ULTRA MASSIVE QUESTION ABOUT BIG UNIVERSES AND LOW 2-C

[Antvasima]

Yes, but still Low 2-C. It is impractical to set several different definitions within a tier, as these things are seldom specified.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is possible that we have made a mistake with how we fundamentally differentiate 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C from each other, but I am not able to figure out a better solution on my own without considerable staff input.

I think that Kepekley and Sera were talking about it though.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

I've already stated early on in this thread that I was never arguing anything over the tier Low 2-C, just over the baseline Low 2-C.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see any problem with the differentiation of those tiers, but then again I don't know what mistake exactly they are referring to.

 

[Antvasima]

That we treat time as a geometric dimension.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Is this because of it being a temporal dimension and all?

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Well that's a fair point to make, although I can see both sides to that problem.

Either way, the result would have the larger universe destruction feats above the baseline of Low 2-C.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that a revision would likely get rid of tier Low 2-C and redefine the distinction between 2-A and High 2-A.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Getting rid of Low 2-C? That doesn't sound promising.

Are they talking about this in another thread/message wall?

 

[Antvasima]

I am just speculating.

 

[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.

So for the time being; assuming Low 2-C remains a thing, this is still legitimate reasoning?

I don't see anything wrong with it otherwise.