About Big Bangs being Low 2-C

[Eficiente]

Big Bang

To quote from Wikipedia: "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe, originally conceived to describe its origins, that is best supported by all cosmological observations. The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some...

vsbattles.fandom.com

"If a supposed Big Bang is inaccurately presented as a purely physical explosion, and a character withstands it, we tend to treat it as a 3-A feat. If a character generates a 4-D spacetime expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C."

Coming from this thread I had issues with this notion, quoting myself; "idk why a big bang would really be Low 2-C for creating time and space when it doesn't create all the time that will happen in the future until its end, just the present time, all things in a timeline that happened after that weren't created by the big bang, time just moves forward on its own because that's what time does."

What is believed to be the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe, yesterday, today and tomorrow weren't created by the Bing Bang because the Big Bang only created the beginning, after kickstarting time and space the rest does itself. Our Big Bang, should it be real, wouldn't be a Low 2-C feat nor as a durability feat for anyone to survive, just 3-A. Likewise should a Big Bang happen again it wouldn't destroy all time from its beginning, at best just the present time while the history of the universe remains safe.

Some regular user claimed that it's Low 2-C because it creates a 4D universal construct and I told him here why that's wrong.

I'm of course talking here about the 2 types of Big Bangs we have in its page, if some verse has a Big Bang as Low 2-C Creation where the past is already made despite characters being sent to the present in that universe & fancy stuff alike then good for their feats.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Promestein @Ryukama @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Sera_EX @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245

What do you think about this?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think our current definition

If a supposed Big Bang is inaccurately presented as a purely physical explosion, and a character withstands it, we tend to treat it as a 3-A feat. If a character generates a 4-D spacetime expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C.

Is already sufficient. If the attack is restarting the universe then its just 3-A. If its creating or destroying something on a timeline scale its Low 2-C

 

[DontTalkDT]

The way I see it, if a spacetime continuum is created that includes the future. I don't think a timeline continuously grows longer the older it gets. Either the future already exists (as in most series with timetravel and stuff) or at least the spacetime in which the future happens already does.
And, if it were to only create the one instance of creation and then just let time do its thing, wouldn't that just be creating space or the thing in the space, not creating spacetime? After all, with the assumption time isn't really created as such, but is assumed to already do its thing on its own.

 

[Wokistan]

Time is assumed to be infinite by default iirc, the future having a definite end isn't standard

 

[Eficiente]

I think our current definition

Is already sufficient. If the attack is restarting the universe then its just 3-A. If its creating or destroying something on a timeline scale its Low 2-C

That so-called 4-D spacetime expansion isn't creating a timeline, just a present moment in time there. If it's destroying a timeline then yes that's Low 2-C, but for creating it that depends if you mean as in actually creating it or doing something that's the equivalent of people creating a house, leaving it and then all its future being because of the people who made it, it can be said but it's wrong.

The way I see it, if a spacetime continuum is created that includes the future. I don't think a timeline continuously grows longer the older it gets. Either the future already exists (as in most series with timetravel and stuff) or at least the spacetime in which the future happens already does.
And, if it were to only create the one instance of creation and then just let time do its thing, wouldn't that just be creating space or the thing in the space, not creating spacetime? After all, with the assumption time isn't really created as such, but is assumed to already do its thing on its own.

There is a difference between a spacetime continuum and space & time, the former is not accurate to say that that's the Big Bang created, and the latter is, as in that context isn't referring time as in a all of time from its beginning to end but only a present time, like when someone asks what time it is. It severely contradicts the idea of the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe if what it did was in fact create the spacetime continuum, including things to come in the future, that's wild. On that sense it's wrong to say "I don't think a timeline continuously grows longer the older it gets" because you're already assuming the Big Bang created the whole timeline, which it didn't, it created space & time, which do in fact "grow"/expand independently on their own and have been doing so even since the Big Bang ended, without the Big Bang being the cause for them naturally keep doing so unless one means in the sense that it started them and so without it there wouldn't be space & time.

