- 6,195
- 16,479
Hi all.
So, a bit ago, I made this thread. It got accepted, and the result of it was the discarding of the previous purely mathematical basis for tiers Low 1-A and above. These tiers, then, were changed to the following:
Here, you can see a fairly clear progression on how the Tiering System scales things. Namely:
Low 2-C to High 1-B = Quantitative superiorities
Low 1-A: "Meta"-quantitative superiorities
1-A = Qualitative superiorities
High 1-A = "Meta"-qualitative superiorities
A valid question to ask, then, is: What about Tier 0?
Now, if Tier 0 was just, say, "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities, that'd effectively be just doing High 1-A again, and when two tiers share what is effectively the same definition, then, clearly, one of them is redundant and has little reason to exist. Therefore Tier 0 has to be something else. Which leads us to:
Now, what exactly does it mean to "lack all qualities" or "be above all qualities"? Surely the former isn't even something that indicates power, right? Power is, itself, a quality, and something that lacks power would actually be the weakest thing possible, no?
Now, unlike in the previous thread: This concept is new to most people here. So it is all but fair that I gave some practical examples of it in action. A good example of it, of course, is Yog-Sothoth from the Cthulhu Mythos, who in Through the Gates of the Silver Key is described as:
You have the Dharmakhaya, from Journey to the West, which is described as:
You also have God from Seekers into the Mystery, and God from the Divine Comedy, whose explanations already are in the profile and sandbox respectively. The last one, in particular, is also an excellent reference point to what a Tier 0 should look like, and what traits it should have, so I'd check it out, were I you.
From the first three characters, it becomes evident that Tier 0 is more easily found in verses where the cosmology is founded on something like "All individuality and differentiation is an illusion. All things are, in truth, one thing." But as shown by the fourth, that is not a necessity, simply something that slightly facilitates the process.
Now, there are also quite a lot of disqualifiers for this proposal of Tier 0, and knowing all of them is also necessary to gain a better understanding of what the rating entails. They are as follows:
(NOTE: Though they are listed separately, these requirements all spring from the same basic principle, so, once you've contradicted one, you've contradicted them all)
With all of the above in mind, it becomes rather clear that the figure of the Monad is, indeed, inherently superior to the rest of the Tiering System. Since it transcends the basic notion of differentiation and separation, then it also transcends the very framework defining the rest of the Tiering System, since even Low 1-A, 1-A and High 1-A ultimately just work by introducing more differentiation and degree to something, while the Monad transcends degrees entirely.
In that sense, you can see this proposal as simply the logical endpoint of the 1-A proposals: Just as transcending the basic quality of "dimension" lets you exceed any further extensions of dimensional spaces, so too does transcending the basic notion of "differentiation" lets you transcend all the tiers that have this notion as their foundation.
Now, as for any questions about it:
Bear in mind, also: Throughout the wiki's currently existing profiles, the number of characters that are unequivocally Tier 0 by the above standards (That I am aware of) can be counted in the fingers of two hands.
And so, that's that. But there is something else:
To explain the proposal for that, let me draw an analogy here: Imagine a Tier 0 character is a dreamer, if you will. And that all the things lesser than the Tier 0 are thus dreams. Now, imagine a character who personifies the dream itself. Essentially, the space where exist all things the Tier 0 can dream about. All possibilities that the Tier 0 can create, which, obviously, exclude the Tier 0 itself.
The character personifying the dream would be High 1-A+. Effectively, the collection of all possible effects which the Tier 0 can bring about. Not "Omnipotence," per se, but moreso the space of all worlds that an omnipotent being can create. You might want to refer to the concept of possible worlds for this, and more specifically to the concept of modal realism.
But it doesn't have to be solely that, of course. Here, for example, is the Self-Reference ENGINE. And its first key is its manifest "shell," which comprises the set of all possible combinations of letters and characters, each of which constitutes a different world.
Due to the nature of how it works, High 1-A+ has similar properties to Tier 0, in a way. For instance, all characters in that tier are exactly equal. You can't really be above the collection of all possibilities and yet be, yourself, one of those possibilities, as that'd be an obvious contradiction. So ultimately, transcending a High 1-A+ means you're Tier 0, and if you supposedly do that while also displaying traits very unlike those of a Tier 0, then the thing you transcended was just never High 1-A+ to begin with.
Furthermore, a character "blowing up all possibilities," or something to that effect, is likewise incoherent. That is because a High 1-A+ space would be, in effect, the collection of all possible contingencies: All the things that aren't necessarily true, but aren't necessarily false, either. For example, your existence is a contingency, because it could have been that you never came into existence.
So, if a character blew up all possible worlds, and this was a contingent event, then there would be a possible world where... they... didn't do that. That's an obvious paradox, so, yeah, doesn't work at all, either. The only way to be High 1-A+ is to be the embodiment of all possibilities yourself.
And so concludes my proposal for Tier 0.
So, a bit ago, I made this thread. It got accepted, and the result of it was the discarding of the previous purely mathematical basis for tiers Low 1-A and above. These tiers, then, were changed to the following:
Low Outerverse level: Characters who can create, destroy and/or affect a structure encompassing all dimensionalities, or sets of points of any cardinality whatsoever. Practically speaking, they are equal to the Universe of Sets, or the full breadth of the Type IV Multiverse.
Outerverse level: Characters whose power/magnitude is qualitatively, rather than simply quantitatively, above lesser things. That is to say: Their superiority is strictly tied to their ontology, and so they are not expressible as the union of anything lesser than themselves. A practical example of this are chatacters who view realities as fiction, exceeding them so much that they are seen as illusory, insubstantial and immaterial.
This is contrasted with things like inaccessible cardinals, which are unreachable by sums of sets smaller than themselves, in quantities smaller than themselves. Thus, even sets as large as those are still composed of things that, individually, are smaller than the whole. Reality, however, is not composed of any amount of fictional things, as its superiority over them is not numerical or quantity-based whatsoever.
This tier can be divided in "layers." For example, a character who sees some dimensioned world as fictional would be considered to be at the "baseline" of this tier. A character who sees that entity as fiction, then, would be a single level above baseline, and so on and so forth. A character who stands infinitely-many layers above the baseline is to receive a "+" modifier next to their tier.
