High 1-A+ Questions

[MasterOfArda]

There's been a lot of threads asking for explanation of the High 1-A+ tier, because it is pretty confusing.

High 1-A+ is divided into two subcategories:

• Type 1: characters who have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds
• Type 2: characters who embody the framework of such worlds itself

What does Type 1 mean concretely? Usually, characters who can create an arbitrary amount of energy in a certain level of reality exist in the higher level, e.g. a 1-A character can create arbitrary Low 1-A worlds, but only because he's completely beyond them. There is no example in the tiering system for a special "arbitrarily large" category - for example, there's no special category for a character who can infinitely ascend up Low 1-A without ever reaching 1-A.

What about Type 2? What does "embody" mean? The tiering system typically depends on transcendence, not "embodiment". A 1-A character could be said to embody all Low 1-A worlds, but only as a consequence of transcending them, and if a character did embody all Low 1-A worlds, but weren't 1-A, then a 1-A character could just create a new intervening layer above them without diminishing their power. It seems like, for infinite hierarchies, transcending the hierarchy is a prequsite for embodying it.

Is Type 2 A "all possible worlds" or the B "framework of all possible worlds"? The first phrase seems to be what logically follows, but the second phrase is what's written, and that seems to indicate a higher tier of character - for which not just all possible worlds, but the very concept of discussing possible worlds is transcended. A would seem to be next logical step after Type 1, but B is what's actually written and B seems to be above A as High 1-A is above 1-A.

Following the pattern of the tiering system, it seems like the tiers would be:

• Type 1: characters who transcend all possible worlds
• Type 2: characters who transcend the framework of all possible worlds

Then creating arbitrary possible worlds would be a correlate of Type 1, much as creating arbitrary Low 1-A worlds is a correlate of 1-A. But that is not how the pages go.

Currently, it seems the tiers go

1. Type 1: characters who can affect/embody/create/destroy arbitrarily large possible worlds
2. characters who can affect/embody/create/destroy all possible worlds (stronger than baseline Type 1)
3. Type 2: characters who embody the framework of all possible worlds
   • which may or may not be the same as characters who transcend the framework of all possible worlds

Even Ultima was uncertain about it:

I suspect that High 1-A+ as a tier is a little compressed as it stands (Largely in the conflation between "Everything a Tier 0 can create" and "All possible worlds as a multiverse-like collection"). Been toying with ideas of that for a while (That I'll probably never apply to the system).

World of Darkness is the only verse that specifies which type (Type 1 or Type 2), and I can't understand those pages, which are apparently outdated anyway.

Thanks for any help from the staff.

Questions:

• Is a character who transcends all possible worlds Type 1?
• Is "embody" and "transcend" equivalent for Type 2?
• For Type 2, are "all possible worlds" and "the framework of all possible worlds" the same concept or separate?

 

[FinePoint]

The use of "possible" here is far more literal than in previous tiers.

It's bound by logic, not by actual structure.

It really can't be compared to the way that a 1-A character could create arbitrarily large words within Low 1-A.

That is to say, you are completely correct in that the way it's defined is incongruent with the way we treat the rest of the tiering system. It's based on a state of existence rather than any particular feat. Tier High 1-A+ and Tier 0 are categories more than actual 'tiers'.

A Type 1 character can influence a collection of all 'possible' worlds but technically still exists within that framework of possibility, they can just influence it.

In contrast, a Type 2 character embodies the framework itself, and therefore exists as all possible world at once. They're 'stronger' in that a Type 1 presumably can't change the framework itself, only everything inside of it.

Nothing (except the Tier 0) can exist "above" Tier High 1-A+ in that it would be a logical contradiction. If there's a possible world above the framework then it's not actually the framework of all possible worlds.

 

[MasterOfArda]

Okay, I'm a little closer now, but I'm hung up on one point:

A Type 1 character can influence a collection of all 'possible' worlds but technically still exists within that framework of possibility, they can just influence it.

So that means a character who "embodied all possible worlds", while still being constrained by the framework of possibility, would still be considered a Type 1. It's not enough to embody all possible worlds, you have to actually embody and be unconstrained by the framework of all possible worlds.

 

[Jin2188]

Okay, I'm a little closer now, but I'm hung up on one point:

A Type 1 character can influence a collection of all 'possible' worlds but technically still exists within that framework of possibility, they can just influence it.

So that means a character who "embodied all possible worlds", while still being constrained by the framework of possibility, would still be considered a Type 1. It's not enough to embody all possible worlds, you have to actually embody and be unconstrained by the framework of all possible worlds.

It has less to do with all "possible worlds" and more so to do with all possible modes of being.

Compare it to Low 1-A, the apex of dimensional scaling. Low 1-A characters stand above everything in physical reality, as they can actualize and manipulate any and all dimensional spaces. Going beyond this, we have 1-A, which is ontologically a step above Low 1-A and everything below it, and so 1-A characters are qualitatively superior to physical reality. A second layer of 1-A would be another ontological jump, and so on.

Then we have High 1-A, a "meta-qualitative" superiority, which surpasses the entire framework of qualitative superiority in the same way that the qualitative framework surpasses the framework of Low 1-A. You can have infinite meta-qualitative layers, a "meta-meta-qualitative" framework transcending that, a "meta-meta-meta ... meta-qualitative" framework, a "super-qualitative" framework transcending that, and so on.

