Tiering System FAQ correction

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply.

 

[Eficiente]

I'm ready to retake this thread if everyone else is. What would the required changes be exactly?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, please check the post from another thread that I linked to above regarding what I had in mind, but I remember the specifics of our discussion here poorly at this point.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think DT's proposal is fine.

 

[Eficiente]

Quoting that comment

It needs "superiority in nature", not just superiority alone, as the page states. That, IMO as just one of the people who wrote on that page, is probably to be taken to mean qualitative superiority. See the last paragraph of the "what is transcendent"-section as for what qualitative superiority means.
Actually, pretty sure we wanted to do clarifications regarding that stuff in this thread (reformulating it to qualitative superiority in particular), but just never finished it because... too much stuff is going on at once, I guess.

"Superiority in nature" rather "superiority" alone and keep on using "qualitative superiority" which are 2 words we gave our own meaning to feel like the part of problem of why so many people doesn't get this. Whatever new wording is added will be better than how we have it but won't fixed the issue.

Reading this thread from this comment onward would help see my opinion on this. Otherwise the change can be made and I will point out from that what exploitable flaws will still bite us back, starting this thread from 0.

 

[Antvasima]

I have asked DontTalk to help us out here.

 

[Lewis]

I think the "arceus" thread is a problem because arceus true from is not 5D compliant.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk has been busy IRL lately, but he is trying to help with the most crucial tasks in this forum when he finds the time.

 

[Eficiente]

I think the "arceus" thread is a problem because arceus true from is not 5D compliant.

It's known that too many verses got into Tier 1 via invalid reasons, that much doesn't matter and neither does Arceus, in the sense that fixing the wording in the Tiering & its FQA solves the problem and is the priority. To not normalize this, this is a Staff Discussion and regular users should not normally comment in it.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody remind me regarding our conclusions so far here, and what we currently need to evaluate, please?

 

[Eficiente]

Well, this comment sums it up. DontTalkDT wants to make a chane in wording that's not wrong and would likely improve things, but the issue beforehand remains, I need to slowly see if they understand my reasons when I say that the wording needs to be clear as water and with no room for misinterpretations regardless of potentially looking a bit bad due to redundancy.

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody remind me regarding our conclusions so far here, and what we currently need to evaluate, please?

Well, this comment sums it up. DontTalkDT wants to make a change in wording that's not wrong and would likely improve things, but the issue beforehand remains, I need to slowly see if they understand my reasons when I say that the wording needs to be clear as water and with no room for misinterpretations regardless of potentially looking a bit bad due to redundancy.

Okay.

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to help out a bit further here please?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Alright, so first let's add that section regarding defining qualitative superiority. Something like this:

What is qualitative superiority?​

Qualitative superiority, also sometimes called being qualitatively greater, is a term colloquially used to mean that something is superior to an extend that it justifies being on a higher tier of infinity in terms of our Tiering System than the thing they are superior to. That means a character qualitatively superior to the usual spacetime continuum would, for example, be Low Complex Multiverse level (Tier Low 1-C) at the level represented by the R^5. Someone qualitatively superior to that would have the same tier, but on the higher level of infinity represented by the R^6 and someone qualitatively superior to that level would be baseline Complex Multiverse level (Tier 1-C).
In the same vein a space being qualitatively superior to another space, means that destroying that space would land you on a higher level of infinity in the Tiering System than destroying the space it is superior to.
In rough terms it means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size".

The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference. Another typical example is reality-fiction differences. Those are cases like viewing a plane of reality as mere fiction, like for example writing on a sheet of paper or a dream. They are assumed to imply superiority of a similar scale.
Of course, the same levels of superiority can also be reached via sufficiently explicit quantitative statements, such as when cardinalities above countably infinite get involved in a manner that implies a corresponding difference in power/size.

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

With that explanation added I think this change should work (possibly linking qualitative superior to the section that explains the term):

Forgot about this. Yes this was already resolved and really to be applied. We agreed on:

"However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is qualitatively superior to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

"Transcend" space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum or slightly more complex, but not infinitely so."

Is that ok? Did I forget about something from the thread to this point?

 

[Eficiente]

Well, the thread was about the "Q: What tier is transcending space and time?" section of that page, but adding that section helps in a similar manner and is good to have.

