CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
It isn't even galaxy level since the tree never affected the universes
-
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.
Dragon Ball Heroes: Cosmological Review
- Thread starter Irineu
- Start date
- Status
It isn't even galaxy level since the tree never affected the universes
- 3,229
- 3,560
Fuu's LS has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Anyways, let's see the counters.
- 15,276
- 7,007
The tree is outside of the universes, and its roots actually break through those universes from outside, as said in arcade, and the manga/anime shows that the roots use portals to go through the universes.
I don't see why it shouldn't be Galaxy sized.
I said the Immeasurable feat involving him holding the universe. Alien X has not Immeasurable LS because he has an universe inside of him.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Regarding the universe tree its best we leave it as unknown rather than any scaling due to how much inconsistent it values, also its heavily imply the tree only absorb lifeforce in the universe not the universes as hole.
- 15,276
- 7,007
No one ever said it absorbs entire universes though.
- 18,625
- 18,681
This feels like a whataboutism. Physically holding up a space-time continuum is a plain Immeasurable feat. Idk what issues Alien X has though.
- 15,276
- 7,007
Even if said space-time continuum is smol?
Well, CRT time ig.
Edit: What u think of the counters?
- 10,398
- 4,564
More original than “different verse” so argue that there.
Ok, then we have 1) a Low 1-C structure containing all of that at worst or 2) the CoT is Low 1-C as if it were just the space between timelines, they wouldn’t need above baseline range to affect it.
- 18,625
- 18,681
If it's a full on timeline then yeah. But I'm just going off of what I can gather here.
- 10,398
- 4,564
Since when is that accepted?
- 15,276
- 7,007
It does not contain, is only outside and in between at the same time. Read again.
A bridge can be outside the town and yet not being larger than it. You're repeating yourself.
All I get is that CoT is of comparable size, not that is bigger.
I mean, whatever is infinitely bigger than Low 2-C is Low 1-C, meaning that 2-A is not infinitely bigger, otherwise every 2-A should have been changed to Low 1-C now.
^
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I don't see how the roots use portals to go through the universes as this wouldn't mean that the tree affected the universe in any way shape of form.
fu said its roots would extand towards the end of the universe nothing it shown its affecting the universes/ break through those universe. The anime just shows ho ki is just being affected not the universes and anywho well the size shouldn’t really matter even if it’s racoon sized for that matter, the feat performed is well above galaxy
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Nah I'm coming to your house to give you lean
- 18,625
- 18,681
I already disagreed with Low 1-C so I didn't see the need to address them.
- 15,276
- 7,007
Braking
He/Him- 3,839
- 2,240
Declaration of Independence ass scan
- 3,493
- 5,191
Well it sees the timelines as dots and there’s tons of timelines some branched infinitely
Pretty much the CoT is a space that dwarfs 2-A multiverse and views timelines as dots it adjoins all infinite timelines and is stated to be beyond it in a qualitative superiority way with the context of how it works
The only thing I’m wondering is if the space contains the 2-A structure and dwarfs them isn’t being bigger than 2-A enough for Low 1-C? Since it’s shown to be unreachable for people with 2-A range too because the CoT pretty much does what you said needs to qualify besides the statements of it being on a higher plane
Since with the context of the CoT in nature along with the statements (which ofc doesn’t mean much without context)
- 15,276
- 7,007
I honestly feel ignored as every single point I made against CoT being any bigger is completely ignored and people still keep saying "is bigger, sees those as tiny crystals, etc" without adressing any of my arguments.
2-A is not infinitely bigger than Low 1-C anymore, because that gap is only for Low 1-C to Low 2-C, 2-A is only unquantifiably bigger now.
So if you want to argue that CoT is Low 1-C, you'd have to argue that by default 2-A is too, as there's 0 evidence of CoT being any bigger than a 2-A cosmology, but only comparable to it in size.
2-A is not infinitely bigger than Low 1-C anymore, because that gap is only for Low 1-C to Low 2-C, 2-A is only unquantifiably bigger now.
So if you want to argue that CoT is Low 1-C, you'd have to argue that by default 2-A is too, as there's 0 evidence of CoT being any bigger than a 2-A cosmology, but only comparable to it in size.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Cause you a irrelevant that lean fuc me up- by yeat
- 15,276
- 7,007
If this CRT gets rejected, can we apply the discussion rule I tried to apply here? Only reason why I could not is because of it being not rejected yet, but can we do this in case this ain't accepted? Because this is like the 30th CRT made lol.
