• 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.

(DB Tier 1) We must imagine a DB scaler happy.

Status
Not open for further replies.
3,346
1,897
It was agreed upon in the DB general that a new thread should be made once the hyper-timeline shit is done, which it now is. @ProfectusInfinity made the original thread here , ive just decide to revise it a lil bit, as the old one relied too heavily on DT and ultimas comments, which made an otherwise logically sound argument hard to follow. Fluff is good, but its exactly that, fluff.

How do temporal dimensions impact dimensional tiering?​


This is answered on the tiering system faq:
The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.
1000


Picture space and time as a series of frames in a movie, all lined up in a row. Each frame captures a snapshot of the cosmos at a particular moment, frozen in time. And that line that extends infinitely? That's time, encompassing everything from the past to the present to the future.

Time is a continuum, a never-ending flow that can't be measured in distinct chunks. It's not just that time contains infinite seconds, days, and years; it also holds every possible infinitesimal value in between. That's why a timeline is like an uncountable number of snapshots of the 3D universe, each one corresponding to a unique moment in time.

But here's where things get really mind-bending: time can be infinitely subdivided into the tiniest of moments, each one capturing a distinct snapshot of the universe. And when you add up all those moments, you get a scope that's beyond human comprehension. That's why destroying the fabric of space-time is a feat that's infinitely greater than destroying matter on a universal scale. It's like erasing an entire universe, over and over and over again, for every single moment of its existence.

Imagine a universe where time is not just a linear progression, but a multi-dimensional concept. This means that instead of just moving forward along a singular timeline, there are multiple timelines that exist alongside each other. In such a universe, the concept of space-time becomes even more complex, as each timeline has its own unique set of coordinates in a three-dimensional space.

But what happens when we introduce an overarching timeline that spans across all these different timelines? How does this affect the nature of space-time and our understanding of the universe as we know it?

One possibility is that this overarching timeline dislocates space-time over an uncountably infinite number of moments. Essentially, this means that we end up with an infinite number of snapshots of 4-dimensional space, each corresponding to a different moment in time.

In this scenario, we end up with a continuum that encompasses two temporal dimensions, resulting in snapshots that correspond to an entire 4-dimensional space-time. This continuum would then propagate a standard timeline through continuous change in an additional time direction.

However, it's worth noting that an overarching timeline doesn't always qualify for Low 1-C status. It's possible to model a cosmology where an overarching timeline is simply a larger hypervolume rather than a greater infinity. This is because what determines spatiotemporal separation is the capacity for space-times to exist in parallel and never intersect in space and time. Therefore, multiple space-time continuums can be serviced by a single time axis, without introducing new time dimensions. The model we've described takes advantage of this fact, assuming that a single time axis services all of space-time.

To establish a cosmology as Low 1-C, it's crucial to demonstrate the presence of two temporal dimensions. This requires evidence indicating that each of the smaller space-times has its own unique time dimension. Without such evidence, it's impossible to prove the existence of an overarching timeline that would qualify a cosmology as Low 1-C.
However, such evidence was already accepted. And an overarching timeline does exist.
The 12 Universes also already have their own time dimension.
Technically speaking, our cosmology has been approved for Low 1-C. This means that we now have the same justifications as the hypertimelines that have already been accepted. In other words, the DB cosmology has been given the green light for Low 1-C. The purpose of this thread is to make Tier 1 official.
However, there still are issues.

In a higher time dimension, time needs to flow in a different direction like backwards or diagonally.​

Lmao,no. As of the thread linked, that is no longer the case. Just the existence of a higher time dimension/hypertimeline is enough. Any argument made about time moving in the same direction here would be dishonest, and should immediately be disregarded.

Higher dimensions still need to be of significant size.​


The question of whether destroying a 5-dimensional object would be a Low 1-C feat depends on the relationship between higher-dimensional and lower-dimensional spaces in cosmology. If an uncountable number of 4-dimensional spacetimes are stacked up to form a small subset of a 5-dimensional universe, destroying the latter would be a Low 1-C feat. However, destroying a random 5-dimensional object with finite mass would not be.

Temporal dimensions are different because they always form a structure that embeds an uncountable number of states of a universe's spatial volume within itself. We already consider time dimensions to be significant in size, which is why the 4th dimension of a Low 2-C construct is considered to hold qualitative superiority even if we know nothing about the time dimension besides that it forms a continuum. This is because time is infinite by default and bijects with a dimensional space to form an uncountable number of elements.

Conclusion​

The Dragon Ball multiverse is made up of 12 Macrocosms, each of which is 2-C. These Macrocosms are encompassed by a greater timeline, which was previously rejected for Low 1-C status because cosmologies don't necessarily require multiple temporal dimensions. However, the Dragon Ball space-times are now accepted as having their own time dimensions, which makes the overarching timeline Low 1-C qualified.