I'm not sure if I understand the last question and sentence.

 

[Qawsedf234]

you mean as in actually creating it

Actually creating it like it says.

 

[Eficiente]

Then it's Low 2-C, but can you see how what we have written is misleading on that matter?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I mean, I'm not entirely sure how you can misread it

If a character generates a 4-D spacetime expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I honestly just find Big Bang IRL mostly theoretical, but I believe we consider however the verse treats the big bang. It can be 3-A or Low 2-C depending on the context; but I would consider "Giving birth to time and space" the be Low 2-C outright but said statement should require proof. But I do agree with DT that the definition of Low 2-C is often being a bit too strict with whole "It has to be infinite in length to be solid". A timeline is Low 2-C regardless of 6000 years old or 6 trillion years old, but it should mention outright a space time continuum. I have made mentions that things like "Birthing the Universe from the Chaos of Creation" are also Low 2-C as that's one of the most common fundamentals of Mythology classes.

But I don't really have much more to say on the matter more than what I already said.

 

[Eficiente]

I mean, I'm not entirely sure how you can misread it

Not misread but it can be misunderstood. A verse can say that a Big Bang "creates" a space-time continuum in the same way a person after making a house can say that they made "something something the benefits and joy it will bring in the future", as opposed to the literal physical thing they made that's there in the present, it doesn't mean they made the future of the house, that comes on its own. A Big Bang will lead into a space-time continuum being created and that can be said to be the case, but that's not necessarily the case.

With how much help we need to give to common users for things like this I can easily see cases like this being exaggerated in the future if we just don't do anything and leave things as they are.

 

[Agnaa]

But I do agree with DT that the definition of Low 2-C is often being a bit too strict with whole "It has to be infinite in length to be solid". A timeline is Low 2-C regardless of 6000 years old or 6 trillion years old, but it should mention outright a space time continuum.

I feel like this is missing the point of the thread. The way I read it is basically "The Big Bang isn't an event where uncountably infinite copies of 3-D space are suddenly apparated into existence. It's the creation of one instant of space and the start of time, which then evolve according to the laws of physics." The complaint isn't that the axes aren't infinite, but that only 1 instant of the timeline is created. It would be 3-A for similar reasons to why many universal creation/destruction feats are only 3-A.

Maybe it'd be helpful to provide a hypothetical at the other end of time. If someone were to end space-time, collapse the universe and make it so that time no longer progresses, would that be Low 2-C? What if instead of being inferred, it was explicitly stated that the history of the timeline wasn't affected one bit? The movie of reality ended/paused.

As it is, I think it'd be more consistent to treat these sorts of big bangs/timeline endings as 3-A/High 3-A combined with space-time hax, since we try to reserve Low 2-C for things that affect the entirety of the timeline. But I do admit this starts to get hard to apply with more vague creation myths.

 

[Agnaa]

I brought this up to Aeyu on Discord and she brought up a convincing counterargument; if a timeline expands (both in terms of space expanding, and time ticking onwards) that space and time it's expanding into must have been created at some time (assuming of course that it didn't exist already, but if it did, the feat would only be 3-A). Since in these feats those must have been created at the big bang, such creation feats would be Low 2-C.

For bonus points, this also dismantles the hypothetical I provided at the other end of time. In that case, the axis already exists, and one just needs to stop it from expanding further, which doesn't require affecting the whole axis, and doesn't equalize to a big bang.

 

[Tago238]

Thought the time in “space time expanding” is all time before and including a particular cross section in the time axis, but an actual axis of time would still exist where this time expands across.

 

[Eficiente]

I brought this up to Aeyu on Discord and she brought up a convincing counterargument; if a timeline expands (both in terms of space expanding, and time ticking onwards) that space and time it's expanding into must have been created at some time (assuming of course that it didn't exist already, but if it did, the feat would only be 3-A). Since in these feats those must have been created at the big bang, such creation feats would be Low 2-C.

