Everything beyond tier 3 is a cluster ****

[Antvasima]

I believe that Ultima is working on a way to restructure Tier 2 to account for that; a draft was written up months ago. It also accounts for some other issues with Tier 2 which Zamasu hasn't brought up (such as how an infinitely large spacetime could be partitioned into an infinite number of finite spacetimes, making the distinction between current Low 2-C and 2-A strange). One of the proposals I've seen for what the tiers would actually be would be:

1. 2-C (or Low 2-C): Finite spacetime/spacetime interval (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
2. High 2-C (or 2-C): Multiple finite spacetimes/intervals but not a whole infinite continuum/infinite 4-D area (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
3. 2-B: An entire infinite spacetime continuum or infinite 4-D space.
4. 2-A: 4-D spacetime continuums separated by a 5-D interval (not everyone agrees with this suggestion; an alternate one would be to return infinite 5-D here).

Another way I could imagine this situation being resolved is if we restrict tier 2 to timelines with infinite space, but I don't think that's a great idea. It would stop us being inconsistent, but it would lose a lot of granularity in tiering.

And as I said earlier, we could index small-scale spacetime feats to be High 3-A.

For no reason whatsoever? You’re literally saying you know it’s wrong but it’s going to stay that way because you say so.

It's not for no reason; I mentioned the reason earlier. Because while it may not be accurate to reasoning from raw logic, it's more in line with how fiction treats it. The vast majority of characters who create small-scale pocket realities aren't infinitely-stronger than their adversaries. Same with characters who can erase small portions of timelines. And so we decided to err with how we believe fiction presents it, rather than what our reality says. We do this in a lot of places; for example with not using E=MC^2 for creation feats, unless we get explicit confirmation of that.

(I would be more willing to consider pocket reality creation tier 2 if we considered those characters being harmed by characters with exclusively 3-D feats as an anti-feat against that, rather than justification for those characters to be tier 2 as well.)

@DontTalkDT

Would you be willing to provide input to Ultima and Agnaa in private regarding this suggested upcoming revision, so we know that all of the most important angles have been covered, please?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

If the tier system actually does happens to use “infinite snapshots” (something that isn’t even proven to being true or false to begin with since it is a part of a theory), one will argue that is technically a contradiction, why assume it is the case for smaller space time when you can also argue that it is finite snap shots of this small space time dimension?

I'm not sure of what you're talking about. The spacetime continuum having "uncountably infinite snapshots" of the 3-D universe really is just a more intuitive way of explaining that, as a 4-dimensional object, it is made of infinite 3-dimensional cross-sections ("Slices," if you will), just like a cube is made of infinite squares and a line is made of infinite points. That's just how coordinate spaces work in general and it follows from the definition of a Cartesian Product, not really something that you can dismiss as "Just a theory."

Would you be willing to provide input to Ultima and Agnaa in private regarding this suggested upcoming revision, so we know that all of the most important angles have been covered, please?

Should note, also, that I don't particularly like this proposed arrangement of the tiers, as Agnaa pointed out in his comment. Regardless, though, the idea is still in my mind, yes.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I'm not sure of what you're talking about. The spacetime continuum having "uncountably infinite snapshots" of the 3-D universe really is just a more intuitive way of explaining that, as a 4-dimensional object, it is made of infinite 3-dimensional cross-sections ("Slices," if you will), just like a cube is made of infinite squares and a line is made of infinite points. That's just how coordinate spaces work in general and it follows from the definition of a Cartesian Product, not really something that you can dismiss as "Just a theory."

Ah, I see. That make sense.

Edit: However, I talking about finite space time on a smaller scale, not just the one you mentioned.

