Question about finite time and space

[SweetDao]

Well, what if a verse is stated to verbatim have finite space/time? As in, it doesn't go to infinity but just arbitrarily high, even if said verse has parallel worlds and such, how would we treat this verse? Would we just bypass that statement and make it Low2-C/2-C/2-B/2-A or above depending on the rating or just... 3-A at best?

 

[Frey_Starlight]

this seems like a similar ball park question as answered here current tier system would allow this to bypass those statement make it 2-C for the multiverse. but base universe destruction with no time is still going to be 3-A here.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

If time is finite that means the verse has discrete time and would be 3-A at best.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

If time is finite that means the verse has discrete time and would be 3-A at best.

he literally said parallel world exists. how is that 3-A? all you need is a bare min of universe size and a time axis and you can whank your way to low 2-C for each world.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

he literally said parallel world exists. how is that 3-A? all you need is a bare min of universe size and a time axis and you can whank your way to low 2-C for each world.

Well if time is discrete then it doesn't matter if parallel worlds exist, it's just 3-A to high 3-A depending on multiverse size. VSBW tiers time based on the assumption of time being infinite/infinitely divisible (being an actual continuum of events).

 

[Frey_Starlight]

Well if time is discrete then it doesn't matter if parallel worlds exist, it's just 3-A to high 3-A depending on multiverse size. VSBW tiers time based on the assumption of time being infinite/infinitely divisible (being an actual continuum of events).

that genuinly makes no sense, if you lets say destroy few hours of time from a 3-A universe, it would in theory still be high 3-A coz that few hours of time has infinite many 3-A universe snapshots, even if base universe is 3-A. if they are seperate space-time continuums then it would be treated as such, unless there is an explict verse which shows the example of there being parallel worlds and its still just 3-A because space/time is finite.
also reiner asked the same time being finite and still get 2-A if there is infinite timeline is a thing here.

 

[SweetDao]

that genuinly makes no sense, if you lets say destroy few hours of time from a 3-A universe, it would in theory still be high 3-A coz that few hours of time has infinite many 3-A universe snapshots, even if base universe is 3-A

Purely using math, that would be Low 2-C btw.

if they are seperate space-time continuums then it would be treated as such, unless there is an explict verse which shows the example of there being parallel worlds and its still just 3-A because space/time is finite.

I mean, there are "different timelines" and like "other, separated worlds" but like, you can reach it via teleportation/spaceship so I don't know tbf...

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

that genuinly makes no sense, if you lets say destroy few hours of time from a 3-A universe, it would in theory still be high 3-A coz that few hours of time has infinite many 3-A universe snapshots, even if base universe is 3-A. if they are seperate space-time continuums then it would be treated as such, unless there is an explict verse which shows the example of there being parallel worlds and its still just 3-A because space/time is finite.
also reiner asked the same time being finite and still get 2-A if there is infinite timeline is a thing here.

Discrete time literally doesn't have time having infinitely many snapshots between any two points. Whole point is that it rejects running into infinity.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

Discrete time literally doesn't have time having infinitely many snapshots between any two points. Whole point is that it rejects running into infinity.

all you need is non-infinitesimal time

Purely using math, that would be Low 2-C btw.

yea thats why there were quite a lot of questions non-universe size space-time but still have its own time axis being argued for low 2-C as its inherently a 4D structure. but i am basically referencing to that jojo feat of high 3-A via environmental destruction as the character blew few hours of time.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

all you need is non-infinitesimal time

yea thats why there were quite a lot of questions non-universe size space-time but still have its own time axis being argued for low 2-C as its inherently a 4D structure. but i am basically referencing to that jojo feat of high 3-A via environmental destruction as the character blew few hours of time.

Is this just for 2-A or is it for any tier within tier 2. Because a single universe with time being discrete being low 2-C makes absolutely no sense no matter how you put it. It's at best high 3-A if time doesn't have a beginning or end but is still discrete.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

all you need is non-infinitesimal time

yea thats why there were quite a lot of questions non-universe size space-time but still have its own time axis being argued for low 2-C as its inherently a 4D structure. but i am basically referencing to that jojo feat of high 3-A via environmental destruction as the character blew few hours of time.

Oh seems DT is still under assumption time is continuous but with a timeline that lasts for idk a few minutes or any arbitrary time frame. If a verse rejects the very notion of infinity existing, then why would there exist infinite points in time between any two points?

 

[Frey_Starlight]

Oh seems DT is still under assumption time is continuous but with a timeline that lasts for idk a few minutes or any arbitrary time frame. If a verse rejects the very notion of infinity existing, then why would there exist infinite points in time between any two points?

as far i know this wiki inherenlty assumes time to be unaccountable infinite thats why the difference between 3-A to High 3-A is infinite times and High 3-A to Low 2-C is that of uncountable infinite times. The question asked by reiner was already under the assumption of time being finite in the verse and time is being inherently consdered uncountable. so there is infinite points between two points even if time is finite hence it is its own low 2-C for the timeline.

