Tiering System Revisions

[Nepuko]

Maybe we should ask Ultima what exactly would 0 be in this revision. It can't be just "out of Outerversal Hierarchies" because in Option 1, 2, 3 and 4 that "role" is already fulfilled by 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A and High 1-A respectively.

In layman terms of course, since it seems there's alreayd a reasonable explanation using with Maffs.

 

[Sera_EX]

Also, 1-A does not to be mathematically explained to that degree. It's predominantly treated as a metaphysical phenomenon in fiction and that's what it should be for us.

 

[Nepuko]

@Sera EX Antvasima

So...Aeyu posted this there, I'm still trying to comprehend it but maybe it can help you understand the whole "High 1-A beyond all Outerversal Hierarchies and 0 beyond even that" deal.....using simplified Math! Yay!


good luck reading through it

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

I've always compared dimensional tiering with alephs, where even an infinite multiplier wouldn't get you from one to another.

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't care if it ca be mathematically explained, as I've known that it could be from day one. The question is if it should be mathematically explanatory to that degree. Based on the majority of series with 1-A characters, the answer is clear. No, it shouldn't.

 

[Nepuko]

Aight, just wanted to make sure the subject changed. Now that I know it's about the system itself, I'll refrain from commenting on this and let the higher-ups duke it out owo.

*grabs popcorn*.

Tho, I'm getting feelings of Deja vu. DontTalk said the same thing no? Hm...owo

 

[Antvasima]

Sera seems to have some very valid concerns. Maybe we shouldn't keep the suggestions for tiers 1-A and 0 separate after all?

Also, as I think that I have mentioned previously, this is far too important to rush out the revisions. It is better to let the knowledgeable staff members get enough time to properly evaluate this, so no mistakes are being made.

And yes, I know that we will have to move to a new external forum in a few months, but we could technically continue the revisions over there as well.

 

[Ionliosite]

I fully agree with Sera and Nepuko, and thus support their option.

 

[Nepuko]

Also, as I think that I have mentioned previously, this is far too important to rush out the revisions. It is better to let the knowledgeable staff members get enough time to properly evaluate this, so no mistakes are being made.
And yes, I know that we will have to move to a new external forum in a few months, but we could technically continue the revisions over there as well.

So....is this postponed?

 

[Antvasima]

@Nepuko

I am just saying that we have to continue with ongoing discussions between the staff, and give everybody a chance to properly digest and evaluate this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't care if it ca be mathematically explained, as I've known that it could be from day one. The question is if it should be mathematically explanatory to that degree. Based on the majority of series with 1-A characters, the answer is clear. No, it shouldn't.

Yes, they should. It really doesn't matter if the verse explicitly mentions the infinities present in Set Theory or not, we just equalize it all anyways: The point here is that we should have a reasonable measuring stick to define what exactly each of the tiers represent, otherwise it would all loop back to the issues you and a few other mentioned in the past, as in, how can we compare layers and planes of existence between verses? How can we know the difference of a single layer in one verse does not equate to like, five layers in another? We can know this by establishing a standard metric which we can default to, much like 1-C and 1-B are done in the first place.

The issues you mentioned with Outerverse level not being concrete in the past are valid, as well as "what the heck does [x tier] means???" are valid... if we don't adopt anything to quantify it, otherwise everything goes haywire.

Regarding your rant about how these revisions were handled... Well, I am well aware they have diverged quite a bit from their original purpose, although, do I really care about that? No, I really do not. It is what it is, at this point, and, no offense, but ranting about it isn't really bringing any valuable arguments to the table and mostly just causes long arguments which have barely anything to do with the subject tackled by the thread in the first place. Hence, I really won't tread on those waters any longer, and I suggest you do the same here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Also, 1-A does not to be mathematically explained to that degree. It's predominantly treated as a metaphysical phenomenon in fiction and that's what it should be for us.

You are also acting as if those two things can't ever be equalized, which they very much can, at least (or maybe especially) for our purposes.

 

[Sera_EX]

If we're talking about all the schematics behind the scenes, then sure. For anyone who knows anything about 1-A, those have always been there. That would only be pulled out when comparing 1-A characters but not for judging whether or not they're 1-A in the first place.

