• 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.

Fuji NEVER Cry [DMC Tier 1 Downgrades Yet Again]

Status
Not open for further replies.
CloverDragon03 said:
Xenoblade clears tbh

Are we currently waiting on any specific person's arguments atm? Or are we just looking for more staff input?
Click to expand...
Further staff input, although I specifically contacted Agnaa and DT and am waiting for their (likely very late) responses here.
 
Actually wait, I'm also waiting on Elizhaa to give examples of the QS in DMC, as he said that the ray of light statement is not enough by itself but there are QS statements supporting it (which have not been posted yet).
CloverDragon03 said:
From what I recall, Agnaa has a comically large backlog of threads to look through so I'm not sure when he'll be able to look at this
Click to expand...
I can wait.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
...No, because like I've pointed out a hundred times before, encompassing a low 2-C structure isn't low 1-C. This is something that - as I mentioned earlier - both Ultima and DT have outright said. The fact of the matter is, you can't just skip the requirement for qualitative superiority just because one realm encompasses another; You need QS for any of this shit to fly, so until you prove that, none of this matters.
Click to expand...
Since this is causing all the mess here, I might as well respond to it. The comments are just badly misinterpreted.

Whatever they are saying is consistent with the current Tiering system and the FAQ.
Even if it were to contradict the current standards, they need to change it first, because we are meant to follow what the current written standards say, not what someone wishes to change it to eventually.



Ultima's comment:

Catpija: Hello, sorry for bothering you. i wanted to ask you regarding this post. Does a structure that contain a 2A place makes it L1C?
Ultima: Not inherently, no. Containing something doesn't necessarily means being larger than it, when infinity is concerned. You'd need more developed explanations than "Contains a 2-A thing."
Click to expand...
I don't see how this related to what we are arguing. This is like asking if an object A is contained in a box B and asking if box B is infinitely greater than it.
Well when we are dealing with infinities it obviously isn't the case. Like the set of positive integers can be considered as a sub-set of all integers, so in a way contained in this hypothetical box of set of all integers. But they both have the same cardinality or size which is Aleph-0

However, what we are arguing is an infinite sized object (Low 2-C HW) is an infinitesimal subset of DW, they are not equal in size one is explicitly bigger than another, so a higher level/cardinal of infinity, hence Low 1-C.



DT's comment:

KLOL: Simply being called "infinitely larger than a space-time continuum or multiple space-time continuums" isn't enough? You need a "Can hold an infinite amount of 4D space" alongside it to get 2-A?

DT: Like, infinite x 4D is just 4D.
But if you have "space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal.
What is meant needs to be judged based on context. Kinda hard to make a criteria that covers every possible scenario.

KLOL: TL; DR, being infinitely larger than a 2-A structure helps gaining Low 1-C much easier, but for that to happen with Low 2-C, 2-C or 2-B, your work is just made insanely harder and you have to include a bunch of shit in-between like transcendence, qualitative superiority, R>F and what have you, but even with 2-A alone, you won't necessarily get Low 1-C right outta the gate without good-enough context.

DT: Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both.
Click to expand...
KLOL asked that if infinitely bigger than Low 2-C or 2-A gives us Low 1-C.
Now unlike what most of u may have interpreted KLOL's statement as, that being infinitely bigger would also imply the object in relation to which it is compared as infinitesimal, well that wasn't the interpretation of DT tho.

What DT basically did was show mathematically infinitely bigger as multiplying by infinity, which obviously would be the same level of infinity. He also elaborated that for achieving higher tiers we definitely need QS. Infinitely big only works as supportive statement.
So, in short what he means is that simply being stated to be bigger (even infinitely so mathematically speaking) will still be the same level of infinity or same size and hence not QS.

But in the case of DMC tho, it isn't the same as being infinitely big, instead, the DW is so much bigger than another infinite 4D sized object(the HW), such that the object is infinitesimal(a ray of light compared to endless darkness) to it, which suggests a higher level of infinity, not the same level of infinity, or they would have been the same size. This specific size comparison is the reason it has QS which makes all the difference. Hence, the DW will have to be Low 1-C, otherwise it will be straight up Low 2-C which would be the same size as HW, which we are explicitly told is not the case.

