- 3,227
- 3,556
Tbf i feel like this is a false equivalence, since a bunker on our planet and the planet itself share the same "space", the same " Dimension "
-
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
- Thread starter Zamasu_Chan
- Start date
- Status
- 3,708
- 1,759
Then ig we treat every universe as just a low 2-C structure, aka a space time, then why destroying said structure [unless it's done by hax or something, generally like a big explosion or shockwaves or your average "I'll destroy the entire universe because my gf blocked me"] is a 3-A feat, the general assumption should be low 2-C since you are inherently destroying the entire structure and not just the matter within it [for example , if we take "I will destroy the entire universe " should be low 2-C since the universe, the structure itself which is low 2-C would be described, now 2-C feat. But if we have statements like "I will destroy the entire matter in the universe " or "I will wreak havoc and destroy everything in the universe " would just wield 3-A or high 3-A depending on the size since you are technically just destroying what's in the universe and not the entire universe]
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #163
An underground bunker is matter in a different area of space. That analogy ain’t too solid.
- 7,095
- 3,855
Agree with this CRT
- 1,280
- 1,123
If I'm correct, the idea that creating a universe is Low 2-C comes from such feats usually involving a creator deity emerging from a primordial void and then creating the entire cosmos from nothing, with said event often being marked as the beginning of time. We also treat different universes as being spatio-temporally independent from other universes as a default assumption, especially since fiction will often make reference to "alternate timelines" or "parallel universes" when dealing with the concept of a multiverse. Finally, as acknowledged by staff here, universes include space and time by definition, and only in extremely niche verses will time be explicitly separated from space.
Given all of that, I can understand that there is a basis to this proprosition. I just don't really swing in either direction regarding this matter - if only because I don't know that it's necessarily accurate to fiction. That said, if the proposal is approved, we should still carefully analyze the context behind such feats: if there's obvious evidence that only the matter of the universe is being affected (e.g., MCU Thanos stating that he will shred the universe on the atomic level), then that disqualifies Low 2-C. If characters can go back in time to prevent the destruction of the universe, then that is also hard evidence against Low 2-C.
I'm also undecided on how to treat pocket dimensions and realms that are stated to be spatially divided from the main universe. I guess I'll get back to you on that, if I ever come up with a response, that is.
Given all of that, I can understand that there is a basis to this proprosition. I just don't really swing in either direction regarding this matter - if only because I don't know that it's necessarily accurate to fiction. That said, if the proposal is approved, we should still carefully analyze the context behind such feats: if there's obvious evidence that only the matter of the universe is being affected (e.g., MCU Thanos stating that he will shred the universe on the atomic level), then that disqualifies Low 2-C. If characters can go back in time to prevent the destruction of the universe, then that is also hard evidence against Low 2-C.
I'm also undecided on how to treat pocket dimensions and realms that are stated to be spatially divided from the main universe. I guess I'll get back to you on that, if I ever come up with a response, that is.
- 3,708
- 1,759
I agree with what you have just said.
Well I personally think that the general assumption of destroying an entire universe [the whole structure]should be low 2-C by default unless there is some contradictions, like saying "I will destroy/erase/eradicate all things withimg the universe/matter in universe/everythimg in the universe " these statement should get us 3-A since they are only dealing with what's inside the universe , aka matter, galaxies etc...
But statement such as "I will destroy the entire/whole/everything even the universe itself " type of statement should get us low 2-C since they are dealing with the whole structure [which Is a space time] and not just the matter within
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #167
I don’t really have anything to say here.
We’ll treat them like we always have. Though I do understand your concern. Ultima had an interesting take on this subject from what I heard.
- 167,684
- 76,264
This is correct, yes.
- 32
- 5
Probably the stupidest thing I've ever read which just so happens to be a logical fallacy
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #170
Chill out dude I already addressed his point.
- 6,130
- 4,213
@Antvasima @SomebodyData @DarkDragonMedeus
As it stands with our current rules I want to ask a question.
Say for example there is a Low2C universe with two 3A realms in it. Named X and Y respectively.
