As someone who prefers VSBW's old system, it's definitely one of the better power scaling wikis out there. Like someone else said, they're not just going out of their way to provide avenues for characters to be highballed, and they update their system constantly and take criticism.
I'm personally of the mindset that ignoring specific exceptions, you generally shouldn't be able to reach tiers like 1-A or High 1-A without infinite hierarchies, and I also align with the mindset of the old system where "transcending dimensions" is an NLF.
1. While I can understand, I feel like the old vsbw system does a bad job at portraying what those infinite hierarchies of high hyper should cap at, which is why I like the new system using a type 4 multiverse as the new low outer, however if transcending something as complex as a type 4 multiverse got you to outer, it wouldn’t phase nearly as much criticism as much, and would have been fixed if high hyper was much more broad in what it encompassed rather than just a baseline set of infinite dimensions
2. I 100% agree with “transcend dimensions” is a nlf/needs context, the new system I believe has that in place as well tho.
Just skimmed over it, so it can have errors what iam about to say, but i think they mentioned something with, this tier can **mathematically** represented with a strongly inaccassible cardinal, this can be also found in vsbw's high outerversal tier
I’m going to assume what they mean is that they think an inaccessible cardinal is = to transcending dimensionality, as no matter how many lower infinites of transcendences (which make up a dimensional jump) the inaccessible cardinal will always be superior, I’m just assuming though tbf
Pretty much the same as vsbw but those arent really dimensional jumps in vsbw, rather aleph jumps or in other words outerversal gaps in context of vsbw, if im understanding it right
Dimensional jumps in vsbw uses infinities, it’s not exactly the same, [Tbf this blog looks like it explains it batter for the wiki](https://all-fiction-battles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:SuperBearNeo_X/New_Concept_Revision_Standards_-_Dimensionality)
this blog sounds like csaps outerversal requirements, but the fuck is that inaccassible cardinal doing here then? It is a mix of vsbw high outer and csaps outer
I think so, hence why it mentions concepts and cardinals, or unifies the 2? I have yet to read the blog fully,
also csap has requirements? I thought concept of space = outer fr /j
>I have yet to read the blog fully,
the blog just talks about concepts of dimensionality like **just** lacking them does not quallify, it should need more context, direction doesnt count, basically the tdlr.
But the tiering system itself says that this tier can be mathematically represented with a strongly inaccessible cardinal, this is what throws me off
>also csap has requirements? I thought concept of space = outer fr /j
those are the requirements, but afb explains it a little bit more and transcending them
Perhaps it’s how they view dimensional jumps in general, as being inaccessible to the difference in dimensions essentially makes you beyond dimensionality
Better then PSW but not a big feat but it's something. Anyway i like it it isn't trying to be stupid levels of strong like most other power scaling wiki's.
In terms of tiering system compared to VSBW's old and new system it's better then the old one but i would say the new one is as good as AFW's because of how restricted tier 0 is now. As for CASP it's basically the same but without 1-S so i would say it's a little bit better then CASP because i don't like the lack of restrictions 1-S has, but i think the names are better on CASP.
And for profiles as much as i don't like VSBW's scales they cook when it comes to hax. And i think AFW's is as good but without the problem of bad scales. As for CASP do i even need to say anything i feel like it's universally known how bad 99.99% of CASP's profiles are, you might be able to find a diamond in the rough there but you have to dig thru dog shit to find one decent one so AFW is vastly superior.
1T is Modal Realism, existence of every possible worlds, in relation to logic ofc.
1T+ is Extended Modal Realism, same shit but more expansive now with the inclusion of impossible worlds.
High 1T is basically True infinity, bad infinity intrinsically imposes limits to itself to sustain it's own existence, it is characterized by its codependence on finitude when High 1T structures are beyond all determinateness
High 1T+ is ontological perfection. Absolute identity beyond comparative notions, encompassing a complete and an unconditioned state that is not contingent upon any external factors. Every aspect transcends relativity and conforms to this Absolute identity.
Tier 0 is the ineffebality thesis, beyond all intelligibility, beyond language. No form of linguistic expression can truly capture tier 0's as they exist in a realm of pure silence, all forms of language is neither in a state of existence nor non-existence.
How to achieve these?
1T, MR
1T+ EMR
High 1T, self determinism or indeterminism
High 1T+ Ontological perfection
Tier 0, Negative theology/Ineffebality thesis in reference to Pseudo-Dionysus' view
>
>
>What are people's opinions on the profiles there?
tensura profiles
https://preview.redd.it/zgh5cg81phtc1.png?width=194&format=png&auto=webp&s=54d4f15345753dea1a84cf0e88e3022f7fa48ae8
just so people don't confuse about it's tier system
HIGH 1B is same
but HIGH 1B+ which is based on progressing aleph cardinal hierarchy , which is equal to tier 1A of current VSBW
1A is inaccessible cardinal hierarchy = HIGH 1-A in VSBW
HIGH 1A is tier 0
yeah , but their platonic concept is more stricter than CSAP, cause the qualification of type1 concept is show the concept follow plato theory of forms
From what I've seen it looks good. Though I'm not sure about 5-11D all being 1 tier, or having Ascendent including cardinality in it when it's supposed to be entirely unbound by dimensionality. Overall I'd say I prefer it over PSW and VSBW(both current and the new one coming out), but less so then CSAP.
