- 31,463
- 34,328
Sera is basically the one who brought up "Entire Universe" being Tier 2 in a general case.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I disagree with Sera, then. As Tago said, destroying something entails damaging it to a point where it can no longer function or be recognized. You wouldn't say that snapping a ruler in half means that you destroyed the ruler unless you were being hyperbolic, would you? And again, saying that "destroying the universe" =/= "destroying the entire universe" is essentially arguing semantics- I dare say it's similar to the logic that says "destroying the planet just means destroying the core/surface of the planet."Sera is basically the one who brought up "Entire Universe" being Tier 2 in a general case.
Destroying a Universe = reality obliteration. If all of space-time is destroyed, there would be nothing but void. No space, nor time. Which means no future.Technically, destroying the present would result in the future being a vacuum.
Yeah i only notice it later, which why i delete my post."KingPin's latest proposal seen the most correct and accurate to be honest."
It has been all but shown to very much not be correct or accurate (whatever the supposed difference is) whatsoever at a very basic level, BY KINGPIN'S OWN ADMISSION!
This CRT was casually discussed/ planned on the VS Central discord and related discord servers for some time, mainly involving Zamasu asking questions to Ultima/KingPin and KingPin saying that verses were being wanked. The part of the op that says "destroying matter isn't 3-A, destroying an infinitesimal portion of space time is" was not anything like what had been discussed previously on discord and is wrong for two very obvious reasons, one of which you mentioned (I'll get to the second later). Zamasu himself has admitted to these mistakes, at least somewhat ("I made a slight mistake in the OP kek.". I realise that I might be taking this out of Zamasu's original intention though, so I will edit accordingly if I am given reason to believe this is the case obviously).I disagree with a ton of this.
3-A is based on the energy to destroy all matter within the observable universe with a single attack (such as Goku and Beerus' super dense energy ball). There's no Multi-Galaxy level+, in this case.
If you destroy all of space (space still exists if matter doesn't) as a concept, that's considered High 3-A in universes where space and time are considered separate, like Her Tears Were My Light. It's true that they're the same IRL, but fiction and real life are two separate things. For reference, one the definition of space is:
- Universe level: Given that the universe's actual size is unknown, we do not know the amount of energy that would be required to destroy all matter within it. As such, the bare minimum value for the observable universe was calculated as a lower border instead (The PSRJ0348+0432 was used as a base). Any greater finite number is also included within this tier, whereas countably infinite numbers are included under High Universe level.
By this same token, I don't get why Low 2-C isn't destroying a universe's space-time, but erasing literally every single moment of its existence throughout history. I could get this in a universe where space-time are the same, but even then we portray things like the Big Bang as Low 2-C.
- a continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
- the dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
- position (two or more items) at a distance from one another.
I personally think this is just really picky and unnecessary, but that we should review these profiles with more scrutiny.
Edit: Apparently there is absolutely no space without matter, IRL (I thought there'd just be a completely and totally empty infinite void that would technically be considered "space"). However, many universes in fiction don't work this way. It also doesn't alter the fact that our 3-A rating is based on destroying matter within the universe, meaning that value would need to be changed if your revisions go through.
Edit 2: It says matter and energy, so, Idk. I've also heard that space as a thing would exist, but only in the sense that there's no technical frame of reference. For example, time itself isn't real, we just use it as a frame of reference, so it would "cease" if the universe was destroyed.
Despite Ultima saying multiple times "space time is all of the past present and future (PPF), and can't be destroyed in one point in time," Matthew said this:As I learned from Ultima, the space-time continuum as it is defined in general relativity merely indicates a framework where space and time are continuous (duh), and the word timeline already implies as much.
Yes, and that's exactly what a dimension of time is: It's another direction in which the individual states of the universe at any given moment ("Snapshots," as I called them up there) are lined up in succession, think of the frames of a film, except there are infinitely-many of them.
Low 2-C is effectively destroying uncountably infinite snapshots of the spatial universe, so, yeah, it isn't the same thing as 3-A anyway.
