Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion

[LordGriffin1000]

This is a STAFF Discussion.

Not the best title but that's irrelevant. I'm going to keep this short because I'm sick and got a lot of other things to do but this topic has been on my mind for a minute, and was brought about from the discussion happening on this Devil May Cry revision thread.

To be brief, we all know 2-A/Multiverse level+ is the ability to create/destroy/effect (significantly) an infinite number of universes (space-time continuum), as stated of our Tiering System page.

"Characters or objects that can significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums."

The Issue

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

But the question is this. What happens if a character creates/destroys/effects one of these spaces that's stated to be infinite but the number of universe inside it is finite? To give an example, this character was brought up in the thread because their 2-A justification is as follows...

"Multiverse level (Rimuru has Turn Null which is the primordial energy which allows the user to destroy the existing world and create a new world. Using his Turn Null, Veldanava was able to create the world which has several parallel universes. Over a period of countless years, Turn Null accumulated in Rimuru's Imaginary Space, which gives him enough energy to recreate the world, which contains many parallel universes, tens of thousands of times), likely Multiverse level+ with Void God Azathoth (Ciel has likely turned the stomach into Imaginary Space which is infinite in size, making Imaginary Space hypothetically large enough to contain an infinite amount of space-time continuums)"

As you can see, the 2-A justification is using the hypothetical logic that because the bigger space (Imaginary Space regarding this verse) is likely infinite, it theoretically can contain an infinite number of space-time continuum. However, according to one of our staff members on the DMC thread, we don't have an actual standard for this. Which brings us here now.

So that simply leaves 2 options.

1. We allow theoretically scaling like this, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum they still get 2-A

2. We don't allow this type of scaling, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum will only be rated based off the number of universes actually in said infinite space.

Conclusion

Pending...

 

[Deagonx]

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

But the question is this. What happens if a character creates/destroys/effects one of these spaces that's stated to be infinite but the number of universe inside it is finite?

I think the existing standards pretty clearly don't allow for this to be 2-A, otherwise the distinction between 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A which is based on the amount of universes would become meaningless.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I share Deagon's sentiments. By nature, a realm anywhere from High 3-A to 2-B can be infinite in size without actually containing infinite universes. In the case of Rimuru, I'd say the 2-A rating should go

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I'd like to link this thread because, given the topic at hand, I feel it's relevant

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Also, I'd like to link this thread because, given the topic at hand, I feel it's relevant

Ignoring how jumbled that thread is (especially ignoring the tier 1 comments), it seemed to be a back and forth between users but Don'tTalk commented on this topic on page six of that thread, saying being infinitely larger than one universe is a no, multiple is debatable but apparently still no, and said you'd need an actual infinite number of universes or a direct statement saying it can hold an infinite amount.

Now I don't know if Don'tTalk changed their thoughts given that was last year.

 

[Executor_N0]

I asked permission from LordGriffin1000 to comment here, about the subject:

The classifications in the Tiering System work by fitting with the description, if a feat has no direct equivalent to the system, it's by definition untiereable, which can sometimes end up as just Hax. For example, space-time destruction of very limited size isn't often accepted for Tier 2, but it can be accepted as an ability, even though it carries a 4-Dimensional level of destruction. For example, it wouldn't just be put as Tier 8 because the space-time rift happened to destroy a building as if it was a standard 3-D explosion, it could be "Tier 8, via Space-time destruction", in which case the 3-D destruction is being described as a side-effect of the 4-D destruction, the 4-D part is considered a hax that causes a 3-D effect (Or as a more common example, any small-sized reality-warping feat that still has a Tier using reality warp).

Affecting the "container of universes" isn't a feat that is described by 2-C, 2-B or 2-A, because the container is 5-D or higher, it's judged by the standards of Low 1-C and above. It's "implied" (By the range of effect) that any 2-C to 2-A feat has some insignificant 5D+ scope of effect, but what is done with that information is the same that is done to make a 4-D explosion that destroys a building as a side-effect, the destruction level is limited to the dimensions that it has a significant size, while the insignificant size is used to describe some different propriety (Be it hax or range, which is what is used to differentiate the tiers from 2-C to 2-A) that makes it different from not having it.

So, the container itself should be judged by whether it fits a significant 5-D+ size. If it isn't, then it has no effect on the destruction level other than the amount of parallel 4-D spaces that were destroyed (Which judges the non-significant 5-D size by the number of spaces destroyed). In broader strokes, 2-C up to 2-A are just Low 2-C feats that are classified by how much they can go across a 5th-dimensional axis (I remember some people saying that there should be no division between 2-C up to Low 1-C, this is the reason for that, we do that more for convention due to fiction often showing a difference in level between number of universes destroyed, so we follow it).

