• 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.

Type 4 multiverse and outerverse level

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fixxed

Fixxed

3,466
1,944
So i hear if that verse use ultimate esemble or type 4 max tegmark multiverse, that verse by default will get outerverse level

Type 4 is multiverse that use mathematical structure or set, that all structure that exist mathematically can exist physically. That mean in real life we can use all theory of set that we know for this type of multiverse

The problem is when it comes to the fictional story, we evaluate everything by the context of the verse already give. I think it very NLF if we give verse that mention type 4 multiverse without further context a outerverse level, we dont know how far the author know and use math theory for his verse, so how can we consider if the type 4 multiverse that being mentioned in that verse use aleph 1 or 2 or other thing that will make it outerverse level

We not give some proof about manipulate the math outerverse level by default
Or we even not give some statement about plato's form theory a higher dimensional structure by default

We not give type 3 multiverse or MWI a high 1B rating by default even if the IRL explanation say about infinite dimensional hilbert space:
Tegmark argues that a Level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a Level I or Level II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a Level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a Level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that, "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space."
Click to expand...

So why we give type 4 multiverse that such rating by default with some arbitary and NLF reason of that multiverse will have some aleph 1 or 2 structure that exist physically

Why we dont evaluate that statement case by case with what the context that the verse already give

Why dont we give it yeah multiversal level by default, because basically that what the theory trying to explain
 
Well I do think you are right in that an author just vaguely mentioning an ultimate ensemble multiverse as a passing statement is pretty iffy and shouldn't be automatically given outer without any further context. Although I don't know what the heck kinda story is or would just throw terms like that around. But I'm GUESSING that it is because type 4 multiverse is more niche than type 3. "Many worlds interpretation" is known to many without knowing the math behind it. Multiverses in general are one of the biggest newer come-ups to mainstream movies that i garuntee people know nothing about from a scientific perspective generaly. If you use the term "type 4 multiverse", you are definitely more likely to at least know what it would imply.

Not saying I agree with giving a 1-A free pass for using it, that is just why I think the wiki could possibly do this from their pov.
 
demonwarrior2266 said:
Well I do think you are right in that an author just vaguely mentioning an ultimate ensemble multiverse as a passing statement is pretty iffy and shouldn't be automatically given outer without any further context. Although I don't know what the heck kinda story is or would just throw terms like that around. But I'm GUESSING that it is because type 4 multiverse is more niche than type 3. "Many worlds interpretation" is known to many without knowing the math behind it. Multiverses in general are one of the biggest newer come-ups to mainstream movies that i garuntee people know nothing about from a scientific perspective generaly. If you use the term "type 4 multiverse", you are definitely more likely to at least know what it would imply.

Not saying I agree with giving a 1-A free pass for using it, that is just why I think the wiki could possibly do this from their pov.
Click to expand...
Yeah but plato's theory of form even more niche than type 4 multiverse, and yeah we not by default give that higher dimension just because in plato's explanation he say reality just a shadow or something not real compare to the form
 
I thought we were already doing this? IMO we should only give a tier to Type IV only if it actually follows its principles, and not just name drops it out of nowhere with no additional elaborations. I've actually argued this quite a bit a few months ago when it came to Type IV for a specific verse (which I won't name because its name alone would likely derail this to Sagitarius A and back), where most of the proof was name drops and just that.

Anyway, back on topic, Multiverse Types (not just IV) should be taken case by case by what the verse presents, but also abide by their IRL theorems. In the case of Type IV, the multiverse in question being a mathematical one (from where Type IV gets its name) should be a must.
 
Thank you for helping out. You make sense to me above. 🙏
 
I agree with this, but I think we do this already and we don't just give a tier to a mention of type IV multiverse.
And yes I also remember entering an argument where the verse mentioned type IV in passing and no elaboration and people pushing for 1-A, so this becoming a written rule is something I will support.

Essentially the rule should be, mentions of type IV multiverse without elaboration on how it applies to the verse in question should not be used for tiering.
 
So basically there an inherent difference between a type 3 and a type 4 multiverse unless you decide to dedicate two pages of explanation to it?
 
It’s more like a mathematical multiverse doesn’t grant anything. Anything that would qualify (aleph shenanigans) wouldn’t require the mathematical multiverse to be mentioned. Also the NLF is such a funny buzzword even if the argument is sound.

Anyways, seems a bit weird knowing that to know about this pretty obscure thing (idk in what world theory of forms is more obscure than a mathematical multiverse) the author must be aware of its premisical nature just equals a 2-B rating. I don’t mind either way.
 
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure we had a thread that covered this before. IIrc it's already case by case and the actual tier we give, if it is accepted to be genuine, is based on what kind of mathematical concepts are demonstrated within the verse.
 