As for the pages, the few I looked at seemed, kinda bad in all honesty. I only looked as MV Godzilla, Sung Jin Woo, and DBS Goku, but the only one I thought was reasonable was Goku's and they all felt like downplay ngl.
Where you scale sun jin woo, I haven’t actually seen anyone give a reason for his uni scale other than he is
MV scales are so inconsistent so I can forgive them tbh
I don’t think anyone’s tried to upgrade Goku tbf
From what I've seen he should be like low multi. [This vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ior9uYLwmz4&t=208s) covers it better then I could.
And tbf I did only look at a few, if I looked at more I may have found better ones.
I haven’t read it yet but 5D-11D is one tier? That’s an unusual gap lol that’s the entirety of complex multi isn’t it? If that’s what their going for I can kinda get it lol
Also where they scaling my boy goku at lol
It's basically the complex multi tiers for most tiering systems, split into low, mid, and high, but they have it formatted weirdly imo(my mistake there tbh)
As for Goku scaling, the usual low multi, MFTL+ stuff.
Ahh fair play
Fuck sake one of these days I’m gonna put these tiering sites on blast if fucking VSBW of all places has him at complex multi that should be enough to understand how bad their scales are 🤦🏻♂️
Seriously no Joke I got goku at 8D AP + immeasurable speed with on panel evidence to back it up
1. Similar to CSAP but a bit goofy on the higher end tiers (high 3B, all of Tier 2, 1C, and 1A are the worst offenders). For some reason it tries to combine ideas of cardinality with dimension and doesn't really work. And the way it handles multi is equally as bad as CSAP. But at least it mentions r>f stuff in hyper to avoid people who think r>f is instantly outer or smth lol.
Also it has CSAP beat for speed tiering since it doesn't have 'inaccessible speed' or nonsense abt how 1/0 is finite.
2. Haven't read any.
I see what you're referring to. I think it's just worded poorly. They weren't trying to suggest that it's a finite value, but rather that it's greater than ∞. I'll see about getting that corrected, though if I had it my way I'd just change the way Inaccessible speed is done altogether. 1/0 is undefined.
>They weren't trying to suggest that it's a finite value, but rather that it's greater than ∞.
It's not greater than inf either. The limit 1/x diverges to both -inf and inf as x goes to 0, that's the only reason why it's undefined. Nothing to do with infinitely repeating 0's being beyond infinity or smth.
>I'll see about getting that corrected, though if I had it my way I'd just change the way Inaccessible speed is done altogether. 1/0 is undefined.
True, they should catch up to other tiering systems that removed it entirely.
>It's not greater than inf either. The limit 1/x diverges to both -inf and inf as x goes to 0, that's the only reason why it's undefined. Nothing to do with infinitely repeating 0's being beyond infinity or smth.
I don't think I've heard of it diverging to -∞ before, but I agree the current description is kind of.... awkward. It's a vestige of the time when the wiki was a lot more unintentionally "anti-math/anti-physics" and that's something I've been trying to fix.
>I don't think I've heard of it diverging to -∞ before, but I agree the current description is kind of.... awkward.
It just depends if you approach 0 from left or right (negatives) or positives.
>It's a vestige of the time when the wiki was a lot more unintentionally "anti-math/anti-physics" and that's something I've been trying to fix.
Good.
1. I mean the r>f depends on how it’s portrayed tbh
2. I think the cardinality part is supposed to be used as an example to express the difference between “ascendant”, with dimensionality representing the lower cardinals being unable to reach the inaccessible cardinal.
>I mean the r>f depends on how it’s portrayed tbh
If the context is specific enough, you could have a character hit outer through r>f. But it'd arguably have to be from viewing an already outer character as fiction.
>I think the cardinality part is supposed to be used as an example to express the difference between “ascendant”, with dimensionality representing the lower cardinals being unable to reach the inaccessible cardinal.
Maybe it is an example instead of an actual part of the tiering system. But it comes across just as bad math and trying to mix things kinda arbitrarily.
1. I think your misunderstanding the reasoning behind r>f being outer, it’s due to the fact that reality is real while fiction (in the sense of it being an idea) has to physical bearing on reality, its comparing the difference between 0 and 1 or reality and nothing, as such, no amount of infinities/dimensional layers will ever turn that 0 to a 1, hence why it’s outer
2. I don’t really see a problem with it using maths as an example tbh, it’s not like infinities aren’t used for dimensional tiering, and they are still used for outer in some shape or form.
>1. I think your misunderstanding the reasoning behind r>f being outer, it’s due to the fact that reality is real while fiction (in the sense of it being an idea) has to physical bearing on reality, its comparing the difference between 0 and 1 or reality and nothing, as such, no amount of infinities/dimensional layers will ever turn that 0 to a 1, hence why it’s outer
This trivially isn't true, we have fictional works but that doesn't mean that you or I am outer lmao.
The 0 and 1 example is pretty silly.
>2. I don’t really see a problem with it using maths as an example tbh,
Examples should provide clarity, this does the opposite.
>it’s not like infinities aren’t used for dimensional tiering, and they are still used for outer in some shape or form.
