Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[LuffyRuffy46307]

An explosion in a vacuum (in the figurative sense) is in no way relevant to this thread or Tier 2 standards. It reaching other "universes" if they're being debated to be such is not a point for or against it since an explosion's range has no actual cap in fictious works whatsoever. Like, you can disprove those separate spaces being separate through more context but "explosion reaches X realm therefore X realm is Tier 3" is dumb.

really, i agree with you, it's getting more and more difficult to become tier 2, here are some pretty stupid things too, well we could leave tier 2 as it was before, this here is very difficult to understand and even more with my little head

 

[PrinceofPein]

... Energy is dimensionless and it can span to all Dimensions, it doesn't need context at all, it something that doesn't deny them being Spatiotemporally separate.

True, explosion would apply here
I will concede on that point then

T

if

The standard does not have explosions traveling as part of the standards, it is me in reply to the question aside what is in the new standard, what else could be an anti-feat.

All in all it is case by case and context (bolding it so people can understand)
Time travel between the verses
Attacks that travels/spread e.g. explosions able to reach the other universes.
And the others is a case by case basis and depends on the context e.g. branching timelines

So it is not the standards you have problem with but what I said, you can stop attacking it now.
Also yes you guys are right explosions are energy regardless so they will be dimensionless

 

[Planck69]

Look, regarding the nature of separate Tier 2 structures, clearly we can agree on;

• Spatially separate i.e. cannot be moved between with standard 3-dimensional movement.
• Being disjointed in time i.e. having their own time flows and not being affected by temporal shenanigans that occur in individual structures, such as time stop and travel.
• Being called mirrors of each other or alternate realities/planes of existence.
• Existing in and being kept separate by a higher order/higher dimensional space.
• Being called space-times/space-time continuums or timelines.
• Having significant enough size.

Is there anything else that's missed?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Look, regarding the nature of separate Tier 2 structures, clearly we can agree on;

• Spatially separate i.e. cannot be moved between with standard 3-dimensional movement.
• Being disjointed in time i.e. having their own time flows and not being affected by temporal shenanigans that occur in individual structures, such as time stop and travel.
• Being called mirrors of each other or alternate realities/planes of existence.
• Existing in and being kept separate by a higher order/higher dimensional space.
• Being called space-times/space-time continuums or timelines.
• Having significant enough size.

Is there anything else that's missed?

None, that is the summary of it all

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Look, regarding the nature of separate Tier 2 structures, clearly we can agree on;

• Spatially separate i.e. cannot be moved between with standard 3-dimensional movement.
• Being disjointed in time i.e. having their own time flows and not being affected by temporal shenanigans that occur in individual structures, such as time stop and travel.
• Being called mirrors of each other or alternate realities/planes of existence.
• Existing in and being kept separate by a higher order/higher dimensional space.
• Being called space-times/space-time continuums or timelines.
• Having significant enough size.

Is there anything else that's missed?

I think I could add dimensions that separate the Universes and dimensional barriers, as a living proof that the Universes are somehow separated by means of space-time.

 

[Planck69]

I think I could add dimensions that separate the Universes and dimensional barriers, as a living proof that the Universes are somehow separated by means of space-time.

That's not needed. So long as spatial separation and a higher-dimensional space in which those space-times exist are showcased then this is proven by default.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think I could add dimensions that separate the Universes and dimensional barriers, as a living proof that the Universes are somehow separated by means of space-time.

to build more on what Planck said, dimensional barriers do not mean different space times, without the barriers they will be one dimension to begin with

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

That's not needed. So long as spatial separation and a higher-dimensional space in which those space-times exist are showcased then this is proven by default.

but like that, verses hardly mention higher dimensions or anything like that

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

but like that, verses hardly mention higher dimensions or anything like that

Then just look at context, it doesn't need to be name dropped.
If it's one thing I have learned here on wiki, don't treat standards here as gospel. Use common sense.

 

[Planck69]

but like that, verses hardly mention higher dimensions or anything like that

They don't need to, it just has to be self evident. For example;

The Yggdrasil in God of War is a cosmic structure whose very strands transcend space and time. It supports creation, in the form of nine realities, on separated branches that are infinitely long relative to the realms themselves. It's a higher order expanse on which these realities exist.

