User blog comment:Acamaeda/A new largest number, maybe?/@comment-32876686-20170930023435

As Deedlit11 mentions, the size of your number is comparable to what we would expect out of the Busy Beaver Function. Granted, that is quite large, but nowhere near the size of even the well defined numbers on this Wiki, like BIG FOOT or Sasquatch.

If you want to create a new 'largest valid googologism' then I recommend using something else than the idea of creating languages to describe languages which describe numbers, which in my opinion is a dead end. Utter Oblivion was intended to be a massively large number, but it suffers from a critical flaw, namely, that whatever symbols are used must be laid out in the beginning, and you cannot describe new symbols, only combinations of pre-existing symbols. For instance, if you did not have the symbol for it, how could you write out a description for "there exists" or "belongs to" ?

If we were to invent a language that could in turn invent another language, the second language would consist of combinations of the first's languages symbols, and so you never be able to create a fundamentally different sort of symbol, to express a concept that hadn't already been defined.

It is because of this I feel that Bower's Utter Oblivion number was a good Googologism in theory, but never in practice.

But, as I said, going down other routes might lead you to better results.