Unsong Introduction Thread (Sorta)

[Agnaa]

I think that it isn't too much of a reach to say this apply to God too

I think it is an extreme reach since God is far beyond the level of anything Uriel can effect/convert, and since those mathematical equivalents were created by Uriel.

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.

But we already don't smack High 1-A on everything that mentions Absolute Infinity or being "beyond the concept of infinity". We need additional context that they're actually transcending stuff of a relevant size. And I don't think mentions of real numbers, levels of infinity, and mentioning the word "aleph" when none of that is actually involved in the extant cosmology is enough to merit such a rating.

Or to reword, you're right that a being of equivalent size to Absolute Infinity would be deserving of a high tier, but we don't give that lightly, and I don't think the stuff the text mentioned is enough.

 

[Antvasima]

Both Ultima and Agnaa make good points.

@Ovy7 @DontTalkDT @Sera_EX @Rikimarox2 @AKM sama

What do you think?

 

[Antvasima]

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

You should use this page to help keep track of subscribed threads:

https://vsbattles.com/watched/threads

 

[Rikimarox2]

Even after the seeing the new arguments, I still think Agnaa makes the most sense here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the input.

 

[Ovy7]

Currently, my stance hadn't changed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the input from you as well.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I think it is an extreme reach since God is far beyond the level of anything Uriel can effect/convert, and since those mathematical equivalents were created by Uriel.

Uriel created them, yes, but he only did so after spending copious amounts of time analyzing the structure of the higher worlds and making mathematical versions of the objects contained therein in his diagrams. The fact that these divine objects could be reproduced mathematically to begin with, coupled with how God Himself is identified with a mathematical quantity by the story itself, should get this point across pretty clearly.

But we already don't smack High 1-A on everything that mentions Absolute Infinity or being "beyond the concept of infinity". We need additional context that they're actually transcending stuff of a relevant size. And I don't think mentions of real numbers, levels of infinity, and mentioning the word "aleph" when none of that is actually involved in the extant cosmology is enough to merit such a rating.

We don't smack High 1-A in it when said "Absolute Infinity" isn't actually equated to any physical part of the cosmology, yes, which is a non-factor here, since, like I said, God very much falls under the category of "existent cosmology", and he is stated to be functionally identifiable to it. Not to mention that He is already stated to exist as a pleroma beyond all possible dimensions (As I showed in the excerpt I posted in response to DontTalk up there), which also contains the potential for all of them to exist, and given how infinite cardinal numbers are mentioned in the story, I don't see why we would arbitrarily restrict said dimensions to a finite or countably infinite number.

You should use this page to help keep track of subscribed

Thanks for the heads-up. That would probably have saved some of us from a lot of headaches.

 

[Agnaa]

Uriel created them, yes, but he only did so after spending copious amounts of time analyzing the structure of the higher worlds and making mathematical versions of the objects contained therein in his diagrams. The fact that these divine objects could be reproduced mathematically to begin with, coupled with how God Himself is identified with a mathematical quantity by the story itself, should get this point across pretty clearly.

This response to my point feels like it isn't adding anything new. You've already said that God is identified with a mathematical quantity by Cantor, and that Uriel turned objects into mathematical equivalents, and I've already responded to that,

We don't smack High 1-A in it when said "Absolute Infinity" isn't actually equated to any physical part of the cosmology, yes, which is a non-factor here, since, like I said, God very much falls under the category of "existent cosmology", and he is stated to be functionally identifiable to it.

So you're okay with giving High 1-A as long as the Absolute Infinity mention refers to something in the cosmology? Eugh.

Not to mention that He is already stated to exist as a pleroma beyond all possible dimensions (As I showed in the excerpt I posted in response to DontTalk up there), which also contains the potential for all of them to exist

Irrelevant as that statement only gives 1-A.

and given how infinite cardinal numbers are mentioned in the story, I don't see why we would arbitrarily restrict said dimensions to a finite or countably infinite number.

Let's see how cardinal numbers are mentioned, why don't we?

This reading we derive from Georg Cantor, the German mathematician who explored the cardinality of infinite sets. He found that though the natural numbers – 1, 2, 3 and so on – were infinite, still there were fewer of them than there were “real” numbers like root 2, pi, and 0.239567990052… Indeed, not only were there two different levels of infinity, but it seemed likely that there were an infinite number of different infinities (and maybe one extra, to describe the number of infinities there were?)

