Unsong Introduction Thread (Sorta)

[Ultima_Reality]

Not sure about tier 0 tho; while he's transcendent to God I kinda fail to see how it would mean more than higher High 1-A.

Largely because it would be above the "system" in which God and His diametrical opposite are defined: Even in the analogy which the story presents, these two are still represented by information, only in extremely basic levels, while the Atzmus is lack of information altogether and unlike them can't really be considered a "thing" which can be talked about to begin with. It's the same rationale as the one behind the tiers of other Tier 0 characters like The Creator and The Amaranth.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Creator is High 1-A with possibly tier 0 tho, which kinda support my doubt. Atzmus isn't referenced much going by your scans, so straight tier 0 seems pretty big here.

 

[Agnaa]

What do you mean by "loose", in this case?

It is not tightly-bound enough. The connection has too much slack in it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Creator is High 1-A with possibly tier 0 tho, which kinda support my doubt. Atzmus isn't referenced much going by your scans, so straight tier 0 seems pretty big here.

The Creator is only "possibly 0" because its relationship to the High 1-A thing in the verse was deemed uncertain. If they were contrasted more explicitly, then the rating would certainly be solid.

 

[Elizhaa]

I am busy for most of today so I will try to reply tomorrow when I got the time to read over everything.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already commenting saying the OP looks solid.

 

[Antvasima]

I am unsure. We have to be absolutely certain in general before we apply tier 0.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Sera_EX (in case you log in here): Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think 0 is perfectly fine I should say.

 

[Elizhaa]

I am fine with the ratings from the OP, from what I read. I am fine with Atzmus being Tier 0; the explanations look valid to the main source so I think using the main source for most contexts is fine; if Atzmus was explained really vaguely then I would have disagreed with Tier 0.

The Creator is only "possibly 0" because its relationship to the High 1-A thing in the verse was deemed uncertain. If they were contrasted more explicitly, then the rating would certainly be solid.

Yes, this point was the main reason why the Creator isn't fully Tier 0, in short.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. It seems like we are leaning towards accepting this then, but given that it is such an extreme tier, I would prefer if Agnaa's concerns are thoroughly dealt with, and if a few additional trustworthy members comment here, first.

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama @Promestein @Assaltwaffle @Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot @Sera_EX

What do you think about this?

(Yes, I haven't seen the last 3 around here yet, but it doesn't hurt to check.)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It seems Sera has been inactive on Discord for a month now, I hope she's okay.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Agreed.

Is somebody willing to ask DontTalkDT for help via his message wall?

 

[Agnaa]

I've left a message on DT's wall.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't even evaluate 1-A/0 stuff for verses I know, so what am I doing here?

Ok, sooo let's see.

I kinda agree with Agnaa's original two points.

For the Atzmus thing I don't think the statement itself suffices for a tier upgrade (being simpler ≠ being superior to a massive extent), while extrapolating from external information is a big no no for me. Heck, is Atzmus even really a character in the verse?

For the god bit I'm fine with a rating in the 1-A area given the top of all hierarchies thing. However, the Cantor thing talks about cardinals as mathematical objects, I believe. (similarly, as to how the real Cantor did, I think)
Like, if it at least said something along the line of something with those cardinalities theoretically being possible to exist I would be ok with it, but just as thought objects with thought relations of an amount between them? I think that doesn't suffice.
It's similar to how aleph_5 many of any thing would probably be above High 1-B, but just being associated with the mathematical idea of aleph_5 shouldn't be enough for such a ranking.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

For the Atzmus thing I don't think the statement itself suffices for a tier upgrade (being simpler ≠ being superior to a massive extent)

I'd agree with that if there was no context to what "being simpler" means. I mostly think 0 is an appropriate rating due to how the verse itself uses this descriptor to express superiority (i.e The superiority which God and the Divine Nothingness hold over the created world is expressed by how they are the simplest possible things from which everything else is constructed, while the Atzmus holds a similar relation in contrast to these two and can't even be talked about, due to that)

Heck, is Atzmus even really a character in the verse?

