The remains of the Tiering Revision - Irrelevant Speed, Conceptual Manipulation Type 1 and Transduality Type 2, 3 & 4

[Secret_ultraviolet]

Characters capable of performing movement beyond infinite dimensions of time, i.e. characters with immeasurable speed in relation to at least an infinite amount of time axis.

I am more inclined to have "finite to infinite" to be grouped into something lower, whereas irrelevant speed will be where the whole notion of motion go N/A. That way we have a nice progression of:

• Finite speed: Anything from Immobile to massively FTL+.
• Infinite speed: Infinite space and/or time axes movements.
• Immeasurable speed: Movement outside usual spacetime dimensions.
• Irrelevant speed: Movement notion breaks down completely.

Justification: Summary on my discussion after talking to staff in the discord.

I have no figure out how to think about the transduality and conceptual manipulation issues. Will follow up in a future post maybe.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This is what Aeyu wanted me to post; her words not mine.
1. Higher space does not equal beyond finite/infinite speed unless: Multiple time dimensions or some space adjacent to 4-D or whatever-D 1 dimensional time
2. Low 1-A = auto immeasurable speed due to higher cardinality
3. 1-A = auto immeasurable + type 4 acausal if 1-A via transcendence of spacetime
4. High 1-A = auto irrelevant + type 5 via exceeding the system
5. Irrelevant no longer bound to 1-A, now involves the concept of distance/time to be irrelevant
6. 1-A via transcendence of spacetime maybe ok for Irrelevant
7. 1-A = Exceeds all possible spacetime dimensions
High 1-A = Exceeds all possible dimensions in a system/cosmological model
Tier 0 = Exceeds all systems/cosmological models and arrangements of dimensionality/meta-dimensionality/layers.
SIMPLE AS 123.

 

[Sera_EX]

Too much focus on existential status.

 

[Antvasima]

This is what Aeyu wanted me to post; her words not mine.
1. Higher space does not equal beyond finite/infinite speed unless: Multiple time dimensions or some space adjacent to 4-D or whatever-D 1 dimensional time
2. Low 1-A = auto immeasurable speed due to higher cardinality
3. 1-A = auto immeasurable + type 4 acausal if 1-A via transcendence of spacetime
4. High 1-A = auto irrelevant + type 5 via exceeding the system
5. Irrelevant no longer bound to 1-A, now involves the concept of distance/time to be irrelevant

This makes sense to me except for that certain Low 1-A or 1-A characters explicitly do not transcend time. They are just spatially higher-dimensional. The Beyonders for example.

It also corresponds with my own understanding of irrelevant speed as encompassing and transcending all degrees of time simultaneously, to live in an eternal "now" that is all "thens" and all "will bes" always and forever.

 

[DontTalkDT]

This is what Aeyu wanted me to post; her words not mine.
1. Higher space does not equal beyond finite/infinite speed unless: Multiple time dimensions or some space adjacent to 4-D or whatever-D 1 dimensional time
2. Low 1-A = auto immeasurable speed due to higher cardinality
3. 1-A = auto immeasurable + type 4 acausal if 1-A via transcendence of spacetime
4. High 1-A = auto irrelevant + type 5 via exceeding the system
5. Irrelevant no longer bound to 1-A, now involves the concept of distance/time to be irrelevant
6. 1-A via transcendence of spacetime maybe ok for Irrelevant
7. 1-A = Exceeds all possible spacetime dimensions
High 1-A = Exceeds all possible dimensions in a system/cosmological model
Tier 0 = Exceeds all systems/cosmological models and arrangements of dimensionality/meta-dimensionality/layers.
SIMPLE AS 123.

Yeah, I don't think that proposal works. Speed and AP are just separate statistics even at those levels.
Like, even if Haruhi Suzumiya had omnipotent Tier 0 power that wouldn't change the fact that she is essentially just on human levels of speed. Her using those powers to give herself an indestructible body, so that she isn't a glass canon anymore, wouldn't change that either.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I agree with those points. But there's a difference between characters who are 1-A via existing on that level or characters smaller than that who reach that tier via powerscaling. I agree she seemed mostly focused on existential examples.

