• 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.

Ultima_Reality

?????????
VS Battles
Administrator
6,163
16,275
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:

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.

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​


Boundless: Characters who are completely beyond both quantity, quality and meta-quality. In other words, their superiority over lesser things derives from a total lack of any qualities, instead of simply being above some qualities while still operating on higher ones, as High 1-A characters do.

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.

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:

“The man of Truth is beyond good and evil,” intoned a voice that was not a voice. “The man of Truth has ridden to All-Is-One. The man of Truth has learnt that Illusion is the only reality, and that substance is an impostor.”

Faced with this realisation, Randolph Carter reeled in the clutch of supreme horror—horror such as had not been hinted even at the climax of that hideous night when two had ventured into an ancient and abhorred necropolis under a waning moon and only one had emerged. No death, no doom, no anguish can arouse the surpassing despair which flows from a loss of identity. Merging with nothingness is peaceful oblivion; but to be aware of existence and yet to know that one is no longer a definite being distinguished from other beings—that one no longer has a self—that is the nameless summit of agony and dread.
He knew that there had been a Randolph Carter of Boston, yet could not be sure whether he—the fragment or facet of an earthly entity beyond the Ultimate Gate—had been that one or some other. His self had been annihilated; and yet he—if indeed there could, in view of that utter nullity of individual existence, be such a thing as he—was equally aware of being in some inconceivable way a legion of selves. It was as though his body had been suddenly transformed into one of those many-limbed and many-headed effigies sculptured in Indian temples, and he contemplated the aggregation in a bewildered attempt to discern which was the original and which the additions—if indeed (supremely monstrous thought) there were any original as distinguished from other embodiments.
Then, in the midst of these devastating reflections, Carter’s beyond-the-gate fragment was hurled from what had seemed the nadir of horror to black, clutching pits of a horror still more profound. This time it was largely external—a force or personality which at once confronted and surrounded and pervaded him, and which in addition to its local presence, seemed also to be a part of himself, and likewise to be coexistent with all time and coterminous with all space. There was no visual image, yet the sense of entity and the awful concept of combined localism, identity, and infinity lent a paralysing terror beyond anything which any Carter-fragment had hitherto deemed capable of existing.
In the face of that awful wonder, the quasi-Carter forgot the horror of destroyed individuality. It was an All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self—not merely a thing of one Space-Time continuum, but allied to the ultimate animating essence of existence’s whole unbounded sweep—the last, utter sweep which has no confines and which outreaches fancy and mathematics alike. It was perhaps that which certain secret cults of earth have whispered of as YOG-SOTHOTH, and which has been a deity under other names; that which the crustaceans of Yuggoth worship as the Beyond-One, and which the vaporous brains of the spiral nebulae know by an untranslatable Sign—yet in a flash the Carter-facet realised how slight and fractional all these conceptions are.

You have the Dharmakhaya, from Journey to the West, which is described as:

Dharmakaya_%282%29.png


Dharmakaya_%284%29.png


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:

Now in my recollection of the rest I have less power to speak than any infant wetting its tongue yet at its mother’s breast; and not because that Living Radiance bore more than one semblance, for It is unchanging and is forever as it was before; rather, as I grew worthier to see, the more I looked, the more unchanging semblance appeared to change with every change in me

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:

In that case, Omnipotence by necessity results in Monadhood (The core requirement for Tier 0) simply because an omnipotent must not be beholden or contained by anything existing "prior" to itself. So it must be the creator of all categories and possibilities (Rather than simply an individual that "taps" into these possibilities to actualize them), and hence not be within any of them, lest it find foundation on something other (And definitionally lesser) than itself. So it cannot exist in any possible world whatsoever and instead be completely outside the framework of attributes entailed by that, which leads directly into divine simplicity and negative theology and that whole package.

(You'll notice that this is quite literally just a variation of Russell's Paradox, also. The fact that the actualizer of all categories and possibilities cannot be within any category or possibility)

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:

Despite the many theological and philosophical perspectives regarding omnipotence and its paradoxes, the term is something that is completely impossible to prove or demonstrate on any conceivable level.

By its very definition, it is something that cannot be used to measure a character, and claims of omnipotence, no matter how complex or developed, should never be viewed as evidence.

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:
Ultima and I briefly discussed this proposal prior to it being posted on the wiki. As may be expected, I do agree with the proposals - though I would like to acknowledge an addendum I suggested during this discussion.
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.

The matter regarding the intelligence ratings of tier 0 entities caught my eye. To my understanding, the terms 'omniscient' and 'mindless' that we would naturally apply to a 'Monad' do not really apply to this concept of a undifferentiated being as it is described - you could only use those terms as analogies (as the very idea that such an entity could literally be one or the other would itself be a differentiation), and I wasn't compelled by the idea that these analogies are close enough to the concept we are trying to describe to warrant using them as legitimate intelligence ratings. As far as I see it, a Monad can't justly be described as 'omniscient' nor 'mindless' in the sense that we would use the term for any other beings with those intelligence ratings.