High Outerverse level: Characters who exist in a state of "meta-qualitative" superiority. This is to say, they are completely above the "quality" defining lower levels of qualitative superiority, residing in a wholly different hierarchy that operates on higher qualities entirely. For example, if a cosmology has a hierarchy of levels of Reality-Fiction Transcendences, and then a character above it transcends all forms of reality and fiction, being a part of a hierarchy whose mode of superiority functions on something else
Note that, in order to be at this tier, the character must exceed the framework of the lower levels entirely, and not simply be at the top of an existing lower hierarchy.
Outerverse level: Characters whose power/magnitude is qualitatively, rather than simply quantitatively, above lesser things. That is to say: Their superiority is strictly tied to their ontology, and so they are not expressible as the union of anything lesser than themselves. A practical example of this are chatacters who view realities as fiction, exceeding them so much that they are seen as illusory, insubstantial and immaterial.
This is contrasted with things like inaccessible cardinals, which are unreachable by sums of sets smaller than themselves, in quantities smaller than themselves. Thus, even sets as large as those are still composed of things that, individually, are smaller than the whole. Reality, however, is not composed of any amount of fictional things, as its superiority over them is not numerical or quantity-based whatsoever.
This tier can be divided in "layers." For example, a character who sees some dimensioned world as fictional would be considered to be at the "baseline" of this tier. A character who sees that entity as fiction, then, would be a single level above baseline, and so on and so forth. A character who stands infinitely-many layers above the baseline is to receive a "+" modifier next to their tier.
High Outerverse level: Characters who exist in a state of "meta-qualitative" superiority. This is to say, they are completely above the "quality" defining lower levels of qualitative superiority, residing in a wholly different hierarchy that operates on higher qualities entirely. For example, if a cosmology has a hierarchy of levels of Reality-Fiction Transcendences, and then a character above it transcends all forms of reality and fiction, being a part of a hierarchy whose mode of superiority functions on something else
Note that, in order to be at this tier, the character must exceed the framework of the lower levels entirely, and not simply be at the top of an existing lower hierarchy.
Here, you can see a fairly clear progression on how the Tiering System scales things. Namely:
Low 2-C to High 1-B = Quantitative superiorities
Low 1-A: "Meta"-quantitative superiorities
1-A = Qualitative superiorities
High 1-A = "Meta"-qualitative superiorities
A valid question to ask, then, is: What about Tier 0?
Now, if Tier 0 was just, say, "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities, that'd effectively be just doing High 1-A again, and when two tiers share what is effectively the same definition, then, clearly, one of them is redundant and has little reason to exist. Therefore Tier 0 has to be something else. Which leads us to:
Tier 0
Now, what exactly does it mean to "lack all qualities" or "be above all qualities"? Surely the former isn't even something that indicates power, right? Power is, itself, a quality, and something that lacks power would actually be the weakest thing possible, no?
What I mean by something being "above all qualities" is, essentially, that they are to lack any composition or separation whatsoever. It cannot be made of proper parts. It has to be, as it were, absolutely simple.
Specifically: Take a hypothetical character, and then, let us demand that it be totally undifferentiated, and in all senses "one" with regards to its existence, which does not admit any kind of parts at all in its substance. (For convenience's sake, let's call it a "Monad")
Right off the bat, this already prevents it from having either time or space: Space and measurement inherently implies composition/differentiation/parts (A distinction between right and left. Up and down. Between this dimension and that dimension. Between different portions of that space, etc), and so does time (As time is divided in moments. So there is me from 2 hours ago, me from now, me from 2 hours in the future, etc).
And so for this being to be without distinctions, it cannot have either of those things. We might thus say that it has no "quantitative composition." However, in order to actually be totally undifferentiated, a being would need to take this a step further, namely: It would need to have no qualitative composition, either. Which is to say: Even its characteristics and attributes would ultimately be essentially identical to one another, and to its existence; there wouldn't be a set of attributes that, when added together, create such a being. This being would be a single, indivisible thing with no multiplicity in it at all. A Monad wouldn't be a sum or even the "fusion" of anything but instead the most basic and irreducible thing there is.
In many ways, it can be said that such a character would have Transduality in the truest sense of the word. It exists beyond "This"ness and "That"ness. Due to this factor, everything in it is substantially the same thing as everything else. The power of the Monad is the same as its nature, and its nature is the same as its existence, which is the same as its essence, and so on and so forth.
Given that any predicate that we may try to apply to it, to denote an attribute, is in fact identical to the subject here, the Monad could technically be said to have one single quality, but since that one quality is completely devoid of any differentiation (And our minds inherently operate using the notion of parts/composition), it can hardly be classified as a "quality" in the way we'd understand the term. In that sense, it may be said that language, being inherently a composite framework, likewise fails to really capture the Monad as it is.
Interestingly, something else a Monad would also need to lack would be the dichotomy between actuality and potentiality. That is: All of us have, inherently, a mix of actualities and potentialities. We all have things that we are, and things that we aren't, but could be (E.g. I could be cooking burgers right now, but I am not). This being would by necessity lack this distinction entirely, though, and so in it there are no "Could Be"s.
To emphasize this again: Another distinction that it would lack would be the distinction between its power and its nature. For example, a character may be physically 3-dimensional but have Tier 1 Attack Potency, and thus their power is distinct from their nature. Such a thing would not be the case in this hypothetical, though: As said, the being's power would necessarily be its nature. These are two very important details to keep in mind, as we move forwards.
Specifically: Take a hypothetical character, and then, let us demand that it be totally undifferentiated, and in all senses "one" with regards to its existence, which does not admit any kind of parts at all in its substance. (For convenience's sake, let's call it a "Monad")
Right off the bat, this already prevents it from having either time or space: Space and measurement inherently implies composition/differentiation/parts (A distinction between right and left. Up and down. Between this dimension and that dimension. Between different portions of that space, etc), and so does time (As time is divided in moments. So there is me from 2 hours ago, me from now, me from 2 hours in the future, etc).
And so for this being to be without distinctions, it cannot have either of those things. We might thus say that it has no "quantitative composition." However, in order to actually be totally undifferentiated, a being would need to take this a step further, namely: It would need to have no qualitative composition, either. Which is to say: Even its characteristics and attributes would ultimately be essentially identical to one another, and to its existence; there wouldn't be a set of attributes that, when added together, create such a being. This being would be a single, indivisible thing with no multiplicity in it at all. A Monad wouldn't be a sum or even the "fusion" of anything but instead the most basic and irreducible thing there is.
