• 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.
Agnaa said:
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...
Oh that? I’m not too worried about that. Discussing the first issue at hand? That’s been at the back of my mind for like 2 years because it seems like it breaks your own rules.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Oh that? I’m not too worried about that. Discussing the first issue at hand? That’s been at the back of my mind for like 2 years because it seems like it breaks your own rules.
Click to expand...
Apparently we never clarified about the finite space time continuum and it doesn’t necessarily broke the rules per se.
I think you over complicated things
 
Also the rules does have case by case basics IIRC as it is heavily dependent on context.

Honestly, we might have to address finite space continuum clarifications at some point as it is not out of the realm of impossible at all.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Apparently we never clarified about the finite space time continuum and it doesn’t necessarily broke the rules per se.
I think you over complicated things
Click to expand...
Actually destroying timelines is still low 2-C regardless if time is infinite or not. My problem is that destruction of a space time continuum is only low 2-C if the 3D space is universal in size. 3D volume should not determine the size of 4D volume whatsoever.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Actually destroying timelines is still low 2-C regardless if time is infinite or not. My problem is that destruction of a space time continuum is only low 2-C if the 3D space is universal in size. 3D volume should not determine the size of 4D volume whatsoever.
Click to expand...
However, a space time continnuum does contain a timeline though. Not the other way around. It is not like they are somehow mutually exclusive to begin with.

Edit: It does when we talking about parallel worlds and earths and so on.

You have to do both spatial and temporal destruction if you want to being considered 2C
 
Last edited:
HammerStrikes219 said:
However, a space time continnuum does contain a timeline though. Not the other way around. It is not like they are somehow mutually exclusive to begin with.
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant to what I’m saying now.
HammerStrikes219 said:
You have to do both spatial and temporal destruction if you want to being considered 2C
Click to expand...
You’re misunderstanding me. We all know this. What I’m saying is, space time destruction is only considered low 2-C if the 3D space inside said space time is universal in size. Do you get what I mean?
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Completely irrelevant to what I’m saying now.

You’re misunderstanding me. We all know this. What I’m saying is, space time destruction is only considered low 2-C if the 3D space inside said space time is universal in size. Do you get what I mean?
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with that though since you literally are arguing that every feat that involves space time (on a smaller scale or not) should been automatically been Low 2C by default when it isn’t necessarily the case.

Also this doesn’t address the fact we do have pocket dimensions, pocket reality, and so on to consider since they are not out of the realm of impossible to begin with.
 
Arkenis said:
Could it not just be its own tier? Like Kaguya's destruction of her space time ig
Click to expand...
Yes, it should been its own tier tbh as well as we don’t automatically hand out Low 2C unless they are shown into actually affecting the temporal and spatial dimensions of universal scale significantly.
 
ShivaShakti said:
This policy is still terrible, and requires alterations.
Click to expand...
How is the policy terrible?
You have to consider the context, consistency, and other things.

Remember, according to @Agnaa we do account for finite space time continuum (a space that isn’t fully universal) as well as the fact we have to account for the size. To ignore the size of a universe or smaller and so on in both a lower dimensional and higher dimensional setting is overlooking how dimensions works in the first place.

Edit 1:
en.m.wikipedia.org

Dimension - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
HammerStrikes219 said:
How is the policy terrible?
You have to consider the context, consistency, and other things.

Remember, according to @Agnaa we do account for finite space time continuum (a space that isn’t fully universal) as well as the fact we have to account for the size. To ignore the size of a universe or smaller and so on in both a lower dimensional and higher dimensional setting is overlooking how dimensions works in the first place.

Edit 1:
en.m.wikipedia.org

Dimension - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Time is typically considered to be Infinite. The physical size of the Universe isn't pertinent.

If we are correlating the size of a universe to its temporal continuum, then it would need to be infinite as well. The prerequisite of an Observable Universe model is arbitrary.
 
ShivaShakti said:
Time is typically considered to be Infinite. The physical size of the Universe isn't pertinent.

If we are correlating the size of a universe to its temporal continuum, then it would need to be infinite as well. The prerequisite of an Observable Universe model is arbitrary.
Click to expand...
This isn’t strictly the case as there are a view point that holds time is finite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_finitism

It is something we can not ignore per se since there has been debates on whatever Time is truly infinite or finite.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is true that we have an inconsistency due to considering space-time destruction of a galaxy-sized pocket universe, for example, as 3-C, whereas it counts as Low 2-C if an entire universe was involved, regardless if that universe was of finite or infinite spatial size.