As I mentioned to Ultima earlier, I would like to suggest that a separate intelligence rating for tier 0 entities is introduced. If we think of intelligence on this scale as being the 'knowledge' of information (in the sense that, for example, an omniscient character knows all information), then this intelligence rating could be aptly described as applying to an entity who is all information. Such an entity does not necessarily possess 'knowledge', or even a sentience in the traditional sense, and there isn't really a practical context in which any hypothetical analogy of knowledge could be relevant to them - yet it still can't be aptly described as something on the scale of mindlessness to all-knowingness. At risk of sounding like a broken record, then, I'd suggest calling such an intelligence rating 'Irrelevant', and describing it as 'Characters who, by the nature of their being, express all possible information through their form and thus do not exhibit knowledge of information in a traditional sense.'
 
I agree with everything.

However, "Irrelevant" sounds like we are simply dismissing the notion of statistics. Perhaps a more fitting term would be "Unbound", since the concept of a tier 0 is that it is free from systems and hierarchy itself.

Regardless, my complaint is semantics. Take it how you will.
 
Last edited:
So long story short, Abrahamic figures are the definition of Tier 0 and back to being the "Questionable Omnipotence" or this time just intended to be straight up Omnipotent as long as we acknowledge vs threads involving them cannot be done.

I support this proposal.
 
So long story short, Abrahamic figures are the definition of Tier 0 and back to being the "Questionable Omnipotence" or this time just intended to be straight up Omnipotent as long as we acknowledge vs threads involving them cannot be done.
"Questionable Omnipotence" is frankly a pretty shoddy term, so, no. It's just Omnipotence. Straight-up. No ifs ands or buts here, really.
 
Fair enough, I just remembered how the old formula for it was but no "Questionable." Also, I agree with Ovens that Unbound or Boundless sounds better than Irrelevant regarding speed, LS, Stamina, ect. And SS and durability should have mirror names to AP; which is Boundless.
 
Not that I am a voting party here, but I will at least say my piece that I think incorporating Divine Simplicity and/or Apophatic Theology into Tier 0 is largely a bad idea and I don't think those concepts have any inherent impact on power rather than just being certain ways to think of God. Likewise for "possible worlds" and the like. The very highest tiers becoming a hodge podge of the kookiest parts of Christian thought sits poorly with me.

It doesn't help matters that I am generally of the opinion that they are borderline incoherent as concepts. So I would disagree with the way we are approaching this tier overall and lean more towards just shifting everything else up one.
 
Not that I am a voting party here, but I will at least say my piece that I think incorporating Divine Simplicity and/or Apophatic Theology into Tier 0 is largely a bad idea and I don't think those concepts have any inherent impact on power rather than just being certain ways to think of God. Likewise for "possible worlds" and the like. The very highest tiers becoming a hodge podge of the kookiest parts of Christian thought sits poorly with me.
None of the concepts you mentioned are exclusively attached to Christianity, or to any specific religion whatsoever, for the matter, so that's not really an honest characterization of them at all. (Possible worlds are primarily a semantical tool, even. Not even a cosmology thing)

Furthermore: Yeah, I agree apophatic theology in particular is not really coherent when taken to the most extreme degree possible, which is why this version of Tier 0 is at best a mild form of it. Otherwise, as I've already expressed, Tier 0 as a concept here is not really any more incoherent than the number of other things we already accept as valid in the wiki at large, so I don't think this part of your thought process is very compatible with the manner we already do this. If you think Tier 0 is "kooky" then you also think 1-A is kooky.
 
None of the concepts you mentioned are exclusively attached to Christianity
Obviously.
Tier 0 as a concept here is not really any more incoherent than the number of other things we already accept as valid in the wiki at large, so I don't think this part of your thought process is very compatible with the manner we already do this. If you think Tier 0 is "kooky" then you also think 1-A is kooky.
I don't see why my view on NT or Divine Simplicity requires me to view "infinite R>F layers" similarly.

Largely I do feel that we've traded one arbitrary stopping point for R>F with another, but I am at least sympathetic to the basic logic involved and how it contributes to a higher level of power.

For divine simplicity or characterizing a "lack of differentiation" as a level of power beyond what a less esoteric portrayal of a deity would entail, skyrocketing to the highest tier we have, is a very poor approach to me. It feels we are basically rewarding the usage of strange niche theological concepts that do not have any meaningful impact on power levels.
 
I don't see why my view on NT or Divine Simplicity requires me to view "infinite R>F layers" similarly.

Largely I do feel that we've traded one arbitrary stopping point for R>F with another, but I am at least sympathetic to the basic logic involved and how it contributes to a higher level of power.

