2-C vs 2-A

[Amexim]

Low Multiverse level: Characters who can destroy and/or create up to 1000 universal space-time continuums. The power difference between Low 2-C and 2-C characters is not possible to exactly quantify, [given that the latter category has to breach the distance between universes along a 5-dimensional axis.]


High Multiverse level+: Characters who are 5-dimensional, and/or can destroy and/or create 5-dimensional space-time constructs of a not insignificant size. Characters who can destroy and/or create an uncountably infinite numbers of universes may potentially also be assigned this tier, as their geometrical 5-D size can be higher than 0.

My first problem is that the staff doesn't have a consistent understanding across each other for how this works. Some people think that 4D universes exist in the same 4D space, while others like Donttalk assert that universes at least tend to be embedded in a 5D space. Hence the requirement for 5D distances to be crossed in the definition of Low Multiversal. That cannot be true because, if the 4Th D is time, traveling in 4D space is literally traveling through time, universes and separate timelines being separated by the 4D axis of past to future goes in direct conflict with them being separate timelines, and don't bother going down the rabbit hole of busting futures and pasts, because the present is almost undetectable from instant to instant and can only exist in instance as we're constantly rocketing into the future, and the past is always being behind us, and how would you even go about having future or past busting be a thing, and yeah, no. 4D space can't separate Timelines unless they are the same timeline.

My second problem is that just like a 2D object/force cannot travel along the 3D Axis without being 3D, nothing can travel on a 5D axis without being 5D. So, characters like, say, Beerus and Champa would have to be 5D if the method they used to bust separate space Times isn't something like teleporting an explosion into another space Times and is instead the traditional explosion that has to cross the 5D axis.

My third problem is that I don't want all 2-C feats to necessarily mean you're 2-A. That is dumb. And contradictory. And we all agree on that yes? Meaning no 2-A Dragon Ball without legit feats? And no 2-A anything that would be 2-C because traveling across 5D axis requires and directly means you or your power is 5D.

I recommend we do something about this.

 

[Amexim]

I think it's easier if we change the definition of 2-A to something else. Because then 2-Cs don't have to be upgraded.

Or, maybe 2-A is referring to the thing that holds 4D universes, meaning nothing has to change and being 2-C, unless you bomb multiple universes without crossing 5D space, doesn't mean you're 5D.

But then you have certain 2-Cs being stronger than other 2-Cs. Or even 2-Bs? Because those two tiers are about power and how many 4D universes you can destroy, not about how dimensional you are. Though, being 5D is superior to infinite 4D power like 4D is superior to infinite 3D power right? So, just like 4D power should be capable of High 3-A feats, 5D power should be capable of doing anything 4D power can do.

Though, I would definitely argue against the idea that having multiple different explosions go off in separate space Times isn't anything beyond multiple low 2-C feats because, well, unless you had some worth of energy tube or could transfer all the power of one attack into a pathway that connects separate soace-Times that is also not 5D, it's indistinguishable from multiple explosions.

Help.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Time is not the "fourth dimension", and four-dimensional space is not equatable to a temporal axis or a time-like direction. It's just that our Universe is usually modelled as a manifold defined by three spatial dimensions and an additional temporal dimension which, when interwined with the three ones we are used to, makes our Universe into a four-dimensional spacetime.

4-D Space can really be just a system with an additional axis of movement apart from the three ones we are used to (Length, Width, Height, yada yada), and said axis doesn't have to be a temporal direction in any way, like I said.

Though I have to admit that I don't know where the 5-D axis thing is supposed to come from.

 

[Amexim]

Ok cool. That's one thing debunked, thank you. I heard multiple things, so I wasn't sure, but if anyone else can verify what you say, that makes it even better. But what does the 5D axis requirement mean and....

Why isn't 4D time again if we're so obsessed with timelines and space time being busted? I'm not qualified to disagree with you if you know more than me on the topic, but I don't really understand why i'm Wrong and an explanation would be appreciated.

