- 165,220
- 72,249
-
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
- 4,097
- 1,360
Never mind, I misinterpreted this admittedly.
However, I have to admit that does seems to being a logical contradiction here, but how I view this.
If the explosion do have necessary range to reach a universe or if it is not necessarily destroying a universe, but creating a universe’s space only. This can been deemed as 3A, possibly High 3A if it is a infinite 3D universe.
If the explosion have both range and the necessary potency to create a singular infinite 4D universe, that is a low 2C feat altogether.
In terms of destruction wise, I am afraid this relies on context as a explosion who have the range to do it, but doesn’t have necessarily the potency to do it means it is probably 3A or high 3A if it is stated to only affect the physical matter/space itself and not time itself.
If it has both the range and potency to destroy a entire space time continuum/universe, then it fulfills the requirement in its entirety.
- 10,502
- 11,574
Personally, I'm pretty neutral regarding many of the details.
If universes share the same 3D space (like the bubble universes in the sense Agnaa defines them in my understanding) that's just 3-A, as they are objectively smaller than an infinite universe.
For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
When it comes for assumptions I would usually assume universes have different spacetimes, unless characters can simply fly between them or something. That assumption is because the most used definition of universe is something like "all of space and everything in it".
Personally, I think the Big Bang regulations on the Big Bang page are fine.
If universes share the same 3D space (like the bubble universes in the sense Agnaa defines them in my understanding) that's just 3-A, as they are objectively smaller than an infinite universe.
For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
When it comes for assumptions I would usually assume universes have different spacetimes, unless characters can simply fly between them or something. That assumption is because the most used definition of universe is something like "all of space and everything in it".
Personally, I think the Big Bang regulations on the Big Bang page are fine.
Last edited:
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
There was no contention that destruction of a universe is way lower than 2 universes.
The thing I am saying, destruction of uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe will be higher than destruction of infinite universes at the present without accounting for any higher dimensions or time.
Anyway what’s your proposal, as it seems you want us to change what is currently on the tiering page.
- 4,097
- 1,360
Not sure if uncountable will necessarily apply here as again that is basically saying it is Tier High 3A all the same to me.
- 10,502
- 11,574
Do I? I'm generally fine with how we currently handle things.
Honestly, kinda don't like the idea of ranking timeline destruction above multiverse level, because... I have seen literally no fiction ever follow that. Given, that's just my personal subjective opinion.
Last edited:
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
Let me give you an example of what uncountable infinite means in this sense, there is an infinite number between 1 sec and 2 secs. The destruction I mean is for one that would destroying the said uncountable infinite snapshots of a universe across all of time.
That’s not high 3-A.
- 4,097
- 1,360
How it isn’t? If we exclude higher dimensions and/or time, this is a example of it being Tier High 3A, not low 1C.
Aside from that, this seems to needlessly complicated things when it seems more simplified in matters like this
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
How we handle most things is different from what is the tiering page says
Post in thread 'Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-requirements-and-examples-revision.124078/post-4837143
So we can either edit the page to fit what we currently do, or hold the pages to our current standards on the tiering system page.
Timeline destruction would still be High 3-A to low 2-C and even 2-A, depending on context.
I will try and write out a proposal of what I am saying soon, when I’m on PC
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
Post in thread 'Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision'
https://vsbattles.com/threads/tier-2-requirements-and-examples-revision.124078/post-4837143
- 4,097
- 1,360
In the Tiering system, it went out and say countable infinite system and I thought we already throw out the assumption that the distance between other universes is “5D” to say the least.
Last edited:
- 14,915
- 12,434
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.
Why do you think that such a dimensional barrier would require 2-C potency? You go on to talk about inverse square law, but I don't see how that applies, since the space between space-times is indeterminate (without space there can't really be a notion of distance), and destroying a portion of space-time (but not the entire thing, as that would involve timeline-nuking) is unquantifiable; that's why we don't rate everyone who can destroy small regions of space-time at Low 2-C. I just don't see how it follows.