For divine simplicity or characterizing a "lack of differentiation" as a level of power beyond what a less esoteric portrayal of a deity would entail, skyrocketing to the highest tier we have, is a very poor approach to me. It feels we are basically rewarding the usage of strange niche theological concepts that do not have any meaningful impact on power levels.
Because the two concepts are, at the core, rooted in metaphysics. Whatsoever line of thinking leads you to reject divine simplicity as a tierable thing also leads you to reject... anything non-mathematical as a tiering thing. And that's not exactly something we want, we are obviously not about to have a physicalist Tiering System.

Explaining how this indeed has "a meaningful impact on power levels" is also more or less something I dedicated the entirety of the OP to explaining, so, yeah.
 
Because the two concepts are, at the core, rooted in metaphysics. Whatsoever line of thinking leads you to reject divine simplicity as a tierable thing also leads you to reject... anything non-mathematical as a tiering thing
I would prefer not to be strawmanned. The fact that a concept that I am disagreeing with is "rooted in metaphysics" does not mean that I disagree with all things related to metaphysics. I am not proposing physicalism, I am pointing out that Divine Simplicity and Negative Theology have no real meaning for our tiering system aside from implying that a being is the God of whatever verse they are portrayed in.

For that reason, I consider it a poor basis for Tier 0.
Explaining how this indeed has "a meaningful impact on power levels" is also more or less something I dedicated the entirety of the OP to explaining, so, yeah.
Which ultimately relies on the assumption that phrases like "beyond thisness and thatness" or "it's nature is identical to its existence" demand a level of power beyond what other conceptualizations of a deity would confer, which isn't something I am willing to cosign. Hence my disagree.
 
I would prefer not to be strawmanned. The fact that a concept that I am disagreeing with is "rooted in metaphysics" does not mean that I disagree with all things related to metaphysics. I am not proposing physicalism, I am pointing out that Divine Simplicity and Negative Theology have no real meaning for our tiering system aside from implying that a being is the God of whatever verse they are portrayed in.

For that reason, I consider it a poor basis for Tier 0.
If you claim they're meaningless, then substantiating that claim is the way to go about it. You haven't interacted with a single one of the arguments in the OP thus far.

Which ultimately relies on the assumption that phrases like "beyond thisness and thatness" or "it's nature is identical to its existence" demand a level of power beyond what other conceptualizations of a deity would confer, which isn't something I am willing to cosign. Hence my disagree.
Yeah, they indeed do. If "above quantity, quality and extrapolations thereof" is meaningless to you, as far as power levels are concerned, then "Above dimensionality" should, likewise, be just as meaningless. And yet, here we are. So, overall, my point is that "It's meaningless," unless you have a fairly good reason for it, is not really something that amounts to much.

I don't make my goal here to convince you of anything, as I suspect this won't bear fruit, but to outline the reality of the situation, mostly. All of what I talked about is pretty in line with the wiki's general philosophy, at the end of the day.
 
Yeah, they indeed do. If "above quantity, quality and extrapolations thereof" is meaningless to you, as far as power levels are concerned, then "Above dimensionality" should, likewise, be just as meaningless. And yet, here we are.
Again, I reject this attempt to equate my stance to some other stance. I don't think the overall concept of being "above" something is incoherent in our tiering system, especially something like dimensionality which is explicitly treated as a level of power.

I reject the idea that "above quality" is anything other than self-defeating nonsense in the same manner that I felt Negative Theology was self-defeating nonsense, which many agreed with when it came up.

And yet, here we are. So, overall, my point is that "It's meaningless," unless you have a fairly good reason for it
And indeed I do. It's plainly illogical and has been rejected for that reason by many. Describing something as "beyond description" is nonsensical. Equating two different attributes as identical is nonsensical.

But even if those things werent inherently contradictory and thus incomprehensible, there would still not be a sufficient basis for equating them to infinite layers of R>F, as if such a being could not exist within a story (despite -- quite literally -- existing in many stories.)
 
Again, I reject this attempt to equate my stance to some other stance. I don't think the overall concept of being "above" something is incoherent in our tiering system, especially something like dimensionality which is explicitly treated as a level of power.

I reject the idea that "above quality" is anything other than self-defeating nonsense in the same manner that I felt Negative Theology was self-defeating nonsense, which many agreed with when it came up
Negative Theology would largely be "self-defeating nonsense" because of the idea that "Beyond description" is, itself, a description, and thus a truly indescribable being would be "Above itself," in that way. Obviously, that's pretty flimsy, since it effectively cuts off the entity in question from all reference.

That whole train of thought doesn't really apply to this proposal of Tier 0 at all. Tier 0 is not beyond all reference.

And even then, people were willing to give negative theology a tier, if it was displayed as a transcendence thing. Remember: They didn't go with your idea of "This is illogical, so let's make it untierable." That tier just happened to be like, Low 1-C or so, because of the general philosophy of the old Tiering System, which applies to the new system no longer.