We're told that Cantor explored the cardinality of infinite sets, with the real numbers given as an example of there being different levels of infinity.

“It has seemed to me for many years indispensable to fix the transfinite powers or cardinal numbers by some symbol, and after much wavering to and fro I have called upon the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, aleph. The usual alphabets seem to me too much used to be fitted for this purpose; on the other hand, I didn’t want to invent a new sign.”

And Cantor talks about how he chose the symbol "aleph" for the cardinal numbers.

Like I said before "I don't think mentions of real numbers, levels of infinity, and mentioning the word "aleph" when none of that is actually involved in the extant cosmology is enough to merit such a rating."

I also want to point out that I'm not suggesting said dimensions are restricted to a finite or countably infinite number, I'm suggesting they're restricted to an uncountably infinite number, Low 1-A, and that transcending them would be 1-A, not High 1-A.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

This response to my point feels like it isn't adding anything new. You've already said that God is identified with a mathematical quantity by Cantor, and that Uriel turned objects into mathematical equivalents, and

That was moreso to explain why attempting to make some functional distinction between God and the Absolute Infinite is not really supported by anything in the text. If you think I didn't really add anything new in my response above, I suppose it'd also be useful to remind you that any space in mathematics is nothing but a set of objects endowed with additional rules governing how its components interact with each other, and this includes our own three-dimensional space, so if the "set of all sets" existed as something physical, then it'd be an actual space much like the one we live in, and this segues into the argument I outlined above, for reference.

So you're okay with giving High 1-A as long as the Absolute Infinity mention refers to something in the cosmology? Eugh.

Yes. And I already explained how that would qualify for High 1-A to begin with, do you have any issues with this?

Irrelevant as that statement only gives 1-A.

Not really, since it's a fairly basic result that, for any cardinal number κ, it is possible to construct a space whose dimension is exactly equal to κ. It would only give 1-A if the verse restricted its scope to countable (or the smallest uncountable) quantities, yes, but it already introduces the idea of the entire hierarchy of cardinalities, so spaces with a number of dimensions corresponding to any of them would be included in the "any possible dimensions," and thus scale to God.

Let's see how cardinal numbers are mentioned, why don't we?

Thank you for the explanation, but you seem to have missed a pretty important part, namely that it's pretty explicitly stated that Cantor's discovery of cardinal numbers were divine revelations introduced into him so a better understanding of the nature of God could be attained:

Cantor began talking about how his discoveries were direct and personal revelations from God, who wished him to preach the gospel of infinity so that an infinite Deity could be better understood. He posited an Absolute Infinite, beyond all the forms of infinity he had discovered, with which God might be identified.

Of course, you could argue that this is just in-universe ramblings of a madman, but I don't think this argument is particularly relevant, given how Unsong repeatedly stresses how much the universe is a fractal that repeats infinitely, and how absolutely everything is connected to God in such a way that nothing is actually a coincidence. You are probably well-aware of this.

I also want to point out that I'm not suggesting said dimensions are restricted to a finite or countably infinite number, I'm suggesting they're restricted to an uncountably infinite number, Low 1-A, and that transcending them would be 1-A, not High 1-A.

Low 1-A is "uncountably infinite dimensions," yes, but it is also an uncountably infinite number corresponding to 2^aleph-0, which is in itself followed by an infinite number of bigger cardinals, regardless of its actual placement in the hierarchy of alephs, and in this case, the text itself already mentions how there exist an infinite number of cardinalities, so Low 1-A would just be an arbitrary reduction that we have no reason to assume is in place. For that matter, refer to my response above.

 

[Agnaa]

Yes. And I already explained how that would qualify for High 1-A to begin with, do you have any issues with this?

My issue is it being High 1-A without additional context comes from external descriptions, rather than stuff in the text itself, and I don't like giving absurdly high tiers that way.

Not really, since it's a fairly basic result that, for any cardinal number κ, it is possible to construct a space whose dimension is exactly equal to κ. It would only give 1-A if the verse restricted its scope to countable (or the smallest uncountable) quantities, yes, but it already introduces the idea of the entire hierarchy of cardinalities, so spaces with a number of dimensions corresponding to any of them would be included in the "any possible dimensions," and thus scale to God.