Agree: 6 (@LordGriffin1000 ,@Planck69) @Qawsedf234 @Firestorm808 @EliminatorVenom @Elizhaa
Neutral:
Disagree:

Let the war begin.
melty-blood-aozaki.gif
 
Last edited:
My stance hasn’t changed, obviously.

Just to reiterate what was mentioned in the OP though, Reiner quite literally revised the tiering system faq to remove the part about an additional time direction as it created misconceptions about how time must flow perpendicularly to be considered orthogonal. This is the new FAQ excerpt:
A: The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes, or equivalents to it are serviced by (This is similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifying it for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning universes that themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not the same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and is shared by them), or even a single universe with two active temporal dimensions, qualifies. The same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.
It’s been revised in such a way that Dragon Ball’s current cosmology is verbatim acknowledged to qualify for Low 1-C. No other way to interpret it. The standards say “a cosmology like this is automatically considered to qualify for Low 1-C,” and it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Though Profectus please keep calm. Let everyone express their opinions.

Also please everyone no derailing. Let's not clog up the thread. Now they are smaller which means let's try to keep posting to a minimum, because 4 pages of previous amounts of posts now equal 10. It's a shame to make this thread a shitshow for absolutely no reason.
 
This again huh...

Well sure, due to the recent change on standards it doesn't require the different direction (although that would be the more direct proof one needs in my honest opinion) it is what it is. Executor_N0 made a comment about their thoughts regarding this subject (in the current Ben 10 Low 1-C thread) and said it to be a case by case basis depending on the why the verse treats it.

For right now, I'll agree but that agreement will be subject to change when/if more knowledgeable regarding this subject provide proper counter arguments for this case. Which brings me to my final thing, just like I said on the Ben 10 thread, only the OP needs to respond to those who ask questions or post counter arguments. We don't need several users ganging up on someone who is simply trying to state their opinion or get clarification.
 
I'd just like to see the proof that the RoSaTs being their own separated space-time also means that the Universes each have an individual separated space-time. Pocket dimensions having their own time does not immediately mean that different universes in a given franchise also are that disconnected.

If just that much can be provided, sure. Otherwise I'm disagreeing here still.
Also it feels strange to remake the thread instead of going from the last one where 3 staff had already voted against it (or at the very least, to not be counting their votes here since it's exactly the same proposal, postponed). But maybe that is just me.
 
I'd just like to see the proof that the RoSaTs being their own separated space-time also means that the Universes each have an individual separated space-time.

If just that much can be provided, sure. Otherwise I'm disagreeing here still.
Also it feels strange to remake the thread instead of going from the last one where 3 staff had already voted against it (or at the very least, to not be counting their votes here since it's exactly the same proposal, postponed). But maybe that is just me.
Just like with the last post, you’re ignoring how the first CRT regarding the ROSAT wasn’t the only one used to have it accepted that the universes harbor their own the time dimensions. As a matter of fact, the HTC thread wasn’t even linked in this OP.
 
Just like with the last post, you’re ignoring how the first CRT regarding the ROSAT wasn’t the only one used to have it accepted that the universes harbor their own the time dimensions. As a matter of fact, the HTC thread wasn’t even linked in this OP.
I don't have the time to reopen every CRT right now. But surely if the evidence exists it wouldn't be hard to link it to me here? I'm genuinely not asking for much. And by the way, previously approved things aren't exempt from further analysis when they are impacting greater things.
 
I'd just like to see the proof that the RoSaTs being their own separated space-time also means that the Universes each have an individual separated space-time. Pocket dimensions having their own time does not immediately mean that different universes in a given franchise also are that disconnected.
Them being low 2-c/ 2C realms already implies exactly this. if you want the reason WHY they're rated this, that can easily be given.
 
This again huh...

Well sure, due to the recent change on standards it doesn't require the different direction (although that would be the more direct proof one needs in my honest opinion) it is what it is. Executor_N0 made a comment about their thoughts regarding this subject (in the current Ben 10 Low 1-C thread) and said it to be a case by case basis depending on the why the verse treats it.

For right now, I'll agree but that agreement will be subject to change when/if more knowledgeable regarding this subject provide proper counter arguments for this case. Which brings me to my final thing, just like I said on the Ben 10 thread, only the OP needs to respond to those who ask questions or post counter arguments. We don't need several users ganging up on someone who is simply trying to state their opinion or get clarification.
Sorry to bother you, but could you please tag these staff members?

