Problems with Dimensional Scaling

[TheUltimateGod4]

I kind of feel like dimensional scaling is to powerscaling what general relativity is to physics; it's a useful tool that works in most cases, but it breaks down once we start really considering things.

Imagine a character whose greatest feat is destroying a 5D hypercube about the size of a small building. Now imagine a different character that can destroy a multiverse containing an uncountably infinite number of space-time continuums. Is anybody seriously going to tell me, with a straight face, that these two are equal in power? I would hope not. But these two being equal is a necessary implication of dimensional scaling in it's current form. The current definition of Universal+ is as follows:

Characters or objects whose power is uncountably infinitely greater than the prior tiers. That is to say, they can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that exceed lesser objects by an uncountably infinite margin. An example of this is 4-dimensional spacetime continuums of universal size, but this can be generalized to any 4-dimensional structure of a similar scope.

You could say that adding "of a similar scope" prevents this absurdity, but really it just makes things more confusing. How do we define this in the context of a higher dimension? If a character destroys a 4D object that is only the size of a building, we could say that this disqualifies them from Universal+, but then what tier do they go in? After all, any 4D object should be uncountably infinitely larger than any 3D structure by definition, so the character should also be stronger than any High Universal character (this is, of course, assuming that the character destroyed the 4D object through raw strength rather than any kind of situational hax). The problem here is evident. This character would ideally go in some tier between High Universal and Universal+, but no such tier exists. This problem is caused by the clarification "of a similar scope", but removing this clarification leads to the absurdity of before. It seems that something else is required.

Now, I cannot currently point to an example of this situation in fiction, but this is an irrelevant point. What matters is that it can happen in fiction, and if this wiki ever encounters such a situation, our tiering system will not be able to properly categorize it. Something needs to change.

Here is my proposal to solve this; this is not entirely my idea, some of it should go to Laxxius, who devised a possible revision to the tiering system a while back. Many of his ideas were quite controversial, but there is one idea that I think would help safeguard the tiering system against problems like the one outlined above.

I believe the main issue with the tiering system's formulation of dimensional scaling is that it does not distinguish between higher-dimensional objects and higher-dimensional spaces. Destroying the fabric of space is the same as destroying a hypercube as far as the tiering system is concerned, even though this definitely should not be the case. Since spaces contain objects, spaces should necessarily be superior to all objects, regardless of size or dimensionality. Therefore, destroying a space should be a greater feat then destroying even an infinite-dimensional object. I believe that this is a safer assumption to make then assuming that spaces and objects are equivalent.

I propose a minor rework to the tiering system, unlike Laxxius's revision, I intend to minimize the disruption to the current tiering system; most of the major changes are localized to Tier 2, with some rewording required for the 1-C tiers.

Universal+ should be moved up one sub-tier, with the Low 2-C spot being taken by a new tier. I'm not quite sure what to call this tier, but it will basically be for characters who can destroy higher-dimensional objects, from 4D up to infinite-dimensional.

Universal+ should take the 2-C tier, redefined as the ability to create/destroy/significantly affect a 3D space. Temporal dimensions are not considered here; time is taken as a given. This will allow the tiering system to account for settings where general relativity either does not exist or is not mentioned (we can't assume general relativity applies to a setting unless it's explicitly brought up, FTL speed tiers make no sense with special/general relativity taken into account).

A new tier, Low 2-B, should be added for Low Multiverse level, redefined as the ability to create/destroy/significantly affect up to a thousand causally-separate 3D spaces.

2-B and 2-A should remain as they are, redefined in the same way as Low Multiverse level.

The 1-C and 1-B tiers should not change functionally, but should be redefined slightly, as the ability create/destroy/significantly affect higher-dimensional spaces.

Low 1-A and everything after it should not change, their definitions work fine.

 

[ByArrow]

I kind of feel like dimensional scaling is to powerscaling what general relativity is to physics; it's a useful tool that works in most cases, but it breaks down once we start really considering things.

Imagine a character whose greatest feat is destroying a 5D hypercube about the size of a small building. Now imagine a different character that can destroy a multiverse containing an uncountably infinite number of space-time continuums. Is anybody seriously going to tell me, with a straight face, that these two are equal in power? I would hope not.

