-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Tier 1 AP & Range Separation?
- Thread starter Maverick_Zero_X
- Start date
- 10,276
- 4,388
Basically the tiering system FAQ says that a higher-dimensional being doesn't need to have more mass than a 3D being by default, which explains why they don't have higher-D power by default. Why that reasoning fails to hold once the higher-D being or construct reaches a certain size should preferably be explained in the FAQ.
- 165,044
- 71,885
Just to clarify, I meant that our changes to our range system should preferably not be too extremely drastic, not that we cannot make any at all. Just try to keep the revisions on a reasonably balanced level please. That is all.
- 5,465
- 12,469
Been a fair while, eh.
This is fine and dandy, but I've begun to wonder how exactly this may interact with our other standards on what exactly makes a higher-dimensional thing qualify for Tier 1. For reference: We allow a higher dimensions to be treated as valid evidence for higher tiers if the higher-dimensional object in question is universe-sized or higher, as DontTalk outlined above, but, frankly, as far as I am aware there is, in principle, nothing that prevents the same logic outlined above from applying to higher-dimensional beings of cosmic sizes. A higher-dimensional object could conceivably be as large as our observable universe on all its axes and still have finite mass and energy, for example. So, given that, I see a notable inconsistency on that front, which should preferably be dealt with somehow.
Furthermore, there is a bit of wording in the FAQ that bothers me, still:
This is contradictory with the other parts of the page. We've already established that any given object is just the union of uncountably-many objects of one dimension lower, so on that front, of course a higher-dimensional universe could embed the whole of a lower-dimensional space in itself, but as outlined in the upper sections that does not necessarily prevent it from having physical quantities in finite amounts, much like any other object that we feel like considering.
Hm. These and DontTalk's (And KingPin's) comments make me want to bring up something I've wanted to talk about for a while: So, in summary, as per the FAQ, higher-dimensional beings are not considered infinitely more powerful by default because mass and energy are quantities that can be exemplified in finite amounts even in higher-dimensional spaces, which means there is nothing strictly preventing a higher-dimensional being from being weaker, or having less mass than, a lower-dimensional one.
This is fine and dandy, but I've begun to wonder how exactly this may interact with our other standards on what exactly makes a higher-dimensional thing qualify for Tier 1. For reference: We allow a higher dimensions to be treated as valid evidence for higher tiers if the higher-dimensional object in question is universe-sized or higher, as DontTalk outlined above, but, frankly, as far as I am aware there is, in principle, nothing that prevents the same logic outlined above from applying to higher-dimensional beings of cosmic sizes. A higher-dimensional object could conceivably be as large as our observable universe on all its axes and still have finite mass and energy, for example. So, given that, I see a notable inconsistency on that front, which should preferably be dealt with somehow.
Furthermore, there is a bit of wording in the FAQ that bothers me, still:
This is contradictory with the other parts of the page. We've already established that any given object is just the union of uncountably-many objects of one dimension lower, so on that front, of course a higher-dimensional universe could embed the whole of a lower-dimensional space in itself, but as outlined in the upper sections that does not necessarily prevent it from having physical quantities in finite amounts, much like any other object that we feel like considering.
- 14,849
- 12,333
We allow a higher dimensions to be treated as valid evidence for higher tiers if the higher-dimensional object in question is universe-sized or higher, as DontTalk outlined above, but, frankly, as far as I am aware there is, in principle, nothing that prevents the same logic outlined above from applying to higher-dimensional beings of cosmic sizes. A higher-dimensional object could conceivably be as large as our observable universe on all its axes and still have finite mass and energy, for example. So, given that, I see a notable inconsistency on that front, which should preferably be dealt with somehow.
This sort of arbitraryness has been known about for 2 years. iirc the "Affecting the entirety of a set of dimensions, if they're all roughly universe-sized, is tier 1" thing was adopted as a sort of compromise. It was an inconsistency we willingly walked into, and one that has been brought up quite a few times since it was adopted. Similar to the compromise we have for tier 11; characters who are infinitely powerful in R^2 can output more energy than ordinary 3-D humans, yet they're given a lower tier. This also creates a bit of a contradiction in that High 3-A characters aren't considered 3 infinities above 3-A characters, despite the math implying that. Then there's the contradiction we have for small-scale spacetime feats; under our current standards, technically affecting any amount of space-time, even a fraction of a second, would qualify for Low 2-C, but we don't give them that rating.
