Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 3,965
- 2,778
Why this correlated with False/Invalid Monadhood?
And if so, what the reason for False Monad to only get 1-A as they are closer to tier 0?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
The commoners thread: Discussing Ultima's "On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System"
- Thread starter Iamunanimousinthat
- Start date
And if so, what the reason for False Monad to only get 1-A as they are closer to tier 0?
- 14,933
- 12,487
They'd be at whatever tier they'd land at without those monad statements.
Being a monad can bump a character from an otherwise 3-A cosmology to tier 0, so having such statements be contradicted could leave them at 3-A, or lower.
- 21
- 11
depends like Agnaa said and 1A is pretty simple if they show Qualitative superiorite
MountainWine
He/Him- 51
- 32
It’s crazy that blitzing a bunch of Hypersonic objects may not necessarily grant someone a Hypersonic+ rating but being a monad over a 3A cosmology grants Tier 0
- 14,933
- 12,487
It's a bit weird, but that's what happens when the definition has nothing to do with the size of the cosmology, and solely comes from qualities of the character.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 3,965
- 2,778
Still a damn plus for the Chinamen.
- 5,488
- 12,582
I wouldn't really treat it as such. The term "Platonism" itself eventually just morphed into a signifier for general belief in mind-independent abstract objects that doesn't really attach itself to Plato's actual ontology. People who call themselves "Mathematical Platonists" often don't actually think mathematical objects define and surpass (In our sense) reality, or some shit, even if they think those exist out there, hence you have contemporary philosophers saying that the main characteristic of such abstract objects is that they're utterly causally inert. At that point the word might as well have as much significance as "laser."
That said:
I mean, if the verse describes Form like that, then they're just using the concept correctly in the first place. And in general, utter superiority over spacetime that goes beyond physical factors (e.g. If you're some conceptual realm beyond matter) is just 1-A to begin with.
Granted, given how much disagreement there is on what Plato's exact ontology even was, I think what tier "True Platonism" is would depend on which interpretation of him you pick. Neoplatonism would probably have the Forms be High 1-A+ (Through a downscaling of sorts, but, still), for instance.
Last edited:
- 3,490
- 1,952
Well i dont know we can have this tier so easily this time. Still absurd in my mind honestly
I mean just some statement that say your entire nature of existence are unchanged and transcend time and space will make you 1A by default??
- 121
- 71
I thought it was an R>F themed series
- 5,488
- 12,582
It's not exactly any more absurd than slapping Low 1-C into a character because of a statement like "There is an uncountably infinite number of universes, and I destroyed them all," or making a character High 1-A because of a statement involving inaccessible cardinals. The revisions really just made less obscure things serve as qualifiers for such tiers (And I suspect that's where the knee-jerk reactions some people display come from), but at the end of the day, things didn't change that much from then to now, in that regard.
I mean, those on its own wouldn't really be sufficient, no. "Transcends space and time" can still be nothing at all, or it could be Low 1-C. 1-A would come from being superior to space and time themselves (As in, superiority over the very differentiation between points in a space), as opposed to "Is bigger than this spacetime continuum," which a lot of statements of that nature can be interpreted as.
- 3,490
- 1,952
I think it because we have NLF term that not take the highest possible interpretation just take the lowest one (i mean for a statement of transcend time and space)
And well about H1A by inaccesible cardinals, yeah i think it absurd as well, it just add more dimension/layer to one hierarchy not create another transcended hierarchy
Well.... i think you say transcended time and space ontologically will make you 1A by default
You mean you must be lack of time and space but the reason you lack it because you are "too great" or transcended it
I also curios about how you treat statement like "no matter how......" in this new standard. I think that statement often use in previous standard to proof something is 1A or are qualitative superior. Are we still use that or throw that away
- 5,488
- 12,582
The whole "That's NLF" deal got thrown out with the revisions. This stuff isn't really NLF at all, and nor is there any logical interpretation of them that lands lower. The example from inaccessible cardinals is making a demonstration about the old Tiering System, not the new one.
