- 24,183
- 3,936
Sorry, countless universes isn't 2-A. There are a lot of countless 2-Bs
-
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.
DBX/DBH timelines
- Thread starter SSJRyu1
- Start date
- Status
- 12,523
- 3,490
Don't see how infinite history means infinite different timelines. Infinite history could just mean that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time.
- 32,343
- 20,268
Assaltwaffle is 100% correct scientifically speaking.
- 12,523
- 3,490
I think a new discussion rule oughta be put in place like "Do not upgrade Dragon Ball Xenoverse/Heroes characters to 2-A based on statements of infinite history. Infinite history does not mean an infinite number of timelines/universes and has been debunked countless times."
- 16,940
- 4,844
Didnt we do this already tho?ShadowWarrior1999 said:
- 6,011
- 2,117
I don't really like the "Rule for prevent revision for DBH/X" due to the fact that the game isn't finished and new statemate and feat can brings up
- 12,523
- 3,490
Didnt we do this already tho?
I know we have those rules for infinite/immeasurable speed and I think High 2-A or higher for Beat's World.
I know we have those rules for infinite/immeasurable speed and I think High 2-A or higher for Beat's World.
- 12,523
- 3,490
If there's new evidence that comes up then it can be used. This is about things that were already discussed and debunked.The Causality said:
- 8,121
- 1,567
Exactly. I do believe there will be new evidence for 2-A or potentially higher down the line for XV or DBH . For now it's just more evidence for countless universes.
- 12,523
- 3,490
An expanding finite multiverse will never truly be infinite.
- 32,343
- 20,268
We already have a rule for this very thing, and the scan brought by the OP was already used in older threads so
- 6,011
- 2,117
Well, the actual reasoning can be prohibited but not all Discussions about the DBH/X Multiversal shit
- 12,523
- 3,490
I looked at the discussion rules again and I only see infinite/immeasurable speed on there. So upgrading characters to 2-A, High 2-A, or higher should be put on there as well.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #54
@Assault
1. It could be any number, and there are infinte numbers, not finite. For example all real numbers alone is a countable infinite set, which is the requierment for 2-A size. So it is infinite amount of possible numbers for the constants.
2. Incorrect on your definition of planck length. It is not the smallest length, it is the smallest "measurable" length. You can go down to smaller lengths indefinatly making infinite points or directions to move in. I am not talking about a speed feat, I am talking about how many possible directions one could move in from a fixed point as an example of infinite possible diffrences as there are infinite directions to choose to move in.
As there are infinte real numbers, and ininfte points for which to move then you would have a countable infinite number of possible outcomes in these cases if the possible outcomes all bore timelines. So completly possible to have infinite timelines in history of the multiverse.
Regardless this RL can a multiverse be infnite thing is not the important thing. It is directly stated that the number of timelines in history is not-finite. So it is irrelivent if you think it makes logical sense or not since it is what the source content says.
1. It could be any number, and there are infinte numbers, not finite. For example all real numbers alone is a countable infinite set, which is the requierment for 2-A size. So it is infinite amount of possible numbers for the constants.
2. Incorrect on your definition of planck length. It is not the smallest length, it is the smallest "measurable" length. You can go down to smaller lengths indefinatly making infinite points or directions to move in. I am not talking about a speed feat, I am talking about how many possible directions one could move in from a fixed point as an example of infinite possible diffrences as there are infinite directions to choose to move in.
As there are infinte real numbers, and ininfte points for which to move then you would have a countable infinite number of possible outcomes in these cases if the possible outcomes all bore timelines. So completly possible to have infinite timelines in history of the multiverse.
Regardless this RL can a multiverse be infnite thing is not the important thing. It is directly stated that the number of timelines in history is not-finite. So it is irrelivent if you think it makes logical sense or not since it is what the source content says.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #55
So far nobody has even brought forward so much as a single scan to disprove what Fu states or my arguments, its all been "IRL I don't think that the multivese history could be infinite" which is irrelivent since it is stated that in this case in this fiction it is "not finite" directly, or "it's flowery language so I don't have to disprove it" which is just a cop out if im being honest, or "context is wrong" without any actual proof that it is out of context or an argument with actual proof to back it as to how it is specifically wrong.
I was talking to Azathoth about the topic and he said it could be solid proof, but haven't heard back from him yet further on it. Ryukama also agrees with the upgrade. I would like to wait until I have heard back from him on here. Matt and Assault opinion has been noted, and I have responded in kind above in previous posts, so no disrespect but id like to hear from some others at this point unless you have new things to bring to the table.
