- 2,127
- 1,726
Goodnight, when?
-
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 2A : eternal/infinite timeline addition.
- Thread starter Reiner04
- Start date
- Status
- 1,280
- 1,123
In terms of volume, one infinite timeline has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of finite timelines, yes. In fact, it also has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of infinite timelines. It's hard to explain without getting into complex mathematical details, but essentially, if you already have an object with a volume of ∞, adding anything more to it would still just leave it at ∞. The only way to get bigger than that, in strict mathematical terms, is to go to a higher dimension: a finite 5-measure has infinite 4-volume, but an infinite 4-measure has zero 5-volume.
However, in my view, taking this at face value is problematic because if we decide that being bigger than a High 3-A structure is Low 2-C by default, for instance, then that would also imply that being stronger than a High 3-A character is Low 2-C by default. While both of these make sense under real-life physics, they're unintuitive from a power-scaling perspective and also aren't part of how fiction usually does things, so I'd personally be inclined to handwave them for the same reasons we overlook cosmic-tier characters not destroying the entire setting just by doing anything when the laws of physics say they should, FTL speeds being common despite our current standard model not allowing for superluminal velocity, etc.
However, in my view, taking this at face value is problematic because if we decide that being bigger than a High 3-A structure is Low 2-C by default, for instance, then that would also imply that being stronger than a High 3-A character is Low 2-C by default. While both of these make sense under real-life physics, they're unintuitive from a power-scaling perspective and also aren't part of how fiction usually does things, so I'd personally be inclined to handwave them for the same reasons we overlook cosmic-tier characters not destroying the entire setting just by doing anything when the laws of physics say they should, FTL speeds being common despite our current standard model not allowing for superluminal velocity, etc.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #43
In terms of structure, I agree that being bigger than high 3a structure would means it's of Aleph 1 size but it wouldn't be low 2c going with our tiering system that states that "All of past, present and future" need to be oliberated and reasoning behind it given by Ultima was that I don't like idea of having knife and cutting the bread or something, was quite unsatisfactory but fine.
Coming to the other point characters can have same Tier and still vary greatly in power. So I don't think that would affect it.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #44
And if we don't specify that infinite sized timeline along time axis is 2a not Low 2c then that would mean that we are literally scaling tier low 2c = tier 2a for this case.
For example: if one destroys 1 finite sized building then that would be building lvl, let's assume building lvl here is low 2c. And so if one destroys infinite number of finite buildings that would be high 3a, let's assume it to be 2a. But we can get later result even if we destroy 1 building of infinite size and hence it would be 2a.
For example: if one destroys 1 finite sized building then that would be building lvl, let's assume building lvl here is low 2c. And so if one destroys infinite number of finite buildings that would be high 3a, let's assume it to be 2a. But we can get later result even if we destroy 1 building of infinite size and hence it would be 2a.
Last edited:
- 10,938
- 12,427
I don't know if how we handled it changed with Ultima's Tiering Revision, but in the past multiverse level was treated as extremely low 5D, for destroying 3+1D spacetimes over some unquantified distance across an additional axis which spans up the multiverse.
In that sense, an infinite timeline, being just 4D, is still infinitely smaller than low-end multiverse level. (it's kinda similar to how Solar System level is higher than the GBE of the sun and all planets combined in that respect)
To that comes that all (or all the most popular) physical theories regarding the future development of the universe predict no end to time. So our default spacetime continuum has infinite future anyway.
In that sense, an infinite timeline, being just 4D, is still infinitely smaller than low-end multiverse level. (it's kinda similar to how Solar System level is higher than the GBE of the sun and all planets combined in that respect)
To that comes that all (or all the most popular) physical theories regarding the future development of the universe predict no end to time. So our default spacetime continuum has infinite future anyway.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #47
Then it makes sense but just left with a question, would it be affecting that 5d space or just it's having a 5d range? Because if the later then it wouldn't be AP.
Aaahh, ummm, if I am not getting it wrong, is it that when distances between things taken into account while scaling to that particular tier? Like destroying two galaxies that stick together (no gap) would be different than destroying two galaxies with the default distance they have...
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #48
And shouldn't it be taken into account while discussing tier 2c or 2b in the upcoming tier 2 revision as when I was reading the ongoing tier 2 revisions I seen that it was only focused space and time, multiversal axis wasn't even taken into account for a part of discussion when it's playing this big role in here. That made it feel like spacetime is the only thing matter.
- 10,938
- 12,427
Would be affecting 5D space.