-Planck69
-LordTracer
-Lonkitt
-DarkGrath
-Ultima_Reality
-CloverDragon03
-Firestorm808
-GarrixianXD
-KLOL506
-DemonGodMitchAubin
-LephyrTheRevanchist
-Elizhaa
-UchihaSlayer96
 
I don't have the time to reopen every CRT right now. But surely if the evidence exists it wouldn't be hard to link it to me here? I'm genuinely not asking for much. And by the way, previously approved things aren't exempt from further analysis when they are impacting greater things.
Before rosat we proved living universe to have it's own time dimension by time room
 
Them being low 2-c/ 2C realms already implies exactly this. if you want the reason WHY they're rated this, that can easily be given.
No, not really. Even in the very previous thread the reason why Low 1-C was originally rejected was brought up, multiple 2-C realms don't translate to a default Low 1-C overarching timeline.

I know that Profectus will leap at this argument like it's the crux of what I am saying, but actually I've been bringing up the RoSaTs because they aren't universal in size so they do not count for confirmation. This leads us to my question, the only proof that I am requesting.

The one that backs up each of these universes having one dimension of time, since I know that you understand otherwise, there is a very simple logical leap waiting to happen where saying that DB has a Low 1-C cosmology is no different from the following statement.
Any 2-C cosmology is probably-actually Low 1-C just because a multiverse exists.
Here I am told that you already passed a proposal that proves each of the DB universes has an individual time dimension (not a time dimension that embeds them from the first to the last), and that on top of that there is a second time dimension.

I just want that proof. At the end of the day I am not even all that invested in arguing so much as wanting the solid reason that makes this argument that you guys are presenting valid.
 
Just like with the last post, you’re ignoring how the first CRT regarding the ROSAT wasn’t the only one used to have it accepted that the universes harbor their own the time dimensions. As a matter of fact, the HTC thread wasn’t even linked in this OP.
Them being low 2-c/ 2C realms already implies exactly this. if you want the reason WHY they're rated this, that can easily be given.
Before rosat we proved living universe to have it's own time dimension by time room
3 people responded to someone asking a question in regards to the OP and only one was the OP... I know y'all saw my comment.

Sorry to bother you, but could you please tag these staff members?

-Planck69
-LordTracer
-Lonkitt
-DarkGrath
-Ultima_Reality
-CloverDragon03
-Firestorm808
-GarrixianXD
-KLOL506
-DemonGodMitchAubin
-LephyrTheRevanchist
-Elizhaa
-UchihaSlayer96
Ultima is busy iirc so I'm not sure if tagging them is appropriate at this time. Also I think some of them don't do tier 1 stuff, I'll contact some though.

@LordTracer @Lonkitt @DarkGrath @CloverDragon03 @Firestorm808 @GarrixianXD @Elizhaa

I was asked to tag you, if you are interested in contributing in evaluating this thread and help move it along, that would be helpful whenever you are able.
 
So I can't bring up questions or ask for proof to a cosmology rating....In a cosmology rating upgrade thread. Interesting argument.
Its generally bad faith to contest already accepted information, and doing so could land you in the RVR. So don't. If you have any questions, ask the db supporters in the general discussion thread, or make your own. I, or the other db supporters, will not waste time trying to disprove your arguments against already accepted information.
 
No, not really. Even in the very previous thread the reason why Low 1-C was originally rejected was brought up, multiple 2-C realms don't translate to a default Low 1-C overarching timeline.

I know that Profectus will leap at this argument like it's the crux of what I am saying, but actually I've been bringing up the RoSaTs because they aren't universal in size so they do not count for confirmation. This leads us to my question, the only proof that I am requesting.

The one that backs up each of these universes having one dimension of time, since I know that you understand otherwise, there is a very simple logical leap waiting to happen where saying that DB has a Low 1-C cosmology is no different from the following statement.

Here I am told that you already passed a proposal that proves each of the DB universes has an individual time dimension (not a time dimension that embeds them from the first to the last), and that on top of that there is a second time dimension.

I just want that proof. At the end of the day I am not even all that invested in arguing so much as wanting the solid reason that makes this argument that you guys are presenting valid.
That's actually what they're trying to do with standards.

Nearly all of them confuse "temporal dimensions encompassing space-time continuums and stacking on top of each other, with temporal dimensions flowing on different axes." Stacked, inclusive temporal dimensions do not give N+1 as long as they flow on the same axis...

Or rather, they changed it that way because they had no proof.


But I don't think it will be a problem, because the thing that will bomb this standard and logic will most likely be this thread
 
Also it feels strange to remake the thread instead of going from the last one where 3 staff had already voted against it (or at the very least, to not be counting their votes here since it's exactly the same proposal, postponed). But maybe that is just me.
I share the same sentiment. I find it odd that despite this, they did not call the staff members who disagreed with the previous thread either. This is why I think re-creating a thread is not to make someone's premise “clear” but to re-create the staff vote tally since the first try is failed. This is my personal observation.

Anyway, I don't think the standards have changed at all (and if they have, this needs to be revised as @PrinceofPein has suggested). Since @Reiner explicitly stated in their premise that their sole purpose was to change the formatting of standards to avoid “misinterpretation,” I don't think my stance on this thread will be changed either.