 

[Amexim]

Also, it sounds like I COULD be right, because it depends on what you mean by 4Th Dimension by your phrasing. While time doesn't HAVE to be the 4th Spacial Dimension, if a being was 4Th dimensional, couldn't that mean they physically reside in the one temporal dimension we have...? Making what I said true only in that case? This is all pseudoscience when it comes to Vsbwiki anyway, but still, am I plausibly correct here?

I'm fine with being wrong here, but it seems like we're rejecting the idea that universes can match ours as a model and that, even though in the context of our reality, the only 4Th dimension we have is a temporal one, so if 4D entities exist, they probably would have to use a temporal axis, yeah? Because, well, otherwise it would be a 4Th spacial Dimension instead of a temporal one, and I am fairly certain we assume most 4D universes in fiction to be like ours in that regard.

Meaning, while you are likely technically true, what you say doesn't seem like how things work by our standards, unless all 4D shenanigans are considered 4 spacial D, and... Well why are we concerned with timelines when, the 4Th D has nothing to do with time by our standards and you wouldn't need 4D power to affect timelines because 4D space would be... Only space and not tied to 4D (time) like it is for us....?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

This thread should also be given a highlight. We need more staff here to discuss this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The "Dimension" of a given system can be informally defined as the number of coordinates you need to specify a position within it. In the most basic models, our Universe is modelled as a 4-dimensional continuum because you need three coordinates to specify positions in space, and one additional coordinate to specify positions in time.

But it just so happens that it is convenient to model it that way, a four-dimensional space (or any space of a higher-dimensional nature for that matter) doesn't have to involve a temporal axis in its structure, and can just be a system with a basis of four linear independent vectors, for example.

 

[Amexim]

Bump. Important. Someone highlight this.

And that makes sense. But why does 4D power involved inherently in timeline or space time destruction? When it has nothing to do with time...?

 

[Amexim]

Which implies that, like we normally think of with the 4Th dimension, it's heavily based in time and is involved with it, and that arguing against the aspects involving time travel and what I meantioned seems... Dubious at least to me.

 

[KingPin0422]

I think that the "5-D axis between 4-D constructs" thing comes from brane cosmology, wherein it is assumed that our universe of three spatial dimensions is "floating" in a four-dimensional space.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Bump. Important. Someone highlight this.
And that makes sense. But why does 4D power involved inherently in timeline or space time destruction? When it has nothing to do with time...?

Because that's how Low 2-C and onwards is primarily defined in the first place. It is the rating for globally affecting an entire universal spacetime continuum of 4 dimensions, other stuff can qualify for it but this is it's main definition.

 

[Wokistan]

You could travel along a 5D axis without being 5D though, it's just a direction.

 

[Amexim]

A direction that is not available to you for the virtue of it not existing. Can a 2D object travel via the Z axis without depth— no. That's not possible. They're not just directions my guy. Otherwise we'd be traveling in 4D axis all the time.

 

[Wokistan]

If one takes a temporal dimension into consideration, we are. Just because it's inaccessible doesn't mean one theoretically must be of a certain size to access them, and fiction can do whatever it wants anyways.

Also, there is math up to infinite dimensional and some way of plotting points into extra spatial dimensions. I have no idea how it works, but they're not exactly some concept totally incomprehensible to us mere mortals or whatever.

 

[Amexim]

What I mean is, that doesn't follow when we're talking about traveling through 4D space as if it wasn't time like Ultima says, and even then, what about us traveling through 5D space if it's "just a direction".

Even still, that defies the basic reasoning for why a "drawing" can't travel in 3D space. Drawings can't just move in a dimension with depth without it, they can't exist on the plane, let alone go in any direction.

To deny the rules like that because fiction is... Arbitrary when we have limitations for different shit like 5D power. By that logic, 3D power can just be equal to infinite 5D power because fiction. No way.