But even if those things werent inherently contradictory and thus incomprehensible, there would still not be a sufficient basis for equating them to infinite layers of R>F, as if such a being could not exist within a story (despite -- quite literally -- existing in many stories.)
A Monad "exists in a story" only to us, the readers, who are outside of the verse entirely. I already said that R>F's new standing is not based on "How we see stories in real life," no? So this objection is not really very coherent.

That aside: Yeah, a Tier 0 being can't exist in some layer of a hierarchy. As I've already said, they have no "degree" or "differentiation" to their power whatsoever, which is absolute, and so, if you say something is "more real" than them, you're already saying their existence is an attribute that admits degrees, which discounts them being Tier 0 to begin with.
 
Negative Theology would largely be "self-defeating nonsense" because of the idea that "Beyond description" is, itself, a description, and thus a truly indescribable being would be "Above itself," in that way. Obviously, that's pretty flimsy, since it effectively cuts off the entity in question from all reference.

That whole train of thought doesn't really apply to this proposal of Tier 0 at all. Tier 0 is not beyond all reference.
I feel this thought process essentially repeats itself with "beyond quality."

The primary concept involved aside from that appears to be a "lack of distinction," particularly where it concerns the distinction between essence and nature.

It's a cool way to think of God, but I don't think it tells us anything about what that being can actually do or how powerful it is relative to verses that do not invoke that idea.

That aside: Yeah, a Tier 0 being can't exist in some layer of a hierarchy. As I've already said, they have no "degree" or "differentiation" to their power whatsoever, which is absolute, and so, if you say something is "more real" than them, you're already saying their existence is an attribute that admits degrees, which discounts them being Tier 0 to begin with.
Well, that's largely circular because I am objecting to them being tier 0 in the first place.
 
I feel this thought process essentially repeats itself with "beyond quality."

The primary concept involved aside from that appears to be a "lack of distinction," particularly where it concerns the distinction between essence and nature.

It's a cool way to think of God, but I don't think it tells us anything about what that being can actually do or how powerful it is relative to verses that do not invoke that idea.
"Lack of differentiation/composition" and "Above quality" are, effectively, the same thing here, not separate concepts.

The point is really just that a Tier 0 would be the singular source and endpoint of all the disparate attributes that are in reality, and thus analogously referred to as "having" them. It's like how a 0-dimensional point, technically, is the endpoint of both a series of ever-shorter lines and a series of circles with increasingly smaller radius, and thus sometimes called a "degenerate circle" or a "degenerate line," for example.

Obviously, in neither case are we saying that a line is a circle, or that a circle is a line. Just that they both converge into one thing past a certain point. That's not really incoherent, and nor does it result in the same language games pure negative theology leads to.

Well, that's largely circular because I am objecting to them being tier 0 in the first place.
You gave that reasoning after saying "Even granting it that the concept is coherent, it still has no reason to be that strong, because [insert reason here]." Meaning you're already granting that it is meaningfully tierable for the sake of argument, and then attacking the notion that it can't be below R>F layers (From my understanding). I, in turn, am pointing out that it indeed can't be below them.
 
Obviously, in neither case are we saying that a line is a circle, or that a circle is a line. Just that they both converge into one thing past a certain point. That's not really incoherent, and nor does it result in the same language games pure negative theology leads to.
They may converge into that thing in a mathematical sense, but I don't accept this analogy as being functional for the idea that ones "nature and existence" are the same or the idea that this would confer Tier 0 or even be contributory to it because:

I can certainly accept the idea that things can be made up of physical parts (or that we can assign a name and identity to an assembly of parts, rather), but I see no reason to think of a quark, for instance, as being divisible into its "metaphysical parts" insofar as we could say it's charge, mass, and location are different "things."

Rather, I'd say any non composite object shares an identical nature and existence, such that we can't draw an actual distinction, rather than just a linguistic/mind dependent one, between the fact that something exists and the attributes that it's existence entails.

These distinctions are academic and mind dependent, they are not actual. I am not rejecting metaphysics, I am rejecting the reification of a specific metaphysical notion as our Tier 0.


Meaning you're already granting that it is meaningfully tierable for the sake of argument, and then attacking the notion that it can't be below R>F layers (From my understanding). I, in turn, am pointing out that it indeed can't be below them.
I don't consider it tierable by itself. I think it can be a meaningful indicator that a being is meant to be powerful in the verse, which is something we might draw conclusions about, not that these attributes grant power.

Your contention that it cannot be below R>F I believe is erroneous. A fictional monad is entirely possible, and there's no reason for a verse's monad to necessarily be "real" to a character who transcends layers of fictionality. I don't see any basis for treating these characteristics as automatically the most real thing in any given R>F chain, aside some a possible R>F chain in their own verse.

