- 165,069
- 71,920
-
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 Revision
- Thread starter Firestorm808
- Start date
- Status
- 5,466
- 12,474
I'd say we just edit the Big Bang article to note that a Big Bang must originate the entire temporal dimension "at once" (Insofar as this makes sense here, anyway) instead of just having it expand alongside space, or something of the sort. That is how it is in physics, anyway: Time is not considered to be expanding (And is in fact infinite), but space is.
Honestly I think this depends on what we consider a "universe" to be synonymous with. Is it just the spherical region encompassed by the observable universe? The entire spatial part of reality? All of spacetime? I've looked at our page for the term itself, and it says the following:
As you can see, pretty ambiguous, since it starts off by defining the Universe as being all of spacetime, and then says that the observable universe is the baseline for universal feats anyway. So, I'd like to sort that out before inputting on that matter.
Last edited:
- 14,863
- 12,354
I partially disagree with you, in much the same way I disagreed at the start of the thread. I think some of the definitions on the Tiering System page are flawed, and go against how things currently work in practice. For example...
I think I agree with your suggested edit to the Big Bang page.
We do not consider small-time space-time feats (such as erasing 1 second of time, even if for the entire universe) to qualify for Low 2-C, but those parts of the descriptions for 3-A and High 3-A imply otherwise.
I think I agree with your suggested edit to the Big Bang page.
- 5,466
- 12,474
Ah, fair enough. I wouldn't mind removing the parts you've bolded, given that time's involvement with the Tiering System should be obvious due to Low 2-C's description, anyway. If we are to keep them, at least change the wording so it specifies the destruction of a whole spacetime continuum, instead of "spacetime/time" as a blanket term.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,895
- 5,801
I’m sure the second contention have been brought up many times and I have said it many times but I was ignored.
There is nothing ambiguous about the definition of the universe up there, we just tend to assume time is destroyed for anyone who is destroying more than one universe even though time was not stated to be destroyed or rather space wasn’t destroyed across the whole spacetime continuum.
Now actually the tiering system is clear on this, it’s just people who don’t follow it properly
High 3A
1. Now High 3-A already accounts for the tier that should be given to those who destroyed just infinite universes without accounting for the whole space-time continuums of the universes or higher dimensions of space.
2. There is the argument that only a higher dimensional space can contain multiple universes in them, hence destruction of the universes will require destruction of the supposedly “5-D” space between them.
Anyway I think we should start following the tiering system and make it that “space-time continuums” or “higher dimensional space” destruction is compulsory for tier 2.
Now for the Big Bang argument my view is was it just an explosion that caused an expansion of space or was time stated to be created along with it?
One is 3-A and the other is low 2-C.
There is nothing ambiguous about the definition of the universe up there, we just tend to assume time is destroyed for anyone who is destroying more than one universe even though time was not stated to be destroyed or rather space wasn’t destroyed across the whole spacetime continuum.
Now actually the tiering system is clear on this, it’s just people who don’t follow it properly
High 3A
Low 2-C
2-C
2-B
2-A
1. Now High 3-A already accounts for the tier that should be given to those who destroyed just infinite universes without accounting for the whole space-time continuums of the universes or higher dimensions of space.
2. There is the argument that only a higher dimensional space can contain multiple universes in them, hence destruction of the universes will require destruction of the supposedly “5-D” space between them.
- I don’t need to point out how this is wrong, the tiering system is used to index fictional verses, and no fictional verse refers to the space between universe as a higher dimensional space most of the time it is a “void”, “nothingness”, “empty space”.
- Now I should note there are few verses who explicitly calls a certain space between two universes a higher D space. Now they will Be the exception and not the rule as the context is strictly different. And their number is very small compared to the majority I can only list two off my head
- also a larger 3-D space will contain multiple smaller 3-D space as long as the number isn’t infinite.
- there is a single mix up to this tho, which is 2-A, as the space between infinite universes will be uncountably larger than a single universe assuming the universe size in the verse is infinite.
Anyway I think we should start following the tiering system and make it that “space-time continuums” or “higher dimensional space” destruction is compulsory for tier 2.
Now for the Big Bang argument my view is was it just an explosion that caused an expansion of space or was time stated to be created along with it?
One is 3-A and the other is low 2-C.
