Expanding structure with a time axis destruction feat

[AlexSamDen]

I will explain the situation that I have this question about, without specifying the verse it comes from to avoid unnecessary bias. Thre is also a purpose of making it a general situation

There is structure A that is a separate space-time continuum (with its own time axis). This structure is not universe sized at the moment. However, A is constantly expanding its size at a FTL speed. Character B comes to A, when it's not yet universe sized and destroys both the physical and the temporal parts of it.
Question: would that still count as Low 2-C, due to B also technically destroying its future, universe (and bigger) sized version?

Note 1: If a similar situation had already been asked, please notify me and provide the link
Note 2: If you know, which verse this question comes from, please refrain from openly stating it in this thread

 

[SweetDao]

You already know my point, but yeah, it's fine.

 

[MujRocks]

Wouldn't it be Uni+ regardless of the size of the space-time? As, Uni+ is effectively just affecting a 4-Dimensional framework in one way or another.

 

[AlexSamDen]

Wouldn't it be Uni+ regardless of the size of the space-time? As, Uni+ is effectively just affecting a 4-Dimensional framework in one way or another.

Low 2-C directly specifies universe sized

 

[Frey_Starlight]

i have had also ask a similar question here with different premise, i got 2 people saying low 2-C and one 5-B.

 

[MrTayman616]

There is structure A that is a separate space-time continuum (with its own time axis). This structure is not universe sized at the moment. However, A is constantly expanding its size at a FTL speed. Character B comes to A, when it's not yet universe sized and destroys both the physical and the temporal parts of it.
Question: would that still count as Low 2-C, due to B also technically destroying its future, universe (and bigger) sized version?

If time is infinite, yes ig.

 

[AlexSamDen]

i have had also ask a similar question here with different premise, i got 2 people saying low 2-C and one 5-B.

Well, the difference here is that we know that universe size will be reached, about yours, idk

 

[Frey_Starlight]

Well, the difference here is that we know that universe size will be reached, about yours, idk

think the context here you need to work with isn't it will reach universal size but on the moment of destruction itself. if the feat of all p-p-f gets erased from reality, then it should count for low 2-C/4D ap but no range

 

[AlexSamDen]

think the context here you need to work with isn't it will reach universal size but on the moment of destruction itself. if the feat of all p-p-f gets erased from reality, then it should count for low 2-C/4D ap but no range

The range is not an issue, Tier and AP is

 

[MeiouHades]

I don't think it would be, per the wiki's rules themselves, only the destruction of a universe or universe-sized dimensions (along with the temporal axis) would be Low 2-C. Destruction of space-times with an unknown size, despite evidence of a separate temporal axis, are not really treated as Low 2-C here. My own opinion is different, IMO it should be Low 2-C but to the best of my knowledge regarding the wiki, it isn't Low 2-C.

 

[SweetDao]

I don't think it would be, per the wiki's rules themselves, only the destruction of a universe or universe-sized dimensions (along with the temporal axis) would be Low 2-C. Destruction of space-times with an unknown size, despite evidence of a separate temporal axis, are not really treated as Low 2-C here. My own opinion is different, IMO it should be Low 2-C but to the best of my knowledge regarding the wiki, it isn't Low 2-C.

Actually, it would, since even our universe didn't "start off" as a universe sized structure.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

well if the source of this structure follows similar logic to our universe, then Big Bang page clearly states "If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C"

 

[AlexSamDen]

well if the source of this structure follows similar logic to our universe, then Big Bang page clearly states "If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as Low 2-C"

Does "since creation expands at a FTL speed" qualify?
I think the verse has some start of the universe things for alike structures, so maybe even that

 

[MeiouHades]

Actually, it would, since even our universe didn't "start off" as a universe sized structure.

It didn't, but it is the size that it is now, so that's redundant and would lead to a circular argument.

