• 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.

Universe level CRT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zamasu_Chan

Zamasu_Chan

8,821
9,404
So a while ago I made this CRT and was ultimately told to save something this eventful for the summer. As time passed I had a changed premise... a lot.

Spacetime vs space and time​

The basic structure of a universe is matter, space, and time. It's not just matter + time like some think. That would imply that time is > space, but that's not the truth at all. Time may be referred to as its own dimension, but it’s not the 4th dimension. Space time is the 4th dimension, and space is just as important as time is when it comes to the dimensional fabric of the universe. With that out of the way let's move on.

My issues​

Past, present, and future​

It should not be necessary to destroy all of the past present and future (PPF) of a single timeline to be low 2-C. Doing so should make you low 2-C, but it shouldn't be the standard requirements for it. Any duration of time, no matter how small, has a PPF. This means destroying universal spacetime, regardless it’s it’s the whole timeline or not, would still be equivalent to destroying uncountable infinite snapshots of spatial universes.

3-A and Low 2-C​

As stated above, space and time are connected. Reasons being, one can’t exist without the other. Time is the measurement of spatial movement. Without space or movement, time can’t exist because there’s nothing to measure. And space without time would make a universe completely motionless. This is why destruction of space also destroys time.

This is why I dislike how 3-A is handled. It forces us to prove destroying an entire universe would include spacetime. We shouldn’t have to prove anything if the destruction involves the entire universe. What 3-A should be is matter destruction, AKA planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It’s really simple.

To put this in perspective, it’s like saying planetary destruction is high 6-A because you need proof of destroying the whole thing, or solar system destruction is 5-A because you need proof of destroying the sun. Sounds ridiculous right? Well that’s how we currently treat universal.

EDIT: To cause less confusion I want to add this in. If a verse establishes that their universe is low 2-C then statements like “I’m going to destroy the entire universe!” would be low 2-C. However, if a verse treats their universe as the matter then a statement like that would warrant 3-A.

Different dimensions​

Anything that’s a separate space should automatically have its own time, as long as there’s movement at least. However if different bodies of observable universes described as dimensions share space and time, then those are 3-A. If anything there only needs to be evidence of them being in a singular space because sharing time flow doesn’t mean anything when it comes the overall size.

Premise/TLDR​

  • Space and time are connected.
  • Universal matter destruction 3-A.
  • If a verse treats a universe as low 2-C then universal destruction would automatically be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
  • If a verse treats a universe as 3-A then universal destruction would automatically be 3-A unless proven otherwise.
  • Separate universal spaces are 2-C unless proven otherwise.

And please, let’s not act like wild animals and be professional shall we.
 
Last edited:
To put this in perspective, it’s like saying planetary destruction is high 6-A because you need proof of destroying the whole thing, or solar system destruction is 5-A because you need proof of destroying the sun. Sounds ridiculous right?
Click to expand...
No ?

The burden of proof is always "Why the feat is Tier A" instead of "Why the feat isn't", 5-B only happens when we have proof of the Planet being destroyed (And even then, it can have other values depending on the calc), otherwise the Low End is High 6-A

Not saying I don't agree with the CRT in general, just a small problem with this single example
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Maybe because 3-A technically isn’t what universal destruction is.
Click to expand...
Probably jumping the gun on saying this, but I guess we could just make 3-B the “any finite number” tier and then make High 3-A just 3-A, not sure what that be called, “High Multi-Galaxy” I guess
 
Should we have an example to make this clear to all of us so we’re on the same page?



so here they’re only saying that simulations indicate that the planet they are on has enough to blow up/collapse the universe, there’s no proof that it would happen visually to us since… that didn’t happen because the Main Protag is not stupid and did the smart thing- what would this be? 3-A or L2C?
 
Smashtwig said:
Should we have an example to make this clear to all of us so we’re on the same page?



so here they’re only saying that simulations indicate that the planet they are on has enough to blow up/collapse the universe, there’s no proof that it would happen visually to us since… that didn’t happen because the Main Protag is not stupid and did the smart thing- what would this be? 3-A or L2C?
Click to expand...

