Your Number is not bigger

[Josewong]

This is a yet another revival of a old Googological game on the old XKCD forums
The Rules are
1: The goal is to make a computable, finite, well-defined number that's bigger than the last poster's number
2: You can only use already established numbers and notations (the xkcd number counts, as does Graham's number. But you can't just one-up that by saying g_65 without defining the recursion here)
3: You can't refer directly to the previous number. (If I post a description D of some number x, your number can't be defined as D "+ 1". If it turns out to be D+1, fine. Just don't do anything like quoting the previous entry and putting +1 at the bottom.)
4: If someone questions the size of your number, you have to be able to prove that it's really bigger than the previous one.

I start with G(A(64,64)) Where G is Graham's function and A is Ackermann's Function I name the resulting number Josewong's XKCD Number

[ratammer]

This is a yet another revival of a old Googological game on the old XKCD forums
The Rules are
1: The goal is to make a computable, finite, well-defined number that's bigger than the last poster's number
2: You can only use already established numbers and notations (the xkcd number counts, as does Graham's number. But you can't just one-up that by saying g_65 without defining the recursion here)
3: You can't refer directly to the previous number. (If I post a description D of some number x, your number can't be defined as D "+ 1". If it turns out to be D+1, fine. Just don't do anything like quoting the previous entry and putting +1 at the bottom.)
4: If someone questions the size of your number, you have to be able to prove that it's really bigger than the previous one.

I start with G(A(64,64)) Where G is Graham's function and A is Ackermann's Function I name the resulting number Josewong's Beast

You already revived this one here: https://ramenchef.net/nxf/viewtopic.php?p=18376#p18376