Same with any setting where the universes exist in some form of "In Between" void.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

They don't need to, it just has to be self evident. For example;

The Yggdrasil in God of War is a cosmic structure whose very strands transcend space and time. It supports creation, in the form of nine realities, on separated branches that are infinitely long relative to the realms themselves. It's a higher order expanse on which these realities exist.

Same with any setting where the universes exist in some form of "In Between" void.

my little head started to fire, it's a lot of information for my brain to process, but thanks bro

 

[PrinceofPein]

Thursday Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody properöy explain everything that currently needs to be evaluated here please? I can ask DontTalk for help afterwards.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Can somebody properöy explain everything that currently needs to be evaluated here please? I can ask DontTalk for help afterwards.

This

ImmortalDread/Space-time continuum

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody properöy explain everything that currently needs to be evaluated here please? I can ask DontTalk for help afterwards.

This

ImmortalDread/Space-time continuum

vsbattles.fandom.com

Thank you.

@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to take a look please?

 

[Planck69]

This

ImmortalDread/Space-time continuum

vsbattles.fandom.com

A few things I'd like to address;

• A realm having time that works somewhat differently is not enough to be considered a Universe as nonlinear time within a single universe exists. And the realm should still have a confirmed appropriate size to back it up.

Just say that having differing rates of time flow doesn't necessarily indicate being a causally isolated universe or space-time. The non-linear time being referenced here is usually due to gravitational distortion and extremely few works of fiction actually give a damn about that.

• The Worlds being different bodies of space is not enough to consider them universes, as that does not quite prove they have different timelines. Especially if they are afterlives. Afterlives often are different bodies of space, but are generally condensed in the same timeline unless there's more proof otherwise.

Personally, this feels like a nothing burger to add. But I'm not particularly opposed to it.

• Saying that it "Mirrors your world" does not automatically equate to mirroring the entire universe you came from as World can also mean planet. And it can even refer to locations in between planet and Universe. And even if the realms are larger than planet sized, the "Your World" aspect often refers to specific sceneries rather than the entire Space-Time Continuum. And just because world frequently refers to universe doesn't mean everything larger than a planet that is called a world is a universe.

We already evaluate the context of the word "world" so this doesn't seem like a necessary addition.

Everything else seems good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Just say that having differing rates of time flow doesn't necessarily indicate being a causally isolated universe or space-time. The non-linear time being referenced here is usually due to gravitational distortion and extremely few works of fiction actually give a damn about that.

I think the entire point can be haxed, since we already have this

It should be noted that variations in the flow of time, such as faster or slower rates, do not necessarily indicate the existence of separate universes or space-time continuums.

We already evaluate the context of the word "world" so this doesn't seem like a necessary addition.

I think it can be reworded to be better, not entirely removed

 

[DontTalkDT]

Thank you.

@DontTalkDT

Are you willing to take a look please?

Well, I still find it strange to make a second page that says the exact same stuff as the section we added to the Tiering System FAQ, instead of just linking to the Tiering System FAQ. It's just needlessly redundant.

That's basically what the Guidelines section is.

The Qualification section has problems.

One of the most straightforward ways of meeting this requirement is for the concept of a "Space-time continuum" to be explicitly stated

is fine

• It should be recognized that physical travel between universes is not feasible unless through the use of a portal or similar mechanism. This is because it is impossible for two distinct space-time continuums to occupy the same physical space without the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate space-time continuums may coexist in the same physical space if the space between them is of a 4-D or 5-D dimension, or higher. Therefore, in order to physically travel between universes, the space between them must be of a higher dimensional space. To summarize, in order for a verse to qualify for the tier 2 classification regarding traveling between universes, there must be:

1. An evidence of a larger space that encompasses all the universes or space-times
2. And proof that this space is of a higher dimensional nature.

Is neither a sufficient nor necessary qualification for something to be a timeline. This might be relevant for determining if something is a universe, but we are talking about timelines here. Honestly, for a section about spacetime, I would assume that the user has already determined whether their spaces are universes and go from there.

The concept of a "different dimension" should not be automatically assumed to indicate spatio-temporal separation as not all dimensions or universes necessarily meet this criterion without further clarification.

