• 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.
Antvasima said:
Well, I much prefer to go with "proven Low 2-C" over "assumed to be Low 2-C unless proven otherwise". It is much safer.
Click to expand...
what Zamasu is saying is that we treat universes as Low 2-C. Which means destroying a universe is Low 2-C

Universe destruction = Low 2-C
Matter destruction on a universal scale = 3-A or High 3-A

What Zamasu is saying is that universal destruction should be Low 2-C unless it's proven the opposite, so a "destroying the entire universe" statement would be Low 2-C instead of 3-A, which makes sense tbh.
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
what Zamasu is saying is that we treat universes as Low 2-C. Which means destroying a universe is Low 2-C

Universe destruction = Low 2-C
Matter destruction on a universal scale = 3-A or High 3-A

What Zamasu is saying is that universal destruction should be Low 2-C unless it's proven the opposite, so a "destroying the entire universe" statement would be Low 2-C instead of 3-A, which makes sense tbh.
Click to expand...
Exactly, something that should've been like that in the first place.
 
It depends on context case by case. We cannot assume greater tiers without supporting evidence in this regard. Setting a firm rule with sweeping generalised consequences would be unwise.
 
Antvasima said:
It depends on context case by case. We cannot assume greater tiers without supporting evidence in this regard. Setting a firm rule with sweeping generalised consequences would be unwise.
Click to expand...
Ofc it's case by case. But

again the proposal is that destroying "the entire universe" should be assumed to be Low 2-C . And here's why from my POV

Let's assume you have a universe.this is a standard universe, aka a space time continuum, aka Low 2-C structure.

Let's assume that character X can destroy "everything in the universe". This means that this character can destroy the entire matter of the universe (galaxies, planets, starts etc). This would be 3-A or High 3-A

But, we have character Y that can destroy " The entire universe ". Right now, we would assume 3-A or High 3-A without further context.

But this is wrong, because we that the entirety of the universe is Low 2-C, not 3-A or High 3-A. Thus, our assumption would contradict the statement itself.

In cases like these, for the sake of accuracy we should treat these statements as Low 2-C without further context, because if we assume 3-A or High 3-A then contradictions start to appear. While Low 2-C would be consistent
 
A universe = a space time = Low 2-C structure
Destroying a universe [The entirety of it] should get you Low 2-C results since you are destroying a low 2-C structure

Unless destroying low 2-C structure is a 3-A or high 3-A feat.
 
We would need more specific statements than that, such as destroying the entire universal space-time continuum, destroying all of time and space in the universe, or somesuch. Otherwise we would loosen our standards to a very unreliable degree.

@AKM sama @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT

What do you think?
 
But a statement "destroying the entire universe " means destroying the space-time, a universe is a space-time, so how is destroying a space time doesn't translate to low 2-C
 
Last edited:
Orange said:
But a statement "destroying the entire universe " means destroying the space-time, a universe is a space-time, so how is destroying a space time doesn't translate to low 2-C
Click to expand...
Different fictions use different standards. We need some sort of specifics.
 
Antvasima said:
Different fictions use different standards. We need some sort of specifics.
Click to expand...
Such as?
Destroying the entire universe = destroying the entire structure = destroying the space time
A universe is a space time, that's our general assumption, by default we treat universes as space-times.
Sp why destroying the entire structure, which in turn meaning destroying the entire universe, in turn destroying the entire space-time, wouldn't yield low 2-C results.
Even by definition: Destroying a space time is a low 2-C feat since space times are low 2-C by default.
 
Again, just saying "destroying the universe" without further specifics is not remotely enough information for us to determine if all of universal spacetime was completely uncreated. This is not going to be accepted no matter how much you bother me about it, as it would set destructive standards for the wiki as a whole.
 
Antvasima said:
It depends on context case by case. We cannot assume greater tiers without supporting evidence in this regard. Setting a firm rule with sweeping generalised consequences would be unwise.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking it isn’t a greater tier. Our universe page says in the very first sentence: "The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, all forms of matter and energy." The matter just isn’t the universe. That goes back to my planet analogy. We might as well downplay planet level statements to high 6-A.
 
Antvasima said:
Again, just saying "destroying the universe" without further specifics is not remotely enough information for us to determine if all of universal spacetime was completely uncreated. This is not going to be accepted no matter how much you bother me about it, as it would set destructive standards for the wiki as a whole.
Click to expand...
So you are admiting that destroying a space time isn't a low 2-C feat?
Neat.
 
We are going in circles and I am far too busy with many different tasks to keep repeating myself forever.

Standards differ from fiction to fiction, and as such we need specifications, not assumptions. That's it. The end. Trying to fight a war of attrition until I throw up my hands in the air is only going to put me in an increasingly annoyed mood, not convince me.

I do not have the energy for any more of this, so this thread should be closed soon.
 
GilverTheProtoAngelo said:
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.
Click to expand...
You debunked his premise actually.

Your statement explicitly mentioned that only one universe had its past, present, and future destroyed.

You had to first, then it actually became 2-C.