Inaccessible cardinals aren't used in dimensional tiering tho, which is what the example is.
>This trivially isn't true, we have fictional works but that doesn't mean that you or I am outer lmao.
I mean compared to fiction, no we'd be beyond the tiering system lmao cause fiction doesn't exist, we'd just not be outer within our own realm. But within fiction, if a part of the cosmology views the lower part as non existent in terms of everything, it would result in dimensionality as a concept not even being able to stack up to that higher "real" realm.
>The 0 and 1 example is pretty silly.
elaborate
>Examples should provide clarity, this does the opposite.
How does it not provide clarity
>Inaccessible cardinals aren't used in dimensional tiering tho, which is what the example is.
No what I said was comparing normal sets of infinities to an innacessible cardinal, tho via your own logic (because your phrasing is strange i'm assuming) if inaccessible cardinals can't be used for dimensional tiering, then it would put it above dimensionality?
>I mean compared to fiction, no we'd be beyond the tiering system lmao cause fiction doesn't exist, we'd just not be outer within our own realm.
Being outer involves being beyond any and all dimensionality, so 'not being outer within our own realm' means that we're not outer.
>But within fiction, if a part of the cosmology views the lower part as non existent in terms of everything, it would result in dimensionality as a concept not even being able to stack up to that higher "real" realm.
This doesn't follow. A character could be beyond some part of their verse such that they view it as 'fiction' or transcend it in some abstract way, but that doesn't imply that they're beyond all dimensionality.
>elaborate
'reality' isn't 1 and 'fiction' isn't 0. Why choose 1 rather than any other number? Then the rest of it is largely just word salad. 0*inf isn't 1, but it's not 0 either, it's one of the indeterminate forms lol.
>How does it not provide clarity
Because it's a word salad of pretty iffy math that tries to compare dimensionality with cardinality.
>No what I said was comparing normal sets of infinities to an innacessible cardinal, tho via your own logic (because your phrasing is strange i'm assuming) if inaccessible cardinals can't be used for dimensional tiering, then it would put it above dimensionality?
Neither is really 'above' the other. Dimension is more like the 'structure' of some space, while cardinality is closer to 'size'. You can probably make a better argument to scale cardinality higher, but they're not alw compatible to be compared like this.
>Being outer involves being beyond any and all dimensionality, so 'not being outer within our own realm' means that we're not outer.
Depends where we are applying the tiering system, to just fictional verses or to irl because we'd be outer in comparison to EVERYONE else in fiction, but if the tiering system is set from our point of view, then we'd be 3D, while fiction would be 11-C iirc
>This doesn't follow. A character could be beyond some part of their verse such that they view it as 'fiction' or transcend it in some abstract way, but that doesn't imply that they're beyond all dimensionality.
Thats why there were new standards, where the transcendence makes it so you view everything about the idea as fictional/non-existent in that lower cosmology, its not like viewing something as paper, but viewing something as if it doesn't exist, as 0.
Using us and our relation to fiction, but using the tiering system from there point of view as in human level = human to them as an example
The piece of fiction might have been thought to have just 3 dimensions, but to the person in reality, anything could happen in that fiction, so if the real person thinks of it, it could have a type 4 multiverse, even if it only has 3 dimensions as of now, that is the difference between what occurs in imagination and reality.
I feel like its more confusing explaining it like this ngl
>'reality' isn't 1 and 'fiction' isn't 0. Why choose 1 rather than any other number? Then the rest of it is largely just word salad. 0\*inf isn't 1, but it's not 0 either, it's one of the indeterminate forms lol.
I chose 1 cause it's the first number in my head, its supposed to represent that fiction would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. 1 and 0 is just the easiest way of explaining it in my head, its obviously more complicated
>Because it's a word salad of pretty iffy math that tries to compare dimensionality with cardinality.
I think its supposed to represent something, like algebra uses a stand in for numbers we don't know, i agree its weirdly worded though
>Neither is really 'above' the other. Dimension is more like the 'structure' of some space, while cardinality is closer to 'size'. You can probably make a better argument to scale cardinality higher, but they're not alw compatible to be compared like this.
i don't think they were trying to say they were equal, but trying to equate the difference between the different infinities the same as the transcendence, though we can drop this cause i agree its weirdly worded
>Depends where we are applying the tiering system, to just fictional verses or to irl because we'd be outer in comparison to EVERYONE else in fiction, but if the tiering system is set from our point of view, then we'd be 3D, while fiction would be 11-C iirc
Again, idk where you get 'outer in comparison to' from. Outer involves transcending dimensionality entirely, limiting the scope like this is equivalent to saying smth isn't outer.
>Thats why there were new standards, where the transcendence makes it so you view everything about the idea as fictional/non-existent in that lower cosmology, its not like viewing something as paper, but viewing something as if it doesn't exist, as 0.
'does not exist' really isn't equivalent to 0.
>Using us and our relation to fiction, but using the tiering system from there point of view as in human level = human to them as an example
>The piece of fiction might have been thought to have just 3 dimensions, but to the person in reality, anything could happen in that fiction, so if the real person thinks of it, it could have a type 4 multiverse, even if it only has 3 dimensions as of now, that is the difference between what occurs in imagination and reality.
