Standards For Tiers

== Standards For Tiering ==
=== This page contains additional information on the tiering system. ===
== Transcendent+ #1 ==
To qualify as being above logic, it's not sufficient to simply state that characters are unbound from logic; it must be thoroughly explained what it means for them to be above logic and consistently demonstrated. Furthermore, these characters should have high-level feats corresponding to this tier, accompanied by proper context. Only then can the characters truly qualify for this classification. 
== Transcendent #2 ==
Merely claiming that character X is beyond all possibilities isn't sufficient evidence to support their classification as the Transcendent tier. It's essential to specify which possibilities the character transcends. Scientific and nomological possibilities are distinct from logical possibilities, with the latter encompassing all possibilities from the two examples and even more possibilities on a grander scale, corresponding to possible worlds as long as they adhere to the laws of thought.
== Outerversal #3 ==
Merely asserting that character X exists beyond all concepts of space and time isn't substantial enough evidence to justify their placement in this specific tier. To establish their status as 1-A, it's imperative to delve deeply into the mechanics of the verse and thoroughly explain how these concepts operate, particularly if they resemble universals or forms.
The elements that should serve as supporting evidence for transcending these concepts, thereby guaranteeing a 1-A classification, are as follows:
* Abstract Nature: Firstly, character X must exhibit abstract characteristics. Their existence should transcend concrete, material constraints, indicating a level of abstraction beyond conventional comprehension.
* Relation to Universals: Properties of the material world within the verse should exemplify that they are derived from or are integral parts of these concepts. Universals, akin to fundamental principles or essences, should exist on a similar scale to one another. For instance, if we consider the universal property of "dimension-ness," everything within the verse containing this property, regardless of dimensional limitations, should contribute to character X's transcendence over these concepts and validate their classification as 1-A.
* Transcendence and Formlessness: In the case of platonic realism universals, the criteria become more intricate. They should transcend conventional limitations and be purely formless and immaterial—existing beyond the constraints of space and time. Applying proof by contradiction, it becomes evident that they cannot adhere to conventional dimensional categorizations.
In essence, the justification for character X's placement in the Transcendent tier hinges on a detailed exploration of the verse's conceptual framework, with careful consideration given to the abstract nature of their existence, their relation to universals and forms, and their transcendence over conventional dimensional categorizations.
== High Outerversal #4 ==
Simply existing beyond mathematics is not sufficient for any character to reach the high 1-A tier. The extent to which mathematics exists must be specified, taking into account the epistemic limits of characters. Therefore, further context is required.
A scenario where such statements could qualify a character for high 1-A is when they are posited to exist beyond any extension of quantitative infinity, including formalized infinity mathematics or numerical infinity. For every infinity proposed to exist, the character would transcend it, remaining unreachable from any infinity x and any infinity P(x), including any infinity constructed through recursion, which even the large cardinals are not exempt from.
In this scenario, regardless of the extent to which mathematics exists epistemically or the extent to which mathematical objects exist, the character would be classified as high 1-A. Their transcendence over all forms of mathematical infinity would solidify their status as beyond conventional numerical categorizations.
== Conceptual Manipulation #5 ==
Is it necessarily required that forms be postulated directly for CM (Type 1)? 
To begin this, I'll be introducing ways to qualify for CM (Type 1), inasmuch as positing the existence of something akin to forms or the Divine Nous in any given franchise and qualifying (somewhat) for High 1-T+ through unity with some degree of Godhead, it is required that.
The given principle ought to be the second principle, which emanates directly from the first principle (in this case a Tier 0 force), it is should not be possible that there persist any principle or level in between the Tier 0 entity and this Divine Nous-like place.
Furthermore, it is important that this second principle be where the all potentiality of all phenomena is stored, insofar as it is an eternal actuality, from which everything participates in the likeness of. To give a simpler example, think of a level of reality where there exist eternal, perfect and unchangeable information, in which any reality not prior to or itself participates in the likeness of; the consequence of this being that.
it contains all knowledge and knowledge arises from within it, everything is then, predetermined from this level of reality as it is conforms to noetic simplicity; this should be obvious as containing perfect knowledge requires that the world be deterministic or complete within a given level of reality, in here is wherein everything exist in a more real and complete sense.
Even when ideas are many, they are many inasmuch as them standing in relation to the particulars that participate under it, not in-of-itself. It is perfect unified multiplicity or perfect unified plurality, but because it is restricted to the distinction between subject-object and thinking-subject and object of thought, it doesn't hold simplicity on par with that of hyper-noetic simplicity or perfect simplicity that is of the first principle (a Tier 0 force).
As such it is not necessary for the verse to directly call these ideas forms or anything of that sort, so while it is important for a Nous-like place to be postulated, as long as it has sufficient parallels to the Nous itself, its fine. 
== Aperion #6 ==
Simply being described as existing beyond everything or being omnipotent is insufficient to reach tier 0. The term "omnipotence" is ambiguous and can vary depending on the ontological framework applied to the concept of a deity or supreme being. Some interpretations of omnipotence focus solely on ontological perfection without referencing the ineffability thesis, while others encompass a broader scope of power and authority.
Without proper context, such statements lack meaningful significance and may only pertain to the internal mechanics of the character's own verse or to the extent of the metaphysical constructs within that specific narrative framework. Therefore, if character X is merely stated to be beyond everything without detailed context, their classification will default to a lower tier, such as 5th-dimensional, especially if the verse's extent is limited to 4th-dimensional metaphysics.
To illustrate this further, let's consider the concept of omnipotence within different philosophical and theological traditions. In some philosophical discourses, omnipotence is defined as the ability to actualize any logically possible state of affairs. However, this definition is subject to limitations imposed by the laws of logic and does not necessarily entail transcending all conceivable realities.