Since it says entire universe it’s low 2-C.
 
just destroying the universe is only equivalent to destroying a single snapshot, not any more

destroying pace only destroyes current time, not past time

so i heavily disagree with this
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
It should not be necessary to destroy all of the past present and future (PPF) of a single timeline to be low 2-C. Doing so should make you low 2-C, but it shouldn't be the standard requirements for it. Any duration of time, no matter how small, has a PPF. This means destroying universal spacetime, regardless it’s it’s the whole timeline or not, would still be equivalent to destroying uncountable infinite snapshots of spatial universes.
Click to expand...
I already talked with Ultima about this, and I don't remember the exact conclusion we reached, but I would strongly warn against treating all spacetime destruction as equal. Other than that, I have nothing to say here.
Zamasu_Chan said:
As stated above, space and time are connected. Reasons being, one can’t exist without the other. Time is the measurement of spatial movement. Without space or movement, time can’t exist because there’s nothing to measure. And space without time would make a universe completely motionless. This is why destruction of space also destroys time.

This is why I dislike how 3-A is handled. It forces us to prove destroying an entire universe would include spacetime. We shouldn’t have to prove anything if the destruction involves the entire universe. What 3-A should be is matter destruction, AKA planets, stars, galaxies, etc. It’s really simple.
Click to expand...
3-A is already officially treated as "significantly affecting at least an observable universe-sized area that encompasses all matter and the space in-between," though. That last part is important because from what I have been told, the amount of matter in the universe is only in the 4-A range, so an explosion that covers everything in the observable universe would be 3-A, but someone snapping and destroying all matter in the observable universe would be far lower.

This is especially made apparent when you consider the fact that things such as mass and energy - the two most important components of matter and of the tiering system from tiers 10 to 3 - do not apply to the space-time continuum. At most, it applies to regions of it, which I don't know what that entails, but my point is that many universal scale feats very well can be quantified using these two properties, whereas the ones that target spacetime itself cannot.
Zamasu_Chan said:
Anything that’s a separate space should automatically have its own time, as long as there’s movement at least. However if different bodies of observable universes described as dimensions share space and time, then those are 3-A. If anything there only needs to be evidence of them being in a singular space because sharing time flow doesn’t mean anything when it comes the overall size.
Click to expand...
I don't have any strong opinions on what we do with multiverses, whether we default to tier 2 or not, but what does this mean for pocket dimensions and such?
 
Maybe we could call 3-A "Cosmos Level", and High 3-A "High Cosmos Level"? Since universe refers to all of space and time while cosmos refers to the matter within the universe?

On that note I agree with this. Also, what will happen to pocket reality feats?
 
liluzivert said:
Maybe we could call 3-A "Cosmos Level", and High 3-A "High Cosmos Level"? Since universe refers to all of space and time while cosmos refers to the matter within the universe?

On that note I agree with this. Also, what will happen to pocket reality feats?
Click to expand...
Cosmos feels to generalizing. Cosmos could also be seen as just 4-A
 
KingPin0422 said:
3-A is already officially treated as "significantly affecting at least an observable universe-sized area that encompasses all matter and the space in-between," though. That last part is important because from what I have been told, the amount of matter in the universe is only in the 4-A range, so an explosion that covers everything in the observable universe would be 3-A, but someone snapping and destroying all matter in the observable universe would be far lower.
Click to expand...
Er... Galaxies/Multi-Galaxies are only 4-A then? Unless they somehow don't count as matter?
 
I agree with kingpin on the don't treat all space-times as equal bit, but I do agree with the idea that destroying a space-time smaller than the size of the universe should still be tier 2, also I hard disagree with the 3-A and tier 2 bit, given that it would just be ED at best and getting rid of all matter at best, still leaving "space" around for time to work off of
 
As you know I disagree.

Time not being measurable by experiment without space, doesn't imply time ceases to exist. That's like saying "North" stops to exist if the earth loses its magnetic field. It is still there you just can't measure it.
Time is a separate dimension. It's part of the nature of dimensions to be able to exist without each other (mathematically that's called being linearly independent). For example, if North and East are dimensions then Northeast isn't a separate dimension from them, as it can't exist without both of the prior concepts. It isn't independent and hence also not a separate dimension. Time is a separate dimension from space, though.
In principle, you can have a 0-dimensional particle that changes its properties with time for instance. There is nothing forbidding that. That would mean measurable time without space.
Time is widely agreed to be a dimension and unquestionably accurately described as such.