 

[Wokistan]

The whole dimensions as power thing is because beings are actually of that size, and not just because they get extra movement. Dimensions will stop being used for straight power anyways.

There are several verses that have teleportation modeled as higher dimensional movement, and with my limited knowledge such an effect would be mimicked by how moving along such axes would be calculated.

 

[Wokistan]

For an example, let's take some necron sniper rifle. It can fire a bullet through 7 or so dimensions which makes it essentially undodgable. However, the bullet itself is only going to occupy 3 dimensional axes at a time. It can travel along the ones normally imperceptible to people but in doing so loses it's presence in one or more of the normal ones.

I do find the distinction made for 2-C and Low 2-C a bit weird though. What is to be done if the verse actually specifies a distance, for example?

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

This thread should also be given a highlight. We need more staff here to discuss this.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

A direction that is not available to you for the virtue of it not existing. Can a 2D object travel via the Z axis without depth— no. That's not possible. They're not just directions my guy. Otherwise we'd be traveling in 4D axis all the time.

I am not sure what you mean by them "not existing", the additional axes of a higher-dimensional universe would indeed be very existent, they would just make the overall structure visually incomprehensible and really trippy because our brains aren't built to visualize this sort of stuff. They would also affect the way said Universe would develop itself, among other things.

In fact many theories propose an explanation to the disprepancy created by by that last consequence of higher dimensions in a physical system, as well as the fact that we aren't able to directly visualize or experience any additional dimensions in our Universe, by postulating that they are curled up to tiny sizes of a quantum scale.

 

[Amexim]

But the problem with that is that it's impossible to move in an extra dimension without being of that size. 2D drawings (drawings aren't actually 2D, but the concepts are, go with it) can't exist in our layer of reality because it lacks depth. Paper even has depth, even the thinnest things, the only tangible things are made of 3D stuff, and gases are only intangible because we can't encapsulate them with our touch, not because their IS no size or side or depth to grasp.

To be move in 4D, unless you have some kind of Weird Hax, you need to have that extra "side" to you. Do you really think 2D things can move in 3D axis? If not, what justification besides "fiction" do you have to believe 3D to 4D, and 4D to 5D and so on are gonna be any different? And dimensions not being used for power is also contentious isn't it? Like, even if we remove it for AP and energy manipulation AP or whatever kind of power that doesn't apply to size (which would be an arbitrary and awful thing to keep 3D if it's from a 3D being, or however), the size still has to keep that shit. 3D brings with 5D power might not be a thing, but 5D striking from 5D beings is inseparable. Size, speed, striking, durability, AP in Energy/Power, everything has to be beyond infinitely superior to something of a lower dimension, because from the higher being's perspective, those lower things aren't even REAL let alone measurable. Even a 2D being moving at the speed of light is slower than something never moving in space because it effectively doesn't exist. These things can't move in the same way, so not only is measuring their speed and comparing them pointless, but they don't even exist. Even if time applied the same way, they can't travel in ANY of our directions because ALL of our directions have the 3D applied to them. It can't even travel in micrometers, because that's a 3D measurement that it can never equal to.

The basic premise is, just like 2D size even on an infinite scale can never be greater than the size of a 3D object, so too is power. Speed, and everything falls into place as well, yeah? And even if, for some reason, a 2D being can do this in fiction, guess what. That's its hax.

And, hell, I don't know why I would be wrong about speed, besides "no one ever said that speed applies as well" even though it would by our own logic, and as our only frame of reference for a 4th Dimensjon is a temporal one, if we assume 4D beings treat that dimension as both a spacial and temporal one, like we're better off doing because excluding the temporal aspect is rejecting our own universe's model which we apply to most other verses when they can be applied (hence the whole existence of this 4D confirmation), and excluding the spacial dimensional stuff denies the idea of beings that can... Exist in that dimension as if it was space. This model requires movement in this axis to be time travel, Immeasurable Speeds going anywhere and anyWHEN, superior to infinite 3D speeds where you can go anywhere instantly. It all fits. Rejecting parts of it makes the WHOLE system need to be reworked. Is Ant about that? I never thought i'd See the day.