For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
Busting a multiverse would still be above busting a universe, even if they were both in 3-A.
Personally, I think the Big Bang regulations on the Big Bang page are fine.
We'd still want to come to a consensus on what the default assumptions are, and what evidence would be required, for different interpretations of Big Bangs in fiction.
Do we assume that all of time exists at once, or do we assume that it's continually generated in line with the laws of physics? Do we assume that the event of the Big Bang literally created every single moment in time, or do we assume that it was created along with everything else and just functions as the point where all of space and time converges?
Honestly, kinda don't like the idea of ranking timeline destruction above multiverse level, because... I have seen literally no fiction ever follow that. Given, that's just my personal subjective opinion.
I'm pretty sure I've heard of a few cases like that, where each timeline also contains multiple universes/realms within it. And we currently put timelines like that because they're interpreted as representing the destruction/creation of an uncountably infinite amount of universes (one for each point in time). We could end up with multiverses being higher if we drop that interpretation, but that would require a bit of a bigger restructuring of our tiering system.
Why do you think that such a dimensional barrier would require 2-C potency? You go on to talk about inverse square law, but I don't see how that applies, since the space between space-times is indeterminate (without space there can't really be a notion of distance), and destroying a portion of space-time (but not the entire thing, as that would involve timeline-nuking) is unquantifiable; that's why we don't rate everyone who can destroy small regions of space-time at Low 2-C. I just don't see how it follows.
For universes that are separate spacetimes I think it should be tier 2. It's the common fictional consensus that busting multiverses is above busting universes. Given one could justify that one way or another.
Busting a multiverse would still be above busting a universe, even if they were both in 3-A.
Personally, I think the Big Bang regulations on the Big Bang page are fine.
We'd still want to come to a consensus on what the default assumptions are, and what evidence would be required, for different interpretations of Big Bangs in fiction.
Do we assume that all of time exists at once, or do we assume that it's continually generated in line with the laws of physics? Do we assume that the event of the Big Bang literally created every single moment in time, or do we assume that it was created along with everything else and just functions as the point where all of space and time converges?
Honestly, kinda don't like the idea of ranking timeline destruction above multiverse level, because... I have seen literally no fiction ever follow that. Given, that's just my personal subjective opinion.
I'm pretty sure I've heard of a few cases like that, where each timeline also contains multiple universes/realms within it. And we currently put timelines like that because they're interpreted as representing the destruction/creation of an uncountably infinite amount of universes (one for each point in time). We could end up with multiverses being higher if we drop that interpretation, but that would require a bit of a bigger restructuring of our tiering system.
- 30,087
- 31,392
I'd like to clarify, that I already heard the "Uncountable infinite number of snapshots" but I think that's commonly misunderstood. The actual time length/age of the timeline doesn't matter if it's 6000 years, 6 billion years, or "Having no beginning or no end" type of age. Since even 1 second contains an uncountable infinite number of snapshots given the uncountable infinite number of x/uncountable infinity numbers between 0 and 1. I recall even Ultima has complaints about people taking his words out of context though I misremember. I don't want to say I agree or disagree since I misremember what he means by it, but I do disagree with what people took out of that and more or less agree with DontTalkDT. There's no need to be any more stern than we already are.
Destroying a countable number of universes that are all different timelines is 2-A, which is countable infinity on a 5-D scale but uncountable would be Low 1-C. I still don't see how destroying 2 or more universes clearly located in difference space-time continuums and destroying them all at the same time would be any less than 2-C.
Destroying a countable number of universes that are all different timelines is 2-A, which is countable infinity on a 5-D scale but uncountable would be Low 1-C. I still don't see how destroying 2 or more universes clearly located in difference space-time continuums and destroying them all at the same time would be any less than 2-C.
- 14,915
- 12,434
I'd like to clarify, that I already heard the "Uncountable infinite number of snapshots" but I think that's commonly misunderstood. The actual time length/age of the timeline doesn't matter if it's 6000 years, 6 billion years, or "Having no beginning or no end" type of age. Since even 1 second contains an uncountable infinite number of snapshots given the uncountable infinite number of x/uncountable infinity numbers between 0 and 1.
