Tier 2: Space-Time Continuum Revision

[Seraphor12]

I have permission from @Antvasima to create this thread.

---

Currently the requirements for qualifying for Space-time continuum are like this.

Qualifications​

In order for something to qualify as a proper space-time continuum in regard to some feat usually one of two following two criteria should be met:

1. It is explicitly stated to be a "Space-time continuum" or something equivalent.
2. It fulfills the standards for being a universe-sized realm (see the first section of this page) and all of its time is also involved in its feat. I.e. the structure involved in the feat is the timeline of an entire universe.

When considering "dimensions" or "universes", one should keep in mind that time travel should not be possible between universes which we factually know are not branching timelines off each other. If this happens it could be used to show that they are actually part of the same universe.

So, I propose that the "Universal-Size Requirement" for a realm to be considered a true space-time continuum should be re-evaluated or removed entirely. Instead of always needing the realm to be as big as a 93 billion light-years universe to qualify, it should just be handled case by case depending on the verse.

---

1. Reconsidering the Universal Size Requirement
Currently, one of the two accepted methods for qualifying something as a full space-time continuum is:

“It fulfills the standards for being a universe-sized realm (see the first section of this page) and all of its time is also involved in its feat.”

The implied standard here is often tied to real-world observable universe size, i.e., around 93 billion light-years in diameter.
So, Concerns with This Requirement are:

• Most verses never quantify their universe size. It limits universes that clearly depict space-time behavior, timelines, etc. simply because their size wasn’t stated to be big enough.
• Narrative significance > physical size. Some "realms" or "dimensions" may house an entire timeline and have very clear space-time continuum relationship.
• Even a plank second of a timeline will be able to contain uncountably infinite snapshots of that entire structure so it doesn't actually make sense to limit it with size. It will contain uncountably infinite snapshots of any finite or infinite size universe.
• It basically forces scaling to rely only on size (space), even though Tier 2 is more about time anyway.

Thus, it may be time to consider either: Removing the universal size requirement entirely or reevaluating it.
2. Introducing a Third Method
In addition to the two existing criteria for qualifying a space-time continuum:

1. It is explicitly stated to be a "Space-time continuum" or something equivalent.
2. It fulfills the standards for being a universe-sized realm (see the first section of this page) and all of its time is also involved in its feat. I.e. the structure involved in the feat is the timeline of an entire universe.

I propose adding a third way, based on timeline duration:

It contains a timeline that spans at least billions of years, and all of its time is also involved in the feat. I.e., the realm involved in the feat is a complete timeline with a very long and consistent history, similar to that of an actual universe.

This would not mean any long-lived realm gets Tier 2 status. There should still be clear standards for it:

• The timeline must be continuous, significant, and impacting the entire realm.
• Pocket dimensions that are just a few thousand years old or only cover a small timeline wouldn't count.

It makes sense since time is a core part of a space-time continuum and in most cases, it's more important than just the spatial size. A realm with billions of years of history shows a full, self-contained timeline, which is what Tier 2 is actually about.
So that's all! I would appreciate staff's input on this.

---

Agree: @DarkDragonMedeus (Leaning towards waiting for Ultima to check this), @FinePoint (agrees on principal but needs time to think on how it should be applied)
Disagree: @Agnaa
Neutral:

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GrathOfLux @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

What do you think about this?

 

[KLOL506]

While I agree with the "universal size" removal (I find the whole notion of "Fiction doesn't treat it like that" to be bullshit here, fiction also allows multipliers to stack up and give you how many space-times you can bust, it's almost never logical, sometimes it's just to kneecap verses people don't like using the excuse of "We don't want too many verses to have "overinflated stats" as if that even worked in the first place), like we've already stated before...

WE ARE NOT YET READY. This will be a massive undertaking for all verses involved and it needs a coordinated response and it will require thorough planning and full cooperation from all staff, not just admins and bureaucrats. This affects not just Tier 2 but Tier 1 as well. It'll be a couple of years before a brave-enough thread moderator, admin or bureaucrat with titanium balls emerges to spearhead it. A CRT like this however? Nada. Not gonna happen.

 

[Antvasima]

If this would require far too much work to apply, it does not at all seem realistic, yes.

 

[KLOL506]

If this would require far too much work to apply, it does not at all seem realistic, yes.

Oh no, it has to be applied one day (Because the way we do Tier 2 and this whole "significant size" requirement nonsense is objectively wrong and is a massive glaring error that cannot be ignored because it runs contrary to what our tiering system requirements imply. This isn't something that can just be handwaved away as "too much work for too little gain", if anything, there are massive gains to be had with this as it fixes a lot of the crap that Tier 2 and 1 get), just not right now for the foreseeable future.

First we'd need to figure out exactly how to fix Tier 2 after getting rid of the "significant size" nonsense. Then, we need to figure out in advance which verses will need to be changed and how they will need to be changed. It's not something we can just apply at once, it'll need to be a slow burn. But like I said, that is years away from now, and no one person has figured out the right order, can't do it anyway if we're bleeding staff members in the first place. Ultima tried it but then crashed out. FinePoint said he was gonna do something but I'm not holding my breath on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Understood.