Jesus christ, you're really putting "above all dimensions" at High 1-A now? That feels like quite the thing to pull out of nowhere, I don't think we've ever treated it that way, and we explicitly kept treating it that way after the move to the new system because 1-A is considered to be above conventional spacetime dimensions. A completely normal statement of being "above all possible dimensions" should not get High 1-A, at the very least it should not get that without you creating a thread to discuss this and upgrade every other verse with statements like that.

Thank you for the explanation, but you seem to have missed a pretty important part, namely that it's pretty explicitly stated that Cantor's discovery of cardinal numbers were divine revelations introduced into him so a better understanding of the nature of God could be attained

Of course, you could argue that this is just in-universe ramblings of a madman, but I don't think this argument is particularly relevant, given how Unsong repeatedly stresses how much the universe is a fractal that repeats infinitely, and how absolutely everything is connected to God in such a way that nothing is actually a coincidence. You are probably well-aware of this.

My view of it is that he found something fundamental to reality that is associated with the nature of God, but that it wasn't a direct and personal revelation, as God is generally described as an ontological force, and I seriously doubt that Uriel crafted that specifically for Cantor.

I also believe that the statements aren't tight enough for High 1-A regardless.

Low 1-A is "uncountably infinite dimensions," yes, but it is also an uncountably infinite number corresponding to 2^aleph-0, which is in itself followed by an infinite number of bigger cardinals, regardless of its actual placement in the hierarchy of alephs, and in this case, the text itself already mentions how there exist an infinite number of cardinalities, so Low 1-A would just be an arbitrary reduction that we have no reason to assume is in place. For that matter, refer to my response above.

I don't think there's enough in-text stuff for these levels of infinity to equate to 1-A+ rather than something around High 1-B. Sure, if we take this brief chucking out of a handful of terms and apply the in-depth IRL mathematical research we can get a high tier, but we don't really do that with concepts of religious/philosophical origin. I feel like you're treating an extremely brief mention of "cardinality" differently than you would treat equally brief mentions of "Platonic concepts", "Omnipotence", and [important words from Asian philosophies/religions that I can't remember off the top of my head].

We usually require these things to give an explanation in the text that's sufficient to meet the tier, and I don't think that standard's being met, or that you care about meeting that standard with your earlier statements about Absolute Infinity.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Agnaa makes good sense here. Among other things, I am also very uneasy with giving absurdly high tiers based on external descriptions and brief mentions of specific key words. My apologies Ultima.

@DontTalkDT @Sera_EX @Promestein @AKM sama

This is quite important, so I would appreciate to hear what do you think.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Jesus christ, you're really putting "above all dimensions" at High 1-A now? That feels like quite the thing to pull out of nowhere, I don't think we've ever treated it that way, and we explicitly kept treating it that way after the move to the new system because 1-A is considered to be above conventional spacetime dimensions. A completely normal statement of being "above all possible dimensions" should not get High 1-A, at the very least it should not get that without you creating a thread to discuss this and upgrade every other verse with statements like that.

I am not actually saying any statement about a character being "above all dimensions" is automatically High 1-A, no, just that this specific case would qualify for High 1-A due to the fact that the text itself talks about quantities which, when used to represent a number of dimensions (Or a number of anything, really, like DontTalk said up there), would describe things encompassing pretty much all of 1-A. This, coupled with how God is already stated to transcend and encompass the possibilities for any dimensions to exist, pretty much.

Again, if a verse never even brought up the idea of a number of dimensions greater than aleph-null, then the statement itself would be just Low 1-A to 1-A, yeah, since going any higher would involve directly plucking things from outside of the domain of discourse (Or the text, in other words), and would just lead to a textbook example of a NLF. Those things being the greater cardinals, in this case.

I don't think there's enough in-text stuff for these levels of infinity to equate to 1-A+ rather than something around High 1-B. Sure, if we take this brief chucking out of a handful of terms and apply the in-depth IRL mathematical research we can get a high tier, but we don't really do that with concepts of religious/philosophical origin. I feel like you're treating an extremely brief mention of "cardinality" differently than you would treat equally brief mentions of "Platonic concepts", "Omnipotence", and [important words from Asian philosophies/religions that I can't remember off the top of my head].