Well, the Big Bang theory doesn't tell us that it created the space and time our space and time is yet to expand into, only some of it at the beginning that expands over time. And if you can call "space and time" what our universe is yet to expand into then what stops one from calling the same the area from before the Big Bang, which exists as it's theorized that the Big Bang happened because of something, starting the universe but not all existence.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Also, just a heads up, even finite size lines contain an infinite number of points I forgot to mention. Because between point 1 and point 2, there exist an infinite number of "1 + (x/infinity)" numbers. And what Aeyu said also makes sense.

 

[Eficiente]

Please state what implications that has that affects this, and how what Aeyu said makes sense.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, the Big Bang theory doesn't tell us that it created the space and time our space and time is yet to expand into, only some of it at the beginning that expands over time. And if you can call "space and time" what our universe is yet to expand into then what stops one from calling the same the area from before the Big Bang, which exists as it's theorized that the Big Bang happened because of something, starting the universe but not all existence.

If you think that the Big Bang didn't create the space and time axes our universe is yet to expand into, then that implies that those axes existed prior to the Big Bang. I believe such statements in a verse would already disqualify a Big Bang from being Low 2-C.

 

[Eficiente]

I believe this can soon be over then. If I got the Big Bang theory wrong and the Big Bang created both the space and time that expands to this day and the space and time axes our universe is yet to expand into then I would like to see proof of that and that will be it, otherwise we need to change our Big Bang page.

I'll also reserve to myself to wonder how did limited space survive being at the epicenter of a Low 2-C explosion should that be the case and how characters will be given the same tier for surviving it too, as I can't change that popular theory.

 

[Agnaa]

I think my answer would be something like, the Big Bang theory applied correctly would be 3-A creation, but if the Big Bang is the event that created space and time that didn't exist before, that would be inaccurate but would be Low 2-C for generating the axes that didn't already exist.

EDIT: We don't actually know what happened at the early moments of the universe. The Big Bang doesn't talk about the origin of the universe, it talks about what happened after our laws of physics started applying. Hell, there's coherent models of the universe (like eternal inflation) which supposes that the big bang is actually a slowing of inflation that cuts us off from the rest of the broader universe, meaning that space and time would have existed long beforehand, our Big Bang was just a sudden slowing in inflation that allowed our universe and its laws of physics to eventually be noticed by us.

Even if we talk about the Big Bang as a space-time expansion, the theoretical models that apply to our universe don't require that to be the event that generated our axes of space and time. Fictional scenarios where it starts space and time would therefore contradict our models of the Big Bang theory, and would be Low 2-C.

I also don't think that tanking it (i.e. standing inside the universe and withstanding it) should be Low 2-C. And the current note doesn't say that tanking it is already Low 2-C, just that creating it is:

If a character generates a 4-D spacetime expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C.

And I'm pretty sure I've heard people saying that even feats like "A character existed in a timeless, spaceless void, then survived the big bang" are Unknown.

 

[Eficiente]

Perfect. So, can you propose a slightly new wording for the page based on that?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not really sure, maybe (new part bolded):

If a supposed Big Bang is inaccurately presented as a purely physical explosion, and a character withstands it, we tend to treat it as a 3-A feat. If a character generates a 4-D spacetime expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C, but due to the non-physical nature of such a feat withstanding it isn't Low 2-C. Note, however, that even generating expansions of space-time may not necessarily be Low 2-C, in the case that space and time already existed and were merely expanded by the Big Bang event.

 

[Antvasima]

What do the rest of you think about Agnaa's suggestion?

 

[Eficiente]

Well, I wouldn't call a normal, 3-A Big Bang "purely physical", as it creates time, just the present time and not its length, that's the point of this thread. The last part is confusing, if it refers to regularly Low 2-C Big Bangs then they should still be Low 2-C? Idk/who knows what will happen if that gets unleashed on a timeline. If the last part refers to a 3-A Big Bang and they're being stopped from being Low 2-A because "space and time already existed" then I find the way to put it confusing.

