Can you get 2-A tier by having infinite size relative to multiple 4-D object ?

[CodeCCLL]

Is it directly stated that the Imaginary Space is infinite? Is it directly stated verbatim that even a 2-B number of universes will never be able to fill this Imaginary Space? Is it then directly stated to be infinitely larger compared to them?

Yes for all.

 

[KLOL506]

Yes for all.

Scans?

Again, we blatantly need statements like this:

"The Imaginary Space is infinitely larger than all these realms"

"No matter how many of these realms exist, they will never be able to fill up the Imaginary Space"

If the scans do not say these lines verbatim or very close to verbatim, I think we're effectively running on a lost cause here.

 

[KLOL506]

Found the scan. NVM, TenSura seems to be good.

 

[CodeCCLL]

Scans?

Imaginary Room: A world of chaos. An ability that was made to confine and isolate the target within a separate dimension. This dimension is basically Rimuru's "stomach” and is infinite in size , despite being capable of containing a whole physical universe. as stated by Ciel.

 

[KLOL506]

Imaginary Room: A world of chaos. An ability that was made to confine and isolate the target within a separate dimension. This dimension is basically Rimuru's "stomach” and is infinite in size despite being capable of containing a whole physical universe. as stated by Ciel.

Is it enough?

Yes, that should be enough. I hope.

 

[Georredannea15]

Scans?

Again, we blatantly need statements like this:

"The Imaginary Space is infinitely larger than all these realms"

"No matter how many of these realms exist, they will never be able to fill up the Imaginary Space"

If the scans do not say these lines verbatim or very close to verbatim, I think we're effectively running on a lost cause here.

That's still not enough actually, and it's debatable, as DT says. So, with this logic I have no idea how most verses was considered 2-A

 

[Eseseso]

So no 2-A Yggdrasil?

 

[Tanin_iver]

So no 2-A Yggdrasil?

It's straight up Tier 1, why bother with 2-A?

 

[Eseseso]

It's straight up Tier 1, why bother with 2-A?

Seems like all staff disagree with tier 1

 

[Tanin_iver]

Seems like all staff disagree with tier 1

Only Therefir and DT checked my post, DTs arguments were already refuted in the first comment which he conveniently seems to have missed, and Therefir acknowledged he is not that proficient with Tier 2 and above so.

 

[Georredannea15]

Anyway brothers... It will hurt to many 2-A verses.

 

[Georredannea15]

Only Therefir and DT checked my post, DTs arguments were already refuted in the first comment which he conveniently seems to have missed, and Therefir acknowledged he is not that proficient with Tier 2 and above so.

KLOL tagged DT in the Yggdrasil revision anyway, just in case. Both for clarification of 2-A and for Low 1-C.

Because DT still need things to clarify about Ygg.

 

[KLOL506]

No derailing, and no, Ultima, DT and Qawsedf all disagreed with Tier 1 Ygg.

5D RBR is the only thing that remains now.

 

[Georredannea15]

No derailing, and no, Ultima, DT and Qawsedf all disagreed with Tier 1 Ygg.

5D RBR is the only thing that remains now.

I still think he should look at Tanin's arguments.

 

[CodeCCLL]

That's still not enough actually, and it's debatable, as DT says. So, with this logic I have no idea how most verses was considered 2-A

"But if you have space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal"

That should be enough.

Anyway brothers... It will hurt to many 2-A verses.

Probably just True KH (Former Kingdom Hearts Cosmology), Silver Sea (Former MGF WN), Imaginary Space (Tensura WN).
Or Probably won't affect anything.

 

[Eseseso]

"But if you have space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal"

That should be enough.

This.

 

[Georredannea15]

"But if you have space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal"

That should be enough.

I think it should be "possibly 2-A", because the difference between 10,000 universes and an uncountable number of universes is clearly irreducible. DT said that a precise statement about this is absolutely necessary. So I think it would be "possibly" at best.

If we go by that, then you need either actually infinite universes (or equivalent) or something made clear to be size wise equivalent to such (e.g. due to having the capability to hold that number of universes)

In short, it must be clearly stated that there is an infinite space equal to the size of infinite universes for 2-A (according to DT)

Probably just True KH (Former Kingdom Hearts Cosmology), Silver Sea (Former MGF WN), Imaginary Space (Tensura WN).

Probably won't affect anything.

MGK and others are worse than Tensura in this topic. They don't have what Tensura has in this things.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't see how DT said changes anything in our standards, we always operated on this.

 

[Tanin_iver]

I don't see how DT said changes anything in our standards, we always operated on this.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't see how DT said changes anything in our standards, we always operated on this.

