ULTRA MASSIVE QUESTION ABOUT BIG UNIVERSES AND LOW 2-C

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Before I ask the question, I need to start up with an example.

Let's start with two squares and refer to them as space in universes.

One square is 2*2 (4 square units), the other is 4*4 (16 square units).

Let's say the 4 square units is the minimum for 3-A, so obviously destroying the 4*4 would put you four times above the baseline.

If we add an equivalent height to both shapes, the squares become 3rd dimensional shapes. The 2*2 square would now represent Low 2-C, and of course, so would the 4*4.

... but logically, the 4*4 would have to be above the baseline for 2-C, because it is bigger.

Now the example is given, I'm assuming you all know where I'm going with this.

If a fictional universe is larger than the baseline for universal, it would obviously put them above baseline 3-A, but if someone were to destroy the universe and its continuum, the Low 2-C feat should logically be greater than baseline... right?

 

[AguilaR101]

Not quite because low 2-C implies destruction on a 4D scale meaning it is infinitely large than a 3D object regardless of its size.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Yeah, but the problem is the same logic applies from 2D to 3D. Any 3D shape would be uncountably infinitely larger than 2D, no matter what size it is.

So take a 2D shape with a finite area and a 2D shape with greater area, and they're both still infinitely below 3D. If we add 1 inch of height to both, then both shapes are uncountably infinitely above 2D.

The problem here is that we are aware enough that while they're both uncountably infinitely above 2D, one 3D shape is obviously larger than the other.

On the scale of universe continuums, it's the same scenario, we know both feats are uncountably infinitely above 3D, but we are also aware that one is larger than the other regardless.

 

[Antoniofer]

The Low 2-C counts for destroying an infinite space + 1 temporal dimension, so I think it already acounts for that. Honestly I'm not the best to ask, I generally deal with stuff below Tier 2.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I was never aware of something like that, it's not stated on the Tiering System page.

but I will try to reach out to other members then. Thanks anyways.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I mostly deal with stuff below Tier 2 like Antoniofer, but IIRC Low 2-C is indeed destroying infinite space + 1 dimension.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Okay... but the observable universe is a finite size... So destroying a a 4D structure the size of the observable universe would not count as Universal+?

 

[Crimson_Azoth]

Correct

 

[Antvasima]

In lack of better options, I think that we count it as Low 2-C for destroying the entire universal continuum, regardless if the space within it is the size of the observable universe or truly infinite, as fiction generally does not make such distinctions.

 

[Jinsye]

Destroying a space-time continuum/timeline is Low 2-C.

It doesn't particularly matter the size of the universe as shown by Fusion Zamasu.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we tend to count 4-D feats of smaller size as High 3-A or as hax or outliers.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

It doesn't particularly matter the size of the universe.

I think you misinterpreted what I meant, whether or not the universe is finite or infinite, destroying a spacetime continuum/timeline will be Low 2-C. My problem is... well, to make another example, a 10 megaton feat an a 90 megaton feat both qualify for city level. The thing is despite that, one feat is greater than the other. That's the problem I'm having here, while destroying universes on a 4D scale would qualify for Universal+ no matter what, one universe can be bigger than another universe, putting them above baseline.

It's like saying a person who destroys a universe has comparable strength to a person who destroys a universe stated to be 500 times greater than ours.


To quote the definition for High 3-A and to highlight two main points:

• High Universe level: Characters who have an infinite degree of 3-dimensional power. Alternately 4-dimensional power that is shown as completely qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional beings, but is less than universal in scale. Or that allows them to create large parts of a universal continuum.

So, by definition, An 4D feat that is observable universe sized would not qualify for high universal., because it is too big to fit in that definition.

To quote Low 2-C:

• Universe level+: ("Low 2-C") This is for characters who can destroy and/or create the entire 4-dimensional space-time of a single universe, not just the physical matter within one. For example, an entire timeline.

There is no clarification that Universal+ is creating/destroying the continuum of an infinite sized universe. And since not all verses claim their universe to be infinite in size, that would make for different levels of destruction energy needed, no?

Either that, or these definitions will have to be tweaked. And if the definitions are tweaked, Low 2-C character might have to be rechecked.

 

[Antvasima]

Fiction does not tend to be specific regarding the exact size of the universes in question. As long as it is referred to as one, we tend to go with that, but make exceptions if, for example, the continuum in question is just the size of a solar system, especially if it would be too much of an outlier for the series.

That said, it is a system that we have in lack of better options, but it would be very unwise to start to mess with it at this point, especially without considerable staff input.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I'm aware that fiction does not usually try to describe the size of its universe, but isn't that how 3-A works? Without fiction telling us the size of their universe, we lowball and say a 3-A feat is observable universe level.