I do not have that misunderstanding. I am very well aware that any non-infintesimal interval of time would have uncountably infinite points of time in it, and that we require Low 2-C to include the entirety of a timeline; creating/destroying a few seconds of time within a greater timeline does not qualify.
Destroying a countable number of universes that are all different timelines is 2-A
The current wording on the Tiering System page says that the entire space-time continuums must be destroyed/created/affected.
I still don't see how destroying 2 or more universes clearly located in difference space-time continuums and destroying them all at the same time would be any less than 2-C.
As I said in my last post, destroying 2 universes in two different space-time continuums involves destroying 2 universes (2x baseline 3-A), and presumably the space between the space-times (indeterminate since there should be no distance outside of space-time continuums, but if there were a distance it could be incredibly small or incredibly large). I see no construct that would be affected which would put that above even 3-A.
I do not have that misunderstanding. I am very well aware that any non-infintesimal interval of time would have uncountably infinite points of time in it, and that we require Low 2-C to include the entirety of a timeline; creating/destroying a few seconds of time within a greater timeline does not qualify.
Destroying a countable number of universes that are all different timelines is 2-A
The current wording on the Tiering System page says that the entire space-time continuums must be destroyed/created/affected.
I still don't see how destroying 2 or more universes clearly located in difference space-time continuums and destroying them all at the same time would be any less than 2-C.
As I said in my last post, destroying 2 universes in two different space-time continuums involves destroying 2 universes (2x baseline 3-A), and presumably the space between the space-times (indeterminate since there should be no distance outside of space-time continuums, but if there were a distance it could be incredibly small or incredibly large). I see no construct that would be affected which would put that above even 3-A.
- 4,097
- 1,360
At that point for 2-A, it is not a singular timeline though. It is a infinite amount of timelines/parallel worlds, and so on.
“Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[2], creating and/or destroying a countably infinite number of space-time continuums.”
This is what being said on the Tiering page for 2A currently.
- 4,097
- 1,360
For this part, do you recall the specific cases? This seems to being the exception rather than the rule as normally you could technically argue that there are even localized timelines as part of a universe as this is going off the assumption that it is a singular timeline, which in my opinion, isn’t necessarily the case since I tend to think that to assume it is just a singular timeline seems off since it isn’t strictly just one time but technically multiple ones if we going by this particular logic.
Especially if it is evident that the universes in question have a different history and other variables.
Like say any changes to history of a universe from the past to the point it splits off to becoming a parallel timeline to being more specific.
- 14,915
- 12,434
For this part, do you recall the specific cases?
No.
Especially if it is evident that the universes in question have a different history and other variables.
That does not indicate separate timelines. Two bubble universes can have different histories and physics while still being part of the same timeline.
No.
Especially if it is evident that the universes in question have a different history and other variables.
That does not indicate separate timelines. Two bubble universes can have different histories and physics while still being part of the same timeline.
- 4,097
- 1,360
That is provided that it is a bubble universe and going off the assumption it follows a singular flow of time (which I honestly don’t remember it being the default assumption since there are arguments time doesn’t strictly go by a single flow IIRC).
Also arguing it is technically part of the same timeline doesn’t make complete sense though since this goes back into the more theorizing aspect as remember every single multiverse theory that has been used or has been used to some extent in fiction may not strictly follow this particular logic to its core.
- 14,915
- 12,434
If the story indicates otherwise, then it indicates otherwise.
I am just telling you that your piece of evidence which would supposedly prove separate timelines does not actually prove that. What you said was sufficient is not sufficient.
I am just telling you that your piece of evidence which would supposedly prove separate timelines does not actually prove that. What you said was sufficient is not sufficient.
- 4,097
- 1,360
Perhaps so, but if we going by this logic alone, it isn’t that sufficient since it excludes parallel worlds, parallel timelines, and so on.