 

[KLOL506]

In light of this, it's best to close this thread and wait for one of our staff members (Ultima, FinePoint, anyone else) to make a thread to revise Tier 2 and the significant size requirement. Whenever that is, 2 years, 5 years, a decade, whatever.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will do so then.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm in the middle of writing up a response to this; please wait like 5 minutes.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Agnaa]

I strongly disagree.

1. Reconsidering the Universal Size Requirement
Currently, one of the two accepted methods for qualifying something as a full space-time continuum is:

The implied standard here is often tied to real-world observable universe size, i.e., around 93 billion light-years in diameter.
So, Concerns with This Requirement are:

• Most verses never quantify their universe size. It limits universes that clearly depict space-time behavior, timelines, etc. simply because their size wasn’t stated to be big enough.

This is not true. We assume most verses to abide by this, unless they're new separate realms from the main reality, or there are indications that it may be smaller (i.e. by lacking stars in the sky, or by a mention that only their galaxy exists).

We, in general, assume that things operate as they do in the real world until shown otherwise.

• Narrative significance > physical size. Some "realms" or "dimensions" may house an entire timeline and have very clear space-time continuum relationship.

I think it's the opposite, we have these requirements because of narrative significance.

Not every bag of holding is intended to be a construct that requires universe-busting energies to create.

• Even a plank second of a timeline will be able to contain uncountably infinite snapshots of that entire structure so it doesn't actually make sense to limit it with size. It will contain uncountably infinite snapshots of any finite or infinite size universe.

This is true, but we view it as not really matching up with fictional portrayals in general. This massively increases the ratings provided to every series with anything that interacts with time in any way, no matter how small, or which involves pocket dimensions. And we've generally as a site viewed this as differing so extremely from the portrayal of such characters, so we hold stricter standards.

• It basically forces scaling to rely only on size (space), even though Tier 2 is more about time anyway.

It's not. That's the most common fictional way to reach it, but all of our tiers are ultimately about size or size-analogues.

2. Introducing a Third Method
In addition to the two existing criteria for qualifying a space-time continuum:

1. It is explicitly stated to be a "Space-time continuum" or something equivalent.
2. It fulfills the standards for being a universe-sized realm (see the first section of this page) and all of its time is also involved in its feat. I.e. the structure involved in the feat is the timeline of an entire universe.

I propose adding a third way, based on timeline duration:

This would not mean any long-lived realm gets Tier 2 status. There should still be clear standards for it:

• The timeline must be continuous, significant, and impacting the entire realm.
• Pocket dimensions that are just a few thousand years old or only cover a small timeline wouldn't count.

I don't really understand this post. If you remove the size requirement, then this would just be a more strict version of the second requirement, making this suggestion pretty malformed.

Plus, earlier on, you were arguing that even a planck second should qualify, so why are you now fine with arbitrarily limiting it by length?

This doesn't really meet a strict literal standard, nor does it really align with general fictional portrayals imo. I don't think a room existing outside with its own time should be a beyond-universe-busting feat just because it exists for an arbitrarily long duration.

It makes sense since time is a core part of a space-time continuum and in most cases, it's more important than just the spatial size. A realm with billions of years of history shows a full, self-contained timeline, which is what Tier 2 is actually about.

I'm much more fine with an arbitrary size limit (as it's rooted in this tier being strictly stronger than lower tiers), than I am with an arbitrary time limit (and I don't think "affects the entire time axis" is particularly arbitrary).

While I agree with the "universal size" removal (I find the whole notion of "Fiction doesn't treat it like that" to be bullshit here, fiction also allows multipliers to stack up and give you how many space-times you can bust

Does it? I think a clear stance on that is pretty uncommon, tbh, let alone one that cleanly aligns with that.

it's almost never logical, sometimes it's just to kneecap verses people don't like using the excuse of "We don't want too many verses to have "overinflated stats" as if that even worked in the first place)

I don't know how you could think such a broad requirement is targeted towards particular verses "people don't like". Like, this sounds as absurd to me as insinuating that our destruction values are accepted despite their issues to wank certain verses people like, such a targeting over series preferences seems impossible.

WE ARE NOT YET READY. This will be a massive undertaking for all verses involved and it needs a coordinated response and it will require thorough planning and full cooperation from all staff, not just admins and bureaucrats.

I guess it'll never be ready then, since I oppose it?

This affects not just Tier 2 but Tier 1 as well. It'll be a couple of years before a brave-enough thread moderator, admin or bureaucrat with titanium balls emerges to spearhead it. A CRT like this however? Nada. Not gonna happen.

I don't think it's actually going to be particularly easier at any later point in time, if we decide this is something to pursue, I think we should pencil it in ASAP.

Oh no, it has to be applied one day (Because the way we do Tier 2 and this whole "significant size" requirement nonsense is objectively wrong and is a massive glaring error that cannot be ignored because it runs contrary to what our tiering system requirements imply. This isn't something that can just be handwaved away as "too much work for too little gain", if anything, there are massive gains to be had with this as it fixes a lot of the crap that Tier 2 and 1 get), just not right now for the foreseeable future.

