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... (Note: The original example was changed due to the character in question justification/tier being revised, so below is just a random example but still the same premise)

'''Multiverse level+''' (Destroyed a infinite space-time continuum that held several other universes within itself, due to being infinite, the space can theoretically contain an infinite space-time continuum)

As you can see, the 2-A justification is using the hypothetical logic that because the bigger space 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.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I got permission from @Dereck03

To give an example, this character was brought up in the thread because their 2-A justification is as follows...

To explain the context.

In the Tensura Web Novel continuity, the term "World" refers to a multiverse consisting of several parallel universes embed in an un-significant 5D space known as sub-space.

Rimuru's Imaginary Space is filled with Turn Null energy, which can create this multiverse tens of thousands of times. Rimuru can absorb Low 2-C constructs through his Ultimate Skill Beelzebub and Azathoth, but Imaginary Space cannot be completely filled with Low 2-C structures.

Imaginary Space was long ago accepted as 2-A, but given that the space in which the Low 2-C structures are embedded is an un-significant 5-D space and the 5th axis can already capable of hold on infinite number of Low 2-C structures. I completely agree that such structures should not be considered 2-A unless they contain an infinite number of Low 2-C structures.

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.

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).

Actually @Executor_N0 explained this point quite well. The 5th axis can already hold on two to infinite number of Low 2-C structures (2-C, 2-B, 2-A), so the container containing the Low 2-C structures does not mean anything in terms of Tier 2 ratings, what matters is how many Low 2-C structures are in the 5th axis in question.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Got permission from Qawsedf to post here

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.

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.

I don't intend to talk about the in-verse stuff, but I just had this thought while thinking about this "Space between universes" and how we treat them...
I don't know if it was just me or if someone else thought of it too before, but here goes nothin'......
I'll be starting from the basics and then moving on to the actual stuff to avoid any confusion;
Dimensional Axis
Basically, an "Axis" is akin to a line, and two dimensional axes are akin to 2 perpendicular lines.

From what I understand of the standards, an axis that is an infinite line [both sides extending to infinity] is significant in size, and that which does not extend to infinity [at which point it's not even a "Line" other than in name, and is more or rather just a Line segment] is an insignificant space.

In terms of points, you can say a line is a complete R[equivalent to a real number set], an uncountably infinite amount of points. On the other hand, a line segment is not an R. A line segment still, however, has a countably infinite amount of points, equivalent to the cardinality of the set of natural/integers/whole numbers.

Application in Higher-Dimensionality
Let's make this simple by using an example we all know. A Time Axis. It basically refers to the Dimensional Axis of time, which when overarching 3 spatial dimensions, is considered the 4th dimension.
By our standards, we assume that this axis/line, which extends perpendicular to the 3D plane, is assumed to spawn a snapshot/copy of the structure it's overarching [normally 3-dimensional universe] for each point on that line. In essence, this means that a time axis as a whole spawns an uncountably infinite amount of 3D snapshots of the physical universe, making it qualify for 4D under our standards, a Space-time continuum.

Now, from the same analogy, how many snapshots would a finite amount of "Time" spawn? For instance, let's say, how many snapshots would a time worth a 100 million years spawn? A hundred million snapshots? No! It will spawn an infinite amount of them, or, to be precise, a countably infinite amount. Because even a single second can be divided infinitely[countably infinitely], so naturally, a hundred million years would spawn a countably infinite amount of points. It's like how between any two numbers in the set of rational numbers, there exist countably infinitely many more rational numbers[decimals].

So, by that logic, the amount of 3D snapshots spanned is countably infinite, thus scaling it to what we consider as High 3-A [Infinite 3D].

Space between Space-Time continuities
Basically, just as the title says, it's the Space between two or more Space-Time continuums. We assume it to be the 5th dimensional axis separating 4D Space-time continuums, or, in other words, the 4-Dimensional Space-time continuums are embedded in this 5-dimensional space. By the fact that it's the "5th dimensional axis" or "4th dimension by order of purely space", it means it's perpendicular to the regular 4 dimensions, length, width, height, and time.

However, we also assume that by default, it's not considered "Infinite"[in the sense of how a line is infinite] in size by default, or what we usually call as "Significant size". Rather, we assume that it's insignificant in size in terms of its extensions towards the 5th dimension; aka, it's a line segment, not a line. We treat it as being unknown in size unless stated otherwise, and thus, it does not grant any specific tier above 2-C by itself.

Application in Higher-Dimensionality
The above basically means that this 5th dimensional axis [4th spatial dimension], which is not equivalent to a whole R[Set of real numbers], is similar to the concept of "Finite time overarching a 3-Dimensional space"; I.e., both are countably infinite in size.

Now, we all know how the equation to represent 3-D is R x R x R [or R to the power of 3] right? By the same logic, the equation to represent 4-D would be R x R x R x R, and that for 5-D would be R x R x R x R x R. However, if the 5th dimension is not equivalent to a whole R, and instead equivalent to N[set of natural numbers], then the equation becomes R x R x R x R x N.

Now, since we know that the R part of the equation is equivalent to a 4-D Space-time Continuum, we'll go ahead and replace it by that:
=4-D Space-Time Continuum x N
= 4-D x Countably Infinite
This basically means that this finite 5th dimensional axis is capable of spawning snapshots of whatever it overarches a countably infinite amount of time [in the same sense that a finite length line segment still has a countably infinite number of points on it].

Regarding "Empty Spaces"
I thought this question may arise, to why not answer this from the start; "What about when the Space between space-times is empty, where are the snapshots?".

The answer to this is quit simple; they don't need to be shown to physically contain them. Because we're forgetting that an "Axis" is strictly used for denoting direction, it is not the actual direction[in a way], insofar as that even without a line, that direction can still exist. Basically, where do we draw a line on? A plane! But how do we draw a line? By extending a set of points in the same linear direction.

Another example, between a 10m3 [meter cube] space filled with stuff and a 10m3 space that's empty, is there any difference in spatial size of the space itself? Obviously not, it's just a matter of perspective that those spaces are being filled, but them being or not being filled doesn't decide whether they exist or not, if we remove the stuff from the first 10m3 space, what we're left with is the same space with the same size.

