Tiering System Revisions

Continuing off of this thread. Some of the reasons for the proposals I have listed below can be found in more detail in the OP. But the gist of it is:

Dimensional Tiering Stuff

• Higher-Dimensional Beings should not be automatically assumed as uncountably infinitely larger than lower-dimensional ones. This notion comes from a very bare basic geometrical notion which does not necessarily fit in with how higher dimensions would play out in our actual, physical world, at least in relations to living creatures, and not the space-time manifold itself. In addition, such a system is inconsistent with our very own standards on the matter, as we apparently don't give characters a higher tier solely for being higher-dimensional anymore: In short, the system is outdated.
  • We, however, can rely on this for the size of the whole set wherein said dimensions are defined. Assuming it is either infinite / is a Large Extra Dimensional (LED) Space, or is defined as being qualitatively higher than lower-dimensional things by the verse it is from. The same applies to higher-dimensional entities.

• Dimensions as a strict metric to apply in all possible cases is not ideal at all, and is in fact excessively specific and tries to shoehorn them where they don't even fit. For example, higher planes of existence and higher-dimensional spaces can be interrelated, but don't necessarily intersect unless otherwise specified (i.e higher planes of existence are not necessarily the same as higher-dimensional spaces).

Said expanses could be lacking in dimensions of space and time, or be beyond those constants altogether and by extension exist beyond dimensionality. This relates to something very important which I will say in the section below.

Outerversal Stuff

• Our current standards on 1-A and 0 make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The fact being Tier 0 does not necessarily mean you are any stronger than 1-A characters is extremely misleading and done for no reason at all.

Characters are ranked at Tier 0 solely for being supreme entities in a verse with 1-A characters, yet other characters who strictly speaking have logically far better feats than them are ranked lower because they are not supreme beings, which is obviously a load of bull: If we follow this standard by heart and just decide to ignore both feats and scaling out of the window, then we may as well place every Supreme Being in any verse under the same general tier and be done with it. It's not something we do for any other tier, and those two should be no exception.

• 1-A is bloated: Really, it is way too ******* huge to be a single tier, and encompasses infinite different levels which are often extremely disparate from one another and are achieved through feats of very different scales. If we choose to take that route then why not also compress literally everything from High 2-A to High 1-B into a single tier and leave it at that?

By the way, since 1-A even working like that is contested between some members: I propose it works like that now, simple as that. I will elaborate on that later.

• As a continuation of the last comment in the section above, I should say existing beyond dimensionality is ultra vague and ill-defined as a justification for the tier. Firstly because dimensions are a permutation of space and time, so existing completely outside of such constants would make you "beyond-dimensional" already, regardless if your verse has 2, 8 or 981,187,100 dimensions. This is obviously a fairly glaring issue, and doesn't fit with what 1-A is in practice as of now (Something so big you can't reach it by stacking infinities).

This, in turn, just extends into something very clearly wrong with the current system: As in, the fact we treat transcendence over time and space as literally existing a dimension above whatever scale has been shown on the verse, unless said space-time hass been demonstrated to extend to infinite dimensions. For example, we treat transcending the space-time of infinite universes as being 5-D, and transcending the space-time of a universe as 4-D.

Inconsistencies aside, this is really obviously wrong, for the reasons I already explained above. This pokes even further holes into Dimensional Tiering, since, for these very reasons, treating literally every higher expanse of existence as a literal higher dimension leads to problems and inconsistencies, and can also lead into really wonky things like the existence of dimensionless characters in tiers which are formally defined as strictly pertaining to n-dimensional beings.

Proposals
Firstly, the most important proposal in this revision: Rank things based on area.

Essentially, what this new system aims to do is primarily rank characters based on the area of space they can affect: The sheer size of their sphere of influence, as opposed to whatever it is that we do now. It fixes the aforementioned inconsistencies I mentioned (such as dimensionless/beyond-dimensional characters appearing in tiers specifically for n-dimensional characters), and also fits far more with the idea of "Attack Potency" as a whole, really.