 

[AlexSamDen]

I think we need to call some knowledgeable staff to decide for sure, as I want this to be as official as possible
Does anyone know who is best to call for this one

 

[Im_Fire444]

I will explain the situation that I have this question about, without specifying the verse it comes from to avoid unnecessary bias. Thre is also a purpose of making it a general situation

There is structure A that is a separate space-time continuum (with its own time axis). This structure is not universe sized at the moment. However, A is constantly expanding its size at a FTL speed. Character B comes to A, when it's not yet universe sized and destroys both the physical and the temporal parts of it.
Question: would that still count as Low 2-C, due to B also technically destroying its future, universe (and bigger) sized version?

Note 1: If a similar situation had already been asked, please notify me and provide the link
Note 2: If you know, which verse this question comes from, please refrain from openly stating it in this thread

This seems like insignificant 4d to me. I have about the qualifiction of being significant 4d and ppl said that it needs to be atleast "universe in size" and needs to have its own times. So, it depends on the size of the cosmology.
There was the thread I made sometime ago

 

[AlexSamDen]

This seems like insignificant 4d to me. I have about the qualifiction of being significant 4d and ppl said that it needs to be atleast "universe in size" and needs to have its own times. So, it depends on the size of the cosmology.
There was the thread I made sometime ago

The difference here is that this structure will reach universal size, so technically you also destroy this future version too, therefore possibly qualifying for L2C

 

[Apotheosis69]

Considering that Time in most fictional settings and even physics is the fourth dimension. Then yeah it would be Low 2-C, even if it is not Spatially infinite... That doesn't matter

 

[AlexSamDen]

Well, Low 2-C says universal and that've been a problem for some verses with no direct size statements. My basis is that it will be a universe size, therefore universe exists on uncountably infinite snapshots, qualifying for L2C

Considering that Time in most fictional settings and even physics is the fourth dimension. Then yeah it would be Low 2-C, even if it is not Spatially infinite... That doesn't matter

 

[Apotheosis69]

Honestly to me, even if it isn't or never becomes a universe in terms of size which is spatial. The fact that it has its own time-axis and is a continuum already proves that it has infinite quantitative variations of itself. That alone is already Low 2-C

 

[SweetDao]

Honestly to me, even if it isn't or never becomes a universe in terms of size which is spatial. The fact that it has its own time-axis and is a continuum already proves that it has infinite quantitative variations of itself. That alone is already Low 2-C

That is true, however, this is not the currently accepted standards.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

There is allegedly a planned revision where a structure with temporal axis to be Low 2-C by default, but either way, given the inflation aspect and future periods having a "Will reach universe sized" that's enough for Low 2-C.

 

[FinePoint]

It makes logical sense to me that any object which is truly 4-Dimensional would be Low 2-C even if it's "smaller" than a traditional spacetime continuum.

Either way it should contain and be superior to infinite 3-Dimensional objects (High 3-A).

 

[AlexSamDen]

A little question: can I (or someone else) use this thread as an argument in CRTs due to several staff members agreeing on it?

 

[Voidnether]

A little question: can I (or someone else) use this thread as an argument in CRTs due to several staff members agreeing on it?

I mean, that's the entire point of the Questions and Answers category, no?

 

[MrTayman616]

There are many things to consider here in my opinion.

Is the time endless, and if it ends, when? since that would mean it might never reach universal size. How does FTL speed work in the verse. etc etc.

If it expands, does it have an expansion limit or can it expand to infinity. are other dimensions in the verse(If there's any) showed something like that.

 

[AlexSamDen]

Is the time endless, and if it ends, when? since that would mean it might never reach universal size.

Iirc time is considered endless by default unless smth suggests otherwise. In the verse I'm interested in it's also the case most of the time, but even when it's not (and it's considered extraordinary) the statements suggest that it already was at least universal, plus, before ending, it expanded rapidly (compared to a bubble expanding and popping)

How does FTL speed work in the verse. etc etc.

Just space expansion. Like observable universe expanding at SoL

If it expands, does it have an expansion limit

Nothing suggests that

or can it expand to infinity. are other dimensions in the verse(If there's any) showed something like that.

Nothing H3A as I remember, but 3A sure (I'm talking about physical size)

 

[MeiouHades]

A little question: can I (or someone else) use this thread as an argument in CRTs due to several staff members agreeing on it?

