- 17,215
- 12,655
How to ruin a tier 101He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How to ruin a tier 101He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.
This is dipping my toes into a verse I'm not familiar with, but from Yhwach & Soul King's profiles I can't tell why they're both not solidly one tier or the other. And tbh I've kinda soured on using "3-A possibly Low 2-C" when there's ambiguity over whether the creation involved all of time or not. (ofc if this is due to the scaling being dubious but plausible, or the statements being concrete but unreliable, then having a possibly is fine)He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.
There was no contradiction afaik...none were braught up on last 5 page thread.It should be something like "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline" or "This thing contradicts the idea that the past, present, and future were effected." Or in other words, if there's indications that an entire timeline was created/destroyed at once and not as a chain reaction, and if there's nothing contradicting all of space and time being effected, it should stay.
Yes in a recent thread i made about yhwach it was argued that since the dangai was referred to as a "Spacetime"then the destruction of the dangai later on in the series mean that it would be all of time and space of the dangai.Actually it'd probably be good to ask @Pain_to12
Since space-time continuum meaning all of space for all of the past, present, and future is already implied, why did you feel the need to make a thread for this? Is there a case where a feat was argued to be Low 2-C despite not affecting all of space and time, and the unclarified "space-time continuum" phrasing was used to make that argument in some way?
If we know why that came about, we can discuss ways to stop it, or explain to you why it qualifying is still acceptable.
well aside from the fact that the creation does not involve time or stated to involve time, but thats the SK and i dont really want to touch that for now.This is dipping my toes into a verse I'm not familiar with, but from Yhwach & Soul King's profiles I can't tell why they're both not solidly one tier or the other. And tbh I've kinda soured on using "3-A possibly Low 2-C" when there's ambiguity over whether the creation involved all of time or not. (ofc if this is due to the scaling being dubious but plausible, or the statements being concrete but unreliable, then having a possibly is fine)
And really, any downgrade in this area should be more nuanced than "past, present, and future" weren't mentioned. It should be something like "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline" or "This thing contradicts the idea that the past, present, and future were effected." Or in other words, if there's indications that an entire timeline was created/destroyed at once and not as a chain reaction, and if there's nothing contradicting all of space and time being effected, it should stay.
yes in fact they can be depending on the context, and so it should be clarified like i already said in the OP"Spacetime and spacetime continuum are two different things!"
No, spacetime can simply be another term used to refer to spacetime continuum.
read this thread and i promise you will find out it is not obvious to most of our usersA spacetime continuum, by its definition, includes all of space and all of time. Space definitionally encompasses up/down, left/right, and forward/backward, and time definitionally encompasses the past, present, and future. There can be more directions than three spatial and one temporal, but the point is, the past-present-future of the universe is already covered under the spacetime continuum. No need to spell out something that should be obvious to most of our users.
thanks for your help, let me wait for what other staffs thinks on thisIf that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."
My issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.If that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."
this is wrongMy issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.
If I said I have a destroyed a Planet then we don't assume that only crust is destroyed. Default fact is that everything on and inside the planet is destroyed.
Crust =/= Planet afterall.
If I identify a realm "X" as a universal sized space-time. If I destroy X...then default fact is everything encompassed by said entity would be gone, which includes space and time.
If I assume only space is destroyed on one instant then that mean there are still Uncountably Infinite more instants of space intact, which means the by and large said entity is still virtually completely intact, which contradicts the event of destruction of "X".
Unless Universe is different in both cases...what you say is paradoxical.you dont have to destroy all of the time(past, present and future) of a universe to destroy the universe as there wont be a 3A then.
That would make all universal destruction feats, as all universes have time, and thus are Low 2-C. But that's not how we treat things on the wiki, because purely physical destruction that doesn't affect the past/future is common.My issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.
If I said I have a destroyed a Planet then we don't assume that only crust is destroyed. Default fact is that everything on and inside the planet is destroyed.
Crust =/= Planet afterall.
If I identify a realm "X" as a universal sized space-time. If I destroy X...then default fact is everything encompassed by said entity would be gone, which includes space and time.
If I assume only space is destroyed on one instant then that mean there are still Uncountably Infinite more instants of space intact, which means the by and large said entity is still virtually completely intact, which contradicts the event of destruction of "X".
This is incorrect, destruction of all physical matter in a universe would have no effect on the past of the universe, but it would stop there from being any matter in the future of the universe.destruction of a single element can cause chain reaction that would in turn mean destruction of the whole set. destruction of all physical matter in a universe would cause chain reaction that would delete the past of the universe and the future of the universe would also stop exisitng
Universe as we define will not be same as universe as defined by fiction all the time.That would make all universal destruction feats, as all universes have time, and thus are Low 2-C. But that's not how we treat things on the wiki, because purely physical destruction that doesn't affect the past/future is common.