The sort of "solution" applied here doesn't fix that. The "objectively correct" argument you're making would result in erasing one quark for one planck second being Low 2-C. Any effect on a non-zero space and a non-zero length of time would be Low 2-C. I think that is so far from the fictional portrayals, that it should not be implemented.

And if you take a middling road like this thread's creator, and limit to "billions of years", that is just as "objectively wrong", while also not being rooted in fictional portrayals; if characters were consistently presented as being infinitely stronger than universe-busting for those sorts of feats, they wouldn't get upgraded by this in the first place.

In light of this, it's best to close this thread and wait for one of our staff members (Ultima, FinePoint, anyone else) to make a thread to revise Tier 2 and the significant size requirement. Whenever that is, 2 years, 5 years, a decade, whatever.

And in general, I don't think this is actually a great idea. Staff members are very capable of leaving certain threads and standards for others to apply, and resolve the details of. These sorts of things need to be approached with the community in general, instead of hoping that one member will carry it.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems to make sense. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

This affects not just Tier 2 but Tier 1 as well.

Wasn't really sure what was meant by this initially, but I can kinda see it.

We do gate Tier 1 based on needing to affect higher-dimensional spaces that are at least as large as universes, and the entirety of them. Removing size requirements would drop those tiers back to how they were in 2018; returning back to Tier 1 high-D aliens.

Although I could see a way of arguing around that, which I won't bother elaborating on now, but if we do route around it, I don't see why Tier 1 would be affected.

 

[KLOL506]

Agree to disagree with you on that front.

In any case, OP seems to have been rejected.

 

[Seraphor12]

This is true, but we view it as not really matching up with fictional portrayals in general. This massively increases the ratings provided to every series with anything that interacts with time in any way, no matter how small, or which involves pocket dimensions. And we've generally as a site viewed this as differing so extremely from the portrayal of such characters, so we hold stricter standards.

I understand that it is to prevent outliers, but I don’t really see why we can’t just handle potential outliers on a case-by-case basis? If something truly is an outlier, it should be argued as such based on its portrayal not preemptively excluded by a blanket rule that also ends up limiting verses that could actually meet the standards just fine if looked at in context.

I don't really understand this post. If you remove the size requirement, then this would just be a more strict version of the second requirement, making this suggestion pretty malformed.

Plus, earlier on, you were arguing that even a planck second should qualify, so why are you now fine with arbitrarily limiting it by length?

eh it was not a more strict version but like a 3rd way which can be possible. I didn't meant it as a strict requirement. Also(for plank second case) it relates to what I said earlier, not every realm with time should qualify, but not every one should be disqualified either just because it doesn’t hit an arbitrary size. I’m saying we should judge based on portrayal and structure.

 

[Agnaa]

I understand that it is to prevent outliers, but I don’t really see why we can’t just handle potential outliers on a case-by-case basis? If something truly is an outlier, it should be argued as such based on its portrayal not preemptively excluded by a blanket rule that also ends up limiting verses that could actually meet the standards just fine if looked at in context.

eh it was not a more strict version but like a 3rd way which can be possible. I didn't meant it as a strict requirement. Also(for plank second case) it relates to what I said earlier, not every realm with time should qualify, but not every one should be disqualified either just because it doesn’t hit an arbitrary size. I’m saying we should judge based on portrayal and structure.

idk what stuff you have in mind with "context" or "portrayal and structure".

But I can give the general thought-terminator that if a character is contextually meant to be that strong, they'll usually reach the tier in other ways.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with the OP's proposal by the looks of it. It's been stated that even a single second of time contains and infinite number of temporal periods for much of the same reason lines contain infinite numbers of points. Meaning even a planet sized pocket dimension that still physically possesses its timestream would have to be High 3-A default minimum. The GBE of Earth multiplied by an infinite number of snapshots would mathematically be infinite. And DarkLK's argument against it made little to know sense after double checking and revitalizing context. I believe Ultima Reality explained it better on various other threads. So the "Needing a 93 lightyear diameter" barely adds any substance to something that's already collectively infinite by 3D standards combined with already being a 4-D structure.

I basically agree with the OP's proposal, but I'd prefer to wait when Ultima Reality + a team of dedicated staff are ready to double check each and every single profile on the wiki to see if they really meet criteria. Ultima Reality said it might take years for him to finally be ready to made the ultimate thread to reclarify, and perhaps there could be thousands of characters rated 3-A or less due for upgrades to Low 2-C or above. Or further more, High 3-A characters due for upgrades up to 2-A.

And yeah, KLOL is currect that once we get to High 3-A, we shouldn't use in universe accepted multipliers such as Kaioken and other similar techniques to stack AP; the existence of 2 or more Timelines is a lot more complex than simply doubling AP. Or even going from 1000 to 1001 timelines also has the same complex gap that linear multiplier system wouldn't be quintifiable.

 

[FinePoint]

In theory, I like this proposal, and planned on suggesting something similar in the future.

I think the current size requirements are too arbitrary and restrictive, and that it would make more sense to have more contextual requirements that depend on the verse rather than specific numbers.

That said, this would be a massive wiki-wide change, and I haven't really had the time to fully think out an alternative, and the posting of this thread hasn't changed that. In fact, I see a lot of glaring issues with these specific proposals that Agnaa has already pointed out.