The point is that statements being brief doesn't make them invalid; we never demanded that a verse go into an extended treatise on what "Uncountably infinite" means, or what an inaccessible cardinal is, for those things to serve as qualifiers for big tiers when mentioned in the correct context. Same thing here, roughly. It really only delves into muddy territory when the concepts mentioned are themselves muddy and not broadly well-defined, or have a bunch of differing versions.
Those just aren't necessary anymore, yeah. In the same way a character who's described as being above all finite things (Without any caveat) is just tiered as being infinite, without the need for someone to say "No matter how many finite things you stack up, you'll never reach him," and similar.
- 3,490
- 1,952
Well the "brief" thing. Yeah doesnt make it invalid as a whole, but i just think it need more context to make it valid. Not just some name-drop
As far as i remember that logic doesnt work on anything, i mean we have a thread that discuss about infinite that bigger than regular infinite, and that infinite still a countably infinite (even if all countable infinite are same in size). Basically you will need some statement like that to have a higher form of infinite. Yeah H1B to L1A basically use infinite logic, are we still need that statement to have 1A rating
- 5,488
- 12,582
Depends on what the thing in question is. Generally, names alone tend to refer to things that have a bunch of differing views and models, so, in that case, additional context is needed to ascertain which version is being used.
Yeah, that stuff is utter nonsense. These things are more or less precisely what the revisions did away with, for the general case.
Last edited:
- 3,490
- 1,952
Honestly i dont found any "infinite that bigger than infinite" in your thread. Or are you mean something else that related??
- 5,488
- 12,582
I mean another, related thing, yeah.
- 1,754
- 5,266
What if a higher dimensional being exists on a lower dimensional plane? Would that disprove higher dimensional beings?
For example, there is a character who has True R>F, for some reason he goes to a Fiction he created (not using an avatar), will this disprove his True R>F?
For example, there is a character who has True R>F, for some reason he goes to a Fiction he created (not using an avatar), will this disprove his True R>F?
- 5,488
- 12,582
Not really, I'd say. A higher being could just have the ability to shift states of reality, after all. You'd need that to be depicted in a really wacky way for it to end up as an anti-feat.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,412
- 11,002
I've been thinking about this for a while, so I may as well ask. Would it be an anti-feat for 1-A and higher if a character has a soul/energy source originating from a higher plane of existence, and they use that as a source for their abilities that can travel to/affect the higher plane?
- 5,488
- 12,582
I'd say that depends on quite a few factors and ultimately kinda just falls into a similar area as the idea of using something from a 1-A realm to ascend past your reality.
A lot of verses have this common trope of some power source that, by nature, is just "for the taking," so to speak, in that it's just naturally self-diffusive and automatically enters whoever finds or communes with it. I wouldn't consider such cases to be anti-feats at all, since, obviously, nothing actually happens on the part of the lower character. It's just something the power source does on its own. Bonus points if it's also naturally connected to everything, too, since then the case falls under the "Metaphysical potential rooted in something from a higher reality" thing.
Then there's scenarios where the power source in question is not something to just be taken that easily, and then a character pulls up to it, and takes it by force wholly on their own initiative, and, so to speak, overwhelms the thing in order to absorb it. I'd consider that an anti-feat, yeah.
Last edited:
- 3,047
- 2,605
Things only feel strange and "it shouldn't be that easy" if you assign that it should be by nature harder to get into certain levels than others, while the objective of the revision is more "none of the tiers are inherently special. If you correctly describe what is needed for that Tier, there are many ways to achieve a certain level, some more convoluted than others, but there's no need to be convoluted per se".
Deep down, a lot of the requirements for something to be used could often be seen by writers as unnecessary and that it goes against what's studied about making good work. I can't help but think of all the times it's required for cosmology to be stated again and again in different works just to be sure "it really is that cosmology," while most writers would think, "Why should I repeat myself or what others said again and again instead of using that time to make something new and develop the characters?" In this case, the need to prove that the cosmologies are the same is something assumed to be inherently needed in the Wiki. In the same way, working out big explanations for getting Tier 1 or above was just something that was accepted to be inherently needed.