Yeah, basically. Which is actually one argument one can make as to why stuff like destroying 8 timelines fused into 1 wouldn't be multiversal.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #51
Then it's fine
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #52
I guess that then multiversal+ or 2a rather than just being limited to infinite number of timelines, is actually equals to power set of Infinite numbers of low 2c structure. If it's range is going over 5d distance then no doubt that number of timelines that can be affected by this is actually of aleph 1 numbers of timelines. Just like destroying 2 galaxies with default distance between them would equate to destroying Uncountable galaxies stick together.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #53
The explanation given by donttalkdt can satisfy the needs required for 2a to be greater than infinite sized low 2c, but won't it cause a no boundaries between Low 1c and 2a?
We should remove 5d from Low 1c then after all what's the point of having same thing in 2different tiers that vary greatly in what they mean.
We should remove 5d from Low 1c then after all what's the point of having same thing in 2different tiers that vary greatly in what they mean.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #54
To all aside timeline shouldn't be taken infinite by default as there is something like big crunch which happens because of decay of dark energy over time causes universe to callapse, an opposite of cosmic inflation which spans the universe in all directions as shown in this article .
A simple verse that follows this rule is gurren lagann where it was mentioned that spiral force/ dark energy will cause the universe to it's end. And it's not the only one and so should have to be specified.
A simple verse that follows this rule is gurren lagann where it was mentioned that spiral force/ dark energy will cause the universe to it's end. And it's not the only one and so should have to be specified.
Last edited:
- 32,835
- 38,111
I mean, being bigger in size =/= being stronger than a character in the existential sense. They'd just be a stronger High 3-A character. Not sure where the "Stronger than High 3-A = Low 2-C" logic came from.
Being bigger here is also referring to a state of existence, like, higher level of existence/superiority and whatnot.
Being stronger than a High 3-A character doesn't necessarily mean you also exist one level of existence above them.
- 10,938
- 12,427
Infinite multiverse would still be 5D on an insignificant scale (you can cram infinite 3+1D timelines into an arbitrarily, but not infinitely, small 5D volume). Meanwhile Low 1-C starts at 5D power of significant magnitude.The explanation given by donttalkdt can satisfy the needs required for 2a to be greater than infinite sized low 2c, but won't it cause a no boundaries between Low 1c and 2a?
We should remove 5d from Low 1c then after all what's the point of having same thing in 2different tiers that vary greatly in what they mean.
So there is a significant difference.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,424
- 15,022
However small 5D volume still > 4D no???
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #58
But if I am understanding it right that tier 2 division is based of the additional dimensional axis which spans the multiverse that would mean we have Tier 2c, Tier 2B, Tier 2a all in that insignificant 5d structure which I suppose logical to say that it's Limit tends to 0, but then division among them itself will be very vague and given that limits tends to 0 is still not 0 but has some values that are insignificant, it's still one lvl higher infinity than low 2c structure that fullfills the requirements demanded for Low 1c.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Yes, but you should not misunderstand what DT said. What they meant is that you can fit an infinite number of 3+1D timelines inside a 5D hypervolume that is not infinitely small, but merely insignificant. 2-A also takes into account the distance between space-time continuums.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #60
Not just that but it'll be any 5d volume regardless of how insignificant they must be, it'll be always greater than uncountable infinite numbers of 4d structures.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #61
Given this, there shouldn't be any reason to revise tier 2 from after tier 2c as it's already metaphysical to 5d structures even if it's insignificant 5d structure still are of aleph 1 sized 4d structure. What revision we even gonna do? Making it strict to 4d spacetime? When it's level of distruction is already far above it.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Wait a second, even if it is insignificant, this is still 5D. What?
- 2,127
- 1,726
AFAIK, above baseline 2A is finite 5D
And Low 1-C is infinite 5D
And Low 1-C is infinite 5D
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #64
The problem is as per wiki definition, it is not. As per wiki definition any 5d space is qualified for tier 1c.
- 18,393
- 14,323
But it is still 5D. This is the main purpose of the thread. 5D is still > 4D in any aspect, and it can't be ignored. Now, after I understand what OP is purposing, this seems to need to be discussed.
- 6,489
- 1,704
Could you summarize what the OP is trying to say for those not understanding lol
Thank you
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #67
That would take another few pages got filled up, in short for all, op is proposing. Infinite timeline along time axis = 2a but we have it under tier 2c, and so far there is no logical explanation that separating them. That's all. For everyone. Please comment any further if you have understood the OP and have knowledge of tier 2 and transfinite numbers as it will cause thread got messed up.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Alright. The main sole of this thread is that:
Above baseline 2A = finite 5D which is still bigger than 4D volume in any prospect. But low 1-C is only infinite 5D. There is a tier missing in between.