It's explicitly mentioned, yes, and given how the whole point of the verse is that all Judeo-Christian concepts and myths are actually true in the most literal and non-metaphorical possible way, I think it's safe to say it "exists" too.

Like, if it at least said something along the line of something with those cardinalities theoretically being possible to exist I would be ok with it, but just as thought objects with thought relations of an amount between them? I think that doesn't suffice.

I think that's a good point, yes, though I don't think it particularly applies to this case, given how the Absolute Infinite itself "physically" exists within the verse (In the form of God), which would certainly imply that the lesser quantities encompassed by it could exist in some way, as well, given how the story already defines it as being just the set of all sets to begin with. I think we've already discussed a similar scenario while talking about the Tiering System FAQ in PMs, no?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'd agree with that if there was no context to what "being simpler" means. I mostly think 0 is an appropriate rating due to how the verse itself uses this descriptor to express superiority (i.e The superiority which God and the Divine Nothingness hold over the created world is expressed by how they are the simplest possible things from which everything else is constructed, while the Atzmus holds a similar relation in contrast to these two and can't even be talked about, due to that)

I don't know the verse. I don't think any of the stuff in the quotes above says simpler = massively superior. If there is a quote of that, mind pointing it out to me?

It's explicitly mentioned, yes, and given how the whole point of the verse is that all Judeo-Christian concepts and myths are actually true in the most literal and non-metaphorical possible way, I think it's safe to say it "exists" too.

Where is it explicitely mentioned?

As said I don't think using external mythology as justifiction works. I also don't think that in Judeo-Christion mythology Atzmus is a being superior to god... Not that I'm overly familiar with that stuff, but from what I remember reading up about it (because it alluded to in ToAru once) it's more of a state of existence / level of divine existence or something like that in mythology. In terms of what you quoted from wikipedia it was also more decribed as some "essence" than a being, no?

I think that's a good point, yes, though I don't think it particularly applies to this case, given how the Absolute Infinite itself "physically" exists within the verse (In the form of God), which would certainly imply that the lesser quantities encompassed by it could exist in some way, as well, given how the story already defines it as being just the set of all sets to begin with.

I think what's said is more that "God might be identified" with absolute infinite more so than being absolute infinite. I mean absolute infinite or the sets of all sets in and off themself are not physical things, so if god literally were them he would be a purley mathematical object. Don't think what is said is that god is an absolute infinite amount of something.

I think we've already discussed a similar scenario while talking about the Tiering System FAQ in PMs, no?

Did we? I don't remember something quite like this. Like, we talked about statements of transcending theoretical hierarchies as justification for high tiers, but that was in the sense of theoretical physical hierarchies, as for example statements of being able to transcend infinite layers of reality-fiction even though those layers don't actually exist.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I don't know the verse. I don't think any of the stuff in the quotes above says simpler = massively superior. If there is a quote of that, mind pointing it out to me?

It's more contextual and relies on how the cosmology works to begin with, so you can jump to the summary of it I wrote below.

Where is it explicitely mentioned?

In the quote I've posted in the OP:

“I have a question,” Zoe Farr said, finally. “If God is just the binary digit 1, and nothingness is the binary digit 0, and the both contain one bit of information – then isn’t neither one the simplest thing? Wouldn’t the simplest thing be zero bits, neither God nor nothingness?”

“That’s Atzmus and you’re not supposed to talk about it!” said Ana.

“Okay, jeez,” said Zoe.

As said I don't think using external mythology as justifiction works. I also don't think that in Judeo-Christion mythology Atzmus is a being superior to god... Not that I'm overly familiar with that stuff, but from what I remember reading up about it (because it alluded to in ToAru once) it's more of a state of existence / level of divine existence or something like that in mythology. In terms of what you quoted from wikipedia it was also more decribed as some "essence" than a being, no?

