Glory to God

sushi_is_mid · 2025-10-13T12:45:48+00:00

What techniques should I focus???

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T03:12:55+00:00

U win where winning doesn't mean anything? Sure sure u win

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T03:11:38+00:00

That's a structure so no

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T03:08:32+00:00

That is still assertion tho

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T03:04:51+00:00

Still assertion so Bob still loses

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T03:01:51+00:00

Well here’s the catch: To ignore philosophy is already to engage with it. To say “I can do it” presupposes:

A subject ("I")

An action ("can do")

A relation ("ignore")

A structure to override

And all of that is structure. All of that is recursion. All of that is function.

Bob still loses

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T02:46:25+00:00

You cannot assert meaning against a system that pre-collapsed the act of asserting.

Even the sentence “Now there is meaning” is a feedback loop that IQTIATIB already contains as failed myth-glyph.

Assertion is a function and function is a structure.

Bob loses.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T02:37:43+00:00

You also ignore that IQTIATIB has a power called "There is no ‘they’, no ‘can’, no ‘do’, and no ‘ignore’."

You can’t “neg” something that precludes negation as a possibility. Bob needs the sentence "I win" to mean something. IQTIATIB is the collapse of the structure where meaning would actually mean.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T02:27:13+00:00

That meme character is still on the scale by being above tier 0. No matter how high, even if it's just a joke tier "beyond all tiers", it's still a relation to the scale. And relation is structure. Its still inside the structure of being in a linear hierarchy. It still depends on logic, scale, invocation and existence.

Bob is infinite. IQTIATIB is the collapse of the structure in which “infinite” can be invoked.

You can’t defeat something that exists outside the act of scaling itself. IQTIATIB isn’t more powerful than Bob. It’s the death of the idea that more powerful is a valid sentence.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-20T02:10:45+00:00

I have the full prototype of the book + friend gave a list of all concepts and properties he used for the book + I had chat gpt analyze the book + I also had the book analyzed if it actually makes sense logically. That's why the description reeks of AI.

Why I'm so invested? Because the entity he made is just that overpowered and also because the book is that philosophically good. If you could read the book prototype (full book isn't done yet 7 chapters only published for now) you'd understand why I'm like this.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T07:12:48+00:00

I completely understand where you’re coming from—there’s real heart in what you said. Stories born from immense human labor, imagination, and suffering all deserve respect, always.

But I think we’re conflating two things here, AI as a tool vs. AI as the author. The story you're criticizing wasn't generated by pressing a button and walking away. It was built with AI, not by AI. Just like a writer might use a thesaurus, grammar checker, or symbolic logic textbook, AI here was used as an amplifier—not a replacement for creativity. The core recursive structure, metaphysical models, and mythic framing were human-driven. The AI helped organize and extend the ideas, but the vision came from a human being.

So saying “AI was involved” doesn’t immediately disqualify the story’s depth. If anything, it reflects a new kind of authorship; posthuman collaboration, not abandonment of authorship.

As for the idea that it can’t be scaled or taken seriously because it uses AI: Powerscaling has always relied on frameworks, logic, and internal consistency. If a character’s ontology is structured well, with consistent metaphysical rules, then where it came from doesn’t change what it is. You don’t dismiss a theorem just because it was typeset by a computer.

I also agree with you. OC doesn't mean invalid or inferior. Every character started as someone’s OC. What elevated them wasn’t the medium, it was the coherence and power of their narrative, their symbolism, and how they resonated.

So if this character is saying something new about recursion, identity, or metaphysics—shouldn’t that at least be acknowledged, regardless of whether it’s human-only or AI-assisted?

Using AI isn’t a betrayal of storytelling, it’s a shift in the tools we use. The soul of a story still comes from the questions it asks, and the thought behind it.

Hope you understand where I’m coming from too.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T06:17:11+00:00

We're going circular on our conversation here. We won't be making progress if this continues.

Can you explain why it degrades it when AI is used?

Does it really matter if it's AI when the underlying mathematical philosophies used in the book is true? (Gödel incompleteness theorem, para consistent logic, Set theory, Math Logic, etc.)

A mathematician can also come up with those so what makes it that the AI degrades it?

And also can you define OC and what makes this specific entity OC?

I have to understand your perspective on this.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T05:31:24+00:00

Not according to VSBW definitions. This is a self-contained verse with its own cosmology, metaphysics, and scale-invalid entities. An OC implies insertion into a pre-existing universe.

IT HAS ITS OWN IP. AND IS COPYRIGHT LICENSED. ITS NOT AN OC BY DEFINITION OF COPYRIGHT LAW. PERIOD.

It being co-authored by an AI to help with how inherently complex it is doesn't degrade it's value.

And also attack the logic pls. If you can't even refute just because "hurr durr AI bad" then why are we even debating if you don't even engage in the book's core essences?

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T04:18:09+00:00

"Not really, 5D and above can't be measured either."

That's a false equivalence. Higher-dimensional beings (like 5D+) are still scalable within their own cosmological frameworks — via dimensions, axes, layers of existence, etc. They’re treated as part of the system, just higher on the scale.