That any length of time with matter is technically uncountably infinite energy is true, but I fully respect the need to make exceptions to that to prevent many outliers and pocket dimensions from qualifying.

So, I agree in principal, but I still need to do a lot more thinking and planning before I can make an actual proposal or support one.

 

[KLOL506]

In theory, I like this proposal, and planned on suggesting something similar in the future.

I think the current size requirements are too arbitrary and restrictive, and that it would make more sense to have more contextual requirements that depend on the verse rather than specific numbers.

That said, this would be a massive wiki-wide change, and I haven't really had the time to fully think out an alternative, and the posting of this thread hasn't changed that. In fact, I see a lot of glaring issues with these specific proposals that Agnaa has already pointed out.

That any length of time with matter is technically uncountably infinite energy is true, but I fully respect the need to make exceptions to that to prevent many outliers and pocket dimensions from qualifying.

So, I agree in principal, but I still need to do a lot more thinking and planning before I can make an actual proposal or support one.

No problem. I knew we were going to have massive issues on what solutions we could have for Tier 2, and that it was going to be long and hard. Take all the time you need.

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with the OP's proposal by the looks of it. It's been stated that even a single second of time contains and infinite number of temporal periods for much of the same reason lines contain infinite numbers of points. Meaning even a planet sized pocket dimension that still physically possesses its timestream would have to be High 3-A default minimum. The GBE of Earth multiplied by an infinite number of snapshots would mathematically be infinite. And DarkLK's argument against it made little to know sense after double checking and revitalizing context. I believe Ultima Reality explained it better on various other threads. So the "Needing a 93 lightyear diameter" barely adds any substance to something that's already collectively infinite by 3D standards combined with already being a 4-D structure.

I basically agree with the OP's proposal, but I'd prefer to wait when Ultima Reality + a team of dedicated staff are ready to double check each and every single profile on the wiki to see if they really meet criteria. Ultima Reality said it might take years for him to finally be ready to made the ultimate thread to reclarify, and perhaps there could be thousands of characters rated 3-A or less due for upgrades to Low 2-C or above. Or further more, High 3-A characters due for upgrades up to 2-A.

And yeah, KLOL is currect that once we get to High 3-A, we shouldn't use in universe accepted multipliers such as Kaioken and other similar techniques to stack AP; the existence of 2 or more Timelines is a lot more complex than simply doubling AP. Or even going from 1000 to 1001 timelines also has the same complex gap that linear multiplier system wouldn't be quintifiable.

For a practical example, Misogi Kumagawa erased a human from existence for three minutes.

You're fine rating that at Low 2-C?

Given the fact that he once used that ability to remove all colour from the universe, would you say that means he can erase the entire contents of the universe for three minutes, or perhaps longer?

These sorts of small-scale time abilities are going to come up many times if we change this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

For a practical example, Misogi Kumagawa erased a human from existence for three minutes.

You're fine rating that at Low 2-C?

Given the fact that he once used that ability to remove all colour from the universe, would you say that means he can erase the entire contents of the universe for three minutes, or perhaps longer?

These sorts of small-scale time abilities are going to come up many times if we change this.

Not really, there is a difference. For one, existence erasure is often referred to as durability negation hax when used on a human. But more importantly, it's not so much that existence erasure abilities have temporal area of effect by default, but there is a difference between simply erasing someone's present self, and their future period selves not existing as a result. As for looking at those scans, "I made it as if he never existed" may be interpreted as erasing past, but that could be a figure of speech to say "He vanished mysteriously and no one knows how and there are no remains." I do not know context of the verse you brought up, but is there genuine signs of past self as well as future self being erased during those three minutes? Such as characters with who lack Type 1 Acausality not remembering him or all in universe family photos of him being erased?

I got no comment on changing the color of the universe. I mean, there could be some hypothetical theories about effecting all color related chemical energy that contains/effects color being effected, but seems safer for that to be reality warping.

I understand there are a lot of case by case things that make the topic complicated. But another side note is we do need to recognize the difference between space-time anomalies that happen as a result of chain reaction and an extradimensional explosion with temporal area of effect. Destroying/erasing something in the present and all future period versions happened to be destroyed or erased as a result of what happened to that single past period version would be an example of the former.

Though, perhaps I am unsure how to deal with finite sized temporal lines now that I think about it. But I am pretty confident that examples of "Temporal dimensions with no natural beginning or no natural end" where its own temporal dimension is uncountable infinite in length should still be considered Low 2-C size.

 

[Agnaa]

Not really, there is a difference. For one, existence erasure is often referred to as durability negation hax when used on a human. But more importantly, it's not so much that existence erasure abilities have temporal area of effect by default, but there is a difference between simply erasing someone's present self, and their future period selves not existing as a result. As for looking at those scans, "I made it as if he never existed" may be interpreted as erasing past, but that could be a figure of speech to say "He vanished mysteriously and no one knows how and there are no remains." I do not know context of the verse you brought up, but is there genuine signs of past self as well as future self being erased during those three minutes? Such as characters with who lack Type 1 Acausality not remembering him or all in universe family photos of him being erased?