However, that is not to say that powerscaling and harming someone who is at a given level of power will be thrown out of the window as ways of quantifying tiers, those will still exist, but as it stands, areas and spheres of influence will be the primary metric.

Nevertheless...

Dimensional Tiering Stuff

• Most of you already know: Higher-Dimensional Beings won't automatically be assumed as infinitely superior unless otherwise specified by the verse they're from, or if they reliably, fully scale to a Higher-Dimensional Space that is either LED or infinite in size itself.

• Due to the issues I have already mentioned in relation to Higher Dimensions as a strict, 100% literal measure of power, I propose we only equalize the size of higher dimensions to higher spaces/layers/levels of existence, as opposed to stating that they are and have to be literal higher-dimensional spaces at all times.

(Before proceeding, I should note that, mathematically, an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space is denoted by R^3 (at least if the real numbers are defining the coordinates in it), and the same extends to all other dimensional spaces. 4-D space is R^4, 5-D space is R^5, and so on)

Now, as an example. If we assume there is an infinitely-sized 5-dimensional space (R^5), and there exists a realm which is fully transcendent over it, then said realm would have its size said to be equivalent to R^6, but it doesn't really have to be a space of six dimensions. Like I said, this is only equalizing the size of the spaces, not their overall structure. The realm could be aspatiotemporal or whatever in nature, it wouldn't really matter.

Outerversal Stuff

• 1-A becomes split into subtiers. There are a few ways this can happen:

Option 1
* 1-B gets fused with 1-C and becomes a single rating with three subtiers (Low 1-C, 1-C and High 1-C), called simply Hyperverse level

• 1-B becomes the new Outerverse level, and starts to have three subtiers:
  • Low 1-B: Characters whose size cannot be reached by stacking infinities, but who still exist in the same "level" as the things they dwarf. Equivalent to an uncountably infinite number of dimensions/planes, and is pretty much a middle ground between High 1-C and 1-B.
  • 1-B: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it
  • High 1-B: Infinite levels of existence above baseline Outerversal. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
• 1-A is made into a tier of its own, denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
• 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system

Option 2
* 1-C remains unchanged

• The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
• The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
• High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
• Low 1-A becomes baseline Outerversal and up, with infinite hierarchies on this scale receiving a "+" modifier next to the rating
• 1-A and 0 are basically the same as Option 1

Option 3
* 1-C remains unchanged

• The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
• The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
• High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
• Low 1-A: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it.
• 1-A: Infinite Outerversal Hierarchies. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
• High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
• 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.

I personally think this option is really ******* shit, myself
Option 4
* 1-C and 1-B are unchanged

• Low 1-A becomes the tier for uncountably infinite dimensions
• 1-A remains baseline Outerversal and up
• High 1-A becomes the tier for transcending outerversal hierarchies
• 0 remains the same as the above

• Outerverse level has its definition changed from primarily being about existing "beyond-dimensionality" to existing in abstract states of being which cannot be reached by stacking lesser infinities together. Simpler + more straightforward.

• The higher parts of the system itself start to have a defined metric as well, namely, Aleph Numbers. To give you a brief primer on what they are and how they work, I'd need to establish some important distinctions here: Primarily, one between Cardinal Numbers and Ordinal Numbers.

Ordinal Numbers are effectively a way to label things in an ordered sequence, and denote well-ordered sets (which are collections that have a defined smallest element). Meanwhile, Cardinal Numbers are a way to specify the strict sizes of sets, which are referred to as "Cardinality" in set theory (a set of four bananas has cardinality 4, for example).

When dealing with finite collections of things, these two notions go hand in hand. In fact, under the standard construction, every given ordinal number is just the well-ordered set of all ordinals smaller than it. For example:

4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}

7 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}

However, when we reach infinite collections, Ordinals and Cardinals split into two different notions, and we find out there is a difference between denoting the sets/numbers themselves and denoting their size.

