-
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.
Tiering System Revisions - Part 4 (Staff Only)
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- Status
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #82
Well, I suggested we first review verses which qualify for the new higher tiers first and blah blah blah and then apply which System we think is best, but since not that many people have weighted in on this idea, then, I suppose so, yes.
I will make a Blog showing what the Tiering System page will roughly look like and show it here in a short time.
I will make a Blog showing what the Tiering System page will roughly look like and show it here in a short time.
- 14,914
- 12,430
| Well, I suggested we first review verses which qualify for the new higher tiers first and blah blah blah and then apply which System we think is best, but since not that many people have weighted in on this idea, then, I suppose so, yes. |
| Like I said, the purpose of this thread (aside from discussing how dimensions are gonna work from now on) is to just ensure that we can be all on the same page regarding what I proposed, how we are all going to do it, if anyone has problems about it, all that jazz. The analyzing itself should preferably be left to separate CRTs tackling specific verses, as to not clog this thread with unecessary parallel conversations. |
Granted, you did later say "Nevertheless, I still think verses should first be analyzed using the arrangement i proposed as a basis before the 1-A stuff of the system is officially applied." but I misinterpreted the end of that comment and thought you contradicted that again. Also I believe you told me over Discord not to discuss the only high-tier verse I know just yet, so I'll hold off on that.
But if we are meant to review what verses qualify where, then we should definitely get started on that.
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #84
And when Matt did start analyzing specific verses you said "Anyways, we should try to not derail this thread." And the comments from various people after that were mixed on whether we should discuss specific verses.
Yeah, because Umineko is its own can of worms that needs a revision on its own, as is SCP, hence why I told you it'd be best to discuss it in the Wiki proper when the revisions for it are actually done. That doesn't really stop you from discussing it with me off-site about it or something, though.
Secondly, as I previously said, this thread was just to tie up loose ends and make sure we are all on the same page here. Verses should be analyzed on separate CRTs specifically for them, imo, though I am definitely open to better suggestions.
Yeah, because Umineko is its own can of worms that needs a revision on its own, as is SCP, hence why I told you it'd be best to discuss it in the Wiki proper when the revisions for it are actually done. That doesn't really stop you from discussing it with me off-site about it or something, though.
Secondly, as I previously said, this thread was just to tie up loose ends and make sure we are all on the same page here. Verses should be analyzed on separate CRTs specifically for them, imo, though I am definitely open to better suggestions.
- 165,217
- 72,200
Okay. That seems fine. You will need to slightly modify the other statistics and instruction pages that are affected by this revision as well though, not just the Tiering System one.Ultima Reality said:
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #89
- 30,083
- 31,352
Between Outerverse level and High Outerverse level? There could be a "+" for an possible suggestions.
- 1,561
- 130
why not just stick with high outerversal for the naming?
- 165,217
- 72,200
High 3-A: "...or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time."
This could turn into a serious problem, given that most multiverse-destroyers are not defined in this manner, as far as I am aware.
This could turn into a serious problem, given that most multiverse-destroyers are not defined in this manner, as far as I am aware.
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #95
This doesn't really refer to the most common type of Multiversal feats, and moreso is just to account for cases where a "Multiverse" is more like a collection of physically separated bubbles, as opposed to spatio-temporally isolated areas. Quilted Multiverses pretty much.
- 30,083
- 31,352
Basically destroying all space in a quilted multiverse or an infinite number of 3-D spaces is still High 3-A if they aren't destroying time.
- 1,561
- 130
they should still be high 3-A if u destroy all space within the specific universe.
- 165,217
- 72,200
High 1-B: "Infinite-dimensional spaces and objects can qualify for this tier iff they are either provably infinite in all of their axes. or can be safely assumed to be so, while characters who only encompass finitely-sized subsets of each axis of infinite-dimensional space are defaulted to High 3-A."
Which characters would be affected by this? I am not sure that a lot of infinite-dimensional characters are specified as being infinitely large in each direction.
Which characters would be affected by this? I am not sure that a lot of infinite-dimensional characters are specified as being infinitely large in each direction.
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #101
If an infinite-dimensional expanse is higher than Infinite Multiversal in scope, then it most certainly will still qualify for High 1-B, as it wouldn't really make much sense for we to assume it is finite in some direction if they dwarf an already infinite multiverse for example, in my opinion.