 

[KingPin0422]

This is what Aeyu wanted me to post; her words not mine.
1. Higher space does not equal beyond finite/infinite speed unless: Multiple time dimensions or some space adjacent to 4-D or whatever-D 1 dimensional time
2. Low 1-A = auto immeasurable speed due to higher cardinality
3. 1-A = auto immeasurable + type 4 acausal if 1-A via transcendence of spacetime
4. High 1-A = auto irrelevant + type 5 via exceeding the system
5. Irrelevant no longer bound to 1-A, now involves the concept of distance/time to be irrelevant
6. 1-A via transcendence of spacetime maybe ok for Irrelevant
7. 1-A = Exceeds all possible spacetime dimensions
High 1-A = Exceeds all possible dimensions in a system/cosmological model
Tier 0 = Exceeds all systems/cosmological models and arrangements of dimensionality/meta-dimensionality/layers.
SIMPLE AS 123.

I was thinking about this since I was there to see the conversation, and I'll give my own responses here:

1. Moving throughout linear time as if it were a spatial dimension is Immeasurable Speed, yes. Moving throughout multiple dimensions of time or throughout dimensions which are perpendicular to spacetime at every point is a higher level of Immeasurable Speed. The former already seems to be acknowledged, but I'm not sure if the same is true of the latter.
2. To clarify this point for the unaware, distance (space) and time are obviously defined over the set of real numbers (R), and since speed is derived from these two units, it stands to reason that it would be defined over that same set. The set R^R of all functions from R to itself (which Low 1-A represents) has an explicitly greater cardinality (size) than simply R by itself, and as such, any movement on the level of such a size would automatically constitute Immeasurable Speed by this logic.
3. Seeing as 1-A transcends the upper boundary of the size of a spacetime continuum (2^2^aleph-null), past which any and all spatial and temporal axes are trivialized, it makes sense that type 4 acausality would be entailed by such a state of being because time generally informs standard causality as we know it. Thus, a 1-A size (not a possession of 1-A power, as others have pointed out) would necessarily behold an irregular system of causality- it would not be type 5 because as far as we know, we very much can have causal systems which are atemporal in nature. (This last part is actually an unresolved philosophical query, but I've heard that if-then statements don't rely on time, so... shrugs)
4. Well, yeah. Aeyu wants to make a small change to High 1-A and 0 so that they respectively represent the class of all topological spaces Top (remember, dimensions as we experience them are topological dimensions, meaning this would simply be above all dimensions period, not just those of the spatio-temporal kind) and something similarly beyond any extrapolation on a High 1-A level, just as High 1-A itself would be beyond any operations on a 1-A size. This would be a change that doesn't affect any of the files currently rated at those levels, or so she believes.
5. It would be bound to type 5 acausality if anything, right? Of course, seeing as Immeasurable Speed is unrelated to type 4 acausality despite allowing for backwards causality, there could be a way to have type 5 acausality and not have Irrelevant Speed or vice versa that I'm not aware of.
6. ...wasn't it just said earlier that that would be Immeasurable? I'm fairly sure that this would also lead to far lower characters with Beyond-Dimensional Existence getting Irrelevant Speed, which I would not support.
7. Nothing much to say here that I haven't already said in a previous point, but I would rephrase this as follows:
   1. 1-A = Any set larger than the set of all possible spacetime dimensions (i.e., larger than R^R).
   2. High 1-A = Sum of all possible dimensions in a system/cosmological model.
   3. 0 = Sum of all systems/cosmological models and arrangements of dimensionality/meta-dimensionality/layers.

I'm neutral on the changes Aeyu is pushing for right now. My main concern is whether or not this really would be as easy to apply as she claims it is.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality?

 

[DontTalkDT]

or throughout dimensions which are perpendicular to spacetime at every point is a higher level of Immeasurable Speed.