After all finite numbers are exhausted, there comes ¤ë (Omega), the first infinite ordinal number, which is pretty much equivalent to the set of all natural numbers, but can be more precisely defined as the set of all finite ordinals numbers before it. Hence:

¤ë = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6...}

After it comes ¤ë+1, which is basically:

¤ë+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë}

Then ¤ë+2

¤ë+2 = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ¤ë, ¤ë+1}

And so on and so forth, for all other operations in math, which can get unto really crazy ordinals numbers, like epsilon-naught, which is ¤ë exponentiated into itself an infinite number of times and blah blah blah.

Nevetheless, although all of these are, in terms of ordinals, "bigger" than ¤ë, they all have mathematically the same cardinality as it, and so, the number of objects within them all fall under the same Cardinal Number: ÔäÁ(0), the cardinality of all given countably infinite sets. A good way to put into perspective the distinction between ¤ë and ÔäÁ(0) would be to say that, while the former is the number (or the set) itself, the latter is what denotes the amount of things contained in it.

After all countably infinite ordinals are themselves exhausted, comes ¤ë1 (omega-one), the set of all countably infinite ordinals, whose cardinality is ÔäÁ(1). By the way, although this is a really contested topic which most likely has no fixed answer within standard mathematics, we are assuming ÔäÁ(1) is the cardinality of the set of all real numbers as well.

Now, what the **** does this have to do with 1-A? Well, basically, as the real numbers are the set (or most specifically the field) over which our standards measures of size through which we generalize the notion of "dimension" in the first place are defined, and as such they'd be basically useless in the case of spaces with cardinality exceeding the real numbers.

This is seen with the aforementioned Real Coordinate Spaces (R^n) through which the new system quantifies the size of higher-order stuff: Their cardinality is strictly the same as the reals, and you wouldn't be able to embed a space with greater cardinality within one. Of course, you could choose to define them through other fields of numbers (such as the complex numbers), but that'd end up the same way, as they often have the same size as the real numbers anyways.

So, effectively, uncountably infinite dimensions would be the farthest you could go before everything breaks down and becomes mostly arbitrary. Since, really, when you assume the Continuum Hypothesis (the assertion that ÔäÁ(1) = real numbers) holds, those things end really early in the Aleph Hierarchy, cardinality-wise.

Now, I should note the same thing I did in the previous thread: Aleph Numbers are very big and really infinity, yes, but they ultimately are merely amounts of things and don't at all have a fixed tiering.

Tally
Yay: 14 (Matthew Schroeder, Dragonmasteryxz, RatherClueless, CrimsonStarFallen, Antvasima, Nepuko, DargooFaust, DarkDragonMedeus, AokigiKira, TheVoidWalker69, Skalt711, Maxnumb231, Malomtek, AssaltWaffle)

Nay: 2 (Hl3 or bust, Spumlin)

Myeh: 2 (Agnaa, DontTalkDT)

Your vote tally's a bit off, it says 3 for nay but lists 2 people, and it says 1 for myeh but lists 2 people.

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.

That is exactly what we do now.

It fixes the aforementioned inconsistencies I mentioned (such as dimensionless/beyond-dimensional characters appearing in tiers specifically for n-dimensional characters)

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.

As always, my problems lie solely as minor nitpicks, or as problems with the parts trying to debunk the current system. As before my opinion's a myeh.

Does Myeh mean neutral?

Who came up with option 4?

I do not think that any of your 4 options seems to accurately summarise Sera's and Nepuko's suggestion to use DontTalkDT's preferred system for ascending infinities and qualitatively superior higher planes of existence, but using your preferred system for outerversal hierarchies that cannot be reached by stacking infinities.

That was the original option 3 that I and many other members preferred.

Can we not have High 1-A, please? I absolutely fail to see any necessity whatsoever. We must not overcomplicate the system to the point where it is a headache to read the explanations. Option 2 I feel is by far the most elegant and simplest option.

