• 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 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pain_to12 said:
I mean multiplied by
Click to expand...
To think that I guessed accurately. Lmao
Screenshot_2023_0107_135840.png
 
So following the recent destruction. Branch destruction is still low 2-C not high 3-A as i initially assumed. Destruction of the entire timeline that branched infinitely is still low 2-C by default unless special circumstances that pain hasn't elaborated yet.

But then again DT said Destroying two branches would be 2-C.

I could visualize cases where branching timeline would be low 2-C or higher.
In the case that they are branching that would make them connected in a way and similarly that connection might or might not be used to reach another branch without needing to travel through or go through the space between dimension.

In DT illustration branching timeline can exist independently if another branch entire timeline way to the past before they branched is destroyed and destroys the connection as well.

In that case it isn't farfetched to assume that if the destruction of all branching timeline was done it will affect everything it is still connected to and could function similarly to destroying 2 universe that is connected by a dimensional portal which makes it not 2-C but 3-A.

But if it is already showed to have destroyed the same past everyone branched from yet the branch persist that would mean it separated and destroying multiple of these branches now will be 2-C
 
Given all of the theoretical scenarios on how timelines would even function in the first place given fiction differs wildly, I think it's best to leave this as a case by case basis when it comes to branching timelines, given some stories with branching timelines (Bioshock Infinite and Back to the Future) would function under time paradox rules where destroying/altering an earlier part in the timeline would retroactively erase all potential branches of said timeline, while there's a very good chance other franchises don't follow this rule at all with multiverse theory.
 
As usual, I think that DontTalkDT seems to make good sense above.

Thank you very much for helping out. 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Theglassman12 said:
Given all of the theoretical scenarios on how timelines would even function in the first place given fiction differs wildly, I think it's best to leave this as a case by case basis when it comes to branching timelines, given some stories with branching timelines (Bioshock Infinite and Back to the Future) would function under time paradox rules where destroying/altering an earlier part in the timeline would retroactively erase all potential branches of said timeline, while there's a very good chance other franchises don't follow this rule at all with multiverse theory.
Click to expand...
This also makes sense to me.
 
Pain_to12 said:
as long as two timelines share the same time/space at one point or another, they are not spatio-temporally separated. As both their space and time can be traced back to one-another.
Click to expand...
The fact that their space and time can be shared at some negligible moment isn't indicative of that, as long as they can still be considered independently. For example consider the case where 2 timelines share only their starting point, each one of them will be completely independent from the other and both will have an open interval of time
(0, +∞) which is only distinguishable from other timelines by the fact that the point 0 is missing, and if you simply fix another point in the timeline as "0", you'll get an interval
[0, +∞) which is entirely the same as a completely disconnected one.
Pain_to12 said:
@sen_ argument is that they can still be large enough as a single timeline which does not branch? yes sure they can, I replied Glassman with the simplified reason.
Click to expand...
My argument is that they can, given the necessary conditions, form an interval of time as large as R⁺, even if they do share some negligible interval of time.
Pain_to12 said:
First, these branches are not truly separate and still share the same space and time if traced back. Secondly, you need to actually refute the point and not just say they are wrong or flawed, without saying why won't make the wrong.
Again why is 5 infinities bigger than one infinity in this case?
Click to expand...
I've already addressed your first point so i'll focus on the second. The reason why "5 infinities are bigger than one in this case" is that we consider 2 completely disconnected timelines, with an uncountable interval
[0, +∞) as 2-C. Therefore for coherency, since these are the exact same and share the same cardinality, 5 of them should be larger than one.
 
sen_ said:
The definition i proposed also leaves out the 2 Planck seconds case, in fact the interval would be a closed, discontinuous one.
Click to expand...
If your definition basically is "two timelines are separate if their intersection contains no open interval" then your definition indeed leaves that out. The one as it was written in the draft however doesn't.
Your definition on the other hand also excludes the reverse case of "the timelines are fused from 0 Planck Seconds to 2 Planck Seconds", as the open Interval (0 Planck Seconds, 2 Planck Seconds) is part of the intersection.
I would argue those timelines should be considered as "separate" (i.e. applicable for multiverse level) as they are non-intersecting for an infinite amount of time.

ImmortalDread said:
However, it is also possible to consider scenarios where space-time continuums may overlap in some points in space and time but are still considered separate. This might be the case, for example, in scenarios involving branching timelines, where a single timeline branches off into two or more separate timelines that may intersect at some points in the past but diverge and become separate in the future.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I would argue those aren't truly separate (as they intersect) nor are they truly one timeline (as they aren't the same everywhere). But when to call timelines separate or not seems to be an irrelevant consideration for us. What we care for is just "is destroying them multiverse level or just Low 2-C". And I don't think that hinges on them being entirely separate or not. I think what matters is just whether they are separate for a long (or infinite, depending on how strict we want to be) time. I think as long as they are that they can otherwise be as fused together as they like.

