Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion

[Unoriginal777]

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.

This comment is done with permission from LordGriffin1000

Given your comment on the 5th dimensional axis I would like to address the fact that an assumed minor compactified 5th dimension separating 4th dimensional constructs (like time-space continuums) would make the size of said 5D axis pretty much irrelevant between universes since the whole basis of compactification with regard to dimensions is folding said infinite dimension until it's finite or entirely too small to be observed. As a result, this distance of a compactified 5th dimensional axis between universes (space-time continuums) should logically be irrelevant meaning you should be able to use an infinite multiplier on the number of universes and it still apply to tier 2-A in my opinion. Additionally, since every Low 2-C or greater space is assumed to have a 5D axis surrounding and permeating around it wouldn't this attribute of being a 5D axis apply to an empty space that is given the acclaim of being able to fit an endless/infinite amount of space-times with the evidence found in how it already encompasses some or all of that number of continuums outright? Afterall, the space surrounding any continuum is automatically 5D according to you either way meaning it should be assumed for empty space surrounding any amount of Low 2-C continuums at all. In short I feel in such a case we either end up with the space surrounding/separating any amount of continuums to either be Low 1-C outright if we ignore compactification or 2-A if we consider compactification.

 

[Qawsedf234]

As a result, this distance of a compactified 5th dimensional axis between universes (space-time continuums) should logically be irrelevant meaning

Our system is clear on how we interpret minor higher-dimensional spaces in my mind

Because the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the sub-tiers in Tier 2. As such, it is not allowed to upgrade such a character based solely on multipliers. For example, someone twice as strong as a Low 2-C character would still be Low 2-C, and someone infinitely more powerful than a 2-C would not be 2-A. This does not mean that the difference between these tiers is greater than infinite, merely that the difference is unknown.

Q: Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?​

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinitely many, won't be above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually having the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve greater than baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure dimensionally superior to a 2-A structure, the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for dimensional superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being larger than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as an accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

Unless we change our current policy, an infinite multiplier would not make a Low 2-C character 2-A. Just vaguely higher into Low 2-C. Because of that unless you can prove that the small 5th-dimensional axis can hold an infinite number of 4D spaces, my default would be going with what you can prove rather than assuming it might be much bigger.

 

[Unoriginal777]

Our system is clear on how we interpret minor higher-dimensional spaces in my mind



Unless we change our current policy, an infinite multiplier would not make a Low 2-C character 2-A. Just vaguely higher into Low 2-C. Because of that unless you can prove that the small 5th-dimensional axis can hold an infinite number of 4D spaces, my default would be going with what you can prove rather than assuming it might be much bigger.

Once again this following comment is done with permission from LordGriffin1000,

Now, you are aware that this is a revision thread which is meant to challenge/potentially revise previously held standards. As such at the risk of perhaps coming across a little crass I don't feel a good foundation for evidence of a claim on a revision thread should be solely based on the fact that the claim itself was historically upheld on the site. Additionally, it is precisely because the distance between universes is unknowable that we shouldn't also assume that the distance is this vast seemingly qualitative gap that can never be reached unless you specify that x amount of universes is already present in a multiverse of sorts for that in itself would be its own assumption. No matter if you take either view the fact remains that we're assuming the distance is either irrelevant or very much relevant. Additionally, you yourself conceded that the 5D compactified/insignificant axis that automatically exists around/between universes (not to be confused with a Low 1-C space that has nothing to do with the one which is automatically assumed as surrounding any amount of low 2-C universes past a single one by your own words) is compactified or small meaning it doesn't reflect the size a 5D axis normally would as I addressed in my previous comment which makes my case a bit stronger I'd say.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Now, you are aware that this is a revision thread which is meant to challenge/potentially revise previously held standards.

Yes and I agreed with suggestion two and not suggestion one. Because suggestion two fits better in my mind and with our other standards.

