• 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.

Changes to 3-A in the tiering system (Staff only)

It's not an irrelevant point, it is very much valid because the umbrella assumption that every universe in fiction will match NASA's theory is absurd.
 
If you want to argue about scientific accuracy please remove every Tier above High 3-A because we cannot scientifically measure anything beyond infinite joules and our higher-dimensional tiering system is scientifically innacurate. Also no FTL characters please.

Also, NASA's theory is 99.6% correct assuming that the initial premises are true. Going by the initial premise and applying the calculations will give you that result, but that doesn't mean it is an irrefutable fact. It's not, scientific theories are bound to the principle of being refutable. And not the whole scientific community accepts it, arguing that it is a consensus is disengenous.
 
Well, I suppose that this change will likely not be accepted then.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
It's not an irrelevant point, it is very much valid because the umbrella assumption that every universe in fiction will match NASA's theory is absurd.
Click to expand...
The point is about the verse where observable universe is used as bseline for the universe size calculation.Not all of them.
 
I genuinely cannot think of a fictional series which has ever even remotely implied that the universe is as big as the Cosmic Inflation theory suggests.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Also, NASA's theory is 99.6% correct assuming that the initial premises are true. Going by the initial premise and applying the calculations will give you that result, but that doesn't mean it is an irrefutable fact. It's not, scientific theories are bound to the principle of being refutable. And not the whole scientific community accepts it, arguing that it is a consensus is disengenous.
Click to expand...
Nothing unless a scientific law is an irrefutable fact, even the Big Bang theory. No one stated the whole scientific community accepted it; just the most notable section realated to astrophysics from NAS and many other.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I genuinely cannot think of a fictional series which has ever even remotely implied that the universe is as big as the Cosmic Inflation theory suggests.
Click to expand...
Neither can I think of a verse that assumes the universe is only the size of a mere region. Using google to claim authors assume the size of their universe is that size is likewise a bad argument. I feel like both sides of the argument miss Sera's intentions entirely.

It's not about being scientifically accurate.

It's not about inflating results.

You want the truth? The observable universe is just as unreliable as a standard to be applied to all of fictio as any estimate you come up with. This isn't a pick your poison scenario either.

It's simple. If the universe is closely related to our own, use the observable universe, if it's not, calc the size of that universe or assume it is at least that size but is likely above the established baseline for verses that are like ours. The issue is assigning every feat to baseline unless proven otherwise through powerscaling or a calc does not work with the ambiguity of the size of the universe.

This opens up fluidity in debates and revisions because no one would assume a 3-A from a high fantasy verse comes from a universe that's only 93 billion light years wide.

We know the size of the earth in its entirety as do we the sun and Milky Way. That is not true for the universe.
 
I don't think that it is realistic to think that we can somehow find out how large each fictional universe is from sources within the works themselves.
 
Well, I am just saying that we need a standard size for the ones that are not specified.
 
Also, Sera even said speed would remain exactly the same. So no 10^23 x FTL. Saying that ignores the entirety of the previous thread where she said the observable universe's scale is fine for speed but not attack potency. Universal speed feats tend to be far more detailed than universal AP feats.
 
I both agree and disagree with Matt.

No one expects authors to look into theories on the size of the observable universe when they write "this character's next attack while blow away the universe", the line is simply a expositional point expressing the stakes in the story. What we're doing, however, is interpretation and comparative analysis across fiction.

As a result we use reality as the baseline for fiction, and wait to see if the story itself disagrees. So when an author writes something like that and doesn't look twice at it, we have to fill in the blanks with what we do know about reality. It's sort of what we do as a site here, just look at any calculation we use to compare Attack Potency. So to say we shouldn't use something that has more conensus in the scientific community than Climate Change because we're imposing standards on fiction is ignoring the whole point of this site.

It's why we use the size of the earth as a baseline for planet-busting feats, and the size of the sun for star-busting feats when we don't have enough information to evaluate it individually. Even if the world in question is named Sparkleland and has mountains made of gumdrops; unless we have something saying how large the planet is or its composition we have to assume "Earth" when the info isn't provided.

So we should, as a community that focuses heavily on the interpretation of fictional feats through a scientific lense, change our standards when the scientific community does, or change our standards when we learn that we've been doing stuff that isn't in-line with the scientific community. We are absolutely in no position to argue against their points, unless we do so through providing contradictiory consensus in the scientific community.
 
However we are not ignoring the point of this site, it's more so the hive mind nature of the site that's affecting how discussions go regarding certain topics. Remember, the scientific consensus is that the observable universe is a spherical region of the actual flat/ever-expanding universe. That contradicts using it as the baseline for what we call "Universe level". VIW for example has a much better universal classification system but that's another story.
 
Yeah. Claiming to acknowledge the universe as flat but use a spherical region as the baseline is contradictory.
 
Last thing I'll say and then I gotta bounce.

The observable universe is good for speed feats because we know the distance of the observable universe and S=D/T.