In many ways, it can be said that such a character would have Transduality in the truest sense of the word. It exists beyond "This"ness and "That"ness. Due to this factor, everything in it is substantially the same thing as everything else. The power of the Monad is the same as its nature, and its nature is the same as its existence, which is the same as its essence, and so on and so forth.
Given that any predicate that we may try to apply to it, to denote an attribute, is in fact identical to the subject here, the Monad could technically be said to have one single quality, but since that one quality is completely devoid of any differentiation (And our minds inherently operate using the notion of parts/composition), it can hardly be classified as a "quality" in the way we'd understand the term. In that sense, it may be said that language, being inherently a composite framework, likewise fails to really capture the Monad as it is.
Interestingly, something else a Monad would also need to lack would be the dichotomy between actuality and potentiality. That is: All of us have, inherently, a mix of actualities and potentialities. We all have things that we are, and things that we aren't, but could be (E.g. I could be cooking burgers right now, but I am not). This being would by necessity lack this distinction entirely, though, and so in it there are no "Could Be"s.
To emphasize this again: Another distinction that it would lack would be the distinction between its power and its nature. For example, a character may be physically 3-dimensional but have Tier 1 Attack Potency, and thus their power is distinct from their nature. Such a thing would not be the case in this hypothetical, though: As said, the being's power would necessarily be its nature. These are two very important details to keep in mind, as we move forwards.
Now, unlike in the previous thread: This concept is new to most people here. So it is all but fair that I gave some practical examples of it in action. A good example of it, of course, is Yog-Sothoth from the Cthulhu Mythos, who in Through the Gates of the Silver Key is described as:
You have the Dharmakhaya, from Journey to the West, which is described as:
You also have God from Seekers into the Mystery, and God from the Divine Comedy, whose explanations already are in the profile and sandbox respectively. The last one, in particular, is also an excellent reference point to what a Tier 0 should look like, and what traits it should have, so I'd check it out, were I you.
From the first three characters, it becomes evident that Tier 0 is more easily found in verses where the cosmology is founded on something like "All individuality and differentiation is an illusion. All things are, in truth, one thing." But as shown by the fourth, that is not a necessity, simply something that slightly facilitates the process.
Now, there are also quite a lot of disqualifiers for this proposal of Tier 0, and knowing all of them is also necessary to gain a better understanding of what the rating entails. They are as follows:
(NOTE: Though they are listed separately, these requirements all spring from the same basic principle, so, once you've contradicted one, you've contradicted them all)
The character cannot undergo any form of change whatsoever
If it can pass from one state to another, then it has potentiality, something which we already established cannot exist in a Tier 0. Naturally, this precludes anything that is shown being created, growing, decreasing, developing, fading, being destroyed, etc. from being Tier 0.
Now, although a Tier 0 cannot change, it can appear to change from the perspective of lesser beings. I believe a great illustration of this would be a passage from the aforementioned Divine Comedy, where Dante beholds God and says the following:
But overall that should only go for very specific cases. If the would-be Tier 0 character just gets flat-out destroyed or unmade at some point, for example, then you can't really handwave that with the above. Examples of characters that completely fail this requirement are, well, a lot of people from Megami Tensei. The verse has many characters that are framed as being Monads, but practically speaking are shown being defeated and destroyed.
Furthermore: This requirement does not admit loopholes. This is to say that things like "Oh, this character technically was born in Period X, but it was made to have retroactively always existed..." would not suffice to save a character from disqualifying for Tier 0.
There cannot be multiple Tier 0 beings in a verse
Obviously, something is distinguished by the quantities and qualities which it has. For instance, two physical objects A and B are spatiotemporally distinguished by factors such as distance (Two objects cannot occupy the same point in space), time (Two objects can be distinguished by their positions in the timeline. I am distinguished from my self from 2 hours ago in this way, for example), matter, etc.
Abstract objects that are not in spacetime cannot be distinguished in that way, but they can be qualitatively distinguished, which is to say that two aspatial and atemporal entities are made distinct by their attributes. For example, the Platonic Form of "Cat" is different from the Platonic Form of "Chair" because the two embody different properties. There are some things "Cat" has that "Chair" doesn't, and vice-versa, and those differences are what set them apart.
Now, if something has no qualities whatsoever (In the sense that all the things we understand as its "attributes" are actually a single thing that our distinction-based minds can't comprehend), then clearly there cannot be multiple of it, as there is nothing to mark distinctions in the first place. In the same way objects that are aspatial and atemporal cannot be distinguished through time or space (As they don't exist in either)
A Tier 0 cannot have parts
This naturally follows from the requirement of it being completely devoid of differentiation. All-in-all, the character must necessarily be completely indivisible and irreducible to anything more basic than itself, and therefore smaller "parts," "pieces" or "fragments" are things that it cannot have.
Consequently, there can be no such thing as partitions of that being's power, either. No such thing as "He was only using a small portion of his energy!" and the like. And neither there can be such a thing as "A small part of its totality," save as a figure of speech.
Mind you, this is not in a "Infinity divided by a finite number is still infinity" sense, as numerical infinity is still able to be expressed as the result of an infinite sum. A Tier 0, under these proposals, necessarily cannot be the result of any sum, on account of its lack of substantial distinction.
A Tier 0 character cannot be surpassed
For any two things, A and B. A is made superior to B either by some quantity or some quality. That this is the case is obvious enough. A 6-D space is made superior to a 5-D space by its greater volume, for example. Likewise, the set of real numbers is made superior to the set of natural numbers by its greater cardinality.
Likewise, in a hierarchy of R>F Transcendences, Layer A is made superior to Layer B by the fact of its greater "realness." Not by any quantity, but by a quality of its existence.
Now: For something whose existence surpasses distinction of qualities entirely, there is not any mechanism through which it may be surpassed by something else. If it were to be exceeded, then it would seem that it does have some degree of composition, after all, and as such is not totally undifferentiated.
As a matter of fact, a relation of "X is more than Y" inherently imparts some form of differentiation on the attribute being described as "more." For example: 6 apples are more than 3 apples. This is a relationship of superiority, for sure, and the attribute by which it happens is cardinality (The number of things in a set). Thus, there being degrees of cardinality, it follows that "cardinality" as an attribute inherently has differentiation within itself. As does volume, and all other quantitative properties.
And this still applies even to qualitative differences, such as when a verse depicts size-like relations happening between aspatial entities, or when we say a higher reality is "more real" than a lesser one. These attributes have degrees and, evidently, some sense of "proportion," and as such they have internal differentiation as well. The same, of course, can be generalized to "power" as a whole: Power as we think of it has different degrees, it comes in amounts, and therefore it has internal differentiation.