Also, my "rant" about how the discussions were handled was not a rant about or against you or DT. Quite the opposite, as I know you yourself have said that you wished it was done differently.

I brought it up because people keep telling me to elaborate on why I don't like this, even though I said it's best if I didn't. So telling me to not tread there when I never wanted to in the first place isn't fair.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

They actually would, since 1-A is formally becoming a concrete tier divided into levels, and thus would need some form of metric embedded into it so its fundamentals can be identified, attributing meaning to them, basically. For example, the new system has a tier for transcending all possible Outerversal hierarchies, now what does this mean? Nothing, it's just slapping around some big words by itself, but when you add in a measuring stick, it acquires a fixed definition. See what I mean?

That is most certainly a most good endeavour. It seems we are on the same page about it, then?

That is fair enough, as well.

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes, we're more or less on the same page there.

 

[Nepuko]

I take it whatever issue there was, it is kinda solved now?

 

[Maxnumb231]

but i do prefer option 2 since my hope for option 1 is gone.


Zeifyl

Maxnumb231 wrote: Ok and beyond logic in itself is still part of mathematics or per say set theory. Heck fiction intends to use "beyond infinity" or "beyond logic" when math itself in its complexicty is above logic and "infinity"

If you can assign a value to it, you can have that many dimensions, theoretically. Thus, it is not beyond dimensionality as a concept.

So this isn't really "beyond infinity" as much as it's "beyond possibility".

sure this is the same concept of how aleph null will never reach aleph 1 in its own right no matter what axioms of sets you do.

you can uncountably infinite dimensions, and if you transcend its entire system then by default hausdorff is no longer relevant to tier low 1-A (opt 3).

beyond infinity is vague at its finest as you can have many alephs beyond infinities as well and proper class being above strong limit K which is strongly inacessible to alephs (till whatever stacking u may think).

 

[Maxnumb231]

Doesn't Uncountably have the same meaning (or a similar meaning) as Infinite?

Also, Vague Outerversal? What that means? Either a character is Outerversal or it isn't.

uncountanbly infinite is basically that the stacking alephs even if you imagined aleph omega to the power of omega to the power of omega to the power of omega... etc. you'll be uncountable when it comes to this.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ultima You haven't addressed people's frustrations with Option 3 not being faithful to the Option 3 from the old thread, or their frustrations with the different options having different definitions of tier 0 as well as moving tiers around (when only one of these should be done at a time between options).

 

[Sera_EX]

Option 3 is different in this thread because of a conversation with Aeyu on Discord. So it was slightly changed.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think Aeyu even prefers option 3 with this change? Why would we use changes from someone who doesn't support that option? And since the option was changed in such a way that a fair number of people that initially voted for it don't like it any more, I'd say the "slight change" shouldn't have been made.

 

[Sera_EX]

Aeyu was against Option 3 because there was no tier for undoubtably infinite dimensions, which is why we compromised for the return of Low 1-B in order to make High 1-B uncountable dimensions. In other words:

Low 1-B = 12D to transfinite-D

1-B = countably infinite dimensions

High 1-B = uncountably infinite dimensions

Why she felt so strongly about it is beyond me, but I do know that we had to add another tier for 1-B. The new Option 3 should be her proposed "Option 4" iirc.

 

[Nepuko]

@Ultima You haven't addressed people's frustrations with Option 3 not being faithful to the Option 3 from the old thread, or their frustrations with the different options having different definitions of tier 0 as well as moving tiers around (when only one of these should be done at a time between options).

I told him over an hour ago to update it (option 3) to the true option 3 we were mentioning in the old thread (Which is composed of Option 2's lower tiers and Option 1's higher tiers), and he did so. So that problem is no more .

And @Sera it seems that Aeiyu had a misunderstanding, because Option 3 from the old thread already had those 1-B tiers you listed in your comment. I thought I made it clear enough by saying it has Option 2's lower tiers....seems like misunderstandings still happened T_T.

Your curse is starting to rub on me owo

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Anyways, since the stuff Agnaa mentioned is cleared up, I guess I can respond to previous points made by other users.

