• 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.

Everything beyond tier 3 is a cluster ****

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zamasu_Chan

Zamasu_Chan

8,821
9,402
This isn’t a CRT. I don’t plan to change anything or convince anyone of anything. I'm just here to point out the flaws that are present in tiers 2 to 1-A.

Inconsistent requirements​

Obviously in order to be low 2-C you have to destroy the universe's time and space. This is because with time, you're destroying uncountable infinite (U infinite) 3D universes. The problem is this heavily relies on the size of the 3D object in question.
For example, this feat is considered High 4-C. It’s stated Kaguya will create a new time space. Which means she’s recreating U infinite 3D versions of her world, so it makes no sense, by our line of logic, that she’s not low 2-C.

Keep in mind this is just one example. I've asked one of the guys in charge of the tiering system about this. They actually acknowledged the issues but swept it under the rug to avoid conflict. Is accuracy not top priority anymore?

Fake higher dimensions​

This is arguably the biggest problem here. We know 0D is a point, 1D is a line, 2D is a square, and 3D is a cube. Each dimension adds a spatial coordinate. However we run into our first problem with using U infinity as a justification.
We multiply 3D by U infinity to get 4D. That's not how it works. For instance, 2D has length and width but 0 height. 0 multiplied by U infinity is still 0 (or even undefined). Which means no volume. Same thing for 3D. U infinite 3D will never be 4D because you’d have to assume 3D has a 4D spatial coordinate to multiply in the first place. Higher dimensions are inaccessible to each other so no form of infinity can bridge the gap.
This is a major problem that shows low 2-C to at least 1-A aren’t rated properly and their justification, realistically speaking, is more than infinitely many times into high 3-A. How did you **** that up?


Time is not the 4th dimension​

Now that I pointed out within our line of logic, now I'll show you why this line of logic is wrong.
Time is: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." No space/matter = no progress to be measured = no time. It's existence is entirely dependent on space, so destroying space destroys time.
Let’s say you have a universe that has completely 3D volume. All of the past president and future events took place in this box. You destroy the whole thing and all those events are no longer existent to travel to. This can be said about anything higher or lower dimensional object. Having your own time doesn’t mean anything when it comes to size and volume.

Conclusion​

Like I said, I'm not planning on any changes because this place is too far gone. This may or may not be the result of adding strict rules so specific verses don’t get upgraded or whatever. But my point still stands. Things would be a lot more simple if we used regular ass dimensional tiering. But that ship has sailed. We reached a point where staff are making multiversal destruction 3-A and single universes 2-A based on 3D size.
I know there will be massive push back, but I will die on this hill.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
. It’s stated Kaguya will create a new time space. Which means she’s recreating U infinite 3D versions of her world, so it makes no sense, by our line of logic, that she’s not low 2-C.
Click to expand...
For this part, technically it never stated it was a infinite space time continuum per se. You can still technically have a pocket dimension with space and time
 
Summarizing the flaws of the Tiering system which can not exactly been ignored and I will have to inform Ant about this…. again
 
Bro, genuinely thank you for saying every ******* question i have had on this wiki for like a year now

Following
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Also depends on context since Japanese language is a pain in the neck.
Click to expand...
I asked native speakers on R/translate. It only jas 1 definition and that's spacetime folded into a continuum. It's a scientific and mathematical Kanji. If a person meant controlling space and time like tike travel or something else. The Kanji is very different.

Of course context does help in verse though clarify things. It always helps
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
I asked native speakers on R/translate. It only jas 1 definition and that's spacetime folded into a continuum. It's a scientific and mathematical Kanji. If a person meant controlling space and time like tike travel or something else. The Kanji is very different.
Click to expand...
While this may been true, I rather not redo that discussion as it getting me headaches now from just thinking about it.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
This is arguably the biggest problem here. We know 0D is a point, 1D is a line, 2D is a square, and 3D is a cube. Each dimension adds a spatial coordinate. However we run into our first problem with using U infinity as a justification.
We multiply 3D by U infinity to get 4D. That's not how it works. For instance, 2D has length and width but 0 height. 0 multiplied by U infinity is still 0 (or even undefined). Which means no volume. Same thing for 3D. U infinite 3D will never be 4D because you’d have to assume 3D has a 4D spatial coordinate to multiply in the first place. Higher dimensions are inaccessible to each other so no form of infinity can bridge the gap.
Click to expand...
Read what Real Coordinate Space is and you'll understand.
 