So basically, the conclusion;
The Space between Space-Times, even if insignificant, but as long as it's not 0, should qualify for 2-A
Impacts and Fixes
Now, I do know how much of a diverse impact this will make on almost, if not all the tier 2s, but this was an inconsistency [at least imo] that should've been dealt with at some point in time, so why not now?

Spoiler: New Rules

For destruction feats, we can make the following rules:

1. If a character destroys the multiverse in the sense of destroying the 5th axis as well along with everything else, we consider it as 2-A.
2. If only the 5th axis is destroyed and the universes embedded inside are left untouched, it means only a single dimensional axis is destroyed, making it scale to nowhere significant enough to rate on even a 3D scale.
3. If the universes are destroyed but the 2-A space is left intact, we rate it based on the amount of universes destroyed.

On another hand, I think that one of the main things will be its impact on non-uncountably infinite multipliers[and maybe non-countably infinite too, tho I'm not sure how countably infinite multipliers are treated atm within the tiering system] , which as we know, are currently inapplicable from tier 2 onwards. For this, we can take make some of the following limitations:

1. We don't assume that there exists a space separating Space-time continuities unless stated otherwise. Or at least, we don't "count them within the cosmology" by default unless stated otherwise.
2. Verses where if a characer with X amount of power could destroy a space-time, and with 2X he could destroy multiple space-times, then higher multipliers are applicable for that character unless contradicted otherwise in-verse; Example being cases where multipliers enhance Destructive Capacity, and optionally, Attack Potency too.
3. And if for characters that do not show destroying more then a single space-time with a 2X multiplier, we'll assume the same for all multipliers for them unless stated/shown otherwise in-verse; Example being multipliers that enhance Attack Potency, but not Destructive Capacity.
4. For default multipliers that stack after a Low 2-C base form, we assume them as "Attack Potency Multipliers" or "Physical Multipliers", like how we do with "Higher into 2-A"; in other words, "Above Baseline AP" stuff, unless shown otherwise as in case 2.

Thank you for reading everyone.
I will try to be active in this thread if someone finds this post interesting and takes it into consideration, but my reply may come late due to me being busy with irl matters at the moment.

I may or may not edit this post later if I find grammar errors or typos, so feel free to point that out. With that said, cya in a few days!

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

 

[CNBA3]

Honestly, if it is an “infinite space containing finite number of finite universes”, to me is sounds like High 3-A or High 3-A+ because finite universes of said size would likely still be below High 3-A or 3-A+ because even if there are an infinite number of them, it would still cap out at between those 2 tiers.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Honestly, if it is an “infinite space containing finite number of finite universes”, to me is sounds like High 3-A or High 3-A+ because finite universes of said size would likely still be below High 3-A or 3-A+ because even if there are an infinite number of them, it would still cap out at between those 2 tiers.

Universes here refer to 4-D Space-Time Continums, the op made that cIear:

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.

 

[Unoriginal777]

Hello everyone,

As you can no doubt tell, I’m new to this website although I've known about it for a while. I came here after my friend SuperSonicTL convinced me to join VSBW and after joining I’m excited to see where my journey here will take me.

Now that being said, after carefully reviewing the wiki standards I have what I think to be a slight criticism of the current tier 2 standards. Namely when those standards move beyond the basic Low 2-C reference point. So say someone is trying to push for 2-A which is represented by characters who can “significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums." Now I think we would all agree that the space/void which fits these timelines would itself be 2-A at least (given what it fits). However, say you have a verse that has the void and the statement of being infinitely greater than the notion of space-time continuums. Well to my shock, what typically happens is people take the following view.

As such, even if the verse in question logically could/should be eligible to fit those infinite space-times in the container, because the container itself doesn’t specify a multiverse, it is then rejected and placed subjectively into 2-C as being "vaguely" above Low 2-C. This notion is one which has always struck me as strangely peculiar seeing as the logic when applied to other tiers that deal in similarly infinite spaces/pocket dimensions doesn’t hold up. For example, at the High-3A tier it is not required that a specified infinite content is demonstrated/shown as much as the fact that the cosmological structure/space itself stretches on infinitely regardless of its demonstrated contents.

Still in my attempts to understand how this assumption came to be I decided it was worth doing a little more research, but still felt the reasoning behind this strange standard in tier 2 at every turn to be somewhat...lacking.

For example, from what I’ve heard from hearsay (even in this thread) the typical reasoning why simply being “infinite” in comparison to a confirmed 2-C space is “not enough” for tier 2-A is the fact that because the distance between tier 2 constructs is technically infinite (seeing as tier 2 constructs are themselves infinite due to their 4D status for lack of better term) a claim to being infinitely larger then a space-time continuum should then be ignored as follows.

Nevertheless, I think there’s a problem with this line of reasoning as well in that it fails from a perspectival sense. Think of it this way, we all acknowledge that time-spaces are infinite given their 4D constitution with the addition of a temporal axis. However, the fact we can count said universes which are infinite constructs in blatantly finite terms in all tier 2 standards (as seen in tiers, Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A) means that it shouldn’t have to be a blurry topic when we have a confirmed Low 2-C space and a space containing it which is infinitely larger then it as by acknowledging the notion of a space-time continuum at all an author is technically taking a God’s eye view from a 4D perspective which trivializes the 4D construct to a finite object to count. This is a very similar concept to how one counts higher infinities and differentiates them from say the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and 2 and the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and infinity; a cornerstone of VSBW as a whole given what we know of Set Theory.

So for the sake of consistency I believe the best path forward would be to alter the tier 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A standards with the add-on that a verse may also qualify for these rankings should they prove capable of affecting spaces/pocket dimensions that can imitate a multiverse containing 2 to 1000 universes, 1001 to any higher finite amount, and especially spaces that can contain infinite universes despite not showing direct evidence of containing said amount of universes in their expanse because size is the be all, end all of the issue when scaling a dimension of sorts. Not the inside contents or else we'd need to turn that level of scrutiny towards standards for scaling similarly infinite spaces like those in the High 3-A classification.

In any case, regardless of your perception of my viewpoint I would like to take a moment to thank VSBW for giving me the opportunity to speak on this platform.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

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)"

I forgot to mention this, and mentioning because just in case, but said character was upgraded to a higher tier, so its not a useful example for 2-A anymore. Idk if this example should be removed, but I will leave that up to you.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Honestly, if it is an “infinite space containing finite number of finite universes”, to me is sounds like High 3-A or High 3-A+ because finite universes of said size would likely still be below High 3-A or 3-A+ because even if there are an infinite number of them, it would still cap out at between those 2 tiers.