I was talking to Azathoth about the topic and he said it could be solid proof, but haven't heard back from him yet further on it. Ryukama also agrees with the upgrade. I would like to wait until I have heard back from him on here. Matt and Assault opinion has been noted, and I have responded in kind above in previous posts, so no disrespect but id like to hear from some others at this point unless you have new things to bring to the table.
- 32,343
- 20,268
You shouldn't just dismiss our opinions as having no evidence. We addressed your scan and argued why it doesn't mean what you think it means.
- 5,654
- 1,142
I don't get it though.
Why the hell are people bringing up "Well, I think, In real life it isn't possible so it's likely hyperbole" when also in real life, we've yet to prove timelines even exist.
This is literally a blanket statement "Time is not finite", which would disprove any arguments that it isn't 2-A if taken at face value. Literally all the arguments thus far against this is "It's likely hyperbole so it isn't credible" despite Fu having absolutely no indication of using hyperbole, along with the fact that Old Kai, Future Trunks or Chronoa didn't bother to step in and say "Uh no" to it. Y'know, with Chronoa being the person who governs time itself?
Why the hell are people bringing up "Well, I think, In real life it isn't possible so it's likely hyperbole" when also in real life, we've yet to prove timelines even exist.
This is literally a blanket statement "Time is not finite", which would disprove any arguments that it isn't 2-A if taken at face value. Literally all the arguments thus far against this is "It's likely hyperbole so it isn't credible" despite Fu having absolutely no indication of using hyperbole, along with the fact that Old Kai, Future Trunks or Chronoa didn't bother to step in and say "Uh no" to it. Y'know, with Chronoa being the person who governs time itself?
- 12,523
- 3,490
And also, the burden of proof is always on the OP who wants to change current statistics, so it's on them to show solid proof on why they should be changed.
BTW infinite history is not a valid argument as it doesn't indicate an infinite number of universes/timelines. A universe can have infinite history, and destroying that would only make you Low 2-C.
BTW infinite history is not a valid argument as it doesn't indicate an infinite number of universes/timelines. A universe can have infinite history, and destroying that would only make you Low 2-C.
- 14,936
- 21,043
I agree with Matt and the rest.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@Akreious
We are literally in a timeline right now. Any temporal structure, which we obviously possess since we have progression and causality, can be classified as a timeline.
@SSJRyu
1. No, it can't be infinite. For it to be infinite you have to presuppose that infinity is a number obtainable by such constants, which isn't proven. To be correct you basically need to assume you're already correct.
2. Atoms cannot move any distance smaller than a Planck length even if there is an infinite amount of divisible space in any given location. Take this thought experiment: When running a sprint, it is safe to say that in order to complete the race, you must first complete half of the race. Furthermore, after every half is completed, you must then finish half of that half (100 meters halfway into 50 meters halfway into 25 meter halfway). If there is no final and smallest amount of distance possible for particles to cover, you couldn't complete the race, since there would be an infinite number of divisible lengths progressing to the destination. Halving forever can't work in a logical system, so there as to be a smallest possible length. This length is the Planck length. Once the next half of the race reaches 1 Planck length, the division fails, and there is no final half, allowing the racer to cross the final Planck length and finish the race.
If there was no indivisible length, any movement would be impossible on a mathematical level.
There are not infinite points in the universe, and saying "there are infinite points" doesn't make that any more correct.
We are literally in a timeline right now. Any temporal structure, which we obviously possess since we have progression and causality, can be classified as a timeline.
@SSJRyu
1. No, it can't be infinite. For it to be infinite you have to presuppose that infinity is a number obtainable by such constants, which isn't proven. To be correct you basically need to assume you're already correct.
2. Atoms cannot move any distance smaller than a Planck length even if there is an infinite amount of divisible space in any given location. Take this thought experiment: When running a sprint, it is safe to say that in order to complete the race, you must first complete half of the race. Furthermore, after every half is completed, you must then finish half of that half (100 meters halfway into 50 meters halfway into 25 meter halfway). If there is no final and smallest amount of distance possible for particles to cover, you couldn't complete the race, since there would be an infinite number of divisible lengths progressing to the destination. Halving forever can't work in a logical system, so there as to be a smallest possible length. This length is the Planck length. Once the next half of the race reaches 1 Planck length, the division fails, and there is no final half, allowing the racer to cross the final Planck length and finish the race.
If there was no indivisible length, any movement would be impossible on a mathematical level.