 

[Vietthai96]

Well, iirc, in Real Coordinate Space:
1. A point is 0D
2. Uncountable infinite points lineup create a line, which is 1D
3. Uncountable infinite lines create a plane which is 2D
4. Uncountable infinite planes create a cube, which is 3D

Now from that point we just go upward, with each uncountable infinite we have another 1D added into this. This is kinda a simplified term

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, iirc, in Real Coordinate Space:
1. A point is 0D
2. Uncountable infinite points lineup create a line, which is 1D
3. Uncountable infinite lines create a plane which is 2D
4. Uncountable infinite planes create a cube, which is 3D

Now from that point we just go upward, with each uncountable infinite we have another 1D added into this. This is kinda a simplified term

Pretty sure it is technically countable infinity though. The assumption is uncountable infinite is kinda weird when we have to talk about a infinite 3D space and so on.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_coordinate_space

 

[Agnaa]

It is uncountable infinity. Real coordinate spaces use the real numbers, which is an uncountably infinitely large set, even for small intervals.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

It is uncountable infinity. Real coordinate spaces use the real numbers, which is an uncountably infinitely large set, even for small intervals.

Weird for me, but I suppose that is understandable.
The main issue is I will think only relates to space time that is legitimately smaller than a universe and not on a universal scale to say the least.


I kinda find it odd since the assumption they will contain these uncountable infinity snapshots probably doesn’t hold well since one will argue that they are simply a part of a larger space time or a part of the space time continuum as a whole technically speaking.

 

[Vietthai96]

Pretty sure it is technically countable infinity though. The assumption is uncountable infinite is kinda weird when we have to talk about a infinite 3D space and so on.

Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_coordinate_space

Infinite have two sets:
1. Countable infinite which is natural number, or people like to call it count number
2. Uncountable infinite which is real number

Sometime when mentioning infinity, people just think about normal countable infinity.

I kinda find it odd since the assumption they will contain these uncountable infinity probably doesn’t hold well since one will argue that they are simply a part of a larger space time or a part of the space time continuum as a whole technically speaking.

Larger space-time continuum doesn't mean much actually. To be fair, when you destroy a space-time entirely, no matter what the size of it, you destroy all of its contents along with the amount of "time", because space-time is related to each other, inside a larger space-time doesn't null the "time" of smaller one.

Or you can also argue, since said smaller space-time inside a larger one, mean the time axis of the larger one contain the smaller one, destroying the smaller one mean you still destroy a part of the time axis of the larger one (since the smaller one exist on the axis of the larger one), applying time dimension logic, still High 3-A since any non-zero length time (even Planck time) still resulting in infinity, countable or not

 

[HammerStrikes219]

r you can also argue, since said smaller space-time inside a larger one, mean the time axis of the larger one contain the smaller one, destroying the smaller one mean you still destroy a part of the time axis of the larger one (since the smaller one exist on the axis of the larger one), applying time dimension logic, still High 3-A since any non-zero length time (even Planck time) still resulting in infinity, countable or not

That is assuming time being infinite which isn’t necessarily the case. If time is being treated as finite and same for space (spatial) (which granted will allow things on a smaller scale to say the least), you only affect only a small part of that space time continuum.
Remember, using the logic is to technically referring to infinite space and infinite time even then it is also technically treated as a Low 2C structure to say the least.
If both space and time are proven finite and not infinite, then it kinda defeats the logic in the sense both weren’t infinite to begin with.

Edit: Also a infinite temporal dimension and finite 3D spatial dimension counts as Low 2C as well IIRC.

 

[Vietthai96]

That is assuming time being infinite which isn’t necessarily the case. If time is being treated as finite and same for space (spatial) (which granted will allow things on a smaller scale to say the least), you only affect only a small part of that space time continuum.
Remember, using the logic is to technically referring to infinite space and infinite time even then it is also technically treated as a Low 2C structure to say the least.
If both space and time are proven finite and not infinite, then it kinda defeats the logic in the sense both weren’t infinite to begin with.

Like me and Agnaa said before, any non zero-length time resulting in infinite, even if you destroy a rock-sized space-time dimension, because when it come to time, the size of 3d objects it contain is useless, because if you destroy infinite amount of rocks, it still far more impressive than destroy a planet or a solar system, because with math, infinite rocks mean infinite matters = High 3-A. That why destroy space-time continuum of observable universe = Low 2-C, far stronger than when destroy infinitely large universe but not its time, despite "visually speaking", infinitely large universe more impressive in size than observable universe

 

[HammerStrikes219]

any zero-length time resulting in infinite, even if you destroy a rock-sized space-time dimension, because when it come to time, the size of 3d objects it contain i

Zero length time? I usually don’t tend to associate zero length time with infinite unless it is explicitly infinite.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also since you mentioned Zero Length Time, I tend to think of the infinitesimally smaller side and not the bigger infinite side IIRC.