Still, pointing out misconceptions about the word transcendence should still be done as long as we can foresee users interpreting possible a "qualitative superiority" out of transcendence being applied to space & time/a universe/etc rather than what a regular person would in that context.

 

[Bobsican]

Minor fix:

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stranger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

I think the bolded word is meant to be "stronger", correct?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Minor fix:


I think the bolded word is meant to be "stronger", correct?

Yeah, typo. I fixed it.

Well, the thread was about the "Q: What tier is transcending space and time?" section of that page, but adding that section helps in a similar manner and is good to have.

Still, pointing out misconceptions about the word transcendence should still be done as long as we can foresee users interpreting possible a "qualitative superiority" out of transcendence being applied to space & time/a universe/etc rather than what a regular person would in that context.

Yeah, the addition was partly to fix that part.

What do you think should be added regarding the transcendence-thing aside from your suggested additions/changes I quoted in my last post?

 

[Eficiente]

It can benefit from this clarification of what qualitative superiority is for us. I think the first and second paragraphs can be mixed together while the first paragraph has removed what it says on what transcendence can be used for, then a new second paragraph can start saying what transcendence can be used for and have more room to elaborate on it.

"As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is [[#Q: What is qualitative superiority?|qualitatively superior]] to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for such a statement to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. As we know, something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible, and not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as this qualities something A is superior to something B being by infinite amounts. With this in mind, it is impossible for statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, to refer to qualitative superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate and recontextualize this."

 

[DontTalkDT]

It can benefit from this clarification of what qualitative superiority is for us. I think the first and second paragraphs can be mixed together while the first paragraph has removed what it says on what transcendence can be used for, then a new second paragraph can start saying what transcendence can be used for and have more room to elaborate on it.

I couldn't follow that explanation tbh. Can you dumb it down for me if it isn't covered by the next paragraph?

"As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is [[#Q: What is qualitative superiority?|qualitatively superior]] to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for such a statement to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. As we know, something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible, and not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as this qualities something A is superior to something B being by infinite amounts. With this in mind, it is impossible for statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, to refer to qualitative superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate and recontextualize this."

Seems mostly fine. I made some minor changes to it, which I have highlighted:

As said above, "transcending space and time" is a very vague statement by itself and can mean multiple things depending on the context in which it is made, as well as how this characteristic is portrayed in the first place. However, if it is specified that they "transcend space and time" in the sense that they exist on some higher level of reality that is [[#Q: What is qualitative superiority?|qualitatively superior]] to a spacetime continuum in nature, then they should be put at Low 1-C, assuming the continuum in question is one comprised of four dimensions. The answer may vary depending on this factor.

It is perfectly possible for a statement like transcending space and time to mean that a character is simply "untied" from the universe's spacetime, and is thus unaffected by alterations in the timeline and similar meddlings. It's not exactly uncommon for time travel (Or any action / process that affects something through different points in time) to be described as "transcending time and space." Transcend space and time can also refer to a spacetime continuum being different to a "regular" spacetime continuum (Say, a strange-looking reality that may hold a few different physical laws, for example) or slightly do be more complex than a regular universe, even significantly so, but not qualitatively superior. Something A being said to "transcend" something B in real life can refer to the former being superior to the latter in some qualities in a notable way, but still roughly compatible. It does not necessarily mean transcendence not in an immeasurable way that would be graphically indescribable, such as A's qualities being superior to B by infinite amounts. With this in mind, statements of realities or beings with transcendence over space & time/the universe/etc., on their own, are not assumed to refer to qualitative superiority, unless of course further context may elaborate on and contextualize this.

 

[Eficiente]

It doesn't matter, checking that text was what mattered. And since those those minor changes don't change the meaning in the text in any way, we are on the same line here.

With this text on, ideally any random user could grab in a verse that's Low 1-C via invalid reasons and downgrade it. With no room for a "Possibly" that everybody knows is disingenuous. So, finally. All this is a pretty big before and after for the wiki.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In that case I guess I will wait a while for further opinions and then apply this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Since this thread has been going on for long I have applied it for now to not drag things further.
If there are problems it's always easy to revert.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, DontTalk. Your changes seem fine to me.

Is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

 

[DontTalkDT]

If nobody has objections to the changes we can close this.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.