Why is it that for Low 2-C, when fiction doesn't elaborate, we highball and say that there is infinite space + a higher dimension?

.

I'd be fine if more staff could input on this, the problem is I don't know who since I've accidentally called two members of staff who aren't good with things Low 2-C and upwards.

 

[Antvasima]

1) 3-A is a universe of any finite size of observable universe level and upwards.

2) We don't say that there is always infinite space involved for Low 2-C, as far as I am aware.

3) Here are some of the less frequently asked staff members that you can select from to ask to give input when there are no knowledgeable members available:

Promestein

SomebodyData

Darkanine

Reppuzan

Dragonmasterxyz

Celestial Pegasus

Monarch Laciel

Assaltwaffle

Saikou The Lewd King

Antoniofer

Gemmysaur

PaChi2

Ultima Reality

DarkDragonMedeus

AKM Sama

Dargoo Faust

MrKingOfNegativity

Wokistan

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

1) I'm aware of that.

2) Ah, I must have been mistaken for thinking that was how it works, my bad.

3) Thank you for the list. When I get the time, I will ask a couple of people to respond here.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Yeah I don't think the size of the universe matters. Destroying the fabric of space-time itself matters.

 

[Antvasima]

So should we close this thread?

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Yeah I don't think the size of the universe matters. Destroying the fabric of space-time itself matters.

Well, yeah, that's the problem.

The size of the universe wouldn't matter if we're talking about whether or not we get the rating for Low 2-C because it would be Low 2-C regardless, I'm aware of that.

My issue is that bigger universes would result in being above the baseline.

If you add 1 unit of height to a 2*2 square, you get a finite 3D shape which you can destroy and get finite AP for. If the square had infinite length and width and you added any height to it, then destroying the shape would equate to high universal. Both results are uncountably infinitely above 2-D, but they're obviously different in size, because in the end, they're nothing but 3D constructs.

A Universe, in the very end, is nothing but a 4D construct.

Even for High universal, you have qualifications for destroying smaller sized continuums. So wouldn't it make sense for Universes larger than others to get above-baseline ratings?

 

[Kepekley23]

Yeah I don't think the size of the universe matters. Destroying the fabric of space-time itself matters.

But wouldn't that lead to galaxy or planet-sized universes with separate flows of time being scalable to Tier 2?

 

[Kepekley23]

I think a larger space time continuum would result in a larger-than-baseline Low 2-C, but due to the unquantifiability of Tier 2 in general other than "X can do this, Y can't", it'd probably just be worth a note in the profile itself.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I think a larger space time continuum would result in a larger-than-baseline Low 2-C, but due to the unquantifiability of Tier 2 in general other than "X can do this, Y can't", it'd probably just be worth a note in the profile itself.

That was my idea, yes.

A long while ago, I spoke with Ugarik on an irrelevant topic (so I won't go into detail), and it had me thinking.

If the Earth doubled in diameter, it would double in all three dimensions of length, width, and height. So if the Earth was 1D, it would only double in mass. If the Earth was 2D, it would quadruple in mass... but since the Earth is 3D, it is 2*2*2 times its original mass, 8 times its mass.

..

So, essentially, my idea is that the same idea could be applied to a universe, a 4D construct. If a universe was twice the diameter as the baseline, it would be 2*2*2*2 times larger, and destroying it would be destroying something 16 times the size of the baseline requirement.

This is what I'd do, and I hope you guys can agree with this, or at the least reach some sort of compromise.

 

[Antvasima]

But wouldn't that lead to galaxy or planet-sized universes with separate flows of time being scalable to Tier 2?

We tend to either gauge smaller continuums by their size or give them the High 3-A rating, depending on whether or not they show qualitative superiority to 3-D beings.

It is admittedly a flaw in our system that it is hard to draw a line when either case should apply.

 

[Kepekley23]

But wouldn't that lead to galaxy or planet-sized universes with separate flows of time being scalable to Tier 2?

We tend to either gauge smaller continuums by their size or give them the High 3-A rating, depending on whether or not they show qualitative superiority to 3-D beings.

It is admittedly a flaw in our system that it is hard to draw a line when either case should apply.

We never give them High 3-A - at least I've never seen it. That's something that I've seen countless staff members suggest should be removed, too.

If size supposedly doesn't matter, then every planet-sized timespace in fiction would already be Low 2-C - which is unreasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we should probably give it if a qualitatively superior 4-D nature is clearly defined, and it does not conflict with the scale of the setting.