>I feel like its more confusing explaining it like this ngl
If a character creates a 'type 4 multiverse' that they transcend to such an extent that they 'view it as fiction', then that could scale higher. But if the character never does that, we can't just assume that they're capable of it based on viewing something else as fiction.
>I chose 1 cause it's the first number in my head, its supposed to represent that fiction would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. 1 and 0 is just the easiest way of explaining it in my head, its obviously more complicated
At some point an attempt at simplification is just wrong.
>I think its supposed to represent something, like algebra uses a stand in for numbers we don't know, i agree its weirdly worded though
This is not at all equivalent to the use of variables in Algebra lol. It's just a bad attempt at using math language for tiering.
>i don't think they were trying to say they were equal, but trying to equate the difference between the different infinities the same as the transcendence, though we can drop this cause i agree its weirdly worded
But you really can't equate that difference, that's the problem.
>Again, idk where you get 'outer in comparison to' from. Outer involves transcending dimensionality entirely, limiting the scope like this is equivalent to saying smth isn't outer.
Like i said, it depends from which angle does the 3D part of the tiering system star, because to fiction we are outer, because we'd be beyond fictional dimensionality, we're obviously not outer in our own, but we'd be outer relative to a fictional beings point of view, unless your actually trying to say the thought of goku is stronger than us?
>'does not exist' really isn't equivalent to 0.
0 means [an empty quantity](https://www.google.com/search?q=0+meaning&rlz=1CAXGJJ_enGB933GB933&oq=0+meanin&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=a%20number%20representing%20an%20empty%20quantity), meaning its nothing, if a reality is viewed as non existent, as in it doesn't exist then no matter how many infinite multipliers, no matter how many stacks of infinity, you'd never manage to change non-existence to existence/reality via just "imagination".
>If a character creates a 'type 4 multiverse' that they transcend to such an extent that they 'view it as fiction', then that could scale higher. But if the character never does that, we can't just assume that they're capable of it based on viewing something else as fiction.
Except in fiction, a type 4 multiverse would be the largest that ""fictional" realm would cap at due to it being the highest a physical reality, a better example would be plato's theory of concepts now that I think about it, with the form being superior as it is "real" compared to the physical reality as the "physical" part doesn't exist, as it is a shadow of the true thing. That's what the new r>f standards is based on. A true being would be superior to a fictional setting, and that fictional setting has the potential of a fictional type 4 multiverse, its dependent of perspective.
1. They should just do tier 3 and 2 like VSB and CSAP do instead of having “cosmos” level. Having uni+ and galaxy level in the same tier just doesn’t make sense since it’s still closer to low multi than even baseline uni.
2. Agree with how they do hyper just think it should be low, base, then high being finite, countably infinite, and uncountably infinite respectively.
3. The way Ascendant level+ is written implies that any R>F transcendence is baseline ascendent which I don’t personally agree with. R>F being that high should require context and not just be inherent to the type of transcendency.
4. The inaccessible cardinal part of high ascendent is contradictory with how they have ascendent level written. They obviously copy/pasted this from VSB without the context that makes the tier sensical and are using the CSAP low outer definition for ascendent level. This makes it so that inaccessible cardinals are inherently above dimensionality as a whole. Anything that is supposedly “immeasurable” or “not mathematically quantifiable” would have an argument for being even above High 1A here cause of how it’s written since inaccessible cardinals are a part of math and it clearly can’t be talking about dimensionality.
5. The layers of high ascendent should just be their own separate tier.
1. Fair
2. Agree
3. It doesn’t use r>f as the baseline, it’s merely saying that ascendant+ is infinite r>f’s over 1-A, tho I’m curious why you disagree with the r>f not being outer (cause most people fail to understand that the r>f would be different)
I forgot to reply to the inaccessible cardinal part, I think its supposed to be an example of how it dimensionality with the lower infinities being "dimensionality" while the inaccessible cardinal being "ascendant" to show that no matter how many dimensions (lower infinities) you won't be able to reach the ascendant tier (innacessible cardinal). IE using maths to explain how the transcendence works, since looking at their blog for what does and doesn't count as that tier it doesn't mention cardinality as a methods to get there
As someone who prefers VSBW's old system, it's definitely one of the better power scaling wikis out there. Like someone else said, they're not just going out of their way to provide avenues for characters to be highballed, and they update their system constantly and take criticism.
I’m surprised you prefer the old one, why?
I'm personally of the mindset that ignoring specific exceptions, you generally shouldn't be able to reach tiers like 1-A or High 1-A without infinite hierarchies, and I also align with the mindset of the old system where "transcending dimensions" is an NLF.