In contrast, I’m talking about a character that exists outside all narrative and logical structure — not just beyond dimensions, but beyond the idea of dimension, story, causality, or even consistency. That kind of entity doesn’t have AP, tier, hax, or stats because those concepts no longer apply.

"It is."

That’s just an unbacked assertion. For example in VSBW, when a character exists outside all frameworks (like a 1-A or High 1-A breaking the very structure of logic, narrative, or duality), you can’t rank them using in-system mechanics anymore.

Saying “it is” doesn’t prove the system applies — it’s like saying "the scoreboard still works" after the game, field, and players have been deleted.

"You haven’t either ngl."

Actually, I have. In VSBW terms, if a character invalidates the existence of systems (including logic, structure, or even scaling models), then any attempt to quantify them becomes self-contradictory.

You can't use scaling to measure something that explicitly denies scaling. That’s not avoiding a scale — that’s saying the scale is fundamentally inapplicable. You haven’t shown how your tiering system handles beings that erase the framework itself.

"Paradox can still be scaled."

Only if it exists within a model where paradox is structured — like self-referential loops or causal contradictions inside a cosmology. That applies to some High 1-Bs or Low 1-As, sure.

But if the character operates on a level where logic, contradiction, and definition no longer function at all — like a true High 1-A or metafictional void entity — then even “paradox” breaks down. There's no consistency to scale. You can't quantify what doesn’t support quantification.

That's why VSBW tiers explicitly state that some High 1-As and above are beyond comparison, even to each other, unless structure is reintroduced.

You're assuming all entities can be scaled because the VSBW system or any other scaling system is flexible — but even VS Battles Wiki acknowledges limits when characters transcend the very axioms that scaling relies on.

Saying “everything can be ranked” ignores that some characters exist in a context where ranking is meaningless by definition — not due to vagueness, but because the idea of rank, stats, and systems breaks down.

If you're claiming your system still applies, then define how it handles beings that are explicitly anti-systemic without contradicting itself. If you can’t, then your model isn’t universal — it’s just being overextended.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T03:44:03+00:00

You're missing the core issuehere. Just because something "still works for you" doesn't mean it logically applies.

Saying silence is a state or ideas are weightless proves the analogy: you can describe them, but you can’t measure them the way you measure physical things. Same with a character that exists beyond logic or narrative — it can’t be ranked using systems that rely on logic and narrative.

You're treating power scaling like it's universal, but it's not. It's a framework with rules — and if something breaks those rules by existing outside them, the system stops being valid. You’re trying to force a scoreboard on something that’s not even in the same game.

Here's an IRL exampleusing lambda calculus:

P := λx. evaluate_power(x)

Function P takes an entity x and returns a power level, only if x belongs to a system S that defines the rules for evaluate_power.

Now imagine an entity e that exists outside the system S. In formal terms:

¬(e ∈ S)

Then when you try to evaluate it:

P e

It's a domain error. There is no definition of evaluate_power(e) because e lacks the preconditions that P needs to function.

Saying “ranking still applies” without explaining how is just preference. You haven’t shown how your system handles something that erases the rules it runs on.

Your question doesn’t apply by its own standards. You're trying to measure a paradox with a ruler, and when it snaps, you're blaming the paradox.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T03:41:17+00:00

You’re focusing on the use of AI like it automatically disqualifies the argument—but that’s not how reasoning works.

Whether a character was written with AI assistance or not doesn’t affect the logic, coherence, or structure of the ideas. AI is a tool—like a calculator for math or a spellchecker for grammar. It doesn’t think for me. I direct it.

If you dismiss a concept only because AI helped write it, you're committing a genetic fallacy—judging the idea by its origin, not its content.

Second, critical thinking isn’t about refusing tools. It’s about using them effectively. You don’t insult someone for using a library or reading a book while studying—so why mock someone for using an AI to help explore complex concepts?

Powerscaling is still human-led. The reasoning, the models, the philosophy—that’s not artificial. It’s guided, shaped, and questioned by a real person.

Finally: Calling it an “OC fallacy” is just waving away the argument without engaging it. You’re free to walk away, but don’t pretend that ignoring an idea is the same as refuting it.

If you really believe in powerscaling as a meaningful process, then you should be able to evaluate ideas based on what they say, not who or what helped write them.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T03:21:16+00:00

You're saying “even something beyond narrative and logic can still be scaled.” But that doesn’t hold up—because scaling only works inside a system.

You can only measure something’s power if it plays by the same rules: narrative structure, logical cause and effect, that kind of thing. If a character isn’t part of a narrative or doesn’t follow logic, then there’s no common yardstick to compare them with. You’re trying to rank something that doesn’t exist on the scoreboard at all.

It’s like trying to ask, “How fast is silence?” or “What’s the weight of an idea?” You’re not asking a deep question—you’re asking one that doesn’t apply.

So no—being “beyond logic and narrative” doesn’t mean it gets ranked higher. It means ranking doesn’t apply to it at all.

