- 26,309
- 3,112
@Ultima
Hvae you never heard of the concept of Hypermass ?
Hvae you never heard of the concept of Hypermass ?
-
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
- Thread starter ProfessorKukui4Life
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 5,468
- 12,489
No I haven't, because it doesn't exist
- 26,309
- 3,112
Hypermass is the mass of an Hypervolume
- 1,866
- 332
Take a shot every time the word infinite or infinity is used.
- 5,468
- 12,489
Well, sorry to say but whoever told this to you is sorely mistaken. Mass is Mass, it is a scalar value. The whole thing about those is that they do not depend on direction.Overlord775 said:
- 26,309
- 3,112
@Sera I am pretty sure it is, as much as a normal volume is infinitelly superior to no volume
- 6,300
- 1,595
Should i bring links???TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
- 12,522
- 3,488
I love how this derailed from whether or not we should treat having multiple infinite multiverses as being above baseline 2-A to dimensional tiering.
- 14,902
- 12,415
While destroying two infinite multiverses would technically be the same "size" of stuff destroyed, just like how the set of every natural number has the same size as the set of every natural number divisible by 1000, we can still separate the two by assigning them different cardinalities.
Infinite multiverses is ¤ë, two infinite multiverses is 2*¤ë, etc.
EDIT: Of course, like we do with a lower number of universes, we can't actually assign a value to destroying more universes. i.e. destroying 4 universes isn't 2x as strong as destroying 2 universe. We wouldn't actually assign the value 2x stronger in this case, we'd say "unquantifiably stronger".
Also why is there an argument about higher dimensions here...
Infinite multiverses is ¤ë, two infinite multiverses is 2*¤ë, etc.
EDIT: Of course, like we do with a lower number of universes, we can't actually assign a value to destroying more universes. i.e. destroying 4 universes isn't 2x as strong as destroying 2 universe. We wouldn't actually assign the value 2x stronger in this case, we'd say "unquantifiably stronger".
Also why is there an argument about higher dimensions here...
- 26,309
- 3,112
Anyway, this is not the thread about it i guess
if @Sera or @Ultima have problems about the dimensional stuff, they should just make a different thread, or just wait for the new system thing and stop complaining,
if @Sera or @Ultima have problems about the dimensional stuff, they should just make a different thread, or just wait for the new system thing and stop complaining,
- 9,961
- 1,999
@Over, I mean, if the system its about to change, it would be better to hold the discussion as then it would become obsolete.
- 26,309
- 3,112
@Anfonioner
I hope you'll like breaking the entire wiki in two
Because i am gonna enjoy every second of that inferno of a carcer thread
Because i am gonna enjoy every second of that inferno of a carcer thread
- 6,300
- 1,595
Okay.. maybe i will bring links at a later time...TheUpgradeManHaHaxD said:
- 6,300
- 1,595
May i ask why not? when the sources i read say its the leading theory?
- 6,300
- 1,595
Isn't that every theory though being unfinished espeically with theories in regards to higher dimensions? It utlizes Superstring theory, and Brane Cosmology together with SuperGravity. There are other theories that go into it, but those are the main 3. What source says its unfinished? Wait.. How exactly does it not exist.. but widely accepted in the scientific community??? *Confused^
I don't mean to be rude, or mean to anyone.. i am sorry if i come off that way... I am just not that intelligient lol..
I don't mean to be rude, or mean to anyone.. i am sorry if i come off that way... I am just not that intelligient lol..
- 30,069
- 31,324
Sera and Ultima Reality are both being reasonable here.
- 19,249
- 2,647
I wouldn't call indirectly calling everyone else a dumbass reasonable but ok
- 30,069
- 31,324
They never did...
- 30,069
- 31,324
She talked about intellectualism, which is the practice of people acting more like machines then human beings; she never called anyone dumb or an "ass". She was just critiquing the idea of numbers without expressing emotions.
- 19,249
- 2,647
"The pseudo-intellectualism burns..."
Whether they typed those literal words or not doesn't matter when she pretty clearly has a low opinion of everyone involved right off the bat.
Whether they typed those literal words or not doesn't matter when she pretty clearly has a low opinion of everyone involved right off the bat.
- 8,752
- 1,616
It could be said better, even if it wasn't wrong. Yeah okay, done, do we need to keep discussing something that has nothing to do with the issue at hand where it really shouldn't be discussed? I think the point was made clear.