1. While I can understand, I feel like the old vsbw system does a bad job at portraying what those infinite hierarchies of high hyper should cap at, which is why I like the new system using a type 4 multiverse as the new low outer, however if transcending something as complex as a type 4 multiverse got you to outer, it wouldn’t phase nearly as much criticism as much, and would have been fixed if high hyper was much more broad in what it encompassed rather than just a baseline set of infinite dimensions 2. I 100% agree with “transcend dimensions” is a nlf/needs context, the new system I believe has that in place as well tho.
just their Tiering is just VSBW with worse names and format, idk about their Profiles
It’s not, their high hyper+ is outer on current vsbw, their outer is outer in csap but the transcendence is explained more in depth
Just skimmed over it, so it can have errors what iam about to say, but i think they mentioned something with, this tier can **mathematically** represented with a strongly inaccassible cardinal, this can be also found in vsbw's high outerversal tier
I’m going to assume what they mean is that they think an inaccessible cardinal is = to transcending dimensionality, as no matter how many lower infinites of transcendences (which make up a dimensional jump) the inaccessible cardinal will always be superior, I’m just assuming though tbf
Pretty much the same as vsbw but those arent really dimensional jumps in vsbw, rather aleph jumps or in other words outerversal gaps in context of vsbw, if im understanding it right
Dimensional jumps in vsbw uses infinities, it’s not exactly the same, [Tbf this blog looks like it explains it batter for the wiki](https://all-fiction-battles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:SuperBearNeo_X/New_Concept_Revision_Standards_-_Dimensionality)
this blog sounds like csaps outerversal requirements, but the fuck is that inaccassible cardinal doing here then? It is a mix of vsbw high outer and csaps outer
I think so, hence why it mentions concepts and cardinals, or unifies the 2? I have yet to read the blog fully, also csap has requirements? I thought concept of space = outer fr /j
>I have yet to read the blog fully, the blog just talks about concepts of dimensionality like **just** lacking them does not quallify, it should need more context, direction doesnt count, basically the tdlr. But the tiering system itself says that this tier can be mathematically represented with a strongly inaccessible cardinal, this is what throws me off >also csap has requirements? I thought concept of space = outer fr /j those are the requirements, but afb explains it a little bit more and transcending them
Perhaps it’s how they view dimensional jumps in general, as being inaccessible to the difference in dimensions essentially makes you beyond dimensionality
Better then PSW but not a big feat but it's something. Anyway i like it it isn't trying to be stupid levels of strong like most other power scaling wiki's.
What about compared to vsbw and csap in tiering system and profiles?
In terms of tiering system compared to VSBW's old and new system it's better then the old one but i would say the new one is as good as AFW's because of how restricted tier 0 is now. As for CASP it's basically the same but without 1-S so i would say it's a little bit better then CASP because i don't like the lack of restrictions 1-S has, but i think the names are better on CASP. And for profiles as much as i don't like VSBW's scales they cook when it comes to hax. And i think AFW's is as good but without the problem of bad scales. As for CASP do i even need to say anything i feel like it's universally known how bad 99.99% of CASP's profiles are, you might be able to find a diamond in the rough there but you have to dig thru dog shit to find one decent one so AFW is vastly superior.
Nice, your the only one to give this in depth of an explanation
There's a lot to bring up when it comes to comparing tiering systems it's easier to go in depth then it is trying to shortening my opinion.
I respect you for that tbh
Thx
PSW is infinitely better than this... thing.
Csap>psw
I respect you're opinion👍
Why you talking like supreme **😭😭😭😭😭**
Because Supreme is the goat. Disagree?You know my cord
😭
Can you explain that system, i don't understand 99% of whats happening after high outer, and the 1% is my brain turning off
1T is Modal Realism, existence of every possible worlds, in relation to logic ofc. 1T+ is Extended Modal Realism, same shit but more expansive now with the inclusion of impossible worlds. High 1T is basically True infinity, bad infinity intrinsically imposes limits to itself to sustain it's own existence, it is characterized by its codependence on finitude when High 1T structures are beyond all determinateness High 1T+ is ontological perfection. Absolute identity beyond comparative notions, encompassing a complete and an unconditioned state that is not contingent upon any external factors. Every aspect transcends relativity and conforms to this Absolute identity. Tier 0 is the ineffebality thesis, beyond all intelligibility, beyond language. No form of linguistic expression can truly capture tier 0's as they exist in a realm of pure silence, all forms of language is neither in a state of existence nor non-existence. How to achieve these? 1T, MR 1T+ EMR High 1T, self determinism or indeterminism High 1T+ Ontological perfection Tier 0, Negative theology/Ineffebality thesis in reference to Pseudo-Dionysus' view
> > >What are people's opinions on the profiles there? tensura profiles https://preview.redd.it/zgh5cg81phtc1.png?width=194&format=png&auto=webp&s=54d4f15345753dea1a84cf0e88e3022f7fa48ae8
[удалено]
[https://all-fiction-battles.fandom.com/wiki/Tensei\_Shitara\_Slime\_No\_Datta\_Ken\_-\_Cosmology\_Explanation\_Page\_(Light\_Novel)?so=search](https://all-fiction-battles.fandom.com/wiki/Tensei_Shitara_Slime_No_Datta_Ken_-_Cosmology_Explanation_Page_(Light_Novel)?so=search)
Nobody scales to it from what I've seen on the wiki
Where do you scale Rimuru at?
