• 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.
Okay. He is almost always extremely reliable and in-depth analytical, so I strongly trust his sense of judgement.
 
I have a hard time keeping track of old arguments, given how many threads that I constantly juggle, so I do not remember anymore. Sorry.
 
Till now he didn't provide any reasoning for his disagreement so why should we trust his judgment that's not even supported by compelling arguments. Seems like you are just blindly trusting his judgement, and the fact you didn't even bother to check if he gave any arguments makes you and his judgement less and less trustworthy, ofcourse I could just forgot that he gave any meaningful argument and it could be my fault.
 
Orange is completely right. Why should the opinion of someone who not only has failed to give an argument, but has also not even publicly voiced their opinion matter? We don't treat the person or anyone like some omniscient paragon of knowledge so why the **** should we care?
 
Last edited:
finally this gets addressed, destroying a universe needs to get cleaned up, destroying a macroverse with several dimensions that are universe sized should automatically be at least low 2C depending on how many different dimensions that exist
 
Technically we treat universes in fiction as space times, yet destroying the entire structure gives us somehow 3-A? But isn't destroying a space time a low 2-C feat, thus destroying the entire universe, aka the entire structure, aka the space time would give us low 2-C?
Or it could be I am just dumb
 
Orange said:
Technically we treat universes in fiction as space times, yet destroying the entire structure gives us somehow 3-A? But isn't destroying a space time a low 2-C feat, thus destroying the entire universe, aka the entire structure, aka the space time would give us low 2-C?
Or it could be I am just dumb
Click to expand...
3-A is destroying all matter in the known universe. Basically, destroying the space, but not the time. Low 2-C is destroying both space and time
 
Emirp sumitpo said:
3-A is destroying all matter in the known universe. Basically, destroying the space, but not the time. Low 2-C is destroying both space and time
Click to expand...
And the universe is basically just: space time + matter.
Destroying the entire structure which is a space time should grant low 2-C, unless universes aren't treated as space times
 
For the record, DontTalk did give his view on this earlier, and I read and agreed with it back then. I just have a hard time memorising old arguments, given everything I have to keep track of in my work here.

Anyway, I would appreciate your continued help here @DontTalkDT .
 
Bump but I really don’t appreciate how this thread is being treated. It seems none of our staff members who are familiar with this kind of stuff can be bothered to make any counterpoints. Instead they hope this thread dies out, and if someone brings this topic up again you’ll have people meming the whole “nah this was rejected in the past” spam.
 
Don't worry fam, we'll keep bumping it up.
And it's a bit sus that no staff wants to debunk stuff, it's either they don't have further arguments and hoping people will forgot about it, or they genuinely agree with the premise of the thread-
Lmao that ain't happening
 
Zamasu_Chan said:
Bump but I really don’t appreciate how this thread is being treated. It seems none of our staff members who are familiar with this kind of stuff can be bothered to make any counterpoints. Instead they hope this thread dies out, and if someone brings this topic up again you’ll have people meming the whole “nah this was rejected in the past” spam.
Click to expand...
It's because staff are afraid of anything that requires them to change some of the bullshit on their tiering system.
 
they won't do anything because doing that upgrades BOG goku to low 2C at least and you know how much they hate scaling dragon ball properly lol
 
Well, it seems like our staff is not interested in this topic anymore, and I cannot force them to reply.
 
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.
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.
Click to expand...
Here is DontTalk's initial evaluation of this thread.
 
He is very busy IRL and generally tries to focus on the most important wiki policy discussions and revisions.
 
Yeah, I mostly agree with things DontTalk said, but I also already gave my two cents on when to distinguish 3-A feats from Low 2-C feats. There are some cases were body of space should logically mean different space time such as the usage of the word multiverse, or "Alternate Realities" and stuff like that. But afterlifes and "Pocket Dimensions" are logically not assumed to be different timelines unless there are statements about different flows of time combined with universal sizes. Though I also mentioned nonlinear time doesn't equate to being a different timeline altogether.

And as for Universe busting/creation feats being assumed 3-A vs Low 2-C. I already mentioned that generic statements should typically yield to low end such as assuming over time as opposed to instantly or a generic universe busting via explosion should logically assume 3-A as opposed to Low 2-C. But the dimensional collapse of "The Universe" or "Giving birth the the Universe from the Chaos of Creation" are logically assumed Low 2-C given they fall under common description with former being related to space time and the latter basically being the common premise used in mythology classes and the like. "Destroy all existence" statements are often vague, but can mean entire cosmology if elaborate context is given and ties into to other feats and statements.
 
I dunno, I've made comments already and other staff have made points too. We seem to be ignored so that the op and his supporters can garner up some victim complex. I don't think most people even knew this had to do with dragon ball until they brought up with some of their recent comments.

To reilerate my points, it seems the op and his supporters are accidently or purposely oversimplifying how destruction works. If all we see is the destruction of all the matter in the universe, then ergo 3-A. If space time is also destroyed ergo low 2-C. Its not that hard. If its not specified obviously we go with the lowball, we've always gone with the lowball.

And, since my response to the creation comparison was probably ignored too, I'll sum it up briefly as well: Universal Creation inherently needs space time for there to be movement- destruction does not, hence why creation is regularly low 2-C.
 