Not the first time I hear this and I still have no idea what exactly the idea is or why it would be Immeasurable speed. Usually, any kind of extra-dimensional axis can be chosen to be perpendicular to spacetime (and by that is so at every point, unless that is supposed to mean something different from what I think it should). That doesn't mean that moving through higher-dimensional space is Immeasurable. In fact, it definitely isn't.

To clarify this point for the unaware, distance (space) and time are obviously defined over the set of real numbers (R), and since speed is derived from these two units, it stands to reason that it would be defined over that same set. The set R^R of all functions from R to itself (which Low 1-A represents) has an explicitly greater cardinality (size) than simply R by itself, and as such, any movement on the level of such a size would automatically constitute Immeasurable Speed by this logic.

That seems like a non-sequitur to me. Not sure what else to say to that. The step from greater cardinality to Immeasurable speed just isn't there.

Beings able to manoeuvre infinite-dimensional space in a meaningful fashion could probably be said to have infinite speed (since the euclidean distance for moving more than ε > 0 in each dimension at once, means the total distance goes towards infinite if the number of dimensions approaches infinite), but how would you get Immeasurable? I.e. how would you get the capability to keep up with character that can act backwards in time. Fundamentally, the ability to move through higher amounts of dimensions, regardless of cardinality, doesn't change the fact that a character can only go forwards in it (complete actions in at most 0 time.)

Seeing as 1-A transcends the upper boundary of the size of a spacetime continuum (2^2^aleph-null), past which any and all spatial and temporal axes are trivialized, it makes sense that type 4 acausality would be entailed by such a state of being because time generally informs standard causality as we know it. Thus, a 1-A size (not a possession of 1-A power, as others have pointed out) would necessarily behold an irregular system of causality- it would not be type 5 because as far as we know, we very much can have causal systems which are atemporal in nature. (This last part is actually an unresolved philosophical query, but I've heard that if-then statements don't rely on time, so... shrugs)

I don't think 1-A characters, in size or not (what exactly that would mean is a debate on its own), should get such abilities by default. As said, I already disagree with the idea to dictate verses whether or not they may have normal spacetime at tiers or not. What the verses think about that in their own system should take precedent over what we reason due to some subjective mathematical considerations. To that comes that the outgrowing of spacetime would be due to getting too large for space, not time. Even if you're unable to exist within "normal space" due to being too large, that doesn't really implicate that the normal direction in time doesn't apply anymore. Basically, growing larger never really automatically makes you able to timetravel or anything.
Since causality is more of a time than a space thing, I don't think it's broken.
In general, the entire idea is too much philosophising over what some state should be and too few consideration for what the fiction in question actually shows. We should aim to represent characters as they are depicted, not how we think they should be.

Well, yeah. Aeyu wants to make a small change to High 1-A and 0 so that they respectively represent the class of all topological spaces Top (remember, dimensions as we experience them are topological dimensions, meaning this would simply be above all dimensions period, not just those of the spatio-temporal kind) and something similarly beyond any extrapolation on a High 1-A level, just as High 1-A itself would be beyond any operations on a 1-A size. This would be a change that doesn't affect any of the files currently rated at those levels, or so she believes.

Yeah, I don't think we can easily say for anything to be beyond all topological spaces. So not only is that a strange proposal, but would also affect things.
Definitely not a "small change".

 

[Sera_EX]

What the verses think about that in their own system should take precedent over what we reason due to some subjective mathematical considerations.

This...for the sake of our reliability this is the mentality we should use when approaching fictional powerscaling...

 

[KingPin0422]

(Note: everything said here is Aeyu's wording, not mine. I will illustrate this by using quotation marks around every response.)

Not the first time I hear this and I still have no idea what exactly the idea is or why it would be Immeasurable speed. Usually, any kind of extra-dimensional axis can be chosen to be perpendicular to spacetime (and by that is so at every point, unless that is supposed to mean something different from what I think it should). That doesn't mean that moving through higher-dimensional space is Immeasurable. In fact, it definitely isn't.