We usually require these things to give an explanation in the text that's sufficient to meet the tier, and I don't think that standard's being met, or that you care about meeting that standard with your earlier statements about Absolute Infinity.

Religious and philosophical ideas are another can of worms altogether, since those things are extremely fluid and nowhere near as rigorously defined as things like cardinals. And, as you've said in the past, we normally assume a verse follows actual mathematics until otherwise stated or implied, which is also one of the main cornerstones underlying some of our standards, like 2-A AP, for instance, so I really don't see why we'd assume cardinal numbers just suddenly work differently in Unsong, when that's not really suggested in any way.

I think that Agnaa makes good sense here. Among other things, I am also very uneasy with giving absurdly high tiers based on external descriptions and brief mentions of specific key words. My apologies Ultima.

No offense Ant, but most of Agnaa's arguments involve (Unintentional) strawmans and misunderstanding my actual points, as I laid it out up there, as well as inconsistently applying the wiki's standards on the subjects mentioned here. So, I'd ask to you not instantly privilege his arguments over mine. Not yet, at least.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think Ultima Reality is making the most sense here.

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima:

Okay. I am admittedly very cautious when it comes to assigning the highest tiers without very elaborate evidence. I suppose that I am back to neutral then.

 

[Agnaa]

I am not actually saying any statement about a character being "above all dimensions" is automatically High 1-A, no, just that this specific case would qualify for High 1-A due to the fact that the text itself talks about quantities which, when used to represent a number of dimensions (Or a number of anything, really, like DontTalk said up there), would describe things encompassing pretty much all of 1-A. This, coupled with how God is already stated to transcend and encompass the possibilities for any dimensions to exist, pretty much.

Again, if a verse never even brought up the idea of a number of dimensions greater than aleph-null, then the statement itself would be just Low 1-A to 1-A, yeah, since going any higher would involve directly plucking things from outside of the domain of discourse (Or the text, in other words), and would just lead to a textbook example of a NLF. Those things being the greater cardinals, in this case.

My bad, but in that case I think your response to mine was bad. If I take an issue with your use of cardinals based on limited explanation, why would applying your use of cardinals to other unrelated statements help your case? No shit if you take that cardinal stuff as true other statements about the verse will end up at High 1-A, that's why that stuff's important. But by itself, bringing up the "above all possible dimensions" statement adds nothing, as it only supports 1-A by itself.

Religious and philosophical ideas are another can of worms altogether, since those things are extremely fluid and nowhere near as rigorously defined as things like cardinals.

I've had people argue against this idea before. There have been rigorous definitions given for various philosophical and religious concepts. It feels naive to me to say that these ideas that have been studied for thousands of years have never been well-defined. Even if they aren't as well defined as cardinals, they're defined more than well enough to give us an idea of how they'd fit into tiering.

If your issue with this is that people can have different conceptions about what exactly stuff like omnipotence means, I feel like you should be more consistent about whether you include or ignore the layman. I know that there are people out there who misunderstand cardinals, higher infinities, and absolute infinity, even if they do have rigorous definitions.

And, as you've said in the past, we normally assume a verse follows actual mathematics until otherwise stated or implied, which is also one of the main cornerstones underlying some of our standards, like 2-A AP, for instance, so I really don't see why we'd assume cardinal numbers just suddenly work differently in Unsong, when that's not really suggested in any way.

I believe it for more than just mathematics, but I take the idea that extremely high-tiered verses need to rely on their own definitions rather than outside ones more highly than I do the schema of following the real world until otherwise stated or implied.

 

[Darksmash]

I can get High 1-A God but how did Atzmus jump to 0?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the Atzmus is hierarchically an unfathomably higher aspect of God than, for example, Ain Soph.

 

[Agnaa]

Bump.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still support the OP and the blog 100%.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not remember very well, but from what I recall Agnaa and Ultima both made good points, so I am uncertain.

 

[InfiniteDay]

From my deep-dive look into this and previous experience in wikipedia articles,

I currently agree with High 1-A, Atzmus being tier 0 based on vague statements being vague is iffy, and I saw Matt being funny for once so...