That's again stuff that the universe page talks about. It's not a timeline issue. It's a purely spatial consideration.

• Time Travel:When considering "dimensions" or "universes", it is important to keep in mind that time travel should not be possible between them. Interfering with the time in one timeline should not have an effect on another timeline, as this would indicate a lack of separation.
  • However, there are exceptions to this rule. Some verses may have a concept of "meta-time" that allows for such oddities, though nevertheless it is important to note that these still constitute mere exceptions and not the general norm, and evidence is required to support the claim that a higher form of time is at play.

I have no idea where that random criteria comes from or why it would be true. If I have branching timelines, getting form one to another via time travel is perfectly plausible. And since timelines usually share the same time dimension, a time stop technically affecting both timelines is not per se implausible (even if rare). So I don't see why it would be taken as a contradiction.

It is widely acknowledged that the existence of a dimensional wall serves as a delimiter between various dimensions.

What's a delimiter?

However, it is important to note that the presence of this barrier does not necessarily indicate a complete spatio-temporal separation between the dimensions in question, as defined by not occupying any points in time and space. Instead, the presence of this dividing wall simply serves to distinguish between the dimensions, even if they share a common time axis. Without the presence of this wall, the dimensions would be indistinguishable and would no longer be considered separate.

"Share a common time axis" is a bad formulation, as timelines may share the same time axis, as in time dimensions. Besides that the stentiment is ok, though. Although, we might want to avoid the use of the word "dimension" in this context. We usually mean mathematical dimensions when we bring the up and stuff. "Realm" or something might be better.

• If you have two 3-dimensional universes separated by a 4-dimensional gap, they would be spatially separated but temporally connected due to the addition of a temporal axis that encompasses the entire system.

It sounds unclear what that means in regard to tiering. What "temporally connected" means is not clear either.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Well, I still find it strange to make a second page that says the exact same stuff as the section we added to the Tiering System FAQ, instead of just linking to the Tiering System FAQ. It's just needlessly redundant.

Literally, under the “universe page”, there is no “second” page at all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Is neither a sufficient nor necessary qualification for something to be a timeline. This might be relevant for determining if something is a universe, but we are talking about timelines here. Honestly, for a section about spacetime, I would assume that the user has already determined whether their spaces are universes and go from there.

can you provide reasons why you say it is not enough to say they are of different timelines (space-time)?

That's again stuff that the universe page talks about. It's not a timeline issue. It's a purely spatial consideration.

it is the same page actually this is a section below the universe page, if you are saying it should be moved to the first section, then that is fine

I have no idea where that random criteria comes from or why it would be true. If I have branching timelines, getting form one to another via time travel is perfectly plausible. And since timelines usually share the same time dimension, a time stop technically affecting both timelines is not per se implausible (even if rare). So I don't see why it would be taken as a contradiction.

First to address you, a branching timeline is entirely a separate matter, as like you said they used to be one and the same timeline, so it is possible for timetravel to happen between them. since if you go back well enough into the past of A, you will get to a point where A and B are one.
And for the timestop point, we take timestop to be universal, i.e. the current universe that the character is existing in, unless he has some kind of range that allows for time stop all across, in which the verses usually mention such

What's a delimiter?

Beginning or end or wall

It sounds unclear what that means in regard to tiering. What "temporally connected" means is not clear either.

I think he made a bit complicated, he just means 2 3D universes in a 4D space can be sharing the same temporal axis. or rather to put it this way, "Sharing the same temporal axis does not mean two universes are spatially connected"

 

[DontTalkDT]

Literally, under the “universe page”, there is no “second” page at all.

The stuff that is suggested to be put on the universe page in the Guidelines section, is already on the Tiering FAQ page. So yeah, two pages. The universe and the tiering FAQ one. Tiering FAQ = 1, Universe page = 2.

can you provide reasons why you say it is not enough to say they are of different timelines (space-time)?