Any such argument that relies on the nature of these attributes preventing it falls victim to the fact that these attributes are merely fictional and thus can't impose their logic upon a higher layer of reality, when presented to a being that is more real than the verse's monad

If the argument is that we must treat the monad as "real" absent information that would diminish it as such, I'd say that we are granting a bizarre exception to the basic concept of R>F just to enshrine this niche theological concept as our Tier 0 despite simultaneously recognizing that these are fictional characters which strikes me as a contradiction. I understand that our concept of R>F is not a perfect analogue to the real worlds actual relationship with fiction, but I don't see this as being a defeater to the fact that Divine Simplicity and Apophaticism are just as capable of being fictional attributes as they are real attributes.
 
They may converge into that thing in a mathematical sense, but I don't accept this analogy as being functional for the idea that ones "nature and existence" are the same or the idea that this would confer Tier 0 or even be contributory to it because:

I can certainly accept the idea that things can be made up of physical parts (or that we can assign a name and identity to an assembly of parts, rather), but I see no reason to think of a quark, for instance, as being divisible into its "metaphysical parts" insofar as we could say it's charge, mass, and location are different "things."

Rather, I'd say any non composite object shares an identical nature and existence, such that we can't draw an actual distinction, rather than just a linguistic/mind dependent one, between the fact that something exists and the attributes that it's existence entails.

These distinctions are academic and mind dependent, they are not actual. I am not rejecting metaphysics, I am rejecting the reification of a specific metaphysical notion as our Tier 0.
That's a different argument entirely. Because up there, you were saying the idea of "Being undifferentiated with regards to attributes" is incoherent and inherently contradictory. All I did was point out that it isn't contradictory, at least not any more than "Above dimensionality" or "Sees this world as fiction" is.

Furthermore: At best, all those paragraphs do is say "The concept of a Monad only makes sense under this specific ontology [one where properties actually exist, and aren't just mind-dependent]." That doesn't refute the notion that a Monad is inherently above all other tiers, it just argues that its existence implies a verse has a particular type of cosmology. (And in fact I would say that's not really correct? I don't see why a nominalist verse wouldn't be able to have a Tier 0)

Your contention that it cannot be below R>F I believe is erroneous. A fictional monad is entirely possible, and there's no reason for a verse's monad to necessarily be "real" to a character who transcends layers of fictionality. I don't see any basis for treating these characteristics as automatically the most real thing in any given R>F chain, aside some a possible R>F chain in their own verse.

Any such argument that relies on the nature of these attributes preventing it falls victim to the fact that these attributes are merely fictional and thus can't impose their logic upon a higher layer of reality, when presented to a being that is more real than the verse's monad

If the argument is that we must treat the monad as "real" absent information that would diminish it as such, I'd say that we are granting a bizarre exception to the basic concept of R>F just to enshrine this niche theological concept as our Tier 0 despite simultaneously recognizing that these are fictional characters which strikes me as a contradiction. I understand that our concept of R>F is not a perfect analogue to the real worlds actual relationship with fiction, but I don't see this as being a defeater to the fact that Divine Simplicity and Apophaticism are just as capable of being fictional attributes as they are real attributes.
It's not a case of special pleading whatsoever, no. When we have two layers of R>F, A and B, where A > B, we are saying that they both the same attribute ("Realness"), but in different 'proportions.' A is "more real" than B. That's inherently imparting differentiation on the attribute of realness, and therefore it must not be something that applies to the Monad.

You say that we are "granting a bizarre exception to the basic concept of R>F just to enshrine this niche theological concept as our Tier 0 despite simultaneously recognizing that these are fictional characters which strikes me as a contradiction. That would only be a contradiction if we treated Reality-Fiction Transcendence "exactly how we see fiction IRL." But as you, yourself, acknowledge: We don't do that, because that's nonsense. So this whole line of thought is inapplicable here. Period.
 
That's a different argument entirely. Because up there, you were saying the idea of "Being undifferentiated with regards to attributes" is incoherent and inherently contradictory.
The reification of it is. Not the concept of mind dependent attributes themselves, which is just a human method of categorization. I am saying treating this as some absurd level of power is not justified and the concept of being "metaphysically beyond distinction" is incoherent.

Even many of the people who contributed to this idea thought so. John Duns Scotus who advocated for "formal distinction" which was essentially a work-around for the issues with divine simplicity, advocating for an "intermediary" form of distinction that was not fully real or fully conceptual, to resolve the inherent illogical nature of equating two distinct attributes with different definitions as being the same thing.

Classical theism is full of this kind of sophistry because the ideas it is known for are so rationally perilous.
It's not a case of special pleading whatsoever, no. When we have two layers of R>F, A and B, where A > B, we are saying that they both the same attribute ("Realness"), but in different 'proportions.' A is "more real" than B. That's inherently imparting differentiation on the attribute of realness, and therefore it must not be something that applies to the Monad
This, again, assumes reification of this particular attribute and is a case of special pleading. If Character A had the attribute of "can destroy a universe" we wouldn't consider them as being able to destroy a universe in an R>F layer above their own, because that power becomes fictional when compared to a higher layer.

