- 8,556
- 2,622
What are the conclusions here exactly? I mean, most have accepted the new system but to what option are we going?
-
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
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 1,561
- 130
basically, some memebrs and staff dont want option 3 that has high 1-ATony di bugalu said:
- 14,820
- 12,239
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.
This statement is fine. Your earlier one of "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." wasn't. I'm fine with this new explanation.
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.
Sure but in this case the "beyond-dimensional" characters you're talking about haven't been proven to be beyond-dimensional, that's why they're below outerversal. But imo the point I'm making can apply to any sort of NLF claims that we put a ceiling on, "you're saying this sword that can cut through anything can't cut through a R ^ 5 being???" and that sort of thing, omnipotence is just an easy one to point at that we all understand.
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.
I think by this same token I could say that any sort of "beyond dimensionality" is fundamentally unprovable, we just have a point in our system that we equalize those sorts of characters to. You can always construct new, higher dimensions out of basically anything. People in our world write fictional characters who are "beyond dimensionality" yet still constrained by our reality's 3 dimensions.
This statement is fine. Your earlier one of "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." wasn't. I'm fine with this new explanation.
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.
Sure but in this case the "beyond-dimensional" characters you're talking about haven't been proven to be beyond-dimensional, that's why they're below outerversal. But imo the point I'm making can apply to any sort of NLF claims that we put a ceiling on, "you're saying this sword that can cut through anything can't cut through a R ^ 5 being???" and that sort of thing, omnipotence is just an easy one to point at that we all understand.
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.
I think by this same token I could say that any sort of "beyond dimensionality" is fundamentally unprovable, we just have a point in our system that we equalize those sorts of characters to. You can always construct new, higher dimensions out of basically anything. People in our world write fictional characters who are "beyond dimensionality" yet still constrained by our reality's 3 dimensions.
- 8,556
- 2,622
They look the same with the exception of having High 1-A (3) and Low 1-A (1) and merging 1-C with 1-B (2), what is the problem with having a tier between 1 and 0?
Also, add me to Myeh, leaning on option 3.
Also, add me to Myeh, leaning on option 3.
- 1,561
- 130
Because 1-A in itself is already in the same description of transcending or being beyond the hierarchies which is strong limit K. The main problem is the arrangement of the tiering will just have controversial as it would change the arrangementTony di bugalu said:
- 1,050
- 491
All this super-duper galaxy-brained hyper-pedantic mathematics over fictional character indexing is less than meaningless, especially when it comes from non-mathematicians.
Just have:
Planes of Existence (from Tier Low 1-C to High 1-B) = Degrees of Infinity (I.e. the aleph/beth number hierarchy)
Layers of Transcendent Existence (Low 1-A to High 1-A) = Degrees of whatever transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy will be used (whether its worldly or inaccessible cardinals or somesuch bullshit)
The Boundless (0) = the top of the transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy
The difference between High 1-A and 0 will be the different between a guy with trivial or minor weaknesses, or some other subtlety or nuance, and a guy with no weaknesses at all.
Just have:
Planes of Existence (from Tier Low 1-C to High 1-B) = Degrees of Infinity (I.e. the aleph/beth number hierarchy)
Layers of Transcendent Existence (Low 1-A to High 1-A) = Degrees of whatever transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy will be used (whether its worldly or inaccessible cardinals or somesuch bullshit)
The Boundless (0) = the top of the transcendental meta-infinity hierarchy
The difference between High 1-A and 0 will be the different between a guy with trivial or minor weaknesses, or some other subtlety or nuance, and a guy with no weaknesses at all.
- 1,561
- 130
here we go again with "minor weakness" this new tiering imo is about existence and your power rather than just "if this guy has some weakness then he cant be tier 0.
- 1,561
- 130
then again this weakness is not neccessary in the new tiering specifically as this turns out to be a power based or existence or whatever.
- 10,638
- 1,584
Off topic, but this thread gave me the answer to the continuum hypothesis.
On topic, couldn't we define 1-A as inaccessible cardinals?
On topic, couldn't we define 1-A as inaccessible cardinals?
- 1,561
- 130
high 1-A is the inacessible cardinals or in short strong limit K, but if u dont want high 1-A to be that then u can change to option 2
- 164,955
- 71,672
Given that the description for option 3 above now seems to match what Nepuko and Sera defined, and is almost identical to option 2 with a minor improvement regarding replacing Low 1-A+ with just 1-A, I now support it.