Because it says literally nothing about time. It just mentions one of several options for something to qualify as separate universes.

it is the same page actually this is a section below the universe page, if you are saying it should be moved to the first section, then that is fine

It does belong in the first section. However, the first section already lists stuff that basically says just that

• The Worlds being different bodies of space is not enough to consider them universes, as that does not quite prove they have different timelines. Especially if they are afterlives. Afterlives often are different bodies of space, but are generally condensed in the same timeline unless there's more proof otherwise.
• Being "Different Worlds, Realms, or Dimensions" requires more elaborate context and even "Dreams, Imaginations and Ideas becoming reality" is not enough to say the "Worlds" are entire universes. "Becoming Reality" often simply refers more to "Becoming a piece of reality" as opposed to each and every Dream becoming an "Entire Reality".

First to address you, a branching timeline is entirely a separate matter, as like you said they used to be one and the same timeline, so it is possible for timetravel to happen between them. since if you go back well enough into the past of A, you will get to a point where A and B are one.

Well, then you need to clarify that this is only for timelines from which we factually know that they are not branching off from each other.

And for the timestop point, we take timestop to be universal, i.e. the current universe that the character is existing in, unless he has some kind of range that allows for time stop all across, in which the verses usually mention such

Yes, that's our default assumption. Contradicting our default assumption on this, is no contradiction to things being separate timelines, though. It means the character has better time stop feats and nothing more.

Beginning or end or wall

I see.

I think he made a bit complicated, he just means 2 3D universes in a 4D space can be sharing the same temporal axis. or rather to put it this way, "Sharing the same temporal axis does not mean two universes are spatially connected"

Ok. I think that whole section can use some reformulation. Let me make a counterproposal:

In fiction there are cases where a wall or some non-physical analog separates two realms. However, while such a barrier might serve to separate the realms within the cosmology of said fiction, not ethat the spaces are not necessarily separate universes by our standards. That is because, while the wall may make it difficult in practice, one could in theory still move from one realm to the other with just regular three dimensional movement. That means that the realms would then still be part of one common three dimensional space, which by our standards constitutes only one universe.

This should likewise rather go in the universe section btw. It's more about determining if things are different universes than timelines.
The bullet point below that you explained can be separated from that in the timeline section. Can probably also be expanded a little. Somewhat like this:

If there is no evidence of the contrary timelines are assumed to share the same time axis i.e. the same dimension of time. Note that sharing the same temporal axis does not mean that they would be connected in any way, as it only means that their time flows in the same direction. It's like two people can both move in the same direction without their paths ever meeting, as long as they started in different places.

I would additionally add a simple qualifier which is basically just "A space that is a universe by the criteria of the first section together with all its time is considered a full timeline / spacetime-continuum."

 

[PrinceofPein]

Because it says literally nothing about time. It just mentions one of several options for something to qualify as separate universes.

I think the goal was to mention how universes can qualify as separate space-time continuums, and this is one of the option

Well, then you need to clarify that this is only for timelines from which we factually know that they are not branching off from each other

@ImmortalDread please can you be making the changes as suggested?

Yes, that's our default assumption. Contradicting our default assumption on this, is no contradiction to things being separate timelines, though. It means the character has better time stop feats and nothing more.

So you are saying timestop that affects multiple universes, should not be used an argument against them being separate but rather it should be a feat for the timesop user itself?
I think this should be a case by case basis, how do the verse in question treats the universes initially? If the verse has other proofs that shows that the universes are spatio-temporally separate, then it is fine to use it as a feat for the timestop user, but if the verse has nothing of such, then I think it should be an anti-feat of them being separate.
If we say the universes are separate then it follows that each universe would be completely separate and independent from the others, each has its own contained space, time, matter, and energy and the laws of physics that govern one universe would not necessarily apply to another. In this context, stopping time in one universe would only affect that universe, and not the others. The concept of time is an aspect of the physical laws that governs a universe, and it would be different in other universes. Therefore, stopping time in one universe should not have any direct impact on the flow of time in other universes, if they are separate



Aside that, I am okay with the counter proposal, since it explains things better

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk makes sense to me above. I support the solutions that he thinks are best to apply here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think the goal was to mention how universes can qualify as separate space-time continuums, and this is one of the option

Universes don't though. Only "universe + time" does, which it doesn't really mention.

Anyway, I think this case is generally covered if we just say that things that qualify as universe by Section 1 of the page + their time count as timelines.

So you are saying timestop that affects multiple universes, should not be used an argument against them being separate but rather it should be a feat for the timesop user itself?

Yes.

