, sets, manifolds and what have you). I know this may sound like a bit of a NLF to you, but let's be fair, 1-A and above is and will always be hued with a bit of NLF by definition, at least when it comes to applying those rankings to fictional characters, in which case we could go ultra conservative and lowball everything in a way that nothing goes past High 1-B other than a select few characters.
Of course, I am not saying that we should start instantly accepting any vague all-encompassing statements when it comes to higher tiers, far from it, but I do feel that the Mathiverse's descriptions are specific enough for it to qualify, and contextually, they are indeed justified by the narrative.
- 6,104
- 5,102
The OP literally says "explain". How can I explain a verse I know nothing about and the OP doesn't exactly specify on what they really want explained?Antvasima said:
Is this another "fancy statements" tiering thing? Because it's getting old and I'm sorry we have to keep dealing with this.
- 8,927
- 3,439
This seems to be a matter of author intent - if a mathematician with plentiful, in-depth knowledge on the mathematical concepts that we use to define Tier 0 goes on to state in-verse that the verse is 'above all math,' would that be acceptable to rank it Tier high or whatever else is decided upon?Sera EX said:
Many agree that it is, unlike using religious basis, given that mathematics is far more objective than the subjective former, and the author clearly knew about these concepts when writing and making these statements.
- 10,748
- 6,476
- Thread starter
- #70
Apologies about thatSera EX said:
The purpose of this thread was mainly for Ultima to explain why the page is tier 0 formally, since I felt that was necessary. I guess just look at Ultima's argument to see if you agree with it or not
- 6,104
- 5,102
This seems to be a matter of author intent - if a mathematician with plentiful, in-depth knowledge on the mathematical concepts that we use to define Tier 0 goes on to state in-verse that the verse is 'above all math,' would that be acceptable to rank it Tier high or whatever else is decided upon?
No. Even the author being knowledgeable on a specific subject shouldn't give a vague statement more credibility. In fact, being knowledgeable should mean we should expect them to elaborate in more detail than vague explanations.
The purpose of this thread was mainly for Ultima to explain why the page is tier 0 formally, since I felt that was necessary. I guess just look at Ultima's argument to see if you agree with it or not
The initial reason we even had Flatland files to begin with was because it's lower-dimensional characters could help beginners understand how our system works. Therefore, the same should apply to the Mathiverse. It could serve as a "base example" of a Tier 0 from a mathematic perspective.
However, Agnaa is correct in that the same would technically apply to theology (theology, not religion, there's a difference). I can see it now, tons of mythology fans trying to get Tier 0 concepts and "locations" profiles on site (well, some already have attempted) - especially when such a page could serve as a base example of a Tier 0 from a theological perspective.
Most importantly, Death of the Author exists and we generally tend to ignore author intent in almost every other case. I'm not sure that making an exception for Flatland due to our newly found mathematical bias is fair or impartial.
No. Even the author being knowledgeable on a specific subject shouldn't give a vague statement more credibility. In fact, being knowledgeable should mean we should expect them to elaborate in more detail than vague explanations.
The purpose of this thread was mainly for Ultima to explain why the page is tier 0 formally, since I felt that was necessary. I guess just look at Ultima's argument to see if you agree with it or not
The initial reason we even had Flatland files to begin with was because it's lower-dimensional characters could help beginners understand how our system works. Therefore, the same should apply to the Mathiverse. It could serve as a "base example" of a Tier 0 from a mathematic perspective.
However, Agnaa is correct in that the same would technically apply to theology (theology, not religion, there's a difference). I can see it now, tons of mythology fans trying to get Tier 0 concepts and "locations" profiles on site (well, some already have attempted) - especially when such a page could serve as a base example of a Tier 0 from a theological perspective.
Most importantly, Death of the Author exists and we generally tend to ignore author intent in almost every other case. I'm not sure that making an exception for Flatland due to our newly found mathematical bias is fair or impartial.
- 5,466
- 12,480
No. Even the author being knowledgeable on a specific subject shouldn't give a vague statement more credibility. In fact, being knowledgeable should mean we should expect them to elaborate in more detail than vague explanations.