In Wiki standards, every 5D volume/space (even if it is infinite or not) will be low 1-C. But finite 5D is treated as lower than 2-tier, which is what we are discoursing right now. You can fit an infinite number of 3+1D timelines inside a 5D hypervolume that is not infinitely small, but merely insignificant. 2-A also takes into account the distance between space-time continuums. On another side, Infinite timeline along the time axis = 2A but is also treated as under tier 2-C (which is actually wrong since the Yhwach 2-A range got upgraded, for this reason, I don't from where you get this source from)
Above baseline 2A = finite 5D which is still bigger than 4D volume in any prospect. But low 1-C is only infinite 5D. There is a tier missing in between.
In Wiki standards, every 5D volume/space (even if it is infinite or not) will be low 1-C. But finite 5D is treated as lower than 2-tier, which is what we are discoursing right now. You can fit an infinite number of 3+1D timelines inside a 5D hypervolume that is not infinitely small, but merely insignificant. 2-A also takes into account the distance between space-time continuums. On another side, Infinite timeline along the time axis = 2A but is also treated as under tier 2-C (which is actually wrong since the Yhwach 2-A range got upgraded, for this reason, I don't from where you get this source from)
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #69
If you look above to kingpin explaination, you'll see that he has also agreed and has explained the op but has suggested his concern as to why he don't like this idea, not that it is wrong and I and klol have suggested that why that concern doesn't affect the op at all, so op is right unless one is to include insignificant 5d structure but that would cause vaguely no difference in all of tier 2 divisions except of low 2c as all of them are present in the insignificant 5d axis and will also cause removal 5d structure from low 1c.
So this far there is nothing to say to the op at all. No conclusion.
- 6,489
- 1,704
This should be put into the OP as it's a good summary for staff to see.
- 4,773
- 1,668
Not a staff member, but that is technically 5D being Low 1C. Also that was removed later on since I can not see this as being 2A as that we used to have High 2A in the old tiering system before the Tiering System revision threads landed
This shouldn’t even been applied. Also it does seems misleading as it is technically 5D regardless
- 4,773
- 1,668
Also here is the link to the old Tiering system in question:
vsbattles.fandom.com
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #74
Thanx for this and oh man going with this the only difference between destroying infinite timeline and 2a sized timeline is that the later one is alinged in a 5d axis and so 5d range is needed.Also here is the link to the old Tiering system in question:
Tiering System
The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system the VS Battles Wiki utilizes to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats and the varying scopes that they can affect or create/destroy. Though Destructive...
But high 2a is clear cut low 1c of today.
Don't get me wrong but I am feeling like we should merge 2a and 2c into one as differing them is quite shaking my brain at this point.
- 4,773
- 1,668
In that same article you linked, it is mentioned to being a theory.
“
Nothing about this theory is controversial or implausible, Gary Hinshaw, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of British Columbia who was not involved in the study, told Live Science. However, because the model hinges on past observations of expansion alone — and because the present nature of dark energy in the universe is such a mystery — the predictions in this paper are currently impossible to test. For now, they can only remain theories.”
I think this just overthinking the matter. The most simple thing is that it is still 4D, the only significant differences is the infinite number of timelines, worlds (parallel worlds), universes, and so on while 2C is simply 4D finite number of universes/timelines/worlds as well as other cosmological related jargon.
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,323
But finite 5D is still 5D, regardless if it is a significant difference or not. Why it should be counted not as low 1-C, it does not belong to 2-A either. Either we need a new tier or new explanation for this.
- 4,773
- 1,668
It still counts as Low 1C as far as I am aware. DonTalk was remembering the old tiering system which was High 2A.
Also finite 5D I kinda don’t remember if this is a actual thing or not.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #78
Even if these are theories but so most astronomical or cosmological things are, multiverse, higher dimensions, and popular verse's like gurren lagann seems to falls under this, so I am in support of not having infinite timeline as by default case.
The problem here is about volumes of such 4d spaces, given that infinite sized single timeline along time axis can have same volume as infinite number of finite timelines.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #79
After looking at old tiering system I am sure dt was talking about high 2a from old tiering, so 2a is not 5d, not at any scale.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Alright.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
