• 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: Tier 0

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still in the support of the OP's proposal.

While DontTalkDT did message me in DMs, and I mentioned that I basically have a two way thought regarding tier 0 in general. Where if Tier 0 does exist, then Divine Simplicity and/or one Tier 0 per verse is the limit. And the only option besides that would be to get rid of Tier 0 outright. But based on the OP's goal, I am in support of it and would put myself on the agree section.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I am still in the support of the OP's proposal.

While DontTalkDT did message me in DMs, and I mentioned that I basically have a two way thought regarding tier 0 in general. Where if Tier 0 does exist, then Divine Simplicity and/or one Tier 0 per verse is the limit. And the only option besides that would be to get rid of Tier 0 outright. But based on the OP's goal, I am in support of it and would put myself on the agree section.
Click to expand...
Noted.

Matrixxxx said:
Goku solos tier 0 💪🗿
Click to expand...
True.


  • Agree: Ultima_Reality (thread starter), Antvasima, Sir_Ovens, Maverick_Zero_X, DarkDragonMedeus, Elizhaa, Mr. Bambu, DarkGrath, Planck69, CrimsonStarFallen, Theglassman12, IdiosyncraticLawyer, KLOL506, CloverDragon03
  • Neutral: Agnaa, Firestorm808
  • Disagree: DontTalkDT, Deagonx
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
while the current stuff is just about philosophers endorsing some forms of divine simplicity, without it entailing all of the qualities Ultima has prescribed to the tier.
Click to expand...
I'll offer a slight clarification on what I believe to be the two foremost issues, as I feel this description is just a bit different from what I had in mind.

1. Broadly speaking, I took the stance that the requirements for Tier 0 are not a perfect cohesive set where each of the requirements flows naturally from the others, which is how we are justifying giving Tier 0 to beings who do not have evidence for each individual characteristic, but only a specific few. From what I have seen, the approach in philosophy and theology is more of a "mix and match" than is being given credit here, and this is an issue because if we're saying "X, Y, and Z" are required for Tier 0, and inferring a character must have "Z" because it has "X and Y," we are (in my opinion) unduly disregarding the theological conceptions that are "X, Y, and A" instead. To me, this seems unjustifiable.

2. On a different note, we are also saying that the "X, Y, and Z" version of a Monad is uniquely more powerful than the "X, Y, and A" version which has just as much religious validation in the real world. I don't think we should be providing an 'official' determination on the debate between "Z" and "A." There's nothing lesser (as I see it) about the version of Brahman that is capable of changing, or the version that has qualities vs. does not have qualities, etc, these are not distinctions that we should be officially enshrining as "more powerful" and "less powerful."

To be clear, I'm not saying this to spark further debate, I am indeed content to leave this to voting. I just wanted to provide my own summary of my points as I felt like some of it got a bit lost in translation.
 
Deagonx said:
2. On a different note, we are also saying that the "X, Y, and Z" version of a Monad is uniquely more powerful than the "X, Y, and A" version, which has just as much religious validation in the real world. Keep in mind, I don't think we should be providing an 'official' determination on the debate between "Z" and "A" The version of Brahman that is capable of changing, or the version that has qualities vs. does not have qualities, etc, these are not distinctions that we should be officially enshrining as "more powerful" and "less powerful."
Click to expand...
This is the one that actually interests me, to clarify: My response to this is that a lot of the "counterexamples" given are not actually counterexamples, since they're either:

1. Talking about something else that's not really the same thing as what's being pitched as the underlying concept of the proposal. Only really the same thing if you look at it fairly superficially.

2. Erroneous characterization of said conceptions (I briefly went into this in my second-to-last big post)

3. Even if taken to be true and accurately reflective of these philosophical stances, wouldn't really be validated by necessity. One of the "counterexamples" given to my arguments was one passage implying Brahman has spatial extension, and another thing that was mentioned was "All souls make up 1/4th of him." I believe my last big post went over how both of those aren't really possible granted even the basic premise of the concept here.

The second horn of the general objection in turn could be transformed into "The level of evidence which you allow for characters to qualify for Tier 0 involves descriptions that historically have been attributed to states of existence that most certainly wouldn't be, if they showed up in fiction." Which I believe has already been tackled by my last post as well.

Overall, as with before, I say this for the sake of clarification, and not argument, since it is well past the time for arguing amongst ourselves at this rate.
 
Indeed. We don't see the counterexamples the same way, but I think our views are clear enough for people to reach their own conclusions about it, and I don't want to drag this out any longer than it already has just for my own satisfaction. If nothing else, it was an interesting discussion.
 