The second section just sounds like you are trying to heat up the dragonball argument again. I feel like I have sufficiently explained in that thread why that assumption is nonsense.
No matter where your space is, it can all use the same dimension to describe time and still not intersect in any way. That's because time is its own "direction". Just like left/right doesn't become a new direction just because you went somewhere, future/past don't become new directions either.
 
I'm going to point out one thing: Your argument about PPF set out in the introduction is essentially Zeno's paradox. Any small moment having a PPF and thus being an infinity is weirdly similary to the idea that any distance is instraversable because it is infinitely divisible. Here you would be siding with the paradoxical solution to Zeno's riddle.

I'm not really sure if this discredits your proposal, but it's food for thought for you, and everyone else commenting here.
 
KatBoi69 said:
I'm going to point out one thing: Your argument about PPF set out in the introduction is essentially Zeno's paradox. Any small moment having a PPF and thus being an infinity is weirdly similary to the idea that any distance is instraversable because it is infinitely divisible. Here you would be siding with the paradoxical solution to Zeno's riddle.

I'm not really sure if this discredits your proposal, but it's food for thought for you, and everyone else commenting here.
Click to expand...
Yeeaaah i know you just made that up but that's totally not the same thing.

Every snap shot of a small moment is still the size of a universe while in your example it's not .
 
CR_Catinho said:
Yeeaaah i know you just made that up but that's totally not the same thing.

Every snap shot of a small moment is still the size of a universe while in your example it's not .
Click to expand...
Well, if it lined up literally, it wouldn't be an analogy.

I could use a direct example from mathematics and just reference the idea of differently sized infinities, which the wiki already uses in explaining high tier destruction feats, which would again invalidate the point in the introduction, but I went for something more physically tangible.
 
Responding here before the inevitable ping.

Zamasu_Chan said:
It should not be necessary to destroy all of the past present and future (PPF) of a single timeline to be low 2-C. Doing so should make you low 2-C, but it shouldn't be the standard requirements for it. Any duration of time, no matter how small, has a PPF. This means destroying universal spacetime, regardless it’s it’s the whole timeline or not, would still be equivalent to destroying uncountable infinite snapshots of spatial universes.
Click to expand...
As I've already expressed elsewhere, the logic itself is sound, yes. To elaborate a bit on this: Since spacetime is a continuum, there are no "abrupt" changes in position or values between each of its coordinates (Like a sudden shift between 1 and 2 that does not account for any of the intermediate values between them, for example), and any interval that acts as a subset of it has uncountably-many points as well.

So, for instance, you can visualize this by setting universe as a space defined by the coordinates (x,y,z) added to an additional time variable, t. The number of possible values for this variable (Each corresponding to a 3-dimensional slice of spacetime) is uncountably infinite, since you can set it up to equate any real number (1, 7, 81.17519... and whatever), and since, as some of you probably know, there is an uncountably infinite amount of numbers even in-between 0 and 1, so too there are uncountably-many instances of the spatial volume of the universe even between a time interval of length 1.

Despite this, though, I am very neutral on applying the obvious implications that this has for tiering general spacetime continuums and their destruction. I don't feel like having a knife placed around my neck, as of yet, so, I'll just leave that as something for you all to decide.

DontTalkDT said:
No matter where your space is, it can all use the same dimension to describe time and still not intersect in any way. That's because time is its own "direction". Just like left/right doesn't become a new direction just because you went somewhere, future/past don't become new directions either.
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, this scenario would be akin to the relationship which the worldline of a single object has to the entire spacetime continuum, yes? As in, each individual body that we wish to consider would have an independent path that it traces across spacetime, which doesn't intersect with that of other objects but is still a subset of the continuum as a whole. Something like that?