 

[Amexim]

When I say not existing, I mean like, it doesn't register in any physical way. Remember, from our perspective, all things that can be perceived and/or touched are 3D. 2D things lack depth, and can't be interacted with. That's what i'm Basing my understanding on, I could be wrong. Of course they exist, we just can't... do anything with them because we don't "exist" to them. In the sense that we lack the dimensions physically to go in those directions.

A necrom bullet sounds cool, but that doesn't... Negate what I said, though I replied after you wrote it so you didn't even get the chance. Either way, if the whole dinensinal thing is constantly being reworked, why even base this Tiering System on an archaic, false understanding of it.

 

[Andytrenom]

A good thing to do might be to clearly define what feats of destroying or creating something 5-D qualify as High 2-A. Creating a blast that destroys parallel universes is obviously out of the question.

My suggestion would be if you are destroying a cosmology where an infinite multiverse is contained within a 5-D space then that would be High 2-A since the 5-D object is a direct step up from a 2-A multiverse in this case. Although maybe I should save this for Ultima's dimensional tiering revision, I don't know when that will come tho

 

[Amexim]

I agree with Andy here.

Another way of looking at dimensionality via grids.

Being 1D, a point with no length or depth (or basically it just has 1 way of measuring size), isn't possible on a 3 axis grid, because even if you're only on the origin point, that coordinate still occupies 3 dimensions, is still described using the 3 axis, and would still exist in 3D space. 1D things without depth or width (Y or Z axis) can't occupy or be placed on a grid with those 3 axis. To say a 1D point exists on a 3D axis as (2, 0, 0) is false, because those 0s are still a place within the 3D space, which specifies position in a 3D grid. 0 as in origin, right— meaning it's not -1 on the depth axis or -3 on the height axis. To say something exists in 3D it must exist with 3 "sizes".

The same for all other dimensions.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Just putting in my opinion, right or wrong (and for the sake of the example, I'm going to be using the enter key rather than periods)


Let's imagine this dot as 3D space

.

This dot represents the instantaneous present; not past, not future, just the present

That's a 3D volume

4D space, using spacetime, would extend this dot into a line A timeline (pun intended, but meant to be taken literal)

|

Now we have all of those time periods of present, past, and future in one line

Like a youtube video, you could imagine the video redline as those instant moments of the past, present, and future all rolled up together

Since separate timelines are separate universes, this is two universes

| |

That space between them is another dimension of space

I've already said that the dot represents 3D space, and those dots adding up to a line make up a 4D volume, so what separates these two universes is a 5th dimensional space

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

So you don't necessarily destroy 5D space in order to destroy two universes; it's moreso that the power has to cross over 5D space to reach the other universe to destroy.

That's why it's an unquantifiable difference in power from Low 2-C to 2-C; it's impossible to measure 5D space when we can only comprehend 3 spatial dimensions.

 

[Amexim]

My argument is that the difference is at least infinite because crossing 5D space is impossible without being 5D, just as crossing 3D space is impossible without being 3D. Any being with 5D power/size is always superior to any being without 5D power or size, even if they have 4D infinite power and size. The same logic we use for low 2-C being superior to High 3-A. The exact same. Which is why I think that 2-A shouldn't be "just being 5D" or having 5D power. It should be some higher level of power within 5D, because being 5D alone, which is essentially a requirement for 2-C as the only way anything can travel in a 5D axis is by being 5D, shouldn't be enough. You know, because that means all 2-C characters are High 2-A... Nah.

So what Andy said.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

May I ask where this 5-D space stuff came from originally?