I am not sure what we can do about the problem though, given that we are dealing with progression in different directions, even though the order of progression in our tiering system is basically linear.

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Ultima_Reality

Do you have any ideas?
 
Antvasima said:
Well, it is true that we have an inconsistency due to considering space-time destruction of a galaxy-sized pocket universe, for example, as 3-C, whereas it counts as Low 2-C if an entire universe was involved, regardless if that universe was of finite or infinite spatial size.
Click to expand...
This inconsistency is mostly stems from not addressing this as it is on a limited scale.

Also I not sure if this counts as a inconsistency especially if it is just for a sake of creating one when it is not there to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Well, it is true that we have an inconsistency due to considering space-time destruction of a galaxy-sized pocket universe, for example, as 3-C, whereas it counts as Low 2-C if an entire universe was involved, regardless if that universe was of finite or infinite spatial size.

I am not sure what we can do about the problem though, given that we are dealing with progression in different directions, even though the order of progression in our tiering system is basically linear.

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Ultima_Reality

Do you have any ideas?
Click to expand...
Nothing can/should be done about that. It was community consensus that we don't apply dimensional tiering on small(er) realms. That's all the legitimation for that we have and need.
 
Okay. Understood. Feel very free to approach me with a better solution if you come up with one at some point though.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. Understood. Feel very free to approach me with a better solution if you come up with one at some point though.
Click to expand...
Again, there isn’t a better solution to this since this involves the realms of theoretical science to begin with.


Not to mention the concept of dimension isn’t limited to physical object, but higher dimensions too.

(Something that the Wikipedia article has covered).

IIRC there are theories that involved smaller compact dimensions that allows space time on a smaller scale than a universe.
Also time isn’t necessarily treated independent of space as well.
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
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.
Click to expand...
You have to talk with Ultima and @Agnaa as well regarding this “inconsistency”.

Beside, it is not impossible to have a finite space time on smaller scale since the tier system was technically relying on key aspects of multiverse theories, theoretical physics, mathematics, and even philosophy to a extent.

Kinda hard since we pass a major Tiering system revision a few years IIRC at this point
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Okay. Understood. Feel very free to approach me with a better solution if you come up with one at some point though.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
Last edited:
Holy shit, ok let’s move this to the tier 2 requirements thread here since it’s still open. Plus I don’t want Agnaa to have an aneurism with another big thread on his plate.

vsbattles.com

Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

It would appear that the current Big Bang page does not match our Tiering System standards. Big Bang Page: Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe or its space and time through a physical explosion is a 3-A feat, and grants Explosion Manipulation, limited...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
 
Holy shit, ok let’s move this to the tier 2 requirements thread here since it’s still open. Plus I don’t want Agnaa to have an aneurism with another big thread on his plate.

The stuff we're talking about now isn't relevant to the stuff that's almost wrapped up in that thread, so I'd rather not move it there. And regardless, we're not starting a revision yet, just tossing out ideas in the General Discussion forum.

(Also, you should be more worried about Ultima/DT/Ant having an aneurysm, they're far more overworked than I am)

Only if it is proven space is infinite.

Those are the current standards. I'm talking about a potential way of changing them.
 
Agnaa said:
Holy shit, ok let’s move this to the tier 2 requirements thread here since it’s still open. Plus I don’t want Agnaa to have an aneurism with another big thread on his plate.

The stuff we're talking about now isn't relevant to the stuff that's almost wrapped up in that thread, so I'd rather not move it there. And regardless, we're not starting a revision yet, just tossing out ideas in the General Discussion forum.

(Also, you should be more worried about Ultima/DT/Ant having an aneurysm, they're far more overworked than I am)

Only if it is proven space is infinite.

Those are the current standards. I'm talking about a potential way of changing them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you are arguing for small time pocket having infinite space, but finite time correct? That is not a wise idea since space time being finite means it is limited to the scope of being smaller than a actual universe.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Yeah, but you are arguing for small time pocket having infinite space, but finite time correct? That is not a wise idea since space time being finite means it is limited to the scope of being smaller than a actual universe.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that small-scale pocket realities having finite space and finite time technically means that there's infinite copies of that finite space, which would put it higher than most High 3-As, but lower than Low 2-C.
 