I don't care much about which way our standards end up falling, but I don't want us to make the decision with incomplete information. This inconsistency isn't new, and it isn't the only one present.
This is contradictory with the other parts of the page.
A simple solution would be to remove the word "can".
This sort of arbitraryness has been known about for 2 years. iirc the "Affecting the entirety of a set of dimensions, if they're all roughly universe-sized, is tier 1" thing was adopted as a sort of compromise. It was an inconsistency we willingly walked into, and one that has been brought up quite a few times since it was adopted. Similar to the compromise we have for tier 11; characters who are infinitely powerful in R^2 can output more energy than ordinary 3-D humans, yet they're given a lower tier. This also creates a bit of a contradiction in that High 3-A characters aren't considered 3 infinities above 3-A characters, despite the math implying that. Then there's the contradiction we have for small-scale spacetime feats; under our current standards, technically affecting any amount of space-time, even a fraction of a second, would qualify for Low 2-C, but we don't give them that rating.
I don't care much about which way our standards end up falling, but I don't want us to make the decision with incomplete information. This inconsistency isn't new, and it isn't the only one present.
This is contradictory with the other parts of the page.
A simple solution would be to remove the word "can".
Last edited:
- 165,044
- 71,885
- 10,276
- 4,388
I’d suggest not willingly walking into contradictions. Any system that doesn’t have contradictions is by definition superior to VSBW’s system then. Considering string theory dimensions not proper spatial dimensions seems like the way to go (I’d need to talk with some people but pretty sure there’s a good basis for that), while just letting other higher-D stuff be actually higher-D in power, same reasoning you use to say lower-D stuff is lower-D in power.
Also I think assuming that higher-D constructs don’t have some sort of higher-D mass and energy by default is baseless and even then I doubt how much it matters considering destroying infinite empty 3D space is still High 3-A.
Also I think assuming that higher-D constructs don’t have some sort of higher-D mass and energy by default is baseless and even then I doubt how much it matters considering destroying infinite empty 3D space is still High 3-A.
You can’t actually use temporal dimensions for hypervolume, not in a useful way for tiering anyways, so that is kind of a non-issue.
- 14,849
- 12,333
Any system that doesn’t have contradictions is by definition superior to VSBW’s system then.
If your criteria is "contradictions" rather than "usefulness", "comprehensibility", or any of a variety of other metrics.
while just letting other higher-D stuff be actually higher-D in power, same reasoning you use to say lower-D stuff is lower-D in power. Also I think assuming that higher-D constructs don’t have some sort of higher-D mass and energy by default is baseless
We used to have all higher-D stuff be actually higher-D in power, and I think we may have even disqualified string theory stuff some of the time, but we got argued out of that into this more strict interpretation.
I think assuming that higher-D constructs don't have higher-D mass and energy by default makes sense. If matter is just an excitation in a field which happens to extend to a certain number of spatial dimensions, I'd expect mass to not infinitely change if a dimension were to be added or removed.
even then I doubt how much it matters considering destroying infinite empty 3D space is still High 3-A.
Because exerting a non-infinitesimal influence over all of an infinite region would require infinite energy. That's why everyone is fine with infinitely-sized higher-D realms qualifying.
You can’t actually use temporal dimensions for hypervolume, not in a useful way for tiering anyways, so that is kind of a non-issue.
On the contrary, with the way things are currently argued, that's the most concrete way of getting dimensions useful for tiering.
The argument is that each point in a temporal dimension refers to the universe at that instant, and as such contains universe-sized mass in each instant. And since time is a continuum, it contains an uncountably infinite amount of mass, automatically qualifying it for higher tiers.
But I am getting a little concerned that this is starting to go a bit outside of the scope of this thread.
EDIT: I have a response to Greenshifter's reply, but I posted it on their wall.
If your criteria is "contradictions" rather than "usefulness", "comprehensibility", or any of a variety of other metrics.
while just letting other higher-D stuff be actually higher-D in power, same reasoning you use to say lower-D stuff is lower-D in power. Also I think assuming that higher-D constructs don’t have some sort of higher-D mass and energy by default is baseless
We used to have all higher-D stuff be actually higher-D in power, and I think we may have even disqualified string theory stuff some of the time, but we got argued out of that into this more strict interpretation.
