- 6,149
- 16,238
Continuing off of this thread. Some of the reasons for the proposals I have listed below can be found in more detail in the OP. But the gist of it is:
Dimensional Tiering Stuff
Outerversal Stuff
Inconsistencies aside, this is really obviously wrong, for the reasons I already explained above. This pokes even further holes into Dimensional Tiering, since, for these very reasons, treating literally every higher expanse of existence as a literal higher dimension leads to problems and inconsistencies, and can also lead into really wonky things like the existence of dimensionless characters in tiers which are formally defined as strictly pertaining to n-dimensional beings.
Proposals
Firstly, the most important proposal in this revision: Rank things based on area.
Essentially, what this new system aims to do is primarily rank characters based on the area of space they can affect: The sheer size of their sphere of influence, as opposed to whatever it is that we do now. It fixes the aforementioned inconsistencies I mentioned (such as dimensionless/beyond-dimensional characters appearing in tiers specifically for n-dimensional characters), and also fits far more with the idea of "Attack Potency" as a whole, really.
However, that is not to say that powerscaling and harming someone who is at a given level of power will be thrown out of the window as ways of quantifying tiers, those will still exist, but as it stands, areas and spheres of influence will be the primary metric.
Nevertheless...
Dimensional Tiering Stuff
Now, as an example. If we assume there is an infinitely-sized 5-dimensional space (R^5), and there exists a realm which is fully transcendent over it, then said realm would have its size said to be equivalent to R^6, but it doesn't really have to be a space of six dimensions. Like I said, this is only equalizing the size of the spaces, not their overall structure. The realm could be aspatiotemporal or whatever in nature, it wouldn't really matter.
Outerversal Stuff
* 1-B gets fused with 1-C and becomes a single rating with three subtiers (Low 1-C, 1-C and High 1-C), called simply Hyperverse level
* 1-C remains unchanged
* 1-C remains unchanged
I personally think this option is really ******* shit, myself
Option 4
* 1-C and 1-B are unchanged
When dealing with finite collections of things, these two notions go hand in hand. In fact, under the standard construction, every given ordinal number is just the well-ordered set of all ordinals smaller than it. For example:
4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}
7 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
However, when we reach infinite collections, Ordinals and Cardinals split into two different notions, and we find out there is a difference between denoting the sets/numbers themselves and denoting their size.
After all finite numbers are exhausted, there comes ¤ë (Omega), the first infinite ordinal number, which is pretty much equivalent to the set of all natural numbers, but can be more precisely defined as the set of all finite ordinals numbers before it. Hence:
¤ë = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...}
After it comes ¤ë+1, which is basically:
¤ë+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë}
Then ¤ë+2
¤ë+2 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë, ¤ë+1}
And so on and so forth, for all other operations in math, which can get unto really crazy ordinals numbers, like epsilon-naught, which is ¤ë exponentiated into itself an infinite number of times and blah blah blah.
Nevetheless, although all of these are, in terms of ordinals, "bigger" than ¤ë, they all have mathematically the same cardinality as it, and so, the number of objects within them all fall under the same Cardinal Number: ÔäÁ(0), the cardinality of all given countably infinite sets. A good way to put into perspective the distinction between ¤ë and ÔäÁ(0) would be to say that, while the former is the number (or the set) itself, the latter is what denotes the amount of things contained in it.
After all countably infinite ordinals are themselves exhausted, comes ¤ë1 (omega-one), the set of all countably infinite ordinals, whose cardinality is ÔäÁ(1). By the way, although this is a really contested topic which most likely has no fixed answer within standard mathematics, we are assuming ÔäÁ(1) is the cardinality of the set of all real numbers as well.
Now, what the **** does this have to do with 1-A? Well, basically, as the real numbers are the set (or most specifically the field) over which our standards measures of size through which we generalize the notion of "dimension" in the first place are defined, and as such they'd be basically useless in the case of spaces with cardinality exceeding the real numbers.
This is seen with the aforementioned Real Coordinate Spaces (R^n) through which the new system quantifies the size of higher-order stuff: Their cardinality is strictly the same as the reals, and you wouldn't be able to embed a space with greater cardinality within one. Of course, you could choose to define them through other fields of numbers (such as the complex numbers), but that'd end up the same way, as they often have the same size as the real numbers anyways.
So, effectively, uncountably infinite dimensions would be the farthest you could go before everything breaks down and becomes mostly arbitrary. Since, really, when you assume the Continuum Hypothesis (the assertion that ÔäÁ(1) = real numbers) holds, those things end really early in the Aleph Hierarchy, cardinality-wise.
Now, I should note the same thing I did in the previous thread: Aleph Numbers are very big and really infinity, yes, but they ultimately are merely amounts of things and don't at all have a fixed tiering.