The least amount of superfluous tiers the better.

I support option 2 at this point, would have preferred option 1 but that has no chance so I put my chips onto option 2

I agree with option 2

Finally I can downgrade steam powered giraffe

So in option 3 it's a different T0 than in 1 and 2? Was that ever proposed by the supporters of op. 3? As far as I understood it, option 3 was just supposed to change what everything is called, rather than what it is.

But have you considered the Dorito Factor?

I agree with Option 2

Well, given that the original option 3 that I and several other members preferred is not defined above, I suppose that option 2 is a better alternative than the others, with a few exceptions:

I would in fact prefer a specific tier for characters that transcend infinite outerversal hierarchies, and I also think that we should use a system for qualitatively superior levels of existence and ascending infinities in place of dimensions, as we mainly use currently. Dimensions can obviously still be used if a fiction defines them in this manner though.

RatherClueless said:

So in option 3 it's a different T0 than in 1 and 2? Was that ever proposed by the supporters of op. 3? As far as I understood it, option 3 was just supposed to change what everything is called, rather than what it is.

Click to expand...

Option 3 is basically the mix of 1 and 2 (i think its bad)

I also do not at all appreciate that mine, Sera's and Nepuko's option was not listed as an alternative in the first post, even though it gained the most support in the previous thread.

To add things I agree with Matt, as it creates more unnecessary explanation to another tier which like i said previously 1-A to tier 0 is more defined. Its like how alephs no mstter what stacking can never reach ╬©

1-A and 0 are fine as if. We don't need to add another complicating tier between them.

I still disagree on having 1A+ since the + sign is only used when someone is pretty close to the next tier.Having it in 1A is a big no

1-A and 0 are probably fine for option 2, yes, but we also need a tier to distinguish between baseline Outerverse level characters and those that transcend an infinite number of such hierarchies. The difference is unfathomably greater than that between a current 10-C and 1-A, so I am not at all comfortable with lumping them together.

I lend my support to option 2, the main reasons I don't like option 3 is that

1. It makes it so that two subtiers are based on distinct mathematical concepts (Low 1-A as a set beyond hausdroff metrics, the primary model used in the subject of dimensionality, and High 1-A as strong limit cardinal, which is unreachable by stacking up infinities from what I understand) while the core tier is just the extension of the previous sub tier without being its own thing

2. Wanting to have a separate tier for infinite layers of outerverse transcendence being a main reason for the option. The + modification was already a feature to help with this, and all option 3 does is take away the word "low" from couple areas in the page to say the exact same thing "this character is infinite layers above baseline". There's also the fact that the AP justification exists to explain this, we don't need an entirely different tier when we can communicate how powerful they are in much simpler way

@Andy

The current option 3, or the original one that Sera and Nepuko defined roughly as described below?

Antvasima said:

I do not think that any of your 4 options seems to accurately summarise Sera's and Nepuko's suggestion to use DontTalkDT's preferred system for ascending infinities and qualitatively superior higher planes of existence, but using your preferred system for outerversal hierarchies that cannot be reached by stacking infinities.

That was the original option 3 that I and many other members preferred.

Click to expand...

What is the "preferred system for outerversal hierarchies" you're alluding to?

@Andy

The outerversal tiers in option 1 for 1-B and above.

To quote the preceding thread:

Nepuko said:

Basically, unless it changes in the future, the current suggestion is :

Low 1-A to be basically the Outerversal equivalent of 1-B : From baseline Outerversal till any finite number of "muh transcendence"

1-A : The Outerversal "equivalent" of current High 1-B. Outerversal "transcendence"/"layers"/etc extending out infinitely, (or even beyond I dunno)

High 1-A : Beyond all the Outerversal hierarchy. It might be a rough comparison, but that'll be basically like Current High 1-B with Current 1-A. Current 1-A completely surpassed High 1-B "hierarchy".

Click to expand...