No, the ability is often described in that way, but it never has those sorts of effects.

That's why I used this particular example, since the character was erased for 3 minutes and then reappeared.

Plus, I don't think EE being durability negation matters, given how we start rating EE as AP at Tier 2 anyway.

I got no comment on changing the color of the universe. I mean, there could be some hypothetical theories about effecting all color related chemical energy that contains/effects color being effected, but seems safer for that to be reality warping.

That point was just there in conjunction with the first one. Even if the character is argued to be dispensing Low 2-C energy, they don't necessarily have the range to effect a whole timeline, but given that colour-changing feat they would have the necessary range.

I understand there are a lot of case by case things that make the topic complicated. But another side note is we do need to recognize the difference between space-time anomalies that happen as a result of chain reaction and an extradimensional explosion with temporal area of effect. Destroying/erasing something in the present and all future period versions happened to be destroyed or erased as a result of what happened to that single past period version would be an example of the former.

This concern could be pointed out a lot currently, but we generally don't have people actually evaluate for that possibility.

I'm pretty sure that most destruction-based Low 2-C feats are actually fake, if we take this lens of analysis.

Though, perhaps I am unsure how to deal with finite sized temporal lines now that I think about it. But I am pretty confident that examples of "Temporal dimensions with no natural beginning or no natural end" where its own temporal dimension is uncountable infinite in length should still be considered Low 2-C size.

That does not fix the "objectively incorrect" stuff pointed to by those interested in changing Tier 2. And hell, we might actually agree at that point.

 

[Floxy178]

I asked permission from @DarkDragonMedeus to be able to post here.

I agree that universal size requirement is unnecessary as even if we take whole timeline (which afaik we assume to be infinite by default) of a universe or a planet, both will be infinite sized 4D constructs. (from 3D scope, it's like difference between High 3-A and High 3-A)

But I don't get why do you yourself put restriction on time length, it's not that time is "more important" than spatial size in tier 2 anyway. Doesn't your own claim of any non infitesmall time qualifying contradict it?

I'd propose this, if we take typical universe space-time as Low 2-C, then:

Any non zero/infinitesmall space and whole infinite timeline = Low 2-C

Any non zero/infinitesmall time and infinite space = Low 2-C (since it's also infinite 4D construct, equal to typical Low 2-C universe)

Finite spatial size and finite time period = at least High 3-A (still 4D but unquantifiable, below Low 2-C but higher than High 3-A)

 

[Agnaa]

Finite space and finite time isn't unquantifiable, there's as many points in a 1 unit line segment, as there is in an infinite unit line segment. They are the same size.

 

[Floxy178]

I'm confused how both having same cardinality means they are "equal in size". Set theory and measure theory are different.

Two sets can have the same cardinality but vastly different measure (be it length, area, volume, hypervolume, etc.). For instance, any interval on the real line, whether of length 1 or 1,000,000, has the same cardinality as the whole real line, but clearly not the same measure (length).

Or if you extend square a little forming cube or extend it to infinity both will have aleph 1 squares but latter one will be infinite in size.

The same applies to space-time, a construct with finite space and finite time will still be 4D, but it lacks infinite extent in any dimension so it's not infite in size, thus infinitely below Low 2-C and uncountable infinite above High 3-A.

 

[Agnaa]

Two sets can have the same cardinality but vastly different measure (be it length, area, volume, hypervolume, etc.). For instance, any interval on the real line, whether of length 1 or 1,000,000, has the same cardinality as the whole real line, but clearly not the same measure (length).

there's as many points in a 1 unit line segment, as there is in an infinite unit line segment. They are the same size.

Or if you extend square a little forming cube or extend it to infinity both will have aleph 1 squares but latter one will be infinite in size.

The former would be infinite by one perspective, but not by another. The latter would be infinite by an additional perspective, but still not by others.

The same applies to space-time, a construct with finite space and finite time will still be 4D, but it lacks infinite extent in any dimension so it's not infite in size, thus infinitely below Low 2-C and uncountable infinite above High 3-A.

I don't understand the argument being made here.

You're saying that it's not infinite, and so it has to be below Low 2-C, but are also saying that it's uncountably infinitely above High 3-A?

The same logic you would be using to put it above High 3-A would make it comparable to Low 2-C.

Plus, that kind of logic seems pretty arbitrary. Why require infinity in any extent? Infinite height, width, and depth, would have it extend in far more directions than simply having infinite time, so why would you say those two are comparable? If you do so because of cardinality, then you have to respect cardinality in other instances for internal consistency.

 

[Floxy178]

The former would be infinite by one perspective, but not by another. The latter would be infinite by an additional perspective, but still not by others.

If you compare 4D object and 4D object then there's no meaning to look from 3D perspective just to make comparison impossible? You'll have to look from that additional perspective to compare them, then let's treat 5-B and High 3-A as equal because both are uncountable infinite above 2D?

I don't understand the argument being made here.

You're saying that it's not infinite, and so it has to be below Low 2-C, but are also saying that it's uncountably infinitely above High 3-A?

Yeah because it's still a 4D construct. It's just not infinite from 4D perspective, unlike infite timeline.