 

[Andytrenom]

Parallel universes being arranged across 5-D space is a prominent idea well outside the context of the wiki, so not really sure how to answer that.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

My argument is that the difference is at least infinite because crossing 5D space is impossible without being 5D, just as crossing 3D space is impossible without being 3D. Any being with 5D power/size is always superior to any being without 5D power or size, even if they have 4D infinite power and size. The same logic we use for low 2-C being superior to High 3-A. The exact same. Which is why I think that 2-A shouldn't be "just being 5D" or having 5D power. It should be some higher level of power within 5D, because being 5D alone, which is essentially a requirement for 2-C as the only way anything can travel in a 5D axis is by being 5D, shouldn't be enough. You know, because that means all 2-C characters are High 2-A... Nah.
So what Andy said.

When referring to time as the fourth dimension, time travellers cross that line all the time.

Characters like the Flash travel to alternate universes all the time, but they're not 5D.

It isn't impossible for lower dimensional objects to move through a higher dimensional space. What is impossible is for it to affect a higher dimensional object (manipulate it, create it, destroy it, etc).

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

2-A is infinitesimal 5-D.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

To be move in 4D, unless you have some kind of Weird Hax, you need to have that extra "side" to you. Do you really think 2D things can move in 3D axis? If not, what justification besides "fiction" do you have to believe 3D to 4D, and 4D to 5D and so on are gonna be any different? And dimensions not being used for power is also contentious isn't it? Like, even if we remove it for AP and energy manipulation AP or whatever kind of power that doesn't apply to size (which would be an arbitrary and awful thing to keep 3D if it's from a 3D being, or however), the size still has to keep that shit. 3D brings with 5D power might not be a thing, but 5D striking from 5D beings is inseparable. Size, speed, striking, durability, AP in Energy/Power, everything has to be beyond infinitely superior to something of a lower dimension, because from the higher being's perspective, those lower things aren't even REAL let alone measurable. Even a 2D being moving at the speed of light is slower than something never moving in space because it effectively doesn't exist.

Not really, higher-dimensional objects aren't necessarily infinitely bigger than ones with fewer dimensions, considering we can actually calculate the radius of higher-dimensional spheres, as well as the amount of cubes contained in an n-dimensional hypercube. That's the whole reason the System is getting revised in the first place.

 

[Amexim]

So, Ultima is talking about the entire system being revised. Cool.

But as the system stands right now, we have these inherent contradictions. I recommend you get this revision out ASAP like soon soon. Because even with what you're saying, I still don't quite understand. What you say sounds fine, but are you getting that inference by some sort of examples or is that idea coming from the fact that measuring these things is actually possible, rather than a study that directly debunks what we're thinking?

Could you give a sneak peak I guess? How long have you been sitting on this wiki warping bombshell? I understand you might not have all the kinks worked out, but if you're confident enough to explain the facts to me, you should surely be confident enough to explain what your overall points for how higher dimensions should be treated?

And, Deathstroke, that's hax or a special power, which doesn't really fit under this discussion. Traveling in the future or past is moving on the 4D axis, but traveling to another timeline is the same as traveling to another dimension via time travel— I figure that's a separate power rather than AP or natural traits, like being 5D would be.

 

[Amexim]

Also, could someone explain to me how it would be possible for;

A 2D object to be comparable in size in and regard to a 3D object when the concept of size is a 3D and up thing, along with a bunch of other issues with that statement? Which, again, I need context for the reasoning, right? Because for all I know they could be presupposing that size works the same for us in higher dimensions and going with that and doing math that way— there's, like, a massive amount of vetting the source everyone has to do for this— not saying Ultima or the scientists are wrong, but Ultima could be taking these calculations to mean something they don't, unless he's one of those god tier scientists or the science he's studied directly contradicts what we believe clearly and that fact is what ge's Going after. In which case, lit, we're wrong.