What will be affected are likely objects or entities which are stated to be infinite-dimensional with no further context or elaboration, although I believe these cases would be reeeeeeeally rare.
What will be affected are likely objects or entities which are stated to be infinite-dimensional with no further context or elaboration, although I believe these cases would be reeeeeeeally rare.
- 165,217
- 72,200
Okay. It should preferably be clarified that you are referring to universes separated from each other by mere 3-dimensional space though, not ones separated by higher dimensions and inaccessible by regular space travel, even at infinite speeds.Ultima Reality said:
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #104
Because High 1-A's whole schtick is that it transcends Outerversal structures in the first place. Though I'm fine with sticking to High Outerverse level for simplicity's sake.Maxnumb231 said:
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #106
That's already specified on the description of High 3-A.
- 165,217
- 72,200
Perhaps you could try to make this a bit clearer, so our members do not misunderstand and think that most characters who destroy lots of universes without the word "timelines" involved only qualify for High 3-A?
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #108
Sure.
- 10,502
- 11,574
In regards to the draft of the tiering system I have a few questions.
Question regarding Low 2-C: Since our real life universe could be finite in extent, would that mean that destroying our real life timeline is not Universe level+? Or should I understand it as universal scale space-time continua qualifying even if they don't fall into A, B or C?
"though it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional (R ^ 4) space"
Can we write this a bit differently? I think this formulation could be misinterpreted as us saying that any 4-dimensional space is the R^4 in some sense.
IMO we need a definition of "causally closed/isolated" on the page (or replace the terms with something more self-expanatory). This could for example be misinterpreted as being outside each others cosmological horizons.
To Low 1-A: "most specifically ones comparable to the set of all real numbers in size" I think it makes more sense to say amount than size here, as what the size of the set of real numbers is is easy to misunderstand. Maybe something like ". More specifically ones for which the amount of dimensions, layers or levels is equal to the amount of real numbers."
In general I would suggest separating that sentence into multiple ones for better readability. (This also goes for some other tiers with very long sentences)
"and thus equated to the first uncountably infinite cardinal, ÔäÁ1, for simplicity's sake."
If we use cardinals on the main page (as opposed to for example just using them in the mathematical explanation part of the Dimensional Tiering page) the page needs to include a simple explanation for what they are and mean. The average users will otherwise get confused by a sentence like above. I would in that regard rather have a short handwritten explanation tailored to out purposes than simply wikipedias.
To High 1-A & 0: Personally I'm still against using cardinals we don't even know to exist as definition for this.
More importantly, the entire explanation is relatively clear on a theoretical level, but for practice purposes not understandable for me. That is to say, after reading it I have no idea which demands we actually have on characters and their feats for them to actually reach these tiers.
And considering that I'm supposed to revise The Law of Identity and Sai Akuto that's more than a theoretical problem.
To ask two example questions:
Is transcending an infinite outerversal reality-fiction hierarchy High 1-A?
If a character is intended to be above any kind of hierarchy is that High 1-A or 0 or is such a statement irrelevant due to the entirely different sizes and nature of hierarchies in different fictions?
Question regarding Low 2-C: Since our real life universe could be finite in extent, would that mean that destroying our real life timeline is not Universe level+? Or should I understand it as universal scale space-time continua qualifying even if they don't fall into A, B or C?
"though it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional (R ^ 4) space"
Can we write this a bit differently? I think this formulation could be misinterpreted as us saying that any 4-dimensional space is the R^4 in some sense.
IMO we need a definition of "causally closed/isolated" on the page (or replace the terms with something more self-expanatory). This could for example be misinterpreted as being outside each others cosmological horizons.
To Low 1-A: "most specifically ones comparable to the set of all real numbers in size" I think it makes more sense to say amount than size here, as what the size of the set of real numbers is is easy to misunderstand. Maybe something like ". More specifically ones for which the amount of dimensions, layers or levels is equal to the amount of real numbers."
In general I would suggest separating that sentence into multiple ones for better readability. (This also goes for some other tiers with very long sentences)
"and thus equated to the first uncountably infinite cardinal, ÔäÁ1, for simplicity's sake."