Plus, that kind of logic seems pretty arbitrary. Why require infinity in any extent?

Because only one would be enough for infinite size. Lack of infinity in all directions will result in finite size. (in this case, 4D volume)

Infinite height, width, and depth, would have it extend in far more directions than simply having infinite time, so why would you say those two are comparable?

Firstly, space having infinite volume doesn't require being infinite in all directions. Secondly, even if he does have that,

If you do so because of cardinality, then you have to respect cardinality in other instances for internal consistency.

Yeah because of cardinality. If I accept that aleph 0 * aleph 0 * aleph 0 = aleph 0, how that means I should also agree for "same size" argument? It's not that I'm denying the fact that finite line and infinite line has same number of points. Just having same cardinality alone doesn't grant same size. It isn't something "against cardinality" or anything, just set theory doesn't account for it. Cardinality simply tells how many points are in the line, but it tells us nothing about spatial extent. I really don't understand how you're arguing that finite line and infinite line are equal in size because of containing same number of points, instead of looking for their measure on 1D scale (length). That's initially what's needed to compare geometrical or physical objects of same dimensionality, not cardinality.

So yeah I see no problem for finite space + finite time being uncountable infinite above High 3-A but still countable infinite below Low 2-C. Intentionally looking from a lower dimensional perspective when compared objects are already same dimensionality doesn't make sense.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh okay, so you're just looking at it from a 4-D perspective.

So if there's a timeline which is 100x the size of the observable universe, but only lasts for 14 billion years, you would want its destruction to be rated at High 3-A?

I don't think it's a great idea to downgrade a bunch of characters like that.

 

[Floxy178]

So if there's a timeline which is 100x the size of the observable universe, but only lasts for 14 billion years, you would want its destruction to be rated at High 3-A?

I don't think it's a great idea to downgrade a bunch of characters like that.

If we take typical universe space-time as baseline for Low 2-C then yes. (As soon as description explains feat well, as it's not technically a downgrade since we just don't have a tier for it)

But I do agree that tiering any non infinite 4D as at least High 3-A isn't best idea. If you can think of a well spread requirement for spatial size and time length, we could set it as Low 2-C and tier infite sized one Low 2-C+ (just an example) or maybe rate those characters as High 3-A+ (still I believe it should be in tier 2 but anyway just an example)

Btw I don't think that in this case, dealing with finite sized temporaral dimensions would be problematic as DDM said (obv if I understood his potential concern right). If we make a seperate tier for it, and set requirements like at least universal size and billion year time for example, some feats may include size bigger than universe but shorter time period. Or the opposite, longer time but smaller spatial size. Even in these cases we can compare them to size with baseline requirements if we know both parameters.

TL;DR
I proposed the one that requires minimum work (afaik we already rate those at High 3-A from what I saw), but still think that comparing and tiering those seperately can also work.

 

[Seraphor12]

we could set it as Low 2-C and tier infite sized one Low 2-C+ (just an example) or maybe rate those characters as High 3-A+ (still I believe it should be in tier 2 but anyway just an example)

Low 2-C is called as universal level+ so low 2-C+ would be universal level++ lol, I don't think there is actually any need for make a difference between this tier. Also it is not alone, even high 3A have many countably infinite levels and a character can be still countably infinite times stronger than a baseline high 3A character. Same for many tiers in tier 1 section.

 

[Agnaa]

If we take typical universe space-time as baseline for Low 2-C then yes. (As soon as description explains feat well, as it's not technically a downgrade since we just don't have a tier for it)

But I do agree that tiering any non infinite 4D as at least High 3-A isn't best idea. If you can think of a well spread requirement for spatial size and time length, we could set it as Low 2-C and tier infite sized one Low 2-C+ (just an example) or maybe rate those characters as High 3-A+ (still I believe it should be in tier 2 but anyway just an example)

Btw I don't think that in this case, dealing with finite sized temporaral dimensions would be problematic as DDM said (obv if I understood his potential concern right). If we make a seperate tier for it, and set requirements like at least universal size and billion year time for example, some feats may include size bigger than universe but shorter time period. Or the opposite, longer time but smaller spatial size. Even in these cases we can compare them to size with baseline requirements if we know both parameters.

TL;DR
I proposed the one that requires minimum work (afaik we already rate those at High 3-A from what I saw), but still think that comparing and tiering those seperately can also work.

I can't think of a great way to actually structure that, but at least it's logically coherent.

Also, did you get further permission to comment here? Admins can only give permission for 3 posts, you said DDM gave you permission, and this is your fourth.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh okay, so you're just looking at it from a 4-D perspective.

Actually, thinking about this again, I disagree with this approach.

We no longer care about measures of arbitrary spaces after the Tiering System revision around 2019 or so. That's why our page now talks about R^N and "uncountably infinite levels", rather than dimensions.

For Tier 1 characters, we need one of:

• Infinite distance in all directions (although I think we may round feats that affect all of space up to this, which I do see as a bit of inconsistency, since beings that size which don't occupy all of the space wouldn't qualify for that).
• Statements indicating that higher dimensions inherently result in a power increase.
• Indications that each zero-size slice of a higher-dimensional entity has non-zero mass.
• Infinitely many dimensions.