There are not infinite points in the universe, and saying "there are infinite points" doesn't make that any more correct.
- 1,219
- 112
Tbh there's honestly no Solid Proof presented that that could warrant a 2-A DBH/DBX. At best the highest level of 2-B but certainly not 2-A.
However, I do agree that we shouldn't be banning revisions for DBX/DBH because new things are popping up and one day soon we might even get much more than just 2-A DBH/DBX.
However, I do agree that we shouldn't be banning revisions for DBX/DBH because new things are popping up and one day soon we might even get much more than just 2-A DBH/DBX.
- 12,523
- 3,490
If that new evidence comes up, then they can be upgraded.
However, any arguments based on the current content should be banned.
However, any arguments based on the current content should be banned.
- 5,654
- 1,142
I really hate this site's way of doing this tbh.
If the OP brings up statements that's blanket
"It's likely hyperbole and isn't enough evidence"
If people brings up statements against the OP's statements
"This is direct proof that the OP's suggestion is false"
Like come on. If it's downgrading, statements are 100% fine but upgrading? Nooooooo
If the OP brings up statements that's blanket
"It's likely hyperbole and isn't enough evidence"
If people brings up statements against the OP's statements
"This is direct proof that the OP's suggestion is false"
Like come on. If it's downgrading, statements are 100% fine but upgrading? Nooooooo
- 15,407
- 5,718
Except that there is a difference between a vague statement that's being forcibly interpreted for a 2-A rating and an explicit statement about the verse's cosmology. It's not a problem of the site, it's a problem of the original statement being bull. That's it.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Also it is best to err on the side of caution. Even if two statements have equal probability of being likely (which isn't even this case), you go with the more conservative one as to not artificially inflate the verse.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #66
@assault
1. Thats not true, there is countable infinite numbers in the set of all real numbers, therefore countable infinite diffrent possible constants for the universe.
2. In reality there are spaces we cannot measure and that space is infinitly divisable. How many times can you divide 1 m in half theoretically and get a smaller length? Infinitly so. There is no proof that a planck length is the absolute smallest length, just that it is the smallest we can measure and it is theorized that it is the smallest needed for measuring things in string theory etc. You can still get smaller in the quantum level indefinatly theoretically, nothing says otherwise that I have seen, and nothing proves that an object can't move said distances or directions, we just can't measure it is all.
There are infinte points even in a line let alone a 3D object, so yes there are infiite points in the universe, and you claiming that there aren't is wrong from all the evidence ive seen so far.
And again, it doesn;t matter in teh end since it is outright stated that the multiverse has a non finite number of timelines.
1. Thats not true, there is countable infinite numbers in the set of all real numbers, therefore countable infinite diffrent possible constants for the universe.
2. In reality there are spaces we cannot measure and that space is infinitly divisable. How many times can you divide 1 m in half theoretically and get a smaller length? Infinitly so. There is no proof that a planck length is the absolute smallest length, just that it is the smallest we can measure and it is theorized that it is the smallest needed for measuring things in string theory etc. You can still get smaller in the quantum level indefinatly theoretically, nothing says otherwise that I have seen, and nothing proves that an object can't move said distances or directions, we just can't measure it is all.
There are infinte points even in a line let alone a 3D object, so yes there are infiite points in the universe, and you claiming that there aren't is wrong from all the evidence ive seen so far.
And again, it doesn;t matter in teh end since it is outright stated that the multiverse has a non finite number of timelines.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@SSJRyu
1. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean here. What are the "constants" which you are referring to? I thought I knew but now I'm not sure.
2. The Planck length, even if not a minimum possible distance in space-time (although some quantum theories still do suggest that a minimum indivisible distance), is still the smallest possible distance that can be moved by non-quantum particles. An atom cannot move a distance lower than a Planck length. Thus, you, as a being, are confined to a finite number of possible movements. That doesn't even take into account the fact that you as an organism, or even any organism, cannot alter muscular input to the point of creating an infinitely divisible number of possible options for movement.
This just doesn't work, even if in the quantum realm there is no such thing as a minimal indivisible distance (which still isn't widely accepted).
1. Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean here. What are the "constants" which you are referring to? I thought I knew but now I'm not sure.
2. The Planck length, even if not a minimum possible distance in space-time (although some quantum theories still do suggest that a minimum indivisible distance), is still the smallest possible distance that can be moved by non-quantum particles. An atom cannot move a distance lower than a Planck length. Thus, you, as a being, are confined to a finite number of possible movements. That doesn't even take into account the fact that you as an organism, or even any organism, cannot alter muscular input to the point of creating an infinitely divisible number of possible options for movement.