That was something that was not necessary.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
Dude im joking with u sorry if i offended u lmao
- 15,276
- 7,007
I really wasn't, but was still a weird ass reply.
- 2,899
- 3,966
We don't joke here, everyone operates with nothing but good faith, that's why he referred to this thread as pure wank before he even posted.
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I am somewhat telling the truth because they ignoring you maybe because wa you try pull of the other time lmao
- 15,276
- 7,007
I mean, it has to be done at some point, because is getting old and repetitive at this point :^
But besides this is derailing.
- 3,493
- 5,191
? Are you trying to say Low 1-C isn’t infinitely bigger than 2-A anymore I’m hella confused Low 1-C is uncontably bigger meaning it’s bigger than any countable infinite number but I would suggest you rephrase that and being bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C pretty sure DontTalkDT and Ultima have said this before and it’s in the faq
A discussion rule is unnecessary tbh last time this was argued was probably like 2 years ago
- 3,493
- 5,191
Also I keep seeing beyond baseline 2-A AP and range so I’m gonna quote this from the FAQ
Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?
A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A
The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.
However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.
Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?
A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-AThe reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.
However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.
- 15,276
- 7,007
I said that 2-A is not infinitely bigger than Low 2-C anymore due to standards.
Are you trolling?
- 3,493
- 5,191
My guy reread your message before you try to ask if I’m trolling “2-A is not infinitely bigger than Low 1-C anymore” So I was tryna think and I thought perhaps you were referring to Low 1-C not being infinitely bigger
- 15,276
- 7,007
Not really.
My bad then. I misstyped. I meant that 2-A is not infinitely bigger than Low 2-C, as now being infinitely bigger than that tier is straight up Low 1-C, meanwhile 2-A is unquantifiably bigger now.
My argument against CoT being 5D is that at best is only comparable to the multiverse and not bigger than it.
Read above for my counters before saying again "but it holds the multiverse" because it's not the case lol.
- 3,493
- 5,191
Alright a year ago it’s not a frequent thing
All good I was just trying to understand your message but I still don’t understand are you saying being infinitely bigger than Low 2-C is Low 1-C? I don’t understand what you’re saying and if that is what you’re saying don’t worry about it if you’re not it’d have to be uncountably bigger
Are you sure that’s not the case?
- 15,276
- 7,007
Because Low 2-C is already infinite 4D here, thus being infinitely bigger than it means being 5D as you're treating something infinite as finite. It's how KH got 5D Ocean in Between, as said Ocean is infinitely bigger than a 2-B multiverse.
"separated" means nothing.
Adjoined means only being close. A room closer to yours is separated yet adjoined too.
- 3,493
- 5,191
Ah okay that makes sense
Adjoined means To Join together CoT is seperated from infinite histories but binds them together and referred to as Being Beyond Space and Time as a result of that
- 15,276
- 7,007
You can do that without being bigger than what you're binding. A road is not bigger than the cities it connects.
Of course it would be, is outside the timelines. Now, how that's Low 1-C?
- 254
- 118
What are you talking about 2-a is literally the ability to destroy infinitely many timelines as listed on the tiering page
CraigTucker
He/Him- 494
- 266
I want bentley, i want money
- 3,493
- 5,191
Okay but a road isn’t shown having timelines in it either
It’s stated to be outside of the histories but connect them by it being embedded in itself with gods and wish granting dragons not being able to reach the CoT and called a Super Space Time and Super Dimensional along with it being stated to be Beyond Space Time so yes it’s not within the timelines but superior to it
- 15,276
- 7,007
That was on the old Tiering system.
Now Low 1-C is what is infinitely bigger than Low 2-C, with the latter being infinite 4D on its own. 2-A is just "a bigger infinity" as is still 4D, but does not perceive Low 2-C as infinitely lower, as that feat is now Low 1-C.
I know, it is dumb, but is how the tiering works here now.
- 15,276
- 7,007
You missed the entire point. I mean that being between two things =/= being bigger than those.
Already countered. Stop vomiting the same points.
That's because is outside the multiverse, aka needs a higher range.
And yes, you can still be outside a multiverse without transcending it.
Because is something between all timelines, so ofc it'd be different than that. But it does not mean it transcends those.
Read this, carefully.
- 254
- 118
If low 2-c is considered infinite 4-d space then there should be no difference between any Tier 2 ap or range wise as there is not an infinity larger than a countable infinity but smaller than an uncountable infinity
- Status