KatBoi69 said:
I'm going to point out one thing: Your argument about PPF set out in the introduction is essentially Zeno's paradox. Any small moment having a PPF and thus being an infinity is weirdly similary to the idea that any distance is instraversable because it is infinitely divisible. Here you would be siding with the paradoxical solution to Zeno's riddle.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, the issue with Zeno's Paradox isn't with the layout of the scenario but with the conclusion that it posits. Since, like time, space is a continuum and thus distance is infinitely divisible, but that doesn't mean any length is impossible to cross, because all of the values between a Point X and a Point Y are insignificantly small and thus ultimately comprise a finite sum. So, since the basis of the paradox itself isn't strictly incorrect, neither is spacetime having uncountably-many 3-D cross-sections in finite portions of itself. Especially since the latter just segues from one of the pillars of Calculus (Integration, in this case)
 
Last edited:
KingPin0422 said:
I already talked with Ultima about this, and I don't remember the exact conclusion we reached, but I would strongly warn against treating all spacetime destruction as equal. Other than that, I have nothing to say here.
Click to expand...
Hell no. Only spacetime destruction on a universal scale. Any and all space time, like opening a whole in the dimensional fabric, would be wank.
KingPin0422 said:
3-A is already officially treated as "significantly affecting at least an observable universe-sized area that encompasses all matter and the space in-between," though. That last part is important because from what I have been told, the amount of matter in the universe is only in the 4-A range, so an explosion that covers everything in the observable universe would be 3-A, but someone snapping and destroying all matter in the observable universe would be far lower.
Click to expand...
Nothing personal but I don’t like when people bring up the 4-A universe thing. That’s only all the matter if it’s grouped together. The distance between the matter + the matter is 3-A. The matter all together is 4-A. Or else tiers like multi galactic would be a measly 4-A.
KingPin0422 said:
This is especially made apparent when you consider the fact that things such as mass and energy - the two most important components of matter and of the tiering system from tiers 10 to 3 - do not apply to the space-time continuum. At most, it applies to regions of it, which I don't know what that entails, but my point is that many universal scale feats very well can be quantified using these two properties, whereas the ones that target spacetime itself cannot.
Click to expand...
Well it’s a case by case. If universal destruction is shown to be 3-A then it’s 3-A. If it’s low 2-C it’s low 2-C. But my point that low 2-C should be the baseline still stands.
KingPin0422 said:
I don't have any strong opinions on what we do with multiverses, whether we default to tier 2 or not, but what does this mean for pocket dimensions and such?
Click to expand...
It means nothing. Pocket dimensions would be treated the same as they are now.
DontTalkDT said:
As you know I disagree.

Time not being measurable by experiment without space, doesn't imply time ceases to exist. That's like saying "North" stops to exist if the earth loses its magnetic field. It is still there you just can't measure it.
Click to expand...
I feel like this is a false equivalence/bad comparison. Tell me how time can exist when the very thing that allows it to exist is gone.
DontTalkDT said:
Time is a separate dimension. It's part of the nature of dimensions to be able to exist without each other (mathematically that's called being linearly independent). For example, if North and East are dimensions then Northeast isn't a separate dimension from them, as it can't exist without both of the prior concepts. It isn't independent and hence also not a separate dimension. Time is a separate dimension from space, though.
In principle, you can have a 0-dimensional particle that changes its properties with time for instance. There is nothing forbidding that. That would mean measurable time without space.
Click to expand...
That 0 dimensional particle has movement. Of course time is gonna exist as long as that particle has movement. A 0 dimensional object ≠ a void where dimensions don’t exist at all.

DontTalkDT said:
Time is widely agreed to be a dimension and unquestionably accurately described as such.
Click to expand...
Never said it wasn’t, at least not in the OP. I even said time is a dimension dude. Seeing comments like this gives me the impression you merely skimmed the OP.
DontTalkDT said:
The second section just sounds like you are trying to heat up the dragonball argument again. I feel like I have sufficiently explained in that thread why that assumption is nonsense.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a debunk. It looks as if you’re trying to raise tension by bringing DBS into this. I also don’t care what you feel like you’ve done in some other thread. I don’t even know what thread you’re talking about. What you’re doing is simply glossing over my arguments.
DontTalkDT said:
No matter where your space is, it can all use the same dimension to describe time and still not intersect in any way. That's because time is its own "direction". Just like left/right doesn't become a new direction just because you went somewhere, future/past don't become new directions either.
Click to expand...
“No matter where you are”, “time can exist in 0 dimensions”. These statements come of as you not believing in voids.
Ultima_Reality said:
Responding here before the inevitable ping.


