• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Astral_Trinity439

Profile posts Postings About

  • Ideals without Power are merely idle daydreams, and Power without Ideas is Empty, right? I hold no intent on seeking Power just for the sake of Power without the Ambition to do something with it.
    Hello again, Astral. I have a question. Isn't it better to gradually upgrade Tensura WN? Like first upgrade to Low 1-A, then 1-A (High 1-A) and then tier 0? I think it will be faster this way. What do you think?
    Hello Astral,

    You probably recognize me as the random guy from the Infinite Multiversal Space Container thread, but I wanted to take a moment out to say that I really liked your take on the issue in your own comment and found it to be a well thought out and informed addition to the conversation. Now that being said I am curious about your thoughts as to my take on the issue found in my aforementioned first comment.

    In any case, thank you in advance for hearing me out.

    Sincerely,
    Unoriginal777
    Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    Glad you liked it!
    Now, moving on to your post:
    Now that being said, after carefully reviewing the wiki standards I have what I think to be a slight criticism of the current tier 2 standards. Namely when those standards move beyond the basic Low 2-C reference point. So say someone is trying to push for 2-A which is represented by characters who can “significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums." Now I think we would all agree that the space/void which fits these timelines would itself be 2-A at least (given what it fits). However, say you have a verse that has the void and the statement of being infinitely greater than the notion of space-time continuums. Well to my shock, what typically happens is people take the following view.
    Well, strictly speaking, a Void is something that lacks space and time, per the Void Manipulation page, and things like Empty spaces that exist in-between universes are not classified as voids in the literal sense, they are just called that out of convenience.

    Now, regarding your statement itself, if we assume a Void as lacking Spatio-temporal characteristics, then a void that is such and yet also infinitely bigger is bound to be 1-A instead, per our BDE2 definitions, provided there are no anti-feats, of course.

    However, looking at the CRT you linked, the only proof I see is of said Demon World being infinite in size, it does not suggest anything like it containing the human world or another separate space-time, just some pocket dimensions that are never confirmed to be different space-times all in all.
    As such, even if the verse in question logically could/should be eligible to fit those infinite space-times in the container, because the container itself doesn’t specify a multiverse, it is then rejected and placed subjectively into 2-C as being "vaguely" above Low 2-C. This notion is one which has always struck me as strangely peculiar seeing as the logic when applied to other tiers that deal in similarly infinite spaces/pocket dimensions doesn’t hold up. For example, at the High-3A tier it is not required that a specified infinite content is demonstrated/shown as much as the fact that the cosmological structure/space itself stretches on infinitely regardless of its demonstrated contents.
    This is pretty much staff opinion, and all in all, it does not go against the standards, strictly speaking, as there are no set standards for Infinite spaces outside Space-times. However, technically speaking, per what I think, if Space exists outside a Space-Time that contains that Space-Time and is bigger than it, then it is bound to be 2-A by mathematics. And in case it is also infinite, that is naturally low 1-C.
    For example, from what I’ve heard from hearsay (even in this thread) the typical reasoning why simply being “infinite” in comparison to a confirmed 2-C space is “not enough” for tier 2-A is the fact that because the distance between tier 2 constructs is technically infinite (seeing as tier 2 constructs are themselves infinite due to their 4D status for lack of better term) a claim to being infinitely larger then a space-time continuum should then be ignored as follows.
    And I disagree with that, too, for the same reason as what I described in the CRT itself.
    A line is, for example, infinite, and the space between two non-overlapping lines in a 2-A plane, despite being finite and insignificant in 2-D perspective, is enough to fit a countably infinite amount of such lines.
    Extending that to 4D space-times embedded inside 5D Space, a 5D insignificant space that contains multiple space-times should also be 2-A.
    Nevertheless, I think there’s a problem with this line of reasoning as well in that it fails from a perspectival sense. Think of it this way, we all acknowledge that time-spaces are infinite given their 4D constitution with the addition of a temporal axis. However, the fact we can count said universes which are infinite constructs in blatantly finite terms in all tier 2 standards (as seen in tiers, Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A) means that it shouldn’t have to be a blurry topic when we have a confirmed Low 2-C space and a space containing it which is infinitely larger then it as by acknowledging the notion of a space-time continuum at all an author is technically taking a God’s eye view from a 4D perspective which trivializes the 4D construct to a finite object to count. This is a very similar concept to how one counts higher infinities and differentiates them from say the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and 2 and the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and infinity; a cornerstone of VSBW as a whole given what we know of Set Theory.