Hello everyone,

As you can no doubt tell, I’m new to this website although I've known about it for a while. I came here after my friend SuperSonicTL convinced me to join VSBW and after joining I’m excited to see where my journey here will take me.

Now that being said, after carefully reviewing the wiki standards I have what I think to be a slight criticism of the current tier 2 standards. Namely when those standards move beyond the basic Low 2-C reference point. So say someone is trying to push for 2-A which is represented by characters who can “significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums." Now I think we would all agree that the space/void which fits these timelines would itself be 2-A at least (given what it fits). However, say you have a verse that has the void and the statement of being infinitely greater than the notion of space-time continuums. Well to my shock, what typically happens is people take the following view.

As such, even if the verse in question logically could/should be eligible to fit those infinite space-times in the container, because the container itself doesn’t specify a multiverse, it is then rejected and placed subjectively into 2-C as being "vaguely" above Low 2-C. This notion is one which has always struck me as strangely peculiar seeing as the logic when applied to other tiers that deal in similarly infinite spaces/pocket dimensions doesn’t hold up. For example, at the High-3A tier it is not required that a specified infinite content is demonstrated/shown as much as the fact that the cosmological structure/space itself stretches on infinitely regardless of its demonstrated contents.

Still in my attempts to understand how this assumption came to be I decided it was worth doing a little more research, but still felt the reasoning behind this strange standard in tier 2 at every turn to be somewhat...lacking.

For example, from what I’ve heard from hearsay (even in this thread) the typical reasoning why simply being “infinite” in comparison to a confirmed 2-C space is “not enough” for tier 2-A is the fact that because the distance between tier 2 constructs is technically infinite (seeing as tier 2 constructs are themselves infinite due to their 4D status for lack of better term) a claim to being infinitely larger then a space-time continuum should then be ignored as follows.

Nevertheless, I think there’s a problem with this line of reasoning as well in that it fails from a perspectival sense. Think of it this way, we all acknowledge that time-spaces are infinite given their 4D constitution with the addition of a temporal axis. However, the fact we can count said universes which are infinite constructs in blatantly finite terms in all tier 2 standards (as seen in tiers, Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A) means that it shouldn’t have to be a blurry topic when we have a confirmed Low 2-C space and a space containing it which is infinitely larger then it as by acknowledging the notion of a space-time continuum at all an author is technically taking a God’s eye view from a 4D perspective which trivializes the 4D construct to a finite object to count. This is a very similar concept to how one counts higher infinities and differentiates them from say the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and 2 and the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and infinity; a cornerstone of VSBW as a whole given what we know of Set Theory.

So for the sake of consistency I believe the best path forward would be to alter the tier 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A standards with the add-on that a verse may also qualify for these rankings should they prove capable of affecting spaces/pocket dimensions that can imitate a multiverse containing 2 to 1000 universes, 1001 to any higher finite amount, and especially spaces that can contain infinite universes despite not showing direct evidence of containing said amount of universes in their expanse because size is the be all, end all of the issue when scaling a dimension of sorts. Not the inside contents or else we'd need to turn that level of scrutiny towards standards for scaling similarly infinite spaces like those in the High 3-A classification.

In any case, regardless of your perception of my viewpoint I would like to take a moment to thank VSBW for giving me the opportunity to speak on this platform.

Sincerely,
Unoriginal777

Consider this comment to be my permission to keep your post here. Get approval from evaluating staff members to comment on staff threads from now on.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I forgot to mention this, and mentioning because just in case, but said character was upgraded to a higher tier, so its not a useful example for 2-A anymore. Idk if this example should be removed, but I will leave that up to you.

Since everyone knows what I'm talking about, I'll change it to just a random example using similar logic as the old rating, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I was given permission by LordGriffin.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the first option entirely.

Technically speaking, all spaces can hold an infinite amount of subspaces. A dimension can take up a minimal amount of space in another dimension, while being extremely large within it self.

Also, this is arguing that an empty space that could potentially hold a universe, requires the same amount of power to destroy it as if there was a universe there. I don't think this is a good assumption to assume for all fictional works without the story stating such a thing.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this entirely.

The "entirety" of this thread is two options to find a standard that hasn't been set, so I assume you mean you disagree with the first option and would prefer the second?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The "entirety" of this thread is two options to find a standard that hasn't been set, so I assume you mean you disagree with the first option and would prefer the second?

Yes! I should have been more clear! I agree with and support the second option and disagree with the first option.

 

[eternal1234]

Aight i see non staff members commenting so I'll also share my opinion ig

Basically i don't see any point in the entirety of Tier-2

now here me out, infinity stays the same no matter how many times it's added or multiplied, so how is one infinite 4D space any different from another infninite 4D space? How are 1 or 1000 or even infinite infinitely large space-times any different? Since multiplication or addition of infinity by any number or even infinity itself results in infinity itself

Just take tier high-3A for example current tiering system directly jumps to uncountably infinitely more complex 4D spaces from a singular infinite 3D space, instead of iterating this tier as {h3A×1<h3A×1000<h3A×infinite} similarly to tier-2 ¯\(ツ)/¯

Basically multipliers dont matter for one tier so why do they for another tier? i think entirety of tier 2 should be put into one singular tier

like option 1 with some Minor Changes seems the most logical

 

[Unoriginal777]

I was given permission by LordGriffin.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this entirely.

Technically speaking, all spaces can hold an infinite amount of subspaces. A dimension can take up a minimal amount of space in another dimension, while being extremely large within it self.

Also, this is arguing that an empty space that could potentially hold a universe, requires the same amount of power to destroy it as if there was a universe there. I don't think this is a good assumption to assume for all fictional works without the story stating such a thing.

Hello again,

I was able to get permission from Planck69 for the next three comments (including this one),

Now in responding I want to say this as respectfully as I can to my fellow acquaintance, but I believe you're focusing too hard on what can best be described as an unspoken exception to the rule and trying to standardize this exception as an ironclad rule even for normative cases.

