-
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
- 9,749
- 4,371
Your mistake was trying to make a conversation out of it.Sera EX said:
- 26,116
- 3,649
How does putting an "at least" change or resolve the scaling in power? In a match, they would remain equally above baseline if that's all you do, so it changes nothing.
- 9,749
- 4,371
No, they wouldn't.
An "at least 2-A" who destroyed two multiverses would be treated as weaker than an "at least 2-A" who destroyed three or more, and so-on.
I don't see why that's such an unfathomable concept.
An "at least 2-A" who destroyed two multiverses would be treated as weaker than an "at least 2-A" who destroyed three or more, and so-on.
I don't see why that's such an unfathomable concept.
- 10,748
- 6,477
If infinity actually multiplies like normal numbers then it isn't, if it doesn't and multiplying infinity by two doesn't give a greater number then it is a problemMrKingOfNegativity said:
And please, don't act like people are just having trouble understanding basic concepts, this is an idea that people learn very early on and if there's misconceptions point it out but don't just dismiss why they have the problems in the first place
- 14,933
- 12,487
Sure, my point was just that slapping "At least 2-A" doesn't instantly solve the issue Andy and others have.
As you can tell from most of my posts in this thread, I think that there are 2-A feats that aren't baseline.
As you can tell from most of my posts in this thread, I think that there are 2-A feats that aren't baseline.
- 10,748
- 6,477
@Pritti You're literally just saying "x is x" and bringing up an example that has nothing to do with what people are arguing. The argument was if something is above baseline in the first place, just stating it is does nothing for the discussion
- 6,104
- 5,102
@Andy
We have to suspend that part of our brain to even debate that in the first place. "Infinity doesn't multiply like that" doesn't invalidate that fiction more commonly than not puts power-scaling above logic and numbers, as Agnaa said. Case in point, the Kaio-ken. It claims to multiply your power by a set amount. x10, x20, etc. However, Goku's feats when using the Kaio-ken do not mathematically match his previously established power levels or feats.
We have to suspend that part of our brain to even debate that in the first place. "Infinity doesn't multiply like that" doesn't invalidate that fiction more commonly than not puts power-scaling above logic and numbers, as Agnaa said. Case in point, the Kaio-ken. It claims to multiply your power by a set amount. x10, x20, etc. However, Goku's feats when using the Kaio-ken do not mathematically match his previously established power levels or feats.
- 9,749
- 4,371
I think you've completely missed what I meant by "I don't see why that's such an unfathomable concept", so I suppose I'll explain.
By the logic people are going by, High 3-A (the "infinite in size" variety anyway) would suffer from the same problem. Someone who destroys all of the physical matter in an infinite-sized space would be the same as someone who destroys all of the physical matter in two infinite-sized spaces. Which, when looked at in the context of how fiction often portrays things like this, is ridiculous.
Frankly, fiction consistently ignores the whole nuance of "infinity times X = infinity" anyway, especially when it comes to series where the characters are supposedly blowing up or creating an infinite number of something. If we can ignore the entire principle of conservation of energy because fiction does the same (which we do, and our Attack Potency page outright says so), why should we tangle ourselves in something like this which is similarly dismissed by authors?
By the logic people are going by, High 3-A (the "infinite in size" variety anyway) would suffer from the same problem. Someone who destroys all of the physical matter in an infinite-sized space would be the same as someone who destroys all of the physical matter in two infinite-sized spaces. Which, when looked at in the context of how fiction often portrays things like this, is ridiculous.
Frankly, fiction consistently ignores the whole nuance of "infinity times X = infinity" anyway, especially when it comes to series where the characters are supposedly blowing up or creating an infinite number of something. If we can ignore the entire principle of conservation of energy because fiction does the same (which we do, and our Attack Potency page outright says so), why should we tangle ourselves in something like this which is similarly dismissed by authors?
- 235
- 335
@Andy
Ouch...
I was saying a casual feat is superior to a non casual one and thus above baseline in the first place :/
"Baseline" does not always mean "the base numerical value ala energy requirement of that tier" It also refers to how the feat was performed. That can influence what is and isn't baseline.