This just doesn't work, even if in the quantum realm there is no such thing as a minimal indivisible distance (which still isn't widely accepted).
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #68
1. Like gravitational constant, speed of light, things that are specific singular numerical values but could have been anything. Theoreticaly the value could have been anything thus any real number could have been in place of the ones we got.
2. When i say someting moving in a direction it doesnt have to be me or even an atom, it could apply to any particle, even sub atomic. Also even though I can;t precicely move in every direction on purpose I could inadvertanly move in any direction still.
I mean it was just examples as to events that could potentially have infinite variations since you and matt took issue with infinite possible events in the past of the multiverse. I wanted to show there are some events taht have infinite possible permutations they could have taken.
The main point though is that we have them directly say there are non finite amount of timelines in history (the written multiverse)
I don't see how it doesn't work. If there are infinite points in even a single line, then logically there are infinite points in the universe, a 3D construct more than infinitly larger than a 1D line even by the wikis own tiering system. A point after all has no volume, or a value of 0 for volume.
2. When i say someting moving in a direction it doesnt have to be me or even an atom, it could apply to any particle, even sub atomic. Also even though I can;t precicely move in every direction on purpose I could inadvertanly move in any direction still.
I mean it was just examples as to events that could potentially have infinite variations since you and matt took issue with infinite possible events in the past of the multiverse. I wanted to show there are some events taht have infinite possible permutations they could have taken.
The main point though is that we have them directly say there are non finite amount of timelines in history (the written multiverse)
I don't see how it doesn't work. If there are infinite points in even a single line, then logically there are infinite points in the universe, a 3D construct more than infinitly larger than a 1D line even by the wikis own tiering system. A point after all has no volume, or a value of 0 for volume.
- 8,438
- 3,292
@SSJRyu
1. Well those constants aren't infinite and I don't see how they have to do with literally anything here.
2. Not only can you not precisely move in an infinite number of possible directions, you straight up can't. Independent sub-atomic particles, even if there is no indivisible distance, are confined to the atoms that make up your person. They are restricted in movement to the movement of what they inhabit and thus are limited by the macroscopic movement of you. Furthermore, like I have said, you or any organism's muscles simply can't pull off infinite variations of movement even if the movement was theoretically possible. The movement of a muscle fiber is a quantifiable redistribution of energy, and such energy, so long as it isn't infinite, cannot be divided infinitely over a finite number of muscular cells. Beyond the cellular level movement is not influenced, and thus the muscles are only able to generate a finite number of possible moves in any given scenario, regardless of quantum mechanics (which still suggest an indivisible distance).
So no, there is no reality in which there are infinite possible permutations in any scenario.
3. The reason we don't accept this is because we know how the DBH multiverse works. Whenever something different in history occurs, a timeline can branch from it. If it is true that there is a finite number of possible variations in any given scenario, any finite number, no matter how large, no matter the rate of growth, shall never achieve infinity. So, in order to preserve the verse's own internal logic, the dude was either talking poetically or just outright wrong.
1. Well those constants aren't infinite and I don't see how they have to do with literally anything here.
2. Not only can you not precisely move in an infinite number of possible directions, you straight up can't. Independent sub-atomic particles, even if there is no indivisible distance, are confined to the atoms that make up your person. They are restricted in movement to the movement of what they inhabit and thus are limited by the macroscopic movement of you. Furthermore, like I have said, you or any organism's muscles simply can't pull off infinite variations of movement even if the movement was theoretically possible. The movement of a muscle fiber is a quantifiable redistribution of energy, and such energy, so long as it isn't infinite, cannot be divided infinitely over a finite number of muscular cells. Beyond the cellular level movement is not influenced, and thus the muscles are only able to generate a finite number of possible moves in any given scenario, regardless of quantum mechanics (which still suggest an indivisible distance).
So no, there is no reality in which there are infinite possible permutations in any scenario.
3. The reason we don't accept this is because we know how the DBH multiverse works. Whenever something different in history occurs, a timeline can branch from it. If it is true that there is a finite number of possible variations in any given scenario, any finite number, no matter how large, no matter the rate of growth, shall never achieve infinity. So, in order to preserve the verse's own internal logic, the dude was either talking poetically or just outright wrong.
- 40,457
- 12,924
That was...incredibly smart. I commend you, lad.