If we use cardinals on the main page (as opposed to for example just using them in the mathematical explanation part of the Dimensional Tiering page) the page needs to include a simple explanation for what they are and mean. The average users will otherwise get confused by a sentence like above. I would in that regard rather have a short handwritten explanation tailored to out purposes than simply wikipedias.
To High 1-A & 0: Personally I'm still against using cardinals we don't even know to exist as definition for this.
More importantly, the entire explanation is relatively clear on a theoretical level, but for practice purposes not understandable for me. That is to say, after reading it I have no idea which demands we actually have on characters and their feats for them to actually reach these tiers.
And considering that I'm supposed to revise The Law of Identity and Sai Akuto that's more than a theoretical problem.
To ask two example questions:
Is transcending an infinite outerversal reality-fiction hierarchy High 1-A?
If a character is intended to be above any kind of hierarchy is that High 1-A or 0 or is such a statement irrelevant due to the entirely different sizes and nature of hierarchies in different fictions?
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #114
Can we write this a bit differently? I think this formulation could be misinterpreted as us saying that any 4-dimensional space is the R^4 in some sense.
IMO we need a definition of "causally closed/isolated" on the page (or replace the terms with something more self-expanatory). This could for example be misinterpreted as being outside each others cosmological horizons.
To Low 1-A: "most specifically ones comparable to the set of all real numbers in size" I think it makes more sense to say amount than size here, as what the size of the set of real numbers is is easy to misunderstand. Maybe something like ". More specifically ones for which the amount of dimensions, layers or levels is equal to the amount of real numbers."
Noted.
If we use cardinals on the main page (as opposed to for example just using them in the mathematical explanation part of the Dimensional Tiering page) the page needs to include a simple explanation for what they are and mean. The average users will otherwise get confused by a sentence like above. I would in that regard rather have a short handwritten explanation tailored to out purposes than simply wikipedias.
The page itself will contain a link to a more in-depth article which elaborates on the clockwork beneath the hood of the system, probably followed by some brief explanations + links to videos that concisely explain the concepts used here.
So, yeah, no worries.
To High 1-A & 0: Personally I'm still against using cardinals we don't even know to exist as definition for this.
Large Cardinals don't normally exist within a given set-theoretical Universe, but they can be added as additional axioms which extend its scope, just like one doesn't even have to consider the axiom of infinity as part of a certain framework, but is still free to do so anyways. The fact that they exist more as additional axioms and postulates than inherent parts of a given Universe also fits with the whole definition of High 1-A, as in, transcending and being fully external to Outerversal Hierarchies in general.
Is transcending an infinite outerversal reality-fiction hierarchy High 1-A?
Yeah, so long as they are actually external to it, as opposed to being transcendent in the sense of being "at the top", but still part of the overall hierarchy, if you get what I mean. It's not actually any different from the way High 1-B and 1-A interact, really, it's just on a larger scale.
If a character is intended to be above any kind of hierarchy is that High 1-A or 0 or is such a statement irrelevant due to the entirely different sizes and nature of hierarchies in different fictions?
"Transcending any kind of hierarchy" is such a vague statement that it should probably be analyzed more thoroughly based on whatever context there is to it. If it is in relation to 1-A Hierarchies, then that seems to be a fairly straightforward example of High 1-A.
IMO we need a definition of "causally closed/isolated" on the page (or replace the terms with something more self-expanatory). This could for example be misinterpreted as being outside each others cosmological horizons.
To Low 1-A: "most specifically ones comparable to the set of all real numbers in size" I think it makes more sense to say amount than size here, as what the size of the set of real numbers is is easy to misunderstand. Maybe something like ". More specifically ones for which the amount of dimensions, layers or levels is equal to the amount of real numbers."
Noted.
If we use cardinals on the main page (as opposed to for example just using them in the mathematical explanation part of the Dimensional Tiering page) the page needs to include a simple explanation for what they are and mean. The average users will otherwise get confused by a sentence like above. I would in that regard rather have a short handwritten explanation tailored to out purposes than simply wikipedias.
The page itself will contain a link to a more in-depth article which elaborates on the clockwork beneath the hood of the system, probably followed by some brief explanations + links to videos that concisely explain the concepts used here.
So, yeah, no worries.
To High 1-A & 0: Personally I'm still against using cardinals we don't even know to exist as definition for this.