I think assuming that higher-D constructs don't have higher-D mass and energy by default makes sense. If matter is just an excitation in a field which happens to extend to a certain number of spatial dimensions, I'd expect mass to not infinitely change if a dimension were to be added or removed.
even then I doubt how much it matters considering destroying infinite empty 3D space is still High 3-A.
Because exerting a non-infinitesimal influence over all of an infinite region would require infinite energy. That's why everyone is fine with infinitely-sized higher-D realms qualifying.
You can’t actually use temporal dimensions for hypervolume, not in a useful way for tiering anyways, so that is kind of a non-issue.
On the contrary, with the way things are currently argued, that's the most concrete way of getting dimensions useful for tiering.
The argument is that each point in a temporal dimension refers to the universe at that instant, and as such contains universe-sized mass in each instant. And since time is a continuum, it contains an uncountably infinite amount of mass, automatically qualifying it for higher tiers.
But I am getting a little concerned that this is starting to go a bit outside of the scope of this thread.
EDIT: I have a response to Greenshifter's reply, but I posted it on their wall.
Last edited:
- 10,276
- 4,388
Not really, contradictions means that you can use the system and come to whatever result you want. Under the current system you can biject everyone’s power to 11-B if you wanted to.
There’d be room for inaccessibly or uncountably (whatever you prefer since I don’t intend to dive into that rn) more excitations in that case.
Sure, why does the same not apply to higher dimensions? You’d be affecting uncountably/inaccessibly more lower-D constructs compared to countably infinite ones (same size as 1 countably infinite one, used the former to better illustrate my point).
Yes the snapshots argument, thing is that it’s baseless. You can’t prove something like a timeline functions like that to my knowledge.
Yes agreed, I’ll probably contact one of you guys later today.
- 5,465
- 12,469
That bit seems like another contradiction that I would like to correct, yes. The first words in Tier 11's description are, after all, "no joule value avaliable," which is pretty objectively wrong and goes against the general outline of the FAQ as well. My overall point is that I want to address all of this, as a whole.
String Theory's dimensions are still "proper" higher dimensions. The only distinction is to be found in their topology: That is to say, they're curled into circles, rather than being straight lines. Moreover, higher-dimensional mass and energy don't really exist, to begin with, so I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly. Can you elaborate?
Same with this, as well. I don't know what you mean here, so, elaboration would be appreciated on that front.
Good point, aye. Wouldn't particularly mind discussing this somewhere else more appropriate. Just thought I'd hop in here to inquire about some of the bits I found particularly confusing.
- 165,044
- 71,885
Thank you for helping out, Ultima and Agnaa.
@DontTalkDT
Your help would also be very appreciated here.
@DontTalkDT
Your help would also be very appreciated here.
- 923
- 439
bump
- 165,044
- 71,885
- 10,500
- 11,563
Aren't we drifting a bit too far off the entire range topic? At this point we are talking about a whole tiering revision here, aren't we? Maybe we should finish the range stuff here and talk about tiering somewhere else?
It assumes that the (3 dimensional) mass-energy density in the space could be infinitely small (or 0), as that's the only way you could get finite values.
However, for higher D spaces with infinite axis mass-energy could still have finite values if the density is infinitely small.
In fact, if we are assuming infinitely small density, in principal the mass-energy in a space with a higher cardinality of dimensions could still be finite. (well, defining it in that setting would become difficult, but in idea it makes sense)
My answer is what I basically said in the tiering revision: mass-energy arguments are garbage for tiers above infinite energy tiers and we should go by size/AoE of attacks. Or at least we shouldn't assume infinitely low mass-energy density for spaces in which objects actually occupy those extra-dimensions, in contrast to the tiny string-theory dimension case where the extra dimensions are literally completely empty.
Honestly, in my book the entire "mass and energy could be finite" argument is just asinine.
It assumes that the (3 dimensional) mass-energy density in the space could be infinitely small (or 0), as that's the only way you could get finite values.
However, for higher D spaces with infinite axis mass-energy could still have finite values if the density is infinitely small.
In fact, if we are assuming infinitely small density, in principal the mass-energy in a space with a higher cardinality of dimensions could still be finite. (well, defining it in that setting would become difficult, but in idea it makes sense)
My answer is what I basically said in the tiering revision: mass-energy arguments are garbage for tiers above infinite energy tiers and we should go by size/AoE of attacks. Or at least we shouldn't assume infinitely low mass-energy density for spaces in which objects actually occupy those extra-dimensions, in contrast to the tiny string-theory dimension case where the extra dimensions are literally completely empty.