Also there isn’t evidence to the contrary that will prove they ain’t separate timelines as again this will going by the logic that different space time continuums = different timelines though.
Not to mention the quilted and bubble multiverse is a theory that can not been tested so any evidence that we have is rather insufficient since we mainly relying on guesswork and technically speculation when it comes to specific ones such as this.
However, fiction doesn’t exactly care about this part specifically.
Anyway overall, I do think this topic surrounding our standards for Multiverses and Tier 2 deserves a thread of its own tbh since the original topic for this thread was mainly regarding the Big Bang or a event that is similar to one was discussed IIRC.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,910
- 5,812
Yes which is part of me saying timelines destruction can be high 3-A to low 2-C or even 2-A
I am well aware, which is why I said up above even destruction of 1-2 seconds of a universe can be low 2-C depending on context
- 14,915
- 12,434
Perhaps so, but if we going by this logic alone, it isn’t that sufficient since it excludes parallel worlds, parallel timelines, and so on.
You said "This evidence PROVES that they are not separate timelines" I said "Actually, it does not PROVE that, there are other possibilities" and your response to that is "Your other possibilities aren't 100% certain" which does not matter.
You say X = 100%. I say Y indicates that X is < 100%. You respond that Y is < 100%. That does not mean that X = 100%!!!
You bringing this up is completely pointless.
Also there isn’t evidence to the contrary that will prove they ain’t separate timelines as again this will going by the logic that different space time continuums = different timelines though.
Again, pointless. "I know that this doesn't PROVE that they are not separate timelines, but what if the verse showed this other thing that did PROVE it!" Then that extra evidence would be enough, I guess. Your original statement is still incorrect, I do not care if you later add correct statements.
Not to mention the quilted and bubble multiverse is a theory that can not been tested so any evidence that we have is rather insufficient since we mainly relying on guesswork and technically speculation when it comes to specific ones such as this.
However, fiction doesn’t exactly care about this part specifically.
Yes. We're talking about fiction. Our mathematical possibilities not being 100% certain in the real world is irrelevant. The simple fact that it is reasonably possible is enough for it to deserve consideration.
I really wish the posts in this thread could stay more focused....
You said "This evidence PROVES that they are not separate timelines" I said "Actually, it does not PROVE that, there are other possibilities" and your response to that is "Your other possibilities aren't 100% certain" which does not matter.
You say X = 100%. I say Y indicates that X is < 100%. You respond that Y is < 100%. That does not mean that X = 100%!!!
You bringing this up is completely pointless.
Also there isn’t evidence to the contrary that will prove they ain’t separate timelines as again this will going by the logic that different space time continuums = different timelines though.
Again, pointless. "I know that this doesn't PROVE that they are not separate timelines, but what if the verse showed this other thing that did PROVE it!" Then that extra evidence would be enough, I guess. Your original statement is still incorrect, I do not care if you later add correct statements.
Not to mention the quilted and bubble multiverse is a theory that can not been tested so any evidence that we have is rather insufficient since we mainly relying on guesswork and technically speculation when it comes to specific ones such as this.
However, fiction doesn’t exactly care about this part specifically.
Yes. We're talking about fiction. Our mathematical possibilities not being 100% certain in the real world is irrelevant. The simple fact that it is reasonably possible is enough for it to deserve consideration.
I really wish the posts in this thread could stay more focused....
- 4,097
- 1,360
My original statement isn’t that 100% incorrect.
You making it sound like it is foolproof that a bubble universe can not somehow have a separate timeline which in my opinion, does actually matter in some ways.
Just a reminder while you are arguing for two or more bubble universes can been part of the same timeline may not necessarily been addressed in such a way such as this.
Also when it comes to other possibilities for these “bubble universes”, do keep in mind that I don’t think any theories relating to bubble universe has necessarily directly addressed this particular aspect.
However, it may been because of my own rusty knowledge regard those specific cosmological theories anyway.
- 4,097
- 1,360
Yeah, fair enough.
