The God Of High School cosmology revision - Damn that's a bigass Highschool

[DavidTPPM]

After well over a year of research and months of writing, we're finally here. I'll try to make this as concise as possible.

Also, big thanks to the goat Yeolban for helping out with the translations as well as general information

Why the change and what exactly changes?​

I'm proposing the change from our current cosmology page, to a new and improved one I made.

Now I'm not saying the current cosmology page is bad or anything, it just focuses on the wrong things. To put it simply, it focuses more on the micro-scale rather than macro-scale. Which is fine for a regular fandom wiki page but doesn't really work for a powerscaling oriented wiki where the existence of stuff like an additional regular sized library are completely inconsequential fluff and information about the total size is far more important.

Spoiler: Main changes:

• The most noticeable change is that the cosmology gets upgraded from 2-C to Low 1-C
• Irrelevant/Inconsequential information has been removed, especially for places that had barely any narrative importance and as a result have very little if any information about their size or properties. This was done to make it easier to understand for people unfamiliar with the verse, as they won't have to scroll through irrelevant fluff.
• I added scans for every single relevant piece of information as well as references so that in case the links break it will still be easy to find the scans. This is more cosmetic but one of bigger issues with the current cosmology page I encountered was that nearly every single scan link is broken or completely missing.
• Additional evidence for things brought up in the already existing cosmology page have been added.

Who gets affected by these changes?​

The only people who get affected by this are the absolute highest top tiers in their strongest keys. As far as I can tell (and as far as the wiki accepts since different proposals were rejected many times), nobody scales to any of the individual realms. And the only people who scale to the entire cosmology itself are Mori, Mujin, and Xuanzang.

Conclusion:​

Big upgrades for the cosmology and a handful of characters.

Agrees: Yeolban
Disagrees:

 

[Yeolban]

we talked the entire time so I'm obviously gonna agree

 

[DavidTPPM]

we talked the entire time so I'm obviously gonna agree

Would be hilarious if after everything you just went "Nah actually I was joking this sucks, I disagree"

 

[Yeolban]

Would be hilarious if after everything you just went "Nah actually I was joking this sucks, I disagree"

nah actually I was joking this sucks, I disagree

 

[Yeolban]

I'M JOKING I AGREE FIY

 

[Success0906]

Seems alright from a glance. Might want to call tier 1 specialists like Firestorm for these kinds of upgrade. Also, remember that tier 1 CRTs require at least 3 votes from staff. And to not derail the thread, answer only subject related questions.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I'm just here out of curiosity.

Is there any clear proof that the structure you call the "universe" includes realms?

Can you prove that the phrases "universe does" not refer to a realm/dimension, especially considering that the expanding universe concept commonly refers to the 3-dimensional structure of the universe in fiction?

Finally, according to wiki standards, the higher dimensional space between universal space-time continuums can only be valid for Low 1-C if it is truly infinite. The phrase infinite universe mentioned by the author sounds like just a fancy expression on its own, and the other statements you mentioned also say that the universe is not really infinite, it will just continue to expand forever. In this case, it would not be valid for Low 1-C.

 

[M2u12]

I don't know much about tier 1 thing, so I'll wait for now.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks alright from a glance.

 

[KikiideSu]

Follow.

 

[DavidTPPM]

I'm just here out of curiosity.

Is there any clear proof that the structure you call the "universe" includes realms?

Odin states that all 3 realms bowing down to a single master would equal to the entire universe doing so.
Odin is amongst the most knowledgeable characters in the verse, even predicting Mori being betrayed and finding Mujins weakness.

Finally, according to wiki standards, the higher dimensional space between universal space-time continuums can only be valid for Low 1-C if it is truly infinite. The phrase infinite universe mentioned by the author sounds like just a fancy expression on its own,

That sounds like a baseless assumption to make. There's nothing indicating it's just "a fancy expression". It's basically the core message of the statement

and the other statements you mentioned also say that the universe is not really infinite, it will just continue to expand forever.