Something of the sort, yeah. It moreso relates to the idea that the divine in itself is an unknowable force that lies beyond the reach of our thoughts/descriptions, and so it expresses itself through lesser and lesser spheres of existence that express some of its concealed aspects and attributes.

That's what the Ten Sephirot of the Tree of Life are, pretty much, both in Unsong and in Kabbalah: They're stages/layers of creation that progressively reveal (or "filter," as Unsong describes it) and embody the attributes of God in ways which can be expressed to us in the created world, and the culmination of all of them is the physical universe, which is the "densest" and most concrete phase where God's characteristics are all expressed in comprehensible forms:

“THE MOST BASIC DIVISION IN THE MYSTICAL BODY OF GOD IS THE TEN SEPHIROT. SEPHIRAH IS A HEBREW WORD RELATED TO THE ENGLISH “SAPPHIRE”, BECAUSE THE SAGES IMAGINED THEM AS SAPPHIRE-LIKE JEWELS ARRANGED IN A STRING. THE TEN SEPHIROT ARE A SERIES OF STAGES OR LEVELS OR JEWELS THROUGH WHICH DIVINE POWER FLOWS IN ITS MOVEMENT FROM GOD TO THE FINITE WORLD. EACH ONE CORRESPONDS TO A SPECIFIC DIVINE ATTRIBUTE. THE FIRST REPRESENTS THE WILL OF GOD. THE SECOND REPRESENTS THE WISDOM OF GOD. AND SO ON.”

That's why "being simpler" is synonymous for being superior, in this context: The physical world is the base reality, where physical principles, mundane dualities and spatiotemporal notions exist and are comprehensible to the human mind, and as you go up the Tree of Life and thereby become progressively closer to the peak, existence becomes increasingly less defined and the division between "Self" and God starts to blur, until you reach the Ein Sof, which is the most basic level of existence where there are no distinctions whatsoever, and everything is just potentialities contained in the wholeness, hence why God is also stated to possess all characteristics and attributes, and stuff is just created when he retracts some of those attributes until something independent from Him is formed:

“Well, it’s easy to represent nothingness. That’s just the bit ‘0’. God is the opposite of that. Complete fullness. Perfection in every respect. This kind of stuff is beyond space – our modern theories of space take a bunch of bits to specify – but if it helps, imagine God as being space filled with the maximum amount of power and intelligence and goodness and everything else that it can hold, stretching on to infinity.”

“The maximum amount of purple?” I objected.

“Sure. And the maximum amount of red, green, blue, et cetera.”

“Leibniz was studying the I Ching, and he noticed that its yin and yang sticks, when arranged in hexagrams, corresponded to a new form of arithmetic, because he was Leibniz and of course he noticed that. So he invented binary numbers and wrote a letter to the Duke of Brunswick saying that he had explained how God could create the universe out of nothing. It goes like this. You’ve got God, who is 1. You’ve got nothingness, which is 0. And that’s all you need to create everything. 1s and 0s arranged in a long enough string.”

“How, exactly?”

“The kabbalistic conception is that God withdrew from Himself to create the world. I, for example, am beautiful and intelligent, but not so physically strong. God is perfectly beautiful and intelligent and strong, so by withdrawing a little bit of His beauty and intelligence, and a lot of His strength, and some other things, we end up with an Ana.”

“BEFORE THE WORLD, I SPOKE TO ADAM KADMON IN MY GARDEN. I OFFERED HIM THE CHOICE TO REMAIN IN THE PARADISE BEYOND EXISTENCE, OR TO TASTE OF GOOD AND EVIL, BE SEPARATED FROM ME, AND ATTAIN INDEPENDENT BEING. HE CHOSE THE LATTER.”

“You really think I’m still in the crack? Listen, Houston. The tzimtzum, the Lurianic contraction of God to create the world, from a higher perspective it wasn’t a contraction at all, it was an expansion. An unfolding of divinity into new possibilities. The vessels didn’t shatter, they rearranged themselves into shapes that only become apparent from a pleroma beyond any dimensions but containing the potential for all of them. Houston, is this making sense?”