But what you say does also make sense, but how can a verse explictly prove that there isn't infinite moments between two point of time?
What sweetdao asked was genuinly just the same question that fall under the premise of what Reiner had asked before and that was the asnwer he got was it would still stay 2-A even if timelines are finite size if there are infinite timelines.

 

[SweetDao]

But what you say does also make sense, but how can a verse explictly prove that there isn't infinite moments between two point of time?

By saying that infinity is an abstract concept and can't be physicalized, if you want to know, lol.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

By saying that infinity is an abstract concept and can't be physicalized, if you want to know, lol.

ah... right that exist

 

[FinePoint]

Well, what if a verse is stated to verbatim have finite space/time? As in, it doesn't go to infinity but just arbitrarily high, even if said verse has parallel worlds and such, how would we treat this verse? Would we just bypass that statement and make it Low2-C/2-C/2-B/2-A or above depending on the rating or just... 3-A at best?

It can be Low 2-C if it's "universal" in size and the feat includes the entire axis.

These are arbitrary restrictions we have in place to avoid random pocket dimension feats and the likes from qualifying.

From a purely logical perspective, assuming time is the 4th dimension and acts like a line, then any segment of it with mass would contain uncountably infinite 3D mass, and therefore be Low 2-C- but again we also impose arbitrary criteria it needs to follow.

A logical instance where a timeline could not be Low 2-C would be if canonically time doesn't act like a line in the geometric sense, but instead increments at set intervals (like Planck time).

 

[SweetDao]

It can be Low 2-C if it's "universal" in size and the feat includes the entire axis.

These are arbitrary restrictions we have in place to avoid random pocket dimension feats and the likes from qualifying.

From a purely logical perspective, assuming time is the 4th dimension and acts like a line, then any segment of it with mass would contain uncountably infinite 3D mass, and therefore be Low 2-C- but again we also impose arbitrary criteria it needs to follow.

A logical instance where a timeline could not be Low 2-C would be if canonically time doesn't act like a line in the geometric sense, but instead increments at set intervals (like Planck time).

What if infinity can't exist physically, then?

 

[FinePoint]

What if infinity can't exist physically, then?

Then our entire Tiering System no longer works.

If a verse claims that, then we could limit it to 3-A I suppose, but ultimately if it had feats which contradicted that we'd just ignore the statement.

 

[SweetDao]

Then our entire Tiering System no longer works.

If a verse claims that, then we could limit it to 3-A I suppose, but ultimately if it had feats which contradicted that we'd just ignore the statement.

Well, it has feats of "other timelines" and "parallel worlds" but nothing infinite and no character destroying timelines either as far as I can remember.

It is said multiple times that "infinite" stuff just can't exist. Be it space (distance), time (it's linked to space), energy, ... you get the idea. For example, one of the strongest instance in the verse verbatim state it's impossible for him to provide/create infinite energy.

 

[FinePoint]

Well, it has feats of "other timelines" and "parallel worlds" but nothing infinite and no character destroying timelines either as far as I can remember.

It is said multiple times that "infinite" stuff just can't exist. Be it space (distance), time (it's linked to space), energy, ... you get the idea. For example, one of the strongest instance in the verse verbatim state it's impossible for him to provide/create infinite energy.

Well, then none of the characters would be High 3-A or Low 2-C.

As for the cosmology, a universe can qualify for our definition of "universe-sized" under a lot of different conditions.

If it meets none of them, then we would consider it a collection of pocket realities, rather than a multiverse.

 

[SweetDao]

Well, then none of the characters would be High 3-A or Low 2-C.

As for the cosmology, a universe can qualify for our definition of a universe under a lot of different conditions.

If it meets none of them, then we would consider it a collection of pocket realities, rather than a multiverse.

I mean, some places are definitely universal, one of them is explained to be a "universe that was created after a Big Bang and continues to expand", but again... Would the cosmology be 3-A? Or can it break that limitation despite the statements I mentioned above?

 

[FinePoint]

I mean, some places are definitely universal, one of them is explained to be a "universe that was created after a Big Bang and continues to expand", but again... Would the cosmology be 3-A? Or can it break that limitation despite the statements I mentioned above?

If the cosmology fits any of our definitions of "universe-sized" then we would consider it so even if there's a statement that "infinity isn't physically possible."

Basically: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck, even if someone says ducks aren't real.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

If the cosmology fits any of our definitions of "universe-sized" then we would consider it so even if there's a statement that "infinity isn't physically possible."

Basically: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck, even if someone says ducks aren't real.