Oh, I most likely misunderstood you completely.
For some reason, I mostly likely was going off the assumption that bubble universes being in different space time and is separated by a infinite distance.
Apologies for the lapse in judgement as I admittedly end up confusing myself in the process.
- 165,220
- 72,249
- 30,087
- 31,392
Yeah, I feel like there's some loose ends here and there, but I more so think DontTalkDT makes more sense that I don't think any major changes to Tier 2 requirements needs updating. Plus, there are times where the time and space of the universe should sound obviously effected or are being destroyed outright even if some simple mentions of time and space are referenced. A statement doesn't have to be 100% in our faces, but sometimes Low 2-C and above feats have details existing in the form of puzzle piece statements.
- 14,915
- 12,434
I think the suggested status quo is completely unfounded, with the move we've had in recent years to providing our tiers more basis, I don't want that sorta thing to be maintained.
I've provided counters to all the reasons you and DT have provided, and all I've gotten back so far is "I just disagree". There's not much for me to work with there....
I'm not suggesting that a statement has to be 100% in our faces, just that the tier above "destroying 1 timeline" should be "destroying 2 timelines" not "destroying 2 universes but leaving the past/future intact". Getting over that default would require some extra work, but not a terribly large amount, imo. It'd only end up downgrading the most vague statements without supportive context.
I've provided counters to all the reasons you and DT have provided, and all I've gotten back so far is "I just disagree". There's not much for me to work with there....
I'm not suggesting that a statement has to be 100% in our faces, just that the tier above "destroying 1 timeline" should be "destroying 2 timelines" not "destroying 2 universes but leaving the past/future intact". Getting over that default would require some extra work, but not a terribly large amount, imo. It'd only end up downgrading the most vague statements without supportive context.
- 30,087
- 31,392
Well I never said "Destroying 2 universes and leaving past/future in tact" would be 2-C. But I simply say "Destroying 2 universes". Though I probably should have been more specific, but to my knowledge, destroying two or more universes that each had their own flow of time inherently means their space-times were also destroyed in the process and I have yet to hear a 3-A AP combined with Multiversal range for a multiversal destruction feat. Though, I don't think Low 2-C AP/Durability combined with Multiversal range is a thing.
What I mean by puzzle piece statements that described a "Phase transition event" as a "Cosmic Inflation in Time and Space". Same event also "Destroyed and recreated the universe" with the same event having statements that it effected many universes and much of the same universes effected also have the exact same "Birth of the Universe" origin lore story where they were all apparently the same universe destroyed by the same event but are all different universes with different flows of time and different astronomy structure that where still created from the same source. I basically am saying a minimum Low 2-C destruction feat that doubles as a Multiversal creation feat would be multiversal outright IMO
Assuming there was a legit multiversal range feat that only effected planets and stars but did nothing to the Futures, Pasts, or bodies of space of any universe, I supposed I would agree it's 3-A combined with Multiversal range. But I do not know of any examples where that would be the case.
What I mean by puzzle piece statements that described a "Phase transition event" as a "Cosmic Inflation in Time and Space". Same event also "Destroyed and recreated the universe" with the same event having statements that it effected many universes and much of the same universes effected also have the exact same "Birth of the Universe" origin lore story where they were all apparently the same universe destroyed by the same event but are all different universes with different flows of time and different astronomy structure that where still created from the same source. I basically am saying a minimum Low 2-C destruction feat that doubles as a Multiversal creation feat would be multiversal outright IMO
Assuming there was a legit multiversal range feat that only effected planets and stars but did nothing to the Futures, Pasts, or bodies of space of any universe, I supposed I would agree it's 3-A combined with Multiversal range. But I do not know of any examples where that would be the case.
- 4,097
- 1,360
It is also technically possible for a singular universe to being destroyed and created as well.
Also I do feel like we shouldn’t also been overlooking feats that isn’t immediate, but was stated to being a outright over time process as well.
Not a immediate destruction feat and vice versa as well for creation part.