So in explaining my reasoning let's take the example of a pocket dimension that is technically a space time continuum yet takes up little space in a regular 3D space. Let's say we have a verse where such a pocket dimension is located inside a bag akin to Santa's bag. A space like this would be special in that it is a pocket dimension and not a normal space time continuum like say our universe so simply being able to move that bag (provided the bag doesn't scale in weight to the continuum it contains) wouldn't be universal+ and above feat whereas in a normative case like lifting an actual universe under normal circumstances (like our own) with the temporal axis included would be outright a universal+ and above feat. Similarly, the space which contains the bag (i.e. a normal house) wouldn't need to scale any higher then a normal house as opposed to a tier 2 and above classification which would instead be attributed to any space surrounding a normative space-time continuum.

Therefore given what I have said above, I don't feel it's fair to pair the reductionistic logic you're operating under with verses that don't have abnormal space time continuums that exist in peculiar and very special pocket dimension like circumstances. Rather I believe we should (as I had stated above in my previous comment) take the god's eye view in the normal circumstance like we would counting infinities in set theory (we're already counting these infinite constructs called space time continuums individually when we talk about any tier 2 category outright) and if that leads to us counting these universes times infinity it should be the same value as an infinite amount of those continuums in question. If your concern is that all verses aren't created equal then surely exceptions such as these as well as context can be considered on a case to case basis provided special circumstances are present, but in the absence of a reason to cast doubt on normal circumstances the normal circumstances/logic thereof should be generally assumed via Occams.

Additionally, I question what the relevance of subspaces are in this conversation as the thread topic is one focused on how to treat spaces which are accompanied with the acclaim of being infinitely greater then an established space time continuum despite not having an infinite array of said space time continuums contained therein. Tier 2 already assumes the existence of a space time continuum from the get go so the continuums being composed of an infinite amount of sub spaces seems irrelevant in this conversation.

In either case, I hope this is not perceived as offensive, but I don't feel you have a fruitful perspective on what 2-A should look like going forward.

 

[eternal1234]

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.

Honestly i don't see any qauntitave or even qaulitative difference between them

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Using the permission I got before from Qawsedf

now here me out, infinity stays the same no matter how many times it's added or multiplied, so how is one infinite 4D space any different from another infninite 4D space? How are 1 or 1000 or even infinite infinitely large space-times any different? Since multiplication or addition of infinity by any number or even infinity itself results in infinity itself

It is essentially about viewing something from a higher dimensional perspective. For example, a line is made up of uncountably infinite points, yet we can see two different lines extending in the same direction yet separated by a higher-dimensional space, in this case 2-dimensional.
Now duplicate that analogy but to space-time continuums.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Hello again,

I was able to get permission from Planck69 for the next three comments (including this one),

Now in responding I want to say this as respectfully as I can to my fellow acquaintance, but I believe you're focusing too hard on what can best be described as an unspoken exception to the rule and trying to standardize this exception as an ironclad rule even for normative cases.

So in explaining my reasoning let's take the example of a pocket dimension that is technically a space time continuum yet takes up little space in a regular 3D space. Let's say we have a verse where such a pocket dimension is located inside a bag akin to Santa's bag. A space like this would be special in that it is a pocket dimension and not a normal space time continuum like say our universe so simply being able to move that bag (provided the bag doesn't scale in weight to the continuum it contains) wouldn't be universal+ and above feat whereas in a normative case like lifting an actual universe under normal circumstances (like our own) with the temporal axis included would be outright a universal+ and above feat. Similarly, the space which contains the bag (i.e. a normal house) wouldn't need to scale any higher then a normal house as opposed to a tier 2 and above classification which would instead be attributed to any space surrounding a normative space-time continuum.

Therefore given what I have said above, I don't feel it's fair to pair the reductionistic logic you're operating under with verses that don't have abnormal space time continuums that exist in peculiar and very special pocket dimension like circumstances. Rather I believe we should (as I had stated above in my previous comment) take the god's eye view in the normal circumstance like we would counting infinities in set theory (we're already counting these infinite constructs called space time continuums individually when we talk about any tier 2 category outright) and if that leads to us counting these universes times infinity it should be the same value as an infinite amount of those continuums in question. If your concern is that all verses aren't created equal then surely exceptions such as these as well as context can be considered on a case to case basis provided special circumstances are present, but in the absence of a reason to cast doubt on normal circumstances the normal circumstances/logic thereof should be generally assumed via Occams.

Additionally, I question what the relevance of subspaces are in this conversation as the thread topic is one focused on how to treat spaces which are accompanied with the acclaim of being infinitely greater then an established space time continuum despite not having an infinite array of said space time continuums contained therein. Tier 2 already assumes the existence of a space time continuum from the get go.

In either case, I hope this is not perceived as offensive, but I don't feel you have a fruitful perspective on what 2-A should look like going forward.

Sincerely,
Unoriginal777

My example is not an exception to the rule, because there is no rule when it comes to describing and depicting spaces in fiction. In fact, there is no reason to assume that a space should take a 1:1 ratio while inside another space.

Your example betrays you because if the spacetime in Santa's bag is deemed to be at least the size of the observable universe, destroying it's contents would qualify as a Low 2-C feat. The wiki recognizes destroying spacetimes smaller than observable universe as a feat lesser than Low 2-C out of practicality.

Also, you did not answer one of pertinent questions, is destroying empty space equal to destroying a universe?

 

[Unoriginal777]

My example is not an exception to the rule, because there is no rule when it comes to describing and depicting spaces in fiction. In fact, there is no reason to assume that a space should take a 1:1 ratio while inside another space.

Your example betrays you because if the spacetime in Santa's bag is deemed to be at least the size of the observable universe, destroying it's contents would qualify as a Low 2-C feat. The wiki recognizes destroying spacetimes smaller than observable universe as a feat lesser than Low 2-C out of practicality.

Also, you did not answer one of pertinent questions, is destroying empty space equal to destroying a universe?

As before this response is done with permission from Planck69 and will mark my second response of the three I am allotted.

Now, when I say exception to rule I mean exception to the normative/average circumstance which is why I said the phrase "exception to rule" analogously to help describe my criticisms of your view though I had assumed this was clear from my phraseology (i.e. "what can best be described" which implies an imprecise comparison that relies on a degree of analogy or figurative speech). Typically when speaking about tier Low 2-C and the space that would hypothetically surround a Low 2-C universe we're talking about a universe like our own that is not simply trapped like a pocket dimension inside a 3D object akin to Santa's bag (For clarification I'm assuming there's an infinite amount of space in the bag or at least enough to be considered akin to our own universe alongside its temporal axis with the caveat that It's a space inside a bag akin to a pocket dimension) and surrounded by otherwise 3D space (the surrounding house the bag exists in), but is instead surrounded by at least 4D space since the empty space surrounding a space-time continuum (in the normative sense) would need to be at least 4D itself to fit the continuum within it.