Now, as we went over earlier, a Monad has no differentiation whatsoever, and therefore has no degrees at all. Since its "nature" and its "power" are one and the same, it also follows that its power possesses no degrees. So, in that sense, its power and nature are absolute, in the sense that they don't come from a relation with lesser things, where they share of similar attributes but simply in different proportions.
A Tier 0 character cannot be part of a hierarchy
This follows from the above. Ask yourself: What is a hierarchy? It is a division of levels, delineated by the degree of some attribute that is present in each of them. The highest level enjoys the most of that attribute, and the lowest level, the least. Thus, a hierarchy fundamentally denotes the idea of "degree," and it is already clear from the above that such a thing cannot be present in a Monad.
Interestingly, this also means that a Monad cannot be the highest level of a hierarchy, either, as even saying that it has "the greatest amount" of some attribute is to introduce degree to its existence, which we've already established is impossible. Therefore, a being such as this would need to be independent of any and all hierarchies. Completely self-sufficient. Thus, if the verse has a hierarchy of levels of existence, the Tier 0 must be outside of it, and serve as its foundation.
In this case, examples of verses that fail this requirement are SCP, which has many Monad-like characters that nevertheless are part of a hierarchy, and Marvel Comics, which has The One Above All being described as a "pure unity" and yet being the top of a hierarchy that is also the bottom of yet another hierarchy.
A character cannot become Tier 0
This logically follows from the first and fourth requirements. A Tier 0 cannot change, and neither does its power have any "degrees." Therefore it is not possible to "rise up to that level" (i.e. It is possible to increase the degree of your power until it reaches something with no degree at all)
However, this is worth to note separately, because there is indeed a sense in which a character can "become" Tier 0, even if not in the conventional manner. More specifically, if a verse functions on a nondualist cosmology, where all distinctions are illusory and the innermost core of everything is some undifferentiated ultimate reality, then a character may in a sense "become" Tier 0 by shedding all their individual traits and dissolving back into the nondual ground.
So only in that sense can a character "become Tier 0." Though this is, of course, not at all a conventional ascension to godhood or anything of the like, so much as a "return" to the source of your being, or realizing what you have always been all along. Otherwise, it is impossible to become Tier 0 in the sense of filling a spot that wasn't there before.
There cannot be a character that has Tier 0 power, but some nature that is distinct from that
As we've already established: There cannot be any distinctions whatsoever in such a character, and as such there cannot be a distinction between their power and their nature. Which is to say a character who is physically 3-D but has Tier 0 Attack Potency is impossible.
The only way in which something like this could happen would be if the character in question is something like a manifestation of the already-existing Tier 0, through which they can exert their power, or an individual who is supernaturally favored by it. And even then, the manifestation/blessed character could not have Tier 0 punching strength and the like, and neither would that power be "their own" in that sense.
If it can pass from one state to another, then it has potentiality, something which we already established cannot exist in a Tier 0. Naturally, this precludes anything that is shown being created, growing, decreasing, developing, fading, being destroyed, etc. from being Tier 0.
Now, although a Tier 0 cannot change, it can appear to change from the perspective of lesser beings. I believe a great illustration of this would be a passage from the aforementioned Divine Comedy, where Dante beholds God and says the following:
But overall that should only go for very specific cases. If the would-be Tier 0 character just gets flat-out destroyed or unmade at some point, for example, then you can't really handwave that with the above. Examples of characters that completely fail this requirement are, well, a lot of people from Megami Tensei. The verse has many characters that are framed as being Monads, but practically speaking are shown being defeated and destroyed.
Furthermore: This requirement does not admit loopholes. This is to say that things like "Oh, this character technically was born in Period X, but it was made to have retroactively always existed..." would not suffice to save a character from disqualifying for Tier 0.
There cannot be multiple Tier 0 beings in a verse
Obviously, something is distinguished by the quantities and qualities which it has. For instance, two physical objects A and B are spatiotemporally distinguished by factors such as distance (Two objects cannot occupy the same point in space), time (Two objects can be distinguished by their positions in the timeline. I am distinguished from my self from 2 hours ago in this way, for example), matter, etc.
Abstract objects that are not in spacetime cannot be distinguished in that way, but they can be qualitatively distinguished, which is to say that two aspatial and atemporal entities are made distinct by their attributes. For example, the Platonic Form of "Cat" is different from the Platonic Form of "Chair" because the two embody different properties. There are some things "Cat" has that "Chair" doesn't, and vice-versa, and those differences are what set them apart.
Now, if something has no qualities whatsoever (In the sense that all the things we understand as its "attributes" are actually a single thing that our distinction-based minds can't comprehend), then clearly there cannot be multiple of it, as there is nothing to mark distinctions in the first place. In the same way objects that are aspatial and atemporal cannot be distinguished through time or space (As they don't exist in either)
A Tier 0 cannot have parts
This naturally follows from the requirement of it being completely devoid of differentiation. All-in-all, the character must necessarily be completely indivisible and irreducible to anything more basic than itself, and therefore smaller "parts," "pieces" or "fragments" are things that it cannot have.
Consequently, there can be no such thing as partitions of that being's power, either. No such thing as "He was only using a small portion of his energy!" and the like. And neither there can be such a thing as "A small part of its totality," save as a figure of speech.
Mind you, this is not in a "Infinity divided by a finite number is still infinity" sense, as numerical infinity is still able to be expressed as the result of an infinite sum. A Tier 0, under these proposals, necessarily cannot be the result of any sum, on account of its lack of substantial distinction.
A Tier 0 character cannot be surpassed
For any two things, A and B. A is made superior to B either by some quantity or some quality. That this is the case is obvious enough. A 6-D space is made superior to a 5-D space by its greater volume, for example. Likewise, the set of real numbers is made superior to the set of natural numbers by its greater cardinality.
Likewise, in a hierarchy of R>F Transcendences, Layer A is made superior to Layer B by the fact of its greater "realness." Not by any quantity, but by a quality of its existence.
Now: For something whose existence surpasses distinction of qualities entirely, there is not any mechanism through which it may be surpassed by something else. If it were to be exceeded, then it would seem that it does have some degree of composition, after all, and as such is not totally undifferentiated.