If I destroy X realm only, but accross past, present and future, without affecting Y realm in way. Will that give me low2C rating??
As it stands with our current rules I want to ask a question.
Say for example there is a Low2C universe with two 3A realms in it. Named X and Y respectively.
If I destroy X realm only, but accross past, present and future, without affecting Y realm in way. Will that give me low2C rating??
- 14,195
- 2,574
I mean you can replace bunker with pocket reality or dimensionally sealed area if you'd like.
The analogy was supposed to point out that space doesn't determine where the timeline caps out at.
- 14,195
- 2,574
Didn't you once argue for infinite speed DBS?
EDIT: Probably not you, but you'll probably find worse comments if you look through my comment history lol.
- 8,857
- 5,697
Current VSBW standards don't count that as low 2-C because that realm needs to be a separate space time, at least that's as far as I know.
- 6,130
- 4,213
I am talking about feat, not realm.
Can you answer me pls.
- 14,195
- 2,574
That's either a very specific hax or that Low 2-C universe is actually 2-C.
- 6,130
- 4,213
But isn't destroying Aleph 1 amount of 3A snapshots Low2C.......which is basically what happens with destruction accross past, present and future?? Uncountable Infinite and all that jazz.....
I know destroying planet/5B sized space accross past, present and future isn't low2C.
But I see no logic in denying this with 3A.
- 14,195
- 2,574
Again, it just sounds like this universe is actually 2-C.
- 6,130
- 4,213
I don't see how....
Last edited:
- 8,857
- 5,697
Yes the feat would also not be low 2-C becuase the structure destroyed is not low 2-C and that is because it's not a separate space time since it's contained within a bigger space time. I think.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,146
- 14,410
Actually no, destroy something of universal scale across past, present and future theoretically still infinitely superior than just 1 universal scale thing as you still destroy uncountable infinite number of universal scale thing. Universal scale Space-time continuum is just default thing for Low 2-C.
- 8,857
- 5,697
okay maybe that's true. Since you're still destroying the minimum space required for low 2-C.
- 6,130
- 4,213
I honestly want to know how......how is this 2C??
- 167,684
- 76,264
This is my impression as well.
- 167,684
- 76,264
If a certain realm contains several Low 2-C universes it seems to be 2-C, but we are derailing from the original purpose of this thread.
- 6,130
- 4,213
This is important though...
This just proves @Zamasu_Chan points and premise, the OP of the thread.
Universes always have a time flow , past present and future. Even if the realms share time stream with other universes.
So Naturally different bodies of space are automatically low2C. And collectively they are 2C.
- 167,684
- 76,264
I am not a very good person to ask though.
@Ultima_Reality
Would you be willing to help out here please?
@Ultima_Reality
Would you be willing to help out here please?
- 6,130
- 4,213
And this is just using our current standards and logic.
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #193
This depends. If the realms are bodies of matter then it's low 2-C. If they are entirely separate spaces within a bigger space then it's 2-C, since the different space would account for time as well.
- 6,130
- 4,213
Separate spaces...
Exactly your premise.....which Somebody and Ant kinda sorta agrees with it seems.....
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #195
From the looks of it, yes.Separate spaces...
Exactly your premise.....which Somebody and Ant kinda sorta agrees with it seems.....
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #197
Since we treat all universes as low 2-C, I think treating their destruction as low 2-C until proven otherwise, since 3-A technically isn’t universal but multi galaxy on steroids.
I also want people to understand that different dimensions of space would have their own time as lon as there's movement.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Okay. Thanks for the summary.
We have to use the available evidence regarding whether only the physical matter of the universe was destroyed or the entire spacetime continuum though. We cannot automatically assume a massively higher rating than what we have evidence for.
We have to use the available evidence regarding whether only the physical matter of the universe was destroyed or the entire spacetime continuum though. We cannot automatically assume a massively higher rating than what we have evidence for.
- 8,845
- 9,506
- Thread starter
- #199
This is where the “proven otherwise” thing comes into play.
- Status