I am once again the victim of the ever turning gears of bureaucracy and the tiering arms race.

Initially I disagreed with Ultima because I think the particular divine theories (or whatever name you'd like to ascribe to them) were more or less arbitrarily chosen, and choosing another religion or philosophical position would net us a different but still equally valid definition of Tier 0. I'd rather we had something that covered our bases rather than picking something and going with it.

I realize now that this may be overestimating Ultima or anyone's abilities to produce a unified system. Less than optimal, yes, but I'm beginning to believe we can't produce a perfect system that encapsulates everything. As such, I've decided to weigh Ultima's suggestions by its qualifications rather than the philosophical backdrop of the damned thing. I think the qualifications are basically acceptable. At the very least, they insist upon a Tier 0 being the top of the food chain, and that fact being indisputable by a certain measure of sub-qualifiers.

In my quest to just get this over with I will begrudgingly agree to make this the standard, even though in the original discussions I think Deagon made the best points and the most sense. Plus, this will almost certainly never affect me anyways, so... let it be done.

(Means aye, yes, or I agree, for the record)
 
I think I got a good grasp on what exactly tier 0 would entail, so put me on agree with the new change there, as for High 1-A+, I think I understand it? It might be a bit to process, especially since I know a verse that talks about possibilities all the time as something the verse has and whatnot, but overall I think I get it. Put me on agree for that too.
 
Theglassman12 said:
I think I got a good grasp on what exactly tier 0 would entail, so put me on agree with the new change there, as for High 1-A+, I think I understand it? It might be a bit to process, especially since I know a verse that talks about possibilities all the time as something the verse has and whatnot, but overall I think I get it. Put me on agree for that too.
Click to expand...
Noted.
 
I've read through the recent posts on the topic, starting from Ultima's summary of the proposal and counterarguments.

In the end, I am content with the tier 0 suggestion, though I share IdiosyncraticLawyer's general feelings on the topic. I don't think this revision is so much a fixing of something that was broken as much as it is a variation of something that could have been validly done a different way. However, I do still think that this is a valid variation, which is to say I believe it's not foundationally flawed. And what I prefer about this suggestion over hypothetical alternatives is twofold:

Firstly, I feel this concept of tier 0 follows quite naturally from the prior revisions of tier 1 (where tier 1 is now represented by transcendence via qualitative distinctions, and tier 0 is now represented by the transcendence over distinctions as a whole). Contrary to the general impression I've seen that this angle for tier 0 is arbitrary, I actually think this is quite a clean, natural progression of the higher tiers. Secondly, this offers a compelling 'ceiling' tier with which the rest of the tiering system can work down from. It is, after all, in the nature of the suggested standards for this concept of tier 0 that it is difficult to justify how a theoretical higher tier could even be produced or coherently explained. These two aspects make it quite compelling to me as the 'end-point' of our tiering system, and so I would be content with this being the standard for tier 0 in the future.

My thoughts on High 1-A+ are a bit more mixed, but less because of unambiguous issues and more to do with the ambiguity of the suggestion.

While the basic concept remained constant all throughout the discussion, I eventually amended it slightly. See spoiler box here. So, it isn't exclusively "Embodies all (at least logically) possible worlds" anymore, but also "Character who can create arbitrarily large possible worlds." Basically a slightly more formal version of the layman's idea of Omnipotence ("'Can do anything!")

With that in mind, I'm not entirely sure if I still keep to the claim of "All High 1-A+ characters are exactly equal." Seems a bit difficult to say who is stronger between a character who can actualize any kind of possible world and a character who embodies the framework of all possible worlds itself. But, either way, transcending this kind of existence on a fundamental level makes you Tier 0.

Oh yeah, and, of course: You can have multiple High 1-A+ beings.
Click to expand...

For such a major suggestion to the tiering system, this still indicates there's a bit in the air about it. The original suggestion sounds like it'd have the same kind of exclusivity that tier 0 has (as there being 'multiple High 1-A+ beings' would mean multiple characters who are of the exact same composition, that is, as the collection of all possibilities - I'm not sure how you'd have multiple High 1-A+ beings under that system, or at least none who aren't just different manifestations of the same entity), while this amended suggestion sounds like there can be multiple High 1-A+ beings in a single verse.