- 165,220
- 72,249
Agnaa makes sense to me above, but I am not the best person to ask, and it depends on what @DontTalkDT , @Ultima_Reality , and @AKM sama think as well.
- 6,974
- 6,766
- Thread starter
- #153
Similar to our lightspeed standards, we should have minimum requirements to properly differentiate Low 2-C, 3-A, High 3-A, and higher.
E.G
Meet at least 3 of these 5 descriptions
E.G
Meet at least 3 of these 5 descriptions
Last edited:
- 14,915
- 12,434
I think this post came off a bit disorganized, please bear with me.
Well I never said "Destroying 2 universes and leaving past/future in tact" would be 2-C. But I simply say "Destroying 2 universes". Though I probably should have been more specific, but to my knowledge, destroying two or more universes that each had their own flow of time inherently means their space-times were also destroyed in the process and I have yet to hear a 3-A AP combined with Multiversal range for a multiversal destruction feat. Though, I don't think Low 2-C AP/Durability combined with Multiversal range is a thing.
Destroying two or more universes which have their own flow of time does not inherently mean that their space-times are also destroyed.
Assuming there was a legit multiversal range feat that only effected planets and stars but did nothing to the Futures, Pasts, or bodies of space of any universe, I supposed I would agree it's 3-A combined with Multiversal range. But I do not know of any examples where that would be the case.
Sadly, most series I'm familiar with don't actually involve multiverse destruction, so I can barely pull out any examples I'm actually familiar with. One verse I worked on over two years ago I asked for an evaluation for, and was told to give "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C". Here is the relevant quote:
In my opinion, this is the sort of thing with the least justification for 2-C. There is nothing indicating that time was affected, and there's not even anything indicating that the universes were separate space-times. So when I hear DT giving arguments like...
I'm not as knowledgeable on this example, so bear with me if I get it wrong, but I remember this coming up almost a year ago in this thread apparently Bleach has a location. That location has two universes in it. There's apparently a statement in the series where someone in one of those universes says "We are in a spacetime". There is then a statement (or a feat, I don't know) involving the destruction of that location containing two universes. I said that it was just 3-A, since there's no indication of past or future being affected. Other people in the thread said that it was 2-C, because AKM said so. When I asked AKM, I found his arguments insufficient, and he told me to talk to DT. I tried messaging DT about it, but got no response.
From what you and DT have said here it sounds like you agree with me in principle, but we disagree on which default to draw; whether we need evidence for 2-C, or need evidence to downgrade to 3-A. And its been my personal view for years that we should generally require evidence for higher ratings, rather than requiring evidence for something to be knocked down, in these sorts of cases where there's two very plausible interpretations and no helpful implications.
Well I never said "Destroying 2 universes and leaving past/future in tact" would be 2-C. But I simply say "Destroying 2 universes". Though I probably should have been more specific, but to my knowledge, destroying two or more universes that each had their own flow of time inherently means their space-times were also destroyed in the process and I have yet to hear a 3-A AP combined with Multiversal range for a multiversal destruction feat. Though, I don't think Low 2-C AP/Durability combined with Multiversal range is a thing.
Destroying two or more universes which have their own flow of time does not inherently mean that their space-times are also destroyed.
Assuming there was a legit multiversal range feat that only effected planets and stars but did nothing to the Futures, Pasts, or bodies of space of any universe, I supposed I would agree it's 3-A combined with Multiversal range. But I do not know of any examples where that would be the case.
Sadly, most series I'm familiar with don't actually involve multiverse destruction, so I can barely pull out any examples I'm actually familiar with. One verse I worked on over two years ago I asked for an evaluation for, and was told to give "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C". Here is the relevant quote:
There is then a stronger character who can eat universes.
In my opinion, this is the sort of thing with the least justification for 2-C. There is nothing indicating that time was affected, and there's not even anything indicating that the universes were separate space-times. So when I hear DT giving arguments like...
It's these sorts of counterexamples that make me think that's a bad take. We never see characters fly between these universes, but with the knowledge I have now, I wouldn't want to put them above 3-A.