That makes no practical difference here. Spaces that are able to expand infinitely and those that are already infinitely expanded are essentially identical for powerscaling purposes as affecting both would require the same amount of energy.

Especially if you look at the entire timeline and not just the present. A timeline is by wiki standards infinite so given an infinite timeline an infinitely expanding space would be infinite. It only appears "nearly" infinite for the 3D humans who only live during finite amounts of time themselves.

In this case, it would not be valid for Low 1-C.

It would be valid either way. A 5D multiverse doesn't necessarily need to be infinite, it just needs to be "significant" in size or in other words not infinitesimal/compacted. It's just that statements of infinite size are the most common and simple types of evidence for such significance. Technically even a 1 meter large 4th spatial dimension would be enough to qualify for Low 1-C, it's just that you're more likely to find a statement if infinite size than anything like that.

A space that's infinitely expanding in all 4 dimensions is as significant as it needs to be.

 

[Vietthai96]

Odin states that all 3 realms bowing down to a single master would equal to the entire universe doing so.

No, he just say Ragnarok is a war between three realm, and a prophecy where the entire universe bow down to a single master?, both parts have no connection which can draw out the conclusion that each realm is universal-sized

That sounds like a baseless assumption to make. There's nothing indicating it's just "a fancy expression". It's basically the core message of the statement

One statement is: deliver enlightenment to the disrespectful people who live in ignorance of the infinity of the universe
Another say universe is nearly infinite
Other statement do not even infinitely expanding, just expand everywhere

Like, two contradictory statement if we buy that infinity statement as literal, the other statement isn't even align with what you claimed

That makes no practical difference here. Spaces that are able to expand infinitely and those that are already infinitely expanded are essentially identical for powerscaling purposes as affecting both would require the same amount of energy.

No, infinitely expanding mean it is still in the process of expanding with an unknown size, just keep expanding to reach infinity, but never actually reach true infinity, while infinitely expanded mean it is in past tense implied it finished it expansion and already reached infinity

Especially if you look at the entire timeline and not just the present. A timeline is by wiki standards infinite so given an infinite timeline an infinitely expanding space would be infinite. It only appears "nearly" infinite for the 3D humans who only live during finite amounts of time themselves.

timeline is infinite by default because of time is infinite by default, not space and time =/= space

 

[Vietthai96]

to a new and improved one I made.

Also,

1. nothing in the blog implied realm are universal-sized, the scan only show a background with light spots which somehow extrapolated into having countless stars and galaxies without actual statement, a starry sky is 4-A only

2. all scan that have planets, stars and galaxy thing have no actual evidence that they are separate space that belong to individual realm, it leave room for doubt, because i could argue that they are all showing the same starry sky

3. no actual statement for different flow of time, only saying the time flow rate is different in each realm, which is just simply time dilation, again extrapolated into having different flow of time, not only that but also no proof that each realm is causally different, separation, or have their own history, etc......

All of these evidences leave too much room for doubt and are somewhat extrapolated in some, so for now i disagree with Low 1-C, these realms could well be isolated pocket dimensions within an universe

there is also this standard too, which just doesn't help all these arguments

 

[DavidTPPM]

he just say Ragnarok is a war between three realm, and a prophecy where the entire universe bow down to a single master?,

Which literally means the 3 realms are a part of the "universe". 3 realms fight and then all bow to a single master. Which is exactly what happened. Mori came in, beat everyone, and became the supreme god.

The only other interpretation would be "3 realms fight and one of the realms ends up bowing to a single master" which makes no sense, especially considering what actually ends up happening.

both parts have no connection which can draw out the conclusion that each realm is universal-sized

Good thing that's not what I claimed.

One statement is: deliver enlightenment to the disrespectful people who live in ignorance of the infinity of the universe
Another say universe is nearly infinite
Other statement do not even infinitely expanding, just expand everywhere

Like, two contradictory statement if we buy that infinity statement as literal, the other statement isn't even align with what you claimed

They're not even remotely contradictory, I literally explained this. An infinitely expanding universe would be both infinite and finite, it would simply depend on the perspective from which you're looking from.

