Low 2-C question.

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Is a 4-D space time continuum literally "larger" than an infinite 3-D space? The tiering system page says that low 2-C is affecting a space "qualitatively larger than an infinitely sized 3-D space" but what does "qualitatively larger" mean? I think that a space-time continuum can exist but not be universal in size which apparently doesn't qualify for low 2-C but if it's as big as a universe or larger, does this space-time continuum then be "larger" than an infinite 3-D space? Please explain.

 

[Thelastmlg]

It is literally larger, qualitatively means it is a higher infinite, since a infinite 3D realm is nonexistent to a 4D, making it "superior" to the lower one.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Someone said that a space time continuum isn't larger than an infinite 3-D space because time doesn't work as a physical dimension but a temporal one. How do you respond to this and what does temporal dimension mean?

 

[Planck69]

A spacetime continuum is larger as it's essentially uncountably infinite snapshots of the 3-dimensional part of it, since it's equivalent to as many 3-dimenisonal universes as there are infinitesimal moments of time. We decided on universal size as more or less a marker from which point the spatial dimensions' lengths were considered non-trivial.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Thank you I appreciate it, if I have anymore questions then I'll ask here.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Another question, What is the difference between a 4-D physical space and a 4-D time space?? Some guy is saying that only a physical 4-D space is superior to an infinite 3-D space but a 4-D time space is not because temporal dimensions allegedly "preserve matter". I have no clue what that means and I feel there is a huge flaw in his argument but I am not very smart with dimensions so I need help.

 

[Planck69]

Another question, What is the difference between a 4-D physical space and a 4-D time space?? Some guy is saying that only a physical 4-D space is superior to an infinite 3-D space but a 4-D time space is not because temporal dimensions allegedly "preserve matter". I have no clue what that means and I feel there is a huge flaw in his argument but I am not very smart with dimensions so I need help.

There's no difference as far as scope goes. If a 4-dimensional space has all of its spatial dimensions be universal or infinite then it's a Low 2-C structure. Time in this case just acts like a spatial dimension so it's the same in tier.

I have no idea what he's saying.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

We were debating about tier 2 dragon ball, so I am going to give you the example he gave. he said word for word "Take this as an example, Beerus hakais a planet. This is obviously a 3-D feat, as it is done instantaneously and completely annihilates only that 3-D planet in a moment. However, that planet stays deleted over the entirety of the future of that space-time continuum. Matter preserves over time, and in this case, that planet is annihilated forever, over an infinite amount of moments in time in that space-time continuum, despite it being a 3-D feat. This preservation of matter proves that time cannot be accounted as a physical dimension, it simply does not work."

 

[Planck69]

That's the most asinine interpretation of time I've ever seen. When you affect something, only affect it in that moment.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Lmao. Thanks. I appreciate it.

 

[Causalist]

We decided on universal size as more or less a marker from which point the spatial dimensions' lengths were considered non-trivial.

So being able to destroy a space-time continuum that isn't universe sized doesn't qualify for low-2-C or even 3-A?

 

[Planck69]

No, it doesn't.

 

[Causalist]

Ok. I kind of figured those were the current standards, but I wanted to be completely sure because, well, I really don't see how that makes any sense. Let's say you have a dimension which contains enough galaxies to be massively above baseline 3-B in size. It's ALMOST the size of our universe in fact. Now let's say that a character has a feat of creating of destroying every aspect of said dimension including its time. That would be 3-B feat by our standards, right? Ok, sure. But now, imagine that you increase the size of that 3-B dimension by tiny little bit. Just enough for it to be the same size as what's estimated for our universe. Suddenly, that feat would be upgraded to low 2-C?? It would jump two whole ranks just because we arbitrarily increased it's 3D volume when the 4D aspect of it is already infinitely larger anyway? Replace my hypothetical 3-B dimension with 4-B sized dimension and my point still stands. When a dimension is 4D, and someone creates or destroys it, why would it matter how large it is on a 3D scale? I understand why our standards are the way that they are, since changing them to what I'm suggesting would upgrade almost every single feat involving pocket dimensions to low 2-C (which means low 2-C Naruto, Mega Man X, base form Mario, Sonic, and pretty much 10% of the whole Wiki if not more lol). There's truly no way to make any sense of this, but do you get what I'm saying? Unless you can provide a more detailed explanation to all of this, then I've single-handedly proven that VS debating is conceptually broken, subjective to a ridiculous degree, and CANNOT make objective sense (unless we're using low tier characters, for the most part).

 

[Planck69]

It's what has been decided upon as the marker for a non-trivial 4-dimensional space, that simple.

Like really, we ourselves acknowledge that this is subjective so I have no clue why people seem to think that "they've singlehandedly proven it" or something.

 

[Causalist]

So you admit that it makes no sense?

In that case, this whole site relies on a broken foundation. We're stuck in a no-win scenario. So many characters could be low 2-C or even somewhere in tier 1 by applying real life logic that it's not even funny. Fiction wasn't meant to have logic applied to it. Profiles are only as accurate as the standards they rely on, which will never make sense no matter how hard we try, because fiction doesn't care about them, and different franchises have different rules in everything VS related...

TL;DR: Everything VS related (specifically the cosmic stuff, illogical speeds, and non-sensical haxes) is completely stupid. What else is there to say?

As much as my revision would make perfect sense, fiction just doesn't make sense anyway.

 

[Planck69]

Not really? Just that there's some inevitable issues that come with it.

