Forum - Another Look at the Tiering System

This is a somewhat minor and at the same time major upgrade that as far as I can tell affects no one currently.

Currently this is what 2-A is defined as: "Multiverse level (Buster) ("2-A"): Characters who can destroy a multiverse falling under a countless or infinite amount of universes. This multiverse is of an undefined size. This is normally in cases with multiverse models falling under many-worlds interpretation, where every action and inaction creates a countless amount of timelines that are unable to be defined. To briefly explain the difference between destroying an infinite universe within a bubble and an infinite-sized multiverse, the expanse of spacetime and its contents is the outside of the bubble, thus for this tier, it would be destroying the infinite contents outside and inside the bubble. With the highest being a reality that is a Level IV Multiverse (also known as an ultimate ensemble), a system in which physical reality is a mathematical structure, and the totality of reality consists of all possible mathematical structures that can be conceived of, including any higher set of numbers. For more information about this, please read our multiverse page. Alternatively it can be a character that affects the World of Ideas, where every mathematical structure exists within, or a reality that falls under Pythagoreanism's philosophy of the mathēmatikoi, where in this belief, numbers are the heart of everything and are what constructed the cosmos. Please read Further 2-A+ Explanations for more information on the latter two requirements."

This is what 2-A+ is currently defined as: "Multiverse level+ (Buster) ("2-A+"): As the limit of the multiverse is infinite, this is where a multiverse delves into the higher infinities, at these levels infinity is larger then the first countable infinity, being unable to be properly described. By equating infinite this to a set, we can represent it as aleph null, with a multiverse the size of this or larger equating to this tier. For more information on set theory, please watch this excellent video on the subject by Vsauce. Higher levels of this tier deals with inaccessible cardinals. The multiverse that exists on such a scale that their existence cannot be reached by using set replacement. Using set theory, we can equate this level to inaccessible cardinals. Multiverse level+ (Potency) ("2-A+"): Those who can harm characters with Multiverse level+ durability."

Now I've already somewhat changed around higher infinites in regards to tiering as saying they're inherently greater is not a fully accurate statement, their case is more relevant to Cardinality, so I think 2-A+ should be reserved solely for anything related to being an infinite-sized plane/object.

Reason? Let's talk about a true infinite universe vs a true infinite multiverse. There is realistically no difference in actuality between the two, in theory an infinite universe can provide the exact same effect as a multiverse down to parallel events of the same beings, there's even some fictions that have cosmologies like this.

The excuse we went with for the longest was that objects followed the Gabriel's horn model where there's an infinite amount of surface area but finite volume. The issue is this is a debated paradox that tries different mathematical models to prove and as we already don't assume an author is thinking of such models without stating so, it would be weird to just randomly assume. The other point that on our Multiverse page we use primarily Max Tegmark's multiverse model, which has level 1 multiverses as space-time bubbles. In these cases, one could argue the space-time bubbles contain infinite surface area within it but the volume is finite. The problem: This is assuming an author is using Max Tegmark's model.

Our Multiverse page in actuality has for a long time not primarily followed Max Tegmark's model for a while, it just uses it as an example for Multiverse models. In reality there's no true primary multiverse model used in fiction.

With this in mind, the issue falls that we assume by default that something must follow a model and not just the author's own idea of a multiverse, which is a sum of universes in pretty much 90% of fictions. So instead the requirement now should be that mention should exist for a specific model. This applies to universes too, it's just our Universe page follows no specific model.

This is all to say, while Gabriel's horn is a decent reconciliation, it's not one that is really intended for most cases. If an author is saying a universe is truly infinite in size and there's nothing getting in the way of that statement, then it shouldn't be any different from an infinite multiverse, an infinite multiverse of multiverses, an infinite multiverse of multiverses of multiverses, and so on. Because infinity doesn't get higher.

Now one may point to the higher levels of infinity, but the way none of these infinite multiverse statements are assumed to be a higher level of infinity.

So basically I propose 2-A can keep it's definition but remove infinite from it and 2-A+ deals purely with infinite, not just the higher levels of infinity. While I don't really like the idea of someone having "Multiverse level+" on their rating for destroying an infinite universe, it is the most logical place for it to be.

Though as this is The Codex, you know we have some caveats with this.

For one, a universe being called "infinite" needs further context to it. Our universe is normally called "infinite" and this is has caused a conundrum on what that term means. With some theories viewing the universe as truly finite but it's borderless effectively making it mimic an infinite universe. The definition we're looking for is an infinite universe that is literally forever with no end or beginning. For reference this is an immensely gross simplification of these models as trying to get more technical and into it would get confusing. But basically there needs to be actual proof the universe is truly infinite in the definition of an infinite sized universe with no end or beginning.

An example of this would be a static universe, this is a universe model where space is completely infinite and eternal, neither expanding nor contracting.

An example against this would be models like Einstein's where he had a "static eternal universe" where it is infinite in terms of temporal but finite in terms of spatial. This effectively means too proving that time is truly infinite or eternal would not prove an infinite universe without proof that the space itself is infinite too.

Obviously if there is a corner, edge, or center to the universe then it is not truly infinite. There can be cases to save this if it's specifically for the observable universe and the true universe is infinite with no corners or edges, but this needs to be specified in the fiction.

Overall this all of this yapping is for a change that effectively affects no page currently on the wiki but still is an important change. Though I suppose I should mention an extra thing: "What if someone has infinite attack, infinite energy, etcetera?" Infinite energy or infinite power is normally reserved to the idea that a character can endlessly grow with no limits so they could eventually after an infinite amount of time reach infinite, though for cases like someone being noted to have infinite attack or defense, it could be trickier, though there is a technical way to solve this. If the character in question has this and one would wish to apply it to tiering then they would need to fully follow this. In that case, they can never get tired, they cannot be harmed, they cannot be overpowered, etcetera. This would be in mind since if one wishes to try and apply the "logically they should be X if Y" then X needs to be sufficiently proven to follow its own model.

No TL;DR for this as all parts are pretty important.