My example does not betray me because I never used an example stating that destruction of the bag would/wouldn't be a Low 2-C feat so essentially you've made a strawman fallacy against me. Rather the example I used is that the lifting of the bag is dependent on the context of the series itself which may not necessarily be a 4D feat (context would determine this) whereas being able to lift an outright space-time continuum not bound in a peculiar pocket-dimensionesque circumstance akin to our own universe+the temporal axis would be a 4D feat directly in lifting strength. Additionally, if the wiki already recognizes destruction of smaller spacetimes than our observable universe is a feat lesser than Low 2-C out of practicality the question remains as to why you decided to cast ambiguity on the idea of spaces surrounding established Low 2-C continuums and their scaling in the first place as possibly ranging to incredibly small sizes in correlation with how in your words "a dimension can take up a minimal amount of space in another dimension, while being extremely large within it self." To that end, by your own logic wouldn't destroying the bag's contents also be beneath Low 2-C given what you had said in that "the wiki recognizes destroying spacetimes smaller than observable universe as a feat lesser than Low 2-C out of practicality?" Additionally to satisfy my own personal curiosity could you perhaps be so kind as to link me to the place where the wiki came to the conclusion that destroying spacetimes smaller than the observable universe as a feat is weaker than Low 2-C? I am still new here afterall and I would like to make sure I cover my bases in these matters.

Also if memory serves me correctly I did in fact answer your inquiry, indirectly that is. You see, I clarified that the empty space's inherent scaling would depend on whether it's a space holding a continuum in the more normative sense (i.e. space surrounding and holding our own universe) versus a more peculiar and circumstance based sense (i.e. the Santa's bag example and the otherwise normal 3D house which surrounds said bag). In the former it would require greater then baseline universal+ scaling since the space surrounds the continuum normatively while in the latter it would only require 3D scaling unless context specifies otherwise.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Typically when speaking about tier Low 2-C and the space that would hypothetically surround a Low 2-C universe we're talking about a universe like our own that is not simply trapped like a pocket dimension inside a 3D object akin to Santa's bag (For clarification I'm assuming there's an infinite amount of space in the bag or at least enough to be considered akin to our own universe alongside its temporal axis with the caveat that It's a space inside a bag akin to a pocket dimension) and surrounded by otherwise 3D space (the surrounding house the bag exists in), but is instead surrounded by at least 4D space since the empty space surrounding a space-time continuum (in the normative sense) would need to be at least 4D itself to fit the continuum within it.

There is absolutely no evidence that our own universe is surrounded by 4D space. Or that you need 4D space to contain a spacetime continuum. This is what I mean when I said that there is no rule when it comes to these things. I understand this wiki views that universes are separated by insignificant 5D space but this isn't something that is based in reality.

To that end, by your own logic wouldn't destroying the bag's contents also be beneath Low 2-C given what you had said in that "the wiki recognizes destroying spacetimes smaller than observable universe as a feat lesser than Low 2-C out of practicality?"

If the subspace is of the size of the observable universe or larger, then it would be counted as the Low 2-C feat. Anything smaller would correlate to its size, multi-galaxy, galaxy, building level, etc. This would apply to destroying the contents of the bag.

You see, I clarified that the empty space's inherent scaling would depend on whether it's a space holding a continuum in the more normative sense (i.e. space surrounding and holding our own universe) versus a more peculiar and circumstance based sense (i.e. the Santa's bag example and the otherwise normal 3D house which surrounds said bag). In the former it would require greater then baseline universal+ scaling since the space surrounds the continuum normatively while in the latter it would only require 3D scaling unless context specifies otherwise.

Also if memory serves me correctly I did in fact answer your inquiry, indirectly that is. You see, I clarified that the empty space's inherent scaling would depend on whether it's a space holding a continuum in the more normative sense (i.e. space surrounding and holding our own universe) versus a more peculiar and circumstance based sense (i.e. the Santa's bag example and the otherwise normal 3D house which surrounds said bag). In the former it would require greater then baseline universal+ scaling since the space surrounds the continuum normatively while in the latter it would only require 3D scaling unless context specifies otherwise.

I disagree with this as I said earlier, a regular universe can have pocket dimensions. In fact, there are verses here on this wiki where their universes are rated as 2-A because they contain an infinite amount of pocket dimensions. I don't think there is a good enough reason to think that container for a universe has extra properties that would make the destruction of its empty space equal to destroying a space-time.

The logic option 1 requires is to assume that universes take up a 1:1 ratio of space inside their container when there is no reason to believe that and we have enough example that show that any size space could theoretically hold any amount of subspaces.

I will now go even further and say there is no reason to assume that the containers for universes have unique properties different from the spaces they hold and there is no reason to assume multiverses inherently have insignificant 5D spaces.

 

[eternal1234]

Using the permission I got before from Qawsedf

It is essentially about viewing something from a higher dimensional perspective. For example, a line is made up of uncountably infinite points, yet we can see two different lines extending in the same direction yet separated by a higher-dimensional space, in this case 2-dimensional.
Now duplicate that analogy but to space-time continuums.

I don't quite understand the analogy

But my point is any amount of 5D space should logically be able to hold infinite amount of 4D space times coz space is a continuum

 

[Unoriginal777]

There is absolutely no evidence that our own universe is surrounded by 4D space. Or that you need 4D space to contain a spacetime continuum. This is what I mean when I said that there is no rule when it comes to these things. I understand this wiki views that universes are separated by insignificant 5D space but this isn't something that is based in reality.



If the subspace is of the size of the observable universe or larger, then it would be counted as the Low 2-C feat. Anything smaller would correlate to its size, multi-galaxy, galaxy, building level, etc. This would apply to destroying the contents of the bag.







I disagree with this as I said earlier, a regular universe can have pocket dimensions. In fact, there are verses here on this wiki where their universes are rated as 2-A because they contain an infinite amount of pocket dimensions. I don't think there is a good enough reason to think that container for a universe has extra properties that would make the destruction of its empty space equal to destroying a space-time.