Last edited:
- 14,849
- 12,333
- We mostly agreed on the changes I suggested to the Range page.
- KingPin and Ultima had some minor concerns with my suggestions for Interdimensional and Universal+ range.
- DontTalk didn't comment specifically on my suggestions, but made comments that sound in-line with them.
- The issues with the Tiering System FAQ didn't have concrete suggestions, so they went onto more discussion.
- Suggestions about higher-dimensional beings faced some conflict; with KingPin and Ultima pointing out the logical inconsistency, and DontTalk and I pointing towards that being a long-accepted compromise. This eventually spun out into a wider discussion on the Tiering System outside the scope of this thread.
- One section of the FAQ (about higher dimensions embedding lower ones) had a minor change suggested. Ant was the only one who responded do it, and he accepted it.
- 165,044
- 71,885
Okay. Thank you for the reply. What do you think about the above, @DontTalkDT ?
It seems like my concerns here were mostly restricted to what was stated below.
- 14,849
- 12,333
I didn't suggest a change, but if I were forced to suggest one, the most that I'd want would be to clarify that "beyond the conventional space-time of a single universe" can also mean small-scale higher-dimensional/realm stuff (where their small influence in a higher dimension/realm doesn't correspond to covering the entirety of an ordinary 3-D universe), not just tier 2-esque equal realm stuff. But I feel like that's implied by the current definition, and becomes more strongly implied with my suggested changes to the higher-D ranges.
Last edited:
- 165,044
- 71,885
- 32,758
- 37,913
- 32,758
- 37,913
@Ultima_Reality What do you think about this?
- 2,126
- 1,724
Bump.
- 11,095
- 2,394
bump
- 165,044
- 71,885
- 165,044
- 71,885
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,868
- 3,329
bump.
- 165,044
- 71,885
- 14,849
- 12,333
One of my most recent posts here held a summary. After that, all that happened was me suggesting a way to get Interdimensional more in line with what it was intended to mean.
From then, I guess what's left to do is:
From then, I guess what's left to do is:
- Come to a consensus on my suggested Range changes (KingPin and Ultima had some minor disagreements, DontTalk was unclear but seemed to agree with them).
- Trying to nail down some more concrete suggestions for Tiering System FAQ changes, or deciding to nix that idea.
- Getting other people's input on my suggestion for Interdimensional range.
- 165,044
- 71,885
Okay. Thank you for the reply. 
Here are my previous concerns:
Here are my previous concerns:
- 14,849
- 12,333
The way I see it, there's two main parts to these suggested changes. A not-drastic part, and a potentially-drastic part.
The non-drastic part is about clarifications to things which I think the pages already imply; that dimensions which qualify for higher-D range should have to qualify for AP, getting the written definition of Interdimensional more in line with what it's meant to be. Plus maybe some cleanups to the Tiering System FAQ.
The potentially-drastic part is how those changes would affect higher-dimensional characters that can't attack across the entirety of their realms; higher-dimensional melee fighters. Some or all of these may need their range adjusted to Interdimensional. There's also the potential of separating the range of one's attack, and how many dimensions one can attack in, but that would require more significant changes.
The non-drastic part is about clarifications to things which I think the pages already imply; that dimensions which qualify for higher-D range should have to qualify for AP, getting the written definition of Interdimensional more in line with what it's meant to be. Plus maybe some cleanups to the Tiering System FAQ.
The potentially-drastic part is how those changes would affect higher-dimensional characters that can't attack across the entirety of their realms; higher-dimensional melee fighters. Some or all of these may need their range adjusted to Interdimensional. There's also the potential of separating the range of one's attack, and how many dimensions one can attack in, but that would require more significant changes.
- 14,849
- 12,333
You didn't seem instantly dismissive of the change I suggested for Interdimensional range. To include attacks that can reach into higher dimensions/realms, where that small influence doesn't confer a higher tier, and where they can't affect the entirety of those locations.
And for the size of the revision, I think there are ways of changing it that don't need as many changes as you were concerned about, and so should be fine.
And for the size of the revision, I think there are ways of changing it that don't need as many changes as you were concerned about, and so should be fine.
Similar threads