I have no problems with chain reactions...I know destroying space+matter in present will make causality ensure its future will gone. I never proposed a low2C for this. I know past section of timeline is still intact.Even if part of it is in-tact, that's just in the past, it no longer is in-tact. The future stuff remains destroyed as a chain reaction, not requiring direct interference in the future.
Not in technicality.I think it is pretty intuitive to say that destroying all matter in every timeline in the multiverse 15 billion years after time started, is in fact destroying the multiverse.
That would be moreso determining the nature of realm, something that should be done before analyzing any feat involving said realm. Since afterall one must identify the entity before determining how it is being affected before it is rated.Also, that isn't how these things are usually defined. They're not defined as "Bajookiestan is the entirety of this space-time construct", they'd just say "Bajookiestan is a different space-time to this one" or "Bajookiestan has a separate time from Gazorpzorp." The realm's identifier is rarely used to exclusively include the entirety of its time.
Every universe is a spacetime. Saying "our universe has space and time" and "our reality is a spacetime" are equivalent statements, neither of which would make "I can destroy the universe" a Low 2-C statement.If the bleach universe is called a spacetime and contains 2 other universal sized universes in it isn't it low 2-C to destroy it or possibly Low 2C?
Is Dangai (a space time) itself is getting destroyed or just the contents (two universes) inside it ? If the latter then no.If dangai contains 2 universes inside if it doesn't destroying all of it at the same time makes it a possible low 2-C?
Destroying everything inside a space-time that contains two universes, without affecting the past or future (i.e. at one point in time), is just 3-A. It is a small-scale quilted multiverse feat.If dangai contains 2 universes inside if it doesn't destroying all of it at the same time makes it a possible low 2-C?
Universe from our veiwer perspective yes....from fictions perspective it could just be a single instant of a timeline..an infintismal slice of whole timeline..i.e they do constitute to time. We do this case by case basis from what I know. Unless fiction tells us universe is timeline or Space-Time continuum, we don't assume their size to low2C.No fictional universe is 3-A, the have time.
The example you gave would be matter destruction on a 2A range. Would lead to a High3A result.This is a bad general standard to set for fiction as a whole.
I still standby my point. I don't find this baseless.If it's ultra-explicit then sure, but I don't think that's super common, and is more often than not baselessly assumed. Thus, we should try to move the culture towards being more critical of these sorts of feats
This logic can be used fairly for lower tiers as well.Every universe is a spacetime. Saying "our universe has space and time" and "our reality is a spacetime" are equivalent statements, neither of which would make "I can destroy the universe" a Low 2-C statement.
this is false equivalenceIn any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.
Prove it is.this is false equivalence
sigh, it is pointless to argue this with you. this has always been the standard no one is trying to change i just said they should clarify it betterProve it is.
yhwach has his "possibly 2c" rating because he was going to undo the 2c cosmology the soul king createdUniverse from our veiwer perspective yes....from fictions perspective it could just be a single instant of a timeline..an infintismal slice of whole timeline..i.e they do constitute to time. We do this case by case basis from what I know. Unless fiction tells us universe is timeline or Space-Time continuum, we don't assume their size to low2C.
Also I would never say fictional universes(from our perspective) to be existing as timeless.
My bad, my statement was too general. I'm not educated enough to discuss this point, I don't know whether one snapshot of the universe being the only thing that exists is actually something metaphysically possible, and if it is possible, I don't know how much that conflicts with our standard assumptions for verses.
The example you gave would be matter destruction on a 2A range. Would lead to a High3A result.
I didn't specify infinite timelines, but if there were infinitely many it would be High 3-A yeah. I think I'd disagree with 2-A range, since it doesn't demonstrate the capability to strike anywhere in time in those timelines, I'd consider it Interdimensional.
I still standby my point. I don't find this baseless.
I didn't say your point was baseless, I said your point seems more-often-than-I'd-like implemented without a base.
This logic can be used fairly for lower tiers as well.
In any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.
Should we consistently apply this logic accross all the boards??
I think "planet" tends to include the mantle and core, but there are many cases where context indicates that it doesn't, and in those cases we don't include those. Characters who "destroy the world" by killing everyone on it, rather than literally being planet-busting.
its possiblly 2c because he have no idea as to how he was gonna do it we just know that he was going to undo the 2c cosmologyHe has possibly Low 2-C, not possibly 2-C.
And why would it only be possibly if we know he was going to undo a cosmology we know is tier 2?
Why is Soul King 3-A to Low 2-C if we know the cosmology is tier 2?
