Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[Reiner04]

We have High 3-A is still part of 3-A,

Then it's fine, I legit conceed here

Simply put what I mean by infinite and uncountable infinite is this

Unrelated, so won't respond to it any further, I just cleared that as per continuum hypothesis things are simple.

 

[Reiner04]

What the hell is even going on here.

High 3a is a part of 3a, what else, high 3a is a high end of 3a implying if 3a distruction done on highest scale then it will be high 3a, add up finite numbers to get infinite, what else

 

[KLOL506]

We are waiting on @Firestorm808 to update the page and create the new thread for tier 2 I guess

Not that part.

The 3-A and High 3-A conundrum I mean

 

[PrinceofPein]

Not that part.

The 3-A and High 3-A conundrum I mean

Just if we should add, "At least observable universe size but not infinite" to the 3-A description or just let the High 3-A definition make the distinction as it already does

 

[Reiner04]

Not that part.

The 3-A and High 3-A conundrum I mean

I suggested that 3a has no established limit over its size, given that it can be of any size even infinity. So that way all high 3a feats will just falls within 3a and high 3a both.
Counter proposal, high 3a is high end of 3a. High 3a is a part of 3a, I mean keep adding finite numbers to get infinite dude is what has been so far a counter.

In simple high 3a and 3a have infinite universes as common in both.

 

[KLOL506]

Just if we should add, "At least observable universe size but not infinite" to the 3-A description or just let the High 3-A definition make the distinction as it already does

That's what we should do generally speaking.

 

[Reiner04]

That's what we should do generally speaking.

I mean like "not infinite" to be added or it'll be presumed that if high 3a is infinite then that should mean "3a" is finite regardless if it's mentioned? Two different things has been suggested by pain in that post.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I suggested that 3a has no established limit over its size, given that it can be of any size even infinity. So that way all high 3a feats will just falls within 3a and high 3a both.
Counter proposal, high 3a is high end of 3a. High 3a is a part of 3a, I mean keep adding finite numbers to get infinite dude is what has been so far a counter.

In simple high 3a and 3a have infinite universes as common in both.

That isn’t true though as 3A is associated with a finite 3D universe, not High 3A

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternatively those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time

They have truly nothing in common in terms of size as both doesn’t even share a infinite universe, only one does which is High 3A.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean like "not infinite" to be added or it'll be presumed that if high 3a is infinite then that should mean "3a" is finite regardless if it's mentioned? Two different things has been suggested by pain in that post.

That's not how this works.

3-A is finite. High 3-A is infinite.

Having no defined limit and only being theorized to be infinite =/= solidly infinite

 

[Reiner04]

That's not how this works.

3-A is finite. High 3-A is infinite.

Having no defined limit and only being theorized to be infinite =/= solidly infinite

Agree, not the point though.
Let's just reverse it.
Solidly infinite = no limit over its size, we are getting 3a now.
Regardless it's unknown if universe is infinite or finite, both has been theorised.
Edit : disagree, Having no limits not necessarily is infinite, true, but it cannot be infinite? False.

 

[Reiner04]

No limit over its size not necessarily is infinite, not that it's cannot be infinite. Infact infinite itself do not have limit over its size.
Feats under high 3a will still falls under 3a as has been suggested by counter arguments of pain and kingpin saying "high 3a is a part of 3a", pretty much go against what you are suggesting and what I am.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

We are already deviated from what was being discussed on the Tier 3 definitions being revised.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Agree, not the point though.
Let's just reverse it.
Solidly infinite = no limit over its size, we are getting 3a now.
Regardless it's unknown if universe is infinite or finite, both has been theorised.

This is not a solid debunk and is technically already hindering the progress that was made on this thread since it can not been both. It has to been one or the other.

 

[KLOL506]

No limit over its size not necessarily is infinite, not that it's cannot be infinite. Infact infinite itself do not have limit over its size.

No limits =/= infinite.

Wow, peak logic right there. I think you need to check the dictionary to find what "infinite" actually means.

Feats under high 3a will still falls under 3a as has been suggested by counter arguments of pain and kingpin saying "high 3a is a part of 3a", pretty much go against what you are suggesting and what I am.

I don't think you actually understood what he meant.

He meant that High 3-A is part of 3-A in the sense that they share the words "3-A". The only difference between the two is one is infinite, the other isn't. It's all a naming thing really, so that it doesn't sound counterintuitive.

Also yeah, this is basically derailment, let's not bother with this anymore.

 

[Reiner04]

Actually, sometimes, I feel like to whom you are even siding? It's like standing with me but giving thumbs up to others , even kingpin, pain counter arguements that were made for my suggestion goes against you.

This is not a solid debunk and is technically already hindering the progress that was made on this thread since it can not been both. It has to been one or the other.