No one is saying that.

But these two being equal is a necessary implication of dimensional scaling in it's current form. The current definition of Universal+ is as follows:

No, it is not.

You could say that adding "of a similar scope" prevents this absurdity, but really it just makes things more confusing. How do we define this in the context of a higher dimension?

It does not make it more confusing. The higher dimension is defined in the context of the higher dimension as being infinitely dimensional, like the universe.

After all, any 4D object should be uncountably infinitely larger than any 3D structure by definition, so the character should also be stronger than any High Universal character (this is, of course, assuming that the character destroyed the 4D object through raw strength rather than any kind of situational hax). The problem here is evident. This character would ideally go in some tier between High Universal and Universal+, but no such tier exists

Any 4D object is not automatically large incalculably larger than any 3D object. That why we don't directly scale any character or realm that is said to be N-dimensional.
This character should not be in any universal tier.

I believe the main issue with the tiering system's formulation of dimensional scaling is that it does not distinguish between higher-dimensional objects and higher-dimensional spaces.

Because it is not necessary.

Destroying the fabric of space is the same as destroying a hypercube as far as the tiering system is concerned, even though this definitely should not be the case.

Not always.

Since spaces contain objects, spaces should necessarily be superior to all objects, regardless of size or dimensionality. Therefore, destroying a space should be a greater feat then destroying even an infinite-dimensional object. I believe that this is a safer assumption to make then assuming that spaces and objects are equivalent.

I propose a minor rework to the tiering system, unlike Laxxius's revision, I intend to minimize the disruption to the current tiering system; most of the major changes are localized to Tier 2, with some rewording required for the 1-C tiers.

This is still a pretty gigantic overhaul.

Universal+ should be moved up one sub-tier, with the Low 2-C spot being taken by a new tier. I'm not quite sure what to call this tier, but it will basically be for characters who can destroy higher-dimensional objects, from 4D up to infinite-dimensional.

The fact that destroying a 4D cube scales higher than destroying a planet is utter nonsense unless the verse provides a mechanic, an explanation that makes it so.

Universal+ should take the 2-C tier, redefined as the ability to create/destroy/significantly affect a 3D space. Temporal dimensions are not considered here; time is taken as a given. This will allow the tiering system to account for settings where general relativity either does not exist or is not mentioned (we can't assume general relativity applies to a setting unless it's explicitly brought up, FTL speed tiers make no sense with special/general relativity taken into account).

A new tier, Low 2-B, should be added for Low Multiverse level, redefined as the ability to create/destroy/significantly affect up to a thousand causally-separate 3D spaces.

2-B and 2-A should remain as they are, redefined in the same way as Low Multiverse level.

The 1-C and 1-B tiers should not change functionally, but should be redefined slightly, as the ability create/destroy/significantly affect higher-dimensional spaces.

Low 1-A and everything after it should not change, their definitions work fine.

I disagree.

And I think this CRT should be moved to the Staff Thread as it proposes to change the system the Wiki directly works with and is quite large scale.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Imagine a character whose greatest feat is destroying a 5D hypercube about the size of a small building. Now imagine a different character that can destroy a multiverse containing an uncountably infinite number of space-time continuums. Is anybody seriously going to tell me, with a straight face, that these two are equal in power? I would hope not. But these two being equal is a necessary implication of dimensional scaling in it's current form.

The wiki page has a section that explains this is not the case.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I was asked to comment here, something that displeases me. I will begin by saying that while it is my role, and the role of all staff, to uphold the agreed upon rules and policies and philosophies of the wiki as established by the greater staff body, I do not agree with a great deal of it. Put bluntly, I believe Tier 1 is made up. I don't agree with its existence.

With that said. The OP does greatly misunderstand the policies it aims to tackle. The example regarding a "building-sized 5-D supercube" displays this well: we make a distinction between the greater plane of existence being destroyed/created/what have you versus a relatively small object of it being destroyed/created/what have you. It may be that the system is found to be confusing, which one can understand. Before this thread gets out of hand, as they often do, I will close it- to the OP, I suggest asking questions rather than suggesting changes, we have a number of users and staff who are perhaps overeager to answer them.