"If there are multiple temporal dimensions, or time is not an object because some larger dimensional space encompasses it, then the fundamental equation of S = D/T is not applicable, as time is assumed to be 1 dimensional in the equation. In a higher dimensional space where it's like, 10 space + 1 temporal dimension, then speed can apply the same as it does in our world, since the Speed = Distance / Time equation is still applicable, but if it's 3 + 1, then a higher dimension past the 3 + 1, where we don't get 4 + 1 but 3 + 1 and then 5, spatial movement through this conjectural 5th dimension is immeasurable."

That seems like a non-sequitur to me. Not sure what else to say to that. The step from greater cardinality to Immeasurable speed just isn't there.

Beings able to manoeuvre infinite-dimensional space in a meaningful fashion could probably be said to have infinite speed (since the euclidean distance for moving more than ε > 0 in each dimension at once, means the total distance goes towards infinite if the number of dimensions approaches infinite), but how would you get Immeasurable? I.e. how would you get the capability to keep up with character that can act backwards in time. Fundamentally, the ability to move through higher amounts of dimensions, regardless of cardinality, doesn't change the fact that a character can only go forwards in it (complete actions in at most 0 time.)

"Because all space and time dimensions biject to R, so movement through a space with R ^ R would be much faster than moving in any length of time from 0 - infinity in an infinite number of space and time dimensions. This is because the lower cardinality and everything contained within is infinitesimal from the perspective of the higher-order cardinality."

I don't think 1-A characters, in size or not (what exactly that would mean is a debate on its own), should get such abilities by default. As said, I already disagree with the idea to dictate verses whether or not they may have normal spacetime at tiers or not. What the verses think about that in their own system should take precedent over what we reason due to some subjective mathematical considerations. To that comes that the outgrowing of spacetime would be due to getting too large for space, not time. Even if you're unable to exist within "normal space" due to being too large, that doesn't really implicate that the normal direction in time doesn't apply anymore. Basically, growing larger never really automatically makes you able to timetravel or anything.
Since causality is more of a time than a space thing, I don't think it's broken.
In general, the entire idea is too much philosophising over what some state should be and too few consideration for what the fiction in question actually shows. We should aim to represent characters as they are depicted, not how we think they should be.

"1-A by itself doesn't give acausal type 4 when it's based on purely the size of some space and not dimensionality, i.e., composite hierarchy. However, if 1-A is reached through transcendence of spacetime, (as the requirements for 1-A have never really changed beyond putting a solid label on what separates High 1-B from 1-A, along with allowing sufficiently large sizes to qualify), then it should get acausal type 4 by default, as causality as we know it is generally tied to the definition of time, which, as I illustrated above, from 1 to infinite dimensions bijects to R. Therefore, something within a higher cardinality than R, where it was achieved by transcendence of spacetime dimensionality, should qualify for acausal type 4."

Yeah, I don't think we can easily say for anything to be beyond all topological spaces. So not only is that a strange proposal, but would also affect things.
Definitely not a "small change".

"I think we can easily. High 1-A's core definition is immeasurability, i.e., it is made from untangling old 1-A's definition from new 1-A. It can't be reached by any number of operations or layers of dimensions. Many High 1-As, in fact most or all, reach such a level via "transcendence of all forms of mathematics" or "being beyond all categories and labels" or "beyond all possible levels/layers that could exist" or "beyond all hierarchies", et al. A proper class fits well for this definition, given a proper class is too large to be a set, which also corresponds with the set of all dimensions, which itself is a proper class. The "size" of a proper class depends on the set theory we are using define the proper class, but we really honestly don't need to declare some system that's being used, because that's assuming all verses work under ZFC, for instance, something that is a very arbitrary assumption used in the system right now. (It doesn't have to be ZFC but the assumption of it is bad enough to equate metaphysical, transcendental "beyond measure" type things). Less specific is a proper class, which is just "it exceeds whatever system of measurement the verse uses." This makes it more accurate with how we already treat High 1-A, in that we say it can't be reliably cross scaled between verses, and after that point generally relies on context from within the verse."