Basically, when dealing with affecting not just universes across a higher-dimensional space, but the higher-dimensional space itself, first judge if the higher-dimensional space classifies to have a significant size in that higher-dimensional level, if it doesn't, then affecting it shares the same propriety as hax/range, and so the feat is described by the Tier 2 standards (That is, the amount of parallel 4-D spaces affected across a 5th-dimensional axis).

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

Idk if you clarified this, but just in case:

What do you think of structures that are infinitely large compared to a space-time continuum they contain, but are never stated/shown to contain infinite universes?

 

[Deagonx]

So, the container itself should be judged by whether it fits a significant 5-D+ size. If it isn't, then it has no effect on the destruction level other than the amount of parallel 4-D spaces that were destroyed (Which judges the non-significant 5-D size by the number of spaces destroyed). In broader strokes, 2-C up to 2-A are just Low 2-C feats that are classified by how much they can go across a 5th-dimensional axis (I remember some people saying that there should be no division between 2-C up to Low 1-C, this is the reason for that, we do that more for convention due to fiction often showing a difference in level between number of universes destroyed, so we follow it).

Basically, when dealing with affecting not just universes across a higher-dimensional space, but the higher-dimensional space itself, first judge if the higher-dimensional space classifies to have a significant size in that higher-dimensional level, if it doesn't, then affecting it shares the same propriety as hax/range, and so the feat is described by the Tier 2 standards (That is, the amount of parallel 4-D spaces affected across a 5th-dimensional axis).

I agree with this.

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

I'm a bit confused on this. My understanding is that any cosmology that contains multiple universes must have an insignificantly sized 5-D axis, and the scale from 2-C to 2-A is characterized by the number of universes. If such a cosmology contains 10 infinitely sized universes, and the cosmology is called "infinite" is that not definitively a 2-C level structure?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Idk if you clarified this, but just in case:

What do you think of structures that are infinitely large compared to a space-time continuum they contain, but are never stated/shown to contain infinite universes?

I believe in the past we decided not to do multipliers in Tier 2, so that should stay Low 2-C, I guess. Possibly above baseline.

I'm a bit confused on this. My understanding is that any cosmology that contains multiple universes must have an insignificantly sized 5-D axis, and the scale from 2-C to 2-A is characterized by the number of universes.

One can justify Tier 2 that way, yes.

If such a cosmology contains 10 infinitely sized universes, and the cosmology is called "infinite" is that not definitively a 2-C level structure?

I'm not sure what difference the universes being infinitely large or the cosmology being called infinite should make here.
But if a cosmology contains 10 universes then, barring details that make it larger, it would be Low 2-C, yes.

I fail to see the connection to OPs question, though.

 

[Deagonx]

But if a cosmology contains 10 universes then, barring details that make it larger, it would be Low 2-C, yes.

Just to clarify, you mean 2-C right?

I fail to see the connection to OPs question, though.

The topic came up in a related thread about a different verse that lacks any sort of statement like the one LG gave in the OP about how the space "could contain infinite universes." It's just a combination of being called "infinite" and contained a finite number of realms.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just to clarify, you mean 2-C right?

Yeah, I do. It was late...

The topic came up in a related thread about a different verse that lacks any sort of statement like the one LG gave in the OP about how the space "could contain infinite universes." It's just a combination of being called "infinite" and contained a finite number of realms.

Oh, I see.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

So unless the bigger space has relevant statements like being infinite compared to the realms within it or being stated to be capable of holding and infinite amount of universes + actual proof that they significantly effected that 5th space axis and not just by some insignificant amount, we shouldn't count these as 2-A feats and just rate them based on the actual number of universes within the space?

 

[Deagonx]

So unless the bigger space has relevant statements like being infinite compared to the realms within it or being stated to be capable of holding and infinite amount of universes + actual proof that they significantly effected that 5th space axis and not just by some insignificant amount, we shouldn't count these as 2-A feats and just rate them based on the actual number of universes within the space?

My understanding is, if there is direct evidence that a Low 2-C space is infinitesimal relative to the larger space, that's actually a Low 1-C feat. However, it would need to be more than just the realm being called infinite.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

My understanding is, if there is direct evidence that a Low 2-C space is infinitesimal relative to the larger space, that's actually a Low 1-C feat. However, it would need to be more than just the realm being called infinite.

So we're pretty much going to need a statement saying it can hold infinite universes if it doesn't specifically have an infinite amount to get 2-A, since the the bigger space insignificant 5-D axis holds no impact on the tier.