This Cosmology Rule doesn't make sense OR am I missing something?

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I am talking about this rule. The rule that destroying multiple sets of infinite universes = the same destroying one set of infinite universes because infinite = infinity.

Now, I understand the math behind it and the concept the rule is trying to say but it doesn't make sense with the rest of the site's cosmology ratings. For example:

Under that same rule of math, an Infinite Universe would equal the same as an infinite multiverse. Yet we don't tier them as equal.

For universes: We have another rule that claims you cannot jump from low 2-C to 2-C via multipliers because the space between universes is indefinite. If this is the case, isn't the distance between one multiverse and another be also indefinite?

If you can't stack multipliers so that no amount of extra power can make a Low 2-C character 2-C, even infinite multipliers, why is that destroying one set of infinite multiverses = destroying multiple sets of infinite universes?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Following (by any chance, are you trying to understand why Goku 2-C is rejected?)

 

[DontTalkDT]

If you understand how the mathematics works then you know that there is no way an objective difference between one and multiple infinite multiverses could be made. The difference exists purely in name.

Meanwhile, there is a clear objective difference between one 3+1D spacetime continuum (i.e. a universe) and multiple ones. One contains all of 3+1D spacetime, while a second one is never part of that same spacetime, but has its completely separate space which can never been reached by moving in the 3 dimensions of space or through time.
So, an infinite universe can't be compared to an infinite multiverse. The cardinality of the amount universes there is different. Other than for one infinite multiverse vs multiple ones, where the cardinality is the same.

If you understand the mathematics, then your last remark regarding distances should answer itself: If you can't differentiate between one and multiple infinite multiverses then you also can't have a result that one has a greater indefinite distance than another. For all you know said indefinite distance along the extra dimensional axis can for multiple infinite multiverses be equal or even smaller than that of a single one.

 

[Thelastmlg]

That all applies to the difference between low 2-C and 2-C tho, low 2-C is uncoutably infinite snapshots of a universe, having two of those is no different, and if it is the space between them that makes them inaccessible, why wouldn't it be the case for 2-A structures, like, why is the cardinality the same?

Why is the spacetime of a multiverse the same as another?

That same logic, again, applies to 2-C, we don't have a objective view of the distance between them, it is unqualifiable, just like 2-As would have.

It feels like this assumes the 2-A structures are the exact same, and thus generalizes them, but if the multiverses are different and downright inaccessible, it is still not enough acvording to the FAQ, i just don't get where all of this comes from?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Oh yeah, that reminds me, if the number of timelines affected being the same means no increase in AP, then that means no scaling above baseline high 3-A or even 2-A because you are still gonna have infinite 3D or 4D energy/power

 

[Tatsumi504]

Under that same rule of math, an Infinite Universe would equal the same as an infinite multiverse. Yet we don't tier them as equal.

Wrong because an infinite universe is just infinite 3D+1 space time continuum while and infinite multiverse is a set containing infinite 3D+1 space time continuum. The elements are different.

If this is the case, isn't the distance between one multiverse and another be also indefinite?

If you can't stack multipliers so that no amount of extra power can make a Low 2-C character 2-C, even infinite multipliers, why is that destroying one set of infinite multiverses = destroying multiple sets of infinite universes?

Because at the end of the day,what they contain is the same thing. Having multiple infinite mutiverses is the same as having infinite universes. Infinity+infinity= infinity. The space between the multiverses is the same as the space between universes

 

[Greatsage13th]

Eh...

 

[DontTalkDT]

Oh yeah, that reminds me, if the number of timelines affected being the same means no increase in AP, then that means no scaling above baseline high 3-A or even 2-A because you are still gonna have infinite 3D or 4D energy/power

Would be an argument if we tiered those tiers in accordance to energy, which we don't. So really just a false equivalence.

That all applies to the difference between low 2-C and 2-C tho, low 2-C is uncoutably infinite snapshots of a universe, having two of those is no different

And the volume of my thumb and Saturn is the same, because both are just uncountably many points? Volumed isn't conserved amongst uncountable unification. Stuff like that only works up to countable infinite many.

and if it is the space between them that makes them inaccessible, why wouldn't it be the case for 2-A structures, like, why is the cardinality the same?

