Snowy's Mom upgrade and Fuku downgrade

[Verivici]

Snowy's Mom: Frisk doesn't have normal human durability, his is much higher and the very fact that she managed to do damage to him/her/they/hen/it/whatever puts her much higher than Below Average Human.

Fuku: Was stated to have more energy than a small universe, which puts them at Multi-Galaxy Level+

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the universe could have been just slightly smaller than ours, so it could be closer to universe level, but I suppose that High Multi-Galaxy level could be an idea instead.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

So downgrade Fuku and upgrade whoever the hell Snowy's Mom is(the hell?), yeah?

 

[The_Everlasting]

Snowy's Mom is referring to Snowdrake's Mother, one of the Amalgamates from Undertale.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Snowy's Mom is referring to Snowdrake's Mother, one of the Amalgamates from Undertale.

Hey man, i wasn't able to look over all the characters at the Undertale wikia~

Edit: Oh wth, i didn't know we had a page for them~

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Edit: Oh wth, i didn't know we had a page for them~

You're welcome. lol

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Anyway, for Snowdrake's mother, I'm not gonna upgrade her to like...tier 7, as Frisk was pretty obviously COMPLETELY unwilling to hurt her due to her being in obvious pain and distress, but I suppose At least Wall level+ would be fine, which is what base Frisk's durability is. Would anyone be opposed to this?

 

[The_Everlasting]

Meh, I think that can work, but maybe remove the "at least" due to how minimal the damage was.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Probably.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Same with what EV said.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Well, the universe could have been just slightly smaller than ours, so it could be closer to universe level, but I suppose that High Multi-Galaxy level could be an idea instead.

So downgrade Fuku to 3-B then?

 

[Antvasima]

Pretty much.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Okay, i'll do Fuku now then/

 

[Verivici]

Since Fuku's small universe thingy is apparently scaled from the size of the full universe rather than the observable one (and we use the observable universe as the lower limit for 3-A), shouldn't "At least" 3-B be more appropriate?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not think that we do use the observable universe as a gauge for 3-A.

On instruction from DontTalk, Pre-Crisis Superman only receive "At least 3-B" despite vastly exceeding the required energy to destroy it, for example.

In addition, as far as I know, the universe does not contain anywhere nearly as much energy as it would take to destroy all matter within it.

 

[Verivici]

I do not think that we do use the observable universe as a gauge for 3-A.

On instruction from DontTalk, Pre-Crisis Superman only receive "At least 3-B" despite vastly exceeding the required energy to destroy it, for example.

In addition, as far as I know, the universe does not contain anywhere nearly as much energy as it would take to destroy all matter within it.

3-A: Universe level

This category is separated in the following manner:

Universe level: Characters who can destroy all of the physical matter within an observable universe at full power. More specifically, usually via an explosion, omnidirectional energy blast, or a shockwave, that encompasses all of the stars and planets within a universe.

High Universe level: Characters who have an infinite degree of 3-dimensional power. Alternately 4-dimensional power that is shown as completely qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional beings, but is less than universal in scale. Or that allows them to create large parts of a universal continuum. Take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. We probably have to do something about that description. Because going by various discussions with DontTalk, we seem to currently have much stricter standards.

I will inform him about this thread.

 

[Verivici]

So uh

Guess Amitabha goes back to At least 3-B then

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it can probably stay at 3-A, given how ridiculously larger it is.

 

[Verivici]

But according to a model of the full universe's size the full universe is in excess of $ 10^{10^{10^{122}}} $ times larger than the observable universe, which would make Amitabha incomprehensibly puny in comparison

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. Perhaps you are correct. Let's wait for DontTalk to reply.

It is possible that we should remove the link to the observable universe calculation from the tiering system page, in order to avoid confusion.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

@HIT But why use THIS model over the smaller ones? We should settle for one model instead of being like "There is like ONE model that is many time bigger than this".

 

[Verivici]

Considering that DontTalk has strongly disagreed with the premise of the calc and considers it a poor estimation of the energy to bust the observable universe, yeah I'm pretty sure that would be a good idea

 

[Verivici]

@HIT But why use THIS model over the smaller ones? We should settle for one model instead of being like "There is like ONE model that is many time bigger than this".

Why should we blindly cling to one model which isn't proven?

We should consider all possibilities

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Yeah but saying that Ami isn't 3-A because he is smaller than one model, while he is much larger than some models doesn't make much sense to me.

Like, would someone 3-A need to be equal or larger than the largest finite model?