Similarly, the Monad's divine simplicity becomes a matter of fiction. Relative to the higher layer it can only transcend fictional forms of differentiation, the same way Character A can only destroy fictional universes.

I don't see any basis for insisting on this power being "absolutely real" any more than any other power.
 
The reification of it is. Not the concept of mind dependent attributes themselves, which is just a human method of categorization. I am saying treating this as some absurd level of power is not justified and the concept of being "metaphysically beyond distinction" is incoherent.

Even many of the people who contributed to this idea thought so. John Duns Scotus who advocated for "formal distinction" which was essentially a work-around for the issues with divine simplicity, advocating for an "intermediary" form of distinction that was not fully real or fully conceptual, to resolve the inherent illogical nature of equating two distinct attributes with different definitions as being the same thing.

Classical theism is full of this kind of sophistry because the ideas it is known for are so rationally perilous.
All of that just entirely leaves the whole "Attributes don't really exist as independent things and are just human methods of categorization" and goes right back into "This is incoherent." I already addressed the charges of incoherence up there, and none of what you're saying actually even touches that point. So if you've nothing else to say, we can just cut off this branch.

This, again, assumes reification of this particular attribute and is a case of special pleading. If Character A had the attribute of "can destroy a universe" we wouldn't consider them as being able to destroy a universe in an R>F layer above their own, because that power becomes fictional when compared to a higher layer.

Similarly, the Monad's divine simplicity becomes a matter of fiction. Relative to the higher layer it can only transcend fictional forms of differentiation, the same way Character A can only destroy fictional universes.

I don't see any basis for insisting on this power being "absolutely real" any more than any other power.
"Can destroy a universe" is really just a specific expression of the attribute of "Power." And that can, in fact, have specific degrees. A 2-A character has a different degree of power from a Low 2-C character, and a 1-C character has a different degree of power from a 2-A character. Yet, all of them can destroy a universe. And, indeed, a being in a higher R>F also has a different degree of power from beings in a lower R>F layer.

If a character has "absolute" power, which is to say, power that admits of no such degrees whatsoever, then, yeah, I would apply the same logic to it.
 
Last edited:
If a character has "absolute" power, which is to say, power that admits of no such degrees whatsoever, then, yeah, I would apply the same logic to it.
Ultimately, this is also something I consider pretty much self defeating. We want to categorize "admitting no degrees of power" by saying.... it's the highest degree of power. Or by assuming that the lack of degrees is incapable of being a fictional aspect.

That's not something I consider justified. I understand line of thought, but I see no reason to treat this attribute as concretely non-fictional. This applies to anything, really.

If a deity is said to be "the source of all things" do we simply assume that R>F layers fall under "all things" and treat this being as Tier 0? I'd say no. Because relative to a higher layer "all things" only includes fictional things or things in its verse. Similarly, a monad would simply be the unifying essence of its own verse, not R>F layers above its own existence.

Unless the verse actually goes as far as to say that the character in question is explicitly above infinite layers, I don't agree with treating this concept as such.
 
Ultimately, this is also something I consider pretty much self defeating. We want to categorize "admitting no degrees of power" by saying.... it's the highest degree of power. Or by assuming that the lack of degrees is incapable of being a fictional aspect.

That's not something I consider justified. I understand line of thought, but I see no reason to treat this attribute as concretely non-fictional. This applies to anything, really.

If a deity is said to be "the source of all things" do we simply assume that R>F layers fall under "all things" and treat this being as Tier 0? I'd say no. Because relative to a higher layer "all things" only includes fictional things or things in its verse. Similarly, a monad would simply be the unifying essence of its own verse, not R>F layers above its own existence.

Unless the verse actually goes as far as to say that the character in question is explicitly above infinite layers, I don't agree with treating this concept as such.
Tier 0 is "the highest power," sure, but not at all in the same manner as any of the things below it. Consider Speed as an analogy, for instance: 0 m/s is not really "Speed" in the same way that, say, 100 m/s or 50 m/s or 100,000,000 m/s are, since those are all degrees of motion, while 0 m/s is immobility, the lack of all motion. In fact, you can't exactly say 0 m/s is "slower" than anything, really, since slowness is defined as "low-speed movement," and 0 m/s is the lack of movement.

That doesn't mean you can't say 0 m/s is "inferior" to non-zero speed. Clearly, it is, just not in the same way that, say, 2 m/s is inferior to 10 m/s. Tier 0 is just the same thing, except upwards, instead of downwards.