This is not the only problem. If you look above, DT says that even structures that are infinitely greater than 2-A and Low 2-C structures are still 4-D.

And there goes everything with that ridiculous "If you are infinitely bigger than 2-A or Low 2-C or you are see them like a point, you are Low 1-C" logic

Plus the other 2-A stuff. Looks like we're gonna need more for 2-A.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I can assure that he did not say this. It is your interpretation which is simply false. He said destroying infinite multiverses (which are already infinitely larger) is not enough for low 1-C which in fact, it is true. It is in itself not enough or sufficient.

He said later that a 2-A structure being stated as infinitely larger is a supportive evidence rather (a structure low 2-C being infinitely larger) since the latter can still be in realm of 2-A while other not necessary if the context aligns.

Georr, I am not here to debate with you. I don't remotely see anything he said changes anything. And given from your history, I won't see any future of having a debate over this.

 

[Eseseso]

I really don't see why a structure large enough to fit infinite Low 2-C universes isn't 2-A.

 

[Georredannea15]

I can assure that he did not say this. It is your interpretation which is simply false. He said destroying infinite multiverses (which are already infinitely larger) is not enough for low 1-C which in fact, it is true. It is in itself not enough or sufficient.

He said later that a 2-A structure being stated as infinitely larger is a supportive evidence rather (a structure low 2-C being infinitely larger) since the latter can still be in realm of 2-A while other not necessary if the context aligns.

Georr, I am not here to debate with you. I don't remotely see anything he said changes anything. And given from your history, I won't see any future of having a debate over this.

Dread, that's not what I meant. There are too many people arguing that a character who is infinitely larger than Low 2-C or 2-A, or who sees them as small pieces, should be Low 1-C, and that's a huge red herring. I think you already know that.

That's what I wanted to say to most people in many revisions, I've always argued that the above is just support, should be should be supported by a statement of transcendence referring to ontological superiority or something like that, otherwise it's still 4-D.

Because I was fed up with the "See at 2-A or Low 2-C as a small structure and be infinitely larger than it = Low 1-C" bullshit.

My argument is not about you, my friend. I've given the green light to you. No fight or chaos.

 

[Eseseso]

Dread, that's not what I meant. There are too many people arguing that a character who is infinitely larger than Low 2-C or 2-A, or who sees them as small pieces, should be Low 1-C, and that's a huge red herring. I think you already know that.

That's what I wanted to say to most people in many revisions, I've always argued that the above is just support, should be should be supported by a statement of transcendence referring to ontological superiority or something like that, otherwise it's still 4-D.

Because I was fed up with the "See at 2-A or Low 2-C as a small structure and be infinitely larger than it = Low 1-C" bullshit.

My argument is not about you, my friend. I've given the green light to you. No fight or chaos.

Which reminds me, that's similar to how MCU's Low 1-C works, so...

 

[RoTt35]

Which reminds me, that's similar to how MCU's Low 1-C works, so...

It isn't

 

[ImmortalDread]

I really don't see why a structure large enough to fit infinite Low 2-C universes isn't 2-A.

Because there is no evidence that you are capable of destroying the space between them which is actually the requirement to reach the level of multiverse. Therefore, the quantity, which comprises infinite x 4D continuums, possesses a negligible space within it, which is not even necessary for its existence, as it is inherent within it, but still essential for the potency of basic 2-A destruction/creation/effecting (significantly).

We neglect a universe-sized space-time continuum to infinite-sized space-time continuum as low 2-C, since we assume time is infinite in default anyway. To reach 2-A, you need significantly effect countable infinite of space-time continuums.

Note that they are separate by definition (not sure, why tiering system added the term) but I suppose for clarity? Makes less sense but whatever.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Because I was fed up with the "See at 2-A or Low 2-C as a small structure and be infinitely larger than it = Low 1-C" bullshit.

Not to be overcritical, maybe I understand that you know this, but being seen as infinitesimal or as “small structure” in the sense of size superiority over a structure which is already 2-A qualifies for low 1-C in the context.

 

[Georredannea15]

Not to be overcritical, maybe I understand that you know this, but being seen as infinitesimal or as “small structure” in the sense of size superiority over a structure which is already 2-A qualifies for low 1-C in the context.

That's what DT denied anyway. Even in this context, being infinitely larger than 2-A and is ahigher achievement than seeing it as a small piece, but according to DT, both still 4-D. Because DT stated that the situation here does not have to mean "size", it has to be a qualitative transcendence.


In short, being infinitely larger than it and seeing it as a small piece are still "size" but not qualitative superiority.