Edit: That is right. We have forgotten about infinitely smaller things.

 

[Vietthai96]

Zero length time? I usually don’t tend to associate zero length time with infinite unless it is explicitly infinite.

Sorry my bad it is non zero-length time (edited my comment) mean where time is not = 0. In real number, even small interval resulting in infinite, or there is infinite distance between each "number". For example if you destroy 1 second of a space-time dimension, regardless of how big or small it is, you still get at least countable infinite result, which is High 3-A.

If the statement involve infinite time, then sorry it will become Low 2-C feat, since if time is infinite, it resulting in uncountable infinite, which breach to 4D level

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Sorry my bad it is non zero-length time (edited my comment) mean where time is not = 0. In real number, even small interval resulting in infinite, or there is infinite distance between each "number". So if you destroy 1 second of a space-time dimension, regardless how big or small it is, you still get allt least countable infinite result, which is High 3-A. If the statement involve infinite time, then sorry it will become Low 2-C feat, since if time is infinite, it resulting in uncountable infinite, which breach to 4D level

Technically, there is also the infinitely smaller side to consider since there is a definition for infinitely smaller.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinitesimal

On the other hand, I don’t remember us in attempting to put a timeframe on space time destruction feats since it is technically meaningless to do.

 

[Vietthai96]

On the other hand, I don’t remember us in attempting to put a timeframe on space time destruction feats since it is technically meaningless to do.

Time and space is related, space-time, destroy the totality of it also mean destroy time, or you can go to debunk Einsteins. Or better, nuke every Low 2-C feats that not mention timeframe or how much "time" they destroyed. Because with current standard, destroy space-time continuum of observable universe or larger considering to be Low 2-C which mean time is automatically included, but not with smaller size space-time....

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Time and space is related, space-time, destroy the totality of it also mean destroy time, or you can go to debunk Einsteins. Or better, nuke every Low 2-C feats that not mention timeframe or how much "time" they destroyed. Because with current standard, destroy space-time continuum of observable universe or larger considering to be Low 2-C which mean time is automatically included, but not with smaller size space-time....

That I am aware. I already know about the theory of relativity to say the least to know that temporal dimension and spatial dimension (3D) is considered connected to one another. I even link the Wikipedia article a few times.

Edit: I am aware of universal space time feats being destroyed in usually more than just a second or more though as I do recall feats of that.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

In regard to the dimension arguments, this is simply CSaP's tiering system.

CSAP treats space-time as 4d spatially.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

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.

time wouldn't be a physical axis of movement though, so that's factually incorrect.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

CSAP Wiki in shambles.

?

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

I'm not sure of what you're talking about. The spacetime continuum having "uncountably infinite snapshots" of the 3-D universe really is just a more intuitive way of explaining that, as a 4-dimensional object, it is made of infinite 3-dimensional cross-sections ("Slices," if you will), just like a cube is made of infinite squares and a line is made of infinite points. That's just how coordinate spaces work in general and it follows from the definition of a Cartesian Product, not really something that you can dismiss as "Just a theory."

I don't think it would exactly be a cartesian 4d thing, I think of it that way as a 4d amount of 3d things, which I think is a good way to describe it.

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to provide input to Ultima and Agnaa in private regarding this suggested upcoming revision, so we know that all of the most important angles have been covered, please?

@Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @DontTalkDT

Do you have any updates regarding this project?

 

[Antvasima]

Also, should we close this thread afterwards?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Do you have any updates regarding this project?

I haven't thought of it in a fair bit, no. I'd like to get some more menial revisions I have in mind out of the way before tackling anything major.

Also, should we close this thread afterwards?

Seems to have unfortunately died out, so, feel free.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the information. I will close this thread then.

Also, thank you to everybody who helped out in this thread.