I think this should be a case by case basis, how do the verse in question treats the universes initially? If the verse has other proofs that shows that the universes are spatio-temporally separate, then it is fine to use it as a feat for the timestop user, but if the verse has nothing of such, then I think it should be an anti-feat of them being separate.

I see no reason that would be the case. For something to be an anti-feat it must in some way contradict the feat. But there is no actual contradiction here. The contradiction exclusively comes from the unjustified assumption that a time stop should not work on a multiversal scale. If you don't assume that, then something being separate universes and time stop affecting both can coexist like normal.

If we say the universes are separate then it follows that each universe would be completely separate and independent from the others, each has its own contained space, time, matter, and energy and the laws of physics that govern one universe would not necessarily apply to another. In this context, stopping time in one universe would only affect that universe, and not the others. The concept of time is an aspect of the physical laws that governs a universe, and it would be different in other universes. Therefore, stopping time in one universe should not have any direct impact on the flow of time in other universes, if they are separate

The universes are already assumed to use the same time axis and that physics works different in different universes is an unjustified assumption. That can be the case, but doesn't have to.

Generally speaking, as long as both have time none of those is a problem with using time stop on both.

I mean, seriously, your argument isn't even time specific. You could take any other feat of affecting two universes and give the same argument.
E.g. You could just as well say that two universes getting destroyed in an explosion is an anti-feat because explosions are governed by physics, and universes have different physics so explosions in one universe shouldn't affect another universe if they are separate... except what you're dealing with is just a completely normal multiversal feat.

Like, that's the problem. You're basically suggesting that multiversal time stop feats contradict things being a multiverse for some reason.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Everything looks good, later I will make the changes as you suggested

 

[ImmortalDread]

Let me know what should I change, @PrinceofPein

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will make a list later on when I am free

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will make a list later on when I am free

Ay, thanks ^^

 

[KLOL506]

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Ultima_Reality @GilverTheProtoAngelo What do you think of DontTalkDT's new comments?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

DTDT makes sense.
His time stop point for same time axis for multiple universes is reminiscent of principle he once braught up during a certain DB Hypertimelines upgrade thread. I completely agree with it.

His counter to explosions is also something I already said.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I mean, seriously, your argument isn't even time specific. You could take any other feat of affecting two universes and give the same argument.
E.g. You could just as well say that two universes getting destroyed in an explosion is an anti-feat because explosions are governed by physics, and universes have different physics so explosions in one universe shouldn't affect another universe if they are separate... except what you're dealing with is just a completely normal multiversal feat.

The rest I agree with. This part is something I do agree, but if the said explosion is shown and/or stated to being affect a single universe rather than destroying the two universe, that technically still counts them as separate universes anyway.

 

[Planck69]

@Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Ultima_Reality @GilverTheProtoAngelo What do you think of DontTalkDT's new comments?

He makes sense.

Speaking generally, can we just focus on qualifiers and not hyper-specific "debunks" that aren't even debunks? "Oh no, he stopped time across the multiverse", "His explosion reached all 1,000,000 universes, guess it's just 3-A" etc.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am willing to apply the changes based on DT's arguments

 

[Antvasima]

Which wiki pages need to be updated based on DontTalk's conclusions here?

 

[PrinceofPein]

I am willing to apply the changes based on DT's arguments

Have you gotten it all, or I should write them out?

Which wiki pages need to be updated based on DontTalk's conclusions here?

the universe page

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am still confused by some parts of DT's text, but the part about time stop/time manipulation effecting more than one timeline isn't a counter argument against multiple timelines yeah I agree with those parts for sure.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

I am still confused by some parts of DT's text, but the part about time stop/time manipulation effecting more than one timeline isn't a counter argument against multiple timelines yeah I agree with those parts for sure.

I didn't even know that time stop affects timelines, but to affect timelines you need quotes? How does Hitto even affect timelines or something? I didn't quite understand that part'-'

 

[ImmortalDread]

Have you gotten it all, or I should write them out?

the universe page

You should write them out and I will work on it.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I didn't even know that time stop affects timelines, but to affect timelines you need quotes? How does Hitto even affect timelines or something? I didn't quite understand that part'-'

It is being used as a general example rather than anything related to any specific fictional series, but anyway, it is just a range feat that isn’t necessarily AP based anyway.