- 167,872
- 76,498
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.The Big Bang page and the Tiering System page list different standards for which exact feats hit 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C. These should be put in line with each other. People in this thread disagree on which way the pages should be changed.
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:Whether destroying multiple universes (with zero additional context establishing them as separate space-time continuums) should be rated as 3-A, 2-C, or something like "3-A, possibly 2-C".
The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, all forms of matter and energy. Due to the unknown spatial size of the universe, we use the size of the observable universe as a baseline for universal feats.
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 a universe of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.
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.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.
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.I think some of the definitions on the Tiering System page are flawed, and go against how things currently work in practice. For example...
Low 2-CCharacters 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.
2-CCharacters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:
2-BCharacters who can significantly affect[2], create and/or destroy small multiverses which can be comprised of several separate space-time continuums ranging anywhere from two to a thousand, or equivalents.
2-ACharacters who can significantly affect[2], create and/or destroy larger multiverses which comprise from 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums.
Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[2], creating and/or destroying a countably infinite number of space-time continuums.
Well with your explanation, I don’t think any form of Bigbang can qualify 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.
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.
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 High 3-A.
Creating a supposed Big Bang that would create all the space of a universe with a volume at least equivalent to the observable universe or with an infinite 3-D volume, but not explicitly its time (unless this happens through a chain reaction of creating the space), through a physical explosion is a 3-A and High 3-A feat respectively, and grants Explosion Manipulation and Spatial Manipulation.
If it has generated a space-time expansion that creates an entire universal spacetime continuum from scratch, it is treated as High 3-A and limited Time manipulation, as most time Bigbang is treated as strictly the origin of space and time and nothing more. The difference between this and low 2-C is, it 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, as opposed to low 2-C which would require creation or destruction of uncountable infinite moments in time.
Being the starting point in time does not mean that the Big Bang itself created the rest of time.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.
It wouldn't hurt at least, but it depends on if @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT have the time and energy available.I suppose we'll also have to add our source references to the Tiering System page.
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @KingPin0422 @Qawsedf234 @ElizhaaThere is agreement on the standards relating to big bangs, but there's some disagreement on what the default assumptions should be.
We haven't had enough input on 3-A vs 2-C for multiple universes.
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.What do you think about this?
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.
I do not remember what sources that I and others had read that were used back in 2015. My apologies. However, it would be good if all the knowledgeable members here try to reach an agreement.
I suppose we'll also have to add our source references to the Tiering System page.
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_RealityIt wouldn't hurt at least, but it depends on if @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT have the time and energy available.
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.
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).
Also, the above comments largely make sense to me.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.
There may be some other definitions of it, but the one I'm familiar with is....What's a Bubble Multiverse? Sorry for asking, this type of multiverse I have no idea about.
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.For the purposes of tiering, this wouldn't be particularly different from a quilted multiverse.
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.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.
Oh, Okay.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.
This is a matter of range and not potency actually.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.
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.
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 meThe 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.