Timelike dimensions are considered to satisfy the third of those criteria.

Notably, we don't actually operate on the idea that higher-dimensional objects are intrinsically superior to lower-dimensional ones. An 8-D alien does not get Tier 1 unless one of those criteria are met.

It seems like you're attempting to claw some of this back in Tier 2, which does not seem like a good idea for broader consistency.

 

[OmniScalator]

I was given permission by @FinePoint to comment here I will try to keep it concise

first I wanna highlight in my opinion biggest problem with whole Tier 2
In current system tier 2 although divided mainly in 2-C, 2-B and 2-A is inherently the same power level, since if we treat this like a 4 dimensional construct with 4 coordinate axes R⁴ (x,y,z,t) where x,y and z are for spatial dimensions and "t" is for dimension of time, and in current system it already assumes atleast one in x,y,z to be uncountably infinite, because it talks about uncountably infinite size beforehand, and if we multiply any amount of time whether finite or infinite no matter how many times result would be same, which is uncountably infinite upto highest degree of transfinite in one of these four axes

This is a big trouble as currently our all tier 2 basically represent same power level

To avoid this we can use concept of "size in 4th dimension sense" which is inherently based on "hypervolume" or volume across 4 dimensions which is essentially multiplication of length across all the axes x×y×z×t now I will roughly explain how this can be split

Tier 2-C
Can be consisting of feats across 4 dimensions whose "size" are finite


Tier 2-B
This tier can be for countably infinite 4D "sized" feats or atleast one axes countably infinite size and others non zero size


Tier 2-A
And this can be for feats of uncountably infinite size in 4 dimensions, meaning one axes is uncountably infinite too any degree and others non zero size

And in all of these instances word "size" refers to hypervolume

this system also means that higher dimensional characters have more "stronger energy" than lower Dimensional one's
and I think that because if we try to calculate hypervolume of lower dimensional objects, it will be 0, because their measure in one or more coordinate axes would be 0, and then if we multiply some energy density "E" with this volume to find total energy it would be 0


We can also split 2-C into low 2-C, 2-C and high 2-C based on multiple finite hypervolume
This solution may not be perfect but it is much better than what we have right now

 

[Agnaa]

I was given permission by @FinePoint to comment here I will try to keep it concise

first I wanna highlight in my opinion biggest problem with whole Tier 2
In current system tier 2 although divided mainly in 2-C, 2-B and 2-A is inherently the same power level, since if we treat this like a 4 dimensional construct with 4 coordinate axes R⁴ (x,y,z,t) where x,y and z are for spatial dimensions and "t" is for dimension of time, and in current system it already assumes atleast one in x,y,z to be uncountably infinite, because it talks about uncountably infinite size beforehand, and if we multiply any amount of time whether finite or infinite no matter how many times result would be same, which is uncountably infinite upto highest degree of transfinite in one of these four axes

This is a big trouble as currently our all tier 2 basically represent same power level

To avoid this we can use concept of "size in 4th dimension sense" which is inherently based on "hypervolume" or volume across 4 dimensions which is essentially multiplication of length across all the axes x×y×z×t now I will roughly explain how this can be split

Tier 2-C
Can be consisting of feats across 4 dimensions whose "size" are finite


Tier 2-B
This tier can be for countably infinite 4D "sized" feats or atleast one axes countably infinite size and others non zero size


Tier 2-A
And this can be for feats of uncountably infinite size in 4 dimensions, meaning one axes is uncountably infinite too any degree and others non zero size

And in all of these instances word "size" refers to hypervolume

this system also means that higher dimensional characters have more "stronger energy" than lower Dimensional one's
and I think that because if we try to calculate hypervolume of lower dimensional objects, it will be 0, because their measure in one or more coordinate axes would be 0, and then if we multiply some energy density "E" with this volume to find total energy it would be 0


We can also split 2-C into low 2-C, 2-C and high 2-C based on multiple finite hypervolume
This solution may not be perfect but it is much better than what we have right now

I think your suggestion is noticeably worse, and misunderstands the system as it is right now.

We don't assume one direction of x/y/z/t to be uncountably infinite in length. As this post of mine explains, we assume temporal dimensions to involve there being a literal physical copy of the universe for each instant of time, resulting in uncountably infinitely many objects with mass being present within a timeline.

Tier 2 could also be reached by there being uncountably infinitely many objects with mass coming about in some other way, such as by having that sort of length in one direction, but the timeline route is by far the most common.

So your contention is based on that fundamental misunderstanding. But it goes on to add more.

You base measurements of size on hypervolume, and say that two realms of uncountably infinite hypervolume still have the same hypervolume. That is true, but then it tries to separate Tier 2 into finite/countably infinite/uncountably infinite hypervolume. But from the perspective of volume, all of those are simply uncountably infinite; they don't differ on that scale. However, our system actually bases the measurements of Tier 2 on 5-measure, where you can meaningfully distinguish between one timeline (one "line"), five timelines (five "lines"), and infinitely many timelines (infinitely many "lines").