While I fully agree with the dimensional stuff, I can't agree with the 1-A stuff.

Unreachable cardinals are still, in some way, shape, or form, part of infinity, and should therefore still be part of High 1-B (or, at most, a Low 1-A).

I can't imagine any way to keep 1-A and 0 within the confines of math, at all.

Outerverse level isn't really about "transcending the concept of infinity" or something like that, it is just being above the application of spatio-temporal dimensionality, and this is in fact the exact kind of misconception the new system is aiming to fix. Especially with the tier having its primary definition changed to "existing in abstract states so big you cannot reach them by stacking infinities", as it is practice.

That is exactly what we do now.

It isn't, though? We give tiers to characters solely based off proposing any higher-dimensional space is automatically infinitely larger, so affecting any infinitesimal part of one is already a higher tier. Given we are going to abandon these practices, it is all but proper we put more emphasis on feats of affecting an area of a given size

Those "inconsistencies" only exist because we only assume they're dimensionless/beyond-dimensional in relation to that piece of fiction itself, which doesn't establish that character as being beyond infinite dimensions. This is as much of an inconsistency as "omnipotent" characters appearing in tiers specifically below omnipotence.

We don't even use Omnipotence as an actual concept within our system any longer, and probably never will, so that's a massive false equivalency you got there. The point is that, even if a character is beyond the space-time of a verse with, say, 4 dimensions, they would still exist beyond dimensionality, and thus shouldn't be literally defined as a higher-dimensional being, it's that simple.

DontTalk's points'

subject (though I already said that noting them as R^n isn't the best idea, as our spacetime is not that by any means)

And as I said, I'm against infinite being demanded, as even for our real life universe it doesn't have to apply. It isn't an arbitrary subset of some larger space of same dimension and if it were it wouldn't matter at all.

It literally is though, a real coordinate space is just a vector space which utilizes the real numbers as the defined coordinates. As I said before, it's literally just Euclidean Space with the notion of a dot product embedded in it.

Yes, hence I already said that we are only using R ^ n in cases where higher-dimensional spaces are either infinite or defined as infinitely larger. I don't know why you keep hitting the same tile over and over again here when I already clarified that. Even then, we are mostly equating the size of stuff to R^n here, so that just further renders this point moot.

Don't know where you get that idea from. A tuple can fundamentally be defined as a function from an index set unto the set the values in the tuple come from. Usually the index set is finite, but there is no particular reason it has to be. If you take a sufficiently large index set I and keep the codomain the real numbers, you get a vector space with the number of dimensions we are looking for. The addition and scalar multiplication can be defined basically the same (each index is added separately and is multiplied separately).

It mostly comes from the fact that n-manifolds (a class of objects which encompasses both euclidean spaces and real coordinate spaces,btw) are most commonly defined as fundamentally second-countable structures, which itself limits the extent of their cardinality to being equivalent to, or smaller than that of the continuum of the reals, as that would mean that the basis which generates their topology has to be strictly countable, and thus at most of cardinality aleph-null, which can obviously only have unions reaching up to aleph-one (assuming CH holds and blah blah)

Anyways, the point is that, if one assumes a manifold of cardinality exceeding R, much of the theorems which normally hold in relation to manifolds as a whole just fall apart altogether, such as the assertion you can embed one within some arbitrary n-dimensional euclidean space. This is the case for most of those things when one assumes the Continuum Hypothesis holds, by the way: in terms of cardinality, they end really early in the aleph hierarchy, as I mentioned up above.

Keep to ZFC, also terminology wise. Anything else is needlessly confusing

but i dun want to >:c

I don't really see a reason to be so zealous about keeping to ZFC, specially when NBG is literally just an extension of it which allows us to refer to Classes as actual objects within it. All of the theorems which hold in the former also hold in the latter.

Being outside the arrangements of real and complex numbers has nothing to do with using classes, though. Most sets are.

The reason for the question was that you apparently have a tier for uncountably many higher planes and then define a higher tier via cardinals...

I am well aware of that, the new system mostly uses classes to define this stuff for specificity's sake, as to avoid the idea of aleph numbers and the like having fixed tierings, since they are mostly quantities, and not actual, defined objects, but I believe you already know the gist of that.