The logic option 1 requires is to assume that universes take up a 1:1 ratio of space inside their container when there is no reason to believe that and we have enough example that show that any size space could theoretically hold any amount of subspaces.

I will now go even further and say there is no reason to assume that the containers for universes have unique properties different from the spaces they hold and there is no reason to assume multiverses inherently have insignificant 5D spaces.

As before this response is done with permission from Planck69 and will mark my third and final response of the three I am allotted.

So just as a recap you've claimed that just because our own universe has no direct proof of being surrounded by equally 4D space it then follows there's no reason for such space to surround space-time continuums in fiction. Give me a break, you can't even prove the multiverse exists, spirits, or even higher dimensions beyond the 4th. Are we then to act as though they can't work for fiction then because real life doesn't reflect or is proven to have these qualities????!!! Additionally, logic would tell you that anything that can contain a universe complete with its time axis while standing outside said axis would be bigger than the axis as it can contain said axis. Nevertheless, I don't need to go that far when the evidence itself is found in the theory of relativity which has been pretty much authoritative since forever now via Minkowski who proposed space was 4D with time as the 4th dimension. A notion that hasn't been contradicted by scientific consensus whatsoever in just about all the years of its circulation to this very day.

Moving forwards, you also claim a regular universe (in real life) can have pocket dimensions, but are we to suspect that every pocket dimension in a regular universe can have its own separate time axis, let alone the property of being infinite in size, or even as big as our own universe from within it despite being smaller outside. Besides, I've seen no evidence from you that even a regular universe in "real life" has pocket dimensions akin to hammer space since according to you everything in fiction must perfectly reflect reality, right?!! So even the Santa's bag example I gave earlier strikes a bit peculiar given what we know of real life physics and this is without me touching on other equally absurd features fiction can generate which scalers must account for. Additionally, you're arguing there's no good enough reason for the empty space outside of a standard low 2-C universe to have extra properties that would make its destruction equivalent or greater than the destruction of a space time despite the fact that in fictional settings these empty spaces hold the universe in a manner akin to how our solar system holds our planet, our galaxy holds our solar system, our galaxy cluster holds our galaxy, and so on. Therefore, they should be of similar essence to hold not only the universe, but its temporal properties as well without any problems on the empty space's end.

Not to mention the fact that destruction of the empty space would be like making an explosion/destructive event bigger than the low 2-C universe by however much bigger the empty space is then the universe so either way the scale would remain the same (i.e. if the empty space is infinitely bigger then it's 2-A in scale if we take the god's eye view I alluded to earlier). Also what examples have you even provided that a normal universe space-time continuum like our own in real life would without any pocket dimension features fit in comparatively miniscule space of any size (even a fish bowl) despite the space surrounding our continuum needing to contain the temporal axis as well. So I would appreciate it if you provided strongly evidenced scientific examples of this concept with haste that have proof of being accepted with either a strong degree of consensus in the scientific community or acceptance by reputable authorities on the matter. Also in my previous comment I see you ignored how you forgot to answer my request to link me to where a certain VSBW standard you boldly made mention of was instituted. Especially since it completely undermines your argument in the sense that by this very metric, continuums smaller than our observable universe don't qualify for Low 2-C and are thus irrelevant to the argument concerning 4D space-time continuums. Lastly, I couldn't help, but notice that you decided to go strawmanning me again as I had never claimed the container needed to have insignificant 5D nature, only that it logically should at least be 4D for containing 4D objects.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

So just as a recap you've claimed that just because our own universe has no direct proof of being surrounded by equally 4D space it then follows there's no reason for such space to surround space-time continuums in fiction. Give me a break, you can't even prove the multiverse exists, spirits, or even higher dimensions beyond the 4th. Are we then to act as though they can't work for fiction then because real life doesn't reflect or is proven to have these qualities????!!!

Your argument was:

"Typically when speaking about tier Low 2-C and the space that would hypothetically surround a Low 2-C universe we're talking about a universe like our own that is not simply trapped like a pocket dimension inside a 3D object akin to Santa's bag and surrounded by otherwise 3D space, but is instead surrounded by at least 4D space since the empty space surrounding a space-time continuum would need to be at least 4D itself to fit the continuum within it."

You made claims about our reality which aren't provable. There is no reason to base tier system on unprovable things when fiction can do whatever it wants. There is no reason why a 3D spatial universe must be contained in 4D space. Plus, we readily give subspaces Low 2-C rating for their destruction when they meet the size requirements. (And for clarification if it wasn't clear, I'm not counting time when i say 3D and 4D spaces)

I never made the claim that they can't work in fiction. I am saying, they're not the only way of doing things. We can't ignore all the examples for a singular model and then try to get higher tiers based on the technicalities of that specific model.

Additionally, logic would tell you that anything that can contain a universe complete with its time axis while standing outside said axis would be bigger than the axis as it can contain said axis.

Logic doesn't say that at all. We have many examples of spaces taking up minimal space within another space despite being extremely larger within their selves. Additionally, a subspace can have the same dimensionality as their parent space. There is no reason to believe destroying empty space in the container could be equated to destroying a universe.

Nevertheless, I don't need to go that far when the evidence itself is found in the theory of relativity which has been pretty much authoritative since forever now via Minkowski who proposed space was 4D with time as the 4th dimension. A notion that hasn't been contradicted by scientific consensus whatsoever in just about all the years of its circulation to this very day.

What is the point of bringing this up? I am aware that spacetime is 3 dimensions of space plus time. This is observable and aligns with our current standard model. Also nothing you posted says anything about the idea that our universe would be contained in 4D space which is not observable or provable.

Moving forwards, you also claim a regular universe can have pocket dimensions, but are we to suspect that every pocket dimension in a regular universe can have its own separate time axis, let alone the property of being infinite in size, or even as big as our own universe from within it despite being smaller outside. Besides, I've seen no evidence from you that even a regular universe in "real life" has pocket dimensions akin to hammer space since according to you everything in fiction must perfectly reflect reality, right?!!

I am obviously talking about fictional examples. Why would I post real world evidence for fictional factors?