I'd probably consult more staff members if I were you before making it into a CRT, particularly those that are well versed in site-wide Tier 2 standards such as @DontTalkDT or @Qawsedf234. There are some 'unspoken' rules that apply to very specific scenarios such as these and you don't wanna run into them in the CRT itself

 

[AlexSamDen]

I'd probably consult more staff members if I were you before making it into a CRT, particularly those that are well versed in site-wide Tier 2 standards such as @DontTalkDT or @Qawsedf234. There are some 'unspoken' rules that apply to very specific scenarios such as these and you don't wanna run into them in the CRT itself

I did ask DT, but never got a response. Just asked Qawsedf, thanks for reminding

 

[Qawsedf234]

I did ask DT, but never got a response. Just asked Qawsedf, thanks for reminding

I'm at work but I can comment later

 

[AlexSamDen]

I'm at work but I can comment later

?

 

[PHANtomFELdway]

Considering that Time in most fictional settings and even physics is the fourth dimension. Then yeah it would be Low 2-C, even if it is not Spatially infinite... That doesn't matter

I don’t think the wiki works this way. As all 4D objects aren’t even uni+

 

[Apotheosis69]

I don’t think the wiki works this way. As all 4D objects aren’t even uni+

It still has its own space-time continuum/time axis

 

[Arkenis]

Does the verse imply it to be a l2c feat? Feel like these types of feats heavily depends on that.

 

[PHANtomFELdway]

It still has its own space-time continuum/time axis

So do most pocket dimensions

 

[Frey_Starlight]

It still has its own space-time continuum/time axis

the line from Pocket Reality Feats "If the pocket reality is of comparable size to a universe and has its own timeline, this would simply be a Low 2-C feat according to the tiering system. Similarly Multiverses or even higher levels of reality would get their corresponding tier." here is mentions as if both needs to be true for the scaling to work. or the wording needs to be reworked as instead of "comparable size to a universe and has its own timeline" to "comparable size to a universe and/or has its own timeline/time axis"

 

[MeiouHades]

The "and" as well as "and/or" part needs to be clarified. The fact that it only says "and" is why I believe that according to current standards, it won't qualify. I believe it was added deliberately but if not, then that should be clarified, such a standard change can have a potentially massive impact on site-wide Tier 2 standards

 

[AlexSamDen]

L2C relies on universe appearing on an uncountably infinite number of snapshots. In this case, such a situation also takes place, as in future there is also an uncountably infinite number of universe-sized snapshots which are getting destroyed. Even if the timeline with universe is like, 5 seconds, it still works as mentioned there

 

[SweetDao]

the line from Pocket Reality Feats "If the pocket reality is of comparable size to a universe and has its own timeline, this would simply be a Low 2-C feat according to the tiering system. Similarly Multiverses or even higher levels of reality would get their corresponding tier." here is mentions as if both needs to be true for the scaling to work. or the wording needs to be reworked as instead of "comparable size to a universe and has its own timeline" to "comparable size to a universe and/or has its own timeline/time axis"

The "and" as well as "and/or" part needs to be clarified. The fact that it only says "and" is why I believe that according to current standards, it won't qualify. I believe it was added deliberately but if not, then that should be clarified, such a standard change can have a potentially massive impact on site-wide Tier 2 standards

No. Right now, you need to be at least universe-sized while having a timeline to be Low 2-C. This is what is currently accepted on the wiki.

However, it is indeed true that, mathematically and logically speaking, any 3D space with an arbitrary size (assume, for example, an atom) having a timeline would be Low 2-C.

 

[MeiouHades]

No. Right now, you need to be at least universe-sized while having a timeline to be Low 2-C. This is what is currently accepted on the wiki.

No to.... what exactly? That's exactly what I had just said....

However, it is indeed true that, mathematically and logically speaking, any 3D space with an arbitrary size (assume, for example, an atom) having a timeline would be Low 2-C.

Not if you don't agree with time being continuous as opposed to being discrete, planck time anyone?