Just as there is an infinite difference between any finite 3-D structure and infinite 3-D space, and even though the finite 3-D structure is "one of the small parts of an infinite 3-D structure" and "the difference between them is infinite," "both are still 3-D."

 

[Eseseso]

It isn't

IIRC it's because the MCU's Low 1-C multiverse is infinitely larger than 2-A.

 

[RoTt35]

IIRC it's because the MCU's Low 1-C multiverse is infinitely larger than 2-A.

No, it's because it has infinite structures containing an uncountable infinite amount of 2-A timelines, along with a space that contains all of that

 

[ImmortalDread]

That's what DT denied anyway. Even in this context, being infinitely larger than 2-A and is ahigher achievement than seeing it as a small piece, but according to DT, both still 4-D

This needs wide revision, since we still rate like this ;(

It all depends on the context.

 

[Georredannea15]

This needs wide revision, since we still rate like this ;(

I think DT seems to have made that clear (and öhöm, I'm a little proud that it's something I've been advocating a lot hehe)

Kidding aside, I think my example in these two places matches what DT said.

In short, being infinitely larger than it and seeing it as a small piece are still "size" but not qualitative superiority.


Just as there is an infinite difference between any finite 3-D structure and infinite 3-D space, and even though the finite 3-D structure is "one of the small parts of an infinite 3-D structure" and "the difference between them is infinite," "both are still 3-D."

It all depends on the context.

ofc yeah.

 

[KLOL506]

From what I can tell here, as per DT, qualitative superiority will still be required to get any semblance of Low 1-C.

Regardless, I just need him to clarify my new questions here and then we can close this thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not saying, he is wrong, it is just that my interpretation of “size superiority” is also that is also one of the methods to get low 1-C if it is proven.

 

[Georredannea15]

I am not saying, he is wrong, it is just that my interpretation of “size superiority” is also that is also one of the methods to get low 1-C if it is proven.

Yes, if this size superiority gives you qualitative superiority with other extra context and statements, yeah it's Low 1-C. But without extra concexts and statements,not enough for Low 1-C, that's what i meant. And I already understand what you mean here

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have an issue with the notion of including "additional context and statements" in your sentence, as it effectively disregards the main point I'm making. Any statement lacking context will not make a significant impact in any aspect of powerscaling in general.

This adheres to a straightforward process of logic. So to mention it as it is some requirement (while it is already a requirement) is redundant.

I meant that having a larger size (size supriority) is one of the ways to ensure qualitative superiority, and I still hold the same position. There's no need to excessively focus on minor details and argue that "if it lacks context, it won't lead to superiority." I'm saying, isn't that obvious? This principle applies to all aspects of power scaling, just like the situation we're discussing.

My two cents, I won't really be entertaining this discussion.

 

[Georredannea15]

I have an issue with the notion of including "additional context and statements" in your sentence, as it effectively disregards the main point I'm making. Any statement lacking context will not make a significant impact in any aspect of powerscaling in general.

This adheres to a straightforward process of logic. So to mention it as it is some requirement (while it is already a requirement) is redundant.

I meant that having a larger size (size supriority) is one of the ways to ensure qualitative superiority, and I still hold the same position. There's no need to excessively focus on minor details and argue that "if it lacks context, it won't lead to superiority." I'm saying, isn't that obvious? This principle applies to all aspects of power scaling, just like the situation we're discussing.

My two cents, I won't really be entertaining this discussion.

I'd rather you ask this to DT. I also explained with a simple example why i disagree with what you said, but i respect your opinion.

 

[Georredannea15]

I am here saying that your redundant semantics is pointless, and you are saying I should ask “DT”.

@KLOL506 am I actually that unclear in my statement above or is it so hard to comprehend it?

I said that I don't openly agree with that and DT pretty much said that too. I guess, it's not much of a problem understanding this. I don't think it's necessary to prolong an already answered by DT.

 

[KLOL506]

What you two are bickering about is of no importance to me. I am merely waiting for DT to clarify on the things I asked.

 

[DonkeySlayer06]

Like, infinite x 4D is just 4D.

But if you have "space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal.

What is meant needs to be judged based on context. Kinda hard to make a criteria that covers every possible scenario.


Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both.

Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

Also see: Why destroying infinite multiverses (which is basically what being infinitely larger than 2-A may mean) is not Low 1-C.

I simply understood what you mean like this, even if you see the 2A structure infinitely smaller, as a result, it does not come to a higher dimension than it is from the same world. When we look at the Space, Stars, Star clusters and even Galaxies seem like a single point, but in fact they are 3D structures that bend the 4D structure.
Secondly, in terms of versatility, are you saying that the region that holds 2 and more than 2A structures and covers a much larger area, gains an extra aspect and becomes L1C?