The statement in question is not exactly vague though, certainly not as vague as "transcends mathematics" descriptors that are relatively common in fiction, and that is a main point I've been trying to make throughout this thread. The implications of the current rating are already in it, and the point of contention is whether or not we should take it at face value, and I don't think there is any issue with that, considering how the text itself mentions several examples of actual mathematical objects and structures as things contained in the Mathiverse, as well as the frameworks in which they are defined and further extensions that could fall into the same categories as them. That the author is a mathematician is largely just supporting material, given how the Mathiverse is simply supposed to be... well, Math, just visualized as a conglomerate of spaces; A genuine Type IV Multiverse if you will.
However, Agnaa is correct in that the same would technically apply to theology (theology, not religion, there's a difference). I can see it now, tons of mythology fans trying to get Tier 0 concepts and "locations" profiles on site (well, some already have attempted) - especially when such a page could serve as a base example of a Tier 0 from a theological perspective.
I believe I've already commented in the past regarding how theology and religion don't really mesh well with the purposes of the wiki, especially not with the current tiering system, which is far more linear and strict regarding the requirements, and focuses on the idea of size far more than the old one. So, in my view, something like the Ain Soph from the Kabbalah shouldn't be tiered, wouldn't even have a fixed tier and would moreso vary depending on the verse in which it is depicted, and the same applies to a bunch of other philosophical concepts which people love to point at and say "omg that's 1-A!!!!!!".
This all goes back to my past rants regarding lenses and differing standards of scrutiny and what have you, which I believe you are familiar with.
I also conceded on the point regarding the Mathiverse being unable to have a page due to being a location. This debate seems to be more of a formality by now.
Most importantly, Death of the Author exists and we generally tend to ignore author intent in almost every other case. I'm not sure that making an exception for Flatland due to our newly found mathematical bias is fair or impartial.
This is a bit arbitrary though, no? It sounds more like people are actively trying to dodge the possibility of a certain tier instead of analyzing things in a more natural fashion, especially since, as I've already said, the implications of the current rating are already contained in the statement as is, and the contention here is how it should be interpreted, more than anything.
The statement in question is not exactly vague though, certainly not as vague as "transcends mathematics" descriptors that are relatively common in fiction, and that is a main point I've been trying to make throughout this thread. The implications of the current rating are already in it, and the point of contention is whether or not we should take it at face value, and I don't think there is any issue with that, considering how the text itself mentions several examples of actual mathematical objects and structures as things contained in the Mathiverse, as well as the frameworks in which they are defined and further extensions that could fall into the same categories as them. That the author is a mathematician is largely just supporting material, given how the Mathiverse is simply supposed to be... well, Math, just visualized as a conglomerate of spaces; A genuine Type IV Multiverse if you will.
However, Agnaa is correct in that the same would technically apply to theology (theology, not religion, there's a difference). I can see it now, tons of mythology fans trying to get Tier 0 concepts and "locations" profiles on site (well, some already have attempted) - especially when such a page could serve as a base example of a Tier 0 from a theological perspective.
I believe I've already commented in the past regarding how theology and religion don't really mesh well with the purposes of the wiki, especially not with the current tiering system, which is far more linear and strict regarding the requirements, and focuses on the idea of size far more than the old one. So, in my view, something like the Ain Soph from the Kabbalah shouldn't be tiered, wouldn't even have a fixed tier and would moreso vary depending on the verse in which it is depicted, and the same applies to a bunch of other philosophical concepts which people love to point at and say "omg that's 1-A!!!!!!".
This all goes back to my past rants regarding lenses and differing standards of scrutiny and what have you, which I believe you are familiar with.
I also conceded on the point regarding the Mathiverse being unable to have a page due to being a location. This debate seems to be more of a formality by now.
Most importantly, Death of the Author exists and we generally tend to ignore author intent in almost every other case. I'm not sure that making an exception for Flatland due to our newly found mathematical bias is fair or impartial.