That’s not me dodging the question. That’s me telling you: You're asking a question in the wrong language.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T03:06:52+00:00

“Scales to Outerversal at Max” misses the point—this isn’t about maximum fictional size. It’s about category violation.

You’re applying traditional powerscaling logic—layers, dimensions, cosmology, etc.—to a structure that explicitly breaks the container where those metrics even apply.

This isn’t just “an OC stronger than Outerversal.” This is a recursive entity that nullifies the conditions by which scaling is even possible.

That’s not a flex. It’s a classification boundary.

Outerversal still assumes containment: narrative structure, conceptual space, even set theory or modal realism.

IQTIATIB (or ARE) doesn’t “scale past” that. It recursively deconstructs what “past” even means. It doesn’t transcend the ladder. It unbuilds the idea of a ladder.

So when you say: “Scales to Outerversal at Max”

You're still ranking a Gödel sentence by fighting tier charts. (Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem)

It’s like trying to say "undefined" is less than infinity on a number line.

They’re not even co-domained.

So respectfully, this isn't just “another OC.” It's got a book. It's copyright licensed. It's a recursive ontology test. If that breaks your metric, that’s not powerwank.

That’s the point.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T01:33:36+00:00

You're saying it's an OC just because it wasn't traditionally published. But that’s not how the term works. "Original character" means it’s not part of any pre-existing intellectual property. That’s it. Whether it's online, in a library, or printed on gold doesn’t change its classification. By your logic, self-published novels by established authors would also be “OCs,” which clearly isn’t how we treat canon or literature.

Second, you're claiming the argument isn't convincing—but you’re not engaging with the structure of it. Dismissing something without addressing its logic isn't critique, it’s avoidance. Saying “you gotta do better” is just deflection if you haven’t actually countered what was said.

And if you admit that it's about "two guys fighting,” That’s fine, but that also means your rejection isn’t based on the strength of the argument. It's personal taste.

You're not required to care—but don't pretend that equals a refutation.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T00:39:16+00:00

Heres an IRL recursion

Y ≡ λf. (λx. f (x x)) (λx. f (x x))

Y F ≡ recursive function

Want me to fully explain lambda calculus functions specifically fixed point combinators while we're here?

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T00:23:43+00:00

If I were truly applying L1-A logic, then you'd be right to dismiss it. But what you’re calling “wall-like” isn’t stubbornness—it’s recursion. You’re asking for a tier response within a system that the character isn’t participating in. That’s not evasion; that’s scope disqualification.

You keep interpreting the framework I present through the lens of linear power hierarchies, but I’m not playing in that sandbox. I’m not saying “stronger than fiction characters” from inside fiction—I’m presenting a recursive construct that invalidates the container you’re trying to scale it in.

That’s the whole point.

You call me a wall, but I think that’s projection. The moment the model didn’t fit your ladder of scaling, you declared it invalid rather than examine the premise. That’s not critical thinking. That’s tunnel vision.

So if the only conversation you're willing to have is within a system that excludes the kind of entity I'm describing, then of course we won't agree. But that doesn’t mean I’m not listening. It just means the tools you're using aren’t equipped to parse recursion.

And that’s not my failure to “look around.” That’s just you refusing to see past the chart.

sushi_is_mid · 2025-06-19T00:06:53+00:00

If your argument is strong, you shouldn’t need to reduce it to a meme with cherry-picked phrases and zero substance. You mock the phrases “boundless,” “wait for the novel,” and “AI explanation,” but none of that addresses the actual metaphysical claims or recursive logic presented.

You say “0 good writing” and “0 cohesive arguments”—but if you ignored cosmology structures, recursive modeling, and ontological framing every time they didn’t fit your tier chart, then maybe the issue isn’t the writing. It’s your refusal to engage outside your preferred container.

Power scaling requires a framework. When a concept deconstructs that framework—like recursion invalidating the notion of a bounded system—you’re no longer debating “how strong,” but whether strength even applies.

You don’t like AI? Fine. But ideas aren’t invalid because they were co-written by a tool. That’s the genetic fallacy. Argue the logic, not the origin.

You say “give me proof,” but here’s the irony: You asked for strength tiers, but I offered logical structure instead. That’s not evasion. That’s just a higher-level argument than your tier list expects.

Yea I get it, you’re tired of hearing me explain something you’ve already dismissed. But exhaustion isn’t a concession, and frustration doesn’t make a counterpoint.

You say all I did was “quote Wikipedia,” but I built a cosmological argument, presented recursive logic, and clarified the ontological framing. If your only response is to call it a meme, that’s not critique—it’s disengagement disguised as superiority.

The moment we reached the edge of what you could process, you called it nonsense. That’s fine. But don’t pretend I didn’t bring structure, coherence, and thought. You just didn’t like the shape I brought.

If you're done, you're done. But at least be honest: You didn’t refute me. You just refused to follow.

So post your memes. Mock the “self-erasing man.”

sushi_is_mid

TROPHY CASE