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If we're talking about Immeasurable speed again, I believe it was a character being able to freely move and react on at least one temporal dimension as if it was an open spatial dimension is the textbook definition of Immeasurable speed. With two temporal dimensions being uncountable infinity above baseline Immeasurable and each additional temporal dimension being viewed and as another spatial dimension accordingly also each degree of uncountable infinity. And yes, it's not to be confused with AP, dimensional existence, omnipresence, ect.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ah, so it's not about Hausdorff dimensions, but about the property of being Hausdorff? Ok, different story. I admittedly don't remember what we ultimately agreed on regarding that.
That being said I had the impression we agreed to spaces greater than that existing?

Spaces larger than this do exist, obviously, but "space" is itself a nebulous notion with no formal meaning in mathematics, and the closest thing to a definition that you can find is "A set endowed with some additional rules dictating how its elements behave and interact with one another," so I don't think that's a particularly concerning factor, especially when a "spacetime" is an actual object with defined properties that do indicate an upper bound in its size.

This seems like pretty much the same situation.
And, as said, I fell like it would be plenty weird to tell fiction what it can or can not do in regards to having spacetime at a certain size or not. I can't imagine that a world with reality-fiction levels says that at some high enough level all its stories must stop including spacetime. In fact, I know that Ichiban Ushiro no Daimao doesn't.

That's a fair enough point, but we aren't actually telling fiction how to behave, are we? Indexing as a whole is built while having in mind the basic assumption that some underlying principles are at play, whether those be physical or purely mathematical; if fiction decides to go against them, then that's fine, but if it doesn't outwardly break them at any point, I don't see why we wouldn't consider them applicable, especially since the vast majority of the 1-A characters on the wiki are already depicted as being aspatial and atemporal, anyway.

I don't think 1-A characters, in size or not (what exactly that would mean is a debate on its own), should get such abilities by default. As said, I already disagree with the idea to dictate verses whether or not they may have normal spacetime at tiers or not. What the verses think about that in their own system should take precedent over what we reason due to some subjective mathematical considerations. To that comes that the outgrowing of spacetime would be due to getting too large for space, not time. Even if you're unable to exist within "normal space" due to being too large, that doesn't really implicate that the normal direction in time doesn't apply anymore. Basically, growing larger never really automatically makes you able to timetravel or anything.

1-A characters don't necessarily gain these characteristics if they are rated this high due to something like a Composite Hierarchy where normal humans are transcendental entities from the perspective of lower realities, yes, but those are fairly specific cases that might be counted as the exception, and not the norm. I've already outlined above how "spacetime" as a physical phenomenon (From one dimension to an 2^aleph-0 / R amount of dimensions) does have a hard cap in its size due to its topological properties, and so, at the very least, 1-A characters who gain their ratings due to dwarfing spacetime should qualify, in my opinion.

I also don't exactly understand what you mean by "the outgrowing of spacetime would be due to getting too large for space, not time," since time-like directions are themselves not that different from spatial dimensions, geometrically-speaking, and only differ in terms of their causal signatures and eigenvalues being negative (Instead of being positive, such as with spatial dimensions)

Definitely not a "small change".

I wouldn't really say that, frankly, considering that the size of a Proper Class (When actually formalized, that is) is practically just equivalent to the smallest cardinal that is too large to be actually constructed from within your model of the Universe of Sets, and so their precise scale varies depending on the Axioms which you endow your theory with. Ord is effectively just ω when defined over a framework that excludes the Axiom of Infinity, for instance.

I understand the arguments pushing for it, but personally, I am very, very neutral on the whole thing involving switching to them, as a result, because it ultimately amounts to a purely cosmetic change, in my eyes.

 

[Antvasima]

What the verses think about that in their own system should take precedent over what we reason due to some subjective mathematical considerations.