This is a bit arbitrary though, no? It sounds more like people are actively trying to dodge the possibility of a certain tier instead of analyzing things in a more natural fashion, especially since, as I've already said, the implications of the current rating are already contained in the statement as is, and the contention here is how it should be interpreted, more than anything.
- 6,104
- 5,102
I mean, I generally agree with you (especiallyon how theology and especially religion don't blend well with vs forums). I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if people try to use a slippery slope and in about two months we have Tier 0 myth pages.
Not sure if locations should get files as I've expressed concern over recently but...that's offtopic.
Not sure if locations should get files as I've expressed concern over recently but...that's offtopic.
- 5,466
- 12,480
Well, I'd say that's largely on them, since tiering theology and more esoteric aspects of religion is a slippery field as is, one which doesn't have any compatibility with how we tier things, unlike this. Although, I do get what you are saying, overall, but I'd rather stay away from that, since it's a whole other can of worms.
Well, I won't object against the standards that are currently held on the wiki. If location profiles are not allowed, then I am fine with deleting the Mathiverse, whether my proposals get accepted or not.
Well, I won't object against the standards that are currently held on the wiki. If location profiles are not allowed, then I am fine with deleting the Mathiverse, whether my proposals get accepted or not.
- 14,888
- 12,399
(As an aside, the standards for location profiles seem to have been written and refined already)
But my issue is that we're not taking it at face value. We're taking a very vague and endlessly extendable statement like "Contains all sets" and applying what we know the author's knowledge to be to that statement. (I know that "sets" may not seem vague, but since we're not given the axioms by which those sets are constructed, we can't know all of what's meant by it, so I'd consider it vague)
Since it says "contains all sets" and we've seen him write about mahlo cardinals, weakly compact cardinals, hyperMahlo cardinals, ineffable cardinals, measurable cardinals, Ramsey cardinals, supercompact cardinals, huge cardinals, and n-huge cardinals (all of which are sets), we say that the Mathiverse contains physical representations all of those things, despite those things being stupidly huge and not explicitly mentioned in the story.
I'd be much happier if we only tiered The Mathiverse to constructs mentioned in the story, rather than any constructs we know the author has knowledge about.
The statement in question is not exactly vague though, certainly not as vague as "transcends mathematics" descriptors that are relatively common in fiction, and that is a main point I've been trying to make throughout this thread. The implications of the current rating are already in it, and the point of contention is whether or not we should take it at face value, and I don't think there is any issue with thatAgnaa said:
But my issue is that we're not taking it at face value. We're taking a very vague and endlessly extendable statement like "Contains all sets" and applying what we know the author's knowledge to be to that statement. (I know that "sets" may not seem vague, but since we're not given the axioms by which those sets are constructed, we can't know all of what's meant by it, so I'd consider it vague)
Since it says "contains all sets" and we've seen him write about mahlo cardinals, weakly compact cardinals, hyperMahlo cardinals, ineffable cardinals, measurable cardinals, Ramsey cardinals, supercompact cardinals, huge cardinals, and n-huge cardinals (all of which are sets), we say that the Mathiverse contains physical representations all of those things, despite those things being stupidly huge and not explicitly mentioned in the story.
I'd be much happier if we only tiered The Mathiverse to constructs mentioned in the story, rather than any constructs we know the author has knowledge about.
- 648
- 97
I know this isnt what the thread is asking, but the reason why we dont trust omnipotence statements is because most writers dont comprehend what the implications of them are, right (I think DDM said that)? Not only does this go against a hardcore Death of the Author approach (which I dont think we should take) due to it factoring in the intent (or lack thereof) of the author but said author being an expert completely gets rid of the "author doesnt understand the implications" problem.
Potentially tier 0 statements being "vague" was a point brought up too. Is "omnipotent" really that vague? When used in a literal sense (e.g. NOT calling le drumpf omnipotent to sort of exaggerate his power in a funny [?] way) I'm pretty sure it universally means the definition of omnipotence we all know (too lazy to paste it because mobile).