 

[Reiner04]

Wow, peak logic right there. I think you need to check the dictionary to find what "infinite" actually means

Dictionary? "Very large", "unlimited", "uncountable", "no limit"
I'll suggest to not look over them as basic idea is enough.
No limit is not necessary infinite but not that it cannot be infinite. When infinite itself do not have any limits over it size, this is pretty clear.
As per current definition of 3a, literally any size will fall under 3a even infinite, as suggested by pain and kingpin above as counter.

words "3-A".

nature

^

 

[KLOL506]

Dictionary? "Very large", "unlimited", "uncountable", "no limit"
I'll suggest to not look over them as basic idea is enough.
No limit is not necessary infinite but not that it cannot be infinite.

"No limits is not necessarily infinite but it's not that it can't be infinite"

Self contradicting right there pal.

As per current definition of 3a, literally any size will fall under 3a even infinite, as suggested by pain and kingpin above as counter.
^

Except you didn't understand what their arguments really meant.

3-A and High 3-A are part of each other because they both involve the same naming scheme and that they both involve destruction of 3-Dimensional space.

Only 3-A is finite, and High 3-A is infinite. That's it, that's literally the difference.

 

[Reiner04]

Self contradicting right there pal.

Example :- all shapes aren't necessarily circle but not that circle itself cannot be a shape.
It's not contradictory pal.

Only 3-A is finite, and High 3-A is infinite. That's it, that's literally the difference.

Adding my above reply, yes, that's what I am saying. To establish this difference. To add that "3a is regardless of what size, is still finite" as "infinite" is a size itself.

 

[Reiner04]

Well I'll end it in one word.
Think of Everything that can be bigger than one's house. Infinite will be one of them. That said "at least observable size" itself means that infinite can be one of them.

 

[KLOL506]

Example :- all shapes aren't necessarily circle but not that circle itself cannot be a shape.
It's not contradictory pal.

No, it blatantly is.

Separate the word "Infinite" into its basic forms. "Finite" means "limited in size or extent". Add "in" before that and it becomes the complete opposite. Basic English language.

Adding my above reply, yes, that's what I am saying. To establish this difference.

Yeah, it's called "3-A is finite" and "High 3-A is infinite".

To add that "3a is regardless of what size, is still finite" as "infinite" is a size itself.

No.

3-A scales up to any higher possible finite number, it does not go beyond it to "regardless of what size". This would be just useless nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. It is either finite or infinite. There can be no in-between.

Think of Everything that can be bigger than one's house. Infinite will be one of them. That said "at least observable size" itself means that infinite can be one of them.

No, this goes against every notion of the scientific method. Unless scientists can provide irrevocable, falsifiable, testable evidence that the universe is infinite, "infinite" can never be part of the "at least observable universe" size. We do not base our tiers on "can be", we base it on what "already is".

 

[Reiner04]

Actually if not adding it makes it still sensible then ok. I've said everything there could be said. Any further will just lead to same thing. So okay.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Well I'll end it in one word.
Think of Everything that can be bigger than one's house. Infinite will be one of them. That said "at least observable size" itself means that infinite can be one of them.

Semantically correct.
But then we have a distinction that says you get a "High" added to your 3-A the moment it becomes infinite.

Also we don't know if our universe is finite or infinite but we do know the "observable universe" is finite

 

[Antvasima]

How about this?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternatively those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, affecting an infinite 3-D space, or affecting an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @AKM sama @Agnaa

What do you think about this?

 

[Firestorm808]

It shouldn't be that much of a problem. Just use the same verbiage as 2-B and 2-A

 

[Reiner04]

Just use the same verbiage as 2-B and 2-A

It wouldn't be same because 2B is a semi-open interveral set from 1001 to ∞ [1001, ∞) given that it would never include infinity itself but anything smaller than infinity. While 2A is a straight singleton set of infinity [∞].

As per our 3a definition, 3a size structure ≥ Observable universe size, that inherently includes infinite sized structure in the set of 3a as our standards assumes that infinite sized universe/dimension is possible. So it's reasonable to say any possible size that fullfills the requirement I specified in the above relation will fall under 3a (3a size structure ≥ Observable universe size).

So high 3a structures would be common in both. That's the flaw.

Edit: my bad I thought you're saying that current definition is fine as it is because it follows the same difference as 2b and 2a which is not the case but after reading it properly I got your point. yeah, in Tier 3a adding "atleast observable universe size to infinity" will as well fullfill the requirement and will establish difference between 3a and high 3a, so 3a and high 3a can be revised and defined in the same manner as 2b and 2a, definitely agree, it will makes sense.

 

[Firestorm808]

It wouldn't be same because 2B is a semi-open interveral set from 1001 to ∞ [1001, ∞) given that it would never include infinity itself but anything smaller than infinity. While 2A is a straight singleton set of infinity [∞].