Ouch...
I was saying a casual feat is superior to a non casual one and thus above baseline in the first place :/
"Baseline" does not always mean "the base numerical value ala energy requirement of that tier" It also refers to how the feat was performed. That can influence what is and isn't baseline.
- 6,104
- 5,102
I mean, gee, there's literally youtube videos, Reddit posts, and other non VSBW discussions about this very thing. For some reason when it comes to infinity (and dimensions, which is another discussion), we stay locked in a mathematically, numerical, logic-based mindset and refuse to suspend our disbelief. Fiction is inherently illogical.
- 10,748
- 6,477
@King @Sera And there is the biggest problem I have in this debate. We just say "fiction does this" so I guess it is now perfectly valid to accept that fiction in fact "does this", since we are clearly in a position to say this definitely
How about we don't just take it as a given that a fiction will break the rules of maths and someone thinking otherwise is what needs proof. If it's actually implied that things work like this in a specific fiction then that's fine but making it a standard that we will assume a work to go against maths without requiring in-universe proof is nonsense to me, especially when you take into account how commonly known of am idea infinity not multiplyng like normal numbers actually is
How about we don't just take it as a given that a fiction will break the rules of maths and someone thinking otherwise is what needs proof. If it's actually implied that things work like this in a specific fiction then that's fine but making it a standard that we will assume a work to go against maths without requiring in-universe proof is nonsense to me, especially when you take into account how commonly known of am idea infinity not multiplyng like normal numbers actually is
- 11,066
- 13,809
If fiction were to treat all 2-A's as equals because of infinity, we wouldn't have 2-A characters stronger than other 2-A characters. If fiction did abide by all our mathematical and scienfic rules, our tiering system would be 100% applicable throughout all fiction, which it's not.
- 9,749
- 4,371
"How about we don't just take it as a given that a fiction will break the rules of maths"
I apologize in advance if you aren't happy with me saying so, but this is a strawman. I never once made the argument that math should simply be disregarded. I don't think anyone has.
My argument is this: an aspect of real life which is recurrently thrown out of the window in fiction, to the point that enforcing it would be unnecessarily restrictive and illogical in the context of fiction as a whole, should not be adhered to in a VS indexing sense. We ignore conservation of energy due to fiction recurrently doing the same, even though (surprise surprise) that's something that exists in real life and would invalidate numerous feats on general principle. I don't find this case to be any different.
I apologize in advance if you aren't happy with me saying so, but this is a strawman. I never once made the argument that math should simply be disregarded. I don't think anyone has.
My argument is this: an aspect of real life which is recurrently thrown out of the window in fiction, to the point that enforcing it would be unnecessarily restrictive and illogical in the context of fiction as a whole, should not be adhered to in a VS indexing sense. We ignore conservation of energy due to fiction recurrently doing the same, even though (surprise surprise) that's something that exists in real life and would invalidate numerous feats on general principle. I don't find this case to be any different.
- 10,748
- 6,477
When we aren't given a reason to doubt fiction following logic then we don't assume that. If fiction is so inherently illogical why do we assume it will follow the laws of heat change when calcing vaporization, why do we assume it will follow the law of perspective when calcing storm feats, why do we apply any real life logic to fiction?
There's a world of difference between acknowledging that fiction ca be illogical and putting aside logic when given reason to and assuming any random fiction by default will be illogical even if there isn't proof of that. Allowing for above baselines 2-As to be a possibility is the former but making it a standard for fiction ignoring mathematical rules is the latter
There's a world of difference between acknowledging that fiction ca be illogical and putting aside logic when given reason to and assuming any random fiction by default will be illogical even if there isn't proof of that. Allowing for above baselines 2-As to be a possibility is the former but making it a standard for fiction ignoring mathematical rules is the latter
- 6,104
- 5,102
Don't get me started on "X% of my power" flexes. A lot of stuff in fiction doesn't make sense mathematically.
>Dude is Planet level at 40% power
>Is Solar System level at 100%
Yeah...try explaining that mathematically.
Multiplication by infinity for above baseline feats should be no different.