I explained this very concept in my previous response, on how fictions can show QS with larger sizes non-mathematically.
How, could you non-mathematically define a more than uncountably infinite sized dimension B over another countably infinite sized dimension say A.

If A is infinite in size, and B is just described as infinitely big without any size comparison to A, it will be the same level/cardinal of infinity.
If however B is described as infinitely bigger than A such that A is infinitesimal, B will have to have a higher cardinality not the same cardinality as A. This is a higher level of infinity, hence a larger size, meaning a higher dimension. This is because there is no level of infinity between them other than another higher cardinal.
Click to expand...


Elizhaa said:
Maybe not on its own, but with statement(s) that suggest qualitative superiority; my point was more so with it and the couple statements that could suggest qualitative superiority in DMC.
Click to expand...
Trivializing a Low 2-C structure as infinitesimal suggests a higher level/cardinality of infinity. We obtain qualitative superiority through such statements.
And the Human World is considered a Low 2-C structure, which is infinite by default. So trivializing the Human World as an infinitesimal structure by the Demon World would be a form of qualitative superiority. Therefore, the Demon World would be a Low 1-C structure.


Hence, why we even have these as qualifiers in the Tiering System and FAQ section:
Characters or objects that can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence (Or "levels of infinity", as referred below) which trivialize everything below them into insignificance, normally by perceiving them as akin to fictional constructs or something infinitesimal.”
Click to expand...
Characters or objects that can universally affect, create and/or destroy spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)”
Click to expand...
One of the more straightforward ways to qualify for Tier 2 and up through higher dimensions is by affecting whole higher-dimensional universes which can embed the whole of lower-dimensional ones within themselves. For example: A cosmology where the entirety of our 3-dimensional universe is in fact a subset of a much greater 4-dimensional space, or generalizations of this same scenario to higher numbers of dimensions; i.e A cosmology where the four-dimensional spacetime continuum is just the infinitesimal surface of a 5-dimensional object, and etc.
Click to expand...

Now, the main types of QS that are considered in the wiki according to the FAQ are:-
1. Higher Spatial Dimensions
2. R>F transcendence
3. Ontological Superiority
4. Uncountably Infinitely greater size/power (or more than countably infinite as OP is describing)

So I don't see how either, DT or Ultima's comments are supposed to refute us, instead it is consistent with what we are arguing.



Gilver's Comment:

Aside from that Ultima has already clarified that the excepts you posted from tiering QnA apply for power of characters not size of structures. And @Tanin_iver and @Tony already cited relevent parts of Tiering System with the necessary math to support our cause. I might chime in on that later.
Click to expand...
It was in regards to this comment of Ultima:
I might note that the clauses you quote for this thread aren't really applicable to the case at hand. As it stands, we make a distinction between strength and sheer size, with regards to these tiers. For instance, being "twice as large as an infinite multiverse" is something we don't consider to be a thing, because two infinite multiverses is the same as a single infinite multiverse. And in fact even infinitely-many infinite multiverses is the same thing as a single infinite multiverse. Yet "twice as strong as a 2-A character" is indeed a thing, as is "Infinitely stronger than a 2-A character."
Click to expand...
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Perhaps this wouldn't be an issue if the opposition wasn't uh. Blatantly fucking lying? Because I have seen multiple people claim that the QS definition doesn't mention size, when it very obviously and repeatedly does.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if u are intentionally twisting Gilver's words or u just misuderstood him.
And I don't think anyone has claimed in particular that the QS definition doesn't involve size.
Heck, I literally stated that the Tiering system is primarily based on size in my first response.

Anyways,

Both him and Ultima are saying the same thing, that we don't consider infinite sized structures(like Low 2-C or 2-A) to be above baseline, whether the structure is said to be 2 times bigger or infinite times bigger, both are considered equal to baseline size in the tiering system.

However, we do consider a character's power to scale above baseline through power scaling, scaling chains, multipliers etc. A character's power can be considered 2 times stronger than a baseline 2-A multiverse or infinite times stronger than baseline 2-A.

However, two times greater than baseline multiverse in size is not a thing in the wiki. The next jump is straight up a higher level/cardinal of infinity, which is considered QS in the wiki.
The next jump from Low 2-C is straight up Low 1-C, there is nothing in between, or it will be just baseline Low 2-C if the difference in size was countable infinity or less.
Click to expand...
This is what they are both implying.