This...for the sake of our reliability this is the mentality we should use when approaching fictional powerscaling...

Agreed, but I hope that you remember that principle for the DC Comics scaling as well, as it has never presented its characters as anywhere near as powerful as we currently portray them. Thank you.

 

[Sera_EX]

Most verses here are ranked much higher than they are consistently portrayed as. Especially 1-A verses (since other than Masadaverse, most other 1-A verses are 1-A via existential status, not feats).

We have Low 2-C Bleach which is very laughable considering there's not a single universe level feat in the manga...and we have Dragon Ball Super characters put at 3-A to Low 2-C with MFTL+ speed despite consistently being 9-A to 8-C with subsonic speed. 5-B feats are still considered to be a huge deal to supposedly universal characters.

Must I bring up Mario? Pokemon? Megami Tensei? All these verses that require context to be rated so high, otherwise they'd be significantly lower in tiering.

Seems like a fiction thing or perhaps a VSBW thing, rather than a DC exclusive thing.

 

[Regidian]

Most verses here are ranked much higher than they are consistently portrayed as. Especially 1-A verses (since other than Masadaverse, most other 1-A verses are 1-A via existential status, not feats).

We have Low 2-C Bleach which is very laughable considering there's not a single universe level feat in the manga...and we have Dragon Ball Super characters put at 3-A to Low 2-C with MFTL+ speed despite consistently being 9-A to 8-C with subsonic speed. 5-B feats are still considered to be a huge deal to supposedly universal characters.

Must I bring up Mario? Pokemon? Megami Tensei? All these verses that require context to be rated so high, otherwise they'd be significantly lower in tiering.

Seems like a fiction thing or perhaps a VSBW thing, rather than a DC exclusive thing.

Masadaverse have 1-A feat? Pretty sure it came from just some statement

 

[Antvasima]

To a degree, yes, but DC Comics is among one of the verses that is by far most extreme in this regard, and you supported it if I recall correctly, so I just ask you to please keep it in mind.

 

[Sera_EX]

It didn't. The only way for a space to be 1-A is to be described as such. Masadaverse has that "space/object" be assimilated, pierced through, and even destroyed on multiple occasions. Definitely feats. Most other 1-A verses are just "exists at this level".

But enough about that, I don't want to derail.

 

[Sera_EX]

To a degree, yes, but DC Comics is among one of the verses that is by far most extreme in this regard, and you supported it if I recall correctly, so I just ask you to please keep it in mind.

Trust me, after Death Metal I've come to realize something is wrong with DC's tiering.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. So have I. The official cosmology only supports 1-B at best, and yet we scale it as tier 0. Your future support would be very appreciated in this regard.

However, we should stop derailing, yes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Spaces larger than this do exist, obviously, but "space" is itself a nebulous notion with no formal meaning in mathematics, and the closest thing to a definition that you can find is "A set endowed with some additional rules dictating how its elements behave and interact with one another," so I don't think that's a particularly concerning factor, especially when a "spacetime" is an actual object with defined properties that do indicate an upper bound in its size.

There is no authority for definitions in mathematics, so it's no surprise that you don't find a clear definition of such a general concept. That said, anything that has established itself to be called space has done so because many authors thought it has space-like properties.

in any case, just like there is no authority on definitions in mathematics there is also no authority for what "spacetime" means. Spacetime is defined as any model unifying space and time. Your assumption of separability isn't something necessarily included. It's a stance one can take, but not a stance on has to take. And that is an important distinction.
If you go around and tell works of fiction that their spacetime consisting of aleph_45 spatial dimensions and one time dimension is not actually spacetime because it isn't separable, then you're invoking authority you don't have.

It's one thing to say "we as a community decided that spacetime goes up to 1-A and as such we rank characters transcending it as such" and another to make rules that assume that no fiction can have spacetime above that level.