You can't even proof that inaccessible cardinals exist.

Mathematics that are not even well supported by ZFC (it's consistent with ZFC, but you know what I mean) is neither easy, nor intutive, nor can I imagine why in the world you want to do absolutely anything with it in regards to our tiering.

Yeah, but you can still assert their existence as an additional axiom alongside whatever universe of set theory you are using, just like how you don't even have to take into account the axiom of infinity, but still can do such (especially when you want to have some actual fun in the barren wasteland that is math) to spawn all of the enormous shit that is interesting to talk about. And to be perfectly honest, I don't see how "an uncountably infinite number so big it cannot be accessed from smaller quantities no matter what" is really that hard to grasp, it's literally just to the universe of alephs what ¤ë is to finite numbers.

Equalization, simple as that. Not that many verses make any mention of spatial dimensions either, but we still equate them anyways. Same thing here, more details on why is that being done lie within the comment I posted in response so Sera just above.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Please... Let's just go with Option 2. It causes the least amount of worries and is the least controversial.

The only reason we saw people wanting option 3 is because this means a return of the pointless High 1-A, which was already removed from the wiki a while ago, and it will serve virtually the same function in this new system too. Taking Option 3 is taking one step forward but also 2 steps back. It's pointless.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I don't think Aeyu even prefers option 3 with this change? Why would we use changes from someone who doesn't support that option? And since the option was changed in such a way that a fair number of people that initially voted for it don't like it any more, I'd say the "slight change" shouldn't have been made.

You are correct. Aeyu wants Option 2, she told me on Discord.

 

[Maxnumb231]

Aeyu is fine with either option 1 or 2 but option 1 is unlikely now. It's either 2 or 3 which im against option 3 due to how messy it would turn out when it comes to tiering stuff.

 

[FanofRPGs]

I would prefer option 1, but that's not on the table anymore (tragically), so Option 2 is the better choice.

 

[Sera_EX]

Option 3 only exists because people wanted the 1-A stuff from Option 1. Most people also want Option 2 because it doesn't screw over and lump together the lower echelon of Tier 1 just to make space for more outerversal tiers. Option 3 is Option 2, it just also has the superior outerversal classification of Option 1. Quite literally the best of both worlds.

 

[Nepuko]

Aeyu is fine with either option 1 or 2 but option 1 is unlikely now. It's either 2 or 3 which im against option 3 due to how messy it would turn out when it comes to tiering stuff.

Option 3 is literally Option 2 but with 1-A replacing the "+" in 2 tho....(or "Option 1's higher tiers" if you'd like). It solves both the compression issue of Option 1 (as well as the "too much work" issue), and the lacking outerversal stuff of Option 2. So I'm kinda..confused here. Welp.

 

[Nepuko]

I would prefer option 1, but that's not on the table anymore (tragically), so Option 2 is the better choice.

Blame Andy he caused all this smh

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Oh, I forgot that option 3 was changed and that option 4 was the one that Sera suggestion on the previous thread. I'm with Option 4 now going by the OP.

 

[Agnaa]

It isn't, though? We give tiers to characters solely based off proposing any higher-dimensional space is automatically infinitely larger, so affecting any infinitesimal part of one is already a higher tier. Given we are going to abandon these practices, it is all but proper we put more emphasis on feats of affecting an area of a given size

Yes, because affecting any infinitesimal part of one involves affecting a larger area of space than any lower tier. The tiering as of right now works as it does precisely because it's based on affecting an area of a given size.

We don't even use Omnipotence as an actual concept within our system any longer, and probably never will, so that's a massive false equivalency you got there.

So you would have accepted the inconsistency I proposed if we still used Omnipotence within the system? If not then I don't see how it's a false equivalency. Actually, whether you would have accepted it or not has nothing to do with whether it's a false equivalency, for a false equivalency it's the reasoning that matters not whether we still apply it.

"You argued against this same logic being used to give a character High 2-A."

"That character's not High 2-A any more so that's a false equivalency!"

The point is that, even if a character is beyond the space-time of a verse with, say, 4 dimensions, they would still exist beyond dimensionality, and thus shouldn't be literally defined as a higher-dimensional being, it's that simple.