So, put me in disagreement with the thread.
 
So I can't bring up questions or ask for proof to a cosmology rating....In a cosmology rating upgrade thread. Interesting argument.
The meaning of crts is to establish facts which are used as basis to build more crts. Tackling something already approved in a different crt is derailing and also bloats the thread too much. If you want just read the established crt. If you disagree with it then create a crt of your own to disprove it. While you can ask for info regarding a crt you can't expect for anyone to waste time just to prove to you again what has already been proven. If you feel strongly about the matter read the previous crt and create another one to disprove or alternatively tackle the current op and their arguments like @Georredannea15 is doing which is totally ok to do.
 
Its generally bad faith to contest already accepted information, and doing so could land you in the RVR. So don't. If you have any questions, ask the db supporters in the general discussion thread, or make your own. I, or the other db supporters, will not waste time trying to disprove your arguments against already accepted information.
All I did was ask for one proof that shows DB Universe has two dimensions of time and not simply several multiverses each partaking in the exact same time dimension.

With a few odd out pocket dimensions like the RoSaT. You cannot make me stop questioning the validity of a point when, all I do is ask you By the way, what backs this up? and you immediately get up in arms and tell me to drop the subject.
 
That's actually what they're trying to do with standards.

Nearly all of them confuse "temporal dimensions encompassing space-time continuums and stacking on top of each other, with temporal dimensions flowing on different axes."

Or rather, they changed it that way because they had no proof.


But I don't think it will be a problem, because the thing that will bomb this standard and logic will most likely be this thread
If you just came here to drop the accusation bomb like that comment you made on the Ben 10 thread, I'd advise you not do this again. Regardless of of who changed what or what you think they are doing is irrelevant to this thread. If the standards change then they change, nothing is set in stone so simple wait and change them back or wait for other arguments. Consider this a warning.

I share the same sentiment. I find it odd that despite this, they did not call the staff members who disagreed with the previous thread either. This is why I think re-creating a thread is not to make someone's premise “clear” but to re-create staff vote tally since the first try is failed. This is my personal observation.

Anyway, I don't think the standards have changed at all (and if they have, this needs to be revised as @PrinceofPein has suggested). Since @Reiner explicitly stated in their premise that their sole purpose was to change the formatting of standards to avoid “misinterpretation,” I don't think my stance on this thread will be changed either.
I don't think it's intentional that they aren't calling specific staff. I get contacted by some users frequently who contact a select number of staff to my knowledge. But you are allowed to ask me to contact staff so it's not like I can't call over the ones who disagreed, just tell me who they are.
 
My stance hasn’t changed, obviously.

Just to reiterate what was mentioned in the OP though, Reiner quite literally revised the tiering system faq to remove the part about an additional time direction as it created misconceptions about how time must flow perpendicularly to be considered orthogonal. This is the new FAQ excerpt:

It’s been revised in such a way that Dragon Ball’s current cosmology is verbatim acknowledged to qualify for Low 1-C. No other way to interpret it. The standards say “a cosmology like this is automatically considered to qualify for Low 1-C,” and it is what it is.
I agree with the thread, but wouldn't this upgrade a lot of verses sorry if this is derailing
 
Here I am told that you already passed a proposal that proves each of the DB universes has an individual time dimension (not a time dimension that embeds them from the first to the last), and that on top of that there is a second time dimension.

I just want that proof. At the end of the day I am not even all that invested in arguing so much as wanting the solid reason that makes this argument that you guys are presenting valid.
That proof is already given in the op, please click each of the links given.
 
The meaning of crts is to establish facts which are used as basis to build more crts. Tackling something already approved in a different crt is derailing and also bloats the thread too much. If you want just read the established crt. If you disagree with it then create a crt of your own to disprove it. While you can ask for info regarding a crt you can't expect for anyone to waste time just to prove to you again what has already been proven. If you feel strongly about the matter read the previous crt and create another one to disprove, else tackle the current op.
This is starting to become funny because once more, I am asking By the way, which piece of evidence backs this up? and no one seems able to bring it up other than telling me to let go of it.

So I am actually going to aplaud the attitude of one user who went to my wall and did that effort. And a reminder for the future, if your evidence for a CRT is so unstable that when asked about what backs it up no one can and the go-to plan is to ask the one questioning to drop the subject when you could achieve the same end result with one piece of proof.

That's a red flag for how consistent your proposal really is.
 
I don't think it's intentional that they aren't calling specific staff. I get contacted by some users frequently who contact a select number of staff to my knowledge. But you are allowed to ask me to contact staff so it's not like I can't call over the ones who disagreed, just tell me who they are.
I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they did not intentionally call those who evaluated the thread and labelled it as misremembering.

Ping those staff members: @Deagonx @Qawsedf234 @Maverick_Zero_X
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top