That's a fair enough point, but we aren't actually telling fiction how to behave, are we? Indexing as a whole is built while having in mind the basic assumption that some underlying principles are at play, whether those be physical or purely mathematical; if fiction decides to go against them, then that's fine, but if it doesn't outwardly break them at any point, I don't see why we wouldn't consider them applicable, especially since the vast majority of the 1-A characters on the wiki are already depicted as being aspatial and atemporal, anyway.

There is a huge difference between saying "physics works" and "spacetime goes only so high due to some mathematical consideration no author ever actually did". The former everyone writing fiction would probably agree with unless their work explicitly plays otherwise. The latter? Not so much.

If you aren't telling fiction how to play, then characters that haven't demonstrated being beyond time and able to move backwards through it wouldn't be assumed to do so. Otherwise, you are inventing abilities for them the work itself doesn't do. There is a difference between evaluating things we are shown and applying deduction to arrive at abilities we are not shown.
It's like saying "The character has city level punches. According to physics city level, punches should cause nuclear fusion. Therefore this character's punches can cause nuclear fusion." Nothing wrong with that as far as physics goes, but unless they actually show doing that we will not assume they can do it, since that would be inventing new abilities.

Most 1-A's are atemporal? Good, but why should that mean the rest should be it as well?

And, to get back to the point why we were having this debate, why should we say characters above spacetime are faster than those of Immeasurable speed in a larger spacetime? If we acknowledge that these fictions are allowed to have their own systems, then we can't insist on transcending spacetime in one cosmology being always faster than what characters that don't do it have.
So either one must make it so that Immeasurable speed can be faster than Irrelevant speed or one has to alter the definition of Irrelevant, so that characters that are faster than baseline spacetime transcending irrelevant ones are Irrelevant as well, even if they are not above spacetime in their verse at all.
The latter is what I'm trying to do when I say we should define Irrelevant as transcending (being of irrelevant speed) in at least so-and-so many dimensions of time.

I also don't exactly understand what you mean by "the outgrowing of spacetime would be due to getting too large for space, not time," since time-like directions are themselves not that different from spatial dimensions, geometrically-speaking, and only differ in terms of their causal signatures and eigenvalues being negative (Instead of being positive, such as with spatial dimensions)

If characters get "bigger" than we are talking about their extension in space expanding, not their extension in time. That's because dimensions are independent of each other.
So if you get too big to be contained in spacetime, that doesn't mean you now extend through all of time or that you can freely move backwards against its flow.
For example: In mathematical terms, you can have an object that has finite, but greater 0, expansion in aleph_45 dimensions (some of these spatial, some maybe not) and 0 expansion in the 1 dimension which we defined to represent good old normal time. However, like usual things it still has a position in time. That could be 0 for example. According to you this object would transcend spacetime due to being too large. However, being beyond spacetime in this fashion doesn't give it expansion in the time dimensions. Neither can we conclude that if this object can move backwards in time. It could still be bound by the rules that if it changes its position it may only do so in the forwards direction of the time axis.
Our combat speed includes the capability to react to attacks on your speed level or less. So if this existence had immeasurable or greater combat speed it would need to be able to react to an attack backwards in time. However, despite being large this being has no reason for being able to block an attack on its prior state.

In conclusion: It doesn't suffice to transcend spacetime (in your definition of spacetime) by size to be Immeasurable or higher fast. One has to transcend spacetime in a particular fashion. That can be that one can move through them, is omnipresent through them or by all time as happening at once out of onces perspective, but size or power alone don't suffice.
I expect most 1-A characters to have no problem with that criteria, but it is one we should require none the less.

I wouldn't really say that, frankly, considering that the size of a Proper Class (When actually formalized, that is) is practically just equivalent to the smallest cardinal that is too large to be actually constructed from within your model of the Universe of Sets, and so their precise scale varies depending on the Axioms which you endow your theory with. Ord is effectively just ω when defined over a framework that excludes the Axiom of Infinity, for instance.

It is a huge change, because you just lose lots of very basic mathematical concepts in the process. Even more talking about proper classes. You can't even put those together into a proper container.