 

[Ultima_Reality]

My bad, but in that case I think your response to mine was bad. If I take an issue with your use of cardinals based on limited explanation, why would applying your use of cardinals to other unrelated statements help your case? No shit if you take that cardinal stuff as true other statements about the verse will end up at High 1-A, that's why that stuff's important. But by itself, bringing up the "above all possible dimensions" statement adds nothing, as it only supports 1-A by itself.

Ah, so your main issue is whether or not cardinal numbers even qualify as 1-A in the context of Unsong to begin with, yes? If so, I am probably better off addressing your point below, then.

I believe it for more than just mathematics, but I take the idea that extremely high-tiered verses need to rely on their own definitions rather than outside ones more highly than I do the schema of following the real world until otherwise stated or implied.

That sounds extremely counterintuitive to me, especially since, as I said a few times in the past, indexing in general is built ontop of a basic set of assumptions that we take as true in order to form a standardized method in the first place. Abandoning said assumptions for their opposite after a certain point seems extremely arbitrary, and I am fairly sure you could very well deconstruct scaling in general using this train of thought.

Although, putting that aside, this is the reason I even brought up the set of all real numbers to begin with: Its position in the hierarchy of cardinalities is the very reason aleph numbers start to correspond to levels of 1-A after a certain point, as all dimensional spaces (From 1 to aleph-0) fall under the cardinality of the continuum. If a verse explicitly describes the set of all reals itself as being exceeded, then I'd say it meets the requirements for we to consider cardinals to be 1-A.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that was the issue I had.

I feel like any more responses I make to the points you bring up there would be retreading old ground. So if you're not planning on responding to the rest of my previous post, shall we start contacting a bunch more people for input?

 

[InfiniteDay]

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So if you're not planning on responding to the rest of my previous post

Hm. Didn't think it was that relevant at first glance, but alright:

I've had people argue against this idea before. There have been rigorous definitions given for various philosophical and religious concepts. It feels naive to me to say that these ideas that have been studied for thousands of years have never been well-defined. Even if they aren't as well defined as cardinals, they're defined more than well enough to give us an idea of how they'd fit into tiering.

I probably conveyed my point badly there. What I meant is that we don't automatically give tiers to verses that mention certain philosophical concepts because, more often than not, said concepts simply don't have a fixed tier to begin with, and the factors that would make them have one are almost always absent from verses that mention them.

Plato's World of Forms is an example: It's only 1-A or higher if we assume that the Forms transcend any extensions of their particulars, but we don't apply this logic if the verse makes no mention of hierarchies of this kind to begin with, as the basic definition of a "Form" only includes transcendence over physical space and time, and so they just end up at Low 1-C at the very least, and sometimes not even that, since I can actually name a few cases where Platonic Forms are just Abstract Existence. There's a whole thread discussing the deletion of Type 1 because of that, in fact, since the new system ended up trivializing the whole idea of separating 1-A portrayals of Platonic Forms from ones that aren't 1-A.

The Hindu concept of Brahman would be another example: Going by its basic definition, it would, at absolute worst, be Low 1-C by virtue of transcending the material world and perceiving it as an illusion, and at best be 1-A to 0 due to transcending all conceptualization and categories that one may try to describe it through, as well as all extensions thereof, since even concepts of transcendence are illusions going by the doctrine, too. Despite that, we obviously don't give even Low 1-C to verses that mention Brahman and yet don't include the factors that would result in this tier: Brahman from Shin Megami Tensei used to be 2-A before being upgraded to Tier 1 for separate reasons, for instance.

But in Unsong's case, the factors that would make the hierarchy of cardinal numbers 1-A to begin with are very much present, like I outlined above, so, as far as I see, that part is a non-factor, and the only remaining issue is whether or not they are usable for scaling, which I think was your first objection, no?

 

[Agnaa]

and so they just end up at Low 1-C at the very least, and sometimes not even that, since I can actually name a few cases where Platonic Forms are just Abstract Existence.

Using your arguments, shouldn't this be taken as a contradiction, and not erase the general rule we have in place? I can make similar arguments from fictional contradictions against the use of cardinals; you're well aware of the SCP which describes a realm containing (among other things) all alephs the "fifth dimension", and describes it using five-dimensional topologies.