And considering the Atzmus' place as an even more primal level than God and Nothingness in this hierarchy of simplicity, it logically trivializes them in a similar manner through which they trivialize the created world. Although that's technically not entirely true, since, as said above, it can't even be considered "the simplest possible thing," because it is not a "thing" to begin with; it's beyond those conceptions, which are all contained in God.

think what's said is more that "God might be identified" with absolute infinite more so than being absolute infinite. I mean absolute infinite or the sets of all sets in and off themself are not physical things, so if god literally were them he would be a purley mathematical object. Don't think what is said is that god is an absolute infinite amount of something

That's a distinction without a difference, especially when Uriel already states that every divine object has a mathematical equivalent and vice-versa, hence why he could hack into the framework of creation and successfully replace the divine light of God with mathematics as the fuel of the universe, without much changes to the actual structure of things. Given the statements we get on the matter, God would just be the divine equivalent of the Absolute Infinite, so saying his actual size is somehow smaller than it is kinda wack, to me.

 

[Agnaa]

That's a distinction without a difference, especially when Uriel already states that every divine object has a mathematical equivalent and vice-versa

I feel like this is a little misleading. Mathematics didn't originally exist, Uriel invented it and needed to work for an EXTREMELY long time to figure out how to alter the world from running on divinity to running on mathematics. This really doesn't seem like every divine object had some hidden platonic mathematical equivalent, it more seems like Uriel figured out the painstaking task of how to turn everything into something that abides by mathematical laws.

EDIT: And even then, idk about calling God the divine equivalent of the Absolute Infinite in the way of Uriel converting things. Uriel could not convert stuff at the level of God himself, he could only put up a dam to stop His divine light from coming in.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still think OP and Ultima is fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa:

Can you summarise the arguments here please?

 

[Agnaa]

I don't trust myself to summarize Ultima's arguments in an objective way. But my argument is basically that I don't like rating "Above all hierarchies" as High 1-A because of allusions to mathematical objects that would have a 1-A size if they physically existed, but which don't actually exist. Its largest constructs (that don't backscale) only being rated at 1-C, without it ever being stated that they have potential to extend to a 1-A level (again, without backscaling) makes me not want to put it at High 1-A.

I'm also not a huge fan of giving Atzmus a key and putting it an escalation above God from the extremely sparse information we have about it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I trust your sense of judgement regarding this. Ultima has an occasional bad habit of allowing extremely exaggerated scaling far too easily. Or that is my impression anyway.

 

[Agnaa]

On the other hand, I've consistently misunderstood the requirements for tiers 2 and above. That hasn't resulted in a lot of thread drama so it may not have been noticeable, but there's been too many times for me to count where I'd say "Oh obviously that's 1-A" only for it to be flatly rejected by every 1-A expert, or for me to say "Well there's no way that would be Low 1-C" for it to be easily accepted by the relevant experts.

This has never really turned into a big deal since it's just been my snap judgements on threads that weren't even my own and I accepted any disagreements (even with that thread I made trying to downgrade almost every High 2-A, I stood down after a reply or two from DontTalk/DarkLK), but it hasn't given me much confidence in rating high-tiered characters. The actual practicalities of what standards of evidence we have aren't my strong suit; I'm much better at handling the underlying mathematics that's divorced from any relevant cosmology.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Ultima and DontTalkDT are working on a FAQ page for the tiering system that should hopefully be able to help us out.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure... Wait for a response from Ultima? Get a tally on how many people were for/against the ratings he proposed?

 

[Antvasima]

Those seem like good ideas.

Also, I was too harsh towards Ultima earlier.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @Sera_EX

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't even know what this is. At a glance I am pretty much in agreement with the things Agnaa has to say on this matter, but take that with a fistful of salt because I am not in my right mind as things stand.