Tally
Yay: 14 (Matthew Schroeder, Dragonmasteryxz, RatherClueless, CrimsonStarFallen, Antvasima, Nepuko, DargooFaust, DarkDragonMedeus, AokigiKira, TheVoidWalker69, Skalt711, Maxnumb231, Malomtek, AssaltWaffle)
Nay: 2 (Hl3 or bust, Spumlin)
Myeh: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)
Dimensional Tiering Stuff
- Higher-Dimensional Beings should not be automatically assumed as uncountably infinitely larger than lower-dimensional ones. This notion comes from a very bare basic geometrical notion which does not necessarily fit in with how higher dimensions would play out in our actual, physical world, at least in relations to living creatures, and not the space-time manifold itself. In addition, such a system is inconsistent with our very own standards on the matter, as we apparently don't give characters a higher tier solely for being higher-dimensional anymore: In short, the system is outdated.
- We, however, can rely on this for the size of the whole set wherein said dimensions are defined. Assuming it is either infinite / is a Large Extra Dimensional (LED) Space, or is defined as being qualitatively higher than lower-dimensional things by the verse it is from. The same applies to higher-dimensional entities.
- Dimensions as a strict metric to apply in all possible cases is not ideal at all, and is in fact excessively specific and tries to shoehorn them where they don't even fit. For example, higher planes of existence and higher-dimensional spaces can be interrelated, but don't necessarily intersect unless otherwise specified (i.e higher planes of existence are not necessarily the same as higher-dimensional spaces).
Outerversal Stuff
- Our current standards on 1-A and 0 make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact being Tier 0 does not necessarily mean you are any stronger than 1-A characters is extremely misleading and done for no reason at all.
- 1-A is bloated: Really, it is way too ******* huge to be a single tier, and encompasses infinite different levels which are often extremely disparate from one another and are achieved through feats of very different scales. If we choose to take that route then why not also compress literally everything from High 2-A to High 1-B into a single tier and leave it at that?
- As a continuation of the last comment in the section above, I should say existing beyond dimensionality is ultra vague and ill-defined as a justification for the tier. Firstly because dimensions are a permutation of space and time, so existing completely outside of such constants would make you "beyond-dimensional" already, regardless if your verse has 2, 8 or 981,187,100 dimensions. This is obviously a fairly glaring issue, and doesn't fit with what 1-A is in practice as of now (Something so big you can't reach it by stacking infinities).
Inconsistencies aside, this is really obviously wrong, for the reasons I already explained above. This pokes even further holes into Dimensional Tiering, since, for these very reasons, treating literally every higher expanse of existence as a literal higher dimension leads to problems and inconsistencies, and can also lead into really wonky things like the existence of dimensionless characters in tiers which are formally defined as strictly pertaining to n-dimensional beings.
Proposals
Firstly, the most important proposal in this revision: Rank things based on area.
Essentially, what this new system aims to do is primarily rank characters based on the area of space they can affect: The sheer size of their sphere of influence, as opposed to whatever it is that we do now. It fixes the aforementioned inconsistencies I mentioned (such as dimensionless/beyond-dimensional characters appearing in tiers specifically for n-dimensional characters), and also fits far more with the idea of "Attack Potency" as a whole, really.
However, that is not to say that powerscaling and harming someone who is at a given level of power will be thrown out of the window as ways of quantifying tiers, those will still exist, but as it stands, areas and spheres of influence will be the primary metric.
Nevertheless...
Dimensional Tiering Stuff
- Most of you already know: Higher-Dimensional Beings won't automatically be assumed as infinitely superior unless otherwise specified by the verse they're from, or if they reliably, fully scale to a Higher-Dimensional Space that is either LED or infinite in size itself.
- Due to the issues I have already mentioned in relation to Higher Dimensions as a strict, 100% literal measure of power, I propose we only equalize the size of higher dimensions to higher spaces/layers/levels of existence, as opposed to stating that they are and have to be literal higher-dimensional spaces at all times.
Now, as an example. If we assume there is an infinitely-sized 5-dimensional space (R^5), and there exists a realm which is fully transcendent over it, then said realm would have its size said to be equivalent to R^6, but it doesn't really have to be a space of six dimensions. Like I said, this is only equalizing the size of the spaces, not their overall structure. The realm could be aspatiotemporal or whatever in nature, it wouldn't really matter.
Outerversal Stuff
- 1-A becomes split into subtiers. There are a few ways this can happen:
* 1-B gets fused with 1-C and becomes a single rating with three subtiers (Low 1-C, 1-C and High 1-C), called simply Hyperverse level
- 1-B becomes the new Outerverse level, and starts to have three subtiers:
- Low 1-B: Characters whose size cannot be reached by stacking infinities, but who still exist in the same "level" as the things they dwarf. Equivalent to an uncountably infinite number of dimensions/planes, and is pretty much a middle ground between High 1-C and 1-B.