As I've already expressed elsewhere, the logic itself is sound, yes. To elaborate a bit on this: Since spacetime is a continuum, there are no "abrupt" changes in position or values between each of its coordinates (Like a sudden shift between 1 and 2 that does not account for any of the intermediate values between them, for example), and any interval that acts as a subset of it has uncountably-many points as well.

So, for instance, you can visualize this by setting universe as a space defined by the coordinates (x,y,z) added to an additional time variable, t. The number of possible values for this variable (Each corresponding to a 3-dimensional slice of spacetime) is uncountably infinite, since you can set it up to equate any real number (1, 7, 81.17519... and whatever), and since, as some of you probably know, there is an uncountably infinite amount of numbers even in-between 0 and 1, so too there are uncountably-many instances of the spatial volume of the universe even between a time interval of length 1.

Despite this, though, I am very neutral on applying the obvious implications that this has for tiering general spacetime continuums and their destruction. I don't feel like having a knife placed around my neck, as of yet, so, I'll just leave that as something for you all to decide.
Click to expand...
I mean, I can’t really add to this lol. But yeah destroying universal spacetime within any amount of time is still uncountable infinite. Also no pressure about the “knife” thing lol. If this goes through I wouldn’t mind answering any questions regarding the revisions.
Ultima_Reality said:
As far as I'm aware, the issue with Zeno's Paradox isn't with the layout of the scenario but with the conclusion that it posits. Since, like time, space is a continuum, distance is infinitely divisible, but that doesn't mean any length is impossible to cross, because all of the values between a Point X and a Point Y are insignificantly small and thus ultimately comprise a finite sum. So, since the basis of the paradox itself isn't strictly incorrect, neither is spacetime having uncountably-many 3-D cross-sections in finite portions of itself. Especially since the latter just segues from one of the pillars of Calculus (Integration, in this case)
Click to expand...
I also agree with this.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
As far as I'm aware, the issue with Zeno's Paradox isn't with the layout of the scenario but with the conclusion that it posits. Since, like time, space is a continuum, distance is infinitely divisible, but that doesn't mean any length is impossible to cross, because all of the values between a Point X and a Point Y are insignificantly small and thus ultimately comprise a finite sum. So, since the basis of the paradox itself isn't strictly incorrect, neither is spacetime having uncountably-many 3-D cross-sections in finite portions of itself. Especially since the latter just segues from one of the pillars of Calculus (Integration, in this case)
Click to expand...
Hey, nice to see you!

Ok, so I guess here I'm really using Zeno's paradox as a rhetorical tool. What I'm using it to get at is the idea that, at least as far as I can tell, destroying a small crossection of spacetime and destroying the whole spacetime represents the destruction of different sized "infinities".

I definitely understand that certain characters could extrapolate the destruction of a small crossection of spacetime to an entire timeline/universe/reality (whatever you want to call it) in a matter similar to integration. However, the question would then need to be asked if the character can do that within the confines of their other limitations (for instance, if I was given this ability, I would expire before I could perform the integration). Because this extra question exists, I don't think destroying a vanishing small crossection of spacetime will be an effective tiering goalpost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Cosmology Upgrade
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
William_Joee
William_Joee
Reiner04
  • Locked
Dragonball: 1-B Timeline
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Kaiou1991
  • Locked
Saint Seiya High 1-B Upgrade (Manga)
5 6 7
Replies
254
Views
10K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Animus-sama
spongebob low 2c upgrade
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Jason_Courne
Jason_Courne
BreezeHM
  • Locked
[Martial Peak] Outer Universe/3000 Worlds Revision Part 2
Replies
21
Views
2K
BreezeHM
BreezeHM
Back
Top