No, infinitely expanding mean it is still in the process of expanding with an unknown size, just keep expanding to reach infinity, but never actually reach true infinity,

It wouldn't reach "true infinity" during finite time because it wouldn't have enough time.

But if you look at the entire infinite timeline, it would be infinite because it's no longer confined to a finite time period.

while infinitely expanded mean it is in past tense implied it finished it expansion and already reached infinity

I never implied otherwise. I simply said both would have infinite 4D mass making them identical for scaling purposes.

timeline is infinite by default because of time is infinite by default

That's exactly what I said.

not space and time =/= space

Again, good thing that's not what I said.

I appreciate any feedback but please make sure to read the blog and my previous arguments so that we don't talk about things I either didn't claim or I already addressed. Repeating everything both costs time and clogs the thread

 

[DavidTPPM]

1.nothing in the blog implied realm are universal-sized, the scan only show a background with light spots which somehow extrapolated into having countless stars and galaxies without actual statement, a starry sky is 4-A only

Please make sure you properly read the blog because I have to repeat what was already said in it again.

1. At least 2 of the realms are referred to as "a universe" by characters not aware of the other realms
2. The realms are referred to as "worlds". This might lead you to say it could just refer to a "planet" or "civilization" but that's impossible as for example the Demon Realm is referring to as a world despite the civilization being moved to a different dimension and the planet they lived on being destroyed. Leaving only the possible interpretation to be "universe"
3. Starry skies and galaxies are not individual evidence but merely supportive evidence of the dimensions size as the standards say.

2. all scan that have planets, stars and galaxy thing have no actual evidence that they are separate space that belong to individual realm, it leave room for doubt, because i could argue that they are all showing the same starry sky

You could but for that you'd need evidence to support such claims. You could also say "Everything you showed as evidence is just in a dream a random character had and the verse is actually planet sized".

The issue with this line of thinking is that it completely relies on baseless assumptions to work. I have given the chapter numbers for everything so I provided more than enough context. You can't possibly expect me to link 50 chapters per link just because you don't trust me but also don't want to actually go fact check the source.

3. no actual statement for different flow of time, only saying the time flow rate is different in each realm, which is just simply time dilation, again extrapolated into having different flow of time, not only that but also no proof that each realm is causally different, separation, or have their own history, etc......

I didn’t claim the statements alone mean a different time axis. They're supportive evidence.
You're taking each individual statement and saying that they don't prove certain things on their own when they're intended to work as evidence together.

A place with a different time rate/flow on its own may not sound super convincing but a spatially separate dimension referred to as a "the other world" or "universe" with evidence of large size AND unique time rate/flow certainly does.

All of these evidences leave too much room for doubt and are somewhat extrapolated in some, so for now i disagree with Low 1-C, these realms could well be isolated pocket dimensions within an universe

Even if they were the universe would still be Low 1-C. Because we have actual on screen evidence of a 4th spatial dimension used to traverse between the individual dimensions of the Divine Realm.

Meaning the individual realms might as well be a kilometer wide each and the universe would still have 4 dimensions of infinitely expanding space and 1 standard dimension of time.

there is also this standard too, which just doesn't help all these arguments

That is an inconcluded thread that talks about 2-A cosmologies. I don't see how that applies here

 

[CodeCCLL]

It would be valid either way. A 5D multiverse doesn't necessarily need to be infinite, it just needs to be "significant" in size or in other words not infinitesimal/compacted. It's just that statements of infinite size are the most common and simple types of evidence for such significance. Technically even a 1 meter large 4th spatial dimension would be enough to qualify for Low 1-C, it's just that you're more likely to find a statement if infinite size than anything like that.

A space that's infinitely expanding in all 4 dimensions is as significant as it needs to be.

This is normally the case, but staff evaluating Tier 1 threads say they are not suitable for Low 1-C unless the 5-D volume in question is specified to be infinite. You may call it unnecessary rigidity or something, but it is what it is.

It wouldn't reach "true infinity" during finite time because it wouldn't have enough time.

But if you look at the entire infinite timeline, it would be infinite because it's no longer confined to a finite time period.