Agnaa said:
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that small-scale pocket realities having finite space and finite time technically means that there's infinite copies of that finite space, which would put it higher than most High 3-As, but lower than Low 2-C.
Click to expand...
What? That isn’t true per se since I wouldn’t go far as say it had infinite copies of that finite space where that has to be proven in the first place
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
What? That isn’t true per se since I wouldn’t go far as say it had infinite copies of that finite space where that has to be proven in the first place
Click to expand...
That's our current interpretation of how temporal dimensions work.

Each instant of time references a copy of the space it's associated with. Any non-zero length of time has uncountably infinitely many instants in it.
 
Agnaa said:
That's our current interpretation of how temporal dimensions work.

Each instant of time references a copy of the space it's associated with. Any non-zero length of time has uncountably infinitely many instants in it.
Click to expand...
Oh no… That is actually make things worst. Not only that, but that seems to been a one sided interpretation too.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
What? That isn’t true per se since I wouldn’t go far as say it had infinite copies of that finite space where that has to be proven in the first place
Click to expand...
This is how currently we defining Low 2-C, because when one destroy universal space-time continuum, you destroy uncountable infinite amount of copy/snapshot of the universe, and from here you have 4D, due to uncountable infinity.

However, we can apply the same logic to smaller space-time dimension, it can also be Low 2-C, since no matter what the size of the pocket dimension, uncountable infinite amount of something 3D always result in 4D. And even if we assume the "time" of said space-time dimension is finite, the result is still more than infinite amount of 3d which result in High 3-A. Since like Agnaa said, any non-zero length time result in uncountable infinite because in real number, you have infinite length between each number, applying it to temporal dimension, you have infinite amount of copy of 3d on the length of the time axis, even if it is just 1 second long

However if we using this logic, it can inflate the power of character that can destroy smaller than universe space-time dimension which why despite the contradiction, the wiki only accept space-time that is at least observable universal in size to be 4D while reject smaller size, or you know we could have High 3-A character even if they only destroy room-sized space-time.
 
Last edited:
Vietthai96 said:
This is how currently we defining Low 2-C, because when one destroy universal space-time continuum, you destroy uncountable infinite amount of copy/snapshot of the universe, and from here you have 4D, due to uncountable infinity.

However, we can apply the same logic to smaller space-time dimension, it can also be Low 2-C, since no matter what the size of the pocket dimension, uncountable infinite amount of something 3D always result in 4D. And even if we not assume the "time" of said space-time dimension is finite, the result is still more than infinite amount of 3d which result in High 3-A. Since like Agnaa said, any non-zero length time result in uncountable infinite because in real number, you have infinite length between each number, applying it to temporal dimension, you have infinite amount of copy of 3d on the length of the time axis, even if it is just 1 second long

However if we using this logic, it can inflate the power of character that can destroy smaller than universe space-time dimension which why despite the contradiction, the wiki only accept space-time that is at least observable universal in size to be 4D while reject smaller size, or you know we could have High 3-A character even if they only destroy room-sized space-time.
Click to expand...
Okay, now that create a massive inconsistency at that point.

sigh
 
While I'm very iffy with more tiers, I've always believed High 2-A shouldn't of been removed for similar reasons why threads like this even exists. In the end it just boils down (once again) to trying apply the standards of an universe = a timeline = a dimension OR an universe =/= a timeline =/= a dimension and infinite = endless = countless OR infinite =/= endless =/= countless (I think I gave myself a headache typing this) and the absolute monumental mess of going through every above tier 3 verse case by case (many with they own unique cosmological rules, terms, context, etc) and in the end regardless of the resolution, there is no absolute standard that applies to all which is just the nature of the beast we call Vs debating.

Threads like this aren't even surprising anymore, it's just an inevitability of when they occur.
 
The_Axiom_of_Virgo said:
While I'm very iffy with more tiers, I've always believed High 2-A shouldn't of been removed for similar reasons why threads like this even exists. In the end it just boils down (once again) to trying apply the standards of an universe = a timeline = a dimension OR an universe =/= a timeline =/= a dimension and infinite = endless = countless OR infinite =/= endless =/= countless (I think I gave myself a headache typing this) and the absolute monumental mess of going through every above tier 3 verse case by case (many with they own unique cosmological rules, terms, context, etc) and in the end regardless of the resolution, there is no absolute standard that applies to all which is just the nature of the beast we call Vs debating.

Threads like this aren't even surprising anymore, it's just an inevitability of when they occur.
Click to expand...
Not to mention we can not apply the same logic to smaller space time smaller than a a universe especially when a space time dimension can contain a small timeline.

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?
 
Last edited:
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
2K
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