Sera and Ultima make a lot of sense, but Agnaa brings up what's more important I think. We can't simply place it in a "2 times stronger" vein, we can just say that it is unquantifiably stronger. No matter what it is still more impressive, and the alternative of not doing that "because infinities" would be a bit stupid if we decide to use scaling chains which would be more or less "this infinity bigger than this one", the exact same thing refurbished.
Sera and Ultima make a lot of sense, but Agnaa brings up what's more important I think. We can't simply place it in a "2 times stronger" vein, we can just say that it is unquantifiably stronger. No matter what it is still more impressive, and the alternative of not doing that "because infinities" would be a bit stupid if we decide to use scaling chains which would be more or less "this infinity bigger than this one", the exact same thing refurbished.
- 19,249
- 2,647
Fair.
I mean. You have two boxes, each of which contain an infinite multiverse. You destroy both at once, there, you are 2x above baseline 2-A as far as fiction cares. Fiction doesn't care about math in most circumstances, so there is 0 reason to attempt to crowbar mathematical standards into it and it will inevitably cause more confusion and issues than it could ever hope to solve.
I mean. You have two boxes, each of which contain an infinite multiverse. You destroy both at once, there, you are 2x above baseline 2-A as far as fiction cares. Fiction doesn't care about math in most circumstances, so there is 0 reason to attempt to crowbar mathematical standards into it and it will inevitably cause more confusion and issues than it could ever hope to solve.
- 40,446
- 12,914
We literally have our system based on mathematics though.
- 14,902
- 12,415
@DDM Too. Sera and Ultima didn't really comment on the main part of this thread (can there be feats that are 2-A but are still above baseline).LSirLancelotDuLacl said:
For the record I largely disagree with them (even if the people they're responding to have made some bad points), but that entire discussion is pretty off-topic.
- 19,249
- 2,647
What I said still stands. Very few verses actually try to give calculated results for their own feats, and a decent chunk of those that do tend to be wildly off from what we consider ok. Plus there is an innate difference from talking about how fiction treats infinity and how fiction treats powerscaling and feats.
- 30,069
- 31,324
Sera also makes a good point about assuming that existing on higher dimensions doesn't automatically make you higher infinity. A character could have 11-dimensional travel or 11-dimension spatial intangibility and the ability to effect spatial intangible beings on that level, but still be less than Planet level.
- 19,249
- 2,647
That is not related to this discussion at all
- 12,522
- 3,488
Can we stop derailing a thread about 2-A feats with dimensional tiering?
- 8,752
- 1,616
But what I understood is that at no point is fiction saying "2 infinite multiverses is better", just that destroying two such constructs at once is superior to only being able to destroy one, which is not even a wrong assertion to make to keep things simple and not boggle down audiences with unneeded mental maths.
That's it and that's all. We'd be the ones deciding that 2 such constructs equal 2x baseline, when "stronger" is sufficient.
That's it and that's all. We'd be the ones deciding that 2 such constructs equal 2x baseline, when "stronger" is sufficient.
- 19,249
- 2,647
No, they don't say that exact phrase most of the time, but they tend to treat lots of infinite multiverses as better than one, which can simply be extrapolated back.
- 19,117
- 6,333
I don't really get why some people are treating this debate as "fictional interpretations of infinity vs actual math" when i've explained that higher degrees of infinity are a thing in math.
I agree with Agnaa about the gap between destroying one multiverse and destroying two being unquantifiable instead of being simply two times stronger, but the main point was that feats above baseline 2-A can be a thing.
Also because again, saying "let's use only scaling chains to determine the gap between 2-As because there is no point in trying to quantify something that's infinite anyway" doesn't make sense.
Not going to talk about the dimensions stuff as that's not the place for that and we'll be able to talk about it in a future thread anyway
I agree with Agnaa about the gap between destroying one multiverse and destroying two being unquantifiable instead of being simply two times stronger, but the main point was that feats above baseline 2-A can be a thing.
Also because again, saying "let's use only scaling chains to determine the gap between 2-As because there is no point in trying to quantify something that's infinite anyway" doesn't make sense.
Not going to talk about the dimensions stuff as that's not the place for that and we'll be able to talk about it in a future thread anyway
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