Antvasima said:
@Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
Would have to look at it from a case-by-case basis.

On the whole, "All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically somewhere out there" is a kind of cosmology that has a lot of potential, since any kind of math structure, the moment it's mentioned in-story, would be included there. Would take very little pushing to have this sort of stuff skyrocket all the way to 0 depending on the verse, even.

As for the argument for it being 1-A, specifically: Eh. If all the verse mentions is higher-dimensional spaces, for example, under the current underpinnings of the Tiering System, the most I'd be willing to extrapolate for such a thing would be High 1-B. This is because finite numbers of dimensions are inductive in nature, so, if you have n dimensions, for any number n, then mathematically you can also have n+1 dimensions. Naturally, that would result in countably infinite dimensions existing.

Now, if (and only if) the verse mentions alephs or something, I'd be willing to hand out 1-A or higher.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Would have to look at it from a case-by-case basis.

On the whole, "All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically somewhere out there" is a kind of cosmology that has a lot of potential, since any kind of math structure, the moment it's mentioned in-story, would be included there. Would take very little pushing to have this sort of stuff skyrocket all the way to 0 depending on the verse, even.

As for the argument for it being 1-A, specifically: Eh. If all the verse mentions is higher-dimensional spaces, for example, under the current underpinnings of the Tiering System, the most I'd be willing to extrapolate for such a thing would be High 1-B. This is because finite numbers of dimensions are inductive in nature, so, if you have n dimensions, for any number n, then mathematically you can also have n+1 dimensions. Naturally, that would result in countably infinite dimensions existing.

Now, if (and only if) the verse mentions alephs or something, I'd be willing to hand out 1-A or higher.
Click to expand...
The problem in here is what by default the type 4 multiverse will have if it just yeah being mentioned without further explanation. Is it just a multiversal?
 
Thank you to everybody who are helping out here. 🙏
 
We shouldn't give Type 4 multiverses high tiers without them using other means to establish that constructs that large exist. idk why people are treating this as something we do, since I've argued against it in many threads before.

My main issue is that we don't know which types of universes are "valid" within those fictional worlds, so "all valid worlds" existing is unquantifiable, and shouldn't be scaled to what we believe is valid from people theorising about it IRL.

Additionally, we don't know how large of a difference can make these universes distinct. And some fictional stories end up with bounds far below outerversal for this sort of thing. The short story Answer to Job says that there are 10^10^10^10^10^984 possible permutations of a perfectly happy and just universe. I think that because of cases like this, such type 4 multiverse statements should only be 3-A by default (even 2-B would need evidence that they're wholly separate space-times).
 
Agnaa said:
We shouldn't give Type 4 multiverses high tiers without them using other means to establish that constructs that large exist. idk why people are treating this as something we do, since I've argued against it in many threads before.

My main issue is that we don't know which types of universes are "valid" within those fictional worlds, so "all valid worlds" existing is unquantifiable, and shouldn't be scaled to what we believe is valid from people theorising about it IRL.

Additionally, we don't know how large of a difference can make these universes distinct. And some fictional stories end up with bounds far below outerversal for this sort of thing. The short story Answer to Job says that there are 10^10^10^10^10^984 possible permutations of a perfectly happy and just universe. I think that because of cases like this, such type 4 multiverse statements should only be 3-A by default (even 2-B would need evidence that they're wholly separate space-times).
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @Planck69 @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?
 
A Type 4 Multiverse contextually means it has some mathematical basis. In which case it's dependent on the franchise in question, since it can range from 2-B to 0 depending on certain permutations.

A default rating really can't be used, but it can be use to expand some other rating I guess.
 
Well, just what we agreed to before. More of a supporting piece of evidence than evidence of something itself.
 
Okay, so does anything need to be changed or reworded in our standards based on this thread?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay, so does anything need to be changed or reworded in our standards based on this thread?
Click to expand...
Do you guys have a specific page for stuff like this? Because if not, I want to suggest it. I think a terminology page explaining relatively commonly used terms like this and modal realism and v=ultimate L and whatnot, and clearing things up about them regarding where they scale or if they'd scale anywhere at all, would be helpful.
 
agreed!!! just a general terminology page for things like this along with other relatively common things like modal realism and v=ultimate l and other common terms
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
Fixxed
"The Most High" nature are Outerverse (1A) or even Boundless (0) or less?
Replies
0
Views
301
Fixxed
Fixxed
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
19
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
ZENZUYA
multiverse Statement
Replies
5
Views
914
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
demonwarrior2266
Low 1-A and above, where do terminologies like Type 4 Multiverse (and many others) scale to and why?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Railgun
Railgun
Back
Top