I mean something like the observable universe can definitely exist with discrete space-time. Doesn't necessitate infinity be real.

 

[FinePoint]

I mean something like the observable universe can definitely exist with discrete space-time. Doesn't necessitate infinity be real.

That's true too. For the sake of verse equalization and our tiering system we essentially just assume that it is if it passes certain vibe-checks, basically.

 

[SweetDao]

If the cosmology fits any of our definitions of "universe-sized" then we would consider it so even if there's a statement that "infinity isn't physically possible."

So, in the end, we would assume the universe that started due to the Big Bang would be "Low 2-C" if we include his timeline? So we would just dismiss the statement regarding infinity then?

 

[FinePoint]

So, in the end, we would assume the universe that started due to the Big Bang would be "Low 2-C" if we include his timeline? So we would just dismiss the statement regarding infinity then?

Most likely, yes, if it became relevant and otherwise fits our criteria.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

That's true too. For the sake of verse equalization and our tiering system we essentially just assume that it is if it passes certain vibe-checks, basically.

feels weird to ignore a flat out statement in favor of how it feels or vibes.

 

[Napoleondevious]

0D

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

0D

discrete space-time is a real number line victim which is how we model our dimensions

 

[Rikimarox2]

Yeah, I doubt we could ignore such a concrete statement, especially if it was stated multiple times.

Best I'm seeing for highest rating is something; "3-A, likely/possibly [whatever tier here]", with the likely/possibly being when ignoring that statement. But even then, ehhhh.

 

[FinePoint]

feels weird to ignore a flat out statement in favor of how it feels or vibes.

Welcome to power-scaling. Our criteria is arbitrary and based on a hundred subjective assumptions.

0D

But also, yeah, technically if "infinity" doesn't physically exist and we extrapolate that to dimensions then geometry sort of stops functioning and we get either 11-C or something our Tiering System simply doesn't account for.

So there's a reasonable basis to ignore that statement being taken literally.

 

[FinePoint]

Best I'm seeing for highest rating is something; "3-A, likely/possibly [whatever tier here]", with the likely/possibly being when ignoring that statement. But even then, ehhhh.

I could definitely see that being a reasonable compromise too.

 

[SweetDao]

I could definitely see that being a reasonable compromise too.

That seems reasonable for me too and in any case, when I'll do a CRT about it (and the verse) it can be discussed directly there, with two alternative (or more) provided.

 

[sukuna171]

That seems reasonable for me too and in any case, when I'll do a CRT about it (and the verse) it can be discussed directly there, with two alternative (or more) provided.

I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m pretty sure I know the series in question

 

[SweetDao]

I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I’m pretty sure I know the series in question

obviously

 

[sukuna171]

Sweetdao ain't cooking yogiri he is Deep frying my boy.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

btw if lets say it is taken as standard that infinity doesn't exist period in that said verse, then what would happened to speed aspect, as in characters being faster then seconds or their reaction speed reaching nano seconds to atto seconds casually. 1 second to 2 second is infinite intervals otherwise fraction of seconds wouldnt exist and the verse explictly needs to prove that univese time is moving in "chunks" of 1 second total, and nothing can exist in-between of those intervals. does that even make any sense lmao.
but hey fiction be damned.

 

[FinePoint]

btw if lets say it is taken as standard that infinity doesn't exist period in that said verse, then what would happened to speed aspect, as in characters being faster then seconds or their reaction speed reaching nano seconds to atto seconds casually. 1 second to 2 second is infinite intervals otherwise fraction of seconds wouldnt exist and the verse explictly needs to prove that univese time is moving in "chunks" of 1 second total, and nothing can exist in-between of those intervals. does that even make any sense lmao.
but hey fiction be damned.

You could assume it increments in Planck time instead, and basic Newtonian stuff should still work the same.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The reason infinite time gives a 3-A space a Low 2-C rating is because you get an uncountable infinite number of 3-A snapshots, which results in a 4D space needed to hold those snapshots. If time is finite, then the snapshots are finite and the universe doesn't require an infinite 4D space to hold itself.

It would be High 3-A afaik, but it's a very weird thing and like FinePoint mentioned, would be weird to tier.

 

[Wankbreaker]

By saying that infinity is an abstract concept and can't be physicalized, if you want to know, lol.

nasu moment

 

[Wankbreaker]

The reason infinite time gives a 3-A space a Low 2-C rating is because you get an uncountable infinite number of 3-A snapshots, which results in a 4D space needed to hold those snapshots. If time is finite, then the snapshots are finite and the universe doesn't require an infinite 4D space to hold itself.

It would be High 3-A afaik, but it's a very weird thing and like FinePoint mentioned, would be weird to tier.

would this apply even in the case of parallel worlds?