SomebodyData said:
I dunno, I've made comments already and other staff have made points too. We seem to be ignored so that the op and his supporters can garner up some victim complex. I don't think most people even knew this had to do with dragon ball until they brought up with some of their recent comments.
Click to expand...
Never intended for it to appear as a victim complex, but it ain’t your fault for interpreting it that way.
SomebodyData said:
To reilerate my points, it seems the op and his supporters are accidently or purposely oversimplifying how destruction works. If all we see is the destruction of all the matter in the universe, then ergo 3-A. If space time is also destroyed ergo low 2-C. Its not that hard. If its not specified obviously we go with the lowball, we've always gone with the lowball.
Click to expand...
This is just you telling me what I already know. You didn’t saw what’s wrong with my premise, just point out the obvious.
SomebodyData said:
And, since my response to the creation comparison was probably ignored too, I'll sum it up briefly as well: Universal Creation inherently needs space time for there to be movement- destruction does not, hence why creation is regularly low 2-C.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I feel as if it’s still rather bias in favor of low 2-C.

Not the mention the other things regarding time and space that I brought up.
 
Sorry, I was more looking towards the other supporters rather than you when I wrote that.

Zamasu_Chan said:
This is just you telling me what I already know. You didn’t saw what’s wrong with my premise, just point out the obvious.
Click to expand...

Well that's the issue, there is a difference in how universe destruction can be seen. Like going back to the solar system comparison in your original post, in that scenario we know solar system includes the star, the planets, etc; since authors don't have any multiple definitions to base what they write off. With the universe, it can be both or only matter; because of that, there has to be evidence for one showing or the other. Also, your planetary example works against the premise- as we do at times treat destroying the world as High 6-A since oftentimes they just mean life-wiping.

Zamasu_Chan said:
I agree, but I feel as if it’s still rather biased in favor of low 2-C.
Not the mention the other things regarding time and space that I brought up.
Click to expand...

Understandable, but generally speaking it's kind of a requirement we can't ignore- even if the authors do.

Are you talking about how separate spaces shouldn't share the same time with the last sentence, or another point?
 
Last edited:
SomebodyData said:
Well that's the issue, there is a difference in how universe destruction can be seen. Like going back to the solar system comparison in your original post, in that scenario we know solar system includes the star, the planets, etc; since authors don't have any multiple definitions to base what they write off. With the universe, it can be both or only matter; because of that, there has to be evidence for one showing or the other. Also, your planetary example works against the premise- as we do at times treat destroying the world as High 6-A since oftentimes they just mean life-wiping.
Click to expand...
That's why I suggested a case by case. If a universe in a verse is stated to have a spacetime, then it should be loq 2-C. Plain and simple.
 
All universes automatically contain space and time per definition. I hope that you only refer to cases wherein the entire universal space-time continuums have been destroyed, not every explosion that simply destroys the stars and planets.
 
Antvasima said:
All universes automatically contain space and time per definition. I hope that you only refer to cases wherein the entire universal space-time continuums have been destroyed, not every explosion that simply destroys the stars and planets.
Click to expand...
Per definition eh? If that’s the case then what’s wrong with my premise?
 
I do not remember the premise of your first post very well anymore.
 
So by what ant said.
Our general assumption of any universe in fiction that it's a 93 Billion ly long space time that's filled with matter. A universe in fictions = a space time [unless stated otherwise]
We know destroying a space time is a low 2-C feat, thus destroying an entire universe in fiction by default should be low 2-C, since you are destroying the entire structure aka a space time, but we currently treat statements or feat for destroying a universe as 3-A which translates to just destroying the matter.
[Correct me if I'm wrong]
 
Well all universes are inherently low 2-C by necessity. A verse can't treat a universe as only 3-A unless everyone involved has infinite/immeasurable speed or something crazy like that.

I think the confusion here is that you're looking at the nature of the universe (Which isn't case by case, it will always be low 2-C) and not the nature of the destruction of the universe (Which varies from 3-A, High 3-A, and low 2-C).
 
SomebodyData said:
Well all universes are inherently low 2-C by necessity. A verse can't treat a universe as only 3-A unless everyone involved has infinite/immeasurable speed or something crazy like that.

I think the confusion here is that you're looking at the nature of the universe (Which isn't case by case, it will always be low 2-C) and not the nature of the destruction of the universe (Which varies from 3-A, High 3-A, and low 2-C).
Click to expand...
I see. But I think things like “if it’s an explosion then it’s 3-A” is an ignorant interpretation. What if said explosion affects other universes? Would that still be 3-A? This leads into my next problem, which hasn’t been properly addressed yet.

How can separate dimensions be 3-A? As mentioned in the OP, anything with a different space has its own movement AKA time. They don’t share movement with any other dimension because the entirety of space is cut off. Since a different space has different movement, then it’s clear that it’s a different time. Therefore it’s a space time.
 
If said explosion destroys other universes it's obviously 2-C. If it's only affecting them then it's unquantifiable.

Just because space is cut off doesn't mean time is too. Is an underground bunker on a different timeline than the rest of the planet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

SpookyGunShip
Ratchet & Clank CRT
Replies
3
Views
371
Dalesean027
Dalesean027
ByArrow
  • Locked
Arrowverse CRT: The Multiverse and The Universe Upgrade
Replies
25
Views
2K
Elizhaa
Elizhaa
GarrixianXD
  • Locked
Type 1 Concept for space and dimensions in Honkai
Replies
34
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
REX9097
  • Locked
Ninjago: Tier 1
2 3 4
Replies
130
Views
7K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
SweetDao
Cultivator against superheroes to a whole other level! (CAHS upgrade thread)
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Floxiaaa
Floxiaaa
Back
Top