That's the nature of equalization. There are no R^11 characters in fiction, but we equalize to that for AP. There are characters who are "beyond mathematics" that would be equalized to a mathematical way of tiering. These aren't contradictions.

I'd be fine with there being some sort of type 0 Beyond-Dimensional Existence for characters who are "beyond dimensions" but only have the AP of a higher-dimensional being.

 

[Nepuko]

Oh, I forgot that option 3 was changed and that option 4 was the one that Sera suggestion on the previous thread. I'm with Option 4 now going by the OP.

@DarkDragonMedeus The Option 3 on the OP is the one suggested in the previous thread. From the very beginning the one currently in the OP is the one and Sera were suggesting, or at least are right now. (Unless misunderstandings strike again)... Option 4 is a different one.

Tho, I'll still remove your name.

 

[Maxnumb231]

Aeyu is fine with either option 1 or 2 but option 1 is unlikely now. It's either 2 or 3 which im against option 3 due to how messy it would turn out when it comes to tiering stuff.

Option 3 is literally Option 2 but with 1-A replacing the "+" in 2 tho....(or "Option 1's higher tiers" if you'd like). It solves both the compression issue of Option 1 (as well as the "too much work" issue), and the lacking outerversal stuff of Option 2. So I'm kinda..confused here.
Welp.

that agian is the main problem and you're gonna remove the plus and adding high 1-A which in itself is already a messy tier even before the new tiering. option 1 in its compression seems fine along with option 2, 3 is not needed when it comes to actually making variant tierings.

 

[Nepuko]

It's literally taking both pros of 1 and 2 tho....but well, we'll see at the end with votes anyway.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

@Nepuko, the option I picked is the one where the High 1-B and below remain unchanged. Which sounds like option 4 by the looks of it.

 

[Sera_EX]

Again. The options are just supposed to be about how the tiers are arranged, not what they are inherently.

Why? Just why are people arguing about Option 3 being messy when it's tiers are the same as Option 1 and 2s, just in a different place???

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Agnaa

Yes, because affecting any infinitesimal part of one involves affecting a larger area of space than any lower tier. The tiering as of right now works as it does precisely because it's based on affecting an area of a given size.

Yes, but as I've stated, we are going to drop this practice with the new system, so it is only proper we put more emphasis on how tiering is about affecting area, rather than being higher-dimensional alone. These two things go hand-in-hand in the current system because we assume higher-dimensional things are uncountably infinitely larger, and since this isn't going to be valid anymore, we just make it clear tiering is strictly about AP, as opposed to anything else.

So you would have accepted the inconsistency I proposed if we still used Omnipotence within the system? If not then I don't see how it's a false equivalency. Actually, whether you would have accepted it or not has nothing to do with whether it's a false equivalency, for a false equivalency it's the reasoning that matters not whether we still apply it.

It is a false equivalence because Omnipotence and existing beyond dimensionality are not at all comparable, since the former is mostly a theological concept that is pretty much unusable and completely unprovable in an indexing context, while the latter is actually possible to prove in a fictional setting and can be inferred from proper evidence. No character in fiction is "Omnipotent" in the first place, and the term itself is ill-defined as all hell.

That's the nature of equalization. There are no R^11 characters in fiction, but we equalize to that for AP. There are characters who are "beyond mathematics" that would be equalized to a mathematical way of tiering. These aren't contradictions.

Again, this is another false equivalence. Existing "beyond mathematics" is fundamentally unprovable and as a concept is basically unusable within an Indexing context, much like Omnipotence is, since by trying to prove it through hard facts and logic you'd actually be disproving it

Meanwhile, existing beyond dimensionality is perfectly acceptable and can be proved like any other feat. As I said, I am fine with equating only the size of the dimension (R^n) to higher-order realms, but saying they literally have to be higher-dimensional spaces as defined in a physical sense just leads to contradictions in the system.

 

[Nepuko]

@Nepuko, the option I picked is the one where the High 1-B and below remain unchanged. Which sounds like option 4 by the looks of it.

Alright. Wanted to make sure!

@SeraEx People are just being very schw-.....uh. Yea. I dunno honestly.......