Large Cardinals don't normally exist within a given set-theoretical Universe, but they can be added as additional axioms which extend its scope, just like one doesn't even have to consider the axiom of infinity as part of a certain framework, but is still free to do so anyways. The fact that they exist more as additional axioms and postulates than inherent parts of a given Universe also fits with the whole definition of High 1-A, as in, transcending and being fully external to Outerversal Hierarchies in general.
Is transcending an infinite outerversal reality-fiction hierarchy High 1-A?
Yeah, so long as they are actually external to it, as opposed to being transcendent in the sense of being "at the top", but still part of the overall hierarchy, if you get what I mean. It's not actually any different from the way High 1-B and 1-A interact, really, it's just on a larger scale.
If a character is intended to be above any kind of hierarchy is that High 1-A or 0 or is such a statement irrelevant due to the entirely different sizes and nature of hierarchies in different fictions?
"Transcending any kind of hierarchy" is such a vague statement that it should probably be analyzed more thoroughly based on whatever context there is to it. If it is in relation to 1-A Hierarchies, then that seems to be a fairly straightforward example of High 1-A.
- 10,502
- 11,574
Isn't that in conflict with the Large Cardinal idea, though? Spaces withUltima Reality said:
ÔäÁ1, ÔäÁ2, ÔäÁ3,...
many dimensions build an infinite outerversal hierarchy and a space with ÔäÁ¤ë many dimensions would be truly bigger than each of them.
So would the destruction of something larger than an infinite outerversal hierarchy, transcending said hierarchy AP wise, not actually be in those realms? (One could put it as smallest weak limit cardinal greater ÔäÁ0)
Btw. you should probably get a different article on large cardinals if you want to use them. As the page you currently linked to states "There is no generally agreed precise definition of what a large cardinal property is", which makes the term kinda imprecise.
In any case, I think something like "transcending an infinite outerversal hierarchy" should be mentioned in the High 1-A description. That will probably be the criteria that will usually be the deciding factor for placing characters there.
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #116
ÔäÁ¤ë many dimensions / layers would be more akin to the size or the upper bound of the entire Infinite 1-A Hierarchy, as opposed to being something completely transcendent over it, much like the ¤ëth layer on an infinitely-layered High 1-B hierarchy would supersede all the other layers, but still be part of the overall framework and only stand at the top of it, as opposed to trivializing the whole thing altogether, which is what 1-A would require.
Btw. you should probably get a different article on large cardinals if you want to use them. As the page you currently linked to states "There is no generally agreed precise definition of what a large cardinal property is", which makes the term kinda imprecise.
In any case, I think something like "transcending an infinite outerversal hierarchy" should be mentioned in the High 1-A description. That will probably be the criteria that will usually be the deciding factor for placing characters there.
That seems fair.
Btw. you should probably get a different article on large cardinals if you want to use them. As the page you currently linked to states "There is no generally agreed precise definition of what a large cardinal property is", which makes the term kinda imprecise.
In any case, I think something like "transcending an infinite outerversal hierarchy" should be mentioned in the High 1-A description. That will probably be the criteria that will usually be the deciding factor for placing characters there.
That seems fair.
- 12,085
- 2,094
And there will be what, 5 characters in High 1-A? ALL of them are from the literal exact 2 verses which are also anime. I feel like transcending the outerversal hiearchy is narrow enough
- 5,476
- 12,506
- Thread starter
- #118
As far as I see, the characters who are solidly High 1-A (at least in my book) are the following:
There may turn out to be a lot more, depending on how Masadaverse and the Cthulhu Mythos are viewed.
There may turn out to be a lot more, depending on how Masadaverse and the Cthulhu Mythos are viewed.
- 12,085
- 2,094
Masadaverse from what I heard are all in the same hiearchy but just infinitely more powerful than another.
- 2,235
- 326
@Ultima
FanofRPGs is working on some Cthulhu revisions afaik, so that might help in the future.
The only Masada character that could be High 1-A afaik is Haju and Habaki Sakagami but I think they dont fit the requirements.
Also, wouldnt both Yog-Sothoths be considered High 1-A?
FanofRPGs is working on some Cthulhu revisions afaik, so that might help in the future.
The only Masada character that could be High 1-A afaik is Haju and Habaki Sakagami but I think they dont fit the requirements.
Also, wouldnt both Yog-Sothoths be considered High 1-A?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
