Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[Confluctor]

1. 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")?

Without further context, at least 3-A should suffice.

1. 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?

At least 3a should cover this honestly.

1. 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?

At least 2c should cover it

Unless we deleting low 2c then 3A

 

[Agnaa]

Why would you rate the third one higher than the second one? They're pretty much the same, except #3 explicitly lacks a qualification for tier 2 that #2 is ambiguous about.

 

[Confluctor]

From what I understand of your original comment, they are implying to have destroyed multiple space times instead of just universes.

 

[KLOL506]

At least low 3a should cover this honestly.

Bruh, we have no Low 3-A

 

[Agnaa]

From what I understand of your original comment, they are implying to have destroyed multiple space times instead of just universes.

I thought I had since reworded it to remove that implication. Do you have any advice on how to reword it to not give that impression?

 

[Confluctor]

Bruh, we have no Low 3-A

Shush

I thought I had since reworded it to remove that implication. Do you have any advice on how to reword it to not give that impression?

Okay, now I get it. But yeah, that should be at least 3A without proper context.

 

[PrinceofPein]

1. 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 be just High 3-A

1. 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 be High 3-A, Possibly 2-C.

1. 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?

This is just High 3-A

Now for the last one

Destroyed multiple universes with explicit proof that time was affected I.e. each universes were destroyed across time.

This is 2-C

Any destruction of timeline(s)

Is low 2-C to higher levels of tier 2 depending on the number of timelines destroyed

 

[Antvasima]

There's a few levels to look at it at:
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.

Well, if nothing is left of those spacetime continuums, including time, wouldn't that give the same result?

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think about Agnaa's and my reasoning above, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

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

The issue I have with this logic though that is treating as if space time continuum doesn’t contain a timeline. To say that a space time continuum doesn’t have a timeline is illogical, but literally ignored what a space time continuum contains which is the past, present, future (timeline) and space.

At least, that is how I interpret this statement of yours.


You legitimately can’t claim space time continuum ≠ timeline in this case when this goes against on what the definition for space time continuum is for.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Well, if nothing is left of those spacetime continuums, including time, wouldn't that give the same result?

From what I've gathered so far, Agnaa's argument is less this and more about whether or not we should default feats of "Destroying multiple universes" to 2-C and up in cases where it isn't specified if the time of these universes was destroyed. It basically boils down to pointing out this inconsistency: When a character has a feat of destroying a universe, we default it to 3-A without more context (Because we assume the "universe" destroyed was only the 3-D portion of reality, or the observable universe) but then, when a character destroys multiple universes, that's defaulted to 2-C instead (Because then we assume the "universes" destroyed were the spacetimes themselves)

The point here is that, to make that consistent, we'd either have to default both feats to 3-A, or default universal destruction to Low 2-C (When it's neither denied nor confirmed that all of spacetime was destroyed).

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the latter option of defaulting to Low 2-C for the sake of consistency seems more realistic for us to apply at least, but it depends on what DontTalk thinks.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, the latter option of defaulting to Low 2-C for the sake of consistency seems more realistic for us to apply at least, but it depends on what DontTalk thinks.

Unless it was stated otherwise in that it only affect the 3 dimensional objects (space) and actually have no impact on time itself overall.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if it was only shown to wipe out the celestial bodies, but time was not gone afterwards, that should also work.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, if it was only shown to wipe out the celestial bodies, but time was not gone afterwards, that should also work.

In this case, I do think we can not use the latter option though.

Technically speaking, one can argue that you only destroyed the present, not past or future, but the present and space itself.

The natural consequences of destroying the present may not necessarily affect the past, but has taken effect on the future because the present and space was destroyed.

However, to assume permanent destruction of time itself does seem a bit wrong tbh.

 

[Antvasima]

I meant that what I described would obviously qualify for 3-A or High 3-A.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Yes, but there is another argument that will point to the latter option for multiple universes destruction feats

Keep in mind, when it comes to destroying multiple universes, you are technically destroying the present.

Not the past nor the future, but present itself along with space.

The past of those particular universes will technically been unaffected as it wasn’t affected by the present being destroyed.

The future, on the other hand, is affected as a result of tampering with the present state and the present of the universes.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I made some corrections, but I hope you understand where I am coming from here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

What do you think should be done here?

 

[Agnaa]

I think we've been waiting for DontTalk/AKM/Ultima to comment on how (or whether) we should resolve the sort of inconsistency, where vague statements of destroying one universe are rated at 3-A, but vague statements of destroying two or more universes are rated at 2-C.

Depending on how that goes, we may want to hammer out a few more details about situations that are slightly more specific, with slight bits of additional information for/against tier 2 ratings.

 

[KingPin0422]

So, I did a small amount of research on multiverse theory, and I found that the concept of a bubble multiverse stems from the theory of eternal inflation, which in simple terms posits that the inflation (extreme exponential expansion) of space continues forever in most of the universe, but also that there are select regions in which it stops, forming distinct "bubbles" which can be considered universes. These bubbles, due to symmetry breaking, possess different physical constants and other properties, but are still considered to simply be regions of space rather than entire spacetime continua, as far as I can tell. Then you have quilted multiverses, where all universes are assumed to share physical constants and laws, differing only in their permutations of matter. Both multiverses require only one Big Bang to take place, it seems.