And yes, we view pocket dimensions as having their own spacetime. This is why when they are bigger enough we rate them as Low 2-C, and if they aren't, we equate their destruction to their size as technicality do to practicality (to prevent characters from getting Low 2-C rating for destroying subspaces that are the size of building or planet).

, you're arguing there's no good enough reason for the empty space outside of a standard low 2-C universe to have extra properties that would make its destruction equivalent or greater than the destruction of a space time despite the fact that in fictional settings these empty spaces hold the universe in a manner akin to how our solar system holds our planet, our galaxy holds our solar system, our galaxy cluster holds our galaxy, and so on. Therefore, they should be of similar essence to hold not only the universe, but its temporal properties as well without any problems on the empty space's end.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Our solar system holds our planets via gravity. Same for galaxies and galaxy clusters. If you are talking about spacetime that holds matter and that the destruction of empty spacetime should be equal to destroying a universe, then I will go back to my previous argument:

We have verses where the destruction of universe is 2-A feat because that universe has an infinite number of subspaces. Should a universe that is spatially infinite and has a finite amount of subspaces get a 2-A rating because they have enough empty spacetime to fit infinite amount of subspaces?

Not to mention the fact that destruction of the empty space would be like making an explosion/destructive event bigger than the low 2-C universe by however much bigger the empty space is then the universe so either way the scale would remain the same (i.e. if the empty space is infinitely bigger then it's 2-A in scale if we take the god's eye view I alluded to earlier).

Again, there is no reason to assume what the destruction of a universe would look like. It can very well be an implosion.

Also what examples have you even provided that a normal universe space-time continuum like our own in real life would without any pocket dimension features fit in comparatively miniscule space of any size (even a fish bowl) despite the space surrounding our continuum needing to contain the temporal axis as well. So I would appreciate it if you provided strongly evidenced scientific examples of this concept with haste that have proof of being accepted with either a strong degree of consensus in the scientific community or acceptance by reputable authorities on the matter.

As I said above, my examples are based on examples in fiction. Not in reality as there is no examples in reality because the multiverse and subspaces don't exist as far as we know.

Also in my previous comment I see you ignored how you forgot to answer my request to link me to where a certain VSBW standard you boldly made mention of was instituted.

Post in thread 'Pocket Reality and Dimension'

Jul 17, 2022

'Fraid not, the pocket sized reality would need to be universal in size and would need to be its own space-time continuum.

Also, they'd only be a 3-D character with 4-D power.

• KLOL506

• 

Lastly, I couldn't help, but notice that you decided to go strawmanning me again as I had never claimed the container needed to have insignificant 5D nature, only that it logically should at least be 4D for containing 4D objects.

Never claimed you did. I was making a greater comment to the whole wiki.

Especially since it completely undermines your argument in the sense that by this very metric, continuums smaller than our observable universe don't qualify for Low 2-C and are thus irrelevant to the argument concerning 4D space-time continuums.

It doesn't. My original and main argument is that any space can could potentially hold an infinite amount of subspaces because subspaces can take up minimal amount of space while being larger within themselves. There is no reason other than convention to claim that a universe must take up 1:1 ratio of space.

My second argument is that destroying empty space is not equivalent to destroying a universe, because destroying empty space that size of a universe, while inside a universe, doesn't make one Low 2-C. We already give universes above Low 2-C rating for having subspaces of significant size, should these universes get 2-A rating because they can theoretically hold infinite amount of these subspaces?

Also, I won't be commenting after this. I feel as though I have said what I wanted to say, and my argument isn't going to change or would be swayed. I will leave it to the others to decide.

 

[Unoriginal777]

Your argument was:

"Typically when speaking about tier Low 2-C and the space that would hypothetically surround a Low 2-C universe we're talking about a universe like our own that is not simply trapped like a pocket dimension inside a 3D object akin to Santa's bag and surrounded by otherwise 3D space, but is instead surrounded by at least 4D space since the empty space surrounding a space-time continuum would need to be at least 4D itself to fit the continuum within it."

You made claims about our reality which aren't provable. There is no reason to base tier system on unprovable things when fiction can do whatever it wants. There is no reason why a 3D spatial universe must be contained in 4D space. Plus, we readily give subspaces Low 2-C rating for their destruction when they meet the size requirements. (And for clarification if it wasn't clear, I'm not counting time when i say 3D and 4D spaces)

I never made the claim that they can't work in fiction. I am saying, they're not the only way of doing things. We can't ignore all the examples for a singular model and then try to get higher tiers based on the technicalities of that specific model.



Logic doesn't say that at all. We have many examples of spaces taking up minimal space within another space despite being extremely larger within their selves. Additionally, a subspace can have the same dimensionality as their parent space. There is no reason to believe destroying empty space in the container could be equated to destroying a universe.


What is the point of bringing this up? I am aware that spacetime is 3 dimensions of space plus time. This is observable and aligns with our current standard model. Also nothing you posted says anything about the idea that our universe would be contained in 4D space which is not observable or provable.



I am obviously talking about fictional examples. Why would I post real world evidence for fictional factors?

And yes, we view pocket dimensions as having their own spacetime. This is why when they are bigger enough we rate them as Low 2-C, and if they aren't, we equate their destruction to their size as technicality do to practicality (to prevent characters from getting Low 2-C rating for destroying subspaces that are the size of building or planet).



I have no idea what you're talking about. Our solar system holds our planets via gravity. Same for galaxies and galaxy clusters. If you are talking about spacetime that holds matter and that the destruction of empty spacetime should be equal to destroying a universe, then I will go back to my previous argument:

We have verses where the destruction of universe is 2-A feat because that universe has an infinite number of subspaces. Should a universe that is spatially infinite and has a finite amount of subspaces get a 2-A rating because they have enough empty spacetime to fit infinite amount of subspaces?


Again, there is no reason to assume what the destruction of a universe would look like. It can very well be an implosion.


As I said above, my examples are based on examples in fiction. Not in reality as there is no examples in reality because the multiverse and subspaces don't exist as far as we know.

Post in thread 'Pocket Reality and Dimension'

Jul 17, 2022

'Fraid not, the pocket sized reality would need to be universal in size and would need to be its own space-time continuum.

Also, they'd only be a 3-D character with 4-D power.

• KLOL506

• 

Never claimed you did. I was making a greater comment to the whole wiki.