I put "line" in quotes there, since they are still massive four-dimensional spaces, but I'm drawing an analogy between 1-d lines and a 2-d plane, as an example of how we draw that distinction.

Ultimately, your suggestion does something which we kind of already do; gets around the issue of them having the same cardinality, by looking at them from the perspective of a different measure.

 

[Seraphor12]

Bump?

 

[Phoenks]

Permission for post granted by Agnaa.

I'm generally in agreement with the fact that Tier 2 is broken and is only currently holding on due to our standards conforming around fictional consistency rather than mathematics within that category.

Mathematically speaking, any object involving 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time should be beyond infinitely more voluminous than a 3-dimensional object. Since they possess >0 depth in an axis the 3D object doesn't have. I'm sure most are aware of that.

But I do tend to think that trying to apply mathematics to fictional constructs in this way leads to a lot inflation. Way more inflation than we currently have at the moment. I share agnaa's view that it would be absurd to say someone is universal because they delete someone or something from the universe for 3 seconds or 3 minutes or 3 hours. Even if they were to erase a finite object across all of time through sheer force rather than an ability, I struggle to get myself to believe that the authors intention was to say they have beyond infinite power.

That leads me to my personal big issue. Which is that, at the moment, the tier is trying to strike a balance between author intent and mathematics that is very nonsensical.

This idea that the object that is temporally embedded has to be "at least observable universe" in size in order to qualify. I think it's stupid, frankly. Because it's just another finite 3-D object, not unlike the individual person or the 4-A size pocket dimension. It being 93 billion whatever light-years across doesn't change that it's finite.

It's effectively saying that a finite thing embedded within a temporal dimension is either completely untierable or beyond infinite power depending on if it lands on one side or the other side of that frankly arbitrary "93 billion ly distance" we have.

That's dumb. Mathematically, it's dumb since if you accept that finite thing being Low 2-C because of the timeline then you also have to accept every other finite thing being Low 2-C if it has a timeline attached. It's also narratively dumb because when an author says a character destroys a universe, they either mean it to say "they destroyed this very big thing" or "they destroyed all of space and time." And usually I think it's pretty clear which one that is, so I don't think there needs to be a middle ground.

My solution: if we're going to keep making Tier 2 based on fictional consistency rather than math, then we should probably remove the part about needing a finite size.

Tier 2 should be reserved for characters who can, first and foremost, affect an infinite amount of space, and then also affect the temporal dimension on top of that. Mathematically it works a lot better, since now we aren't saying that finite objects satisfy the tier whatsoever. Its also pretty coherent since it's a natural jump over High 3-A. And narratively, the chances are if an author really wanted to make their character a full-scale space-time buster, the statements will exist alongside it that make it clear the character can affect an infinite amount of space and also some degree of time simultaneously.

Tl;dr: Remove finite universe/3-D space destruction scaling to Low 2-C whatsoever, even if there is a dimension of time involved. Low 2-C should require evidence that a character can affect an infinite space/universe that is also embedded within a temporal structure. Basically making High 3-A a prerequisite for Tier 2. I think this is far more consistent both mathematically and narratively.

It would downgrade some characters. I think that's fine. I doubt any of the characters who are stressed to be able to affect an entire infinite space-time continuum as opposed to a "universe" will be affected by such a thing, which is all that matters if you ask me.

I am guessing this is an unpopular opinion though.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm neutral on Phoenks' suggestion. It removes some mathematical weirdness by adding some evidentiary weirdness. I would overall find that to be a fine system, but not one noticeably better than our current one.

 

[KLOL506]

I don't think Phoenk's suggestion is thorough enough or better enough than our current system to be applied, and OmniScalator's suggestion (Apologies to Seraphor, I thought he made the new multiple Tier 2 stuff) is objectively worse and just adds an excessive number of tiers for no good reason instead of keeping it concise.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think Phoenk's suggestion is thorough enough or better enough than our current system to be applied, and OmniScalator's suggestion (Apologies to Seraphor, I thought he made the new multiple Tier 2 stuff) is objectively worse and just adds an excessive number of tiers for no good reason instead of keeping it concise.

I think the core idea of it is simply:

• Any value between non-infinitesimal and infinite is arbitrary and physically meaningless.
• Letting any non-infinitesimal space qualify leads to absurdities with erasing someone for a minute being Low 2-C.
• Therefore, we should require infinite space to qualify.

And I think that's exactly as thorough as it needs to be, really.

 

[KLOL506]

The issue is, we already consider erasing a tiny portion of 4D (Time specifically) to be High 3-A due to the whole infinite snapshots thing. Destroying all of time itself would automatically lend itself to destroying an uncountably infinite number of 3D snapshots AKA Low 2-C as per the standards. To not consider this for the rest of the tiers above just sounds contradictory and running directly against the standards itself.

I also fail to understand how erasing someone for a minute leads to Low 2-C since we're not erasing all of time, let alone any portion of time (Which in and of itself would only account for High 3-A via again, the snapshots argument).

And the significant size aspect is just a part of the problem, the next issue arises with multipliers and distances between space-times, where fiction also almost never considers the distance between universes to be relevant in any metric, and considers multipliers a viable way to reach x times multiversal.