Anyway:

Zamasu_Chan said:
Keep in mind this is just one example. I've asked one of the guys in charge of the tiering system about this. They actually acknowledged the issues but swept it under the rug to avoid conflict. Is accuracy not top priority anymore?
Click to expand...
I don't think the actual reasoning was "It's to avoid conflict" so much as it was '"Fiction often does not treat it this way, so we don't, either." I, myself, am personally neutral on the whole affair, but I don't think implementing finite spacetime hypervolumes into the Tiering System in a way that's not completely illogical is some impossible task, at present.

Zamasu_Chan said:
This is arguably the biggest problem here. We know 0D is a point, 1D is a line, 2D is a square, and 3D is a cube. Each dimension adds a spatial coordinate. However we run into our first problem with using U infinity as a justification.
We multiply 3D by U infinity to get 4D. That's not how it works. For instance, 2D has length and width but 0 height. 0 multiplied by U infinity is still 0 (or even undefined). Which means no volume. Same thing for 3D. U infinite 3D will never be 4D because you’d have to assume 3D has a 4D spatial coordinate to multiply in the first place. Higher dimensions are inaccessible to each other so no form of infinity can bridge the gap.
This is a major problem that shows low 2-C to at least 1-A aren’t rated properly and their justification, realistically speaking, is more than infinitely many times into high 3-A. How did you **** that up?
Click to expand...
The stem of this argument is kind of correct, yeah. In the context of set theory, 0 is the empty set ({ }, or ∅). It's a set that has absolutely no members whatsoever, and so 0 multiplied or exponentiated by [any cardinal number] is always 0, regardless of how large that cardinal is. You obviously can't add something that has no elements to itself to get something that has elements.

You trip up the moment you start mentioning dimensions, though. Because some given object of n dimensions is not an empty set, it has elements composing it. For example, the elements of the real number line (A 1-dimensional object) are the real numbers (Each associated with a 0-D point along the line), while the elements of the real coordinate plane (A 2-dimensional space) are 2-tuples of real numbers.

Rather, what a lower-dimensional object actually is to things of higher dimensions is a null set (A set of size 0), and that's where the important distinction lies: In math, "null" is not the same as "empty," and so the logic outlined above applies to empty sets, but not to null sets.

A good example of what I mean would be the unit interval, [0,1]. It's a 1-dimensional object, and yet each of its components (Every number from 0 to 1) is a singleton that has 0 length, since it is, after all, a point. All of them, summed up, result in the interval itself: Uncountably infinite 0-dimensional points, whose union results in a 1-D interval. And what's the exact number of points in that interval? 2^aleph-0.

How this generalizes to higher-dimensional sets is something you can figure out just by reading this, really.

Zamasu_Chan said:
Now that I pointed out within our line of logic, now I'll show you why this line of logic is wrong.
Time is: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." No space/matter = no progress to be measured = no time. It's existence is entirely dependent on space, so destroying space destroys time.
Click to expand...
This is a definition-based thing, largely. In contemporary physics, like Relativity, "time" is indeed treated as a physical dimension. The preferred, standard model is that of a universe that's temporally infinite, in fact. You can see as much in articles like this, or alternatively any material on relativity.

Zamasu_Chan said:
Like I said, I'm not planning on any changes because this place is too far gone
Click to expand...
I assume this doesn't necessarily mean you're unwilling to discuss the above?
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
This is a definition-based thing, largely. In contemporary physics, like Relativity, "time" is indeed treated as a physical dimension. The preferred, standard model is that of a universe that's temporally infinite, in fact. You can see as much in articles like this, or alternatively any material on relativity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this part is accurate. Much to my dismay, I have unintentionally cause that misunderstanding on the Tier 2 standard thread.
https://vsbattles.com/posts/4870283/

My statement was about space time continuum containing a timeline.
 
Obviously in order to be low 2-C you have to destroy the universe's time and space. This is because with time, you're destroying uncountable infinite (U infinite) 3D universes. The problem is this heavily relies on the size of the 3D object in question. For example, this feat is considered High 4-C. It’s stated Kaguya will create a new time space. Which means she’s recreating U infinite 3D versions of her world, so it makes no sense, by our line of logic, that she’s not low 2-C.

One could also argue that she should be at High 3-A, as Low 2-C is (meant to be) reserved for feats involving entire timelines.

Keep in mind this is just one example. I've asked one of the guys in charge of the tiering system about this. They actually acknowledged the issues but swept it under the rug to avoid conflict. Is accuracy not top priority anymore?

It's not to avoid conflict, it's because we weigh "This is how it works logically/in the real world" vs "This is how fiction generally treats it", and each person has their own arbitrary bar for that sort of thing. Even if you don't realize it, you almost certainly do some tradeoff between the two in how you personally would wish to index verses.