I'm not as knowledgeable on this example, so bear with me if I get it wrong, but I remember this coming up almost a year ago in this thread apparently Bleach has a location. That location has two universes in it. There's apparently a statement in the series where someone in one of those universes says "We are in a spacetime". There is then a statement (or a feat, I don't know) involving the destruction of that location containing two universes. I said that it was just 3-A, since there's no indication of past or future being affected. Other people in the thread said that it was 2-C, because AKM said so. When I asked AKM, I found his arguments insufficient, and he told me to talk to DT. I tried messaging DT about it, but got no response.
From what you and DT have said here it sounds like you agree with me in principle, but we disagree on which default to draw; whether we need evidence for 2-C, or need evidence to downgrade to 3-A. And its been my personal view for years that we should generally require evidence for higher ratings, rather than requiring evidence for something to be knocked down, in these sorts of cases where there's two very plausible interpretations and no helpful implications.
- 165,220
- 72,249
On second thought, I don't think that it seems very realistic to only count destroying multiple timelines as tiers 2-C to 2-A, rather than spacetime continuums, which should also logically be equivalent. Almost all tier 2 characters would be downgraded to 3-A or High 3-A.
Maybe we could simply make exceptions for characters that are currently listed with tiers 2-C to 2-A, but explicitly only wiped out all of the celestial bodies in those universes, so they are listed as tiers 3-A or High 3-A instead?
- 14,915
- 12,434
There's a few levels to look at it at:
which should also logically be equivalent
My issue is that they aren't logically equivalent, and to continue tiering them this way would require turning our tier 2 standards mathematically nonsensical. If y'all are fine with that then whatever.
- Should vague "destroyed multiple universes" with no elaboration be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two (i.e. "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C")?
- Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but without explicit confirmation or denial that time was affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?
- Should "destroyed multiple universes which are known from other implications/statements to reside in different spacetimes" where there's explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?
which should also logically be equivalent
My issue is that they aren't logically equivalent, and to continue tiering them this way would require turning our tier 2 standards mathematically nonsensical. If y'all are fine with that then whatever.
Last edited:
- 14,915
- 12,434
There's a few levels to look at it at
I asked Aeyu about this whole situation on Discord. She believes that 1 should be rated at "At least 3-A, possibly far higher", 2 should be rated at 2-C, and 3 should be rated at "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C".
With that it seems like I may be too strict, and prefer not ever assuming that the entire spacetime is destroyed; I want that to be reached at least by a decent implication. I don't want to do this because I think it's inconsistent with treating 1 universe destruction as 3-A by default. "Vague destruction of 1 universe is 3-A, but vague destruction of 2 or more universes is 2-C" does not sit right with me. I'd be more sympathetic if we rated vague single universe feats as Low 2-C as well.
EDIT: And reflecting on some of my earlier arguments in the thread, I now find some of my arguments about big bangs flawed.
I asked Aeyu about this whole situation on Discord. She believes that 1 should be rated at "At least 3-A, possibly far higher", 2 should be rated at 2-C, and 3 should be rated at "At least 3-A, possibly 2-C".
With that it seems like I may be too strict, and prefer not ever assuming that the entire spacetime is destroyed; I want that to be reached at least by a decent implication. I don't want to do this because I think it's inconsistent with treating 1 universe destruction as 3-A by default. "Vague destruction of 1 universe is 3-A, but vague destruction of 2 or more universes is 2-C" does not sit right with me. I'd be more sympathetic if we rated vague single universe feats as Low 2-C as well.
EDIT: And reflecting on some of my earlier arguments in the thread, I now find some of my arguments about big bangs flawed.
Last edited:
- 5,046
- 2,537
How can a spacetime be destroyed without affecting time? A spacetime would by definition be a four-dimensional construct made out of space and time.
- 14,915
- 12,434
My bad, my wording was sloppy to save on space. It has now been corrected.
- 5,046
- 2,537
Okay.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