 

[Agnaa]

These are rough tallies of opinions, as far as I can tell:

High 1-A God & 0 Atzmus: 6 (Ultima Reality, Holyhotsauce, Tllmbrg, DarkDragonMedeus, Matthew Schroeder, Elizhaa)

High 1-A God, High 1-A Atzmus: 1 (InfiniteDay) [Thinks 0 Atzmus is iffy, but not completely unacceptable]

1-A God & N/A or 1-A Atzmus: 7 (Agnaa, Ovy7, DontTalkDT, Sera EX*, Rikimarox2, AKM Sama*, Antvasima*)

*Leaning/less-enthusiastic support

 

[Rikimarox2]

While I dont shit bout this verse, but after seeing the arguments, I agree with agnaa here.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like we have a hard time reaching a proper consensus here then.

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama

What do you think?

 

[QuasiYuri]

I'm removing my vote.

 

[AKM sama]

I am quite undecided here. Not sure how I can contribute, but leaning towards Agnaa's stance a bit more.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply. I am also leaning towards Agnaa's side, but am not certain. Nevertheless, we should be extremely careful before we hand out tier 0.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Apologies for the extremely late answer. I haven't received any new notifications on this thread until a little while ago, for some reason. In any case:

I feel like this is a little misleading. Mathematics didn't originally exist, Uriel invented it and needed to work for an EXTREMELY long time to figure out how to alter the world from running on divinity to running on mathematics. This really doesn't seem like every divine object had some hidden platonic mathematical equivalent, it more seems like Uriel figured out the painstaking task of how to turn everything into something that abides by mathematical laws.

I wasn't really arguing that Unsong's mathematics operate on a Platonic Cosmology, though, and I actually think your explanation is closer to what I was trying to get across.

To elaborate on that, I was moreso saying that attempting to distinguish God from the Absolute Infinite is something that's not really supported by the text itself, even when taking into account the fact Uriel created mathematics as we know it. Remember that he also specifically states that only the underlying framework defining existence actually changed, while the world itself was pretty much the same, and even points to a tree and explains how it is functionally the same as before, with the only difference being that it's part of a self-sustaining reality, instead of one that needs to be constantly imbued with Divine Light to remain in existence.

Given how he goes on to state that every divine object has a mathematical equivalent (That is also close enough to it in nature to act as a replacement), even those residing in Yetzirah and the higher worlds, I think that it isn't too much of a reach to say this apply to God too, especially when the latter is already identified with a mathematical concept by the story itself.

But my argument is basically that I don't like rating "Above all hierarchies" as High 1-A because of allusions to mathematical objects that would have a 1-A size if they physically existed, but which don't actually exist. Its largest constructs (that don't backscale) only being rated at 1-C, without it ever being stated that they have potential to extend to a 1-A level (again, without backscaling) makes me not want to put it at High 1-A.

To complement this: My argument is that whether or not this hierarchy of cardinal numbers actually exists is largely a non-factor, since God (Himself a "physical" part of the verse's cosmology) is already defined as equal to a quantity which is greater than, and encompasses them, and the story saying that it's beyond the concept of "infinity" to begin with also hammers the point in even further.

I should also note that cardinalities shouldn't really be thought of as akin to layers, or higher realms of existence in an hierarchy, so much as quantities representing the amount of objects which a collection comprises, and these objects can be defined as being anything, really. In fact, spaces in mathematics are themselves thought of as uncountably infinite collections of 0-dimensional points (Called "singletons", to be more specific)

Considering God is a physical, existent part of the cosmology, as mentioned above, then He could very well just be thought of as a space whose cardinality is equal to the absolute infinite/set of all sets (The concept itself is problematic when formally defined, of course, but that's not relevant to the point), and it would naturally follow that said space would have subsets of any given cardinality, which would, again, do away with potential uncertainties over using these. At least in my view, obviously.