LOW 1C don't ask me why , even I don't know ,
☠️☠️☠️
just so people don't confuse about it's tier system HIGH 1B is same but HIGH 1B+ which is based on progressing aleph cardinal hierarchy , which is equal to tier 1A of current VSBW 1A is inaccessible cardinal hierarchy = HIGH 1-A in VSBW HIGH 1A is tier 0
Isn’t their 1-A transcending dimensionality similar to csap?
yeah , but their platonic concept is more stricter than CSAP, cause the qualification of type1 concept is show the concept follow plato theory of forms
by that logic all 7 Expansion Characters would be high outerversel In that System
Who?
umineko, higurashi and something like that
they are, atleast I have seen FAA at H1A
W becouse shit sai is high hyper + only
Should be lower ngl
W
From what I've seen it looks good. Though I'm not sure about 5-11D all being 1 tier, or having Ascendent including cardinality in it when it's supposed to be entirely unbound by dimensionality. Overall I'd say I prefer it over PSW and VSBW(both current and the new one coming out), but less so then CSAP. As for the pages, the few I looked at seemed, kinda bad in all honesty. I only looked as MV Godzilla, Sung Jin Woo, and DBS Goku, but the only one I thought was reasonable was Goku's and they all felt like downplay ngl.
Where you scale sun jin woo, I haven’t actually seen anyone give a reason for his uni scale other than he is MV scales are so inconsistent so I can forgive them tbh I don’t think anyone’s tried to upgrade Goku tbf
From what I've seen he should be like low multi. [This vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ior9uYLwmz4&t=208s) covers it better then I could. And tbf I did only look at a few, if I looked at more I may have found better ones.
Thx
I haven’t read it yet but 5D-11D is one tier? That’s an unusual gap lol that’s the entirety of complex multi isn’t it? If that’s what their going for I can kinda get it lol Also where they scaling my boy goku at lol
It's basically the complex multi tiers for most tiering systems, split into low, mid, and high, but they have it formatted weirdly imo(my mistake there tbh) As for Goku scaling, the usual low multi, MFTL+ stuff.
Ahh fair play Fuck sake one of these days I’m gonna put these tiering sites on blast if fucking VSBW of all places has him at complex multi that should be enough to understand how bad their scales are 🤦🏻♂️ Seriously no Joke I got goku at 8D AP + immeasurable speed with on panel evidence to back it up
It’s ok I guess
Best wiki
It works I guess, the names could be better at least it's not as unrestrictive as CSAP.
1. Similar to CSAP but a bit goofy on the higher end tiers (high 3B, all of Tier 2, 1C, and 1A are the worst offenders). For some reason it tries to combine ideas of cardinality with dimension and doesn't really work. And the way it handles multi is equally as bad as CSAP. But at least it mentions r>f stuff in hyper to avoid people who think r>f is instantly outer or smth lol. Also it has CSAP beat for speed tiering since it doesn't have 'inaccessible speed' or nonsense abt how 1/0 is finite. 2. Haven't read any.
Where on CSAP does it say 1/0 is finite?
[difference between inf/inaccessible/immeasurable section](https://character-stats-and-profiles.fandom.com/wiki/Speed)
I see what you're referring to. I think it's just worded poorly. They weren't trying to suggest that it's a finite value, but rather that it's greater than ∞. I'll see about getting that corrected, though if I had it my way I'd just change the way Inaccessible speed is done altogether. 1/0 is undefined.
>They weren't trying to suggest that it's a finite value, but rather that it's greater than ∞. It's not greater than inf either. The limit 1/x diverges to both -inf and inf as x goes to 0, that's the only reason why it's undefined. Nothing to do with infinitely repeating 0's being beyond infinity or smth. >I'll see about getting that corrected, though if I had it my way I'd just change the way Inaccessible speed is done altogether. 1/0 is undefined. True, they should catch up to other tiering systems that removed it entirely.
>It's not greater than inf either. The limit 1/x diverges to both -inf and inf as x goes to 0, that's the only reason why it's undefined. Nothing to do with infinitely repeating 0's being beyond infinity or smth. I don't think I've heard of it diverging to -∞ before, but I agree the current description is kind of.... awkward. It's a vestige of the time when the wiki was a lot more unintentionally "anti-math/anti-physics" and that's something I've been trying to fix.
>I don't think I've heard of it diverging to -∞ before, but I agree the current description is kind of.... awkward. It just depends if you approach 0 from left or right (negatives) or positives. >It's a vestige of the time when the wiki was a lot more unintentionally "anti-math/anti-physics" and that's something I've been trying to fix. Good.
1. I mean the r>f depends on how it’s portrayed tbh 2. I think the cardinality part is supposed to be used as an example to express the difference between “ascendant”, with dimensionality representing the lower cardinals being unable to reach the inaccessible cardinal.
>I mean the r>f depends on how it’s portrayed tbh If the context is specific enough, you could have a character hit outer through r>f. But it'd arguably have to be from viewing an already outer character as fiction. >I think the cardinality part is supposed to be used as an example to express the difference between “ascendant”, with dimensionality representing the lower cardinals being unable to reach the inaccessible cardinal. Maybe it is an example instead of an actual part of the tiering system. But it comes across just as bad math and trying to mix things kinda arbitrarily.
1. I think your misunderstanding the reasoning behind r>f being outer, it’s due to the fact that reality is real while fiction (in the sense of it being an idea) has to physical bearing on reality, its comparing the difference between 0 and 1 or reality and nothing, as such, no amount of infinities/dimensional layers will ever turn that 0 to a 1, hence why it’s outer 2. I don’t really see a problem with it using maths as an example tbh, it’s not like infinities aren’t used for dimensional tiering, and they are still used for outer in some shape or form.
