Creation, Attack Potency, and Pocket Realities Continued

[Dargoo_Faust]

I still strongly agree more with Matt and Kep. Creating Galaxies is galaxy level and creating thousands of lightyears worth of stars in the from of mini big bangs is 4-A.

The Big Bang didn't involve a literal explosion that would allow us to apply inverse square, though, nor is it really possibly to quantify it. We just arbitrarily placed it at an inverse square explosion across the area of the observable universe because reasons. So the equation we derived 3-A from still has nothing to do with the creation feats, or at least has much less to do with it than GBE.

As Kep put above;

Galaxies are nothing but stars, planets (which are exponentially lower than stars), and some gases bound together.

 

[Agnaa]

I didn't mean that as a support to it. I meant that, while physically it'd be that result, it'd be one of the liberties we'd take (ie black holes not being instantly High 3-A because physics dictate they have infinite GBE, or planets not only being remotely quantifiable via mass-energy)

While I don't like some of the other arguments for using inverse square law (i.e. DDM's), I've got no issues with this one, it does seem like a reasonable liberty to take.

 

[Kepekley23]

The very idea of energy didn't exist before the Big Bang. Considering that it's literally the entire universe's everything condensed into a extremely small point, one would expect rating it as 3-A as something that seems kind of a given.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

If more people think Inverse Square is more reasonable I'm alright with that. I would perfer using GBE as it has a stronger relation with what is actually being done but if we want to make a leap to satisfy how we've set up our rating systems, sure.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The very idea of energy didn't exist before the Big Bang. Considering that it's literally the entire universe's everything condensed into a extremely small point, one would expect rating it as 3-A as something that seems kind of a given.

The value for 3-A wasn't decided using "the entire Universe's everything", though, going by what you've stated before. It was, like 4-B/4-A, set by omnidirectional explosions.

A more accurate estimate would be trying to quantify it by the total matter, dark matter, antimatter, and dark energy present in the universe, although that probably has issues itself.

 

[Agnaa]

The very idea of energy didn't exist before the Big Bang. Considering that it's literally the entire universe's everything condensed into a extremely small point, one would expect rating it as 3-A as something that seems kind of a given.

Yes but doing these calculations through inverse square (unless I have a huge misunderstanding) gives the same result for creating an empty universe with two neutron stars on opposite ends of it, and creating a universe for a universe filled with quadrillions of neutron stars, which seems like a huge failure of that method.

 

[Kepekley23]

Inverse square law doesn't quantify creation. It's used to calculate destruction, which we apply to creating it because of our standards regarding creation = destruction.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Agnaa brings up a good point again.

 

[Agnaa]

Which is exactly the problem. As much as GBE giving less than 3-A for the creation of our universe is a failure of that method, inverse square law giving the exact same energy for creation feats dozens of orders of magnitude apart is a failure of using that method.

 

[Kepekley23]

Not really. Inverse square law is basically built on the principle that energy dissipates the farther it goes along. Which means there isn't an active difference between destroying an empty universe with two opposite neutron stars, since the energy would still need to be big enough to destroy the star on the other edge upon it even after having dissipat

 

[Agnaa]

I realize the basis of it, but when used for creation it almost entirely scales the energy based on the distance between the edges of the creation, rather than on the actual content of the creation itself.

I get that this works great for destruction but it's really weird for creation, when creating quadrillions of times more things results in the exact same energy given for the calculation.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Which means there isn't an active difference between destroying an empty universe with two opposite neutron stars, since the energy would still need to be big enough to destroy the star on the other edge upon it even after having dissipat

You can't "destroy an empty universe" though, as that would imply destroying space is physically possible.

If destroying the stars is what is needed to collapse the pocket reality the GBE on either end would have the same result said 3-A omnidirectional explosion.

If destroying the space is what is needed that can't be quantified and therefore related to creation under our standards.

 

[Kepekley23]

Uh...the exact same principle applies for destruction as well.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Inverse square law doesn't quantify creation. It's used to calculate destruction, which we apply to creating it because of our standards regarding creation = destruction.

^I'm with that standard, by what was debated the last two times this was brought up.

I also disagree with the notion that GBE has any special relation to reality warping stuff into existence.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I also disagree with the notion that GBE has any special relation to reality warping stuff into existence.

Nor does Inverse-Square. GBE has a greater relation to what is created, though.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Both have equally no relation with it in any way or form.

 

[Kepekley23]

Dargoo, you sound confused on the subject here. Who mentioned destroying empty space? We're talking about destroying the stars.

Under inverse square law, a 3-A attack would be an attack that creates an explosion that engulfs the universe and has just enough power to hit a star at the edge of the universe and destroy it - then you take into account the fact that energy dissipates and calc the area of both objects to get how strong the attack was at the dead source.

 

[Agnaa]

Uh...the exact same principle applies for destruction as well.