As such at the risk of perhaps coming across a little crass I don't feel a good foundation for evidence of a claim on a revision thread should be solely based on the fact that the claim itself was historically upheld on the site.

Using a fallacy to dismiss an argument is itself a fallacy. The unknown distance between those points is already accepted as being unquantifiable, so we're not able to judge the energy difference between levels. Which is why the current tier prevents multipliers from jumping gaps.

it doesn't reflect the size a 5D axis normally would as I addressed in my previous comment which makes my case a bit stronger I'd say.

I don't see it being stronger. You'd have to prove within the work that the space can hold an infinite number of difference universal spaces to get a 2-A rating. Since we already acknowledge that the gap between two Low 2-C spaces within a 5th-dimensional space isn't quantifiable to the point that multipliers can't be used, I don't see why we should use logic we already disagree with to conclude that something can contain an infinite amount of something else without evidence.

So as it stands I don't see my stance changing. Unless you can clearly show that it contains an infinite number of universes, it should only be taken as having as much as you can prove. Which is just an edited suggestion two.

 

[Unoriginal777]

Yes and I agreed with suggestion two and not suggestion one. Because suggestion two fits better in my mind and with our other standards.

Using a fallacy to dismiss an argument is itself a fallacy. The unknown distance between those points is already accepted as being unquantifiable, so we're not able to judge the energy difference between levels. Which is why the current tier prevents multipliers from jumping gaps.

I don't see it being stronger. You'd have to prove within the work that the space can hold an infinite number of difference universal spaces to get a 2-A rating. Since we already acknowledge that the gap between two Low 2-C spaces within a 5th-dimensional space isn't quantifiable to the point that multipliers can't be used, I don't see why we should use logic we already disagree with to conclude that something can contain an infinite amount of something else without evidence.

So as it stands I don't see my stance changing. Unless you can clearly show that it contains an infinite number of universes, it should only be taken as having as much as you can prove. Which is just an edited suggestion two.

As before this comment is permitted by LordGriffin1000,

A. I never dismissed your argument. Rather I argued that saying that the evidence of your claim is that it was historically upheld on this wiki is not sufficient to back said claim up in a revision thread setting. In short it's a challenge to provide evidence of why your view is more logical in this revision thread setting where previous stances can be challenged. I apologize, however, if it seemed as though I was trying to dismiss everything you said wholesale, but in all honesty my saying this is really to your benefit.

B. Since we already acknowledge that the gap between "two Low 2-C spaces within a 5th-dimensional space isn't" quantifiable (one way or another) why is it we assume it's such a qualitative difference (which is itself an assumption for quantifying the 5th dimensional space between universes) that multipliers can't be used to cover the distance. To quote the standard itself which you cited "Because the distance between any given number of universes embedded in higher-dimensional / higher-order spaces is currently unknowable, it is impossible to quantify the numerical gap between each one of the sub-tiers in Tier 2." Even the proposition that multipliers cannot be used to cover the gap between any amount of low 2-C spaces is in itself an assumption as I addressed in my previous comment. An assumption you yourself have not proven the logic of adhering to.

C. You have not addressed why compactified 5D space would even be an infinite distance or any relevant distance for that matter to any extent given the nature of compactified dimensions I alluded to earlier.

D. If a verse by the standards you yourself outlined above has "Multiversal structures past Low 2-C" then it is generally assumed they have "a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them." Albeit the distance is of a compactified 5D axis. I see no reason why a verse having the multiversal structures past low 2-C in question and a container separating/surrounding said multiversal structure wouldn't automatically have Low 1-C scaling despite its lack in distance simply on the basis of how a compactification of the dimension doesn't in itself lead to an erasure of the dimension's higher quality, but that the dimension folds in on itself as in String Theory in order to fit into finite amounts of space. Additionally, even if this wouldn't work the fact of the matter is that a compactified dimension is small enough to be irrelevant in size and shouldn't impede on being able to use multipliers in tier 2, but that's just me.