- 1,561
- 130
well i would like if high 1-A isnt in option 3 at all as nepuko was the one made it and sera disagreed with introducing high 1-A in option 3
- 1,154
- 659
Here we go again......
Sera disagreed with that in all options.......not specifically option 3.......She dosen't really like the whole thing.
Also from her own words above :
And agai, the equivalent of option 3's High 1-A is present in all options. Whatever option you choose you'll have that High 1-A, it's just under a different name in Option 1 (High 1-B) since lower 1-C tiers were compressed. In Option 2 it's called Low 1-A+. Option 3 and 4 High 1-A.
So basically by saying "well i would like if high 1-A isnt in option 3 at all" you're asking we remove a tier from all options, not just option 3. So I'd appreciate if you stopped making it seem like an option 3 poblem only...
Sera disagreed with that in all options.......not specifically option 3.......She dosen't really like the whole thing.
Also from her own words above :
And since this is exactly what option 3 above shows, I'm pretty sure she normally agrees with how it is.Sera EX said:
And agai, the equivalent of option 3's High 1-A is present in all options. Whatever option you choose you'll have that High 1-A, it's just under a different name in Option 1 (High 1-B) since lower 1-C tiers were compressed. In Option 2 it's called Low 1-A+. Option 3 and 4 High 1-A.
So basically by saying "well i would like if high 1-A isnt in option 3 at all" you're asking we remove a tier from all options, not just option 3. So I'd appreciate if you stopped making it seem like an option 3 poblem only...
- 1,561
- 130
yeah and that's where im getting at she never introduced high 1-A but rather the combination of both option 1 and 2 which both options dont allude to having high 1-A. if we compare all options 3 in itself is problematic when arranging things (although option 4 may be the contender). her words does not specifically state we should add high 1-A in option 3 but rather make what accurate arrangement from two options and combine them. So what high 1-B is a thing in option 1 and 2? it literally does not make it problematic, but when having to put an arrangement inbetween 1-A and tier 0 that's where it gets messy
- 1,154
- 659
No, we did. When I introduced Option 3, I made it specifically clear it's a combination of Option 1's higher tiers and Option 2's lower tiers, which is why there's a High 1-A in the first place. The above Option 3 is the one that was talked about. High 1-A was there literally all along.
To let you understand, let me explain things to you in another way :
-Option 2 has 6 lower tiers, and 3 Outerversal and above tiers(or 4 depending on whether you include the "+" or not. But I heard it's AP-only so I guess not). 9 (or 10) in total.
-Option 1 has 4 lower tiers (due to compression of 1-C with 1-B), and 4 higher tiers. 8 in total.
-Option 3 is the fusions of Option 2's lower tiers, and Option 1's higher tiers. Which means it'll get the 6 lower tiers of 2, and the 4 higher tiers of 1. So 10 in total.
Option 2's Lower Tiers stop at High 1-B, which is for the ucountably infinite higher dimensions/planes.stuff. So that means, Option 3's lower tiers would be Option 2's tiers till High 1-B. That makes 6.
Then, it also takes the 4 higher tiers of Option 1. And these 4 are obviously coming after High 1-B. So then you have : Low 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A, 0. Which makes 4.
10 in total.
Again, it pretty much is Option 2, just with Option 1's better Outerversal tiering (or basically just changing Option 2's Low 1-A+ to straight out 1-A). If you say it has a bad arrangement, seeing you're talking about the higher tiers, then Option 1 and 2 are as much of a bad arrangement, whatever bad arrangement there is.
Again, you have no arguments for Option 3 "arranging things badly", unless if in your opinion keeping the 1-C tiers decompressed is a bad arrangement. Because, again, it has the same arrangement Outerversally as Option 1, and lower tier-wise as Option 2. It's literally the best of both worlds.
Or maybe you do have them, which again would actually not target only Option 3 but all Options.
And y'know, you can just simply say "I don't like the return of the High 1-A tier in the first place(whether it's different than the old one or not) so I'll go with either 1 or 2" if you want.....
To let you understand, let me explain things to you in another way :
-Option 2 has 6 lower tiers, and 3 Outerversal and above tiers(or 4 depending on whether you include the "+" or not. But I heard it's AP-only so I guess not). 9 (or 10) in total.
-Option 1 has 4 lower tiers (due to compression of 1-C with 1-B), and 4 higher tiers. 8 in total.
-Option 3 is the fusions of Option 2's lower tiers, and Option 1's higher tiers. Which means it'll get the 6 lower tiers of 2, and the 4 higher tiers of 1. So 10 in total.