This isn't the case for DMC since the difference between the DW and HW is so massive that DW trivializes the HW as an infinitesimal structure. The difference between them is a higher level/cardinal of infinity.
And as we all already know, the Human World is a Low 2-C structure, so the next jump will be Low 1-C for the Demon World. If the difference in size was countably infinite and not QS, the DW and HW will be the exact same size as each other, but we know this isn't the case as the HW is an infinitesimal structure to DW.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
What are the conclusions here so far, and which staff members think what here and why?
Click to expand...
Qawsedf agrees, Ultima has not given a definitive answer, and Elizhaa disagrees but I am still waiting for his response regarding what evidence of qualitative superiority there is (since he stated that the infinite size scan alone would not be enough).

I also forgot to reply to the above post, oops.
 
Okay, and can you write a single easy to understand explanation post for the current arguments here, so I might be able to help or call for further staff evaluations?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay, and can you write a single easy to understand explanation post for the current arguments here, so I might be able to help or call for further staff evaluations?
Click to expand...
There is really nothing to the debate beyond me pointing out how our tiering system, as well as multiple statements from DT and Ultima, say that merely being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't low 1-C (this is the only evidence supporting low 1-C, by the way). The opposition claims this isn't true. It is a senseless back and forth, so I recommend that any staff here simply read the OP and give their opinion on that.

If you could ask Elizhaa to provide what evidence he claims to have of qualitative superiority, that would also be helpful.

Also the comment above is just another round of DMC supporters shaking their heads and going "nuh uh" so I'd be better off ignoring it, actually. It's a circle of "Being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't enough, you need QS --> Because this space is infinitely larger than low 2-C, it must have QS --> repeat ad infinitum".
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
There is really nothing to the debate beyond me pointing out how our tiering system, as well as multiple statements from DT and Ultima, say that merely being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't low 1-C (this is the only evidence supporting low 1-C, by the way). The opposition claims this isn't true. It is a senseless back and forth, so I recommend that any staff here simply read the OP and give their opinion on that.

If you could ask Elizhaa to provide what evidence he claims to have of qualitative superiority, that would also be helpful.

Also the comment above is just another round of DMC supporters shaking their heads and going "nuh uh" so I'd be better off ignoring it, actually. It's a circle of "Being infinitely larger than low 2-C isn't enough, you need QS --> Because this space is infinitely larger than low 2-C, it must have QS --> repeat ad infinitum".
Click to expand...
Okay. That seems to make sense to me.

@Elizhaa

Can you elaborate a bit here please?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay, and can you write a single easy to understand explanation post for the current arguments here, so I might be able to help or call for further staff evaluations?
Click to expand...
I can point out the comments for Tier 1 DMC here, in opposition to OP.
Tony, Gilver and Tanin_iver.

Also a thing to note:
Qawsedf234 said:
I mean, your comments look fine but I'm not familiar with DMC. I'll wait for more responses.
Click to expand...
This was Qawsedf's response, and I am not sure how waiting for DMC supporters to respond count as an Agreement to OP.
 
KLOL506 said:
Why was Elizhaa's vote removed from the OP, if I might ask?
Click to expand...
It wasn't removed, it was never there in the first place. Elizhaa's opinion is that the ray of light statement by itself is invalid (which would be agreeing with the thread), but that there are other statements of QS that make it valid. The problem is that he hasn't actually provided those statements, so I don't know what basis he's disagreeing on. So until he gives those scans, I don't feel comfortable adding him to the OP.
 
I never said it was invalid. It may not be solid enough by itself, which kind of depends on the staff's vote. But it seems solid enough to argue for some form of 2-A, given that it would be like infinite space compared to the universe.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
No? That doesn't meant the Human World is infinite, it was just warped spatially to be infinite. That doesn't retroactively apply to the ray of light statement. Like, this just serves to support the DW being infinite, since it fusing with the HW made a part of it infinite.
Click to expand...
I never said it was infinite. I said that support for its initial state could be infinite given logical implication; given the the quote on the universe where made on its original states, it seems to suggest even when DW and HW were one, DW, given infinite darkness to ray of light of HW, were still larger than HW which can support Low

Ultimately, it is up vote; if my view on HW being infinite, at least initially, is largely agree on, I would say it is low 1-C.
 