Yes but for destruction you're destroying everything in the way, and since the energy started as a point in the middle it would dissipate as it goes away.

With creation you're not necessarily creating everything in the way, there's a ton of space in between which is just empty. And there's often no reason to assume some creation energy started in the middle then dissipated away, it's usually just a matter of range.

Being able to destroy something on the other side of the universe through a telekinetic attack doesn't give you AP as if you started an omnidirectional blast that eventually reached the other side of the universe. Why should creation which is often just popping things into existence in their place be rated by an omnidirectional blast?

EDIT: To clarify I'm fine with just saying "It doesn't make sense but we have to choose a standard to make things convenient". It just rubs me the wrong way when you say stuff like "GBE dosn't rate our universe at 3-A" and act like using inverse square law doesn't give similarly absurd results when applied to creation.

 

[Kepekley23]

Both have equally no relation with it in any way or form.

This, exactly.

GBE has no relation to how planets are created in reality, nor does any theoretical physics assign a relationship between planet formation and GBE. It's really a standard we made to make things reasonable in fiction.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Both have equally no relation with it in any way or form.

They have relation to destruction, though.

You don't need an omnidirectional explosion of 3-A magnitude to destroy two stars on either end of the observable universe, you just need the two star's GBEs in energy. While the first would be necessary for an attack that reaches that far, we're talking about creating the space and the stars all at once.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Big thonk thread.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Dargoo, you sound confused on the subject here. Who mentioned destroying empty space? We're talking about destroying the stars.

Which means there isn't an active difference between destroying an empty universe with two opposite neutron stars, since the energy would still need to be big enough to destroy the star on the other edge upon it even after having dissipat

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying here?

 

[Kepekley23]

Yes, you did, as I was referencing something that Agnaa said in the post directly preceding my post.

 

[SinsofMan]

I support Kep with the caveat of "it depends"

Some verses have plenty of creation feats, alot of which I follow:

Magic the Gathering is probably the big one.

In Magic, Oldwalkers create universes because they are usually transcendant from universes to begin with, and the 'energy loss' for them is nonexistant.

I would argue equating Creation Feats to Destruction is what we should do, if it goes back to Authorial Intent or a mechanism is in place to assume they can easily destroy it if they wanted too.

Same with iirc, Franklin Richards.

He gets a pass here too considering the Celestial, a multiversal civilization have given him such credence to also be valid, albeit we only see him create universes, not destroy them (unless I am straight up wrong here, only read a few comics on this one pls dont break down on me too hard.)

I usually approach it with this outline.

Scale Creation Feats to Destruction Feats - If it is not inconsistent, an outlier, or there is no mechanism to explain if you picked this charater up and dropped them in another universe, could they be this level?

In short, I agree with Kep, but there is obvious issues. Mundus doesn't scale, his is an outlier.

I also think GBE has a place in creation feats if we are talking about singular creation feats, not inverse square law.

IE: Feats based on reality warping or planetary/stellar creation.

I am mostly in favor of Kep and Matt though. Some verses are more consistent then others.

Honestly, having a standard on this issue might be too divisive. Persona also have aplenty of creation feats based on Cognition, we give that a pass. Magic has plenty as well, based on Reality Warping, we also give that a pass.

DMC? Yeah, no.

FF 1 with Garland? Also, no. (I am ignoring the fact that Garland could have not created this by the way, my point is more so we don't count it.)

I don't think we need a standard, I just think we need to reinforce the sort of mismatched view on this wiki to begin with.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

SinsofMan mailed it like the ******* Romans. I support him.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just to throw it in: If a character actually reality warps just two neutron stars an observable universe apart into existence, I hope nobody gets the idea to try to quantify that with inverse square law.

Creation = Destruction works for all simple cases, but for things beyond that, like the example above, plausibility and common sense should apply. Meaning, such cases should be debated individually.

 

[Wokistan]

The MTG 4-As are based on beings that are either literal constellations, or the Eldrazi's statement of blowing up multiple star systems with the shockwaves that were generated by their 3D shadows waking up, not a pocket dimension thing as far as I can remember. I think as of now I'm leaning more towards Sins viewpoint in general though.

 

[Agnaa]

Just to throw it in: If a character actually reality warps just two neutron stars an observable universe apart into existence, I hope nobody gets the idea to try to quantify that with inverse square law.

Creation = Destruction works for all simple cases, but for things beyond that, like the example above, plausibility and common sense should apply. Meaning, such cases should be debated individually.

I'd agree with this.

 

[Kepekley23]

Just to throw it in: If a character actually reality warps just two neutron stars an observable universe apart into existence, I hope nobody gets the idea to try to quantify that with inverse square law.

Creation = Destruction works for all simple cases, but for things beyond that, like the example above, plausibility and common sense should apply. Meaning, such cases should be debated individually.