I agree with the part saying that taking a Low 2-C Big Bang is just 3-A, though maybe we should point out the obvious for any kind of user reading and say how this goes for Big Bangs as in natural events and not attacks from Low 2-C characters using their full power and trying to harm foes of even power or whatever.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, I wouldn't call a normal, 3-A Big Bang "purely physical", as it creates time, just the present time and not its length, that's the point of this thread.

Well that's the thing, the types of Big Bangs described there aren't normal, as they don't create time or space, and are just an explosion of physical matter.

The last part is confusing, if it refers to regularly Low 2-C Big Bangs then they should still be Low 2-C?

No, because a certain condition isn't fulfilled which disqualifies them from being Low 2-C.

If the last part refers to a 3-A Big Bang and they're being stopped from being Low 2-A because "space and time already existed" then I find the way to put it confusing.

It does refer to that, alternative wordings are welcomed.

I agree with the part saying that taking a Low 2-C Big Bang is just 3-A, though maybe we should point out the obvious for any kind of user reading and say how this goes for Big Bangs as in natural events and not attacks from Low 2-C characters using their full power and trying to harm foes of even power or whatever.

I'm not sure how to include that wording and think it might get a bit clunky.

 

[Eficiente]

How about this?:

"Creating a supposed Big Bang that would [[Cration|create]] all the [[Spatial Manipulation|space]] of a [[Universe|universe]] or its space and [[Time Manipulation|time]] through a physical [[Explosion Manipulation|explosion]] is a 3-A feat, giving as well the previously linked powers. Surviving such an event from its center or near it is a Universe level feat in durability, but like in all explosions, the further away one is from it the less of its power it's taken.

If it's generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C; the difference between this and a 3-A Big Bang that also creates time being that the latter only creates a moment of a universe's time that will expand on its own after the Big Bang is over, therefore said Big Bang didn't create the length of time in the timeline, but kickstarted it from the beginning. Surviving a Low 2-C Big Bang isn't a Universe level+ feat in durability due to the non-physical nature of such an event. However, this ideally only applies to Big Bangs as natural events, instead of attacks with a destructive capacity independent of its size and tier."

• Linking the powers will help on people who doesn't add them on profiles of characters/things that can make Big Bangs.
• Some Big Bangs may just be a fancy name and not create or mess with time, so to point out how it doesn't always gives Time Manip should help.
• It should be much more clear the difference between 3-A and Low 2-C Big Bangs by talking about them separately.
• That also gives time to remind people how, as explosion, the level they can give varies. I know at least 1 example from Matt of a character whose like tier 7 or something from surviving a Big Bang from afar, much to the debate of some confused common users.
• The last bit should also help common users as I said before.

As always, this whole "ideally this should leave no confusion at all" will still leave confusion in the future, but I believe that keeping those positive points will do things as good as we can do them.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't immediately see any issues with it, but I'd like DT and/or Ultima to check over it to make sure there's no gaps between our interpretations and that wording.

 

[FinePoint]

The fact that the universe appears to be expanding over time is only due to our perception of time as 3D beings.
(That is, we can only view a specific point in time at once, but the rest of time still exists without us perceiving it.)
In that sense, the universe has already finished expanding the moment time is created from its own perspective.

As DarkDragonMedeus explained earlier, it does not matter how "big" that timeline is, because it still contains infinite instances of 3D objects by definition as a 4D object. To me, it doesn't matter if it only creates a "moment" in time, that doesn't stop it from being a 4D structure. From the perspective of a line in a square, whether that square is a nanometer thick or several thousand kilometers thick does not matter, it's still infinite.