ImmortalDread said:
The definition of spatio-temporal separation provided in the initial statement is intended to be inclusive of these scenarios. It allows for the possibility of space-time continuums overlapping in space and time, as long as they are not subsets of one another.
Click to expand...
I understand. I just don't think not being subsets of each other is strong enough of a criteria. I think each timelines should have a non-fused part that is "large" in size (or infinite in size, if we want to be strict). I don't think we should rank destroying 2 timelines that are always fused together except for one 2 Planck Second interval as Multiverse level, for basically the same reason we don't consider microscopic extra dimensions as enough to reach a higher-D tier. The only multiversal part would be negligibly small.

ImmortalDread said:
That being said, it is important to keep in mind that overlapping space-time continuums are not truly separate in the sense that they share some points in space and time. It is merely a useful abstraction to consider them as separate universes in certain contexts.

By treating them as “separate”, we can consider them independently and make predictions about their behavior without having to worry about the complications that might arise from their overlap.

If you feel uncomfortable with the term, we can change it to “independent”.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need a term for this at all. I think we are better served just talking about cases where overlapping timelines are Multiverse level and those where they are not. I think the extra terminology will just confuse people and distract from the relevant criteria.
 
Last edited:
Question, what if a verse uses branching timlines but instead of a "branch/trunk" like a tree. Its setup like a grid, and the "grid" is infinite with each point on the grid having it splits in 4 directions like a compass but each point is connected to 1 other point. How would that be tiered?

Edit: each point is a universe.
 
Last edited:
DontTalkDT said:
If your definition basically is "two timelines are separate if their intersection contains no open interval" then your definition indeed leaves that out. The one as it was written in the draft however doesn't.
Your definition on the other hand also excludes the reverse case of "the timelines are fused from 0 Planck Seconds to 2 Planck Seconds", as the open Interval (0 Planck Seconds, 2 Planck Seconds) is part of the intersection.
I would argue those timelines should be considered as "separate" (i.e. applicable for multiverse level) as they are non-intersecting for an infinite amount of time.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that those would count as separate, but i am pretty sure that the interval would be closed in this case, since it is closed at zero (it only takes non-negative values) and it is also closed at 2 planck seconds. Which would then be included as separate under that definition. And my definition is basically the one you said.
 
Last edited:
Theglassman12 said:
Given all of the theoretical scenarios on how timelines would even function in the first place given fiction differs wildly, I think it's best to leave this as a case by case basis when it comes to branching timelines, given some stories with branching timelines (Bioshock Infinite and Back to the Future) would function under time paradox rules where destroying/altering an earlier part in the timeline would retroactively erase all potential branches of said timeline, while there's a very good chance other franchises don't follow this rule at all with multiverse theory.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, what I am still proposing will be case by case basis, but having guidelines of "which is which" won't hurt anyone, I am working on some guidelines starting today
sen_ said:
The fact that their space and time can be shared at some negligible moment isn't indicative of that, as long as they can still be considered independently. For example consider the case where 2 timelines share only their starting point, each one of them will be completely independent from the other and both will have an open interval of time
(0, +∞) which is only distinguishable from other timelines by the fact that the point 0 is missing, and if you simply fix another point in the timeline as "0", you'll get an interval
[0, +∞) which is entirely the same as a completely disconnected one.

My argument is that they can, given the necessary conditions, form an interval of time as large as R⁺, even if they do share some negligible interval of time.

I've already addressed your first point so i'll focus on the second. The reason why "5 infinities are bigger than one in this case" is that we consider 2 completely disconnected timelines, with an uncountable interval
[0, +∞) as 2-C. Therefore for coherency, since these are the exact same and share the same cardinality, 5 of them should be larger than one.
Click to expand...
with your logic, there is absolutely no difference between destroying one universe and destroying infinite universes, they are all of the same size. i.e. no difference between any of the our tier 2
As whether the are 1 or infinite, their size will always be as large as R, you cannot be larger than R without being uncountable infinite so.
Do you understand where I am going or should I explain more?
Which is why I cannot really agree to your logic here of 5 infinities as big as one
 
Pain_to12 said:
with your logic, there is absolutely no difference between destroying one universe and destroying infinite universes, they are all of the same size. i.e. no difference between any of the our tier 2
As whether the are 1 or infinite, their size will always be as large as R, you cannot be larger than R without being uncountable infinite so.
Do you understand where I am going or should I explain more?
Which is why I cannot really agree to your logic here of 5 infinities as big as one
Click to expand...
What you said has nothing to do with my or your definition, them being intervals or R doesn't matter, i understand what you're trying to say, but i don't think this is the case. For instance 2 completely disjoint timelines (so the ones which are separate according to your definition), will make 2 different sets of points as large as R, now if i apply your example they're still the same, regardless if it's an interval or R itself.
 
sen_ said:
What you said has nothing to do with my or your definition, them being intervals or R doesn't matter, i understand what you're trying to say, but i don't think this is the case. For instance 2 completely disjoint timelines (so the ones which are separate according to your definition), will make 2 different sets of points as large as R, now if i apply your example they're still the same, regardless if it's an interval or R itself.
Click to expand...
What is the size of the space or time or distance separating two disjointed timelines or universe?
 