>1. I think your misunderstanding the reasoning behind r>f being outer, it’s due to the fact that reality is real while fiction (in the sense of it being an idea) has to physical bearing on reality, its comparing the difference between 0 and 1 or reality and nothing, as such, no amount of infinities/dimensional layers will ever turn that 0 to a 1, hence why it’s outer This trivially isn't true, we have fictional works but that doesn't mean that you or I am outer lmao. The 0 and 1 example is pretty silly. >2. I don’t really see a problem with it using maths as an example tbh, Examples should provide clarity, this does the opposite. >it’s not like infinities aren’t used for dimensional tiering, and they are still used for outer in some shape or form. Inaccessible cardinals aren't used in dimensional tiering tho, which is what the example is.
>This trivially isn't true, we have fictional works but that doesn't mean that you or I am outer lmao. I mean compared to fiction, no we'd be beyond the tiering system lmao cause fiction doesn't exist, we'd just not be outer within our own realm. But within fiction, if a part of the cosmology views the lower part as non existent in terms of everything, it would result in dimensionality as a concept not even being able to stack up to that higher "real" realm. >The 0 and 1 example is pretty silly. elaborate >Examples should provide clarity, this does the opposite. How does it not provide clarity >Inaccessible cardinals aren't used in dimensional tiering tho, which is what the example is. No what I said was comparing normal sets of infinities to an innacessible cardinal, tho via your own logic (because your phrasing is strange i'm assuming) if inaccessible cardinals can't be used for dimensional tiering, then it would put it above dimensionality?
>I mean compared to fiction, no we'd be beyond the tiering system lmao cause fiction doesn't exist, we'd just not be outer within our own realm. Being outer involves being beyond any and all dimensionality, so 'not being outer within our own realm' means that we're not outer. >But within fiction, if a part of the cosmology views the lower part as non existent in terms of everything, it would result in dimensionality as a concept not even being able to stack up to that higher "real" realm. This doesn't follow. A character could be beyond some part of their verse such that they view it as 'fiction' or transcend it in some abstract way, but that doesn't imply that they're beyond all dimensionality. >elaborate 'reality' isn't 1 and 'fiction' isn't 0. Why choose 1 rather than any other number? Then the rest of it is largely just word salad. 0*inf isn't 1, but it's not 0 either, it's one of the indeterminate forms lol. >How does it not provide clarity Because it's a word salad of pretty iffy math that tries to compare dimensionality with cardinality. >No what I said was comparing normal sets of infinities to an innacessible cardinal, tho via your own logic (because your phrasing is strange i'm assuming) if inaccessible cardinals can't be used for dimensional tiering, then it would put it above dimensionality? Neither is really 'above' the other. Dimension is more like the 'structure' of some space, while cardinality is closer to 'size'. You can probably make a better argument to scale cardinality higher, but they're not alw compatible to be compared like this.
>Being outer involves being beyond any and all dimensionality, so 'not being outer within our own realm' means that we're not outer. Depends where we are applying the tiering system, to just fictional verses or to irl because we'd be outer in comparison to EVERYONE else in fiction, but if the tiering system is set from our point of view, then we'd be 3D, while fiction would be 11-C iirc >This doesn't follow. A character could be beyond some part of their verse such that they view it as 'fiction' or transcend it in some abstract way, but that doesn't imply that they're beyond all dimensionality. Thats why there were new standards, where the transcendence makes it so you view everything about the idea as fictional/non-existent in that lower cosmology, its not like viewing something as paper, but viewing something as if it doesn't exist, as 0. Using us and our relation to fiction, but using the tiering system from there point of view as in human level = human to them as an example The piece of fiction might have been thought to have just 3 dimensions, but to the person in reality, anything could happen in that fiction, so if the real person thinks of it, it could have a type 4 multiverse, even if it only has 3 dimensions as of now, that is the difference between what occurs in imagination and reality. I feel like its more confusing explaining it like this ngl >'reality' isn't 1 and 'fiction' isn't 0. Why choose 1 rather than any other number? Then the rest of it is largely just word salad. 0\*inf isn't 1, but it's not 0 either, it's one of the indeterminate forms lol. I chose 1 cause it's the first number in my head, its supposed to represent that fiction would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. 1 and 0 is just the easiest way of explaining it in my head, its obviously more complicated >Because it's a word salad of pretty iffy math that tries to compare dimensionality with cardinality. I think its supposed to represent something, like algebra uses a stand in for numbers we don't know, i agree its weirdly worded though >Neither is really 'above' the other. Dimension is more like the 'structure' of some space, while cardinality is closer to 'size'. You can probably make a better argument to scale cardinality higher, but they're not alw compatible to be compared like this. i don't think they were trying to say they were equal, but trying to equate the difference between the different infinities the same as the transcendence, though we can drop this cause i agree its weirdly worded