As a matter of fact, a relation of "X is more than Y" inherently imparts some form of differentiation on the attribute being described as "more." For example: 6 apples are more than 3 apples. This is a relationship of superiority, for sure, and the attribute by which it happens is cardinality (The number of things in a set). Thus, there being degrees of cardinality, it follows that "cardinality" as an attribute inherently has differentiation within itself. As does volume, and all other quantitative properties.
And this still applies even to qualitative differences, such as when a verse depicts size-like relations happening between aspatial entities, or when we say a higher reality is "more real" than a lesser one. These attributes have degrees and, evidently, some sense of "proportion," and as such they have internal differentiation as well. The same, of course, can be generalized to "power" as a whole: Power as we think of it has different degrees, it comes in amounts, and therefore it has internal differentiation.
Now, as we went over earlier, a Monad has no differentiation whatsoever, and therefore has no degrees at all. Since its "nature" and its "power" are one and the same, it also follows that its power possesses no degrees. So, in that sense, its power and nature are absolute, in the sense that they don't come from a relation with lesser things, where they share of similar attributes but simply in different proportions.
A Tier 0 character cannot be part of a hierarchy
This follows from the above. Ask yourself: What is a hierarchy? It is a division of levels, delineated by the degree of some attribute that is present in each of them. The highest level enjoys the most of that attribute, and the lowest level, the least. Thus, a hierarchy fundamentally denotes the idea of "degree," and it is already clear from the above that such a thing cannot be present in a Monad.
Interestingly, this also means that a Monad cannot be the highest level of a hierarchy, either, as even saying that it has "the greatest amount" of some attribute is to introduce degree to its existence, which we've already established is impossible. Therefore, a being such as this would need to be independent of any and all hierarchies. Completely self-sufficient. Thus, if the verse has a hierarchy of levels of existence, the Tier 0 must be outside of it, and serve as its foundation.
In this case, examples of verses that fail this requirement are SCP, which has many Monad-like characters that nevertheless are part of a hierarchy, and Marvel Comics, which has The One Above All being described as a "pure unity" and yet being the top of a hierarchy that is also the bottom of yet another hierarchy.
A character cannot become Tier 0
This logically follows from the first and fourth requirements. A Tier 0 cannot change, and neither does its power have any "degrees." Therefore it is not possible to "rise up to that level" (i.e. It is possible to increase the degree of your power until it reaches something with no degree at all)
However, this is worth to note separately, because there is indeed a sense in which a character can "become" Tier 0, even if not in the conventional manner. More specifically, if a verse functions on a nondualist cosmology, where all distinctions are illusory and the innermost core of everything is some undifferentiated ultimate reality, then a character may in a sense "become" Tier 0 by shedding all their individual traits and dissolving back into the nondual ground.
So only in that sense can a character "become Tier 0." Though this is, of course, not at all a conventional ascension to godhood or anything of the like, so much as a "return" to the source of your being, or realizing what you have always been all along. Otherwise, it is impossible to become Tier 0 in the sense of filling a spot that wasn't there before.
There cannot be a character that has Tier 0 power, but some nature that is distinct from that
As we've already established: There cannot be any distinctions whatsoever in such a character, and as such there cannot be a distinction between their power and their nature. Which is to say a character who is physically 3-D but has Tier 0 Attack Potency is impossible.
The only way in which something like this could happen would be if the character in question is something like a manifestation of the already-existing Tier 0, through which they can exert their power, or an individual who is supernaturally favored by it. And even then, the manifestation/blessed character could not have Tier 0 punching strength and the like, and neither would that power be "their own" in that sense.
With all of the above in mind, it becomes rather clear that the figure of the Monad is, indeed, inherently superior to the rest of the Tiering System. Since it transcends the basic notion of differentiation and separation, then it also transcends the very framework defining the rest of the Tiering System, since even Low 1-A, 1-A and High 1-A ultimately just work by introducing more differentiation and degree to something, while the Monad transcends degrees entirely.
In that sense, you can see this proposal as simply the logical endpoint of the 1-A proposals: Just as transcending the basic quality of "dimension" lets you exceed any further extensions of dimensional spaces, so too does transcending the basic notion of "differentiation" lets you transcend all the tiers that have this notion as their foundation.
Now, as for any questions about it:
Q: Is Tier 0 just Omnipotence here?
A: Yeah.
Q: Is Tier 0 paradoxical?
A: Not inherently, no. Specific Tier 0s from specific verses can do paradoxes, if the author wants, but the concept of Tier 0 in-and-of-itself doesn't entail anything paradoxical. It's unintuitive, sure, but no more of a "paradox" than something like an incorporeal being, or a living concept, or something above spacetime.
Q: Will any statements of "Omnipotence" or "Being able to do anything, even the illogical" qualify for this tier?
A: Not at all, no. Firstly, random statements of "omnipotence" wouldn't qualify for obvious reasons: Omnipotence can really just mean "very great power," and as such throwaway statements of that nature don't even touch the definition of it given above.
As for "Able to do anything" and similar: That would not qualify either. This effectively falls into the principle of "Statements of limitlessness require a mechanism in order to be taken seriously." In this case, empty claims of maximal power would not qualify for anything, but if there is information which tells us that a character, by the nature of its very existence, is necessarily unsurpassable, then we have an impetus to accept it.
And the only way to be coherently unsurpassable and "omnipotent," as it were, is through all the definitions and requirements prescribed above (i.e. Any coherent definition of "Omnipotence" results in a Monad)
An example I often see being brought up in debates regarding this topic is the Magic Gods from To Aru, who are described in the verse as having power that allows them to access all possibilities, including contradictory ones, which thus creates an Omnipotence Paradox. Do they qualify for my proposal of Tier 0? Evidently not. Not only are there multiple of them, but apparently they can die, their power can be divided into parts and decreased, and people can become Magic Gods, so clearly they have composition and differentiation in them, as well as potentiality. Thus, case dismissed.
And to quote myself, from another thread:
So, all-in-all: Any character seeking to qualify for Tier 0 at all needs to fulfill the definition given above. No exception. Mentions of "Omnipotence" or colloquial definitions of it are never going to fly through without proper backing.
Q: Is it possible to prove that a character is Tier 0 at all?
A: The notion that something being absolute and unsurpassable is "inherently unprovable" is something extremely proliferated across both this community and other communities. In fact, to quote one of our own pages:
This, of course, is an equivocation.