0 multiplied by U infinity is still 0 (or even undefined). Which means no volume. Same thing for 3D. U infinite 3D will never be 4D because you’d have to assume 3D has a 4D spatial coordinate to multiply in the first place. Higher dimensions are inaccessible to each other so no form of infinity can bridge the gap.

This is incorrect, 0 multiplied by uncountable infinity is not 0, it's undefined because it can equal any non-zero number, or even countable infinity. Which is perfectly fine for our tiering; it means that adding a dimension, no matter how large it is, requires an uncountably infinite increase in size.

Also, this sort of thing can be approached from another way. A size of 0 is equivalent to a point, and each line (no matter whether its size is non-zero or infinite) is comprised of uncountably infinitely many points.

How did you **** that up?

We didn't, you did.

Time is not the 4th dimension

This is actually true, but not for the reason you provide.

Time is: "the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole." No space/matter = no progress to be measured = no time. It's existence is entirely dependent on space, so destroying space destroys time.

That's some dictionary-waving bullshit sophistry. Time, as it's defined in physics, doesn't suddenly disappear over an area which is filled with no matter/space, no matter what a dictionary of the layman's common use tells you. Some people will take up the philosophical position of "Time isn't relevant if there's no space to refer to!" but I don't see why that's the case. A clock can tick around just fine, it just means that multiple parts of time refer to the same, empty space, making their contents indistinguishable.

Let’s say you have a universe that has completely 3D volume. All of the past president and future events took place in this box. You destroy the whole thing and all those events are no longer existent to travel to. This can be said about anything higher or lower dimensional object.

I have no idea what this hypothetical is meant to show. You destroy the contents of a 3D box across all time, therefore time is not the fourth dimension?????

For the actual reason why time is not the fourth dimension; there is no first, second, third, or fourth dimension. There just are four dimensions; three are spatial, one is temporal. There is no ordering of them. And different possible universes could have different amounts of these dimensions. That's why when a piece of fiction says "fourth dimension", we do not assume they're referring to time until further context is given.

It's a shame you didn't mention the other issues with the tiering system. When you started talking about fake higher-dimensions and mentioned lower-dimensions, I thought you would mention how our standards for tiers 11/2/1/0 are completely incongruent with our standards for tiers 10-3; in that we describe tier 11 in terms of R^2, R^1 and the like, yet those would require uncountably infinite energy, putting them at least at High 3-A. Tier 2 could be separated in a different way than its current arbitrary universe-counting. I'm sure there's others, but they slip my mind right now or are currently being addressed.

There is a Kanji that is very common that means spacetime folded up into a continuum. It's 時空. It literally means spacetime continuum. Just without the word continuum for anyone whose curious.

What do you mean when you say it means "spacetime folded up into a continuum"? No dictionary I could find said that. The individual characters don't imply anything about being folded up, and the compound words formed out of it don't indicate anything about being folded up.

I asked native speakers on R/translate

Could you link this thread?
 
Last edited:
Agnaa said:
One could also argue that she should be at High 3-A, as Low 2-C is (meant to be) reserved for feats involving entire timelines.
Click to expand...
However, we were shown a pocket dimension as well which isn’t a exact Tier 2 feat per se especially since it depends on the context and portrayal.
 
Also I starting to think we have to acknowledge that a finite space time continuum can theoretically exist (This is something that hasn’t been mentioned a lot in theories, but pocket dimensions and stuff can occur)
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Also I starting to think we have to acknowledge that a finite space time continuum can theoretically exist (This is something that hasn’t been mentioned a lot in theories, but pocket dimensions and stuff can occur)
Click to expand...
?????????????????????????????????????

Our system already accounts for finite space-time continuums. But it only gives Low 2-C for situations where the spatial portion is of at least a universal scale, and the temporal portion covers the entire timeline.
 
Agnaa said:
?????????????????????????????????????

Our system already accounts for finite space-time continuums. But it only gives Low 2-C for situations where the spatial portion is of at least a universal scale, and the temporal portion covers the entire timeline.
Click to expand...
Oh, nm, as I did a brain derp there.
 
Also, I removed some unnecessary mocking or light trolling posts.
 
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @Qawsedf234

What do you think about this?
Click to expand...
I think that we had the debate about "time is not the 4th dimension" with Zamasu_Chan twice already and he should be banned from bringing up that topic.
Edit: Or maybe I confuse one time with when we debated it in DMs. It's been rejected before in any case and no new arguments are made.