Given all of the above, combined with the fact that destruction of a single universe is defaulted to 3-A in the wiki, it doesn't seem logically sound to assume that destroying multiple universes necessitates 2-C or higher, especially when such a feat involves a pan-directional phenomenon such as an explosion encompassing those universes. I could take this further, but I'd hate to get ahead of myself and then be proven wrong, so let's discuss the validity of the above paragraph first.

 

[Agnaa]

Your post checks out with what I remember from those topics.

Although as a bit of a technical note, a bubble multiverse has a ludicrously large number of Big Bangs take place, one for each bubble, but those Big Bangs are just how we perceive the initial spontaneous drops in the speed of inflation. If by "Big Bang" you instead mean the creation of time and space, then yeah, a bubble multiverse would be started once.

 

[Antvasima]

So, I did a small amount of research on multiverse theory, and I found that the concept of a bubble multiverse stems from the theory of eternal inflation, which in simple terms posits that the inflation (extreme exponential expansion) of space continues forever in most of the universe, but also that there are select regions in which it stops, forming distinct "bubbles" which can be considered universes. These bubbles, due to symmetry breaking, possess different physical constants and other properties, but are still considered to simply be regions of space rather than entire spacetime continua, as far as I can tell. Then you have quilted multiverses, where all universes are assumed to share physical constants and laws, differing only in their permutations of matter. Both multiverses require only one Big Bang to take place, it seems.

Given all of the above, combined with the fact that destruction of a single universe is defaulted to 3-A in the wiki, it doesn't seem logically sound to assume that destroying multiple universes necessitates 2-C or higher, especially when such a feat involves a pan-directional phenomenon such as an explosion encompassing those universes. I could take this further, but I'd hate to get ahead of myself and then be proven wrong, so let's discuss the validity of the above paragraph first.

Thank you very much for helping out. It is appreciated.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

What do you think about this?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What do you think about this?

I agree with the general sentiment of the thread. Universal destruction being defaulted to 3-A and yet multiversal destruction being defaulted to 2-C is an inconsistency that ought to be ironed out, and I really don't agree with keeping things as is. As for the exact solution to it, though (To either default multiversal destruction to 3-A or default universal destruction to Low 2-C), I'm indifferent.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I have already said my examples for whether or not universal destructions should be 3-A or Low 2-C depending on the method of the destruction if there's no in depth of what universe consistently means or no mentions of space/time.

Usually generic "Destruction of the universe" statements via big explosions or physical strikes is simply 3-A unless space-time is mentioned.

But things like using a "Dimensional collapse" or "Cosmic distortion" are Low 2-C destruction feats especially if it is a space-time distortion that causes a "Universal destruction." And "Destroy all existence" statements being made literal would often include all time and space. Universe's default meaning is actually all time and space, but more modern dictionaries bring up 5 different definitions and it's especially the Vs Debating community that through in other examples such as just the observable universe hence why 3-A and Low 2-C were separated in he first place. And those who have taken mythology/theology classes have said "Giving Birth to the Universe from the Chaos of Creation" is the most original definition of what a Low 2-C creation feat basically is.

Though multiverses that are 2-C and above are usually still inherently consistent that universe(s) mean timeline(s). And "The Universe" can even mean the entire multiverse all the way up to 1-A even. Not that it's a default and case by case should be bared in mind, but I really feel like we shouldn't be doing too much overthinking and there has to be a limit to what the definition of "Universe" can be knit picked to.

I'm aware bubble multiverses exist as that's just multiple 3-A sized big bangs taking place in different bodies of space but still within the same Space-Time Continuum, but there do exist legit 2-C or even Tier 1 sized big bangs in fiction. I definitely do not believe a big bang that is 2-C or above in AoE but simply Low 2-C an AP does not sound like a think, and I still have a hard time believing a big bang birthing multiple universes with multiversal range across multiple timelines (Or better yet actually birthing the multiple timelines themselves) could still simply be 3-A. I'm not disagreeing that birthing bubble multiverses is simply 3-A or Low 2-C at best or birthing Quilted multiverses is simply High 3-A or Low 2-C if space time is effected. But I still fail to see how creating/destroying the entirety of a true multiverse is anything less than 2-C.

But either way, I'd prefer to hear more from DontTalkDT. Maybe I'm not seeing eye to eye with how Ultima or Agnaa see it, and I know they aren't trying to propose full out against the existence. Agnaa is just prosing what should be a standard assumption if there's some lack of details and/or simplicated statements where as Ultima is making a conditional branch that is mostly against the middle aspect by the looks of it.

 

[Agnaa]

But I still feel to see how creating/destroying the entirety of a true multiverse is anything less than 2-C.

If by "entirety of a true multiverse" you mean "the entirety of time and space for multiple separate space-times" then yeah. I'd just usually interpret "entirety" and "multiverse" as lower.

But either way, I'd prefer to hear more from DontTalkDT.

Ditto.