Ontop of what I said above, one must keep in mind that Tier 0 is not about "adding" something to a character, but rather about removing things from it (In this case, composition and differentiation), which is to say that Omnipotence wouldn't really be gotten through obtaining more qualities but rather by abandoning this whole framework altogether. A funny analogy you could use to understand the concept, I think, is this: Usually, people think of Omnipotence as being about having "The biggest house possible." But that's wrong. Omnipotence would in fact require you to not have a house in the first place.
In this sense, it's not impossible to prove that a character is Tier 0 at all, no. If that is deemed impossible to prove, then clearly it is also impossible to prove that a character lacks a soul, or spacetime, or any other attribute.
Now, is it easy to contradict being Tier 0? Extremely, as seen by the list of requirements above. That makes it a rare tier, but by no means an impossible one. However, one might be tempted to argue that such a character being described at all already prevents them from being Tier 0, and as such, that the tier is impossible to obtain. This leads us to...
Q: Is a Tier 0 character just nothingness, then?
A: Evidently not. Nothingness in the most absolute sense would not be capable of producing any effects that extend outwards from itself, as effects require a cause, and the nonexistence of a cause would thus imply the nonexistence of effects. So the Tier 0 character, being an identifiable thing capable of producing effects, must exist in some way.
Now, also evidently, a character with the properties I've outlined cannot be described, either. It has some sense of "ineffability" because our minds necessarily understand things through differentiation and parts, and as such are unable to apprehend it as it is. This is to say: There is something there, but we can't really comprehend it.
And with this, it is important to mark the distinction between something being indescribable and something being "nonexistent," because there are many things even in everyday life that are indescribable. For example: Color is impossible to describe. You can easily describe something as "purple," but describing the appearance of "purpleness" itself is impossible to do, and if a blind person asked you to describe color to them, you'd find yourself at a loss of words. The only way to "describe" a color in any absolute way would be though self-reference. For example, saying "purpleness is purple." Which, of course, fails to say anything at all.
Yet, I don't think anyone would say color doesn't exist, or anything of the like, because it is something we directly experience and have a sense of. In principle, the same would apply to a Monad: It is not something able to be described in ordinary language, and yet evidently it must exist, due to displaying properties that only existent things can have.
By extension, this means that descriptions being applied to a Tier 0 character doesn't really contradict their Tier 0 rating, either. Consider: Words such as "Above," "outside," "apart" and "higher" are inherently spatial terms. Does this mean that, every time an aspatial thing is described as "Above space," "Outside of space," "Apart from space" or as "A higher realm above space," a contradiction is being made, and the thing in question is in fact not aspatial at all? Of course not.
Why? Because those terms are being used as analogies, and not really in their most proper senses. Something isn't "outside" space in the same way a mailbox is "outside" a house, but it's similar enough that the same word can be used for both. So we apply generalizations of spatial terminology to non-spatial things, and that's not only perfectly fine, but also a feature of language as a whole. In (See?) fact, "In" is a spatial term as well, and yet we don't take issue with phrases like "He exists in a realm with no space or time."
Likewise, "before" is inherently a temporal term, yet we don't take issue with verbiage such as "Before time" being used. No one would remove Beyond-Dimensional Existence from a character just because they're vaguely described as existing "before" something, for instance. "Now" is also a temporal term, and yet no one would remove Beyond-Dimensional Existence from a character if someone said of them: "They are here now."
So, bottom line is: In indexing, we already deal with things that, by definition, defy ordinary language, and as such can really only be described by using terms in an analogous fashion, i.e. generalizing a certain piece of terminology to things outside of its usual scope. This proposal for Tier 0 is no different.
Q: So characters who are indescribable or ineffable would be Tier 0?
A: Short answer: No.
Long answer: As can be seen from the above explanations, ineffability is a necessary condition for a Tier 0, but it is not a sufficient one, which is to say: All Tier 0 characters are by necessity beyond description, but not all things beyond description are Tier 0.
For example, as has been explained, the appearance of color is fundamentally indescribable, and yet I don't believe anyone would say colors are Tier 0 because of that. For a more out-there example: Concepts/predicates can be seen as things for which no definition can be given, yet this is just a matter of the awkwardness of our linguistics, and not necessarily indicative of anything transcendental.
So, no, statements of something being "Indescribable," "ineffable," "incomprehensible," "undefinable" and the like wouldn't amount to much. Granted, sufficiently thorough statements of that sort may that the character in question is monadic in nature, but that goes for rather specific cases, where:
1. They are indescribable and ineffable because they lack the very characteristics that would serve as the subjects of description, in the first place.
2. The above indescribability is due to something analogous to "magnitude." That is: They are so great that they transcend all the things used for description.
So, ultimately even that just leads back to the definition given above, too. To put it simply: There is exactly one road to Tier 0.
Q: Can there be multiple Tier 0 characters in the same verse?
A: This might seem like a strange question to note down, seeing as I've already established that there can only be one Tier 0 being per verse under these proposals. However, it is worth to note down a distinction between "being" and "character." The latter term refers to narrative presentation and characterization, and the former refers to in-universe ontology.
What I mean is: There may be occasions where two characters or more are presented and characterized separately in terms of the plot and narrative, but are in fact of a single essence/existence as per the verse's cosmology. If their individual characterizations are sufficiently notable, then it might be that they deserve individual profiles, even if ultimately they are the same being.
Q: Is existing beyond logic a Tier 0 feat?
A: Depends entirely on what is meant by "Exists beyond logic." A character operating under non-classical logic works in ways that defy the usual laws of thought, and as such they can be described as "beyond logic" on that basis. Yet a character who operates on such alternate systems of logic can be any tier. It's not exactly hard to think of Tier 9 characters who exist in paradoxical states of being and the like.
Either way, the final answer is: Depends. The statement itself is ambiguous, and as such a random, contextless "Beyond logic" statement wouldn't get anywhere.
Q: Is existing in multiple (Or all) states at once a Tier 0 feat?
A: Not really, no. Lack of differentiation is not "Existing in multiple states at once." And the reasons why are obvious.
Q: Can a Tier 0 thing be non-Omniscient?
A: The question itself is honestly a bit ill-formed. All Tier 0s, by nature, necessarily express, actuate and define all possible information, and the only distinction to be made here is whether the Tier 0 in question has some good analogous to "agency." You could call those who do "Omniscient," and those who don't "Mindless," but ultimately these concepts are borh rather weird to apply to these beings in a conventional sense.