Unless infinite time passes, 4-D space in question will never be reach infinite, so how can the timeline have uncountable infinite snapshots of infinite 4D space?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Hard Disagree.

I was already expecting this after you created this thread. Everything we said in it was useless since you already had your little idea in mind.

Well, it doesn't matter. Let's get started.

Which perfectly aligns with what's shown in the manhwa and is exactly what we see when Mori tries to travel from the 7th dimension of the Divine Realm to the 6th using a 4 dimensional gate. This, alongside the aforementioned wormhole in the Human Realm, confirms the 3 realms are truly separated by a higher, 4 dimensional space just as the wiki says they should be for the cosmology to exist and function the way it has been shown to.

Yeah sure, perfect. It's just something standard.

In chapter 32 of the Eclipse novel the universe is described as infinite by the narrator. Later on, Mujin Park describes the universe as "nearly infinite". At first these 2 statements may seem like they contradict each other but that stops being the case once we look at the final relevant statement regarding the size of the universe. After Mori became nearly omniscient and traveled through the entire universe he notes that the universe is in reality "expanding everywhere". Meaning the 2 statements were both true as the universe doesn't have a set finite or infinite size but is instead infinitely expanding in all directions.

So, on all these scans, nothing indicates that it is the Multiverse instead of a single universe. Moreover, the universe is not infinite but almost infinite. Again, the universe expanding everywhere is nothing special since IRL we know the process of expansion of the universe, emphasizing even more the fact that it is not the Multiverse. Even if it were the Multiverse, I do not see why it would impact the additional axis.

Regarding this thread that you think it does not concern (yet it concerns you), the standard is mentioned: even if a Multiverse is infinite, its destruction is not 2-A (even less Low 1-C) but scales to the number of structures it contains. In short, all this comes back to 2-C because even if your Multiverse was infinite, yeah by the standards it would mean nothing.

So in other words, based on the currently available evidence the universe is at least an infinitely expanding 4 dimensional space that contains at least 3 universe sized realms. This further means that the spacetime continuum of this universe would be a 5D structure (4D space + 1D time), or Low 1-C.

Nuh, nothing impact the insignificant axis so no.

 

[DavidTPPM]

This is normally the case, but staff evaluating Tier 1 threads say they are not suitable for Low 1-C unless the 5-D volume in question is specified to be infinite. You may call it unnecessary rigidity or something, but it is what it is.

I haven't seen any rules that would say so and I don’t think any honest staff would say an infinitely expanding volume isn't enough to not be considered infinitesimal.

Unless infinite time passes, 4-D space in question will never be reach infinite, so how can the timeline have uncountable infinite snapshots of infinite 4D space?

Well to be perfectly clear, every snapshot is already a snapshot of infinite 4D space. Just simply not infinite volume. Reaching infinite volume is more so a case of range than power

 

[DavidTPPM]

I was already expecting this after you created this thread. Everything we said in it was useless since you already had your little idea in mind.

I was trying to research and understand the topic. And if you actually read my blog you'd see I did adjust it according to what I found out.
Otherwise I'd be claiming a 1-C cosmology…

So, on all these scans, nothing indicates that it is the Multiverse instead of a single universe.

Which if you actually read the blog instead of going into it already wanting to disagree you'd notice a single universe already IS a multiverse.

Moreover, the universe is not infinite but almost infinite.

Which like I explained already, is still evidence of significant size which is all I was going for.

Nuh, nothing impact the insignificant axis so no.

There's literally a statement about it being infinite/nearly infinite. But you clearly didn't actually read the blog and just wanted to disagree because you didn't like what I was saying in a different thread months ago so I'm not even surprised…

 

[Digital_Franz]

I was trying to research and understand the topic. And if you actually read my blog you'd see I did adjust it according to what I found out.
Otherwise I'd be claiming a 1-C cosmology…

Yeah and you didn't understand what was said.

Which if you actually read the blog instead of going into it already wanting to disagree you'd notice a single universe already IS a multiverse.