If we are going to allow multiple High 1-A+ beings in a single verse, and thereby multiple independent characters in the same tier, I feel this also raises a question which connects closely with the second paragraph - if a High 1-A+ character can reach that tier by being the creator of the collection of all possibilities, are we to say that the High 1-A+ character is a part of those possibilities and therefore part of their own creations? If so, I wonder what this would imply about their power in relation to a being who gets a High 1-A+ tier by simply being all possibilities, and therefore both the creator of all possibilities and a lot more than that. I would think that being would be stronger by naturally being that creator, plus more. But what if the creator of all possibilities can also destroy all possibilities? That would surely mean being more powerful than all possibilities, but it would also naturally include the destruction of themselves if we take the prior thoughts in mind.

This rambling isn't totally purposeless. What I'm trying to say is this - I don't know how such beings would be compared to one another, which is very much the point of tiering in the first place. I'd think we should know these things if we're going to instate this tier. So, at present, I don't think I can pass on the High 1-A+ suggestion. Not because the concept itself is clearly invalid, but because I'd want these details to be ironed out before it is implemented.

So, to clearly summarise my thoughts - I agree with the tier 0 suggestion, and I disagree with the tier High 1-A+ suggestion. I'm willing to change my vote on the latter if the details can be addressed.
 
DarkGrath said:
For such a major suggestion to the tiering system, this still indicates there's a bit in the air about it. The original suggestion sounds like it'd have the same kind of exclusivity that tier 0 has (as there being 'multiple High 1-A+ beings' would mean multiple characters who are of the exact same composition, that is, as the collection of all possibilities - I'm not sure how you'd have multiple High 1-A+ beings under that system, or at least none who aren't just different manifestations of the same entity), while this amended suggestion sounds like there can be multiple High 1-A+ beings in a single verse.

If we are going to allow multiple High 1-A+ beings in a single verse, and thereby multiple independent characters in the same tier, I feel this also raises a question which connects closely with the second paragraph - if a High 1-A+ character can reach that tier by being the creator of the collection of all possibilities, are we to say that the High 1-A+ character is a part of those possibilities and therefore part of their own creations? If so, I wonder what this would imply about their power in relation to a being who gets a High 1-A+ tier by simply being all possibilities, and therefore both the creator of all possibilities and a lot more than that. I would think that being would be stronger by naturally being that creator, plus more. But what if the creator of all possibilities can also destroy all possibilities? That would surely mean being more powerful than all possibilities, but it would also naturally include the destruction of themselves if we take the prior thoughts in mind.
Click to expand...
This can probably be clarified by elucidating the "ladder" going from the two types of High 1-A+ to Tier 0. Basically, I'd say:

High 1-A+ (First type) = Character who can actualize arbitrarily large logical possibilities

High 1-A+ (Second type) = Character who embodies all possibilities.

0 = Character who doesn't "actualize" possibilities, but generates and grounds possibility itself to begin with.

The first kind of High 1-A+ is relevant because, as High 1-A itself suggests, you can have "meta"-qualitative superiorities beyond 1-A, and you can also have "meta"-meta-qualitative superiorities within High 1-A itself, and afterwards you can just keep stacking "meta"s pretty much endlessly. The first type of character would be basically someone who can select a logical possibility corresponding to any given "size" and make it actual, and who as such has access to any conceivable extension of the aforementioned process. Not just extensions taking the form of a linear, infinite sequence, but also hierarchies of such sequences, and so on and so forth.

By that token, it's not quite accurate to say that this High 1-A+ is "The creator of all possibilities who can also destroy them if it wants," in my opinion. It's not like they'd have created themselves, or created a possibility where they are destroyed. So you can say that there is a sense in which the second type of High 1-A+ is stronger, yeah. Because they are the framework of possibilities itself, instead of a being existing in said framework.
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
By that token, it's not quite accurate to say that this High 1-A+ is "The creator of all possibilities who can also destroy them if it wants," in my opinion. It's not like they'd have created themselves, or created a possibility where they are destroyed. So you can say that there is a sense in which the second type of High 1-A+ is stronger, yeah. Because they are the framework of possibilities itself, instead of a being existing in said framework.
Click to expand...
I'm satisfied with this, as long as the revision to the Tiering System page is clear enough on these details.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
High 1-A+ (First type) = Character who can actualize arbitrarily large logical possibilities

High 1-A+ (Second type) = Character who embodies all possibilities.

0 = Character who doesn't "actualize" possibilities, but generates and grounds possibility itself to begin with.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fundamentally bad way to be structuring tiers. You're torturing it into representing what is, in actuality, four different tiers (High 1-A, High 1-A+ type 1, High 1-A+ type 2, and 0), using two tiers and one + modifier. These tiers have different strengths, different bases, and different requirements.

I'd say that the thing you deign "High 1-A+ second type" is a lot closer to 0, while "High 1-A+ first type" is a lot closer to High 1-A.