- 14,863
- 12,354
Now for the Big Bang argument my view is was it just an explosion that caused an expansion of space or was time stated to be created along with it?
One is 3-A and the other is low 2-C.
The concern is that even if time is created, that may involve only creating one instant of time, which then generates the next instant of time in a chain reaction according to the laws of physics, rather than creating all of time at once. Or simply being an "origin point" where all time stops, which came into existence at the same time as the rest of the universe, instead of the literal moment of the big bang creating every other point in time.
Since those sorts of feats wouldn't have "created the big bang" synonymous to "created every moment in the timeline", and thus wouldn't be tier 2, it's important to determine what our default assumption should be, and what evidence would be needed to override that default assumption.
One is 3-A and the other is low 2-C.
The concern is that even if time is created, that may involve only creating one instant of time, which then generates the next instant of time in a chain reaction according to the laws of physics, rather than creating all of time at once. Or simply being an "origin point" where all time stops, which came into existence at the same time as the rest of the universe, instead of the literal moment of the big bang creating every other point in time.
Since those sorts of feats wouldn't have "created the big bang" synonymous to "created every moment in the timeline", and thus wouldn't be tier 2, it's important to determine what our default assumption should be, and what evidence would be needed to override that default assumption.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,895
- 5,801
Well with your explanation, I don’t think any form of Bigbang can qualify for tier 2.
As I have never heard or seen a bigbang that created every moments in a timeline.
So I will rephrase this to say
My take on the default assumption will be
- 165,069
- 71,920
I trust Ultima's and Agnaa's senses of judgement regarding how we should adjust our wiki standards here, but I would prefer confirmations from @DontTalkDT and @KingPin0422 as well.
- 15,419
- 5,012
After reading this again my opinion remains as before; The tiering saying
If the Big Bang page needs to change as in, it needs to say the same but in an even more clear manner, then sure.
- 3-A: Universe level: Characters who can destroy all celestial bodies within a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.
- High 3-A: High Universe level: Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D area or an infinite number of finite or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time, or more generally any realm of comparable size. Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, 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.
- space-time: all of space and all of time, but not present time like a 3-A Big Bang or if someone were to destroy the universe and time, but then the past before it was still there fine. It should be more clear than to say "space-time".
- higher dimensions: what we have as higher dimensions
- "or time": again, all of time/all points in time in a timeline, not a present, singular point in time.
If the Big Bang page needs to change as in, it needs to say the same but in an even more clear manner, then sure.
- 1,280
- 1,120
For the record, the Big Bang is widely regarded as the beginning of time with nothing "coming before it" (at least not in a strictly chronological sense), and since the consensus among physicists is that time is infinite and doesn't expand, it's not hard to extrapolate Low 2-C from that. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that conclusion, but it seems logically sound to me at a glance.
- 14,863
- 12,354
Being the starting point in time does not mean that the Big Bang itself created the rest of time.
But, if the consensus among physicists is that time already exists rather than being generated, and the verse itself functions that way (i.e. without contradicting that by showing the future to be malleable/nonexistent), and the verse itself says that the Big Bang created time, or some equivalent statement that makes the creation of the Big Bang intertwined with the creation of time (and thus, the entirety of time), I'd be okay with giving Low 2-C.
While I have the slightest suspicion that Eficiente may disagree with that, I don't think too many other people will.
- 15,419
- 5,012
It's a pain the way the words time, universe, infinite and reality can each mean different things, how sources use those words, and then people here to point them out to explain their vision w/o further proof on why the take of those words used goes in line with what the people here claimed them to be, rather than the alternative.
Can I see a list of all the souces we use for the tiering in the wiki and new ones proposed? I would really like to make sure in which ones time is infinite and doesn't expand, in which ones the universe isn't infinite and expands ever since the Big Bang, and which of that has the universe as both time & space.
Can I see a list of all the souces we use for the tiering in the wiki and new ones proposed? I would really like to make sure in which ones time is infinite and doesn't expand, in which ones the universe isn't infinite and expands ever since the Big Bang, and which of that has the universe as both time & space.
- 6,927
- 6,655
- Thread starter
- #96
I suppose we'll also have to add our source references to the Tiering System page.
- 165,069
- 71,920
It wouldn't hurt at least, but it depends on if @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT have the time and energy available.