Option 2's Lower Tiers stop at High 1-B, which is for the ucountably infinite higher dimensions/planes.stuff. So that means, Option 3's lower tiers would be Option 2's tiers till High 1-B. That makes 6.
Then, it also takes the 4 higher tiers of Option 1. And these 4 are obviously coming after High 1-B. So then you have : Low 1-A, 1-A, High 1-A, 0. Which makes 4.
10 in total.
Again, it pretty much is Option 2, just with Option 1's better Outerversal tiering (or basically just changing Option 2's Low 1-A+ to straight out 1-A). If you say it has a bad arrangement, seeing you're talking about the higher tiers, then Option 1 and 2 are as much of a bad arrangement, whatever bad arrangement there is.
Again, you have no arguments for Option 3 "arranging things badly", unless if in your opinion keeping the 1-C tiers decompressed is a bad arrangement. Because, again, it has the same arrangement Outerversally as Option 1, and lower tier-wise as Option 2. It's literally the best of both worlds.
Or maybe you do have them, which again would actually not target only Option 3 but all Options.
And y'know, you can just simply say "I don't like the return of the High 1-A tier in the first place(whether it's different than the old one or not) so I'll go with either 1 or 2" if you want.....
- 10,748
- 6,476
From what I can see option 3 high 1-A isn't option 2 low 1-A+, its the 1-A of the other options
That is the problem I have with option 3's arrangement, it makes the sub tiers represent distinct mathematical concepts while making the core tier just an expansion the idea used for its sub tier (Low 1-A represents going beyond the hausdroff metric, high 1-A represents strong limit cardinal). It is more ideal having 1-A have its own identity and have the sub tiers expand upon it than the other way way around, and while I understand it comes down to opinions in the ends, acting as if the outerversal arrangement in option 3 is undebatable is not right in the slightest
That is the problem I have with option 3's arrangement, it makes the sub tiers represent distinct mathematical concepts while making the core tier just an expansion the idea used for its sub tier (Low 1-A represents going beyond the hausdroff metric, high 1-A represents strong limit cardinal). It is more ideal having 1-A have its own identity and have the sub tiers expand upon it than the other way way around, and while I understand it comes down to opinions in the ends, acting as if the outerversal arrangement in option 3 is undebatable is not right in the slightest
- 1,154
- 659
@Andy
That was a typo. Option 3's High 1-A is Option 2's 1-A.
I'm not saying Option 3's (and hence 1's) arrangement is undebatable, I'm basically saying it's present in all options. So it basically comes down to aestethical reasons to judge between the 3 Options' Higher Tiers. Like what you say above for exemple.
That was a typo. Option 3's High 1-A is Option 2's 1-A.
I'm not saying Option 3's (and hence 1's) arrangement is undebatable, I'm basically saying it's present in all options. So it basically comes down to aestethical reasons to judge between the 3 Options' Higher Tiers. Like what you say above for exemple.
- 8
- 15
And as @SeraEx said :
Sera EX said:
Sera EX said:
- 6,104
- 5,102
The options being treated as if they're fundamentally different is the entire problem here.
Andy's reply is why I don't think 1-A should be mathematically explained to that extreme of a degree (I'm not saying it shouldn't be at all). If we're going to argue that Option 1 is superior because it separates outerversal from "stratoversal" via cardinal means, I'm strongly against that.
1-A should have its own identity? Outerversal is Outerversal. Being beyond dimensionality and all forms of time space is what outerversal is all about. Clearly sub tiers should denote the magnitude as they do for every other tier.
Yes Option 1 has the superior outerversal classification system. We just don't need to separate them across 1-B and 1-A, at the expense of putting all the higher dimensional tiers in 1-C. That's why Option 3 exists.
I'm tired of outerversal being prioritized over the rest of the System as if it's more important than the rest of the system. It's not. We don't need to be that damn specific.
But if Option 3 is so bad, then screw it. They're all bad imo anyway.
Andy's reply is why I don't think 1-A should be mathematically explained to that extreme of a degree (I'm not saying it shouldn't be at all). If we're going to argue that Option 1 is superior because it separates outerversal from "stratoversal" via cardinal means, I'm strongly against that.
1-A should have its own identity? Outerversal is Outerversal. Being beyond dimensionality and all forms of time space is what outerversal is all about. Clearly sub tiers should denote the magnitude as they do for every other tier.