If you think that at that point any character can actually proof being anything like that outside of literal direct statement or lots of subjective handwaving you would be wrong. At that point, you're just talking what to call a level where the thing you name it after has no actual relevance to its classification. It just some next level of transcendence.

---

And with that I have written enough for the day. Other replies not soon.

 

[Antvasima]

I trust DontTalk's sense of judgement. I just think that we should try to figure out how to keep irrelevant speed based on the definition that I suggested earlier.

 

[Sera_EX]

The problem is we can't do that. "Encompassing and transcending all degrees of time" is just a higher-dimensional degree of temporal omnipresence. Existing in an eternal now, including all thens and will bes, is essentially just a perspective thing.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, conplete temporal omnipresence is essentially how I perceive irrelevant speed, and I think that it would be useful to be able to properly classify such characters.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Omnipresence isn't speed tho. We have notes dedicated to precise this.

 

[Antvasima]

Spatial omnipresence isn't speed, but I am not so sure about temporal omnipresence.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Spatial omnipresence isn't speed, but I am not so sure about temporal omnipresence.

I mean the core concept doesn't change. Temporal or Spatial, omnipresence is a state of "i am" rather than "i can go".

Speed by its definition would require movement, whereas omnipresence is the lack of the need and capability to move.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, being simultaneously present across all of time seems considerably more impressive than simply being able to move in any direction along it.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well, being simultaneously present across all of time seems considerably more important than simply being able to move in any direction along it.

I am not sure what you mean to say with the "seems more important than simply being able to move in any direction along it".

From the descriptions it seems you're referring to temporal omnipresence and immeasurable speed, not sure what you mean by "more important" though.

 

[Antvasima]

I was going to use the word "impressive", but lost focus briefly. Anyway, it does seem like a natural progression beyond immeasurable speed.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I was going to use the word "impressive", but lost focus briefly. Anyway, it does seem like a natural progression beyond immeasurable speed.

Oh, understandable.

Well it is more impressive for sure, but it is not the same category technically. So it may look like a natural progression, but it stops being "speed". Speed requires movement to be defined, not the case for omnipresence though. If you want to call that state a form of speed you're gonna have a hard time as it lacks the most fundamental qualification for being speed (moving).

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it is transcending the nature of speed in its entirety to its ultimate degree, so it does seem to fit as a natural progression for truly transdual entities and the like.

 

[KingPin0422]

Hmm. What Ant proposed seemed more like type 5 acausality rather than temporal omnipresence in my eyes.

Anyway, whatever DT is up to right now, I hope he can respond to Aeyu's arguments in the near future.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well, it is transcending the nature of speed in its entirety to its ultimate degree, so it does seem to fit as a natural progression for truly transdual entities and the like.

Yeah but:
1. Is transcending speed the ultimate form of speed? You said it yourself, if you transcend the nature of speed, you cannot even define it as a form of speed anymore.
2. That already is a thing, called Temporal Omnipresence. So basically, a state that can replace speed without being speed on its own.

 

[Elizhaa]

At face value, Temporal Omniprence sounds like it would nigh-omnipresence, in my view.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

At face value, Temporal Omniprence sounds like it would nigh-omnipresence, in my view.

Why nigh?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Well, it is transcending the nature of speed in its entirety to its ultimate degree, so it does seem to fit as a natural progression for truly transdual entities and the like.

Something being "better" doesn't mean it is it's logical superior tho.

For example cutting space is better than punching a guy, but space cutting wouldn't be an Attack Potency tier because of being completely above TnT values.

 

[Elizhaa]

Why nigh?

Because it would be omnipresence limited to time without further contexts, based on what I said earlier.
The page has a similar wording:

• This power is similar to omnipresence, except that the users are bound within a certain domain, such as time, space, light, or nothingness.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Oh in that sense yeah. Which is why we were defining it as "temporal omnipresence" to this point.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, I just think that the word irrelevant in this case implies complete transcendence to the point that speed has no meaning any more, and would much prefer to at least keep a way to define such characters in this area.