- 6,927
- 6,655
- Thread starter
- #98
Can someone summarize the current agreements regarding the requirements for Low 2-C vs High/3-A creation?
- 165,069
- 71,920
- 19,577
- 15,914
Depends on how the universe's spawn. If the universes rely on free will then that means a multiverse wouldn't exist until the first living thing came into existence.
If from the jump there's a multiverse there's more indication that the big bang would be creating everything. If the franchise features a non-linear big bang then it also wouldn't qualify for 2-C or higher.
- 29,955
- 31,046
There's honestly a case by case, because I can vouch that 2-C or even 2-A sized big bangs are a thing in fiction. Though there needs to be some evidence. And I think it's an oxymoron to consider a big bang Low 2-C/3-A AP wise but 2-C and above in terms of range. 5-Dimensional Inverse Square Law would just make the attack potency of one on pare with its range.
- 14,863
- 12,354
Perhaps I should've clarified that the "3-A vs 2-C for multiple universes" is more general than just big bang feats. It'd cover any case where a character is stated to have destroyed/created multiple universes, without those universes being concretely established as separate space-times (which everyone agrees would be 2-C).
- 29,955
- 31,046
Yeah, we could write down some guidelines for when multiverses should be considered quilted multiverses and/or bubble multiverses; aka universes containing multiple bodies of spaces but compressed within a single space-time continuum. And a quilted multiverse is a single body of space, single timeline, but there's an infinite number of observable universes next to each other. And there also exist Brane Timelines which are basically the opposite of Bubble multiverses; it's a timeline containing multiple low 2-C sized universes within it.
Some discussions about when to define what is what would be good.
Some discussions about when to define what is what would be good.
- 165,069
- 71,920
- 165,069
- 71,920
Also, the above comments largely make sense to me.
- 1,280
- 1,120
I agree that we should write down some standards for determining the nature of multiverses in fiction, particularly when it comes to quilted and bubble multiverses. I believe we default to multiverses being the latter unless proven otherwise, so...
- 14,863
- 12,354
There may be some other definitions of it, but the one I'm familiar with is....
There's the idea that some physical constants could take on a variety of values, but that they settle into stable values. But that sometimes these stable values aren't the most stable ones that they could hold, and that under specific circumstances, they could jump to a more stable value, changing physics. These changes propagate at the speed of light.
If we consider the possibility of this happening to the rate at which the universe expands, that leads to the hypothesis of eternal inflation.
Which is the idea that our big bang was a sudden drop in the rate of inflation from the rest of reality, leaving us in a tiny bubble universe with different laws of physics as the rest of reality expands away from us at absurd speeds, making it utterly unreachable.
An unfathomable number of "bubble universes" like ours would be created every second. This collection of collapsed bubbles in a greater reality is termed the "bubble multiverse".
For the purposes of tiering, this wouldn't be particularly different from a quilted multiverse.
- 1,280
- 1,120
Eh? Why not? I thought we required different universes to be separate space-time continua to qualify for the multiverse tiers, which they wouldn't be under a quilted multiverse.
- 14,863
- 12,354
And I'd argue that a bubble multiverse is all part of the same space-time continuum. Some parts of it just have different physical constants, as changes in those don't propagate instantaneously.
- 32,764
- 37,924
Oh, Okay.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,895
- 5,801
The problem lies not with the way we treat multiverses but the way treat the destruction of them.
We can easily get what type of a multiverse a verse has from whatever they give in the verse, but the point of contention here is that destruction of more than 2 universes are automatically said to be 2-C whether it is a bubbled or quilted or/even if there was no mention of the destruction of the entire space-time continuums.
Most of the multiverse destruction I know of are just high 3-A, as they are destruction of the multiverse in the present and nothing more.
I really don’t see what is been argued here, their type destruction is already on the tiering page, we just don’t follow it, I think it’s time we start following it. I will certainly help with the revamp also
We can easily get what type of a multiverse a verse has from whatever they give in the verse, but the point of contention here is that destruction of more than 2 universes are automatically said to be 2-C whether it is a bubbled or quilted or/even if there was no mention of the destruction of the entire space-time continuums.
Most of the multiverse destruction I know of are just high 3-A, as they are destruction of the multiverse in the present and nothing more.