As per our 3a definition, 3a size structure ≥ Observable universe size, that inherently includes infinite sized structure in the set of 3a as our standards assumes that infinite sized universe/dimension is possible. So it's reasonable to say any possible size that fullfills the requirement I specified in the above relation will fall under 3a (3a size structure ≥ Observable universe size).

So high 3a structures would be common in both. That's the flaw.

What are you talking about? You're overcomplicating things. One is finite, the other infinite.

 

[Reiner04]

One is finite

Is there any proof in tier 3a definition that it cannot include infinite sized dimension?
If the proof is that "look at high 3a definition" then ok.

 

[Firestorm808]

Is there any proof in tier 3a definition that it cannot include infinite sized dimension?
If the proof is that "look at high 3a definition" then ok.

That's the whole point of High 3-A.

 

[Reiner04]

That's the whole point of High 3-A.

So there is no proof in tier 3a at this moment itself.
And we are choosing to let the high 3a tier define it when it should define itself in its own definition.
Technically why would I presume that if high 3a is infinite then 3a should be finite? When it's not mentioned and former one can fall under later? Vs battle tiering system doesn't have to follow my assumptions afterall, I can go with the definition itself.

 

[Firestorm808]

So there is no proof in tier 3a at this moment itself.
And we are choosing to let the high 3a tier define it when it should define itself in its own definition.
Technically why would I presume that if high 3a is infinite then 3a should be finite? When it's not mentioned and former one can fall under later? Vs battle tiering system doesn't have to follow my assumptions afterall, I can go with the definition itself.

That's why we're revising it to match the 2-B 2-A relationship.

 

[Reiner04]

That's why we're revising it to match the 2-B 2-A relationship.

Yeah that is good choice. That's what I was saying, to establish proper difference btw them.

 

[Firestorm808]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @AKM sama @Agnaa

What do you think about this?

Just needs some minor edits.

 

[KLOL506]

What are you talking about? You're overcomplicating things. One is finite, the other infinite.

Been trying to say the same thing here.

 

[KLOL506]

Is there any proof in tier 3a definition that it cannot include infinite sized dimension?

The fact that scientists have not found irreversible, falsifiable, testable evidence that the universe is infinite? To include it now without such evidence would be to defy the basic standards of the scientific method.

 

[Reiner04]

Been trying to say the same thing here.

Things are sorted out, firestorm was suggesting to used the wording of 2b and 2a. Which is fine as well.
I misunderstood him.

 

[Reiner04]

The fact that scientists have not found irreversible, falsifiable, testable evidence that the universe is infinite

Why matters what has been found in real life? It's not testible either that if universe is finite. Tiering system is made for fiction if given feat or structure fullfills the requirement mentioned in tiering system then I don't see any reason to falsify it saying real life Don't have those, it is unknown in real life, it is not testible or whatever.

 

[KLOL506]

Why matters what has been found in real life? It's not testible either that if universe is finite.

We have demonstrable evidence that the observable universe is finite. Again, we do not go with "What can be". We stick with "What is".

Tiering system is made for fiction if given feat or structure fullfills the requirement mentioned in tiering system then I don't see any reason to falsify it saying real life Don't have those.

We still have many aspects of fiction closely follow real life as a baseline, unless you wanna dump the usage of basic calculations because they're fiction. This is incredibly counterintuitive.

 

[Reiner04]

observable universe is finite.

3a is not about observable universe in the first place.
It's about any dimension which is greater than or equals to the size of observable universe.
So our universe and theories on it doesn't matter again and greater than observable universe can include any size greater than it acceptable by our standards such as infinite.

 

[Firestorm808]

Let's drop the subjects. We know what to do. I just need to redraft the proposed text.

 

[PrinceofPein]

3a is not about observable universe in the first place.
It's about any dimension which is greater than or equals to the size of observable universe.
So our universe and theories on it doesn't matter again and greater than observable universe can include any size greater than it acceptable by our standards such as infinite.

What universe theory?
The reason why 3-A is greater than or equal to observable universe is simply this
1. Observable universe is simply the size of the current universe our tech allows us to know with definite proof exists.
2. We know the universe exists beyond the observable universe to which degree we don't know.
3. 80% of the universal theory out there cannot allow for an infinite universe, as most of them is about universe starting from a point and expanding.
4. When a universe is mentioned in fiction, we don't immediately assume it is infinite if it is not stated to be infinite to begin with.
5. The high 3-A is for verses where they were the size of their universe was stated to be infinite.

So please stop, adding infinite will be redundant.
Take 1-A+ for an example we don't add infinite to the definition of 1-A but we made a distinction that once it is infinite, they get a "+".

Anyway this should end now, it is digging up something already settled.

Let's drop the subjects. We know what to do. I just need to redraft the proposed text.

Yes, please do so
Thanks