This may be more of a thing for the next thread, but I really think you should find another way to represent that.
 
Agnaa said:
I think this is a fundamentally bad way to be structuring tiers. You're torturing it into representing what is, in actuality, four different tiers (High 1-A, High 1-A+ type 1, High 1-A+ type 2, and 0), using two tiers and one + modifier. These tiers have different strengths, different bases, and different requirements.

I'd say that the thing you deign "High 1-A+ second type" is a lot closer to 0, while "High 1-A+ first type" is a lot closer to High 1-A.

This may be more of a thing for the next thread, but I really think you should find another way to represent that.
Click to expand...
That is true, in a way. "High 1-A+ first type" and "High 1-A+ second type" are pretty closely related, but they're also distinct in that, as said, the latter is stronger than the former. If there was a character of the former type and a character of the latter type in the same verse, and then a Tier 0 willed it that the former character dropped dead, that event would be an effect taking place "inside" the latter character. So, there clearly is a hierarchy of subordination between the highest three, on that front.

The issue, in my mind, is really that I can't really think of any character who would be the first type of High 1-A+. I really just recognize it as a valid and coherent possibility and so leave it open, for the future. If, or when, characters like that start popping up in sufficient numbers, I'll be fine with making it into a separate tier of its own, but until then I'd rather just appeal to the closeness High 1-A+ Type-One and High 1-A+ Type-Two have, definition-wise, to group them as different levels of one tier.

Like you said, though, probably a topic best left for the next thread. Since it deals with organization of the tiers proper. This one is dealing strictly with definitions, so, even the terms we're using (Like "High 1-A+") might very well be provisional.
 
Last edited:
If there ends up being (almost) none that qualify for it, then fair enough.
 
Antvasima said:
Would expanding our tiers, such as moving our current 1-C tiers to 1-D, and so onwards, be useful here, for the sake of better structured representation?
Click to expand...
We commonly use "n-D" to indicate the dimensionality of characters, so extending the tiers to include "D" ends would probably be way too confusing. I have a fair few, more minimalistic, ideas of my own. Topic for the next thread, as said.
 
Yeah, having D's on our tiering system would be misleading, and 1-D would imply 11-B tier. I know some communities also have separate stats right underneath the tier to show "Dimensionality", and there also could in the same vein have a stat showcasing "Layers of upper R>F", but I'm not sure if we want to over rework out standard page format to include those. Especially since there are plenty of characters who still have 3-D size but 4-D and above levels of power, and some could argue the same with layers of R>F. That our large size page could really explain if needed.
 
Actually, a concern I just had.

Would this new method of treating evidence, of taking things fully seriously rather than lowballing them with an implicit "within the cosmology that exists", lead to putting every character with a non-terrible statement of omnipotence at High 1-A+ type 1?

Since if we really take that seriously, "being able to actualise any possibility" is where we'd put omnipotence. Plus, most characters wouldn't actually be disqualified from this, since as you said, High 1-A+ type 1 doesn't have disqualifiers like "reaching that level through a power increase", "being weaker than other characters", "having other characters on the same level".

Is there anything in the way of that kind of stat inflation?
 
Agnaa said:
Actually, a concern I just had.

Would this new method of treating evidence, of taking things fully seriously rather than lowballing them with an implicit "within the cosmology that exists", lead to putting every character with a non-terrible statement of omnipotence at High 1-A+ type 1?

Since if we really take that seriously, "being able to actualise any possibility" is where we'd put omnipotence. Plus, most characters wouldn't actually be disqualified from this, since as you said, High 1-A+ type 1 doesn't have disqualifiers like "reaching that level through a power increase", "being weaker than other characters", "having other characters on the same level".

Is there anything in the way of that kind of stat inflation?
Click to expand...
There are different types of possibility that you can juggle up in metaphysics (Nomological, metaphysical and logical), so to qualify for High 1-A+ at all, I'd want a statement clarifying that the "Actualization of possibilities" in question specifically refers to logical possibility. So, ideally, they would require something similar to the Downstreamers' statement of having created an ensemble of all logically possible worlds. Most of the time, philosophers who don't abide by conceptions of Monadhood consider "Omnipotence" entirely in terms of metaphysical possibility, since they likewise mostly don't really consider God to be "logically" necessary, just metaphysically so (And at times not even that). So you'd need to do a fair bit of legwork to actually fit the bill, as I see it, even if your statements are pretty decent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Kev_Nino36U
Question about Tier 0/High 1-A
Replies
2
Views
1K
OMNIVERSAL-KING
OMNIVERSAL-KING
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top