I have read, and I stand by my words. What I speak of as a universe is just one of those realms.

Which like I explained already, is still evidence of significant size which is all I was going for.

And this is not the standard since being infinite or not means nothing for the additional axis.

There's literally a statement about it being infinite/nearly infinite.

Yeah means nothing. Just read that thread.

But you clearly didn't actually read the blog and just wanted to disagree because you didn't like what I was saying in a different thread months ago so I'm not even surprised…

I don't know where you got it from that I haven't read your blog, just that your arguments don't meet the standards. I would advise you to tone it down now.

 

[DavidTPPM]

I have read, and I stand by my words. What I speak of as a universe is just one of those realms.

Oh sure so you're just calling the universe "the multiverse" and the realms "the universe".

And this is not the standard since being infinite or not means nothing for the additional axis.

Why would statements about the size of the universe, especially ones referring to "everywhere", not include the additional axis?
That sounds like a completely baseless assumption.

Yeah means nothing. Just read that thread.

Which thread? The one that's not concluded or the one where I'm specifically told evidence like this is what's needed for significance?

I don't know where you got it from that I haven't read your blog,

You started off completely passive aggressive directly admitting you "were expecting this" meaning you already had a bias against the thread before you even opened it.
Then you got key information that's in the blog completely wrong, which you're now claiming is just that you called things differently. But even if that's true that still means you didn't even get the basic terminology right which is a crucial part of the blog

I would advise you to tone it down now.

Me? You started off passive aggressive af, basically admitted to a preconceived bias, and completely twisted the contents of the blog. I simply pointed those out.
If anyone should "tone it down now" it's you…

 

[Digital_Franz]

Oh sure so you're just calling the universe "the multiverse" and the realms "the universe".

In your blog they are worlds and you said that they are comparable to our universe so they are universes.

Why would statements about the size of the universe, especially ones referring to "everywhere", not include the additional axis?
That sounds like a completely baseless assumption.

Why when it is said that a universe is infinite it is not considered that it is also infinite on its additional axis? Your way of thinking is just crap.

Which thread? The one that's not concluded or the one where I'm specifically told evidence like this is what's needed for significance?

Any. If you can't understand what is said in a thread then I'm not going to make you understand so I won't push this idea further.

You started off completely passive aggressive directly admitting you "were expecting this" meaning you already had a bias against the thread before you even opened it.

Never had any bias, just that I knew what was going to be used in advance and we told you in that thread that it doesn't work that way. Your blog doesn't add anything at all since that thread was just to confirm what you put here.

Then you got key information that's in the blog completely wrong, which you're now claiming is just that you called things differently. But even if that's true that still means you didn't even get the basic terminology right which is a crucial part of the blog

Got the terminology.

Me? You started off passive aggressive af, basically admitted to a preconceived bias, and completely twisted the contents of the blog. I simply pointed those out.
If anyone should "tone it down now" it's you…

Maybe you need to go back to the basics of your dictionary to know what passive aggression is. My post was not aggression at all. Well now that you want to play it that way, I'm just observing.

 

[DavidTPPM]

In your blog they are worlds and you said that they are comparable to our universe so they are universes.

Yes except they're called "realms" which is a very important fact. The terminology is an important aspect of the blog and is written in a, imo, very understandable way.

Saying "multiverse" when referring to the universe despite there being a completely different thing called "the multiverse" in the blog in question is heavily misleading.

Why when it is said that a universe is infinite it is not considered that it is also infinite on its additional axis?

Yes that was my question.

Your way of thinking is just crap.

That's just an unnecessary ad hominem.

Never had any bias, just that I knew what was going to be used in advance and we told you in that thread that it doesn't work that way.

People told me I needed evidence of significance because of how wiki treats these topics.
So I dropped any potential 1-C arguments and instead went with what the level to which I can prove significance.

Again I asked a questions, got an answer, and changed my stance and arguments to fit the new information. Hell when I made the blog I even went on to ask other knowledgeable members in DMs who have made accepted blogs on similar topics to make sure the information fits the rules because I wanted to be sure what I'm saying is right so I can either improve or scrap the blog before posting something wrong.