Elizhaa said:
I never said it was invalid. It may not be solid enough by itself, which kind of depends on the staff's vote. But it seems solid enough to argue for some form of 2-A, given that it would be like infinite space compared to the universe.

I never said it was infinite. I said that support for its initial state could be infinite given logical implication; given the the quote on the universe where made on its original states, it seems to suggest even when DW and HW were one, DW, given infinite darkness to ray of light of HW, were still larger than HW which can support Low

Ultimately, it is up vote; if my view on HW being infinite, at least initially, is largely agree on, I would say it is low 1-C.
Click to expand...
btw a lot of staff members, in the past downgrade attempt, said the scan on its own was enough to qualifiy for tier 1, the rest is supporting evidence that solidified it
 
Tony_di_bugalu said:
btw a lot of staff members, in the past downgrade attempt, said the scan on its own was enough to qualifiy for tier 1, the rest is supporting evidence that solidified it
Click to expand...
Not relevant here.
Elizhaa said:
I never said it was invalid. It may not be solid enough by itself, which kind of depends on the staff's vote. But it seems solid enough to argue for some form of 2-A, given that it would be like infinite space compared to the universe.

I never said it was infinite. I said that support for its initial state could be infinite given logical implication; given the the quote on the universe where made on its original states, it seems to suggest even when DW and HW were one, DW, given infinite darkness to ray of light of HW, were still larger than HW which can support Low

Ultimately, it is up vote; if my view on HW being infinite, at least initially, is largely agree on, I would say it is low 1-C.
Click to expand...
...So you agree with low 1-C, but only if the HW is agreed to be infinite? Your post is worded somewhat confusingly, so I'm not entirely sure what your stance is.
 
KLOL506 said:
What do you mean by the HW being infinite? Low 2-C constructs are considered infinite by default (As time is also infinite), so I am kind of confused with this statement.
Click to expand...
Like physically infinite Low 2-C; technically, one can have a Low 2-C universe like a High 3-A universe + time and a 3-A universe + time; the uncountable infinite snapshot of time + space existing, created, or destroyed is what makes it uncountable infinite 3-A or Low 2-C, called infinite in comparison to the 3-A to High 3-A universe's case. The former case makes it easier to argue for Low 1-C compared to the latter, based on the sheer space comparison argument.
 
Last edited:
KLOL506 said:
What do you mean by the HW being infinite? Low 2-C constructs are considered infinite by default (As time is also infinite), so I am kind of confused with this statement.
Click to expand...
Yeah but bruhh it is a time dimension not the space. I think the context about HW in here is talking about it space
 
Elizhaa said:
Like physically infinite Low 2-C; technically, one can have a Low 2-C universe like a High 3-A universe + time and a 3-A universe + time; the uncountable infinite snapshot of time + space existing, created, or destroyed is what makes it uncountable infinite 3-A or Low 2-C, called infinite in comparison to the 3-A to High 3-A universe's case. The former case makes it easier to argue for Low 1-C compared to the latter, based on the sheer space comparison argument.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Just like how Low 2-C is uncountable infinite snapshots of 3D(irrespective of the spatial size) volumes, which makes it 4D, and infinite in length, which makes it infinite 4D.
For Low 1-C, it would just be like an uncountable infinite collection of such 4D Low 2-C structures, because it is completely trivializing the Low 2-C structure as an infinitesimal subset, so it would have to be higher infinity than what 4D can hold, so it would be 5D.

Basically, imagine it as uncountable infinite snapshots of 3D volumes and an uncountable infinite amount of these Space-times that could fit because the demon world trivializes infinite 4D structure as infinitesimal which would make it two higher levels of infinity or 5D.
 
Bump

Could someone gather the evidence in favor of the HW being infinite, since that seems pretty relevant right now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fixxed
  • Locked
Higher D by Transcending Infinite/all level of Power and Existential
Replies
7
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Ningenron
DMC: A Rather Controversial Revision
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
8K
Ningenron
Ningenron
demonwarrior2266
  • Locked
Tier 11 Needs a Revamp
Replies
23
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
LordGriffin1000
Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion
Replies
23
Views
5K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
5K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Back
Top