Hell, that article even says they're presented in sets of infinities, like integers or natural numbers, that they're defined as uncountable infinities, representing the cardinality of infinite sets. It goes into about as much detail as Unsong but still has stuff contradicting it.

Despite that, we obviously don't give even Low 1-C to verses that mention Brahman and yet don't include the factors that would result in this tier: Brahman from Shin Megami Tensei used to be 2-A before being upgraded to Tier 1 for separate reasons, for instance.

I mean, why shouldn't we give Low 1-C to verses like that?

What I meant is that we don't automatically give tiers to verses that mention certain philosophical concepts because, more often than not, said concepts simply don't have a fixed tier to begin with

As you later went on to point out, they do kinda have fixed tiers. At the bare minimum something like "At least Low 1-C" could be given, but I think 1-A is more reasonable than you give credit for.

But in Unsong's case, the factors that would make the hierarchy of cardinal numbers 1-A to begin with are very much present, like I outlined above

I don't really agree with this though. I don't think having Cantor coming on screen once to say "cardinals exist, there's bigger infinities, like natural numbers and real numbers, likely even an infinite amount!" without those abstract mathematical constructs corresponding to extant objects or structures (aside ofc from Cantor saying God might be identified with Absolute Infinity).

I feel like this is close but not enough to establishing it by itself, and that something like this wouldn't actually reach 1-A if it was a different concept with no real-world equivalent. I don't think "There's an infinite number of different infinities, and one extra to describe the number of infinities" would actually reach 1-A+ without stuff joining it to cardinals, and would just be High 1-B (or just 1-A for the Absolute Infinity equivalent), the different infinities equalized to higher dimensions, with there being an infinite amount of them.

 

[Antvasima]

Have the two of you reached any agreements yet? And if not, should I ask the other bureaucrats, consultants, and administrators to help you out here?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure if we'll reach an agreement, but I believe we're close to having presented our arguments fully, maybe 1-5 more responses. After that I'd like to bring in many other staff members to evaluate it, as currently people seem pretty evenly split between both of our proposed ratings.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Using your arguments, shouldn't this be taken as a contradiction, and not erase the general rule we have in place? I can make similar arguments from fictional contradictions against the use of cardinals; you're well aware of the SCP which describes a realm containing (among other things) all alephs the "fifth dimension", and describes it using five-dimensional topologies.

Hell, that article even says they're presented in sets of infinities, like integers or natural numbers, that they're defined as uncountable infinities, representing the cardinality of infinite sets. It goes into about as much detail as Unsong but still has stuff contradicting it.

You've told me in the past that this case in particular treats alephs as equal to dimensions, no? I pretty distinctly remember you saying that in our discussions in the SCP Revisions Server, and using SCP-3125's existence as a more-than-5-D-but-less-than-6-D being as evidence of that.

Though, putting that aside, I wouldn't say it's a contradiction, since Platonic Concepts being 1-A to begin with wasn't based on something from the original definition, and was mostly just a logical inference that we made, and then stopped making for the purposes of the new tiering system.

I mean, why shouldn't we give Low 1-C to verses like that?

Because the reasons that would make it Low 1-C would be absent from the text, is the point. I don't think it's reasonable to slap a certain tier based on namedrops of philosophical concepts that don't really include the reasons we would give said tiers to begin with.

I don't really agree with this though. I don't think having Cantor coming on screen once to say "cardinals exist, there's bigger infinities, like natural numbers and real numbers, likely even an infinite amount!" without those abstract mathematical constructs corresponding to extant objects or structures (aside ofc from Cantor saying God might be identified with Absolute Infinity).

That's a different issue altogether, since it is about whether or not said cardinals can be even used to scale anything in the verse. I am discussing whether or not the cardinals themselves are an 1-A hierarchy, since you put forth the argument that, even if they were valid for scaling, the would only amount to High 1-B at most. I thought that, once we settled the latter, then we could go back to discussing the former.

I feel like this is close but not enough to establishing it by itself, and that something like this wouldn't actually reach 1-A if it was a different concept with no real-world equivalent.I don't think "There's an infinite number of different infinities, and one extra to describe the number of infinities" would actually reach 1-A+ without stuff joining it to cardinals, and would just be High 1-B (or just 1-A for the Absolute Infinity equivalent), the different infinities equalized to higher dimensions, with there being an infinite amount of them.