Your blog doesn't add anything at all since that thread was just to confirm what you put here.

Again evidence you didn't actually read the blog (or you're just being disingenuous on purpose) because the blog adds a lot of evidence that I wasn't even aware existed back when I asked about how the things work.

Maybe you need to go back to the basics of your dictionary to know what passive aggression is. My post was not aggression at all.

Even in this very reply you say things like "you need to go back to the basics of your dictionary" or "your way of thinking is just crap".
That's pretty much not even passive aggressiveness anymore, it's just straight up insulting…

Well now that you want to play it that way, I'm just observing.

Okay, have fun

 

[Digital_Franz]

Yes except they're called "realms" which is a very important fact. The terminology is an important aspect of the blog and is written in a, imo, very understandable way.

Sure.

Saying "multiverse" when referring to the universe despite there being a completely different thing called "the multiverse" in the blog in question is heavily misleading.

A structure containing multiple universes is already a multiverse in itself, and I don't think what you call multiverse was called that by the author so...

Yes that was my question.

Because that's how it is. Debating this point here will just clog the thread.

That's just an unnecessary ad hominem.

I found it necessary.

People told me I needed evidence of significance because of how wiki treats these topics.
So I dropped any potential 1-C arguments and instead went with what the level to which I can prove significance.

Again I asked a questions, got an answer, and changed my stance and arguments to fit the new information. Hell when I made the blog I even went on to ask other knowledgeable members in DMs who have made accepted blogs on similar topics to make sure the information fits the rules because I wanted to be sure what I'm saying is right so I can either improve or scrap the blog before posting something wrong.

The point is: what you post is not necessarily correct, I don't see why to be aggressive towards someone who disagrees. Moreover, what they have accepted is not necessarily correct or they have a particular context, so don't take that as an absolute certainty.

Again evidence you didn't actually read the blog (or you're just being disingenuous on purpose) because the blog adds a lot of evidence that I wasn't even aware existed back when I asked about how the things work.

Your evidence is: infinite, nearly infinite and expansion. Yeah doesn't add anything.

Even in this very reply you say things like "you need to go back to the basics of your dictionary" or "your way of thinking is just crap".
That's pretty much not even passive aggressiveness anymore, it's just straight up insulting…

Yeah in that post since you were aggressive towards me and still want to make me look like the instigator.

Okay, have fun

Uh definitely not good enough to give me fun.

 

[DavidTPPM]

A structure containing multiple universes is already a multiverse in itself,

Sure but the issue here is that there's already a different structure called "multiverse" in this context and using different terminologies is unnecessarily confusing and completely misleading.

and I don't think what you call multiverse was called that by the author so...

It's the only part of the cosmology that I talk about without a canonical name but given that it's alternate realities the name "multiverse" fits it the best.

I found it necessary.

Rude (again)

The point is: what you post is not necessarily correct,

I'm fine with it being only having a 99% chance of being correct as well.

I don't see why to be aggressive towards someone who disagrees.

Except I wasn't the one being aggressive here…? I simply pointed out you didn't read the blog and that you'd know your issue are not true if you did.

Which I had (and still have) good reasons to believe given you completely changed up the terminology and openly admitted to having a bias before even opening the thread.

Moreover, what they have accepted is not necessarily correct or they have a particular context, so don't take that as an absolute certainty.

Never said it was. I'm simply pointing out that I was researching the topic and changing the scaling and arguments around it to fit my findings. Since you're claiming I just ignored what people told me, which is both an unnecessary ad hominem and just blatantly wrong.

Your evidence is: infinite, nearly infinite and expansion. Yeah doesn't add anything.

Statements of significant size (exactly what I was told I needed) very much do add a lot.

Yeah in that post since you were aggressive towards me and still want to make me look like the investigator.

This is beyond silly. If you want to pretend like you weren't passive aggressive at all but me pointing out you got very major aspects of the blog wrong was I can't stop you but I think it's pretty clear to anyone reading the thread.
Either way this is doing nothing but clogging up the thread.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I haven't seen any rules that would say so and I don’t think any honest staff would say an infinitely expanding volume isn't enough to not be considered infinitesimal.

