Standards For Tiers

## **Note 1: (Transcendent+)**

Being said to be above logic or unbound from logic isn't enough to reach this tier, it has to be thoroughly explained as to what it means for the characters to be above logic and consistently demonstrated, furthermore, the characters should have high levels of feats corresponding to the high tier itself with proper context is then when the character can qualify.

## **Note 2: (Transcendent)**

Being beyond all possibilities is not nearly enough to act as supporting evidence for character X being the Transcendent tier, it has to be specified what possibilities the character transcends, scientific and nomological possibilities alike are distinct from logical possibilities, and the latter encompasses all possibilities from the two examples and even more possibilities on a grander scale which corresponds possible worlds as long as the possibilities are logical possibilities and don't violate the laws of thought.

## **Note 3: (Outerversal)**

Existing beyond all concepts of space and time isn't nearly enough to act as supporting evidence for character X being in this set tier, it has to be thoroughly explained in the verse as to how concepts function if they are similar to universals or forms it is then that such statements can act as supporting evidence for 1-A

The elements that should act as supporting evidence for transcendence over those concepts guaranteeing 1-A is as follows:

-*They should be abstract.*

-*Properties of the material world should exemplify they are parts from those concepts in which the universals would be on a similar scale to each other themselves, and you take the universal containing hypothetically the property of "dimension-ness" then everything that contains the property of dimension-ness which is everything below 1-A regardless of the verses limits in dimensions can act as supporting evidence for transcendence over those concepts being 1-A.*

-*For forms, it is simpler the same justifications used for universals works but there's more they are transcendent and purely formless/immaterial (aspatial and atemporal) applying proof by contradiction it can neither be 5-dimensional because it is aspatial and atemporal, but it can't be below dimensionality because it is transcendent thus proof of contradiction satisfies them being 1-A at the very least.*

## **Note 4: (High Outerversal)**

Simply existing beyond mathematics is not nearly enough for any character to reach high 1-A, the extent to which mathematics exists should be specified as the epistemic limits of characters should be taken into consideration thus further context is required.

A typical example of those statements being enough to be high 1-A is such that when the characters are posited to exist beyond any extension of quantitative infinity (formalized infinity mathematics or numerical infinity) for every infinity that's posited to exist the character would exist beyond being somewhat unreachable from any infinity x and any infinity P(x), any infinity constructed through recursion which not even the large cardinals are exempt from this rule.

It is then that regardless of to what extent mathematics exists epistemically and to what extent mathematical objects exist the character would be high 1-A regardless.

## **Note 5: (High Outerversal)**

Existing beyond all extensions of space-time with proper context would be enough to reach the highest extent of high 1-A as dimensions can theoretically be mapped into even greater infinities such as large cardinals.

**Example:**

Hilbert axioms which are the basis for modern Euclidean spaces is axiomatized geometrical systems (intrinsically a subset of formal logic)

Euclidean geometry is also an axiomatized system and attempts to organize set propositions into a logical system, intrinsically making it a subset of formal logic as well. Ergo if we had all possible spaces that can be reducible to Euclidean vector spaces, they are intrinsically subsets of logic.

Suppose we have some arbitrary elementary embedding, let's use the measurable cardinal one:

A cardinal κ is measurable if there is an elementary embedding i: *V → M* into a well-founded model *M* with critical point κ, that is, such that i*(κ) > κ*, but i*(ν) = ν* for all *ν < κ*. The normal ultrafilter, or measure, associated with this embedding is U = { *x ⊆ κ : κ ∈ j(x)* }. The measure U in turn leads to an embedding via the ultrapower construction, iU : *V → Ult(V, U)*.

M is the inner model of the Von Nuemans universe and there exists a function called an elementary embedding that plays a role of taking properties of V and maps them to a specific inner model M. Inner models satisfy properties of large cardinals as they are and are constructed to be mirror aspects of the larger universe of sets.

In second-order logic M is a variable that exists as a specific mathematical structure in this case a set in the Von Nuemans universe. We can analogously treat M as a vector space as vector spaces in vector calculus are treated as sets as well.

Now we have a hypothetical of large cardinal vector spaces since large cardinals are part of conventional formalism. They are intrinsically subsets of mathematics and logic alike.

It follows if for any vector space x even large cardinal vector spaces, it is intrinsically a subset of mathematics and ergo mathematics. Logical spaces for example are ensembles of logical possibilities that contain these set mathematical structures.

However, if the verse doesn't contain any spatial dimensions that are at least mapped to one large cardinal such statements would only be automatically defaulted to 1-A. it requires further context for them being defaulted there as well.

## **Note 6: (Aperion)**

Existing beyond everything or being omnipotent is not nearly enough to reach tier 0, as omnipotence is an ambiguous term posited by utilizing different ontological statuses for God; some of which don't reference the ineffability thesis and more so just ontological perfection. As such these statements without proper context don't mean anything and can sometimes only refer to things about their own verse or to the extent of the metaphysics that exists in the verse itself hence if character X is said to be beyond everything without proper context it will only be defaulted to 5th-dimensional if the verses extent is 4th-dimensional.

## **Note 7: (Aperion)**

Being said to be unknowable, incomprehensible, and inconceivable is not nearly enough to be tier 0, without proper context the statements of the characters being all of that will only be defaulted to the verses extent if the character's nature is predicated from them being transcendent.

But if the characters satisfy all elements of negative theology with adequate inverse explanation, they will qualify for tier 0, such elements being that:

-*Characters are the strongest in the verse (although this one is not a necessity, but it should serve to prove consistency for that, and it can be analyzed case by case it can act as a self-defeater to the character qualifying for negative theology or if thoroughly explained then the character won't have that acting as a self-defeater to them being tier 0)*

-*The characters being said to be unknowable, incomprehensible, and inconceivable by any measures not just in reference to the epistemic limits of the characters in the verse in question but in a general sense it should be such that it's their nature rather than the limits in knowledge of the characters inferior to this being.*

The easiest way to demonstrate that is when the ineffability thesis is implemented as an inverse explanation of the characters divine ineffability which states that **P ∈ P, not(F(P)) and not(F(not-P))**.

Essentially for us to stray closer to divinity one should remain silent and nothing about the God head can be asserted that doesn't describe something that is not God and something lesser than God.

-*Lastly, it should be noted that God being incomprehensible, inconceivable, and transcendent should be predicated from his transcendent nature*.

## **Note 8: (On Transcending Laws of Thought)**

Transcending laws of thought aren't nearly enough to act as supporting evidence for 1-T or anything higher it won't scale anywhere significantly higher as things that are said to lack identities already exist within our material world in the world of quantum theory which are individually inferior even to humans who have identities themselves.

In quantum mechanics *⊤(x) ⇒ x or ∀ x(x=x)* a two-sorted first-order logical system representing the principle of identity (law of identity) is practically trivial in the quantum world and not valid as a=b are atomic formulas in which a and b are both terms of just one of these two species as Schrodinger's logics suggests a and b are indistinguishable and devoid of identity such properties that conform to this rule are properties of the microworld hence macroscopic objects such as Elementary particles.

Furthermore, it could be such that the character conforms to a different logical system that doesn't endorse the laws of classical logic that we do not know of.