The issue with this would be that any cardinality exceeding that of the continuum, would have to be Low 1-A by definition, and, given there are an infinite number of cardinals at play here (And no largest one, according to the text itself), there would be infinitely-many larger sizes succeeding 2^aleph-0, and this would result in an 1-A+ hierarchy regardless. High 1-B is just wrong regardless of how you look at it.

 

[Agnaa]

You've told me in the past that this case in particular treats alephs as equal to dimensions, no? I pretty distinctly remember you saying that in our discussions in the SCP Revisions Server, and using SCP-3125's existence as a more-than-5-D-but-less-than-6-D being as evidence of that.

No, it doesn't ever say "These alephs are equal to dimensions". One of those beings is described as having a topology of dimensionality between 5 and 6 dimensions, the realm containing those beings was described as "the fifth dimension", and the entrance to it was described as a 5-polytype manifold. imo you'd either have to say they're inferior to dimensions entirely, or disregard its relation to dimensions.

Though, putting that aside, I wouldn't say it's a contradiction, since Platonic Concepts being 1-A to begin with wasn't based on something from the original definition, and was mostly just a logical inference that we made, and then stopped making for the purposes of the new tiering system.

Since I don't really want to argue the tier of platonic concepts, I'll just say that there's other philosophical/religious concepts that you wouldn't tier highly without the text providing those high-tiered definitions, even if platonic concepts ended up being a bad example.

Because the reasons that would make it Low 1-C would be absent from the text, is the point. I don't think it's reasonable to slap a certain tier based on namedrops of philosophical concepts that don't really include the reasons we would give said tiers to begin with.

I feel like this is the exact issue I have with Unsong. I think "an infinite amount of greater infinities/one more absolute infinity" would just end up as High 1-B & 1-A, if we didn't have strict external definitions of alephs.

The issue with this would be that any cardinality exceeding that of the continuum, would have to be Low 1-A by definition, and, given there are an infinite number of cardinals at play here (And no largest one, according to the text itself), there would be infinitely-many larger sizes succeeding 2^aleph-0, and this would result in an 1-A+ hierarchy regardless. High 1-B is just wrong regardless of how you look at it.

I don't think we tend to assume that layers of greater infinities mean that the third greater infinity exceeds the continuum. I don't think that because of my experience discussing other verses that toss around infinities everywhere.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa makes some good points.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Bump.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I feel like this is the exact issue I have with Unsong. I think "an infinite amount of greater infinities/one more absolute infinity" would just end up as High 1-B & 1-A, if we didn't have strict external definitions of alephs.

That's kind of why I brought up Unsong mentioning real numbers to begin with, since exceeding the cardinality of R would, at bare minimum, be Low 1-A by definition, as opposed to just encompassing a larger volume than the real line but still having the same amount of points as it, like higher-dimensional spaces of smaller cardinality than 2^2^aleph-0 are. High 1-B would imply Unsong's infinities are the latter, when they are pretty explicitly the former.

I don't think we tend to assume that layers of greater infinities mean that the third greater infinity exceeds the continuum. I don't think that because of my experience discussing other verses that toss around infinities everywhere.

A random mention of higher infinities wouldn't really be grounds for assuming that, no, since they could just as easily be referring to higher-dimensional spaces below R^R. The difference is that Unsong does include the continuum in its hierarchy, and it would be exceeded infinitely by virtue of there being an infinite number of them, regardless of what exact position of 2^aleph-0 is. The rest of this just segues into the above response, so, I'll avoid repeating myself.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Planck69 @Ovy7 @YuriAkuto @Ionliosite @First_Witch @Elizhaa @KingPin0422

Would you be willing to help out here please?

 

[Planck69]

Cosmologies like this are a bit out of my depth so I'm not quite sure I can help unfortunately.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Unsong Cosmology is just like... A 1 to 1 literal depiction of Lurianic Kabbalah.

 

[Antvasima]

Cosmologies like this are a bit out of my depth so I'm not quite sure I can help unfortunately.

Okay. No problem.

 

[Antvasima]

Unsong Cosmology is just like... A 1 to 1 literal depiction of Lurianic Kabbalah.

Please elaborate regarding what you think should be done here.