Additionally, within theological discussions, the concept of omnipotence may be intertwined with other attributes of divinity, such as omniscience and omnibenevolence. The nuances of these attributes and their interactions within the theological framework can significantly impact the interpretation of omnipotence.
Therefore, to elevate character X to tier 0, it would require detailed exposition and contextualization within the narrative, elucidating the extent of their power and transcendence beyond not just the confines of their own verse, but beyond all conceivable realities. Without such comprehensive context, their classification would remain at a lower tier, determined by the parameters and limitations of the verse itself.
== Aperion #7 ==
However, to qualify for Tier 0, characters must satisfy all elements of negative theology with adequate inverse explanation. These elements include:
* Supremacy within the Verse: Achieving Tier 0 isn't strictly contingent upon being the strongest character in the narrative, but it can bolster a character's credibility for this tier. However, this aspect requires nuanced examination on a case-by-case basis. It's crucial to analyze how the character's supremacy is depicted within the story and whether it aligns with the overarching power dynamics and themes of the verse. Additionally, if a character's portrayal as the strongest contradicts their depiction as unknowable and transcendent, it can pose a challenge. Resolving such conflicts demands thorough explanation and consistency to maintain narrative integrity.
* Unknowable, Incomprehensible, and Inconceivable Nature: Characters must be described as unknowable, incomprehensible, and inconceivable by any measures, not solely in reference to the epistemic limits of characters within the verse, but in a general sense. It should be inherent to their nature rather than a result of the limits in knowledge of characters inferior to them. The ineffability thesis serves as an inverse explanation of their divine ineffability, asserting that P ∈ P, not(F(P)), and not(F(not-P)). This thesis suggests that to approach divinity, one must remain silent, as nothing about the Godhead can be asserted that doesn't describe something that is not God and something lesser than God.
* Predicated from Transcendent Nature: Lastly, A character's incomprehensibility, inconceivability, and transcendence should stem from their inherent nature as transcendent beings. These attributes shouldn't be superficial traits but should emanate from the character's fundamental qualities that surpass the conventional notions of existence and transcendence. It's imperative to explore the origins and implications of the character's transcendent nature within the narrative, including their relationship to the fundamental principles of the universe and their role in shaping reality. Thorough exposition and contextualization are essential to establish the character's transcendence as a fundamental aspect of their identity, rooted in the deeper philosophical and metaphysical themes of the narrative.
Furthermore being ineffable is hardly the main requirement to be Tier 0, it is possible to be ineffable and conform to noetic simplicity and it is possible to be ineffable without even conforming to noetic simplicity. Undifferentiation is the main requirement alongside emanationism, because it is possible to be ineffable and conform to noetic simplicity (an example being the Absolutus), Tier 0 is not merely reducible to mere ineffability, Tier 0 is only reducible to irreducibility. For it is purely distinctionless.
A level of simplicity recognized by philosophers as the strongest conceivable level of divine simplicity as a taught by Pseudo-Dionysius and Plotinus, in such a model the Godhead is purely unspeakable and unthinkable for if the godhead was capable of being thought, the godhead would be reducible to the distinction between subject and object, hindering the godhead from being purely distinctionless.
As such it is not that the godhead is Ineffable therefore the godhead is undifferentiated, it is that the godhead is absolutely Undifferentiated therefore the godhead is Ineffable.
In summary, achieving Tier 0 requires characters to embody the principles of negative theology with thorough explanation and contextualization within the narrative framework. They must exhibit qualities of unknowability, incomprehensibility, and inconceivability as inherent aspects of their transcendent nature, supported by adequate inverse explanation and consistency within the verse.
== On Transcending Laws of Thought #8 ==
Transcending the laws of thought alone isn't sufficient evidence to support Tier 1-T or higher classifications. While it may suggest a departure from conventional logic, its implications may not necessarily scale to significantly higher tiers. This is particularly evident in the realm of quantum theory, where entities lacking identities already exist within our material world. In quantum mechanics, the principle of identity, represented by ⊤(x) ⇒ x or ∀ x(x=x), is practically trivial. Atomic formulas like a=b, where a and b are terms of just one of two species, are deemed indistinguishable and devoid of identity according to Schrödinger's logics. Such properties are characteristic of the microworld, encompassing macroscopic objects like elementary particles.
Moreover, it's plausible that the character operates within a different logical system altogether, one that doesn't conform to the laws of classical logic familiar to us. This alternative system may introduce novel axioms or principles that redefine the nature of identity, truth, and logical inference. Without a comprehensive understanding of this alternative logical framework, it becomes challenging to assess the implications of transcending classical logic for tier classifications.
Therefore, while the notion of transcending the laws of thought presents intriguing possibilities, additional contextual information is necessary to determine its significance for tier classifications. Factors such as the character's adherence to alternative logical systems and the broader metaphysical implications of their transcendence must be thoroughly explored to make informed assessments of their tier placement. Only with a comprehensive understanding of these nuances can the true implications of transcending classical logic be properly evaluated within the context of tier classifications.
== Apeiron and Divine Simplicity ==
On the topic of noetic simplicity and hyper-noetic simplicity, noetic simplicity implies that there's no distinction in the mind, because the divine mind is formless (without matter) and the mind in itself despite being One-Many has no distinction between any two given ideas, for all those ideas as outlined above are only in multiplicity when they are thought of as standing in relation to particulars that participate in the likeness of them.
As such both High 1-T+ and Tier 0 are divinely simple with varying degrees of simplicity, whereby Tier 0 represents the greatest conceivable level of simplicity.
Category:Standards for tiering