If we consider all possibilities, just using the highest end doesn't seem like that good of an idea.

 

[Verivici]

Yeah but saying that Ami isn't 3-A because he is smaller than one model, while he is much larger than some models doesn't make much sense to me.

Like, would someone 3-A need to be equal or larger than the largest finite model?

If we consider all possibilities, just using the highest end doesn't seem like that good of an idea.

That's why I'm saying "At least 3-B"

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

So "At least 3-B" would apply to beings much above 3-B but doesn't exactly qualify for 3-A? As long as it's not treated as just 3-B I'm alright with it.

Tho we still need some sort of scale for 3-A. Since just "Univere" is too vague given the wildy varying potential size for it.

 

[Verivici]

So "At least 3-B" would apply to beings much above 3-B but doesn't exactly qualify for 3-A? As long as it's not treated as just 3-B I'm alright with it.

Tho we still need some sort of scale for 3-A. Since just "Univere" is too vague given the wildy varying potential size for it.

Well, you could just scrap Universe level altogether and lump everything above 8E68 J as "Multi-Galaxy level" but that's in no way a reasonable option now

And due to the problem of objects that are behind other objects etc. you can't calc the energy required to destroy the observable universe, the universe according to 1 model, etc

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

Yeah that much I know, tho still having a minimum size for an universe to be destroyed to be 3-A. Since some people could consider "The observable universe" as the universe, while some may think of 3-A as infinite universe etc.

 

[Verivici]

Yeah that much I know, tho still having a minimum size for an universe to be destroyed to be 3-A. Since some people could consider "The observable universe" as the universe, while some may think of 3-A as infinite universe etc.

So, what is it you propose then?

And while we're doing this, can we add the Under Revision template to Amitabha's page?

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

I'm not too knowledgable about this, but would the smallest REASONABLE model for the universe fit? Since most universes would vary between this and infinite in size.

Isn't this thread getting off-topic a bit? Pretty sure we had threads about this before.

 

[Verivici]

It's a waste of time to make a new thread about it tbth, we had another discussion about this on a completely irrelevant talk page

And "reasonable" depends on the scientific accuracy of the model, not the size of the model tbth

I'm firmly in support of the idea that we should just use the size of the full universe for "universe" level and then just shrug our shoulders and list only characters who blatantly destroyed or damaged the full universe as universe level

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I have removed "observable" from the 3-A description.

 

[Verivici]

So should I edit Amitabha's page to become "3-B to 3-A"?

 

[Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer]

That is a weird choice, but it should be purely the true universe, not what one entity can observe from it

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that "At least 3-B" would be acceptable, but would still prefer if we wait for DontTalk.

 

[Verivici]

That is a weird choice, but it should be purely the true universe, not what one entity can observe from it

The observable universe isn't technically what we can observe with modern tech tho

It's the portion of the universe which it is possible to, in principle, observe since the light has had time to reach us since the beginning of the universe

 

[DontTalk]

For the tiering page "observable Universe" was a proper choice, I think.

The observable universe is basically the standard safe-lowbound guess in regards to finite universes, which is why it for example is the thing used when a character is stated to fly from one end of the universe to another.

What I disagreed with is the calculated energy requirement for destroying the observable universe, which likely is better left uncertain. Things that can obviously destroy something of that size in practice can in my opinion be rated as universe level.

 

[Verivici]

So if a character performs a feat in which they destroy a portion of the full universe, they are "At least 3-B"?

Also, isnt it possible that if the universe is indeed a finite but unbounded construct (with spherical geometry) the full universe would be actually smaller than the full universe since light could circumnavigate it creating the illusion of galaxies being farther away than they actually are? Although I believe several lower bounds for the size of the full universe have been found.

 

[DontTalk]

"the full universe would be actually smaller than the full universe" <- what?

I guess you mean the full universe to be smaller than the observable universe.

I don't study astrology, but I would think if the actual universe were this small one would quite quickly notice, since the curvature would be so strong, that one can easily spectate that lightrays that in euclidean space would be parralel aren't.

One would probably also see certain patterns that exist at one side existing just like that in the other direction, which would be suspicious.


A portion of the full universe, is a quiet unclear statement. For example our solar system is also a portion of a universe.

If they destroy like half of a universe, or a third of it that probably can be ranked as "At least Multi-Galaxy level".

If they destroy a measureable bit of the universe they are ranked as 3-A if that bit is larger than the observable universe. 3-B if it is smaller than that, but larger than multiple Galaxies and so on.