From what I got, one of the objectives of the revision is to move on from this view that some tiers are "inherently more special that need tons of objectively complicated explanations" and just "This is X tier, Y is what is needed to get there, and there are A to W ways of depicting it, some more complicated than others, but they all represent more or less the same thing."
Deep down, a lot of the requirements for something to be used could often be seen by writers as unnecessary and that it goes against what's studied about making good work. I can't help but think of all the times it's required for cosmology to be stated again and again in different works just to be sure "it really is that cosmology," while most writers would think, "Why should I repeat myself or what others said again and again instead of using that time to make something new and develop the characters?" In this case, the need to prove that the cosmologies are the same is something assumed to be inherently needed in the Wiki. In the same way, working out big explanations for getting Tier 1 or above was just something that was accepted to be inherently needed.
From what I got, one of the objectives of the revision is to move on from this view that some tiers are "inherently more special that need tons of objectively complicated explanations" and just "This is X tier, Y is what is needed to get there, and there are A to W ways of depicting it, some more complicated than others, but they all represent more or less the same thing."
- 5,488
- 12,582
The Force is probably 0.
Da3ggman
He/Him- 2,687
- 2,010
- 7,001
- 4,288
Finally got around the bothering to reread Last Boss and found these quotes explaining how absorbing the goddess's mana worked:
So it seems it wasn't doing forcefully but was part of a plan to exploit the Goddess's shortsightedness to claim possession of her power through means she created. So 1-A might be back on the menu.
So it seems it wasn't doing forcefully but was part of a plan to exploit the Goddess's shortsightedness to claim possession of her power through means she created. So 1-A might be back on the menu.
- 127
- 108
Now it's only up to us to see will that be enought to beat Yogiri
- 7,001
- 4,288
Though the whole ascending higher thing of Alovenus vs Ruphas would absolutely not be able to reach higher layers of transcendence within 1-A, it still would give them much higher potency, hax, resistance, and other layers in baseline 1-A. So if they do get to be 1-A then they would probably be the most powerful non-smurf baseline 1-A's, which includes Yogiri. They were even throwing instant death and erasure and just uno reversing it constantly in that fight of theirs.
If we manage to get through the possible anti-feat, then stuff like in my signature, should be enough for 1-A.
Last edited:
- 14,933
- 12,487
Your counter-example isn't actually that related to what we were talking about. We're talking about the invocation of the term "platonic concept" (or more likely, "platonic form"). I understand the point with "mathematical platonism", but I don't think it's relevant.
It means about as much as "Sometimes 'uncountable' just means a number too big for the speaker to count" does to invocations of uncountable infinity.
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 3,965
- 2,778
All that, and still get jobbed by a random Chinamen.
- 10,291
- 3,836
bro the chinaman jokes are getting out of hand
this was my reaction to this information
Rakih_Elyan
He/Him- 3,965
- 2,778
Chinamen persistbro the chinaman jokes are getting out of hand
this was my reaction to this information
- 127
- 108
Chinamen > Ultima's new tiering system frfr
- 11,194
- 2,436
- 127
- 108
Nice Goku and Flandre pfp
- 11,194
- 2,436
Thanks.
- 8,637
- 2,747
So any random statement about "beyond time and space" can vary from nothing to Low 1-C to 1-A?
What's the difference between L1C and 1A in that case?
What's the difference between L1C and 1A in that case?
- 756
- 528
Low 1-C would be "beyond time and space" in the sense that they're beyond conventional 3+1D space-time due to being 4+1D or 3+2D.
1-A would be "beyond time and space" in the sense that they're beyond the very notions of physical composition or the distinctions between points in mathematical space.
Similar threads
- Locked
