Tier 2 Revision: Merging 3D Spaces and Destroying Empty Space

[KLOL506]

Maybe this has changed or not, I will read more about it. either way my point still stands and the quote he took goes against how we tore things especially with this new information

It has indeed changed to what Assalt proposed.

TL; DR, you don't need to create/destroy every single celestial body in the universe, just the most conventionally-durable body known to us in said universe (With said object being at the far edge), which is automatically included and accounted for by default with any feat of this magnitude, as was accepted with what Assalt proposed.

 

[KLOL506]

and the quote he took goes against how we tier things especially with this new information

What quote are you talking about? The Pulsar thing was used only to determine the new starting cap for 3-A feats. Any proper universe-busting feat or feats on this level will automatically default to this specific value, provided it's not empty and it's at least 93 billion light years in diameter.

 

[Firestorm808]

I have no objections to Proposal 1 with KLOL506's additions.

Regarding Proposal 2, are you referring to destroying the infinite empty realm itself or a hypothetical explosion inside the empty realm?

 

[PrinceofPein]

It has indeed changed to what Assalt proposed.

TL; DR, you don't need to create/destroy every single celestial body in the universe, just the most conventionally-durable body known to us in said universe (With said object being at the far edge), which is automatically included and accounted for by default with any feat of this magnitude, as was accepted with what Assalt proposed.

What quote are you talking about? The Pulsar thing was used only to determine the new starting cap for 3-A feats. Any proper universe-busting feat or feats on this level will automatically default to this specific value, provided it's not empty and it's at least 93 billion light years in diameter.

I mean his quote where he said in regards to tiering, we treat the objects as secondary.
I read about the pulsar thing, it is the new baseline for 3-A, an omnidirectional attack from earth that can reach that point would destroy everything in its parts so I think it's the same with the 3-A page, but I think we can edit 3-A from "observable universe" to "93 billion light years" to make it accurate with the current system.

I have no objections to Proposal 1 with KLOL506's additions.

Regarding Proposal 2, are you referring to destroying the infinite empty realm itself or a hypothetical explosion inside the empty realm?

Destroying the realm itself, an explosion that can cover the realm would still scale to high 3-A regardless.

 

[Firestorm808]

Destroying the realm itself, an explosion that can cover the realm would still scale to high 3-A regardless.

I would say that if a timeline with none or even finite matter inside of it gets destroyed, it's still Tier 2 because a timeline structure was still affected.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean his quote where he said in regards to tiering, we treat the objects as secondary.

The objects only stand as reference for calculating the energy yield for that tier. Most feats in this realm are statement-based (Usually) so it doesn't affect them to start with, as Assalt had repeatedly insisted before.

I read about the pulsar thing, it is the new baseline for 3-A, an omnidirectional attack from earth that can reach that point would destroy everything in its parts so I think it's the same with the 3-A page, but I think we can edit 3-A from "observable universe" to "93 billion light years" to make it accurate with the current system.

I don't see the need. It would still be the size of the observable universe that we know of, simply using the number itself is too vague, because the key term here is "observable universe". And until the worldwide scientific community comes to a brand new consensus about a new size value for the universe, and/or gives the crown of "Most conventionally durable object in the known universe" to some other celestial object, there will be no changes in either the distance value of the universe or the name it goes by, those are the site rules for now, as was decreed in a CRT.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I would say that if a timeline with none or even finite matter inside of it gets destroyed, it's still Tier 2 because a timeline structure was still affected.

This is for 3D spaces alone, not tier 2

The objects only stand as reference for calculating the energy yield for that tier. Most feats in this realm are statement-based (Usually) so it doesn't affect them to start with, as Assalt had repeatedly insisted before.

And in an empty space there is no energy yield or a way to determine what it will be.
Unrelated, with most statements we can infer how and methods where we can determine where it scales to in tiering. for example most forms of EE may no longer qualify soon for a tier.
Anyway let me wait for what Ultima has to say

 

[KLOL506]

And in an empty space there is no energy yield or a way to determine what it will be.

Not really an issue for High 3-A and above.

Unrelated, with most statements we can infer how and methods where we can determine where it scales to in tiering. for example most forms of EE may no longer qualify soon for a tier.

Cool, I'm not talking about EE-based destruction, I'm talking about destruction based on physical attacks like explosions, shockwaves and whatnot, or complete collapse of the realms. Whatever happens in the EE thread depends on Ultima and DT anyway. And specifically for High 3-A stuff and above (Tier 2 and 1 as well).

My stance on this not applying to High 3-A and above still stands.

Anyway let me wait for what Ultima has to say

Hopefully he responds in 15 minutes and not in 2 years, or worse.

@Ultima_Reality

 

[Firestorm808]

This is for 3D spaces alone, not tier 2

Ah, sorry.

Our current standards say the following:
3-A: Universe level
Characters or objects that 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 or objects that 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.

Unless the addition of mass to an empty 3-D space is stated to influence whether or not a being can destroy the empty 3-D realm, I would still consider it 3-A/High 3-A based on the size of the space.

 

[KLOL506]

Completely forgot about the "significantly affect" aspect yeah. It's why you don't need to destroy objects of this level to qualify.

Honestly, this actually reinforces my disagreement for Proposal 2 as a whole now. Not quite there yet, but heavily leaning on disagreeing with it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Cool, I'm not talking about EE-based destruction, I'm talking about destruction based on physical attacks like explosions, shockwaves and whatnot, or complete collapse of the realms.

My stance on this not applying to High 3-A and above still stands.

I can agree that methods of destructions such as explosion and shockwaves would scale regardless but collapse of the realm would still depend on the method.

Ah, sorry.

Our current standards say the following:
3-A: Universe level
Characters or objects that 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 or objects that 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.

Unless the addition of mass to an empty 3-D space is stated to influence whether or not a being can destroy the empty 3-D realm, I would still consider it 3-A/High 3-A based on the size of the space.

Like KLOL I actually also forgot about this.
That is a bit part of what I am trying to change. I am trying to propose here that tiering should have to do with the content of such spaces also and the term universe would naturally refer to a space with celestial objects which I have no problem with but "3-D spaces" and "pocket dimension" said to be empty is something that the energy needed to affect it or destroy it cannot be calculated, at least not with the current physics. Provided this is not done with methods of attacks that travel.

 

[KLOL506]

I can agree that methods of destructions such as explosion and shockwaves would scale regardless but collapse of the realm would still depend on the method.

In this case, I'd be inclined to disagree due to the "significantly affect" part.

That is a bit part of what I am trying to change. I am trying to propose here that tiering should have to do with the content of such spaces also and the term universe would naturally refer to a space with celestial objects which I have no problem with but "3-D spaces" and "pocket dimension" said to be empty is something that the energy needed to affect it or destroy it cannot be calculated, at least not with the current physics. Provided this is not done with methods of attacks that travel.

At that stage it honestly wouldn't matter so long as it's done with pure physical brute force or some other similar offensive maneuver (This would actually apply doubly so for infinite-sized realms and above), so I disagree.

 

[PrinceofPein]

In this case, I'd be inclined to disagree due to the "significantly affect" part.

And how can an empty space be significantly affected? It cannot be shaken or stabilized or what we will call affected.

At that stage it honestly wouldn't matter so long as it's done with pure physical brute force or some other similar offensive maneuver (This would actually apply doubly so for infinite-sized realms and above)

Can you explain? I cannot understand.

 

[KLOL506]

And how can an empty space be significantly affected? It cannot be shaken or stabilized or what we will call affected.

Can you explain? I cannot understand.

Sending shockwaves propagating through it, explosions engulfing it, some other supernatural attacks that completely change its appearance or characteristics, so on and so forth. The list is near endless.

 

[KLOL506]

BTW, in case it wasn't already made clear, achieving energy values in joules isn't the only way to net tiers on this magnitude. Never was, never will be.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Sending shockwaves propagating through it, explosions engulfing it, some other supernatural attacks that completely change its appearance or characteristics, so on and so forth. The list is near endless.

All the first examples like explosions and things that travel will still scale like I said previously, supernatural attacks and haxes on the other hand would not, since that cannot be quantified to begin with.

This might be going around in circle I think, so I will stop posting till there are new informations.

 

[KLOL506]

All the first examples like explosions and things that travel will still scale like I said previously, supernatural attacks and haxes on the other hand would not, since that cannot be quantified to begin with.

Guess we'll agree to disagree on that front.

This might be going around in circle I think, so I will stop posting till there are new informations.

Prolly the best move for now, yes.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Sorry for the delay y'all. Busy and all.

I believe the topic of merging realities could use its own page here. I don't think people realize how easy it is to screw over what they might think is a 2-C feat. Here's an altered bit from a comment I made in the other thread:

If the two realms are proven to indeed be separate spacetime continuums, then I believe the past visibly not being affected isn't much of an issue. If time is monolithic and past, present and future exist all at once as part of a single structure, then the merging could (And would have to, at least) affect the future of the two realms, merging them into one. And since we consider time to have no end, this would be a feat of affecting infinite time, and thus still Tier 2.

There is a revison going on for EE to treat it like all other hax, the only thing it would gain is potency/layers, I do not know how well the thread is going but the last time I checked there are mostly agreements and some contentions.

I either forgot about that thread (This happens a lot) or I haven't participated in it. Mind directing me to it?

This part here is not talking about energy but space-time manipulation where it does not matter what your durbality it if I can simply fold the space you currently occupy which will cause you to fold also, which is also not tierable.

If we consider matter to be secondary to the spacetime fabric and completely subject to whatever alterations happen in it, then destroying that entirely absolutely is tierable, yes, even if there is no content to speak of, in there, since even if there was, it would be destroyed when the aforementioned fabric is.

The only way that you could render this as being just hax or somesuch would be if you try to argue that destroying the fabric of space constitutes a sort of chain reaction that's not translatable to raw power. But then again, if the verse showcases the feat as one of raw power, treating it as not being so would be contradictory.

And that's not to mention how, of course, spacetime distortions are, IRL, a result of mass-energy, and thus can be measured as AP feats, at least in large enough scales. Granted, I'm not exactly sure if we'd reason that magically warping space is an exertion of energy, but it's something worth noting down, at least.

The manip page just seems to suggest that manipulating space and time is tantamount to being able to manipulate matter. I am not sure this is sound physics wise, but I also don't think it has drastic consequences for this revision either.

It isn't, but it is how it's currently treated on the wiki, at least.

 

[KLOL506]

I either forgot about that thread (This happens a lot) or I haven't participated in it. Mind directing me to it?

(STAFF ONLY) EE AP revision

very simple, Existance Erasure is a hax not AP therefore profiles that have EE that have extenssive feats of affecting an determined structure with said hax EE should have an "with Existance Erasure", similar to how we list creation feats that don't scale to the characters statistics, so that...

vsbattles.com

 

[Deagonx]

If we consider matter to be secondary to the spacetime fabric and completely subject to whatever alterations happen in it, then destroying that entirely absolutely is tierable, yes, even if there is no content to speak of, in there, since even if there was, it would be destroyed when the aforementioned fabric is.

Someone pointed out that our Tier 3 standards are described as being able to create a blast which, if detonated from Earth, would destroy stars on the outskirts of the Universe. I'm not necessarily opposed to tiering the destruction of empty space but the question is how? Do we treat it as though it were filled with matter anyways? That seems a bit off to me.

It isn't, but it is how it's currently treated on the wiki, at least.

Perhaps that should also be revised.

 

[KLOL506]

Someone pointed out that our Tier 3 standards are described as being able to create a blast which, if detonated from Earth, would destroy stars on the outskirts of the Universe.

I should note that this assumption was merely used to find out the new Tier border of 3-A. It wasn't the sole and only way to be designated as 3-A, it's just one of many ways to get there.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Perhaps that should also be revised.

Maybe so, but in any case I doubt it'd ultimately impact on the matter at hand that much, upon giving it further thought. Feynman's bead argument has to do with gravitational waves, which are spacetime curvature. Meanwhile this is (At least partly) about outright destruction of spacetime, which isn't really a thing in physics (Technically speaking, even the ideal case of a singularity isn't really spacetime being "destroyed" so much as curved infinitely)

 

[Deagonx]

Meanwhile this is (At least partly) about outright destruction of spacetime, which isn't really a thing in physics (Technically speaking, even a singularity isn't really spacetime being "destroyed" so much as curved infinitely)

Yeah that's sort of my thing. In our universe we generally assume all space has energy but the exact nature of this is a bit fuzzy to me, but it appears to be extremely small (though on a universal scale it'd still be considerable) but it appears to be the subject of a lot of controversy in terms of just how much it has. So I guess my question is, if we would treat the destruction of our own universe as 3-A, how would we treat that same destruction if we considered the universe absent of any matter or energy?

As you point out, this is not a thing in physics, so we are essentially deciding amongst ourselves how to treat this purely fictional concept.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I had to do some reading about space-time and possible destruction.

If we consider matter to be secondary to the spacetime fabric and completely subject to whatever alterations happen in it, then destroying that entirely absolutely is tierable, yes, even if there is no content to speak of, in there, since even if there was, it would be destroyed when the aforementioned fabric is.

Nothing that produces energy that causes destruction can destroy space-time, the only thing that came close in all the stuff I went to is a black hole merger. That in itself does not even destroy space-time it alters it significantly.
Logically speaking, destroying "space" and "time" itself, is an hax on this wiki and we should keep treating it as such

The only way that you could render this as being just hax or somesuch would be if you try to argue that destroying the fabric of space constitutes a sort of chain reaction that's not translatable to raw power. But then again, if the verse showcases the feat as one of raw power, treating it as not being so would be contradictory.

My point for this argument is that, if it was said to be done with raw power, we can grant the tier and maybe the hax. If it was not we should just grant the hax.

And that's not to mention how, of course, spacetime distortions are, IRL, a result of mass-energy, and thus can be measured as AP feats, at least in large enough scales. Granted, I'm not exactly sure if we'd reason that magically warping space is an exertion of energy, but it's something worth noting down, at least.

Space-time distortion warps/alters space and not destroy it, so I would not really count it, if the argument is what tier is for destroying just space itself.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Since there is pretty much universal agreement on the first proposal, we should start thinking about the best place to add it and how it should be drafted.

 

[Deagonx]

I'd like to get Ultima's feedback on how we should tier the destruction of finite empty space, but I agree we should figure out a place to clarify proposal 1. @Ultima_Reality

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'd like to get Ultima's feedback on how we should tier the destruction of finite empty space, but I agree we should figure out a place to clarify proposal 1. @Ultima_Reality

Occupied today, so, whatever threads request my input I'll check later. Just noting this down as a heads-up.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Finite sized pocket dimensions that are nothing by empty space I am okay with treating unquantifiable, it's ones that are wither infinite in size are ones that should still be High 3-A.

 

[Deagonx]

Finite sized pocket dimensions that are nothing by empty space I am okay with treating unquantifiable, it's ones that are wither infinite in size are ones that should still be High 3-A.

I'm fine with this for now, although I may attempt to revise the infinite size thing later on as I think there are still some problems to be solved, but this thread is losing momentum fast so it's best we get this wrapped up sooner than later.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the conclusions here so far?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm speeding a bit to tackle threads I've been neglecting as of late, and all things considered this one isn't so high in the priority list, so, if there's anything left to settle after this post, I'll probably take a bit to respond. Anyway:

Logically speaking, destroying "space" and "time" itself, is an hax on this wiki and we should keep treating it as such

It's inherently a physics-breaking thing, yes, as I pointed out above. That said, DontTalk expressed an opinion in the aforementioned EE thread that I find myself very much agreeing with, namely:

Well, what should I say?
I'm generally still of the opinion that it (and other similar hax for that matter, like reality warping) should be treated by the same standards as for creation.

What placing it in the AP section is concerned: I would do it if it's particularly notable, i.e. above the characters usual tier. Noting the Tier 9 character can erase planets from existence seems in interest of the reader of the profile. It's a technique which self-evidently is much stronger than everything else the character has and deserves to be given particular attention. Otherwise, the character would just seem misrepresented.
This goes double when we get to incorporeal Tier 1 god characters that fight exclusively via reality warping and other technically not quantifiable yet self-evident stuff.

I apply the same rhetoric to this case.

I'd like to get Ultima's feedback on how we should tier the destruction of finite empty space, but I agree we should figure out a place to clarify proposal 1. @Ultima_Reality

Personally, I'd apply the above logic to this case as well. Just tier it by however large the space in question is.

Proposal 1 can probably be placed as a brief note in the Tiering System page. Something like "Note that merging realms does not necessarily warrant a Tier 2 rating, unless said realms are provably separate spacetimes."

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima makes sense to me in his last post above.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm speeding a bit to tackle threads I've been neglecting as of late, and all things considered this one isn't so high in the priority list, so, if there's anything left to settle after this post, I'll probably take a bit to respond. Anyway:


It's inherently a physics-breaking thing, yes, as I pointed out above. That said, DontTalk expressed an opinion in the aforementioned EE thread that I find myself very much agreeing with, namely:



I apply the same rhetoric to this case.


Personally, I'd apply the above logic to this case as well. Just tier it by however large the space in question is.

Proposal 1 can probably be placed as a brief note in the Tiering System page. Something like "Note that merging realms does not necessarily warrant a Tier 2 rating, unless said realms are provably separate spacetimes."

Looks okay, as long we dont scale such things to normal statistics
How should we tier mind spaces, that are non-existent but can affect reality, cosmology wise.?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

What are the current conclusions here, and what do we currently need to do here? Should I call for any staff members?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What are the current conclusions here, and what do we currently need to do here? Should I call for any staff members?

Ultima, DontTalk, DatkGrath and Qawsedf.
I think Ultima knows about this, just busy though

 

[Antvasima]

What did the staff members who have commented here so far think about this?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What did the staff members who have commented here so far think about this?

The all agreed with proposal 1.

For proposal 2.
Deagon agrees
Ultima kind of agrees but says attacks that travel, would regardless scale to the size of that space whether it is empty or not, while the rest would be unquantifiable and would be treated like we treat creation i.e. "environmental destruction" something that does not scale to general AP but still noted on the profile.
DDM agrees with it, but says for high 3A, it should still be infinite.
Firestorm disagrees.
Efficiente agrees.
Theglassman disagrees.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Should we apply suggestion 1 then? And would we even have to change anything in our current standards based on that?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Okay. Should we apply suggestion 1 then? And would we even have to change anything in our current standards based on that?

We dont need to change anything.
We just need to this to the tiering system page

Note that merging universes/realms does not necessarily warrant a Tier 2 rating, unless said universes/realms are provably separate spacetimes.