 

[KingPin0422]

To add on to my previous post, I'd also like to note this excerpt from The Universes of Max Tegmark:

Q: If these various types of multiverses (I, II, III, and IV) exist, how does the Big Bang fit in with the creation of each?
A: Our Level I and III multiverses were created in one and the same Bang. Our Level II multiverse was created by one and the same "extended Bang", or whatever you want to call the eternal mess of inflating bubbles corresponding to stochastic eternal inflation. Other parallel universes at Level IV, however, have nothing to do with our own Big Bang, existing completely separately from the space and time of our universe. There can also be other Level I, II and III multiverses coming from separate Bangs.

The idea being expressed here is simply that in a type I, II, or III multiverse, all of the universes were created from the same Big Bang, with the added detail that a level II multiverse would have smaller Big Bangs happening constantly, forming bubble universes with "different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content" - but it's still all one spacetime continuum (and the dimensionality bit would only matter for scaling in select cases, anyway). In a type IV multiverse, however, alternate universes would have to be separate continua altogether, having nothing to do with our own Big Bang. And of course, other type I-III multiverses may form out of other Big Bangs happening "elsewhere" in existence.

As for how this relates to our scaling of multiverses: we clearly all agree that types I and II cannot be assumed to be higher than Low 2-C, but the points of contention (according to DDM's post, anyway) seem to be type III multiverses and cases where multiple type I-III multiverses exist. Personally, going off of the typical case (i.e., without including higher dimensions/layers), the latter pretty objectively qualifies for 2-C and above, but I'm less certain about the former. From what I can see, besides a type III multiverse being formed out of just one Big Bang in the same sense as a type I multiverse, Tegmark also suggests that other universes in such a multiverse aren't exactly "separate universes" in the usual sense:

There may be a third type of parallel worlds that are not far away but in a sense right here. If the equations of physics are what mathematicians call unitary, as they so far appear to be, then the universe keeps branching into parallel universes as in the cartoon below: whenever a quantum event appears to have a random outcome, all outcomes in fact occur, one in each branch. This is the Level III multiverse. Although more debated and controversial than Level I and Level II, I've argued that, surprisingly, this level adds no new types of universes.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and universes in a quantum multiverse do have good reason to be considered spatio-temporally independent in a way that'd necessitate such a multiverse being 2-C through 2-A (higher dimensions notwithstanding). I welcome discussion regarding this.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and universes in a quantum multiverse do have good reason to be considered spatio-temporally independent in a way that'd necessitate such a multiverse being 2-C through 2-A (higher dimensions notwithstanding). I welcome discussion regarding this.

For this relevant part, I believe that was a argument made by Tegmark.

After all, the distances between multiple universes is legitimately unknown in multiverse theories as far as I am aware.

However, I will stress it is possible from one universes to another universe not being disconnected if I remember my own multiverse theories research I have done all those years ago.

 

[KingPin0422]

I can't fully comprehend your post, but I'll try to decipher it as well as I can.

The first thing sounds like you're saying Tegmark argued that quantum universes would be separated by space and time. If so, do you know where he stated this?

The second thing is something I already know: we have no way of knowing the distance between our universe and another universe, assuming multiverse theory is true. But in a type III multiverse, these alternate universes technically overlap our own and aren't far away at all, as I noted at the end of my previous post.

The third thing... okay, no offense, but I don't understand you at all here.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The third thing... okay, no offense, but I don't understand you at all here.

I mean the universes can been connected to another on the same level if you didn’t fully understand.

 

[KingPin0422]

As in, connected by space and time? I already know that, because my post up there talked about that in detail.

 

[Antvasima]

HammerStrikes219 is very busy IRL, so he asked to be banned for the next two months.

 

[KingPin0422]

Oh. Well, then... I guess we'll have to continue without him?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[KingPin0422]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you write an easy to understand explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated and done here please?

 

[Agnaa]

DontTalk and AKM haven't posted since my earlier summary, which I have lightly edited here. Ultima has sent some messages, but hasn't given his own opinion on it, I don't think.

1. 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")?
2. 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?
3. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but with explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?
4. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where we know that time was affected, but it isn't clear that the universes are separate space-times, be Low 2-C, 2-C, or some combination of the two?

 

[Antvasima]

Can you write an easy to understand explanation post regarding what currently needs to be evaluated and done here please?

DontTalk and AKM haven't posted since my earlier summary, which I have lightly edited here. Ultima has sent some messages, but hasn't given his own opinion on it, I don't think.

1. 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")?
2. 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?
3. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but with explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?

Thank you.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

Would you be willing to continue to help us out here please?

 

[PrinceofPein]

DontTalk and AKM haven't posted since my earlier summary, which I have lightly edited here. Ultima has sent some messages, but hasn't given his own opinion on it, I don't think.

1. 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")?

This should be just High 3-A

1. 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?

High 3-A, possibly 2-C

1. Should "destroyed multiple universes" where the universes are known to be separate space-times, but with explicit confirmation that time wasn't affected, be 3-A, 2-C, or some combination of the two?

High 3-A

And a fourth option I guess
4. Destroyed timeline with explicit prove that time was affected.

2-C