The ratings may not be wrong, but the justifications are bad for not answering these questions. It should explain the evidence for the 3-A end, and the evidence for the Low 2-C end, and why the evidence for the Low 2-C end could work but is dubious. The current ratings just say "Soul King split the universe into other universes" and "Yhwach can destroy and sustain realms", telling us nothing about the relative merits of those two ratings.
i will very much like it for everyone to stop bringing bleach to this, but this will be tackled later, the soul king would also likely lose his possibly low 2c ratingyhwach has his "possibly 2c" rating because he was going to undo the 2c cosmology the soul king created
Then its should be clarified on page with full honesty that we use logical fallacy for universal standards exclusively. We acknowledge universes as space-time continuums(Low2C) by default but destruction of said universe(low2C) should be 3A.this has always been the standard no one is trying to change i just said they should clarify it better
A universe. Past, present and future of A Universe. You unknowingly committed a tactical error by using that preposition.how would you equate the asking for proof that all the past and future of a universe was destroyed
In fact it covers low2C destruction for both types of Universes(3A or low2C).Simple way of attaining Low2C is destroying 3A or higher sized 3D structure accross past, present and future. Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which is defined as atleast an universal or higher sized spacetime.
If proof is required to show that for low2C destruction we need prove past, present and future inside a Universe(Low2C) was destroyed simultaneously....how would you equate the asking for proof that all the past and future of a universe was destroyed to asking for proof a mantle or core of a planet was destroyed?
for one if the mantle or core of a planet was not destroyed, it will not be 5B, but ranging from High 6A - low 5B,
so yes if you cannot prove the core and mantle of a planet was affected you are not planet level.
I am not derailling technically....thread was already derailed with discussion of Bleach which I am not responsible for...I am asking for a candid clarification to be written on page...on why and under which logic we determine destruction of Universe(Low2C) requires extra proof of ""destruction of past, present and future"" which is already contained inside it.anyway this is derailing as no one is trying to change the standards, you not understanding the standards and not trying to understand it is no one's fault
here's the post made explaining the cosmologyHe has possibly Low 2-C, not possibly 2-C.
And why would it only be possibly if we know he was going to undo a cosmology we know is tier 2?
Why is Soul King 3-A to Low 2-C if we know the cosmology is tier 2?
The ratings may not be wrong, but the justifications are bad for not answering these questions. It should explain the evidence for the 3-A end, and the evidence for the Low 2-C end, and why the evidence for the Low 2-C end could work but is dubious. The current ratings just say "Soul King split the universe into other universes" and "Yhwach can destroy and sustain realms", telling us nothing about the relative merits of those two ratings.
for the FAQ pageIf that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."
From what I know we allow fictions to determine their definition of universe.My bad, my statement was too general. I'm not educated enough to discuss this point, I don't know whether one snapshot of the universe being the only thing that exists is actually something metaphysically possible, and if it is possible, I don't know how much that conflicts with our standard assumptions for
Depends of delivery and nature of attack technically.I didn't specify infinite timelines, but if there were infinitely many it would be High 3-A yeah. I think I'd disagree with 2-A range, since it doesn't demonstrate the capability to strike anywhere in time in those timelines, I'd consider it Interdimensional
World has fluid meaning depending om verse and context...it can mean society, planet, universe, multiverse, Outerverse...anything really. But destroying said world will destroy anything contained within it no matter what it is.think "planet" tends to include the mantle and core, but there are many cases where context indicates that it doesn't, and in those cases we don't include those. Characters who "destroy the world" by killing everyone on it, rather than literally being planet-busting.
AKm sama stated destroying 2 universes simultaneously is 2-C(no mention of time being destroyed) so why does destroying a construct which contains 2 other space-time continuums = 3A (at the same time).Destroying everything inside a space-time that contains two universes, without affecting the past or future (i.e. at one point in time), is just 3-A. It is a small-scale quilted multiverse feat.
AKM would be wrong on that, then. Destroying the matter in 2 universes simultaneously is just 3-A, and can be even be calced. High 3-A's description even explicitly mentions destroying infinitely many universes. Wouldn't it be weird for destroying 2 universes to be 2-C, but destroying infinitely many to only be High 3-A?AKm sama stated destroying 2 universes simultaneously is 2-C(no mention of time being destroyed) so why does destroying a construct which contains 2 other space-time continuums = 3A (at the same time).
Under same logic, I fail to see why a universe in fiction determined explicitly to be a Spacetime continuum be treated to different standards and be unfairly given 3A upon their destruction."What if the context is explicit that it's the entire planet?" Well I've already given you the answer for that
It is because we don’t know if they actually destroying time or not unless with explicit proof and such.Under same logic, I fail to see why a universe in fiction determined explicitly to be a Spacetime continuum be treated to different standards and be unfairly given 3A upon their destruction.
My problem is this contradiction in logic for both cases. My intention was to demonstrate this exactly...and my request is either we acknowledge this descripency and carry on as it is...by giving cadid reasons on FAQ page for this logical contradiction....or we do something to address this inconsistency in logic.