• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Firestorm808 @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa @Agnaa

So which of these versions of the new standard instructions text should we apply?

Firestorm808 said:
Here is the merged draft:

3-A: Universe level​


Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension 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, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D 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.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Thank you for the reply.

So something like this then?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can generate energy sufficient to create or destroy a space of equivalent mass to the entire observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension 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, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D 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.
Click to expand...
KingPin0422 said:
Here we go again:

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy the entirety of a universe or pocket dimension of at least equivalent mass to the observable universe without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy, such as by creating or destroying infinite mass, affecting the entirety of an infinite space, etc., up to affecting large numbers of infinite-sized universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Note that, in cases where lower dimensions are not proven to be existentially inferior to higher ones, infinite spaces of 1 or 2 dimensions should also qualify for this tier, albeit at a lower level than an infinite 3-D space. Also, being infinitely stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
Click to expand...
 
KingPin0422 said:
In lack of better options, I'm willing to settle for Firestorm's draft. I'd like to make a thread addressing tier 11 sometime after all this is over with, preferably sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
Yes that will be better to start with changing tier 11 qualifications first. That'll make the case easier.
 
No, there is an issue right now. The issuance is quite fundamentally that “energy on a 3-D scale” does not exist, in terms of Joules.
There is no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc.

And most of us agreed with it. Unless you want to bring the argument that we don't accept infinite 1D to be high 3-A, it is worth to be noted in the Notes section. But also, the FAQ page should be changed or removed

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D 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.
Click to expand...
Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely stronger than lower-dimensional equivalents?
Unintuitive as that may be: Not necessarily, as a number of characteristics through which we quantify the strength or power of a character can remain unchanged when transitioning between higher and lower dimensions. For example: Mass is a quantity that is detached from the dimension of the object which it is inherent to, and unlike volume is not divided in units corresponding to each particular dimension (1-volume [length], 2-volume [area], 3-volume, 4-volume...). It is singular in nature and its units equally apply to all dimensions; whether it is distributed over an area or a volume only tells us about the span of space in which it is spread, not about the quantity itself. As a consequence of that, much of the calculation methods which are used to measure strength apply equally to both higher and lower dimensions, as they do not care about the extra variables and often work with a single one of them. Examples of this are kinetic energy (Ek=0.5MV^2), force (F=MA), work (W=Fd), and etc.
Click to expand...
There is a contradiction between both.
 
Antvasima said:
I have applied Firestorm808's version now. Is this acceptable?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System?type=revision&diff=7746302&oldid=7709235
Click to expand...

Tier 2 thread is yet to be created
Also the infinite 1D and 2D shenanigans.
Anyway I don't see why infinite 1D and 2D would be on the same level as infinite 3D.
Use this example.
A line (1D) of a length of 1cm is Uncountable infinite smaller than a square(2D) which sides has 1cm. And that square would be uncountable infinite smaller than a box of 1cm on all sides.
While this example has its own obvious flaws, it's still the best I can use to say 1D will always be smaller than 2D and 3D. While we are dealing with energy but the example of outputting such energy is destruction of something on a dimensional plane, 3D plane means 3D objects, 2D plane means 2D objects.....
 
Last edited:
Pain_to12 said:
Tier 2 thread is yet to be created
Also the infinite 1D and 2D shenanigans.
Anyway I don't see why infinite 1D and 2D would be on the same level as infinite 3D.
Use this example.
A line (1D) of a length of 1cm is Uncountable infinite smaller than a square(2D) which sides has 1cm. And that square would be uncountable infinite smaller than a box of 1cm on all sides.
While this example has its own obvious flaws, it's still the best I can use to say 1D will always be smaller than 2D and 3D. While we are dealing with energy but the example of outputting such energy is destruction of something on a 3D plane meaning 3D objects
Click to expand...
But energy is not bound by any dimensions, according to our FAQ. Also, this is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.
So I think there is a mistake in the updated tiering system. “3D-scale” should be removed, or otherwise it contradicts the FAQ
 
Pain_to12 said:
Tier 2 thread is yet to be created
Also the infinite 1D and 2D shenanigans.
Anyway I don't see why infinite 1D and 2D would be on the same level as infinite 3D.
Use this example.
A line (1D) of a length of 1cm is Uncountable infinite smaller than a square(2D) which sides has 1cm. And that square would be uncountable infinite smaller than a box of 1cm on all sides.
While this example has its own obvious flaws, it's still the best I can use to say 1D will always be smaller than 2D and 3D. While we are dealing with energy but the example of outputting such energy is destruction of something on a 3D plane meaning 3D objects
Click to expand...
@Dereck03 gave me permission to speak, my take on this is that both mass and energy are independent from their displacement, i.e mass and energy do not depend on dimensions, and it is entirely possible for Lower or Higher-Dimensional entities or structures to have the same physical principles that we have. In fact both energy and mass are scalar quantities which require only magnitude to be specified, and another note to be added is that Higher-Dimensional beings would be bigger and stronger than us because of an additional parameter that has to be defined, the fact that a square is composed of Uncountably infinite lines stacked up on the y axis does not imply it is necessarily infinitely larger, in fact this happens not because it is actually infinitely larger, but because there is an additional axis/direction in which it can be displaced, thus this equivalence would be invalid.
 
sen_ said:
@Dereck03 gave me permission to speak, my take on this is that both mass and energy are independent from their displacement, i.e mass and energy do not depend on dimensions, and it is entirely possible for Lower or Higher-Dimensional entities or structures to have the same physical principles that we have. In fact both energy and mass are scalar quantities which require only magnitude to be specified, and another note to be added is that Higher-Dimensional beings would be bigger and stronger than us because of an additional parameter that has to be defined, the fact that a square is composed of Uncountably infinite lines stacked up on the y axis does not imply it is necessarily infinitely larger, in fact this happens not because it is actually infinitely larger, but because there is an additional axis/direction in which it can be displaced, thus this equivalence would be invalid.
Click to expand...
I added a line "while we are dealing with energy"
Energy has no dimensionality obviously.
I am saying the example is "destruction of all objects within an infinite 3D space"
Or will destruction of all 1D objects within an observable universe size also be 3-A?
We obviously don't treat it that way, or there will be no tier 11.
Also if we are dealing with surface area, an higher D will be larger than the lower one of the same rangw.
That additional axis makes all the difference when dealing with surface areas.
Unless the entire thing here is the objects been destroyed does not matter just the range does.
 
Pain_to12 said:
I am saying the example is "destruction of all objects within an infinite 3D space"
Or will destruction of all 1D objects within an observable universe size also be 3-A?
Click to expand...
Yes, i will quote the tiering system itself to make it clearer, there is a very big difference between a 2-D construct and an existentially inferior 2-D construct, the former can have similar physics to ours and a proper joule value, while the latter can't, it is specified in the Tiering System FAQ and KingPin's draft also specifies it.

11-A: High Hypoverse level​

Characters who demonstrate power equivalent to destroying/creating existentially inferior 2-D level constructs of any size, or 1 level of infinity/degree of reality/fiction transcendence or similar beneath a 3-D reality.
Click to expand...
Hence, a higher-dimensional entity can be both stronger or weaker than a lower-dimensional one, and thus, they are usually quantified based on their own feats, instead of dimensionality alone. If a character is merely stated to be higher-dimensional and simultaneously has no other feats to derive anything noteworthy from, then they are put at Unknown, and the same applies to lower dimensions as well. -Tiering System FAQ
Click to expand...
 
Dread said:
No, there is an issue right now. The issuance is quite fundamentally that “energy on a 3-D scale” does not exist, in terms of Joules.
There is no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc.

And most of us agreed with it. Unless you want to bring the argument that we don't accept infinite 1D to be high 3-A, it is worth to be noted in the Notes section. But also, the FAQ page should be changed or removed


There is a contradiction between both.
Click to expand...
KingPin0422 said:
Please, save this discussion for when I make the tier 11 thread. There's absolutely no reason to derail this thread even more than we already have.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
I have applied Firestorm808's version now. Is this acceptable?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System?type=revision&diff=7746302&oldid=7709235
Click to expand...
Dread said:
No, there is an issue right now. The issuance is quite fundamentally that “energy on a 3-D scale” does not exist, in terms of Joules.
There is no 1-energy, 2-energy, 3-energy, etc.

And most of us agreed with it. Unless you want to bring the argument that we don't accept infinite 1D to be high 3-A, it is worth to be noted in the Notes section. But also, the FAQ page should be changed or removed


There is a contradiction between both.
Click to expand...
I will ask @DontTalkDT to help us out here.
 
For the time being, can we close this thread and continue to the next topic of discussion?

We can get back to this when they are available.
 
Dread said:
You guys obviously can't close the thread and ignore what I asked.
Click to expand...
That will be handled in the tier 11 thread, it’s more complicated cause that will put a 2-D or 1-D being that can destroy a 1-D and 2-D object infinite in their plane as high 3-A, and there are always distinction of such cases in fictions and all of them are always, higher D >>>>>> infinite lower D.
Physics not so much like that, but that’s why we need a thread for it
Find a fine line between physics and fiction
 
Pain_to12 said:
That will be handled in the tier 11 thread, it’s more complicated cause that will put a 2-D or 1-D being that can destroy a 1-D and 2-D object infinite in their plane as high 3-A, and there are always distinction of such cases in fictions and all of them are always, higher D >>>>>> infinite lower D.
Physics not so much like that, but that’s why we need a thread for it
Find a fine line between physics and fiction
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t recall physics completely supporting this since dimensionless properties is technically applies to the mathematical side of things.

Only at the very least, it is theorized since science still and does involve theorizing as well.
 
Pain_to12 said:
That will be handled in the tier 11 thread, it’s more complicated cause that will put a 2-D or 1-D being that can destroy a 1-D and 2-D object infinite in their plane as high 3-A, and there are always distinction of such cases in fictions and all of them are always, higher D >>>>>> infinite lower D.
Physics not so much like that, but that’s why we need a thread for it
Find a fine line between physics and fiction
Click to expand...
Alright, I will drop my question there
 
Dread said:
True, but the Wiki is relied on two persons, DT and Ultima about those topics.
Click to expand...
Technically there is compactification which does applied to lower dimensions. Heck, even the Wikipedia page specifically did mentioned 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional getting reduced to one of the 3 dimensional space states.


Making them still struck at the dimensional level they still reside in.

Well, in any case, time for the Tier 11 revision thread since the original topic was about Tier 2
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Technically there is compactification which does applied to lower dimensions. Heck, even the Wikipedia page specifically did mentioned 1 dimensional and 2 dimensional getting reduced to one of the 3 dimensional space states.
Click to expand...
After low 2-C, the wiki no longer rely on physics.
 
It is still a theory and axiom regardless, true it is never been excluded from physics, but it never used to prove anything as itself is not true in literal sense.
Heck, we can't even prove if infinite exists. It is all just axioms and theories.

As I said and @Pain_to12 said, the fiction no longer rely on physics after low 2-C, but it is true, the thread needs to do to discuss it deeply.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ProfessorKukui4Life
Big Bang Questions & Clarifications
Replies
35
Views
2K
Reiner04
Reiner04
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Tier 2 revision: Changing Space Time Continuum Standards. (Never cook again.)
Replies
5
Views
1K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Tier 2 Revision: I've played too much of the Science Adventure series.
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Cosmology Upgrade
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
William_Joee
William_Joee
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
0
Views
425
MightyFrogBeyond
Back
Top