I am not claiming that the volume in question is infinitesmall, as long as it occupies a volume in the 5th dimension, the structure in question would be 5-D.

But the definition of Low 1-C is this.

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are one uncountably infinite level above Low 2-C structures.

A Low 2-C structure must first have at least universal volume in 3-dimension and an infinite volume in the 4th dimension.

Therefore, a Low 1-C structure that is uncountably infinite level above Low 2-C must also have at least infinite volume in 5-D.

Yes, this causes a character who can destroy a 5-dimensional structure with each axis being 1 meter long to have less AP than a 3-A character, but that's the case.

Well to be perfectly clear, every snapshot is already a snapshot of infinite 4D space. Just simply not infinite volume. Reaching infinite volume is more so a case of range than power

We already use the expression infinite 4-D space for an infinite volume in 4 dimensions. I don't understand what you mean here.

 

[Hasty12345]

New page looks great, however, I disagree with low 1-C. I don't think superiority has been proven.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Therefore, a Low 1-C structure that is uncountably infinite level above Low 2-C must also have at least infinite volume in 5-D.

That's the thing. Even a 1 meter large 4th dimension is inherently uncountably infinitely bigger than a 3D space as long as it has "significant" size.
Technically a 1 centimeter sized 5D universe could fit an uncountably infinite amount of 4D universes as they take up 0 space in that additional 1cm wide dimension.

Regular infinity is actually inconsequentialy small compared to uncountable infinities.

Yes, this causes a character who can destroy a 5-dimensional structure with each axis being 1 meter long to have less AP than a 3-A character, but that's the case.

I don’t think that's the case.
Imagine it in 2 dimensions vs 3. You could have an infinite amount of 2D objects but if you were to stack them all on each other they'd still be more than infinitely smaller than a single normal 3D piece of paper.

We already use the expression infinite 4-D space for an infinite volume in 4 dimensions. I don't understand what you mean here.

I'm simply saying there shouldn't be any real significant difference between an infinitely expanding 4D space and an infinite 4D as affecting both would require infinite 4D energy. Meaning, as far as I understand, every snapshots with the expanding universe should in practice have infinite 4D mass, just simply not take up infinite volume.

 

[CodeCCLL]

Even a 1 meter large 4th dimension is inherently uncountably infinitely bigger than a 3D space as long as it has "significant" size.

No, this would be valid for a significant 4-dimensional space. The 4th axis can only hold these structures.

Regular infinity is actually inconsequentialy small compared to uncountable infinities.

Yes.

I don’t think that's the case.

You may not think that way, and I don't think that way, but that's how this wiki works.

Destroying a dimension with a starry sky is generally 4-A.
Whether this dimension has space-time continuity or not does not matter in terms of the tiering system, unless the dimension in question is universal, this feat is still 4-A.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Destroying a dimension with a starry sky is generally 4-A.
Whether this dimension has space-time continuity or not does not matter in terms of the tiering system, unless the dimension in question is universal, this feat is still 4-A.

Destroying a dimension with a starry sky is heavily context dependent and CAN be low 2-C or even higher under right context. As far as I'm aware it just usually isn't

No, this would be valid for a significant 4-dimensional space. The 4th axis can only hold these structures.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here

 

[CodeCCLL]

Destroying a dimension with a starry sky is heavily context dependent and CAN be low 2-C or even higher under right context. As far as I'm aware it just usually isn't

It can't be Low 2-C unless it's universal (example).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here

I'm talking about the difference between the 4th dimension and the 4-dimensional (4-D).

 

[Tatsumi504]

Finally, according to wiki standards, the higher dimensional space between universal space-time continuums can only be valid for Low 1-C if it is truly infinite.

I can't remember this being a thing?

 

[Digital_Franz]

I can't remember this being a thing?

You remember that by wiki standards, even if a Multiverse is infinite, it is inherently not in Tier 1 (not even 2-A), right?