Yes Option 1 has the superior outerversal classification system. We just don't need to separate them across 1-B and 1-A, at the expense of putting all the higher dimensional tiers in 1-C. That's why Option 3 exists.
I'm tired of outerversal being prioritized over the rest of the System as if it's more important than the rest of the system. It's not. We don't need to be that damn specific.
But if Option 3 is so bad, then screw it. They're all bad imo anyway.
- 10,748
- 6,476
@Sera It's less about 1-A specifically having its own identity and more about core tiers representing the main idea. The option 3 makes it feel like 1-A is an expansion of low 1-A, rather than the other way around. Low 1-A presents the main principle of going beyond hausdroff dimensionality through a certain expression, while 1-A is an unbelievable extreme of it, whereas normally it is the core tier that establishes an idea or represents a typical situation regarding a level of power, while the sub tiers represent the extremes
This does applies to 1-B as well and I may concede on my point if the need for 1-B being the infinite tier is considered to be too great, but that is the overall reason for my uneasiness, not having to do as much with the use of maths in 1-A as the use of sub tiers in general
This does applies to 1-B as well and I may concede on my point if the need for 1-B being the infinite tier is considered to be too great, but that is the overall reason for my uneasiness, not having to do as much with the use of maths in 1-A as the use of sub tiers in general
- 6,104
- 5,102
@Ant
I have a suggestion, but it has nothing to do with any options. And since Ultima kindly suggested I don't tread those waters, I won't.
@Nepuko
No. I'm not choosing an option. Again, I don't like this revision at all, for multiple reasons. Hopefully this doesn't offend those who have been working on this for so long, it's just how I feel. I'm just here to help others choose an option. Whatever option chosen in my eyes, however, is merely the lesser of two evils.
@Andy
The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time". The math is just schematics for CRT and debating purposes.
@All
The only thing that needs to be changed in these revisions are the schematics behind the tiers, not the bedrock principles of those tiers.
That's like my fourth time saying that...
I have a suggestion, but it has nothing to do with any options. And since Ultima kindly suggested I don't tread those waters, I won't.
@Nepuko
No. I'm not choosing an option. Again, I don't like this revision at all, for multiple reasons. Hopefully this doesn't offend those who have been working on this for so long, it's just how I feel. I'm just here to help others choose an option. Whatever option chosen in my eyes, however, is merely the lesser of two evils.
@Andy
The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time". The math is just schematics for CRT and debating purposes.
@All
The only thing that needs to be changed in these revisions are the schematics behind the tiers, not the bedrock principles of those tiers.
That's like my fourth time saying that...
- 10,748
- 6,476
"The core idea of Outerversal should not be changed. The core idea is the same that it is on the Tier System page. The bedrock of Outerversal is "beyond all dimensional forms of space and time"."
It would still be better tho, if 1-A (the core tier) represented a typical situation of that "beyond all dimensions of time space" concept rather than being an extreme, like how it is for practically all tiers that have their own sub- categories
That's pretty much what I wanted to get across, i don't have intentions of arguing extensively but I want to clarify where my issues come from, it doesn't have to do with the specific maths, they were just brought up to show which tiers represent the core idea and which tiers expand on it, the actual problem stems from a core tier being treated like a sub-tier, that's all
It would still be better tho, if 1-A (the core tier) represented a typical situation of that "beyond all dimensions of time space" concept rather than being an extreme, like how it is for practically all tiers that have their own sub- categories
That's pretty much what I wanted to get across, i don't have intentions of arguing extensively but I want to clarify where my issues come from, it doesn't have to do with the specific maths, they were just brought up to show which tiers represent the core idea and which tiers expand on it, the actual problem stems from a core tier being treated like a sub-tier, that's all
- 1
- 0
Option 3 for me.
- 10,748
- 6,476
Option 2 without infinite dimensions in 1-B would have been ideal, or maybe separation between 1-A as beyond hausdroff dimensionality and high 1-A the strong limit cardinal
I'm probably just going to make this more messy if I argued for either of them legitimately tho, so I'm just going to stick by current option 2
I'm probably just going to make this more messy if I argued for either of them legitimately tho, so I'm just going to stick by current option 2
- 164,955
- 71,672
These are very valid points. Now I am getting considerably more uneasy about these revisions again. It might be best if we continue to rate Outerverse level as being beyond all degrees of time and space. Wouldn't this also qualify such characters as being beyond stacking infinities, as is the current suggestion?Sera EX said:
- 7
- 2
ill vote for nepukos option (option 3)
- Status
Similar threads