However we don't need the distance for AP if the feat is simply "I destroyed/created the universe". Especially when the latter should be assumed Low 2-C unless it's contradicted. If a character destroyed the entire universe, it is wrong to assume that a subjective spherical region from Earth is all that was affected, because the word "entire" was used.

I agree with Dargoo and understand Matt's concerns but we are not machines or bots that must systematically fit everything into a specific parameter or otherwise we're unreliable. Unfortunately that's how it feels.
 
@Sera Something is odd to me (not about the size itself but the whole "universe" question). If we use the scientifical definition of Universe for the size, why we don't use it for Low 2-C by default..?
 
I know, that why i ask the question, People are agree to use the Scientifical Definition of the Universe accepted by NASA for the size, that mean a 9.30E+33 Lightyears, but in the same way, the Official Scientifical Definition of the Universe which include all matter + Time Space hasn't been accepted

you see the problem buddy?
 
I can see Matt's points, but I still agree with what Agnaa and Bambu have been saying. We don't know how big the Universe is and it's impossible yes, but Observable Universe is heavily lowballed for certain. I'm still personally in favor of Inflation Theory, but once again; I'm fine if people want to go against it. And again, redoing a bunch of calcs can be done later; but "too much work" isn't really the best approach either.
 
Sera's word is not sufficient guarantee that people won't make wacky and exaggerated calculations if we suddenly make the baseline standard for the size of a universe across all of fiction 10^30 times larger than the observable universe we currently use.

It also does not guarantee that people will use either 3-A or Low 2-C as the default assumption, and likewise it won't stop people from making even more absurd multiplier-based scaling chains to push in threads.
 
The Causality said:
I know, that why i ask the question, People are agree to use the Scientifical Definition of the Universe accepted by NASA for the size, that mean a 9.30E+33 Lightyears, but in the same way, the Official Scientifical Definition of the Universe which include all matter + Time Space hasn't been accepted

you see the problem buddy?
Click to expand...
Of course I do, buddy. But I'm not sure what to do about it. The issue here is people are afraid of wanking.
 
And Medeus is right. Ultima and Sera said many times that "too much work" is not an excuse. Forgive the rudeness but that's just being lazy.
 
Which is exactly why we should go with a conservative approach. It's not that people are afraid of wanking, rather it is the leniancy to do exactly that.

If the conclusions reached by NASA were somehow smaller than the current Observable Universe or even the x251 conclusion, I guarantee that not as many people would be pushing for it.
 
This is why I preferred Low 3-A, which was rejected because "it won't really be used". Tier 11 also is barely used, especially 11-C. At one point in time we only had one 11-C, but we discover new verses all the time. Low 3-A, 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C is the ultimate compromise, better yet it's synergy. But no one wants to do it.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Which is exactly why we should go with a conservative approach. It's not that people are afraid of wanking, rather it is the leniancy to do exactly that.
If the conclusions reached by NASA were somehow smaller than the current Observable Universe or even the x251 conclusion, I guarantee that not as many people would be pushing for it.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's goals here are wanking, Matt, and calling it that is misrepresenting the opposing argument.
 
Yep.

Low 3-A: Solves Sera's concerns

3-A: Solves Matt's concerns

High 3-A: Solves Andy and Agnaa's concerns

Low 2-C: Solves the concerns of those who really like the tier.

Literal synergy.
 
Thank you agai Dargoo. Why am I still here if Dargoo pretty much has this? @_@

Also yes Pritti, my thoughts exactly.
 
Low 3-A seems wholly unecessary and wouldn't ever be used at all, let's be real. What we really need is a 3-A system that goes from Observable to Infinite.
 
Low Universe level for observable universe feats and for characters who will be upscaled to Low 3-A via powerscaling from 3-Bs, multipliers, etc.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Low 3-A seems wholly unecessary and wouldn't ever be used at all, let's be real. What we really need is a 3-A system that goes from Observable to Infinite.
Click to expand...
I already debunked "won't really be used". Like...I just did. We only had one 11-C for a long time and we still kept it. Pritti also described numerous ways characters would reach Low 3-A.

Also people have concerns with 3-A capping at infinite when we separate transfinite from infinite for 2-B/2-A, 1-B/High 1-B, etc.
 
The Causality said:
So what Low 3-A Will mean? Observable Universe level?
Click to expand...
I think so but like DMB 1, I don't think any universe characters qualify for it except extremly specific one like 1100 Decibel Black Hole which would be larger than the observable universe and some other things like 103 timse folded paper.

I think most if not all our 3-A universal feats are based on blowing up the universe not the observal universe.
 
Yeah, I don't think any verse that says "Destroy the Universe" ever implies it to just be the Observable Universe; but all the two highlighted distinctions are all physical matter Vs All time in Space. I prefer keeping Low 2-C and 3-A, and neutral on merging High 3-A as just a higher up 3-A, but against the idea of Low 3-A distinct Observable Universe with full universe if we're going to upgrade them. Low Universal feats sounds more like they're just 3-B feats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
4 5 6
Replies
216
Views
40K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Agnaa
Data/Information Tiering Revision
Replies
14
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
153
Laxxius
Laxxius
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top