Because it's all countably infinite unless you have evidence that it's more. Having multiple multiverses isn't evidence of it being more than countably infinite universes.

Why is the spacetime of a multiverse the same as another?

Don't understand the question.

That same logic, again, applies to 2-C, we don't have a objective view of the distance between them, it is unqualifiable, just like 2-As would have.

Yeah, but the number of universes is different, which it isn't in the multiple multiverses case.

It feels like this assumes the 2-A structures are the exact same, and thus generalizes them, but if the multiverses are different and downright inaccessible, it is still not enough acvording to the FAQ, i just don't get where all of this comes from?

The 2-A structures being different really doesn't matter, as long as they are bijective to one another.

If one fiction has an infinite blue multiverse and an infinite red multiverse and another fiction has an infinite rainbow multiverse, what justification can there be for the blue and red to be more than the rainbow? None, it's just that one author decided to describe the pile of differing universes as two multiverses and another decided to describe them as one.
There is no objective difference. It's just piles of multiverses but described in different flavors.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Meanwhile, there is a clear objective difference between one 3+1D spacetime continuum (i.e. a universe) and multiple ones. One contains all of 3+1D spacetime, while a second one is never part of that same spacetime, but has its completely separate space which can never been reached by moving in the 3 dimensions of space or through time.

But can't you argue the same for sets of multiverses? That these sets are separate spaces and can never be reached by moving through the dimensions they are comprised of?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Wrong because an infinite universe is just infinite 3D+1 space time continuum while and infinite multiverse is a set containing infinite 3D+1 space time continuum. The elements are different.

Take any finite number of universes. Can you fit all those spacetimes inside the single spacetime of a single infinite universe?

 

[Thelastmlg]

Don't understand the question.


Yeah, but the number of universes is different, which it isn't in the multiple multiverses case.


The 2-A structures being different really doesn't matter, as long as they are bijective to one another.

If one fiction has an infinite blue multiverse and an infinite red multiverse and another fiction has an infinite rainbow multiverse, what justification can there be for the blue and red to be more than the rainbow? None, it's just that one author decided to describe the pile of differing universes as two multiverses and another decided to describe them as one.
There is no objective difference. It's just piles of multiverses but described in different flavors.

You brought up how "1 universe has 3+1D spacetime, while the other universe is not part of it", but why would separate multiverses be different from that.

The number of snapshots destroyed is still just uncountable infinite, regardless if you destroy 2 or 1000 universes or even infinite, i don't get your thumb argument, if there is not difference in volume of uncountable infinity, why is there a difference in ap with uncountable infinite snapshots

Why would they be bijective to begin with? I don't understand, especially if they are "different", what is the bijection referring to in this case?

That fiction argument works for literally any tier, especially tier 2 and 1, different authors might not be aware of the difference between destroying a universe or timeline, or how big their cosmology is, or dimensional scaling, it doesn't stop us from properly tiering based on what we define said feats as.

honestly less disputing this and more so confused at the math involved

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Bump.

 

[ImmortalDread]

DT is dealing with the staff thread. So ya, he will be back here.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It was a general bump for whoever to comment.

 

[EndlessWords]

There are a lot of things I find strange about tier 2, for example a feat is only eligible for tier 2 if it is performed on a universal size structure when even destroying a pebble over any period of time should be an "uncountable infinity" feat.

Also I think it would be less "risky" to say that a character can destroy the universe an infinite number of times along the time axis only when the author knows and mentions it, I think most authors figure that destroying a space of infinite size is far more impressive than destroying a space-time continuum. In my opinion it is wiser to consider that a universal structure has certain properties only when they are mentioned.

Here we can see that in DOOM's cosmology there are several 2-A structures. I understand why destroying two 2-A structures is the same as destroying one from a mathematical point of view, but isn't it a bit strange to think that destroying the multiverse or hell or Urdak separately is exactly the same as destroying all three at the same time when they are three different realms? If you add all the matter of Urdak to that of Hell, then all the matter of one disappears into the other even though they were two different realms containing different objects?