Anyway, the "Inconsistent Standards" stuff is basically last tiering revision™. It's community consensus, not more or less.
And the "Fake Higher dimensions" stuff is just getting the tiering system backwards (higher infinity doesn't imply higher dimensions. HIgher dimensions imply higher infinity) and failing to account for basically any explanation we have on the subject.
But others in the thread have already given more detailed replies to that.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for helping out, DontTalk. Should we close this thread then?
 
From my side we could, but I think @Agnaa wanted some questions still answered regarding a Kanji or something from what I read above. (and not sure if Ultima wanted to continue debating this, but he can reopen threads if it comes down to it)
 
Agnaa said:
There is a Kanji that is very common that means spacetime folded up into a continuum. It's 時空. It literally means spacetime continuum. Just without the word continuum for anyone whose curious.

What do you mean when you say it means "spacetime folded up into a continuum"? No dictionary I could find said that. The individual characters don't imply anything about being folded up, and the compound words formed out of it don't indicate anything about being folded up.

I asked native speakers on R/translate

Could you link this thread?
Click to expand...
I didn't see this until now

The "folded up into a continuum" was just my poor wording. I didn't meant much by saying it like that. Just the Kanji meant spacetime as a continuum just without the word "continuum."

Once I'm home I can link it.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Anyway, the "Inconsistent Standards" stuff is basically last tiering revision™. It's community consensus, not more or less.
Click to expand...
What? Is this currently being discussed in a different thread?

Edit: Btw I’ll get in more responses tomorrow because I’m celebrating July 4th.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
I didn't see this until now

The "folded up into a continuum" was just my poor wording. I didn't meant much by saying it like that. Just the Kanji meant spacetime as a continuum just without the word "continuum."

Once I'm home I can link it.
Click to expand...
Ahh okay.

I'm not sure if "as a continuum" is the right word there, since "continuum" can have multiple implications and wordings. i.e. some people use the word "spacetime continuum" for any union of space and time, no matter the scale, since space and time are both continuous quantities. While other people seem to use the word to mean "an entire timeline".

I don't want people to get the former confused for the latter, and justify that idea because they saw those two kanji.

Those two characters are separately used to mean "space" and "time". The two characters that are used on top of them to get what dictionaries translate as "space-time continuum" are used to mean "world". I'd be comfortable treating the four-character version (時空世界) as meaning "timeline", but not the two-character version, for that reason. Even if some may say that "continuum" is still applicable, I think they simply mean that in a small-scale sense due to space and time being continuous.

What? Is this currently being discussed in a different thread?

Not that specific stuff. But "Why is destroying one universe assumed to be 3-A, while destroying two universes is assumed to be 2-C?" and "When should we give Big Bang feats 3-A or Low 2-C" are both being discussed in this thread.
 
Agnaa said:
Ahh okay.

I'm not sure if "as a continuum" is the right word there, since "continuum" can have multiple implications and wordings. i.e. some people use the word "spacetime continuum" for any union of space and time, no matter the scale, since space and time are both continuous quantities. While other people seem to use the word to mean "an entire timeline".

I don't want people to get the former confused for the latter, and justify that idea because they saw those two kanji.

Those two characters are separately used to mean "space" and "time". The two characters that are used on top of them to get what dictionaries translate as "space-time continuum" are used to mean "world". I'd be comfortable treating the four-character version (時空世界) as meaning "timeline", but not the two-character version, for that reason. Even if some may say that "continuum" is still applicable, I think they simply mean that in a small-scale sense due to space and time being continuous.

What? Is this currently being discussed in a different thread?

Not that specific stuff. But "Why is destroying one universe assumed to be 3-A, while destroying two universes is assumed to be 2-C?" and "When should we give Big Bang feats 3-A or Low 2-C" are both being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...
I couldn't find the thread so i made a new one. thought i had it saved somewhere but can't find it atm. if i do i'll post it.

 
HammerStrikes219 said:
https://jisho.org/word/時空
It doesn’t say continuum though.
Click to expand...
It provides the definition from the English WIkipedia, which starts off as "In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum."
 
Agnaa said:
It provides the definition from the English WIkipedia, which starts off as "In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum."
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is true.
 
Wait, did this jump from a "Everything beyond Tier 3 bad" to "Kaguya Tier 3-2 now" thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rapid-Fire Questions about spacetime.
Replies
9
Views
1K
MightyFrogBeyond
  • Locked
VS Battles Is Nonsense / Delete My Account
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
Weaver26
Time stream is beyond dimensional
Replies
21
Views
1K
Weaver26
Weaver26
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Tier 2 revision: Changing Space Time Continuum Standards. (Never cook again.)
Replies
5
Views
1K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
How is destroying a spacetime continuum greater than destroying an infinite amount of 3-D universes?
Replies
37
Views
2K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top