Of course, this is talking about a character who is Tier 0 by nature. If they are simply the incarnation of a Tier 0, or even someone blessed and favored by them, then, in principle, they would have Tier 0 abilities (Technically, those abilities are not theirs, but you get what I mean), but may have limited intelligence, personal strength, and etc.
Q: Is this definition anything like the old version of Tier 0?
A: Conceptually, it is similar, but otherwise: Not very much, no. Anyone who was present in the 2017-2018 wiki can attest that, back then, "Tier 0" was just a title. Practically speaking, it was just "Qualitative superiority over 1-A + Treated as the verse's supreme being." It reached a point where a well-known fact about Tier 0 was that it didn't actually mean you were stronger than lower tiers: A character who was Tier 0 in one verse could be weaker than 1-As from another verse.
And, quite frankly, this was largely because, back then, no one was well-versed in any of these topics whatsoever, so no one could ever really establish any logical reason, foundation or mechanism that justified Tier 0 being "unsurpassable." Needless to say, this is not the case here: If you don't qualify for Tier 0, then you are weaker than a Tier 0. It's that simple.
A: Yeah.
Q: Is Tier 0 paradoxical?
A: Not inherently, no. Specific Tier 0s from specific verses can do paradoxes, if the author wants, but the concept of Tier 0 in-and-of-itself doesn't entail anything paradoxical. It's unintuitive, sure, but no more of a "paradox" than something like an incorporeal being, or a living concept, or something above spacetime.
Q: Will any statements of "Omnipotence" or "Being able to do anything, even the illogical" qualify for this tier?
A: Not at all, no. Firstly, random statements of "omnipotence" wouldn't qualify for obvious reasons: Omnipotence can really just mean "very great power," and as such throwaway statements of that nature don't even touch the definition of it given above.
As for "Able to do anything" and similar: That would not qualify either. This effectively falls into the principle of "Statements of limitlessness require a mechanism in order to be taken seriously." In this case, empty claims of maximal power would not qualify for anything, but if there is information which tells us that a character, by the nature of its very existence, is necessarily unsurpassable, then we have an impetus to accept it.
And the only way to be coherently unsurpassable and "omnipotent," as it were, is through all the definitions and requirements prescribed above (i.e. Any coherent definition of "Omnipotence" results in a Monad)
An example I often see being brought up in debates regarding this topic is the Magic Gods from To Aru, who are described in the verse as having power that allows them to access all possibilities, including contradictory ones, which thus creates an Omnipotence Paradox. Do they qualify for my proposal of Tier 0? Evidently not. Not only are there multiple of them, but apparently they can die, their power can be divided into parts and decreased, and people can become Magic Gods, so clearly they have composition and differentiation in them, as well as potentiality. Thus, case dismissed.
And to quote myself, from another thread:
So, all-in-all: Any character seeking to qualify for Tier 0 at all needs to fulfill the definition given above. No exception. Mentions of "Omnipotence" or colloquial definitions of it are never going to fly through without proper backing.
Q: Is it possible to prove that a character is Tier 0 at all?
A: The notion that something being absolute and unsurpassable is "inherently unprovable" is something extremely proliferated across both this community and other communities. In fact, to quote one of our own pages:
This, of course, is an equivocation.
Ontop of what I said above, one must keep in mind that Tier 0 is not about "adding" something to a character, but rather about removing things from it (In this case, composition and differentiation), which is to say that Omnipotence wouldn't really be gotten through obtaining more qualities but rather by abandoning this whole framework altogether. A funny analogy you could use to understand the concept, I think, is this: Usually, people think of Omnipotence as being about having "The biggest house possible." But that's wrong. Omnipotence would in fact require you to not have a house in the first place.
In this sense, it's not impossible to prove that a character is Tier 0 at all, no. If that is deemed impossible to prove, then clearly it is also impossible to prove that a character lacks a soul, or spacetime, or any other attribute.
Now, is it easy to contradict being Tier 0? Extremely, as seen by the list of requirements above. That makes it a rare tier, but by no means an impossible one. However, one might be tempted to argue that such a character being described at all already prevents them from being Tier 0, and as such, that the tier is impossible to obtain. This leads us to...
Q: Is a Tier 0 character just nothingness, then?
A: Evidently not. Nothingness in the most absolute sense would not be capable of producing any effects that extend outwards from itself, as effects require a cause, and the nonexistence of a cause would thus imply the nonexistence of effects. So the Tier 0 character, being an identifiable thing capable of producing effects, must exist in some way.
Now, also evidently, a character with the properties I've outlined cannot be described, either. It has some sense of "ineffability" because our minds necessarily understand things through differentiation and parts, and as such are unable to apprehend it as it is. This is to say: There is something there, but we can't really comprehend it.
And with this, it is important to mark the distinction between something being indescribable and something being "nonexistent," because there are many things even in everyday life that are indescribable. For example: Color is impossible to describe. You can easily describe something as "purple," but describing the appearance of "purpleness" itself is impossible to do, and if a blind person asked you to describe color to them, you'd find yourself at a loss of words. The only way to "describe" a color in any absolute way would be though self-reference. For example, saying "purpleness is purple." Which, of course, fails to say anything at all.
Yet, I don't think anyone would say color doesn't exist, or anything of the like, because it is something we directly experience and have a sense of. In principle, the same would apply to a Monad: It is not something able to be described in ordinary language, and yet evidently it must exist, due to displaying properties that only existent things can have.
By extension, this means that descriptions being applied to a Tier 0 character doesn't really contradict their Tier 0 rating, either. Consider: Words such as "Above," "outside," "apart" and "higher" are inherently spatial terms. Does this mean that, every time an aspatial thing is described as "Above space," "Outside of space," "Apart from space" or as "A higher realm above space," a contradiction is being made, and the thing in question is in fact not aspatial at all? Of course not.
Why? Because those terms are being used as analogies, and not really in their most proper senses. Something isn't "outside" space in the same way a mailbox is "outside" a house, but it's similar enough that the same word can be used for both. So we apply generalizations of spatial terminology to non-spatial things, and that's not only perfectly fine, but also a feature of language as a whole. In (See?) fact, "In" is a spatial term as well, and yet we don't take issue with phrases like "He exists in a realm with no space or time."
Likewise, "before" is inherently a temporal term, yet we don't take issue with verbiage such as "Before time" being used. No one would remove Beyond-Dimensional Existence from a character just because they're vaguely described as existing "before" something, for instance. "Now" is also a temporal term, and yet no one would remove Beyond-Dimensional Existence from a character if someone said of them: "They are here now."