It doesn't. My original and main argument is that any space can could potentially hold an infinite amount of subspaces because subspaces can take up minimal amount of space while being larger within themselves. There is no reason other than convention to claim that a universe must take up 1:1 ratio of space.

My second argument is that destroying empty space is not equivalent to destroying a universe, because destroying empty space that size of a universe, while inside a universe, doesn't make one Low 2-C. We already give universes above Low 2-C rating for having subspaces of significant size, should these universes get 2-A rating because they can theoretically hold infinite amount of these subspaces?

Also, I won't be commenting after this. I feel as though I have said what I wanted to say, and my argument isn't going to change or would be swayed. I will leave it to the others to decide.

I was able to receive permission from LordGriffin1000 for this and any following comments and though you won't be responding to this I may as well leave my thoughts here on your last comment before moving to other conversations in the thread as a sign of my respect.

By technicality you yourself made claims about reality which are in themselves unproven. You cite the notion that there is no reason why a 3D universe must always be contained in a 4D space, when that wasn't relevant to my point. In fact I was arguing that a 4D universe should logically be contained by a space at least as large given it is the parent dimension holding the 4D dimensions provided subspace/pocket dimension shenanigans aren't occurring. So a red herring fallacy to begin with. Also if subspaces which reach the low 2-C qualification yet are in themselves still subspaces are feasible in their scaling why confuse them with normative examples of a universe which isn’t a subspace as in the case of a single timeline in a multiverse system full of timelines or a carbon copy of our own universe surrounded by say a void directly specified as being infinitely larger then it (temporal axis and all) in size.

So if your claim is that the view I espouse while not invalid is not the only way of doing things why is it that you have problems with how I stated earlier that given how subspaces/pocket dimensions are so particular in their presentation that they shouldn't impugn upon verses that typically portray space-time continuums in a straightforward manner akin to how our own universe is meant to be seen. Just as we cannot ignore all examples for a singular model blindly, if the singular model in question is meant to be representative of more average/common cases with the same tiering system showing awareness of the possible exceptions (i.e. subspaces and pocket dimensions) there shouldn't be such a grievance with the singular model being an otherwise normative standard.

So I just thought deeply about your thought process on “many examples of spaces taking up minimal space within another space despite being extremely larger in themselves” and thought to myself how that automatically would fall into the exception state I outlined in basically the very first comment I made in response to you above per pocket dimensions otherwise known as subspaces in your view (thanks for clarifying that btw). If that's not the case then basically what you're saying is that because a space is big from the perspective inside it, but small compared to the space surrounding it the space surrounding cannot be bigger than its contents which is oxymoronic as for example a galaxy would look very small compared to the observable universe, but from the perspective of existing inside the galaxy the galaxy would still be large. So I find this thought process on your part to be a very strange one at that and one I have not only already addressed, but that if it falls into what I speculate as the second sense of it your entire argument collapses in on itself from the jump.

Additionally, you're technically ignoring how if a subspace/pocket dimension can be as large as it's parent space dimensionally without stepping outside its boundaries wouldn't that too fall under the exception state clause I proposed above seeing as such a circumstance doesn't reflect what is normally or typically spoken of when considering tier 2's higher then baseline qualifications which normally concerns a universe like our own in size while additional features like an existence of a subspace are more particular context that goes outside the norm.

True, but you have shown no evidence yourself that the opposite is true in that our universe is contained by a space smaller than a 4D empty space. Given what you say pertaining to subspaces/pocket dimensions being an unproven quality logic would arguably lean in favor of the space surrounding a normal universe like our own as having the relevant dimensionality necessary to contain the 4D existence that is our space-time continuum.You ask why you'd post real world evidence and yet you're all to willing to place such an onus upon me for proving that space outside of our universe would be at least 4D to contain our 4D universe. However, I'd say my claim is a logical conclusion off of not only Occam's/common sense, but also hints in theories like the theory of general relativity which posits time as inextricably connected with space in our universe with ready implications of time being an actual physical quality/dimension which can be affected by things like gravity which means anything containing this dimension would likely need to be qualitatively the same and quantitatively bigger to even contain our 4D universe. Meanwhile, you collapsed under the onus of providing some passing evidence that our universe operates in such a way as to contain subspaces/pocket dimensions.

What I meant was that just as galaxy clusters are larger than galaxies yet encompass them so too should similar logic apply to a normative universe like our own surrounded by a larger space and not a pocket dimension/subspace circumstance. I never made claims on 2-A pertaining to subspace and went out of my way to argue pertaining to an empty space infinitely larger than a normative universe, not a subspace that happens to have Low 2-C scaling so nice strawman right there.

Now you're just nitpicking: implosion or explosion is an irrelevant distinction so long as evidence of significantly affecting the structure is present which means that it shouldn't be a problem scaling wise.

If your examples are purely based in fiction and unprovable in reality, why is it that you have such a heavy scrutiny towards my points demanding that I have evidence before I declare a standard as being generally normative for scaling? Sounds a tad hypocritical by my metric.

Fair enough if you're making a comment on the greater wiki, but you didn't do a great job making that clear when all you addressed your comment by is the statement “I will go even further and say” as though still speaking to me and building off your argument against my points without indication of a shifting or growing audience.

If your argument is concerned solely with sub spaces rather than normative universes then I suppose I have very little to say on the matter as I'm concerned more about normative universes, not pocket dimensions even though you seem to confuse the two profusely.

Destroying empty space the size of a universe inside a universe when it only concerns the spatial aspect will never be universal+ in and of itself because it didn't touch the temporal axis. A little tidbit I think you happened to miss along the way.

In any case, that sums up my overall thoughts on your final post. I hope to come across you again in future conversations during my journey here in VSBW, but for what it's worth I enjoyed this dialogue and thank you for participating with me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

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.

In my mind regarding this, I'm probably for an edited version of two.

Currently to my understanding with the wiki, any 2-C or greater space is assumed to have a 5D axis. So we already accept that they have two different 4th dimensional axis with some minor compacted 5th Dimension that's separating them. As noted in the various Tier 2 sections, having an infinite multiplier wouldn't bridge the gap between a 2-C Space with 2 universes and one with 3 universes, due to the difference in that 5th Dimension. In my mind, unless you can prove without a doubt that the 5th Dimensional space is holding an infinite number of smaller spaces, it shouldn't be rated as 2-A but however many universes have been shown to exist within that cosmology.