- 1-B: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it
- High 1-B: Infinite levels of existence above baseline Outerversal. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
- 1-A is made into a tier of its own, denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
- 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system
* 1-C remains unchanged
- The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
- The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
- High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
- Low 1-A becomes baseline Outerversal and up, with infinite hierarchies on this scale receiving a "+" modifier next to the rating
- 1-A and 0 are basically the same as Option 1
* 1-C remains unchanged
- The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
- The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
- High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
- Low 1-A: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it.
- 1-A: Infinite Outerversal Hierarchies. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
- High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
- 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.
Option 4
* 1-C and 1-B are unchanged
- Low 1-A becomes the tier for uncountably infinite dimensions
- 1-A remains baseline Outerversal and up
- High 1-A becomes the tier for transcending outerversal hierarchies
- 0 remains the same as the above
- Outerverse level has its definition changed from primarily being about existing "beyond-dimensionality" to existing in abstract states of being which cannot be reached by stacking lesser infinities together. Simpler + more straightforward.
- The higher parts of the system itself start to have a defined metric as well, namely, Aleph Numbers. To give you a brief primer on what they are and how they work, I'd need to establish some important distinctions here: Primarily, one between Cardinal Numbers and Ordinal Numbers.
When dealing with finite collections of things, these two notions go hand in hand. In fact, under the standard construction, every given ordinal number is just the well-ordered set of all ordinals smaller than it. For example:
4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}
7 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
However, when we reach infinite collections, Ordinals and Cardinals split into two different notions, and we find out there is a difference between denoting the sets/numbers themselves and denoting their size.
After all finite numbers are exhausted, there comes ¤ë (Omega), the first infinite ordinal number, which is pretty much equivalent to the set of all natural numbers, but can be more precisely defined as the set of all finite ordinals numbers before it. Hence:
¤ë = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...}
After it comes ¤ë+1, which is basically:
¤ë+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë}
Then ¤ë+2
¤ë+2 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë, ¤ë+1}
And so on and so forth, for all other operations in math, which can get unto really crazy ordinals numbers, like epsilon-naught, which is ¤ë exponentiated into itself an infinite number of times and blah blah blah.
Nevetheless, although all of these are, in terms of ordinals, "bigger" than ¤ë, they all have mathematically the same cardinality as it, and so, the number of objects within them all fall under the same Cardinal Number: ÔäÁ(0), the cardinality of all given countably infinite sets. A good way to put into perspective the distinction between ¤ë and ÔäÁ(0) would be to say that, while the former is the number (or the set) itself, the latter is what denotes the amount of things contained in it.
After all countably infinite ordinals are themselves exhausted, comes ¤ë1 (omega-one), the set of all countably infinite ordinals, whose cardinality is ÔäÁ(1). By the way, although this is a really contested topic which most likely has no fixed answer within standard mathematics, we are assuming ÔäÁ(1) is the cardinality of the set of all real numbers as well.
Now, what the **** does this have to do with 1-A? Well, basically, as the real numbers are the set (or most specifically the field) over which our standards measures of size through which we generalize the notion of "dimension" in the first place are defined, and as such they'd be basically useless in the case of spaces with cardinality exceeding the real numbers.
This is seen with the aforementioned Real Coordinate Spaces (R^n) through which the new system quantifies the size of higher-order stuff: Their cardinality is strictly the same as the reals, and you wouldn't be able to embed a space with greater cardinality within one. Of course, you could choose to define them through other fields of numbers (such as the complex numbers), but that'd end up the same way, as they often have the same size as the real numbers anyways.
So, effectively, uncountably infinite dimensions would be the farthest you could go before everything breaks down and becomes mostly arbitrary. Since, really, when you assume the Continuum Hypothesis (the assertion that ÔäÁ(1) = real numbers) holds, those things end really early in the Aleph Hierarchy, cardinality-wise.
Now, I should note the same thing I did in the previous thread: Aleph Numbers are very big and really infinity, yes, but they ultimately are merely amounts of things and don't at all have a fixed tiering.
Tally
Yay: 14 (Matthew Schroeder, Dragonmasteryxz, RatherClueless, CrimsonStarFallen, Antvasima, Nepuko, DargooFaust, DarkDragonMedeus, AokigiKira, TheVoidWalker69, Skalt711, Maxnumb231, Malomtek, AssaltWaffle)
Nay: 2 (Hl3 or bust, Spumlin)
Myeh: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)