A 2D "drawing" with no access 3D direction or space to inhabit at all can move in a direction that doesn't exist to it? Keep in mind that speed is distance/time, and distances are measured in 3 dimensions, and since every angle and then some in our world spreads out in 3D then it should be impossible for a 2D point to "travel", simply because there's no such thing for them...?

I might be wrong, but I don't see how yet, is all, and i'm Less willing to concede this idea if no one explains my errors to me.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Lower-dimensional objects would be tiny but not infinitely so, in comparision to 3-dimensional objects. 1-dimensional stuff is planck-sized in String Theory, for example.

Anyways, as for the overall idea, I point you to these videos which demonstrate that you can perfectly measure the radius of spheres in higher dimensions, and this page, which shows you the formulas for calculating the amount of lower-dimensional shapes contained in a n-dimensional hypercube.

There is more stuff supporting it but I'd rather bring them up when the revision thread comes, which will hopefully be either at the end of this month or early in the next one.

 

[Amexim]

Oh cool. Then maybe this thread can be closed because to some, the whole tier system needs help.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

And, Deathstroke, that's hax or a special power, which doesn't really fit under this discussion. Traveling in the future or past is moving on the 4D axis, but traveling to another timeline is the same as traveling to another dimension via time travel— I figure that's a separate power rather than AP or natural traits, like being 5D would be.

You make it sound like traveling in the past doesn't fit as a special power either.

That's the point I'm making here.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

A 2D "drawing" with no access 3D direction or space to inhabit at all can move in a direction that doesn't exist to it? Keep in mind that speed is distance/time, and distances are measured in 3 dimensions, and since every angle and then some in our world spreads out in 3D then it should be impossible for a 2D point to "travel", simply because there's no such thing for them...?
Also, distances don't need to be measured in three dimensions, only one is necessary. And when working with speed and speed alone, it definitely doesn't matter.

You're confusing speed (distance and time) with velocity (distance and time and direction).

 

[Amexim]

Both do, yes. Past travel is also a power.

Speed means nothing without distance and time. Distances in the same context for 3D require that extra direction to be a part of. I just went over how 3D grids and 2D grids do not overlap properly, as anything that only uses the 2D axis of a 3D grid still exists in 3D space, meaning they're necessarily 3D or bust. There seems to never be a time where something can move in 2D and not have a 3rd coordinate position in 3D grids, as in (2,0) isn't the same as (2,0,0).

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Then it basically goes with my point; in fiction, you don't need to be higher dimensional to move across a higher dimensional space.


I'm fully aware that speed is nothing without distance and time because speed is distance/time. I never said otherwise, you've misinterpreted my comment.

Distance is only a 1 dimensional concept. If you travel 10 feet forward, then 10 feet back in one second, you traveled 20 feet per second. That's speed. Distance (and therefore, speed) has no care of the direction you are traveling, only the total sum of how far you traveled in a certain timeframe.

Velocity cares about direction, and dimensions are directions; first dimension is up and down, second is left and right, third is back and forth (not necessarily, they're all interchangeable). So using the same example for speed, you would have 0 velocity. This is because while speed only refers to how fast something moves, velocity refers to the rate that something changes its position.

 

[Amexim]

To the first point, you usually need a superpower to do something conventionally impossible. That's just another example.

The second point's problem is that you misinterpret me as well. The problem with the concept of "forward" and speed needing a distance in the first place is that both forward and the measurements of distance require 3D space and axis. Sure, you only need to use 1 axis to travel a distance and get speed, but the problem is that traveling as we know it is inherently 3D, any position you move in exists within 3D space— going from (0,0,0) to (100,0,0) still places you in a 3D position in space. 2D wouldn't be equal to 3D because (100,0,0) is NOT the same as (100,0). You can't equate those two speeds because of how axis are always in play even when not being used. 2D things are distinguished by this argument because they CANNOT use 3D axis. They cannot be valued the same, and the fact that this is true demonstrates my problem with equating the two. They can never have the same identities or functions, so how can they be the same?