That example is pretty weird, also. "All things" inherently only refers to what actually exists (I wouldn't consider something that doesn't exist as a "thing"). Sufficiently broad statements, however, do in fact stand well beyond only what actually exists. And that transcending differentiation (While, yourself, lacking all differentiation) makes you unable to be under anything else follows pretty much by definition.
 
Last edited:
That example is pretty weird, also. "All things" inherently only refers to what actually exists (I wouldn't consider something that doesn't exist as a "thing"). Sufficiently broad statements, however, do in fact stand well beyond only what presently exists. And that transcending differentiation (While, yourself, lacking all differentiation) makes you unable to be under anything else follows pretty much by definition.
This is more or less dependent on how you word something, rather than a concrete difference in the inherent nature of the ability. The Monist holds that there is one "basic" concrete object, and all other concrete objects are derivative. Similarly, I would hold that the only things that are derivative of a fictional verse's monad is that which is within the verse itself. Whenever we place a character underneath an R>F layer relative to another, when we make a comparison, we are automatically adding a "fictional" prefix to its abilities and attributes.

If a character can "destroy the universe -- that which is all that exists" we diminutize that to a fictional universe. Thus, if something "transcends differentiation" then it transcends a diminutive fictional form of differentiation. If we attempt to reject the possibility of a "fictional differentiation" we would have to take the approach that anything that transcends a concept must do so even across infinite R>F layers, because concepts can't be relegated to fiction, which is obviously not logical.

Moreover, I don't think the concept of "transcending differentiation" is coherent. If there are multiple characters within a verse, then the monad is different than them. Those characters may be derivative of the Monad, which serves as the fundamental ground for reality within the verse, but it is in fact different from them. Even the philosophers who pioneered Monism and Divine Simplicity did not seem to reject the notion of differentiating between God and other things, just that he was the cause of them. So in any case I don't see how this notion of "transcending differentiation" helps us here, because it would not be an inherent attribute of a divinely simple monad even if we did assume that differentiation can't be relegated to fiction.
 
I disagree with the proposal for Tier 0.

1. Using it for Tiering is against the conception of it: It is, as Ultima might say, a category error to use this concept for tiering. If you assume the character truly has this attribute then you can not declare it "more powerful" than anything, as that is a quality. Likewise, being Tier 0 (or fulfilling its definition) is a quality. If you believe these characters truly have this attribute then you can not tier them this way. You can only tier characters if you do not consider them to actually have this attribute. Same goes with this character defeating anything or doing any action at all. It would all be contradictory to its nature, so there really is no valid reason to call its stronger than anything. Absolute incomparability negates any superiority there may ever have been.
Heck, there being any evidence of the character's existence is a contradiction to the principle of its nature.

2. It's paradoxical: And I mean this in the most formal conception of it. On the wiki we reason using classical logic and no other logic system. As such it immediately runs into the law of excluded middle, which stays that for any proposition it or its opposite is true. I.e. anything either has the quality of being red or it does not have the quality of being red. Hence, we are dealing with a formal logical paradox, which disallows us any reasoning based on this property. Additionally (and consequentally), thanks to the principle of explosion anything can be proven if one takes the existence of such a character as an assumption.
Like, I can actually make a formal logical proof that we should not use it for tiering: Let P(X) be an arbitrary proposition about the character. Let Q be the proposition "Ultima's Tier 0 proposal should not be used."
¬(P(X) v ¬P(X)) => (¬P(X) ∧ ¬¬P(X)) => (¬P(X) ∧ P(X)) => (P(X) v Q) => Q
This formal logical proof is valid (under the assumption that such a Tier 0 exists) and can not be disproven within classical logic.
You would have to straight-up reinvent logic itself for this concept to be usable, which is not an acceptable approach for a general standpoint.

3. It's theologically insensitive: This approach declares one particular theory of omnipotence above all others. Many Christians for instance think that their god very much has the quality of being good. (In fact, some may say god is characterized as that which has all positive properties) Yet at the same time they believe him omnipotent. Taking this standard would declare that they are wrong and that their god can not be truly omnipotent, because it has properties.
That wouldn't be so bad if the approach in question could be shown in formal logic to be correct, but as said in 2 that is factually not the case. It's merely one possible, and highly contested, theological viewpoint and as such I dare say that it is even morally wrong to enforce it upon the users of our wiki. It would force them to abide a inherently illogical religious concept.

4. It's artificially limiting: Ultima's disqualifiers are essentially limiting human creativity for the sake of creating an artificial true endpoint. As he already admits himself, there are verses experimenting with the defeat of creatures that are supposed to have the properties he describes.
Problem here is that anything that would defeat such a creature is an illogical force in itself. It would be something beyond logic defeating something else beyond logic. As such the objection that the character defeating it is a contradiction holds no weight.
Or, to be clear, it technically does hold weight, but only if you agree with my 2nd point. If we restrain us to arguments valid in classical logic (as we should) then this qualifies the character, but then the same restrain to logic applies to all proposed Tier 0 making their tier invalid by 2nd point.
Heck, by which argument is one to hold that a logic manipulator can not be more powerful? Regardless of which argument one may bring up against this point, a logic manipulator can just manipulate logic to make the argument invalid.