100% agreed

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree 100% likewise. I think we are reaching a consensus.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Just to throw it in: If a character actually reality warps just two neutron stars an observable universe apart into existence, I hope nobody gets the idea to try to quantify that with inverse square law.

Creation = Destruction works for all simple cases, but for things beyond that, like the example above, plausibility and common sense should apply. Meaning, such cases should be debated individually.

Actually

Seems like the best compromise to me.

 

[SinsofMan]

I am fine with Don't Talk's Caveat, Kep + Matts Suggestion.

╠Âa╠Âl╠Âs╠Âo╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âa╠Âm╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âa╠Âs╠Âe╠Âd╠ ╠Âb╠Âe╠Âc╠Âa╠Âu╠Âs╠Âe╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âh╠Âa╠Âv╠Âe╠ ╠Âc╠Âr╠Âe╠Âa╠Ât╠Âi╠Âo╠Ân╠ ╠Âf╠Âe╠Âa╠Ât╠Âs╠ ╠Âi╠Ân╠ ╠Âm╠Ây╠ ╠Ân╠Âo╠Âv╠Âe╠Âl╠ ╠Âa╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âd╠Âo╠Ân╠Â'╠Ât╠ ╠Âw╠Âa╠Ân╠Ât╠ ╠Âa╠Ân╠Ây╠Âo╠Ân╠Âe╠ ╠Ât╠Âo╠ ╠Âd╠Âo╠Âw╠Ân╠Âp╠Âl╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Ât╠Âh╠Âe╠Âm╠Â.╠Â

@Wokistan

I am talking about Oldwalkers, not Neowalkers.

Neowalkers are fine where they are, at least the top tiers. I sort of think the same thing with creation/being the manifestation though. IE: If you are as big as a Galaxy, you should under most circumstances be Galaxy Level.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Well I know y'all are getting close to a consensus but it's time for me to join into this conversation.

I am firmly against treating creation as equal to destruction in regards to inverse square law simply because inverse square doesn't apply to creation period.

Creation = destruction is perfectly fine and dandy in cases in which things can be created and destroyed equally. For example, mass-energy conversion is completely equal in terms of making and un-making matter. It's a formula that goes both ways.

GBE isn't, nor is applying inverse square to it.

1. Why is GBE not valid for creation? Simple. If two rocks are adrift in space eventually they will come together assuming no other significant celestial body is nearby. Those rocks will now attract more and more rocks. Eventually you have a planet. If I placed the first two rocks or even put all of the matter that made the planet into the gravity well of the rocks, such action would take significantly less energy than unbinding this new planet. For example take two magnets. Push lightly push them together, and they snap together. You barely used any energy getting that bind to occur but now you can't even get them apart with all your strength. A fundamental aspect of the universe took over. While one is gravity and the other is magnetism, the point is the same.

2. Why does inverse square law not work with creation? Well, inverse square law accounts for the exponential increase in energy needed to deal equal damage to something over a distance because of the exponentially increasing surface area, and thus the spreading of energy, of an expanding blast. Unless the "creation" power is getting spread across the attack's surface area, inverse square doesn't apply. It can't apply. Creating a planet far away with targeted creation isn't 4-B or anything else, it's just range on the creation. If someone unleashed an explosive sphere of restorative energy that repairs or creates things, inverse square cannot be applied to creation.

While it may seem nice to treat creation as equal to destruction in all aspects, it is only equal when the methodology of quantification goes both ways. If it doesn't, it doesn't apply and it's a dishonest option to act like it is.

 

[Agnaa]

Are there any other good alternatives to GBE/inverse square law? Guesses would usually line up with inverse square law anyway (since that's what the tiering system's based off of at that level) except they'd be less precise.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I promise this is going to lead to 4-A universe creation... I know someone already brought it up and said things about it but I don't care. This is the path we're headed to at this rate.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I promise this is going to lead to 4-A universe creation... I know someone already brought it up and said things about it but I don't care. This is the path we're headed to at this rate.

Literally look up and you'll see people agreeing against this with DontTlak's post.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Oh. Sweet. Guess my work was done for me then.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Where is the most explaining why creating all the matter in the universe isn't 4-A? Because given what I'm currently thinking matter creation even on a universes scale isn't 3-A no matter how you slice it.

 

[Kaltias]

The main problem is, a good chunk of fiction treats creating stuff as a feat of power.

In 99,9999% of the cases, this is done through reality warping, which, aside from the standards that we set, is not a quantifiable process, because reality warping isn't a thing irl and every formula used to quantify feats comes from irl stuff.

This means that there are only two possible ways, one is disregarding every feat of creation via reality warping (which is something I disagree with), the other one is agreeing on a standard to quantify those feats.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I for one still agree with Matt, Kep, and DonTalk.