    So for the sake of consistency I believe the best path forward would be to alter the tier 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A standards with the add-on that a verse may also qualify for these rankings should they prove capable of affecting spaces/pocket dimensions that can imitate a multiverse containing 2 to 1000 universes, 1001 to any higher finite amount, and especially spaces that can contain infinite universes despite not showing direct evidence of containing said amount of universes in their expanse because size is the be all, end all of the issue when scaling a dimension of sorts. Not the inside contents or else we'd need to turn that level of scrutiny towards standards for scaling similarly infinite spaces like those in the High 3-A classification.
    Same as what I said at the start, so we share nearly the same sentiment in this.
    Tho, note that, for the highlighted 3 words, I would like to assume that you meant 4D Space-times there, which I agree to. Though, Spaces outside the Universe that are shown to be literally infinite should straight up be low 1-C.
    Unoriginal777
    Unoriginal777
    Hello Astral,

    Thank you for your gracious response. I appreciate that you took the time to engage in this dialogue. That being said, DMC's DW does have established evidence of not only being infinitely greater then the HW, but also having in the past encompassed it when the HW was originally born barring outside interference which split the worlds, quite directly if I might add. Not to mention the HW would be the lowest in a spectrum of differing realms in the DW like the mirror realm, a carbon copy of the HW operating on different spatio-temporal laws then the HW which also would've emerged from the DW like the HW or Mundus's palace which can contain a universe which even by 1's metrics is a continuum I think the DW contains/encompasses space time continuums and can contain an infinite amount at that.

    That aside, I can assert that the 3 words were meant to speak of 4D space-times. Sorry for my lack of clarification.
    I'm trying to prove smurf energy and elements
    Could you take a look ?
    Hey got a question regarding the layers for tensura,
    How does layering work ,if the entire hax is based on laws does that mean one cannt get laws for other things for example life hax
    can magic get its own layers aside from the law hax
    Btw regular members are only allowed to post 3 times in staff discussion thread with admin permissions, and that one was your 4th msg in that thread. So remember this for future.🙂
    Only staff members with evaluation rights can authorize regular members to participate in Staff Discussion threads. Thread Moderators are able to grant permission for a single post at a time, whereas administrators can give permission for up to three.
    i am saying this here cuz I don't wanna clog up the thread with these kinda posts.
    Hello, is there a deference at all between a verse being viewed as imaginary and a verse straight up being imaginary?

    For an example: featherine viewing her verse as a board game.

    I ask this because I’m not to sure if reality>fiction transcendence works as a character manipulation an existing space-time as if it is imaginary is same as a character manipulating a nonexisting imaginary world because it is simply literally imaginary. I have had many people portray them as they if they are different things which started to make me question my knowledge about the r>f transcendence.
    • Like
    Reactions: Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    InkyBattles
    InkyBattles
    Last question for right now, I have been hearing many people argue that if a world is fiction that means it is flat (2-dimensional). What are your thoughts about this argument? and would you agree or disagree with it.
    Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    Didnt get a notification for this, so apoIogies for repIying Iate.
    And I disagree, the tiering system revisions were basicaIIy aImost entireIy meant to deaI with this anaIogy. FictionaI structures are, from higher perspective, just nothing at aII, nonexistence, but 2-Ds are just uncountabIy inferior.

    For exampIe, you can make a 3-D thing out of uncountabIy infinite 2-Ds, but you cannot make reaIity out of fiction no matter how many times you stack it, an empty set muItipIied to itseIf an inaccessibIe amount of times is stiII an empty set..
    Hi Astral, can you revisit the thread and check out catzlaflame's input
    • Like
    Reactions: Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    According to Ant, Ultima is busy with their irl studies, so even if I reply to Catzflame and everyone else, there is no point in dragging this for so long when the VIP, aka Ultima, is missing.

    I think it would be better to wait until Ultima is free.
    Richard5128pm
    Richard5128pm
    Agreed
    hello yap king i would like your input :)
    Hi astral.

    Have you had a debate with people who downplay Rimuru?
    • Like
    Reactions: Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    Astral_Trinity439
    I dont debate much outside vsbw.
    There was a time, years ago in the ancient past of TenSura Community on YouTube, when I used to debate a lot, but me debating outside vsbw now is pretty much nonexistent.
    Is this your account in youtube
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Back
Top