I really don’t see what is been argued here, their type destruction is already on the tiering page, we just don’t follow it, I think it’s time we start following it. I will certainly help with the revamp also
Last edited:
- 2,013
- 453
following
- 29,955
- 31,046
Destroying a Bubble Multiverse can either be multiple times above 3-A at minimum, or just plain Low 2-C if the aforementioned details about space-time being destroyed alongside is also mentioned. Destroying a quilted multiverse is High 3-A at minimum, but Low 2-C if time and space is also destroyed in the process. But for two or more universes that are clearly located in two or more separate space-time continuums, destroying both/all of them in a single attack omnidirectional attack would be 2-C or above since the omnidirectional blast in question would need the potency to overpower the dimensional barriers to even reach the other universes let alone destroy them.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,895
- 5,801
This is a matter of range and not potency actually.
And this was already covered in the
Destruction of universes without destruction of the entire space-time continuum or an higher dimension or time, is just High 3-A.
The distance between universes is a matter of range and most times what separates this universes are voids, so you really don’t need extra AP just range.
If a low 2-C has the range to reach infinite universes, he would be 2-A. Even though he has the potency to destroy uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe in time, he lacks the range to reach infinite universes.
But there are those who have the range to reach infinite universes but lack the potency to destroy a universe across all of time.
Destroying a universe across all of time >>>>>> destroying infinite universes in the present.
As one requires destruction of uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe into the past and future while one is just destruction of infinite universes as at present.
Which is why one is low 2-C and one is High 3-A.
But we don’t follow the tiering system
So this thread is really should we start following the tiering page or not.
And obviously I’m for the follow the tiering system
- 1,280
- 1,120
Small nitpick with the end of that last post: a better way to describe it would be "Should we edit the tiering system page to reflect our current standards, or should we update our standards to be accurate to what's written in the tiering system?"
But yeah, I support the latter option. Just because multiple universes are affected doesn't mean we can assume that they are being affected across all of time (or that the person who does this can do so) based on "well, they need to overcome the dimensional 'walls' existing between them to affect them at all." At best, you can argue that it's a safe assumption to make if the character in question already has Low 2-C feats or scaling under their belt, which... I wouldn't necessarily oppose, to be honest.
But yeah, I support the latter option. Just because multiple universes are affected doesn't mean we can assume that they are being affected across all of time (or that the person who does this can do so) based on "well, they need to overcome the dimensional 'walls' existing between them to affect them at all." At best, you can argue that it's a safe assumption to make if the character in question already has Low 2-C feats or scaling under their belt, which... I wouldn't necessarily oppose, to be honest.
- 29,955
- 31,046
The other issue is that it's weird for an explosion to have (Countable or Uncountable) infinite range but not (Countable or Uncountable respectively) infinite power/energy unless there's 0 pressure and thus not actually an explosion or upper-dimensional range but not upper-dimensional power. If it's for feats not involving destruction or isn't omnidirectional such as simply reaching someone from another timeline via portals or telekinesis sure, but not an omni-directional big bang like explosion. Inverse Square Law applies to Tier 2 and above explosions too.
- 4,091
- 1,351
If it relates to the Big Bang, do keep in mind that the Big Bang did originally started out as a theory and then becomes a widely accepted and well known theory IIRC.
Honestly from what I remember regarding the Big Bang as it didn’t started out as a large explosion necessarily .
Edit: As pointed out in this Wikia article,
here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Honestly from what I remember regarding the Big Bang as it didn’t started out as a large explosion necessarily .
Edit: As pointed out in this Wikia article,
here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,895
- 5,801
Not sure how I should address this as I am not exactly sure what you are proposing, but let me take it from the top. If I misinterpreted your post please do tell me
1. Destruction of uncountable infinite universes is vastly different destruction of countable infinite universes.
The latter is simple high 3-A, while the former is borderline low 1-C.
A structure that contains uncountable infinite universes is already a higher Dimension structure in it’s right. Destroying of such a structure is low 1-C.
2. Destroying countable infinite snapshots of a universe is different destroying uncountable infinite snapshots of the universe.
Destroying countable infinite snapshots of the universe is just High 3-A, while the other is low 2-C.
3. Inverse square law is lost and makes no sense when trying to talk about infinite energy so anything tier 3 and above. As no matter how many percent you decrease an infinite energy, it will always be infinite. So I really don’t know what you mean and you can explain more
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