@Andy
Because that's required for a calculation. There has to be some logical based precedent in order to calc anything. That's also the very reason why we have to suspend that in order to rank above baseline 2-A feats.
>Dude is Planet level at 40% power
>Is Solar System level at 100%
Yeah...try explaining that mathematically.
Multiplication by infinity for above baseline feats should be no different.
@Andy
Because that's required for a calculation. There has to be some logical based precedent in order to calc anything. That's also the very reason why we have to suspend that in order to rank above baseline 2-A feats.
- 10,748
- 6,477
@King And I apologize if this makes you unhappy but I see no reason why someone should just take it as a fact when you say "fiction recurrently throws this out of the window". As far as I can see that's a statement you made without any backing and that isn't proof of anything
And whether you are arguing for maths to be disregarded in general or just a specific rule of math based on what you see as common in fiction, that's still an assumption of fiction breaking the rules of math. And if you are taking the rule of infinity not applying as a default assumption then I don't see how my statement strawmans you
And whether you are arguing for maths to be disregarded in general or just a specific rule of math based on what you see as common in fiction, that's still an assumption of fiction breaking the rules of math. And if you are taking the rule of infinity not applying as a default assumption then I don't see how my statement strawmans you
- 235
- 335
I guess I best make myself clearer. Power-scaling should not be the only method to determine what's above baseline 2-A.
Above baseline 2-A feats exist. How? Through the method the feat was performed. This is what is I meant. Should a feat of "destroying two infinite multiverses" be treated as above baseline 2-A? Probably not.
However, should someone who collapses the infinite multiverse with a thought like Tiamat-Lilith or even someone who just erased a universe with a word like Apollo be treated as above baseline in their tiers? Absolutely. Always reward the accomplished.
Same thing goes for Kagutsuchi. Dude dies and the entire infinite multiverse is erased across higher-dimensional past, present, and future, ending all concepts of time (this is the Sangai, a real Buddhist mathematical and philosophical concept about Multiversal time). The feat of sustaining the multiverse to that degree is already a feat that's above baseline.
To answer the question "Can a feat be above baseline 2-A without power-scaling?" The answer is yes.
Above baseline 2-A feats exist. How? Through the method the feat was performed. This is what is I meant. Should a feat of "destroying two infinite multiverses" be treated as above baseline 2-A? Probably not.
However, should someone who collapses the infinite multiverse with a thought like Tiamat-Lilith or even someone who just erased a universe with a word like Apollo be treated as above baseline in their tiers? Absolutely. Always reward the accomplished.
Same thing goes for Kagutsuchi. Dude dies and the entire infinite multiverse is erased across higher-dimensional past, present, and future, ending all concepts of time (this is the Sangai, a real Buddhist mathematical and philosophical concept about Multiversal time). The feat of sustaining the multiverse to that degree is already a feat that's above baseline.
To answer the question "Can a feat be above baseline 2-A without power-scaling?" The answer is yes.
- 10,748
- 6,477
The baseless claims are honestly the biggest issues here. When talking about a subject as vast as fiction, you can't just believe any claim that goes like "fiction is this" "fiction is that","fiction does this" because the person most likely isn't in a position where they can accurately judge this.
And sure, actually finding hard figures to prove your claim isn't usually feasible but that doesn't change the issue, gigantic claims are evidence, if they aren't substantiated then they mean nothing in terms of figuring out a good conclusions. If you can actually back them tho, then be my guest
And sure, actually finding hard figures to prove your claim isn't usually feasible but that doesn't change the issue, gigantic claims are evidence, if they aren't substantiated then they mean nothing in terms of figuring out a good conclusions. If you can actually back them tho, then be my guest
- 26,312
- 3,113
@Andy
Rules of matematics aren't even laws of reality.
Like, even the real world often goes against them
Rules of matematics aren't even laws of reality.
Like, even the real world often goes against them
- 5,406
- 1,058
@Andy
That isn't an assumption at all. If a verse has a superiority chain in 2-A that already breaks your mathematical logic of "but infinity is always infinity". I'm pretty sure he meant in this case of 2-A not fiction in general. Although fiction in general doesn't make logical sense a lot of the time.
