• 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.

2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

Status
Not open for further replies.
Destroying 2 infinite multiverses is clearly a better feat as it's TWO multiverses

Even if infinity makes it funky
 
You are just contradicting yourself: using math with infinities and 2-As.

And we go back to my previous point: even if something apparently sounds more impressive, it doesn't mean it actually is.
 
To use another example, refer to this.

Pretend that the smallest set is an infinite multiverse.

Destroying the bigger sets is above baseline because they contain an infinite multiverse and then some other stuff, that's it

Scaling chains being the only way to quantify 2-As is also nonsensical if the argument is "it's infinite anyway" as stomping a 2-A is just being a "bigger infinity" like two multiverses or whatever
 
One thing I always wondered. How is destroying two infinite multiverses more impressive? It's an infinite amount of space time continuums right? Especially if it's still 4D.
 
@Cal Dunno why you (and the wiki) treat Higher degree of Dimension (like High 3-A to Low 2-C) as infinity, that make no real sense to use this measure since it's not something related to "numbers", it's something irrelevant. as we can't determine how strong someone "Dodo" is with a rule to determine my size or determine the volume of a box with a stopwatch. Basically, this isn't the same category to scale those things.
 
@Casuality

We do because of stuff like Hypervolume and Hypermass, which makes 4-D contructs infinitelly larger and heavier than 3-D ones
 
Thing is you can divide any object into infinitely small parts, whether it be a glass cup or a skyscraper.

If you had infinitely small objects, both the skyscraper and the cup would be able to fit an infinite amount of them. That doesn't mean destroying a skyscraper isn't more impressive than destroying the cup.
 
Overlord775 said:
@Casuality
We do because of stuff like Hypervolume and Hypermass, which makes 4-D contructs infinitelly larger and heavier than 3-D ones
Click to expand...
That why i have some problem with that, adding a Dimension to a 2-D structure make him 3-D sure, but i'am sure that you can't concider that as "infinity larger"
 
The Causality said:
That why i have some problem with that, adding a Dimension to a 2-D structure make him 3-D sure, but i'am sure that you can't concider that as "infinity larger"
Click to expand...
A 2-D structure has no wight, thus no volume, nor mass, nor any energy compared to a 3-D object

With the same princible a 3-D object would be lacking a a fourth dimension, thus have no volume, nor mass, nor any energy compared to a 4-D object
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
Thing is you can divide any object into infinitely small parts, whether it be a glass cup or a skyscraper.
If you had infinitely small objects, both the skyscraper and the cup would be able to fit an infinite amount of them. That doesn't mean destroying a skyscraper isn't more impressive than destroying the cup.
Click to expand...
No, you can't. Planck lengths are a thing.

And we are talking about devidingInfinites by finite numbers, not dividing finite numbers by infinity.
 
Another Question, about about being able to manipulatie in any way and infinite number of multiverses that exist in the same plane?

What about Multiverses where its linerally infinite, but it has timelines that have branching Timelines from it that make their own multiverse, but its infinitely expanding instead of already infinite? However, the Main Multiverse is infinite, its just its off chute isn't but its expanding to infinity?
 
I don't really wanna get into very verse-specific cases, so you might wanna make another CRT/Q&A Thread.
 
I never ment it to be verse specific.. But i encountered this in many other verses instead of just 1.. but if that would be the best case.. Then i will do it..
 
First of all, higher-dimensional beings being infinitely larger than lower dimensional ones is false. The dimension is infinitely larger, the objects within them are arbitrarily larger.

To assume. 5th dimensional being is:

A. The size of the entire fifth dimension

B. Can affect the totality of the fifth dimension without any...you know... feats or context

Is, for lack of a better term, wank.
 
Sera EX said:
The pseudo-intellectualism burns...
Click to expand...
624A8A6F-3413-41B8-BF89-303A1214C5BB
There is no example of this here, False or otherwise Sera. Seems kind of like a insult tbh

No offense intended, just wanted to point that out
 
Don't have a opinion one way or the other (well I do but I don't care enough to argue), just saying that making claims like that for no reason, especially without any justification, isn't the best idea
 
Technically that's a different definition then the one I used, so you could be right, but either way it's not necessary and maybe just a bit rude.
 
Oh it's very necessary. This has been infecting our site for a very long time.

People are regurgitating false information as if it's fact. That's pretty pseudo-intellectual especially when not a single explanation has been given to back up said claim, let alone a source.

That leads to the spread of misinformation.
 
Sera EX said:
Oh it's very necessary. This has been infecting our site for a very long time.

People are regurgitating false information as if it's fact. That's pretty pseudo-intellectual especially when not a single explanation has been given to back up said claim, let alone a source.

That leads to the spread of misinformation.
Click to expand...
Than debunk it without Ad Hominems or insults. It's been done before.
 
Sera EX said:
First of all, higher-dimensional beings being infinitely larger than lower dimensional ones is false. The dimension is infinitely larger, the objects within them are arbitrarily larger.
Click to expand...
Again, this is debunked by the interaction between 2-D and 3-D

A 2-D structure has no wight, thus no volume, nor mass, nor any energy compared to a 3-D object

as such a 4-D object would be lacking a 5-D mass, volume and energy and thus be infinitelly inferior
 
I didn't insult anyone. I didn't even call anyone a pseudo intellectual. I said pseudo-intellectualism, referring to the arguments themselves.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone but attacking one's argument isn't an insult or personal attack on them.
 
Even then, the way it was stated made it sound like a insult. There are better ways to attack a argument either way.
 
It would be ad hominem if that were her main argument.

That was just a remark for her distaste of certain arguments. Let's not get too thin skinned, aight?
 
Sera EX said:
Oh it's very necessary. This has been infecting our site for a very long time.

People are regurgitating false information as if it's fact. That's pretty pseudo-intellectual especially when not a single explanation has been given to back up said claim, let alone a source.

That leads to the spread of misinformation.
Click to expand...
Also, the way this is phrased can easily be interpreted and claiming people themselves are pseudo intellectuals.
 
Ricsi-viragosi said:
It would be ad hominem if that were her main argument.

That was just a remark for her distaste of certain arguments. Let's not get too thin skinned, aight?
Click to expand...
Fair, but it is a important matter to some people. Namely Fandom, who list not resorting to insults as a major part of the Community Guidelines, the following of which is required by Terms of Use. Just something that it's good to tread lightly on.
 
@Overlord

There is no such thing as n-dimensional mass, it is a dimensionless value.

And I should note that assigning ordinal positions to dimensions isn't exactly the wisest thing to do, as they are just axes in a system. There is a notion of an n-dimensional real coordinate space R^n, but even then those aren't necessarily infinite, nor are they equatable to "lmao the nth dimenshun"
 
Well if we want to use Higher Dimensions. M-theory using Superstring, and Brane Cosmology theory doens't it? it combines the too? If i remember right, it has Multiple Multiverses starting at 7th or 8th dimensional. Though, i really think it depends on how the verse sets its cosmology up, and potrays itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MightyFrogBeyond
How can I make a 5D atom beyond 2-A?
2
Replies
41
Views
793
DavidTPPM
DavidTPPM
Ezaru
Curled Up Strings
Replies
0
Views
301
Ezaru
Ezaru
MightyFrogBeyond
How to Keep infinite branching timelines as Low 2-C??
Replies
2
Views
445
MightyFrogBeyond
MightyFrogBeyond
About the New Tiering System
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel
MightyFrogBeyond
Destroying infinite timelines that all root back to one timeline
Replies
11
Views
764
MightyFrogBeyond
MightyFrogBeyond
Back
Top