2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

[Sera_EX]

Really? No one is arguing. Andy and Kukui both agree with Pritti, who hasn't posted back since her last point over an hour ago.

 

[AKM sama]

So if there's a general agreement, is there anything else left to do?

 

[Overlord775]

Pritti agrees with Multiple Multiverse busting being higher than baseline iirc

Kukui says it's not

Not sure about Andy

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm afraid I haven't been following where the conversation headed since last time.

 

[Sera_EX]

Should 2x2 infinite multiverses be treated as being above baseline? Probably not.

No she doesn't.

 

[AKM sama]

Pritti agrees with Multiple Multiverse busting being higher than baseline iirc

No. Pritti's main argument is that it depends on how the feat is performed (casually or after a lot of struggle), not by the quantity destroyed.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

So basically, the judge for 2-A feats is quality over quantity.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

So basically, the judge for 2-A feats is quality over quantity.

Yep. How casual you perform a 2-A feat and scaling chains above someone who is 2-A should be the only methods used to determine whats above baseline 2-A.

At least thats what me, Sera, AKM and Pritti agree with.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I can agree with that mindset.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

@Cal do you agree with this?

 

[Andytrenom]

If a verse actually establishes multiple sets of multiverses to be harder to destroy than a single one, such as by making one 2-A character incapable of destroying more than one set, then scaling through number of multiverses is fine as well

Apart from that I agree with Kukui

 

[Overlord775]

Should 2x2 infinite multiverses be treated as being above baseline? Probably not.
No she doesn't.

My bad

 

[Sera_EX]

@Dragon

Yes, that's a good way of putting it

 

[DMB_1]

I agree with Kukri and the others.

The only other way I'd see scaling 2-As possible is if busting a specific structure "larger/more complex than the multiverse" is treated as a feat as superior to baseline In-Verse, granted, this would still be unquantifiably above it.

 

[Wokistan]

I haven't had time to actually argue this, but what's the stance on an infinity of infinities type thing? Like a quote I have that says an infinite multiverse Is just an infinitely small part of a much larger and more powerful whole? Is the argument still about this sort of thing as well, or only about non infinite times baseline 2-A?

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

"x <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< y <<<<<<<< z = a <<<<<<<< b" intensifies

 

[Overlord775]

Assuming that each of the spheres is an infinite multiverse, why would destroying only 1 be as good as a feat as destroying all 6 of them ?

 

[AKM sama]

@Woki

If you're talking about a construct that holds infinite^infinite universes (aleph one), it would be High 2-A.

 

[Overlord775]

@AKM

No, that's just Infinity^2

 

[DMB_1]

Assuming that each of the spheres is an infinite multiverse, why would destroying only 1 be as good as a feat as destroying all 6 of them ?

Because they are all infinite. Simple as that.

And you are comparing objects of finite sizes within their dimensional plane to infinite ones.

 

[Wokistan]

Well I have a quote that was ambiguously so, to the point where the char is straight up "at least 2-A, possibly High 2-A" off of it. What would become of the low end?

 

[Overlord775]

Dungeons and Dragons says hi

That's almost litterally how infinite space-times are rappresented there

 

[DMB_1]

We should not base our Tiering System on what D&D says.

 

[Wokistan]

Because they are all infinite. Simple as that.

And you are comparing objects of finite sizes within their dimensional plane to infinite ones.

This would seem to imply 2-B being equivalent to Low 2-C because 123873 infinite universes is the same as 1 via them all being infinity, which does not seem to be the standard currently used.

 

[Overlord775]

@DMB1 It's an example, some fiction show infinite multiverses as finite from external view.

 

[AKM sama]

@AKM
No, that's just Infinity^2

My bad. I meant to say infinite^infinite would be High 2-A. I'm pretty sure I didn't word that right in my last comment.

 

[YungManzi]

@Woki
If you're talking about infinite number of multiverses that contain infinite universes each, it would fall under uncountably infinite number of universes (aleph one), which is High 2-A.

I actually asked this question like a year ago and the responses I got from people said it would most likely be just really high into 2-A rather than High 2-A ....iirc.

 

[DMB_1]

1 High 3-A space vs 300000 ones would be the same, yes.

Low 2-C and 2-B wouldn't because they are both finite in a 4D scale.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

If a verse contains multiple 2-A multiverses they gotta start and end somewhere even if they all have infinite universes.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

Galactus is infinite^ infinite above baseline iirc, and is still 2-A

 

[Wokistan]

They don't have to be finite in a 4D scale though. Take timeline feats where time's equated to a dimension in a way that lets individual ones scale to Low 2-C. We don't instantly be like "oh looks like this one timeline is 2-A because that axis is also infinite".

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Oh yeah that's what I was agreeing with.

 

[AKM sama]

Assuming that each of the spheres is an infinite multiverse, why would destroying only 1 be as good as a feat as destroying all 6 of them ?

Because 6 times aleph null is still aleph null. Even if you raise infinity to any power that is not infinite, it will still be the same.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Or just being infinitely stronger than a 2-B doesn't give you 2-A.

 

[Overlord775]

Assuming that each of the spheres is an infinite multiverse, why would destroying only 1 be as good as a feat as destroying all 6 of them ?

Because 6 times aleph null is still aleph null. Even if you raise infinity to any power that is not infinite, it will still be the same.

You do realize that you are saying that 1=6, right ?

 

[AKM sama]

Yes, aleph null or infinity doesn't follow the rules of finite numbers.

If you denote countably infinite number as Y:

Y + 1 = Y

Y x 500 = Y

Y ^ (any finite number) = Y

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

So basically this thread in a nutshell: "You shouldn't assume destroying multiple infinities is superior to 1 infinity unless the verse say it is."

 

[DMB_1]

You do realize that you are saying that 1=6, right ?

You do realize that you are comparing finite numbers to infinity, right?

 

[Overlord775]

Yes, aleph null or infinity doesn't follow the rules of finite numbers.

Than Aleph Null shouldn't be used

as it clearly defies logic and physic

Saying 1=6 is madness, as it's going against any basic princible of things

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

So I guess by this logic 0.3... going on forever is the same as 0.3... going on forever followed by 4... going on forever because both are infinite even though one set encompasses the other, right?