High 1-A+ encompasses all of that, all conceivable stacking of 1-A layers and High 1-A frameworks, and so we can say it stands at the apex of all "possible worlds" in the same way that Low 1-A stands at the apex of all dimensional spaces.

Let's look at the Type 4 Multiverse, a classic example of a Low 1-A structure. A character who exists outside of any physical space, but still within the framework of the Type 4 Multiverse would then also be Low 1-A, standing above all spaces regardless of their dimensionality, and likely able to actualize any mathematical structure (aka physical space) they desire. Now let's imagine an alternative type of Low 1-A character, one that either encompasses the entire structure of the Type 4 Multiverse, or has full control over that structure. Such a character would not only be able to actualize any mathematical structure they desire, but would also have control over the very framework of mathematics itself, able to effectively "define" what counts as a mathematical structure and what doesn't.

That's essentially what the two different types of High 1-A+ are. The first type stands above all possible modes of being (and therefore all possible worlds) and can therefore likely actualize any world (with any possible stacking of 1-A layers and/or High 1-A frameworks) that they desire. They are, however, limited by the framework of possible worlds, just like how the first type of Low 1-A character is limited by the framework of dimensional spaces (In the case of the Type 4 Multiverse, this would be mathematics, and in the case of High 1-A+, likely something like the laws of logic). The second type of High 1-A+ therefore encompasses or can manipulate this framework, effectively determining what counts as a possible world and what doesn't.

 

[MasterOfArda]

So:

• Type 1 transcends all possible worlds, and therefore can actualize an arbitrary possible world, but are still constrained by whatever principles govern all possible worlds
• Type 2 transcends the very framework that defines possible worlds

I like that explanation, but I don't think it exactly corresponds to what the tiering system says. Type 2 in particular talks about "embodying" the framework, not "encompass" or "manipulate" - your explanation seems closer to the word "transcends".

 

[FinePoint]

So:

• Type 1 transcends all possible worlds, and therefore can actualize an arbitrary possible world, but are still constrained by whatever principles govern all possible worlds

They're generally constrained by the logic of what is "possible", meaning the three laws of thoughts. Those are:
An object is what it is. (Identity)
A cannot be both A and not A. (Contradiction)
A statement is either true or false. (Excluded Middle)

As a requirement they must be capable of influencing at least any and all worlds which fit this criteria, which would encompass any arbitrary extension into High 1-A.

• Type 2 transcends the very framework that defines possible worlds

They don't transcend it, they embody it. They are the framework.

 

[TheTenno07]

They're generally constrained by the logic of what is "possible", meaning the three laws of thoughts. Those are:
An object is what it is. (Identity)
A cannot be both A and B. (Contradiction)
A statement is either true or false. (Excluded Middle)

As a requirement they must be capable of influencing at least any and all worlds which fit this criteria, which would encompass any arbitrary extension into High 1-A.

They don't transcend it, they embody it. They are the framework.

A and B ar not necessarily a contradiction, what they cannot be is A and no A

 

[FinePoint]

A and B ar not necessarily a contradiction, what they cannot be is A and no A

Fixed.

 

[TheTenno07]

Fixed.

Nice

 

[Jin2188]

So:

• Type 1 transcends all possible worlds, and therefore can actualize an arbitrary possible world, but are still constrained by whatever principles govern all possible worlds
• Type 2 transcends the very framework that defines possible worlds

I like that explanation, but I don't think it exactly corresponds to what the tiering system says. Type 2 in particular talks about "embodying" the framework, not "encompass" or "manipulate" - your explanation seems closer to the word "transcends".

Type 2 doesn't transcend the framework, that would be Tier 0. Type 2 is just the ability to control the framework, which can be accomplished either by "embodying" the framework, or just by being able to manipulate the "laws of thought" directly, just like how the second Low 1-A character in the previous example could manipulate the framework of all dimensional spaces without actually "transcending" that framework in any way.

 

[MasterOfArda]

I guess the thing I'm stuck up is "embodying" seems to be a very specific concept. It seems like verses could have characters on the same level as "the framework of all possible worlds" without necessarily "embodying" it.

 

[FinePoint]

I guess the thing I'm stuck up is "embodying" seems to be a very specific concept. It seems like verses could have characters on the same level as "the framework of all possible worlds" without necessarily "embodying" it.

Tell it to Ultima.

I agree with you, for the record.

I don't think Type 2 should be assumed superior to Type 1, but in the current system it apparently is.

 

[MasterOfArda]

Ultima seems to be gone, and even he doesn't seem to know.

• I suspect that High 1-A+ as a tier is a little compressed as it stands (Largely in the conflation between "Everything a Tier 0 can create" and "All possible worlds as a multiverse-like collection")

 

[TheTenno07]

Ultima seems to be gone, and even he doesn't seem to know.

• I suspect that High 1-A+ as a tier is a little compressed as it stands (Largely in the conflation between "Everything a Tier 0 can create" and "All possible worlds as a multiverse-like collection")

He's highly busy with his studies

 

[MasterOfArda]

Yeah, I get that, just saying it'll be hard to get him back to clarify anything.

 

[MasterOfArda]

Did anyone else but Ultima help draft the High 1-A+ description?