Tl;dr I don't think it matters at all how "long" the time created is, creating space-time at all is a 4D feat, and should be Low 2-C.
The fact that the timeline is small would only be important in scaling them to other 4D characters.

 

[Agnaa]

Low 2-C requires the entirety of the 4-D axes to be affected, even if they're small. Meaning that if the axes already exist, creating an instant of time which expands according to the laws of physics is not a Low 2-C feat, since only a tiny portion of the axes were affected.

 

[FinePoint]

Low 2-C requires the entirety of the 4-D axes to be affected, even if they're small. Meaning that if the axes already exist, creating an instant of time which expands according to the laws of physics is not a Low 2-C feat, since only a tiny portion of the axes were affected.

Again, the difference between the entirety of a 4D axis and a portion of it is only relevant from a perspective which is 4D.
If you have a timeline that is 100 seconds long, and you create an overlapping timeline which is 50 seconds long, your smaller timeline is still qualitatively superior to, and contains infinite instances of the infinite 3D structure it contains, which is the definition of Low 2-C.

 

[Eficiente]

By that logic if I create my own anything that will last time and others perceive it as me having created it at the moment then too bad, that's just from their 3-D perception, what I did is a 4-D thing because it will last into the future, it could have been a house, a galaxy or a universe w/ its present space-time, it doesn't matter. If the Big Bang doesn't need proof of having created the length of time then why should I? May as well be a Low 2-C feat too.

Also, don't mix things up, we're talking about the theory of the Big Bang, don't you see anything wrong with throwing in how time has already ended but that's only from our 3-D perception and how "the universe appears to be expanding over time"? The Big Bang theory says a definitive yes to that.

 

[FinePoint]

By that logic if I create my own anything that will last time and others perceive it as me having created it at the moment then too bad, that's just from their 3-D perception, what I did is a 4-D thing because it will last into the furute, it could have been a house, a galaxy or a universe w/ its present space-time, it doesn't matter. If the Big Bang doesn't need proof of having created the length of time then why should I? May as well be a Low 2-C feat too.

Also, don't mix things up, we're talking about the theory of the Big Bang, don't you see anything wrong with throwing in how time has already ended but that's only from our 3-D perception and how "the universe appears to be expanding over time"? The Big Bang theory says a definitive yes to that.

I am talking about creating space-time itself, not an object within it, so my logic definitely does not suggest that.

 

[Eficiente]

Then should I delete your comments? I already give "a universe w/ its present space-time" as an example, but since you point "creating space-time itself" separately then you must mean all time with it, which the Big Bang has no proof of having created, 3-D perception or not.

 

[Agnaa]

Again, the difference between the entirety of a 4D axis and a portion of it is only relevant from a perspective which is 4D.
If you have a timeline that is 100 seconds long, and you create an overlapping timeline which is 50 seconds long, your smaller timeline is still qualitatively superior to, and contains infinite instances of the infinite 3D structure it contains, which is the definition of Low 2-C.

By that logic erasing 1 second of time would be Low 2-C because it contains uncountably infinite instances of 3-D structures, but it isn't.

We require a character to affect the axis to be Low 2-C, even if that entire axis happens to be 100 seconds long.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, why stick firmly to the big bang theory? Isn't that theory obsolete now with new theories that are far more plausible such as cosmic inflation theory or the big bounce?

I suppose big bang is a common trope I'm fiction..

 

[Antvasima]

I don't immediately see any issues with it, but I'd like DT and/or Ultima to check over it to make sure there's no gaps between our interpretations and that wording.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

What do you think?

 

[Agnaa]

Question, why stick firmly to the big bang theory? Isn't that theory obsolete now with new theories that are far more plausible such as cosmic inflation theory or the big bounce?

I suppose big bang is a common trope I'm fiction..

Because this is specifically about how to treat big bang feats.

 

[Eficiente]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

 

[Antvasima]

Quoting my post does not send notifications as far as I am aware.

 

[Eficiente]

I forgot. @DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality