Tier 2: Space-Time Continuum Revision

[KLOL506]

All things considered, I think it's best to stick with what we have currently, and write some notes about the shortcomings of the system we use right now.

When and if people bother to come in unison with a better proposal that leaves all ends of the spectrum satisfied and is more aligned with the mathematical side of things, then we can come back to this topic again.

 

[Agnaa]

The issue is, we already consider erasing a tiny portion of 4D (Time specifically) to be High 3-A due to the whole infinite snapshots thing. Destroying all of time itself would automatically lend itself to destroying an uncountably infinite number of 3D snapshots AKA Low 2-C as per the standards. To not consider this for the rest of the tiers above just sounds contradictory and running directly against the standards itself.

I also fail to understand how erasing someone for a minute leads to Low 2-C since we're not erasing all of time, let alone any portion of time (Which in and of itself would only account for High 3-A via again, the snapshots argument).

This reads like you have a misunderstanding. One minute of time, and the entirety of time, do not contain a different amount of slices.

The set of all real numbers between 0 and 1, and the set of all real numbers in the number line, have the same cardinality.

Affecting a tiny portion of time being rated at High 3-A is something I strongly disagree with. It implies that our baseline for 4-D potency is still within High 3-A, and so higher-dimensional beings (without timeline involvement) would be rated at High 3-A.

And the significant size aspect is just a part of the problem, the next issue arises with multipliers and distances between space-times, where fiction also almost never considers the distance between universes to be relevant in any metric, and considers multipliers a viable way to reach x times multiversal.

I have never seen this. Do you have three concrete examples of that?

 

[KLOL506]

This reads like you have a misunderstanding. One minute of time, and the entirety of time, do not contain a different amount of slices.

The set of all real numbers between 0 and 1, and the set of all real numbers in the number line, have the same cardinality.

Affecting a tiny portion of time being rated at High 3-A is something I strongly disagree with. It implies that our baseline for 4-D potency is still within High 3-A, and so higher-dimensional beings (without timeline involvement) would be rated at High 3-A.

Well, I didn't make that rule, or the infinite snapshots thing. Feel free to change it if you disagree.

I have never seen this. Do you have three concrete examples of that?

Dragon Ball is the most prominent one I can think of in the back of my head. Before the downgrades, Undertale was one such verse as well, not sure about other verses. You prolly might find some more examples if you ask around.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, I didn't make that rule, or the infinite snapshots thing. Feel free to change it if you disagree.

Whether such small-scale feats are placed at Unknown or High 3-A is a matter of interpretation, but the things I said about cardinality are just true.

Also, as an aside, where is the idea of placing such feats at High 3-A enshrined in our current pages?

Dragon Ball is the most prominent one I can think of in the back of my head. Before the downgrades, Undertale was one such verse as well, not sure about other verses. You prolly might find some more examples if you ask around.

Not familiar with DBS, but Undertale is absolutely not an example of that. idk where you'd even get that idea from.

Undertale never gives anything like "This character destroys 2 timelines, which means they're 5x weaker than this character that destroys 10 timelines!"

Closest I could see you arguing is, like:

• Omega Flowey destroyed a save file, and has 3 save files at his disposal. These are probably timelines.
• Omega Flowey's stats are never displayed, but his power comes from six human souls.
• Asriel can destroy "everything". This probably involves cleaning up every timeline that was created by people's time powers.
• Asriel's stats are infinite, and his power comes from seven human souls.

So, if you take those interpretations of the text, you get "Destroying 1-3 timelines might be 1.17x-infinitely weaker than destroying shitloads of timelines."

Which is exactly the kind of nonspecific answer I'd expect from fiction, which does not back up the idea that we should allow multipliers for this sorta stuff.

 

[KLOL506]

Whether such small-scale feats are placed at Unknown or High 3-A is a matter of interpretation, but the things I said about cardinality are just true.

Also, as an aside, where is the idea of placing such feats at High 3-A enshrined in our current pages?

The Tiering System FAQ. Here and here. @StrymULTRA brought it to our attention in this CRT. If you feel this is inadequate, you are welcome to challenge it with a CRT.

Not familiar with DBS, but Undertale is absolutely not an example of that. idk where you'd even get that idea from.

Undertale never gives anything like "This character destroys 2 timelines, which means they're 5x weaker than this character that destroys 10 timelines!"

Closest I could see you arguing is, like:

• Omega Flowey destroyed a save file, and has 3 save files at his disposal. These are probably timelines.
• Omega Flowey's stats are never displayed, but his power comes from six human souls.
• Asriel can destroy "everything". This probably involves cleaning up every timeline that was created by people's time powers.
• Asriel's stats are infinite, and his power comes from seven human souls.

So, if you take those interpretations of the text, you get "Destroying 1-3 timelines might be 1.17x-infinitely weaker than destroying shitloads of timelines."

Which is exactly the kind of nonspecific answer I'd expect from fiction, which does not back up the idea that we should allow multipliers for this sorta stuff.

This was kinda the gist, yeah, but it's from years ago. IDK if the other verses that would've counted as direct examples are in that state anymore since that'd go back to 2017-2018.

 

[Agnaa]

The Tiering System FAQ. Here and here. @StrymULTRA brought it to our attention in this CRT. If you feel this is inadequate, you are welcome to challenge it with a CRT.

The first link doesn't say that, in the very next question it goes onto say that, despite that, higher-D beings would often just be rated at Unknown.

The second link also doesn't say that, its only mention of High 3-A is to say that temporal dimensions reach Low 2-C, instead of High 3-A. It's largely about multiple temporal dimensions qualifying for Tier 1.

A CRT does not rewrite site standards, you need a staff only thread for that.

Do you see how blatantly factually wrong your claims are? You're saying that something is a rule, and you're linking completely unrelated pages for that. If you don't know where it is just say that.

This was kinda the gist, yeah, but it's from years ago. IDK if the other verses that would've counted as direct examples are in that state anymore since that'd go back to 2017-2018.

If that's your reasoning, how does it support your point?!?!??!?

 

[KLOL506]

Do you see how blatantly factually wrong your claims are? You're saying that something is a rule, and you're linking completely unrelated pages for that. If you don't know where it is just say that.

I didn't make the claims. Literally linked the CRT where it was stated and accepted.

If that's your reasoning, how does it support your point?!?!??!?

The rules we have regarding multipliers in Tier 2 stemmed from these two verses back in the day.

Also, no need to get so aggressive with your tone.

 

[Agnaa]

I didn't make the claims. Literally linked the CRT where it was stated and accepted.

• You: We have a rule that small-scale effects on time are High 3-A.
• Me: Where is the idea that those things are High 3-A enshrined in our pages?
• You: These two parts of the FAQ, Strym pointed that out to us.
• Me: Neither of those links say anything about that.
• You: I didn't make those claims, I linked the CRT where it was stated and accepted.

You did both.

You made a positive claim that it was a part of our standards. When I asked where, you directly linked to pages and claimed they were the source for it.

You didn't say "I'm not sure, but this thread had it accepted based on these parts of these pages. But I haven't read that, so idk."

If you're just parroting what someone else is saying without double-checking it, say that.

If you think that's an aggressive read, and you did actually double-check it, then you are making the claims, and should own up to that!

The rules we have regarding multipliers in Tier 2 stemmed from these two verses back in the day.

• You: Fiction considers multipliers a valid way to scale up multiverse-wide destruction, so our rules should account for that.
• Me: Give three examples.
• You: Dragon Ball and Undertale.
• Me: Undertale does not do that in any way.
• You: Yeah.
• Me: So how does that support your point?
• You: Our rules around multipliers were based on those two verses.

You said that our rules currently don't account for something, but fiction does. When asked for examples, the two examples you provided are apparently ones that led to our decision to not account for it?

If you got confused and gave me the wrong examples, then give me the right ones, showing fiction treating multipliers as valid and consistently scaling up across timelines.

Also, no need to get so aggressive with your tone.

I'm trying my best.

 

[KLOL506]

• You: We have a rule that small-scale effects on time are High 3-A.
• Me: Where is the idea that those things are High 3-A enshrined in our pages?
• You: These two parts of the FAQ, Strym pointed that out to us.
• Me: Neither of those links say anything about that.
• You: I didn't make those claims, I linked the CRT where it was stated and accepted.

You did both.

You made a positive claim that it was a part of our standards. When I asked where, you directly linked to pages and claimed they were the source for it.

You didn't say "I'm not sure, but this thread had it accepted based on these parts of these pages. But I haven't read that, so idk."

If you're just parroting what someone else is saying without double-checking it, say that.

If you think that's an aggressive read, and you did actually double-check it, then you are making the claims, and should own up to that!

I made my comments based on what Strym said. I'm sorry that my wording wasn't the best to describe it, but you could've just asked me whether I got that from Strym directly that without going in with accusatory tones.

Yeah I got it from him, and I clicked the links he showed for a quick glance, and at the time I thought what he said made sense, I didn't think too much on it afterwards, so it stuck.

 

[Seraphor12]

Bump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Permission for post granted by Agnaa.

I'm generally in agreement with the fact that Tier 2 is broken and is only currently holding on due to our standards conforming around fictional consistency rather than mathematics within that category.

Mathematically speaking, any object involving 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time should be beyond infinitely more voluminous than a 3-dimensional object. Since they possess >0 depth in an axis the 3D object doesn't have. I'm sure most are aware of that.

But I do tend to think that trying to apply mathematics to fictional constructs in this way leads to a lot inflation. Way more inflation than we currently have at the moment. I share agnaa's view that it would be absurd to say someone is universal because they delete someone or something from the universe for 3 seconds or 3 minutes or 3 hours. Even if they were to erase a finite object across all of time through sheer force rather than an ability, I struggle to get myself to believe that the authors intention was to say they have beyond infinite power.

That leads me to my personal big issue. Which is that, at the moment, the tier is trying to strike a balance between author intent and mathematics that is very nonsensical.

This idea that the object that is temporally embedded has to be "at least observable universe" in size in order to qualify. I think it's stupid, frankly. Because it's just another finite 3-D object, not unlike the individual person or the 4-A size pocket dimension. It being 93 billion whatever light-years across doesn't change that it's finite.

It's effectively saying that a finite thing embedded within a temporal dimension is either completely untierable or beyond infinite power depending on if it lands on one side or the other side of that frankly arbitrary "93 billion ly distance" we have.

That's dumb. Mathematically, it's dumb since if you accept that finite thing being Low 2-C because of the timeline then you also have to accept every other finite thing being Low 2-C if it has a timeline attached. It's also narratively dumb because when an author says a character destroys a universe, they either mean it to say "they destroyed this very big thing" or "they destroyed all of space and time." And usually I think it's pretty clear which one that is, so I don't think there needs to be a middle ground.

My solution: if we're going to keep making Tier 2 based on fictional consistency rather than math, then we should probably remove the part about needing a finite size.

Tier 2 should be reserved for characters who can, first and foremost, affect an infinite amount of space, and then also affect the temporal dimension on top of that. Mathematically it works a lot better, since now we aren't saying that finite objects satisfy the tier whatsoever. Its also pretty coherent since it's a natural jump over High 3-A. And narratively, the chances are if an author really wanted to make their character a full-scale space-time buster, the statements will exist alongside it that make it clear the character can affect an infinite amount of space and also some degree of time simultaneously.

Tl;dr: Remove finite universe/3-D space destruction scaling to Low 2-C whatsoever, even if there is a dimension of time involved. Low 2-C should require evidence that a character can affect an infinite space/universe that is also embedded within a temporal structure. Basically making High 3-A a prerequisite for Tier 2. I think this is far more consistent both mathematically and narratively.

It would downgrade some characters. I think that's fine. I doubt any of the characters who are stressed to be able to affect an entire infinite space-time continuum as opposed to a "universe" will be affected by such a thing, which is all that matters if you ask me.

I am guessing this is an unpopular opinion though.

I'm fully in favor of this, given how less arbitrary it seems. I admittedly have my own set of issues with Tier 2, and it's the only part of our system that I think is flawed in major ways, but I have little time to raise objections myself at the moment.

 

[Phoenks]

I would also just like to share a piece of information that I think a lot of people still aren't familiarized with.

The best models we have of the universe as of current day predict that the shape of the universe is completely flat with a 0.4% margin of error. This flatness suggests that the universe is infinite in scope. (Source: NASA)

The observable universe (the hubble volume that we are actually capable of observing) is literally not big enough to actually measure the full size of our universe. Even if you were to draw a triangle across the entire thing, the result would turn out flat, suggesting 0 curvature and thus an infinitely-sized universe.

To explain a bit further, there are 3 possibilities for the universe's shape:

1. Flat (0 curvature): In this model, the universe never ends. You can think of it as trying to reach the end of a flat plane or axis. You start at one point and continue on forever, without ever returning to where you were before.
2. Positive Curvature (0< curvature): In this model, the universe is closed into a spherical shape. If you tried to cross it, you would spatially end up in the same place after a while. It is similar to how if you were to try and cross a globe, you would eventually end up in the same position.
3. Negative Curvature (>0 curvature): In this mode, the universe is closed into a hyperbolic shape, like a donut. It is similar to the spherical one, but it is structurally opposite to it.

All current evidence suggests that #1 is the most likely, which would be an infinite universe.

I mention this to say that... in all honesty, the spatial "universe" is probably High 3-A in real life anyway. It's only the "observable universe" that has a finite, measurable size.

Make what you will of that information I guess.

EDIT: Oh, and, of course, nothing is ever completely certain in science. This is just the best idea of the universe we have so far. The "observable universe" size also isn't a certainty, btw. For example, some studies have suggested that the universe could actually be a lot older, and thus expand what we believe to be the limit of observation.

 

[Agnaa]

The universe could just as easily be flat, but only have a finite amount of matter, with there merely being empty space beyond that.

Science cannot provide any information on whether destroying all matter in the universe would require an infinite amount of energy or not, and won't be able to for the foreseeable future.

High 3-A should not be the default view.

 

[Phoenks]

The universe could just as easily be flat, but only have a finite amount of matter, with there merely being empty space beyond that.

The current model suggests a homogenous and isotropic universe. (Cosmological principle) This means the universe is relatively the same everywhere (Including the same density of matter). This is WIDELY accepted as the consensus. Pairing that with infinite volume would make it pretty obviously an infinite amount of matter.

Of course, you could potentially be right, but our default should be what is most accepted. Everything is theoretical at the end of the day, but if we are going to use anything, it would be the current model of the universe and the most commonly accepted shape of the universe.

I don't think you just bringing up your own theory holds any weight against the common scientific consensus.

 

[Agnaa]

The current model suggests a homogenous and isotropic universe. (Cosmological principle) This means the universe is relatively the same everywhere (Including the same density of matter). This is WIDELY accepted as the consensus. Pairing that with infinite volume would make it pretty obviously an infinite amount of matter.

To the extent where that is a conclusion of the model (in that we observably see that), it is both challenged, and ultimately does not provide evidence about the state of matter that is 10^10^10^10^10 light years away.

Beyond that, it is an assumption.

Of course, you could potentially be right, but our default should be what is most accepted. Everything is theoretical at the end of the day, but if we are going to use anything, it would be the current model of the universe and the most commonly accepted shape of the universe.

I don't think you just bringing up your own theory holds any weight against the common scientific consensus.

I don't think the common scientific consensus is that we know that there is an infinite amount of matter populating our universe.

 

[Seraphor12]

Bump

 

[PrinceofPein]

Got permission from @Vietthai96 to post here.
I disagree with majority of the OP, I will skip what others have addressed and just say what has not been said

The major issue here is really the difference between destroying a space-time continuum and just destroying all the physical contents of a space/non-infinite timeline. Low 2-C was never about destroying all of space or some time in particular, It is specifically about erasing or creating the entire timeline of a space equal to or larger than the known universe, which has to include the past, the present, and the infinite future.
That is what we refer to as 4-D here in the wiki, an entire timeline that continues infinitely.
Point in case from the tiering system: the universe can be seen as an infinite film strip, where each frame is a snapshot of the whole space at a given moment. Destroying the entire film strip the full line of uncountably infinite “frames” that make up time itself is what qualifies as Low 2-C. In contrast, just tearing apart one frame, or even all frames at the same instant (without affecting their flow across time), is only High 3-A.

I think what the OP should be arguing for is what we qualify as a 4-D construct. The real question is does part of a timeline and not the whole thing count as 4-D? Arguments can be made for both but since that is not the OP's major argument, I will leave that aside.

Anyway as it currently stands, what we define as timeline here on the wiki is long stretches of years. if a supposed timeline lasted a million years or a billion years, it would still be High 3-A unless it is infinite and encompasses all points in time. What make it Low 2-C is that the timeline extends infinitely into the future and the past is also part of that continuum.

For your other point, any universe/timeline is considered infinite unless stated otherwise, so unless it is not said to be infinite or it is said only certain part is destroyed, it is assumed to be low 2-C.


Tldr: It is not so much about what is getting destroyed but rather what we qualify as 4D on this wiki, and spaces lesser than size of the known universe, is not agreed to be 4D here even if the timeline extends infinitely.

 

[Agnaa]

In contrast, just tearing apart one frame, or even all frames at the same instant (without affecting their flow across time), is only High 3-A.

I do not believe this is true.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I do not believe this is true.

I think I could have worded it better but what I meant was that destruction of all existing frame (Past and present) without the time itself (the infinite future), will be counted as High 3-A.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, if not all of time is effected, then it's not Low 2-C.

 

[Seraphor12]

Bump

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa

Can you remind us with a summary about the staff conclusions here so far please?

 

[Agnaa]

From the vote counting in the OP, and a brief skim, DDM and I are the only admins who commented, and we had different views from each other.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. The first post seems to claim that Medeus and FinePoint agreed though.

 

[Agnaa]

Oh, sorry.

I meant that DDM and I had views which contradicted each other's, so that there's no "staff conclusion" I can write up. I'll reword that.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

Should we ask for further staff input then?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @Qawsedf234 @Celestial_Pegasus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

We seem to need further input here. Your help would be appreciated.

 

[KLOL506]

IIRC Bambu usually doesn't like talking about cosmic stuff. Damage also usually doesn't tackle stuff like this.

DT, Ultima, Executor_N0, Qawsedf, Firestorm, Planck and Everything12 (Seldom responds these days) seem to be the best experts when it comes to tackling stuff like the nitty gritty details of Tier 2 and 1, but IIRC, in every single thread that aimed to change Tier 2, DT just stuck with sticking to the status quo. Ultima made an attempt to make something, but gave up halfway.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not in favor of treating tiny pocket dimension timelines as Low 2-C. Erasing a chair from history is just not treated as that impressive.

 

[Qawsedf234]

We seem to need further input here. Your help would be appreciated.

I can respond in depth after the 25th

 

[KLOL506]

I'm not in favor of treating tiny pocket dimension timelines as Low 2-C. Erasing a chair from history is just not treated as that impressive.

1. I assume the standards should remain as they are?

2. What is your thought on the whole "Erasing a portion of time is High 3-A due to infinite 3-D snapshots and thing"

 

[Vietthai96]

It seems like members have their own different views that not even align with the OP

Anyway joke aside, while the current tier 2 standard isn't the best thing, we have nothing that is better than it, so i rather keeping it as how it currently is for now

 

[FinePoint]

Having had time to think on it, I think I'd have it like this:

Without elaboration, just manipulating part of time should not be treated as Low 2-C. This prevents random examples of chairs and people in most verses.

BUT, if the verse somehow clearly establishes that time is mathematically continuous (as opposed to like having a 'smallest unit') then directly manipulating any matter across any length of it is unarguably, mathematically, uncountably infinite matter/energy being manipulated, and we should respect that.

AND, this must be consistent. Meaning if at any point that level of power is directly contradicted, we don't give them the rating and assume some kind of hax instead.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I can respond in depth after the 25th

Reading through it, I hold the same viewpoint as Agnaa. This means that any space-time, as long as it is separate, would qualify for Low 2-C, regardless of its size. It conflicts with our current rule issues of higher dimensions, which require them to be of notable size to be tiered. This would just uniformly give even basic levels of time control or temporal erasure abilities Low 2-C AP in my view.

So, for now, list me as disagreeing with the proposals with Agnaa.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with DontTalk here.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still think the thread was created prematurely and would prefer to see Ultima Reality's conclusion before giving a conclusion. I also understand a lot of valid concerns about tiny dimensions with little context and I most definitely agree "Existence erasure that works on a temporal level" should not be treated as an AP feat. But at the same time, when it comes to pocket dimensions or body of spaces with their own temporal dimension; I still overall think the temporal dimension's scale is more important than whether or not the 3 spatial dimensions are 9.4*10 lightyears in diameter each. I can at least agree that simply having a temporal dimension wouldn't be enough, but if the scale of the temporal dimension is still literally infinite. Based on our tiering system, merely someone or something being X-dimensional in itself has never truly been AP; what matters more is each of those X dimensions actually being of a higher infinity scale. Though, I do not think we're ready to tackle when this will all be applied.

Perhaps Ultima might eventually make his own thread, but for the time being. I think we should preferably consider the thread's proposal rejected in lack of better options.

 

[KLOL506]

I still think the thread was created prematurely and would prefer to see Ultima Reality's conclusion before giving a conclusion. I also understand a lot of valid concerns about tiny dimensions with little context and I most definitely agree "Existence erasure that works on a temporal level" should not be treated as an AP feat. But at the same time, when it comes to pocket dimensions or body of spaces with their own temporal dimension; I still overall think the temporal dimension's scale is more important than whether or not the 3 spatial dimensions are 9.4*10 lightyears in diameter each. I can at least agree that simply having a temporal dimension wouldn't be enough, but if the scale of the temporal dimension is still literally infinite. Based on our tiering system, merely someone or something being X-dimensional in itself has never truly been AP; what matters more is each of those X dimensions actually being of a higher infinity scale. Though, I do not think we're ready to tackle when this will all be applied.

Perhaps Ultima might eventually make his own thread, but for the time being. I think we should preferably consider the thread's proposal rejected in lack of better options.

Ultima gave up on his solution, as per his own words, so waiting for his conclusion might be folly.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Ultima gave up on his solution, as per his own words, so waiting for his conclusion might be folly.

Oh really? Never mind then. I got nothing to say further atm.