5. R>F has no limit: Weird argument, but any character you read about in a book can for obvious reasons be part of a book. As such a Tier 0 character as proposed could exist within a R>F hierarchy. The exact same description as that of what we would classify as Tier 0 could be found in a book in some verse, with the contents of the book existing as a lower layer of fiction. You could argue that is a contradiction to their nature, but then the same would apply in real life. I.e. the same contradiction would apply because in reality they're fiction and this is not a nature can truly have even from a fictional perspective.
Additionally, based on what would you justify that a character with that nature that is not in a lower part of a R>F hierarchy, would be more powerful than one that is? It is not that you actually know for certain that the former is not part of such a thing, you just assume that's not the case from a lack of information. Which brings us to:

6. It goes against our feat based approach: Our wiki has a feat-based approach. We tier characters by what we see them able of doing. This is the exact opposite. It tiers characters that we do not see do anything at all entirely on assumptions. It would be assuming, without evidence, that literally everything any person ever could possibly think up was considered in the statement of the character's nature. It is truly no better than arguing that we should give a character with Complete Arsenal every ability on the wiki. I have seen verses dabble in concepts like omnipotence beyond omnipotence. There is no basis to assume stuff like that was considered.
 
Last edited:
It's merely one possible, and highly contested, theological viewpoint and as such I dare say that it is even morally wrong to enforce it upon the users of our wiki. It would force them to abide a inherently illogical religious concept.
I want to chime in here on this point. I would ask you to walk this back. I agree with you on many of your points, but any stance we take on this -- for or against -- is ultimately a theological position that we will be enshrining in our wiki. I don't think it's fair to moralize this. It makes the atmosphere hostile and pointed when it doesn't need to be. I do believe Ultima is proposing this in good faith based on his opinions on metaphysics, and if we are to oppose that we should do it on wholly rational grounds.
 
I want to chime in here on this point. I would ask you to walk this back. I agree with you on many of your points, but any stance we take on this -- for or against -- is ultimately a theological position that we will be enshrining in our wiki. I don't think it benefits anyone to moralize this. It makes the atmosphere hostile and pointed, when it doesn't need to be. I do believe Ultima is proposing this in good faith based on his opinions on metaphysics, and if we are to oppose that we should do it on wholly rational grounds.
Yes, and our current system essentially encourages a form of Suggs-style social Darwinian divisive psychopathically power-mad frenetic competition to constantly gain greater levels of comparative supremacy in order to grind everybody else under a single bootheel, rather than encouraging a perspective of true oneness (and therefore equality) for everybody at the end, so I technically find what we are currently doing highly immoral as well, and would greatly appreciate if Ultima incorporates this concern into his new system, as I mentioned in private earlier.
 
I want to chime in here on this point. I would ask you to walk this back. I agree with you on many of your points, but any stance we take on this -- for or against -- is ultimately a theological position that we will be enshrining in our wiki. I don't think it's fair to moralize this. It makes the atmosphere hostile and pointed when it doesn't need to be. I do believe Ultima is proposing this in good faith based on his opinions on metaphysics, and if we are to oppose that we should do it on wholly rational grounds.
Drawing from the above.

DontTalk, realize the following: Whether you agree with this proposal, or don't agree with this proposal, you will be making a stance on a theological concept, which we will then institute. We, unfortunately, cannot have nondual opinions, and being neutral on something like this is plainly impossible. So it's completely pointless to moralize this decision, because whatever result follows from here will ultimately apply to us both, following your logic.

So, going forwards, I ask you to completely drop that point. I will not be entertaining anything related to it.
 
Can you respond to the following please, Ultima?
Would the new definition of Tier 0 conceptually fit well with true Buddhahood, and the Parabrahman/Parashiva? If so, I agree with this revision.

I also agree about that "Unbound" seems like a much more appropriate term to use than "Irrelevant".
 
Can you respond to the following please, Ultima?
Effectively, yes. That's why I've exemplified God from DeMatteis' Seekers into the Mystery as a premier case of something that would be Tier 0 under these proposals. "Nondual existence without any differentiation in its substance" is pretty much what Tier 0 is, here.
 
Yes, and our current system essentially encourages a form of Suggs-style social Darwinian divisive psychopathically power-mad frenetic competition to constantly gain greater levels of comparative supremacy in order to grind everybody else under a single bootheel, rather than encouraging a perspective of true oneness (and therefore equality) for everybody at the end, so I technically find what we are currently doing highly immoral as well.
Bruv. This is fiction. We're a battleboarding wiki, not a war crimes tribunal, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't resort to saying such absurd things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top