Sera EX said:

Just as each higher dimension in 1-B is qualitatively superior to the previous, and this extends infinitely - with High 1-B being uncountable infinite dimensions - so can all the "outerversal layers" of 1-A extend infinitely with High 1-A being beyond the infinite outerversal hierarchy. It's quite simple.

Click to expand...

What we proposed is this combined with option 2.

I don't see how there's been a change from the original description

We mainly use 1-A instead of Low 1-A+, and High 1-A instead of 1-A.

Option 3 is wrong btw. It's supposed to be like this :

• 1-C remains unchanged
• The current 1-B becomes Low 1-B
• The current High 1-B becomes 1-B
• High 1-B becomes the tier for up to uncountably infinite higher planes/dimensions/stuff
• Low 1-A: More or less a better defined current "baseline" Outerversal, up to any finite number of higher levels above it.
• 1-A: Infinite Outerversal Hierarchies. Though it doesn't necessarily have to be layers/levels, sheer power/size equivalent to this also qualifies
• High 1-A: Denoting characters who exist above Outerversal hierarchies altogether, and lie beyond any scale.
• 0 becomes a tier for all-encompassing characters who exist fully beyond the scope of the rest of the system.

Please correct it if possible. Unless the change was intentional, in which case it goes against the very purpose of having Option 3 in the first place. Option 3 keeps Option 2's decompressed lower tiers and Option 1's three Tiers (excluding 0) for Outerversal and up.

The current one is, as someone would say, "very schwemn".

Thank you for helping out Nepuko.

I think that I like the definition of tier 0 from option 1 and 2 better though.

Antvasima said:

Thank you for helping out Nepuko.
I think that I like the definition of tier 0 from option 1 and 2 better though.

Click to expand...

Glad to help . I edited the definition of 0 as well to that of option 1 (they came from that option after all).

I will support option 2

@Antvasima

Do I have to go back to the previous thread and count the number of votes for Option 3 or something?

@Nepuko

Thank you. I would also appreciate if Ultima writes your version as an option in the first post.

You should probably count the votes from the previous thread, yes.

As I said before: NO (Nay)

What is "schwemn" btw?

Option 3 is supposed to be

Low 1-A = vague outerversal

1-A = infinite outerversal hierarchy

High 1-A or 0 = beyond the outerversal hierarchy

That's it. Option 3 would also add a Low 1-B because Aeyu seems to be concvinced that there's many verses with untountably infinite dimensions so the 1-B would go like this:

Low 1-B = 12D to transfinite-D

1-B = Infinite-D

High 1-B = Uncountably Infinite-D

1-C would be left alone.

Personally I propose to make only 2 versions for tier-1:

1-B - higher dimensional stuff

1-A - beyond dimensional stuff

Otherwise, the more "laws" the system has - the close to its death the system is.

Antvasima said:

What is "schwemn" btw?

Click to expand...

According to the "Ultima" dictionarry (I think he's the one who coined the term), it means "a lesser degree of unsavouriness". I think. Don't mind that part .

Option 2

Myeh

Jockey-1337 said:

Personally I propose to make only 2 versions for tier-1:
1-B - higher dimensional stuff

1-A - beyond dimensional stuff

Otherwise, the more "laws" the system has - the close to its death the system is.

Click to expand...

We already explained why it would be a terrible idea and an utter mess. Pretty much everyone here would surely disagree with that.

Nepuko said:

Jockey-1337 said:

Personally I propose to make only 2 versions for tier-1:
1-B - higher dimensional stuff

1-A - beyond dimensional stuff

Otherwise, the more "laws" the system has - the close to its death the system is.

Click to expand...

We already explained why it would be a terrible idea and an utter mess. Pretty much everyone here would surely disagree with that.

Click to expand...

It will be a ground for making more vs topics, and that is why we are here.

Anyway, there are many problems with dimensional tiering (and I don't even touch outerversal tiering) and many ways to criticize it.

Antvasima said:

What is "schwemn" btw?

Click to expand...

A made up word by Aeyu to call things she dislikes.