Is this still 2-A or High 2-A?

[Seventy96]

This character is able do destroy infinite number of multiverses (1 multiverse = infinite number of universes)

 

[Ogbunabali]

It depends on the cosmology. Since a multiverse should, in theory, be a 5D structure so destroying that would make you High 2-A. But "infinite number of multiverses" makes me think that might not be.

Can you be more specific?

 

[DMB_1]

If you talk about a standard 2-A multiverse, then it's not High 2.A, but rather infinitely above baseline 2-A ("at least 2-A").

There are such characters.

 

[Seventy96]

Yes, I mean standard 2-A multiverse (infinite number of 4D universes)

 

[Ogbunabali]

Destroying infinite number of universes is 2-A, but destroying a mutilversal structure (not just the universes in it but the whole itself) should be High 2-A.

 

[FloweryAlex]

Destroying infinite number of universes is 2-A, but destroying a mutilversal structure (not just the universes in it but the whole itself) should be High 2-A.

That is hardly ever assumed without in-universe justification.

And by "hardly ever" I mean "downgrade is coming for your verse" because you don't assume a multiverse has a higher dimensional axis keeping it together without proper reasons.

 

[Ogbunabali]

That is hardly ever assumed without in-universe justification.

And by "hardly ever" I mean "downgrade is coming for your verse" because you don't assume a multiverse has a higher dimensional axis keeping it together without proper reasons.

You seem to misunderstand that destroying universes i a multiverse != destroying a multiverse.

 

[FloweryAlex]

No, I am not. Did you even read the second part?

The only reason why destroying a multiverse would be High 2-A is by assuming it has a 5D axis keeping it together, which is not an assumption that you make just by the simple fact that the word multiverse is used.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I did read the second part, you're just wrong.

The default assumption is that a 5D axis (I hate that phrase) is keeping the multiverse together, you're just misunderstanding that destroying universes in a multiverse != destroying a multiverse.

The thing you say "the word multiverse is used" is in relation to destroying universes within it, not the structure itself (of if the cosmology of the verse itself contradicts this of course). In which case, yeah it isn't High 2-A, no one said it was.

 

[Andytrenom]

Destroying infinite number of infinite multiverses is 2-A, but a higher degree

 

[Udlmaster]

Destroying infinite number of infinite multiverses is 2-A, but a higher degree

Agreed.


You'd need a statement that the Multiverses are a higher level of existence than the Universes.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Destroying infinite number of infinite multiverses is 2-A, but a higher degree

It's actually infinite High 2-A unless contradicted.

You'd need a statement that the Multiverses are a higher level of existence than the Universes.

No you don't. The default assumption is that a multiversal structure is 5D. I'll point you to the requiremnt for 2-C.

"The power difference between Low 2-C and 2-C characters is not possible to exactly quantify, given that the latter category has to breach the distance between universes along a 5-dimensional axis."

 

[Andytrenom]

We don't consider "destroying a multiverse" to be "destroying the space containing a multiverse" unless stated otherwise

The feat would taken as destroying a set number of universe unless extradimensional space is actually confirmed to be destroyed

 

[Ogbunabali]

We don't consider "destroying a multiverse" to be "destroying the space containing a multiverse" unless stated otherwise
The feat would taken as destroying a set number of universe unless extradimensional space is actually confirmed to be destroyed

You're debating semantics.

Literally no one said that it's High 2-A if the feat is contradicted. At face value it would be High 2-A, that's why in my original comment I even said "It depends on the cosmology" and "Can you be more specific?"

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm not talking about High 2-A being contradicted, I'm talking about it not being a default assumption like you seem to be implying.

 

[Ogbunabali]

It is a default assumption. It's just that normally in fiction when they talk about destroying a multiverse they talk about the universes in the multiverse not the multiverse itself.

If there was a bubble and that bubble was a multiverse with infinite universes inside of it, most of the time destroying a bubble like that would give you High 2-A.

 

[Udlmaster]

No, it wouldn't, you're making the wrong assumption that 5-D = Multiversal


It doesn't, Multiversal, one with simply Infinite Universes, is always Infinite 4-D, not 5-D.

The Multiverse only functions on the 4-D axis of movement, and functions infinitely across it, adding more infinities to the 4-D axis doesn't give you 5-D no matter how many infinities you add.


If I am 49 on the 4-D axis, no matter if I become aliph 1, True Infinite or Inaccessible cardinal, I don't suddenly get another axis of movement, not matter what I do to the 4-D axis it will never change the 5-D measurement.


And so, the Multiverse with infinite Universes is just Infinite 4-D and nothing more.

 

[Ogbunabali]

No you don't. The default assumption is that a multiversal structure is 5D. I'll point you to the requiremnt for 2-C.

"The power difference between Low 2-C and 2-C characters is not possible to exactly quantify, given that the latter category has to breach the distance between universes along a 5-dimensional axis."

 

[Udlmaster]

It's flat out not on the 5-D axis, you should read my comment.

It was the first thing I said.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well according to this wiki's standards a multiversal structure is 5D, if you disagree with it make a CRT.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Udl Actually no, the multiverse is assumed to function across 5 axes, as in you will need 5 axes of measurement to describe all places in the multiverse, it's like if there are multiple 2-D circles drawn all over a 3-D cube, a single 2-D plane won't be able to contain all the circles within it.

But the circles are still 2-D like the universes are still 4-D so destroying all of them isn't considered a 5-D feat

 

[FloweryAlex]

A multiverse isn't assumed to be a singular "reality" with a space that contains infinite dimensions, and that is the interpretation needed for High 2-A.

By default a multiverse is just assumed to be a multitude of universes.

 

[Ogbunabali]

A multiverse isn't assumed to be a singular "reality" with a space that contains infinite dimensions, and that is the interpretation needed for High 2-A.
By default a multiverse is just assumed to be a multitude of universes.

You're still debating semantics. Nobody is arguing this.

 

[FloweryAlex]

No I am not. I am stating that the High 2-A definition of "multiverse" is not assumed by default. My exemple is also exactly the same as Andy's own, just without the simple exemple.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Yes we all know that there is a distinction of "destroying all universes ''in'' a multiverse" and "destroying ''a'' multiverse" as I've said multiple times.

 

[FloweryAlex]

Except that is not what I am saying. You do not assume that the multiverse is a 5 dimensional space containing universes inseide of it, period.

Destroying the multiverse isn't High 2-A unless there is a reason to assume that the Multiverse refers to a higher dimensional reality containing each universe, instead of just a multitude of universes with no "space" keeping them together.

 

[Ogbunabali]

The multiverse is a 5D space containing universes inside of it

Destroying a multiverse is High 2-A. Destroying all of the universes inside the multiverse isn't.

You keep trying to insinuate that I'm saying that destroying all of the universes inside a multiverse is = to destroying to a multiversal structure. Which it isn't and I never said it was.

There is a reason I keep saying multiversal structure. You know the thing that is 5D in itself.

Now can we please drop this circular debate and stop trying to argue semantics.

 

[FloweryAlex]

The multiverse is a 5D space containing universes inside of it

Destroying a multiverse is High 2-A. Destroying all of the universes inside the multiverse isn't.

Not by default, it isn't. It can be, depending the verse, but the multiverse is not assumed to be a multiversal structure instead of just a multitude of universes.


You keep trying to insinuate that I'm saying that destroying all of the universes inside a multiverse is = to destroying to a multiversal structure. Which it isn't and I never said it was.

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that you're base assumption is not the default, becasue the idea of the word multiverse referring to a multiversal structure is not default.

You are claiming that Multiverse= 5-D space containing universes.

I am saying that isn't the default assumption.


There is a reason I keep saying multiversal structure. You know the thing that is 5D in itself.

Yeah, I get it. But you don't assume that there is such a structure just because "multiverse" is used.


Now can we please drop this circular debate and stop trying to argue semantics.

No. Well, you can, of course, but the very point of the argument is the semathic of the word multiverse, because what you say implies something that is not an interpretation used on default.

As in, the meaning you attribute to the multiverse is something that needs to be proven by the verse.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Here we go again with the circular debate....

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that you're base assumption is not the default, becasue the idea of the word multiverse referring to a multiversal structure is not default.

Literally not once said that it did. Stop it with the straw man.

No you don't. The default assumption is that a multiversal structure is 5D. I'll point you to the requirement for 2-C.

"The power difference between Low 2-C and 2-C characters is not possible to exactly quantify, given that the latter category has to breach the distance between universes along a 5-dimensional axis."

No. Well, you can, of course, but the very point of the argument is the semathic of the word multiverse, because what you say implies something that is not an interpretation used on default.

As in, the meaning you attribute to the multiverse is something that needs to be proven by the verse.

Again for the 100th time, stop trying to argue semantics. You're arguing with yourself, no one is making the claims that you fallaciously keep claiming that they are.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I think Flowery is trying to say that the default meaning of multiverse is "a group of universes", and therefore destroying infinite multiverses is just "destroying an infinite amount of universe groups", which is why he is saying destroying infinite universes is just infinite 2-A.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Flowery.

 

[Ogbunabali]

I think Flowery is trying to say that the default meaning of multiverse is "a group of universes", and therefore destroying infinite multiverses is just "destroying an infinite amount of universe groups", which is why he is saying destroying infinite universes is just infinite 2-A.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Flowery.

To which I responded with.

Destroying a multiverse is High 2-A. Destroying all of the universes inside the multiverse isn't.

 

[Udlmaster]

@Udl Actually no, the multiverse is assumed to function across 5 axes, as in you will need 5 axes of measurement to describe all places in the multiverse, it's like if there are multiple 2-D circles drawn all over a 3-D cube, a single 2-D plane won't be able to contain all the circles within it.
But the circles are still 2-D like the universes are still 4-D so destroying all of them isn't considered a 5-D feat

Well, no.

You can still fit Circles in a 2-D plane, you can fit infinite amount if the 2-D plane is infinite. This argument reinforces the idea that they are only on the infinite 4-D axis.

As a Universe (2-D circle) can never fill up the 3-D square (Multiverse).

The Universe is only really 3-D, Time being 4-D is redicious, but for now, let's say it is:

Then the timeline is 4-D, Infinite 4-D and you have a multiverse, adding more space, more infinites doesn't give you another axis of movement.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

To which I responded with.

Destroying a multiverse is High 2-A. Destroying all of the universes inside the multiverse isn't.

Then you prove where the confusion comes in. If I interpreted Flowery correctly, then he is saying "destroying a multiverse" (with no further context to that) and "destroying everything within the multiverse" is the same thing. But should destroying a multiverse havs context (mentioning of extradimensional stuff), then Flowery would claim it is High 2-A.

Basically, this circular argument is coming from you two using different definitions of multiverses.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Then you prove where the confusion comes in. If I interpreted Flowery correctly, then he is saying "destroying a multiverse" (with no further context to that) and "destroying everything within the multiverse" is the same thing. But should destroying a multiverse havs context (mentioning of extradimensional stuff), then Flowery would claim it is High 2-A.

Basically, this circular argument is coming from you two using different definitions of multiverses.

...I know. I have adressed this multiple time.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Well sure, you have continued pointing out semantics, but I'm sure if you just elaborated on it rather than just leaving it at that, you both would have understood each other quicker.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well sure, you have continued pointing out semantics, but I'm sure if you just elaborated on it rather than just leaving it at that, you both would have understood each other quicker.

If you actually read the thread you would have noticed that I have pointed out this difference since literally my second post.

And made it explicitly clear on what a multiple universes and a mutliversal structure is and what I'm referring to when I actually use those words. I wasn't, at any point, using a headcanon definition without any further elaboration.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Udl That's your own interpretation that goes against what the wiki follows at the moment, not some fact you can enforce

I have talked this out with Donttalk before and all the articles or videos I have found regarding dimensional theory support "movement across universes requiring a 5th dimension of motion" being the common interpretation. You may talk to Dont since he would better than clearing up queries regarding this but the universes of a multiverse existing across 5 dimensions is definitely what the default assumption is right now

 

[Udlmaster]

Why would that be? From what I've seen, no one thinks that and this is the first I've heard of it.

And this is an argument from authority, as you're trying to say that some nameless videos you've seen on Higher Dimensions also somehow talks about Multiverses and that DarkLK agrees.

All of which is an argument from authority, I don't know the credibility or what they even say, so it cannot be used as an argument.

As for DarkLK, last I checked he isn't the authority on Dimensions so he cannot be used as an example either.

And finally, the "default assumption" appears to be nothing more than an argument ad populum and not one backed up by either sound argument or dimensional science.

 

[Spinoirr]

Then we need to remove high 2-A then if a Multiverse is in 5d then destroying the Multiverse males you high 2-A so every Multiverse buster and Multiverse+ buster is high 2-A now based on that logic

 

[Ogbunabali]

Then we need to remove high 2-A then if a Multiverse is in 5d then destroying the Multiverse males you high 2-A so every Multiverse buster and Multiverse+ buster is high 2-A now based on that logic

Jesus, this fallacious logic again.

Destroying a multiversal structure != destroying all universes in a multiverse.