That isn't an assumption at all. If a verse has a superiority chain in 2-A that already breaks your mathematical logic of "but infinity is always infinity". I'm pretty sure he meant in this case of 2-A not fiction in general. Although fiction in general doesn't make logical sense a lot of the time.
- 10,748
- 6,477
@Rorepome None of my arguments have anything to do with superiority chains. If logic is actually being broken in fiction then it's being broken nothing to say about that. I'm talking about cases where there are just numerous multiverses with no indication that busting them all is a greater feat than if there was only a normal 2-A cosmology and still assuming it is because it's the standard
- 5,406
- 1,058
Oh well you have a case there. But are there even any examples?
- 235
- 335
I suppose one 2-A using 1% of his power = another 2-A using 100% of his power. You know, because infinity.
That's the type of rigid standards we get when we ignore the nuance of a feat and focus primarily, if not only on "if it's 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. above baseline", which obviously can't apply to infinity mathematically speaking.
That's the type of rigid standards we get when we ignore the nuance of a feat and focus primarily, if not only on "if it's 2x, 3x, 4x, etc. above baseline", which obviously can't apply to infinity mathematically speaking.
- 10,748
- 6,477
I don't even disagree with Pritti's explanation. My problem is solely with "multiple multiverses" being used to justify above baseline status by default. Even then it's more with particular arguments, I'm willing to admit if I have misconception regarding the actual rules I'm talking about
- 6,104
- 5,102
We never ranked those as higher than 2-A though. Do some people treat them as above baseline? Yeah but that's a debate rhetoric and not a flaw in our tiering. It doesn't need to be made into a thread since people are allowed to have those interpretations in a vs thread.Andytrenom said:
- 10,748
- 6,477
- 6,104
- 5,102
I agree with you Andy, truly 2x2 infinite multiverse is still just 2-A. Whether nor not people should treat it as above baseline 2-A is up for them to decide but they aren't High 2-A. Maybe "At least 2-A" or "2-A possibly higher", but no more.
- 14,933
- 12,487
The threads linked in the OP.EmperorRorepme said:
Archie has all those Chaos Emeralds that were fused together in Great Harmony which only 14 are still above baseline 2-A (Sonic's multiverse + Mega Man's multiverse + Maginaryworld)
Here's one person arguing for destroying 3 infinite multiverses being above baseline 2-A. I cbf picking out other examples because they're really easy to find from the OP.
- 9,749
- 4,371
I got to this late, but...
Let's see if I can dig into some of the many bits of fiction I've been into over the years...
We can take this even further; If we treat "infinity" as being the same no matter what multiplication or division is made, that means a baseline High 1-B character would be the same level as the Pre-Retcon Beyonder, who is "bigger" than an infinitely-layered reality and stronger than all of that reality's forces combined. All because "infinity is infinity, and adding to/subtracting from/multiplying by/dividing by infinity just makes infinity".
By the way, this is far from the extent of what I can draw from. I have many, many more examples of fiction's "infinity" contradicting what infinity is defined to be in real life.
Andytrenom said:
Let's see if I can dig into some of the many bits of fiction I've been into over the years...
- Nightside establishes that there are infinite timelines in the setting. During her story arc, Lilith's mere presence within the material plane causes all of these timelines to "gradually narrow down to one possible future".
- Final Crisis shows us the infamous "book of infinite pages". Later on on the narrative, Ultraman ends up reading the final chapter.
- The Dark Tower has the Old Ones, who are heavily implied to have existed on every single level of the Tower...of which there are infinite. They end up wiping themselves out in a cataclysmic war.
We can take this even further; If we treat "infinity" as being the same no matter what multiplication or division is made, that means a baseline High 1-B character would be the same level as the Pre-Retcon Beyonder, who is "bigger" than an infinitely-layered reality and stronger than all of that reality's forces combined. All because "infinity is infinity, and adding to/subtracting from/multiplying by/dividing by infinity just makes infinity".
By the way, this is far from the extent of what I can draw from. I have many, many more examples of fiction's "infinity" contradicting what infinity is defined to be in real life.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
