Question about tier 2

[XXKINGXX69]

Why do we assume destroying the multiverse is low multiversal to higher depending on how large it is, but destroying the universe is just tier 3? It seems pretty weird to assume destroying a multiverse would instantly mean it includes time, but a universe doesn't

 

[Cat275]

interesting question.

Following.

 

[PrinceofPein]

An inconsistency in the tiering system that should and will be eventually fixed.
I think people are working on it

 

[XXKINGXX69]

I think people are working on it

Source?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Source?

"Bro trust me"

 

[NIK_FARIS]

Why do we assume destroying the multiverse is low multiversal to higher depending on how large it is, but destroying the universe is just tier 3? It seems pretty weird to assume destroying a multiverse would instantly mean it includes time, but a universe doesn't

- we don’t consider multiverse as a quilted multiverse unless it proof to go to that direction.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

- we don’t consider multiverse as a quilted multiverse unless it proof to go to that direction.

Scans?

 

[PrinceofPein]

- we don’t consider multiverse as a quilted multiverse unless it proof to go to that direction.

Quilted or not
the thing between two universes are supposed to be default voids not some 5D space

 

[Deleted member 16409]

I think that 3-A is just destroying all matter inside of Universe.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Proof of time being affected is needed according to wiki standards. This is because universal destruction can refer to both the observable universe and the space time continuum but one is universe level and the other is universe level+. The standard assumption when no more context is given then is the low ball option.

This proof is not required for affecting more than one universe because affecting more than one space time requires affecting the 4D axis in the first place.

 

[AshMcXuelan23]

Yeah this is a bit weird

Following

 

[CosmicWreck]

You can destroy a multiverse and still be 3-A if the universes are in the same space-time continuum.

As long as the universes are depicted as being separate cosmological structures they are tier 2 though a lot of multiversal characters are from verses without this proof so it is kind of weird.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

You can destroy a multiverse and still be 3-A if the universes are in the same space-time continuum.

That's not even relevant here, nobody cares about a multiverse in the same space-time continuum

 

[CosmicWreck]

How is it irrelevant? My point was:

Why do we assume destroying the multiverse is low multiversal to higher depending on how large it is, but destroying the universe is just tier 3?

We don't. Tiers 3 and above have multiple contexts and connotations to decide whether or not the tiering is relevant.

It seems pretty weird to assume destroying a multiverse would instantly mean it includes time, but a universe doesn't

And the only thing weird about it is that some verses don't go into depth about their cosmologies but once again, we don't assume that.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

How is it irrelevant? My point was:

We don't. Tiers 3 and above have multiple contexts and connotations to decide whether or not the tiering is relevant.

And the only thing weird about it is that some verses don't go into depth about their cosmologies but once again, we don't assume that.

We do, almost any 2B and higher feat is li

 

[Kowalski]

We only assume that destroying multiple universes entirely is a tier 2 feat, only if they are defined by 4-dimensional space (ℝ^4). However for tier 3, or in particular 3-A , namely "Universe level", it requires a destruction of any 3-dimensional (ℝ^3) space whose volume is equivalents to the observable universe's volume, ranged finitely. The problem here is that people often misunderstood the tier's name as the actual baseline requirement; 3-A is yet still in the framework of ℝ^3, but it somehow was put as a universe level (?), if supposing that the cosmological model this wiki utilized as a standard is the ΛCDM Big Bang model, which is composed of three main constants: cosmological constant (energy density that causes the acceleration of our universe, applied as one of the pieces of general relativity), cold dark matter (just another type of unquantifiable dark matter), and the ordinary matter (matter of our daily objects), then the tier 3-A shouldn't be named with "universe level" and only be defined by ℝ^3, because the actual universe's structures so far already exceeded that level.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

We only assume that destroying multiple universes entirely is a tier 2 feat, only if they are defined by 4-dimensional space (ℝ^4). However for tier 3, or in particular 3-A , namely "Universe level", it requires a destruction of any 3-dimensional (ℝ^4) space whose volume is equivalents to the observable universe's volume, ranged finitely. The problem here is that people often misunderstood the tier's name as the actual baseline requirement; 3-A is yet still in the framework of ℝ^3, but it somehow was put as a universe level (?), if supposing that the cosmological model this wiki utilized as a standard is the ΛCDM Big Bang model, which is composed of three main constants: cosmological constant (energy density that causes the acceleration of our universe, applied as one of the pieces of general relativity), cold dark matter (just another type of unquantifiable dark matter), and the ordinary matter (matter of our daily objects), then the tier 3-A shouldn't be named with "universe level" and defined by ℝ^3 because the structures already exceeded that level.

neerrrrrrrrd

 

[XXKINGXX69]

We only assume that destroying multiple universes entirely is a tier 2 feat, only if they are defined by 4-dimensional space (ℝ^4). However for tier 3, or in particular 3-A , namely "Universe level", it requires a destruction of any 3-dimensional (ℝ^4) space whose volume is equivalents to the observable universe's volume, ranged finitely. The problem here is that people often misunderstood the tier's name as the actual baseline requirement; 3-A is yet still in the framework of ℝ^3, but it somehow was put as a universe level (?), if supposing that the cosmological model this wiki utilized as a standard is the ΛCDM Big Bang model, which is composed of three main constants: cosmological constant (energy density that causes the acceleration of our universe, applied as one of the pieces of general relativity), cold dark matter (just another type of unquantifiable dark matter), and the ordinary matter (matter of our daily objects), then the tier 3-A shouldn't be named with "universe level" and only be defined by ℝ^3, because the structures already exceeded that level.

I'm not reading that