Not only did this get a crap ton of like from both regulars and staff, but there were still people contesting Ultima's premise. This makes me wonder why so many people thought one thing but Ultima is the only one that said otherwise. Isn't this supposed to be common knowledge, especially among staff? This leads into my next problem.Assuming "I'm going to destroy this universe in all past, present and future" as a default assumption when someone says "I'm going to destroy this space-time" is ridiculous. It definitely needs more complete proof.
First off, inflation doesn't answer my question. Second, you said space time is the PPF, it can't be destroyed in one era, only all of the PPF, which is infinite range. On the wiki, destroying a universal space time continuum is the equivalent of destroying infinite 3-A universes right? However, when destroying the entire PPF of a pocket dimension with anything less than 3-A, say a planet or star, this "infinite snapshot" thing is completely forgotten about. So why is destroying all of the time and space of a star sized dimension not equivalent to destroying infinite stars? The only difference between 3-A and 4-C is the size, both of them are still finite.It's indeed quite a strange standard that we've held since the beginnings of the wiki, way before I even got to revise the Tiering System, I think. Of course, saying that destroying any amount of spacetime is enough for Low 2-C sets an extremely bad precedent and is bound to inflate a bunch of feats, and that is exactly why I am going to make a thread regarding feats like this in the near future: This is also a response to anyone who is asking about feats where spacetime is destroyed locally, but not universally, by the way.
Destroying only the present wouldn’t be destroying all of space-time.Destroying a Universe = reality obliteration. If all of space-time is destroyed, there would be nothing but void. No space, nor time. Which means no future.
Technically, the future and past as concepts cannot exist without the present.Destroying only the present wouldn’t be destroying all of space-time.
"I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate"I still don't agree with that, tbh, because it can be that way in the context of a fictional universe where space-time are separate. Even then, you both agreed Zamasu's point about destroying the universe was wrong. At most, our standard should be moderately stricter. It's also still entirely susceptible, as I explained with our standards on the Big Bang.
Also, this is our exact justification for Universe level+. Even if you guys were right, destroying or affecting time in some capacity is not 3-D, it's 4-D. Destroying a continuum on a universal scale (likely meaning size), is just an example.
Plus, there's many universes where every moment of a universe's history has totally ceased to exist and the characters still exist. Doctor Who is a good example, even if you discount the Time Lords' resistance to being erased from history.
- Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.
B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.
I am literally responding to ByAsura listing those means what is thisWell, what would be the other means? Like examples.
While I can agree to treating universes as spatio-temporally separate by default unless proven otherwise, I don't think that an attack that encompasses multiple universes should necessarily be tier 2. It'd still be subject to the burden of proving that those universes were affected across time as well as space, I'd say, although I think that you could possibly get Interdimensional Range out of it.I pretty much agree that there should be more elaborate details than "Entire universe". But stuff like "Alternate universe" or "Parallel universe" typically mean alternate timeline since Quilted multiverses and bubble multiverses are actually much less common than actual multiverses.
The first part sounds wrong for reasons that have already been explained: reducing the universe into a perfect vacuum is something that you can do just by destroying all matter and energy in the universe. That would not necessarily be a Low 2-C feat without specifically mentioning or, better yet, showing that space-time is being affected. The second part should be obvious to anyone who is even somewhat familiar with power scaling, I'd reckon.But hakai'ing universes or "Reducing them back into the void" are also described as Low 2-C based on things DragonMaster and Ryukama said. Though, Using EE on a universe wouldn't quite scale to striking strength or durability by default.
As I said in the previous post, there are fictional universes where that's the case. But there's also tons more (Dragon Ball, Doctor Who, etc) where it isn't.So this is arguing in favour of stricter standards because we don't know if space and time are separate? I'm not sure what you mean and therefore I don't feel comfortable responding.