So, bottom line is: In indexing, we already deal with things that, by definition, defy ordinary language, and as such can really only be described by using terms in an analogous fashion, i.e. generalizing a certain piece of terminology to things outside of its usual scope. This proposal for Tier 0 is no different.
Q: So characters who are indescribable or ineffable would be Tier 0?
A: Short answer: No.
Long answer: As can be seen from the above explanations, ineffability is a necessary condition for a Tier 0, but it is not a sufficient one, which is to say: All Tier 0 characters are by necessity beyond description, but not all things beyond description are Tier 0.
For example, as has been explained, the appearance of color is fundamentally indescribable, and yet I don't believe anyone would say colors are Tier 0 because of that. For a more out-there example: Concepts/predicates can be seen as things for which no definition can be given, yet this is just a matter of the awkwardness of our linguistics, and not necessarily indicative of anything transcendental.
So, no, statements of something being "Indescribable," "ineffable," "incomprehensible," "undefinable" and the like wouldn't amount to much. Granted, sufficiently thorough statements of that sort may that the character in question is monadic in nature, but that goes for rather specific cases, where:
1. They are indescribable and ineffable because they lack the very characteristics that would serve as the subjects of description, in the first place.
2. The above indescribability is due to something analogous to "magnitude." That is: They are so great that they transcend all the things used for description.
So, ultimately even that just leads back to the definition given above, too. To put it simply: There is exactly one road to Tier 0.
Q: Can there be multiple Tier 0 characters in the same verse?
A: This might seem like a strange question to note down, seeing as I've already established that there can only be one Tier 0 being per verse under these proposals. However, it is worth to note down a distinction between "being" and "character." The latter term refers to narrative presentation and characterization, and the former refers to in-universe ontology.
What I mean is: There may be occasions where two characters or more are presented and characterized separately in terms of the plot and narrative, but are in fact of a single essence/existence as per the verse's cosmology. If their individual characterizations are sufficiently notable, then it might be that they deserve individual profiles, even if ultimately they are the same being.
Q: Is existing beyond logic a Tier 0 feat?
A: Depends entirely on what is meant by "Exists beyond logic." A character operating under non-classical logic works in ways that defy the usual laws of thought, and as such they can be described as "beyond logic" on that basis. Yet a character who operates on such alternate systems of logic can be any tier. It's not exactly hard to think of Tier 9 characters who exist in paradoxical states of being and the like.
Either way, the final answer is: Depends. The statement itself is ambiguous, and as such a random, contextless "Beyond logic" statement wouldn't get anywhere.
Q: Is existing in multiple (Or all) states at once a Tier 0 feat?
A: Not really, no. Lack of differentiation is not "Existing in multiple states at once." And the reasons why are obvious.
Q: Can a Tier 0 thing be non-Omniscient?
A: The question itself is honestly a bit ill-formed. All Tier 0s, by nature, necessarily express, actuate and define all possible information, and the only distinction to be made here is whether the Tier 0 in question has some good analogous to "agency." You could call those who do "Omniscient," and those who don't "Mindless," but ultimately these concepts are borh rather weird to apply to these beings in a conventional sense.
Of course, this is talking about a character who is Tier 0 by nature. If they are simply the incarnation of a Tier 0, or even someone blessed and favored by them, then, in principle, they would have Tier 0 abilities (Technically, those abilities are not theirs, but you get what I mean), but may have limited intelligence, personal strength, and etc.
Q: Is this definition anything like the old version of Tier 0?
A: Conceptually, it is similar, but otherwise: Not very much, no. Anyone who was present in the 2017-2018 wiki can attest that, back then, "Tier 0" was just a title. Practically speaking, it was just "Qualitative superiority over 1-A + Treated as the verse's supreme being." It reached a point where a well-known fact about Tier 0 was that it didn't actually mean you were stronger than lower tiers: A character who was Tier 0 in one verse could be weaker than 1-As from another verse.
And, quite frankly, this was largely because, back then, no one was well-versed in any of these topics whatsoever, so no one could ever really establish any logical reason, foundation or mechanism that justified Tier 0 being "unsurpassable." Needless to say, this is not the case here: If you don't qualify for Tier 0, then you are weaker than a Tier 0. It's that simple.
Bear in mind, also: Throughout the wiki's currently existing profiles, the number of characters that are unequivocally Tier 0 by the above standards (That I am aware of) can be counted in the fingers of two hands.
And so, that's that. But there is something else:
The Complement
After Tier 0, there is another thing that I would like to propose: High 1-A+.To explain the proposal for that, let me draw an analogy here: Imagine a Tier 0 character is a dreamer, if you will. And that all the things lesser than the Tier 0 are thus dreams. Now, imagine a character who personifies the dream itself. Essentially, the space where exist all things the Tier 0 can dream about. All possibilities that the Tier 0 can create, which, obviously, exclude the Tier 0 itself.
The character personifying the dream would be High 1-A+. Effectively, the collection of all possible effects which the Tier 0 can bring about. Not "Omnipotence," per se, but moreso the space of all worlds that an omnipotent being can create. You might want to refer to the concept of possible worlds for this, and more specifically to the concept of modal realism.
But it doesn't have to be solely that, of course. Here, for example, is the Self-Reference ENGINE. And its first key is its manifest "shell," which comprises the set of all possible combinations of letters and characters, each of which constitutes a different world.
Due to the nature of how it works, High 1-A+ has similar properties to Tier 0, in a way. For instance, all characters in that tier are exactly equal. You can't really be above the collection of all possibilities and yet be, yourself, one of those possibilities, as that'd be an obvious contradiction. So ultimately, transcending a High 1-A+ means you're Tier 0, and if you supposedly do that while also displaying traits very unlike those of a Tier 0, then the thing you transcended was just never High 1-A+ to begin with.
Furthermore, a character "blowing up all possibilities," or something to that effect, is likewise incoherent. That is because a High 1-A+ space would be, in effect, the collection of all possible contingencies: All the things that aren't necessarily true, but aren't necessarily false, either. For example, your existence is a contingency, because it could have been that you never came into existence.
So, if a character blew up all possible worlds, and this was a contingent event, then there would be a possible world where... they... didn't do that. That's an obvious paradox, so, yeah, doesn't work at all, either. The only way to be High 1-A+ is to be the embodiment of all possibilities yourself.
And so concludes my proposal for Tier 0.
Last edited:
