Multiversal Revisions: 2-C Standards and Logical Progression

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And I disagree with Medeus' interpretation that baseline 2-C being infinitely above Low 2-C. People here are now swinging too further in the opposite direction of the OP. It's neither one nor the other. The actual gap is just large, and unquantifiable. Its best not to try to think too hard on specifics.

In fact, I disagree with basically everything that Medeus said. Specially the whole "3 layers of infinity". It feels rather pretentious, and overanalyzing.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Distance obviously does matter. The reason MSS is so far above SS is the distance.

Conventional distance doesn't work the same in higher tiers, though. A 5-D plan is two dimensional axes above our 3-D universe. "Measurement" wouldn't be the same as we know it to be.

Just to be clear to all of y'all, I am fine with my suggestions being rejected, I just want some consistency and transparency in how we deal with Tier 2.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I frankly just find this whole "5D axis" thing confusing. Since when do you obligatorily need to cross those to move through a multiverse, say?

Seems like, with a lot of things, we took an example from one fiction and generalized it to all of it.

 

[Jobbo]

It should more or less be the same as the distance we're familiar with, just not along the axes we know.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Another issues is that even if IRL universes vary in distance, in the cosmolgy of individual verses this may not be the case.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I would also like if we do not idolize one user as "The most intelligent" and ignore the solutions others proposed. Aeyu and Kepekley have been more reasonable, and insightful in this thread than any other I feel. It is often best to work on a group effort, rather than to halt discussion and wait for someone to come, treating them as some kind of guru.

 

[Jobbo]

Another thing is it's incredibly rare for fiction to specify the distance between universes. The only verse I've ever seen do this is the Archie Sonic series.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Matt

I agree. I'm sure DontTalk has insightful information, but the rest of us should not stop discussion in the mean time. For all we know we very well may be able to come to a satisfying conclusion before his arrival, and we wouldn't know if we just sat down and waited.

We can't treat any member as some sort of demi-God of the Wiki.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, DontTalk has a talent for understanding advanced concepts and expressing them in an easily understood manner, and together with DarkLK largely built the foundations for our current system. He is extremely useful to have around in related discussions.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It's worth pointing out that what DontTalk and DarkLK did was help shape the system in 2015. 3 years ago. It has now gone through numerous revisions, and it isn't 100% what was intended back then anymore.

So it is unwise to act as if they or anyone else are Sages, or "Experts" (I absolutely hate that term, even when used to refer to me) of something. Best to look at everyone as individuals.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Well, DontTalk has a talent for understanding advanced concepts and expressing them in an easily understood manner, and together with DarkLK largely built the foundations for our current system. He is extremely useful to have around.

I genuinely disagree with DontTalk being able to express things in an easily understood manner. Sorry. I get the opposite feeling, personal opinion.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not remotely saying that everybody else, including me, have no important insights to offer, just that DontTalk has had a real talent for helping out with analysing these types of concepts, and was one of the people who helped define them in the first place.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

And nobody is denying that, we are saying that you feeling the need to say this on every single post where you mention him, in every single thread (You're even doing this right now) feels eerily close to a cult of personality.

And I don't think that's beneficial for the wiki as a whole. It glorifies certain users while neglecting and ignoring others. It runs the risk of pushing people away, and making the website seem like a circlejerk.

Legit, if you want to call DontTalk, just say. "I will ask DontTalk to comment on this thread". No need to go "I am going to ask DontTalk to comment, as I greatly value his opinion as he is one of the most knowledgeable and most intelligent members on this wiki who helped create our tiering system!"

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

Easily understood compared to his level. Or at least I usually find his explanations very clarifying.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew

Well, I just have a very good experience with their ability to build our system, and don't want to accidentally mess up our foundations.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Okay, but that wasn't the point of my post at all. My point is that you could at least try not to appear as if you are idolizing certain users over others. After years of you constantly doing that on numerous threads, it starts to annoy people, staff included.

I say this not out of malice, or anger, or for "being against the Wiki" (Which is also a bad thought. Constructive Criticism is given when someone is in favor of something improving), but because I want a better environment for the future.

Regardless, thread is derailing and I need to go to bed.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, I definitely greatly appreciate the help of the entire staff, but my main talent lies in organisation, i.e. trying to find the staff and regular members who are good in different areas and asking them to contribute there when necessary.

DontTalk and DarkLK don't make a lot of edits, but they are very good at building foundations. However, since they don't make a lot of edits, they are not well known, so I sometimes see the need to remind people who don't know about them why I trust their expertise in a certain area. That is all.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will try to tone it down, but see my last post regarding the reasons. I don't consider them as inherently better than everybody else in the staff. I have just noticed that they have a great expertise in these specific areas.

 

[PaChi2]

Is there a consensus

 

[Rikimarox2]

I Just want 2-C Goku, Is that alot to ask for?

 

[AKM sama]

I like OBD's tiering system for these higher tiers due to it being more simple, easy to understand and flexible. Just sayin'

 

[Agnaa]

@DDM Your "three levels of infinity" thing has a few misunderstandings of the process.

The gap between one universe and two universes isn't infinite, it's unquantifiable. We don't know how much it would take to bridge that gap.

The gap between a finite number of universes and an infinite number is, well, infinite, infinite as you know it.

However, the difference between infinite universes and 5-D is technically uncountably infinite (simple explanation of uncountable sets here). Technically because this is such an awfully specific requirement that no piece of fiction would meet it, so it's generally waived in favor of a character needing to be inhabit a sort of superior realm to an infinite multiverse.

Or in short, the difference between dimensions is only one infinity, but that's uncountable infinity.

 

[Aeyu]

@AKM

>Liking OBD's tiering system

No.

@Agnaa

We can calculate it to some degree depending on the type of multiverse.

 

[Agnaa]

@Aeyu Sure, it's not unquantifiable due to being impossible for anyone to ever calculate ever, but it's impossible due to it being impossible (according to our current knowledge) to get the knowledge required to calculate it.

Even if we did assume a certain type of multiverse, we would be able to get certain ratios, but they'd be dependent on two quantities, neither of which we can calculate.

What I mean is, destroying one universe would be X (universe destruction quantity), while destroying two would be 2X (for two universes) + Y (for the distance between). (Hell, it could be one of many other conceivable and non-arbitrary variations of this.)

The problem being, even if we can tell how the universe destruction energy and how the distance between universes energy change as we pile on more universes, we can't tell their size relative to each other.

 

[Aeyu]

Ultimately what I'm saying boils down to the fact that the difference between 3-A and Low 2-C isn't three levels of infinity.

 

[Magi_Hussie]

@Aeyu But most likely has to do with having a level of power that is "beyond their understanding" or "superior & incomprehensive" to a 3D being.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Limited 4D power is high universal (i.e. destroying the universal future, but not the present or past)

Why is Solaris 2-C for destroying the past, present, and future then?

The past present and future of ONE timeline is Low 2-C


Solaris does it to multiple timelines.

 

[Agnaa]

Ultimately what I'm saying boils down to the fact that the difference between 3-A and Low 2-C isn't three levels of infinity.

Yes. I think DDM was saying the difference between Low 2-C and High 2-A was three levels of infinity, which it isn't, it's only one incredibly infinite level of infinity.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Actually, just by having infinite space your hypervolume is already infinite. A cilinder with infinite volume can be made which is one centimeter tall but has an infinite radius, it doesn't have to be endless in all dimensions it is made of. Destroying an infinitely large universe is 2-A.

Without crossing the 5D axis, that's just Low-2C, because that's the power necessary to wipe out an entire continuum's past, present, and future.

 

[Antvasima]

In any case, as I keep repeating, all important revision discussions for our fundamental standards should preferably be kept as staff only. Otherwise they turn very chaotic and unmanageable, with too many responses to efficiently keep track of, which is extremely taxing for me to deal with on top of all my other tasks.

Given just how incredibly hard I have to work every single day to keep this place somewhat organised, I would appreciate if the rest of the staff would show me some consideration in this regard.

 

[Antvasima]

More importantly, the more chaotic that a discussion turns, the more chance there is that it will lead to very unwise conclusions, and that is potentially dangerous for the wiki if it concerns our fundamental standards and conveniences.

 

[Naim_Ishtiak_Ahmed]

Each franchise has it's own concepts. Dragon Ball never introduced dimensional concepts. And in DB the multiverse itself appears to be a single timeline. The reason there are two Zenos. & I don't think Trunk's timeline was erased either. Because if that had happened the timeline itself would never have existed to start with

 

[Kepekley23]

I'm up again.

Have we arrived on a consensus? I feel like our system already works as it is, if a bit unexplained.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that we agreed to keep the system as it is, but possibly improve on our explanation for it.

I have also asked DontTalk to give input, since he helped to define these standards for us in the first place.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I did say at the end of my post that I could be right or wrong. So thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding. Still, higher infinities in general is a rather dubious concept that's very difficult to wrap your head around; it's an endless cycle of characters possess power greater than infinity but not actually infinity do to not being top tier. And we've already heard complaints about dimensional tiering and are aware that there are some characters with access to 5-D power despite not the amount of 3-D power being Planet level at best. Those characters count more so as having upper-dimensional hax.

Anyway, I still like the tiering system the way it is; and it's not going through any major changes anytime soon. Anyway, let's wait for DonTalk and we shouldn't derail the thread. Though, aren't threads like these generally suppose to be on Staff Discussion Board?

 

[Kepekley23]

It's not actually hard to wrap up around once you simply discard a multiplier-based system, which requires multiplying something unquantifiable, to focus on feats and statements. That way, all angles are reconciled, such as the narrative, the level of power the characters have actually shown (A Low 2-C doesn't get randomly upgraded to 2-C because him clashing with another Low 2-C was going to destroy two universes) and consistency.

In that case, our system is excellent as it is. Only the explanation needs to be fleshed out. We don't have to look too hard at stuff that isn't actually that hard to settle.

 

[DodoNova2]

So if a Low 2-C possesse the Power of 3 Low 2-C, he become 2-C?

And if a characters One Shot dozen of Low 2-C, he become 2-C too?

 

[Kepekley23]

No.

 

[LordGinSama]

Everyone on this thread be like

 

[DodoNova2]

No.

luckily, if it works like this, it would make things weird