Potentially tier 0 statements being "vague" was a point brought up too. Is "omnipotent" really that vague? When used in a literal sense (e.g. NOT calling le drumpf omnipotent to sort of exaggerate his power in a funny [?] way) I'm pretty sure it universally means the definition of omnipotence we all know (too lazy to paste it because mobile).
- 135
- 7
Is he at this level only to transcend or to have mathematical conjuncts in his being?
Mathematics is not nearly as powerful. Something that is in the Mathiverse profile is: "as well as transcendence itself" transcendence itself are more philosophical things like level of existence and so on. Mathematics How far do we know to overcome infinite layer?
Mathematics is not nearly as powerful. Something that is in the Mathiverse profile is: "as well as transcendence itself" transcendence itself are more philosophical things like level of existence and so on. Mathematics How far do we know to overcome infinite layer?
- 5,466
- 12,480
But my issue is that we're not taking it at face value. We're taking a very vague and endlessly extendable statement like "Contains all sets" and applying what we know the author's knowledge to be to that statement. (I know that "sets" may not seem vague, but since we're not given the axioms by which those sets are constructed, we can't know all of what's meant by it, so I'd consider it vague)
I am aware that "all sets" is a really relative statement and is indeed vague at first glance, especially given how the statement itself varies depending on which axioms you use to construct your universe of sets and all that blah blah blah, but once again, I believe it can be taken literally because of how the Mathiverse is explicitly stated to contain all formal systems, which are the frameworks in which mathematical objects such as sets are defined in the first place, through the placement of axioms and syntax and whatnot, and the very phrase "all formal descriptions of formal structures" already refers to the concept of underlying axioms defining objects in a system, just like "all informal descriptions of illogical structures" is in turn referring to informal logic (i.e mathematical objects being described by natural language and not special symbols and alphabets), so the idea that the statement is vague because it doesn't mention specific axioms seems kinda spotty to me.
Then there is how the text explicitly notes that any extensions or extrapolations of everything contained in the aforementioned categories would still be contained in the Mathiverse anyways, which is like, the whole definition of 1-A and above: "Can't be reached by any extensions of X", so dismissing all of those statements as NLF feels kinda weird and going against what the tiers are supposed to be, especially when there is already both High 1-B (infinite dimensions and infinite-dimensional universes) and 1-A (aspatiotemporal universes relative to those) stuff in the Mathiverse which are nonetheless still defined by their formal descriptions as logical structures.
And, well, like I said on Discord, that thing's page isn't staying anyways, so at the end this debate is pretty much a pointless formality at this stage, in my view. So you can all do as you wish.
I am aware that "all sets" is a really relative statement and is indeed vague at first glance, especially given how the statement itself varies depending on which axioms you use to construct your universe of sets and all that blah blah blah, but once again, I believe it can be taken literally because of how the Mathiverse is explicitly stated to contain all formal systems, which are the frameworks in which mathematical objects such as sets are defined in the first place, through the placement of axioms and syntax and whatnot, and the very phrase "all formal descriptions of formal structures" already refers to the concept of underlying axioms defining objects in a system, just like "all informal descriptions of illogical structures" is in turn referring to informal logic (i.e mathematical objects being described by natural language and not special symbols and alphabets), so the idea that the statement is vague because it doesn't mention specific axioms seems kinda spotty to me.
Then there is how the text explicitly notes that any extensions or extrapolations of everything contained in the aforementioned categories would still be contained in the Mathiverse anyways, which is like, the whole definition of 1-A and above: "Can't be reached by any extensions of X", so dismissing all of those statements as NLF feels kinda weird and going against what the tiers are supposed to be, especially when there is already both High 1-B (infinite dimensions and infinite-dimensional universes) and 1-A (aspatiotemporal universes relative to those) stuff in the Mathiverse which are nonetheless still defined by their formal descriptions as logical structures.
And, well, like I said on Discord, that thing's page isn't staying anyways, so at the end this debate is pretty much a pointless formality at this stage, in my view. So you can all do as you wish.
Similar threads