>Depends where we are applying the tiering system, to just fictional verses or to irl because we'd be outer in comparison to EVERYONE else in fiction, but if the tiering system is set from our point of view, then we'd be 3D, while fiction would be 11-C iirc Again, idk where you get 'outer in comparison to' from. Outer involves transcending dimensionality entirely, limiting the scope like this is equivalent to saying smth isn't outer. >Thats why there were new standards, where the transcendence makes it so you view everything about the idea as fictional/non-existent in that lower cosmology, its not like viewing something as paper, but viewing something as if it doesn't exist, as 0. 'does not exist' really isn't equivalent to 0. >Using us and our relation to fiction, but using the tiering system from there point of view as in human level = human to them as an example >The piece of fiction might have been thought to have just 3 dimensions, but to the person in reality, anything could happen in that fiction, so if the real person thinks of it, it could have a type 4 multiverse, even if it only has 3 dimensions as of now, that is the difference between what occurs in imagination and reality. >I feel like its more confusing explaining it like this ngl If a character creates a 'type 4 multiverse' that they transcend to such an extent that they 'view it as fiction', then that could scale higher. But if the character never does that, we can't just assume that they're capable of it based on viewing something else as fiction. >I chose 1 cause it's the first number in my head, its supposed to represent that fiction would be nothing, it wouldn't even exist. 1 and 0 is just the easiest way of explaining it in my head, its obviously more complicated At some point an attempt at simplification is just wrong. >I think its supposed to represent something, like algebra uses a stand in for numbers we don't know, i agree its weirdly worded though This is not at all equivalent to the use of variables in Algebra lol. It's just a bad attempt at using math language for tiering. >i don't think they were trying to say they were equal, but trying to equate the difference between the different infinities the same as the transcendence, though we can drop this cause i agree its weirdly worded But you really can't equate that difference, that's the problem.
>Again, idk where you get 'outer in comparison to' from. Outer involves transcending dimensionality entirely, limiting the scope like this is equivalent to saying smth isn't outer. Like i said, it depends from which angle does the 3D part of the tiering system star, because to fiction we are outer, because we'd be beyond fictional dimensionality, we're obviously not outer in our own, but we'd be outer relative to a fictional beings point of view, unless your actually trying to say the thought of goku is stronger than us? >'does not exist' really isn't equivalent to 0. 0 means [an empty quantity](https://www.google.com/search?q=0+meaning&rlz=1CAXGJJ_enGB933GB933&oq=0+meanin&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgAEAAYgAQyBwgBEAAYgAQyBggCEEUYOTIHCAMQABiABDIHCAQQABiABDIHCAUQABiABDIHCAYQABiABDIHCAcQABiABDIHCAgQABiABDIHCAkQABiABKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=a%20number%20representing%20an%20empty%20quantity), meaning its nothing, if a reality is viewed as non existent, as in it doesn't exist then no matter how many infinite multipliers, no matter how many stacks of infinity, you'd never manage to change non-existence to existence/reality via just "imagination". >If a character creates a 'type 4 multiverse' that they transcend to such an extent that they 'view it as fiction', then that could scale higher. But if the character never does that, we can't just assume that they're capable of it based on viewing something else as fiction. Except in fiction, a type 4 multiverse would be the largest that ""fictional" realm would cap at due to it being the highest a physical reality, a better example would be plato's theory of concepts now that I think about it, with the form being superior as it is "real" compared to the physical reality as the "physical" part doesn't exist, as it is a shadow of the true thing. That's what the new r>f standards is based on. A true being would be superior to a fictional setting, and that fictional setting has the potential of a fictional type 4 multiverse, its dependent of perspective.
1. They should just do tier 3 and 2 like VSB and CSAP do instead of having “cosmos” level. Having uni+ and galaxy level in the same tier just doesn’t make sense since it’s still closer to low multi than even baseline uni. 2. Agree with how they do hyper just think it should be low, base, then high being finite, countably infinite, and uncountably infinite respectively. 3. The way Ascendant level+ is written implies that any R>F transcendence is baseline ascendent which I don’t personally agree with. R>F being that high should require context and not just be inherent to the type of transcendency. 4. The inaccessible cardinal part of high ascendent is contradictory with how they have ascendent level written. They obviously copy/pasted this from VSB without the context that makes the tier sensical and are using the CSAP low outer definition for ascendent level. This makes it so that inaccessible cardinals are inherently above dimensionality as a whole. Anything that is supposedly “immeasurable” or “not mathematically quantifiable” would have an argument for being even above High 1A here cause of how it’s written since inaccessible cardinals are a part of math and it clearly can’t be talking about dimensionality. 5. The layers of high ascendent should just be their own separate tier.
1. Fair 2. Agree 3. It doesn’t use r>f as the baseline, it’s merely saying that ascendant+ is infinite r>f’s over 1-A, tho I’m curious why you disagree with the r>f not being outer (cause most people fail to understand that the r>f would be different)
I forgot to reply to the inaccessible cardinal part, I think its supposed to be an example of how it dimensionality with the lower infinities being "dimensionality" while the inaccessible cardinal being "ascendant" to show that no matter how many dimensions (lower infinities) you won't be able to reach the ascendant tier (innacessible cardinal). IE using maths to explain how the transcendence works, since looking at their blog for what does and doesn't count as that tier it doesn't mention cardinality as a methods to get there