Eh? Time in a 4-D universe is just, a single temporal dimension, but I'm not quite sure if that even works as a contradiction because I in no way see this point being sequential to the following (also ig you could say destroying time would reduce the size of a space time continuum to a single 3-D cross section but so would destroying any dimension whatsoever, which would mean hax that "destroys a dimension" would be ranked as either 11-B or 1-B taking into consideration the composite cosmology o f t h e v s m a t c h):
The thread isn't saying "You have to destroy the past, present and future to get low 2-C", it's just saying "all these profiles that get low 2-C based on feats of just destroying the universe without explanation that it destroys the cosmos across the past, present and future are wrong and should be downgraded". The other means of achieving low 2-C that don't relate to a space time continuum at all hasn't even been a topic mentioned in passing on this thread.
I don't see how this is a hot take. It's just applying basic logic that many people seem to gloss over.I'm kind of amazed this wasn't just closed outright considering how much of a Hot Take I assumed this was at first.
Excuse me, how is a an idea brough forth by the guy who wrote the current tiering system as we have it now based on the very fundations he put on it "a hot take"?I'm kind of amazed this wasn't just closed outright considering how much of a Hot Take I assumed this was at first.
sighHigh 3-B for characters able to destroy all the physical matter in a universe
Basically, there is no real distinction between "destroying a space-time continuum" and "destroying a timeline", and me saying otherwise was misinformation. While destroying all matter and energy in the entire universe would logically lead to the destruction of time as well, it would do so as a chain reaction, and as such, it isn't enough to grant a Low 2-C rating. To be Low 2-C, you obviously have to directly destroy the space-time continuum/timeline at all points, not just the universe at one point in time. This extends to 2-C through 2-A as well- no one should be tier 2 just because their attack covered multiple universes, we need to require context that those universes were destroyed at every point in time, and even then, if there is evidence suggesting that they are contained under the same space-time continuum, then the feat would be Low 2-C at most unless higher dimensions are involved for some reason.As I learned from Ultima, the space-time continuum as it is defined in general relativity merely indicates a framework where space and time are continuous (duh), and the word timeline already implies as much. Furthermore, a space-time continuum doesn't need to change- remember Einstein's famous quote that time is just a persistent illusion of three-dimensional space? My previous definition of a timeline would be more in line with how spacetime is described in Newtonian mechanics, wherein spacetime is just a stage where all physical phenomena occur and is uniform throughout the universe. Under general relativity, spacetime "changes," but not in the sense of its causal structure constantly evolving, rather in the sense that mass distorts spacetime, causing gravity.
Also, destroying space itself isn't necessarily going to destroy time in a way that matters. A single point in the timeline/space-time continuum would be 3-D in the same way that a single point on the real number line would be 0-D, while the line itself would be 1-D. Thus, the Dragon Ball analogy doesn't exactly work, not that it matters since DBS would get downgraded either way.
Ultima plans to address feats regarding small space-time continua in the future, so don't worry.Anyway, I am still concerned about that our current standards create confusion regarding feats that create or destroy miniature pocket universes.
Yeah, as I said, that is a problem that ought to be handled. Destroying multiple universes doesn't necessarily entail destroying multiple space-time continua, despite what our current standards say. For example, we treat Dragon Ball Super's shared feat between Beerus and Champa as 2-C overall, despite a lack of indication that the two universes they would have destroyed would have been destroyed on a spatio-temporal level. Whether or not universes in Dragon Ball are separate space-time continua, this feat lacks the context for actual 2-C.In addition, we currently consider destroying several universes at once as 2-C to 2-A regardless if spacetime or timelines were specified or not.
Universal space-times are timelines. I literally just showed how there is no distinction, and Ultima has also said that no tiers would need to be changed- it seems that Ant has a different idea in mind involving 3-D multiversal stuff, but other than that, I'm pretty sure there will be no modifications made to the tiering system itself.So question...
What would this do about tier 1 characters? Wouldn't they specifically need to be shown to be superior to timelines as opposed to universal space-times?
This puts everything above tier 3 into question.
Okay. I suppose that seems reasonable.Anyway, if we are going to close this thread, we ought to do it soon, preferably after Ultima gives his input on Ant's proposal. We don't need to clutter this thread more than necessary.