Pain_to12 said:
I have been busy, but DT agrees with the thread, and I dont see any staff disagreement so far too
Click to expand...
Okay. This seems to likely have been accepted then, but can you write a summary of what will be applied here please?
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
Question, what if a verse uses branching timlines but instead of a "branch/trunk" like a tree. Its setup like a grid, and the "grid" is infinite with each point on the grid having it splits in 4 directions like a compass but each point is connected to 1 other point. How would that be tiered?

Edit: each point is a universe.
Click to expand...
I had this question regarding branching universes.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. This seems to likely have been accepted then, but can you write a summary of what will be applied here please?
Click to expand...
Given the significance of this proposed change and the fact that the category in question is one of the most prominent within the wiki, it is imperative that we approach this matter with the utmost care and caution, and not act impulsively or rush to implement any changes.

If it would not be an inconvenience, I respectfully request that you issue another notification to all members of the staff.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Given the significance of this proposed change and the fact that the category in question is one of the most prominent within the wiki, it is imperative that we approach this matter with the utmost care and caution, and not act impulsively or rush to implement any changes.

If it would not be an inconvenience, I respectfully request that you issue another notification to all members of the staff.
Click to expand...
Okay then.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Shadowbokunohero @Crazylatin77 @Jvando @Zaratthustra @Just_a_Random_Butler @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Agnaa @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Maverick_Zero_X @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @EliminatorVenom @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @CloverDragon03 @KLOL506 @M3X_2.0 @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Aguywhodoesthings @The_Divine_Phoenix @ZackMoon1234 @MistaClean @MonkeyOfLife @FinePoint @Propellus

Your input help would be greatly appreciated here.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
Question, what if a verse uses branching timlines but instead of a "branch/trunk" like a tree. Its setup like a grid, and the "grid" is infinite with each point on the grid having it splits in 4 directions like a compass but each point is connected to 1 other point. How would that be tiered?

Edit: each point is a universe.
Click to expand...
There are several questions here.
If you can provide the relationship between these nodes, then I can answer your question better
 
Pain_to12 said:
There are several questions here.
If you can provide the relationship between these nodes, then I can answer your question better
Click to expand...
A Universe branched out via infinite possibilities.

Every universe is subjected to this branching out where each world expands out more via infinite possibilities. (Human decisions, thoughts, actions, etc.)

However, instead of a "tree" they are shown as a grid. Each "connection" point on the grid is a universe.

Every universe is connected at some point and time but the further you go on the grid, the more different the history of the world is from the original world.

Hopefully that makes sense. Typing in phone sucks lol.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
A Universe branched out via infinite possibilities.

Every universe is subjected to this branching out where each world expands out more via infinite possibilities. (Human decisions, thoughts, actions, etc.)

However, instead of a "tree" they are shown as a grid. Each "connection" point on the grid is a universe.

Every universe is connected at some point and time but the further you go on the grid, the more different the history of the world is from the original world.

Hopefully that makes sense. Typing in phone sucks lol.
Click to expand...
it does, they are all connected at one point or multiple points in time, that would still be one big ass tree and low 2-C
 
I still share the same opinion as before, where branching timelines should be treated as a case by case basis given how many fictional series would view timelines/multiverses differently as opposed to just saying it should be automatically invalid unless stated otherwise. If there's any refute to what DT said regarding branching timelines that Pain or KingPin have I'd love to hear it, but until then I stand by that we shouldn't invalidate branching timelines and instead just view how it's treated in each verse.
 
@Pain_to12 I asked him about how we should treat branching timelines given they still extend infinitely across even if you nuke the branch it stems from with my comment here. He responded by saying if you nuked the branch and the Timelines that branches off still exist you’d essentially have parallel timelines by default. So technically speaking you’d still get higher than Low 2-C by default unless there’s any counter point to this, which I don’t recall seeing in this thread by you or KingPin.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Second, are those universes space-time continuum?
Click to expand...
They are treated as of they are spacetime universes. The verse simply shows their all connected, and with similar histories unless you go further out on the grid diagonally where their histories become very different from one another where their almost incomparable but their still connected.
 
So they share some points but when you extend it, they are differently, and yet they are infinite of them? I failed to see how this is low 2-C @Pain_to12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
4K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Tier 2 revision: Changing Space Time Continuum Standards. (Never cook again.)
Replies
5
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
2K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
Deagonx
Tier 2 Revision: Merging 3D Spaces and Destroying Empty Space
2 3 4
Replies
159
Views
19K
Antvasima
Antvasima
PrinceofPein
  • Locked
Another Addition/Revision to/for Tier 2
2
Replies
77
Views
5K
Deagonx
Deagonx
Back
Top