I don't remember such a case though, and agree with you that giving Low 2-C to Kaguya and similar characters would be unreasonable.

 

[The_Causality]

Yeah, there exist other characters like Pharaoh 90 who can creates a galaxy sized Space time continium but we just give a "At least" on their profile. I do not think it's good to give a High 3-A/Low 2-C rant for bust a place with space time smaller than the Universe.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, the definition was added a few years ago via input from DarkLK, so we would preferably need input from him before we change it.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

So was my explanation accepted?

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

What explanation?

Also, it would be good if somebody politely asks DarkLK to comment here regarding the points that I brought up. You can tell him that I would appreciate it.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I've messaged him.

And this was my explanation.

I think a larger space time continuum would result in a larger-than-baseline Low 2-C, but due to the unquantifiability of Tier 2 in general other than "X can do this, Y can't", it'd probably just be worth a note in the profile itself.

That was my idea, yes.
A long while ago, I spoke with Ugarik on an irrelevant topic (so I won't go into detail), and it had me thinking.

If the Earth doubled in diameter, it would double in all three dimensions of length, width, and height. So if the Earth was 1D, it would only double in mass. If the Earth was 2D, it would quadruple in mass... but since the Earth is 3D, it is 2*2*2 times its original mass, 8 times its mass.

..

So, essentially, my idea is that the same idea could be applied to a universe, a 4D construct. If a universe was twice the diameter as the baseline, it would be 2*2*2*2 times larger, and destroying it would be destroying something 16 times the size of the baseline requirement.

 

[Antvasima]

We are counting time as the 4th dimension though.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

But would it really change the result?

Of course, we couldn't quantify to get an absolute value for the 4th dimension, because it is uncountably infinite, but in the end, what is the real difference between a temporal and spatial dimension where this idea would not work, especially considering that spacetime is the combination of 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension anyways?

 

[Antvasima]

A larger universe does not automatically mean a universe with a proportionately longer lifespan.

 

[Antvasima]

DarkLK has replied.

VSB's high 3-A, low 2-C and 2-A were developed independently of me. This is different from ACF ones. I understand the question and I myself thought about it. Sorry, but right now I'm not sure exactly how we should deal with such things, in my opinion there will always be some problem (for example, comparing an infinite universe and an infinite number of finite universes), so somewhere we have to compromise.

 

[Antvasima]

If we do things differently from the ACF wiki in this case, we may have to reevaluate our conveniences at some point.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

A larger universe does not automatically mean a universe with a proportionately longer lifespan.

It's not the fact that they have a larger lifespan alone. Because if we only looked at that, we'd only be looking at one dimension, time, rather than the whole thing, which is spacetime, a four dimension construct.

A small square and a big square can both be given an equal amount of height so that they become 3D shapes. The formerly big square will still be the larger of the two as a 3D shape.

- The former normal square would have 1 length x 1 width x 1 height

- The former big square would have 10 length x 10 width x 1 height

This is further elaborated on the Intuitive Explanatio section of the Dimensional Tiering page, which for convenience I will copy and paste into this collapsible section.

In 1-D everything is like a line. A line has only a length, but no width. In 2-D there are planes, like for example squares. A square has a length and a width. If we talk about size in 2 dimensions we refer to area. However the area of a line is 0, because its area would be given by width x length, but its width is 0 and due to that also the area independent on what its length is. 3-D space is the space we usually live in. Size in 3-D space means volume. The difference between a 3-D and a 2-D object is like the difference between a 2-D and a 1-D object: A square has 0 height and its volume would be given by width x length x height. Because its height is 0 so is its volume, meaning that it is insignificantly small compared to the size of 3-D objects. In a similar manner we can continue for all other dimensions, even if we can not imagine them anymore. In 4 dimensions we, for example, would add an additional direction of extension beyond length, width and height. In this fourth direction the extend of a cube would be 0, so its 4 dimensional size, which would be height x length x width x fourth direction would always equal 0. -end of collapsible-

So just because the "lifespan" of a universe is the same as others doesn't disprove the idea that some universes can be bigger than others.

A normal universe can have 1 length x 1 width x 1 height x 1 normal universe "lifespan". A bigger universe can have 10 length x 10 width x 10 height x 1 normal universe "lifespan".

Same "lifespan", but the size difference still exists.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, but I think you used 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 as an example, not 2 x 2 x 2 x 1.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Oh, now I see where you're going with this. That makes sense, I see my mistake.

Regardless, the universes as a whole is still spacetime, so the size of the space could still place those universes above the baseline for both for 3-A and for Low 2-C.

So if a universe proved to be 8 times the 3-A size, then it would also be 8 times the size for Low 2-C.