- 12,523
- 3,490
And just like that, poof goes 2-A.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #72
1. The constants are a numerical value. However there are infinte possible rel numbers it could ahve been, hence infinite possible outcomes or timelines made theoretically.
2. It is irrelivent that I cannot personally move my muscles in said directions, the point being made is particles can move in ifnite directions which is factual since there is infinite divisable space and points. So well for example my entire cell may be confined to a specific set of them, the parts within it can move independantly indefinatly more the smaller you go. So yes, the parts of you can move in nfinite directions as there are infinte points to move toward even though they are infinitly small.
I dont agree, I think that I have provided proof that there is since even you admit there is not proof of finite division of space, which in turn means ifniite poitns to move toward. And the fact there are infite number of real numbers for many universal constants, which could have been diffrent, thus giving infinite possible permutations.
3. The issue is there are infinite possible variations in some cases as i outlined above so your logic falls apart there. And there is no reason that a multierse can not grow even if it is already infinite, you can add to infinity.
Hell as of now even NASA with WMAP thinks the Unvierse is likely infinite in size again giving rise to infnite points and even volume in it. This is another example of infinite possibilities for variations.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
So I understand your calims, I just don;t agree with them since there is lots of proof that examples of infinite permutations can exist logicaly to. And lets be real, even if it didnt make sense your still just using the stance of, ignore statement since you think it might be hypebole, not becouse it is actualy proven to be wrong directly or stated to be hyperbole.
2. It is irrelivent that I cannot personally move my muscles in said directions, the point being made is particles can move in ifnite directions which is factual since there is infinite divisable space and points. So well for example my entire cell may be confined to a specific set of them, the parts within it can move independantly indefinatly more the smaller you go. So yes, the parts of you can move in nfinite directions as there are infinte points to move toward even though they are infinitly small.
I dont agree, I think that I have provided proof that there is since even you admit there is not proof of finite division of space, which in turn means ifniite poitns to move toward. And the fact there are infite number of real numbers for many universal constants, which could have been diffrent, thus giving infinite possible permutations.
3. The issue is there are infinite possible variations in some cases as i outlined above so your logic falls apart there. And there is no reason that a multierse can not grow even if it is already infinite, you can add to infinity.
Hell as of now even NASA with WMAP thinks the Unvierse is likely infinite in size again giving rise to infnite points and even volume in it. This is another example of infinite possibilities for variations.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
So I understand your calims, I just don;t agree with them since there is lots of proof that examples of infinite permutations can exist logicaly to. And lets be real, even if it didnt make sense your still just using the stance of, ignore statement since you think it might be hypebole, not becouse it is actualy proven to be wrong directly or stated to be hyperbole.
- 12,523
- 3,490
Possibilities doesn't mean they're actually there, so it's still only 2-B.
- 32,343
- 20,268
Assaltwaffle is still 100% correct scientifically. History being infinite is pseudoscience that has no merit and cannot be true. Same with interpreting the line to say there are infinite outcomes in the universe.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #76
Thats your opinion Matt, but I dont agree with it. I presented instances of infinte possible outcomes as far as I am concerned. Also actual in game statement > RL physics. You can dismiss the statement all you want but know your just ignoring a blatant statement that directly says there is infinte timelines in history, aka written events.
- 32,343
- 20,268
It's not opinion, it's a fact. Neither the game nor physics agree with you. Nobody dismissed the statement, and it certainly isn't blatant. Your interpretation of it is ridiculously forced because you want to prove 2-A DBX, so you're not even starting from a fair point of analysis.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #78
Lol, no Matt, its not fact. That is your interpritation on things, not fact. It's impossible for you to prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is hyperbole since it is firstly fiction and doesnt have to abide by strict physics, and secondly the argument being made on how multiverses would work is highly controversial and certainly not fact, but speculation even at teh highest levels of scientific theory. At best you can say your opinion is that the statement is hyperbole.
- 16,940
- 4,844
Yeah sorry SSJRYU but im agreeing with Matt and the others if I didnt say this already.
I respect your views toward this ofc but for now the sides of who agree/disagree is very lopsided and the opposition's arguments are more plausible.
I respect your views toward this ofc but for now the sides of who agree/disagree is very lopsided and the opposition's arguments are more plausible.
- 1,604
- 1,533
- Thread starter
- #80
Anyway this is gettign tiresome repeating myself. I have covered my stance on the concerns you and Assault brought forward. At this point I am just waiting for Azathoth, who expressed interest in this, or others to comment on the topic, or for new arguments to be presented so i'll check back tomorow and see if either has happened.
- Status
Similar threads