We're an indexing site. By definition, we apply logic where possible. Applying IRL concepts where they aren't described isn't how we do things.

Seriously, you act like you're the first person to point this issue out while this has already been brought up ages ago. Like really, nothing new has been brought up in this entire discussion at all.

Of course, I heard about a Low 2-C revision scheduled for the summer but I'm not sure if it'll address this.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

He honestly makes a good point, if you're able to destroy a time space that has a size 3-B+ then you aren't low 2-C but if you do the same just one unit of measurement more then you suddenly jump 2 whole tiers wtf.

 

[Planck69]

I'm not sure on how the wiki would treat that, since it's way too overly specific but I'd think it would qualify, since it's basicallya universe at that point.

Something like a 4-A or low-end 3-B space-time would be too small across its spatial axes to warrant this though.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I don't know why that would make sense. Like should simply being able to destroy a 4D space of any size should be low 2-C right?

 

[Planck69]

No, not at all. The entire tiering system revisions were to address how wrong that is.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

But that seems really arbitrary, like is there a magical boundary were you go from not good enough for tier 2 to jumping 2 tiers or something by going up a few units of measurement.

 

[Planck69]

Ask the math wizards (Ultima and DontTalkDT) for the details but universe sized l space-time was agreed upon to be the baseline for Low 2-C. Anything significantly smaller would be too small to qualify for being a 4-dimensional space of non-trivial size.

 

[Causalist]

Ok then, let's bring the math wizards here. Idk who they are.
Also, even if I'm not the first person to bring this up, more people need to know how fundementally flawed VS discussions are. This is a prime example

 

[Greenshifter]

No, not at all. The entire tiering system revisions were to address how wrong that is.

It would be Planck, you can’t jump dimensional tiers by increasing or decreasing your 3D size. For real we got infinite-sized universes and finite-sized universes as baseline low 2-C both of them. The only issue really is consistency in fiction.

 

[Planck69]

What are you even saying? That a 4-D room sized space is Low 2-C? Because that's not at all how we treat that. Yes, universe sized 4-dimensional space counts for Low 2-C but not just any size.

 

[Greenshifter]

Yup, that's how it would mathematically work and we don't treat it that way because those characters aren't portrayed as strong usually.

 

[Planck69]

Yup, that's how it would mathematically work and we don't treat it that way because those characters aren't portrayed as strong usually.

I'm fairly sure we went over the mathematical aspects with the tiering system revisions and that wasn't what was agreed upon but eh.

 

[Greenshifter]

Well I'd love to be proven wrong here but 1) since the size difference between an infinite-sized universe and a finite-sized universe is equally as big no matter the size of the universe (be it observable to room-sized) yet both finite and infinite are treated as baseline Low 2-C and 2) the biggest maths wizard I know treats it that way I have my doubts that it actually has scientific backing instead of just being a rule put in place for consistency.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Is the reason why a universal size space-time was chosen as the baseline for low 2-C is because it would have to be portrayed at least as strong as or stronger than 3-A?

 

[Greenshifter]

Also an easy dodge for the small space-time stuff is to treat it as hax, but that probably ain't gonna be airtight all the time.

 

[Greenshifter]

more people need to know how fundementally flawed VS discussions are.

I find this to be quite a flawed reasoning. Not every site has their own standards, you're either capable enough to argue why certain standards should or shouldn't work or you don't and just follow in line with whatever site you pick. So we'll never get an absolute answer to who beats who, but neither do we get an absolute answer for anything in life. Although we can make a good guess and the better you become in vs debating, the better your guess will be, thus making it not a flawed system.

 

[Causalist]

Yeah, that's fair enough, but the cross-over aspect of VS debating is what makes it so complex and subjective. I still participate in it for now, because it's fun, but it's still greatly flawed. Sure, that doesn't mean we should give up on trying to find an answer, like you said, but we're never gonna find a truly objective one. Figuring out the objective ranking of a franchise is one thing. Figuring out who would win between two characters with decades of history behind them, a shitload of hax, ambigious feats, and douzens of outliers and instances of PIS... That's another thing.

I personally beleive this revision of the low 2-C standards make perfect sense, but they're going to bring their own sets of problems if it gets accepted. The amount of characters who are going to need to be massively upgraded is ridiculous. I personally HOPE to be proven wrong on this one.

 

[Planck69]

What revision are you talking about?

 

[Causalist]

The one you tried to call the math wizards to disprove.

 

[Planck69]

That all feats involving 4-dimensional space are Low 2-C? Heh, that's most likely never going through.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Is the reason why a universal size space-time was chosen as the baseline for low 2-C is because it would have to be portrayed at least as strong as or stronger than 3-A?

Can someone answer my question pretty please?

 

[Arceus0x]

Now i ain't a math wizard but i know that anything 4-D on this wiki is high 3-A on a scale higher than baseline high 3-A as the former is infinitely bigger than infinite 3-D space

 

[Planck69]

Wasn't that nuked ages ago? The auto-"4-D higher than 3-D" stuff?

 

[Greenshifter]

Temporal dimensions are auto-superior to spatial ones. Well at least I asked that in context of whether multiple temporal dimensions would be automatically assumed to grant higher dimensional power upon destroying them. The answer was yes, probably.

 

[Arceus0x]

Wasn't that nuked ages ago? The auto-"4-D higher than 3-D" stuff?

if this was nuked then vsbattles is going against all forms of logic as 4-D is always higher than 3-D and if not then you, my friend, is smaller than a flat square