So in a regular situation where the destruction of the universe is stated, one would assume 3-A, not 2-C.

No one would assume it was 2-C otherwise, good try tho.
 
SomebodyData said:
You debunked his premise actually.

Your statement explicitly mentioned that only one universe had its past, present, and future destroyed.

You had to first, then it actually became 2-C.

So in a regular situation where the destruction of the universe is stated, one would assume 3-A, not 2-C.

No one would assume it was 2-C otherwise, good try tho.
Click to expand...
Nah......lmao.

Not at all.

May wanna read my comment again....thats gross misrepresentation of my question.
 
SomebodyData said:
You debunked his premise actually.

Your statement explicitly mentioned that only one universe had its past, present, and future destroyed.

You had to first, then it actually became 2-C.

So in a regular situation where the destruction of the universe is stated, one would assume 3-A, not 2-C.

No one would assume it was 2-C otherwise, good try tho.
Click to expand...
He didn't say only one universe has a past, present, and a future.
 
It is really just about being completely exasperated with repeating myself in this pointless discussion at this point.

Most other staff members seem to consider this pointless to the point of just ignoring the thread outright. At least I tried to be of help, but you just keep pushing and pushing and pushing without ever being satisfied when I explain our standards.
 
Tbf Ant, how many verses use the logic that “destroying the entire universe” doesn’t equate to destroying a space-time? I can’t even think of one example where that’s necessarily the case. I mean using your logic you could make the argument that someone stating “I’ll blow up the solar system” actually means that they’ll do it over time by busting planet per planet, all in the name of “not supporting greater tiers without supporting evidence”. Basically you’d need to change the definition of universe on the site to not include space-time or you’d have to use destroying space-time as the default assumption since that’s the logical conclusion of following the established definition. Until you do either of these things, the site will remain inconsistent and thus logically it will keep being brought up by people who are trying to fix the inconsistency.
 
No, I am saying that as far as I understand you want us to use assumptions about as great a scale as possible, even when the statements are very vague, even though different fictional environments treat the nature of universes and what "destroying" them means very differently. That is completely unacceptable. It might benefit a specific verse that you want as high ratings as possible for, but it is a very bad precedent for the wiki as a whole, and that is what I have to take into account.

Given that I have many other tasks that are constantly straining at my attention, I also cannot keep this up for much longer.
 
Okay. This is your final chance.

What other points do you want us to evaluate other than "assume Low 2-C in all cases other than the ones that were explicitly proven to be 3-A"? Because that is going to be rejected no matter how much you pester me about it.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. This is your final chance.

What other points do you want us to evaluate other than "assume Low 2-C in all cases other than the ones that were explicitly proven to be 3-A"? Because that is going to be rejected no matter how much you pester me about it.
Click to expand...
I didn't expect such childish behavior from you Ant.

You've lost my respect. Sorry
 
I am extremely tired, and do not have endless stamina. I get stressed out by situations when people keep relentlessly pushing me to repeat myself over and over without ever taking a no for an answer.

Also, sure, I organised the growth of this community almost from scratch through relentless hard work for 7 years, but as soon as I lose my patience once in a while, it is the end of the world.

Remember, I am far from perfect, and it is unreasonable to expect me to be. I have mental disabilities, am an impulsive social idiot with limited mental filters, and am somewhat mentally unstable, but I managed to organise the growth of this community despite all of those handicaps through sheer effort.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Okay. This is your final chance.

What other points do you want us to evaluate other than "assume Low 2-C in all cases other than the ones that were explicitly proven to be 3-A"? Because that is going to be rejected no matter how much you pester me about it.
Click to expand...
I wanted to also discuss alternate dimensions. Dimensions separated by space should be low 2-C since the "space" part of spacetime is what separates 2-C universes.
 
Okay. I suppose that this thread can remain open to discuss that issue then. I just don't want us to place "Automatically use highballed assumptions, rather than evidence" in our rules.
 
...

Are you happy now that you made me feel bad Ant? Because of your illness or whatever that is?

I'm unsubscribing from this thread, since I'm just an asshole ok? I'll return later. Maybe


I've been bullied for all my life and I don't need to be bullied more. People always try to make me feel bad for whatever I do, nobody likes what I do and i'm sick of this. Thanks
 
Last edited:
How have I bullied you? I am just really tired, and get stressed out by these types of situations when the rest of the staff largely refuse to help out, and I have to strain myself for prolonged periods of time.
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I suppose that this thread can remain open to discuss that issue then. I just don't want us to place "Automatically use highballed assumptions, rather than evidence" in our rules.
Click to expand...
It's not highball , a highball would be like "I will destroy the entire universe " = and we highball it to destroying all universe, with its concepts, and even all dimensions.
But no, technically this is how it should he treated
We assume every universe is 93 billion ly Space time.
Destroying the entirety of the universe doesn't mean destroying just the matter, since you aren't even destroying the universe, you can destroy all matter and the "universe " would be fine.
Destroying the space time means destroying The universe, the universe will be destroyed . Since you know THE UNIVERSE is a space time .
There is a clear difference between "I will destroy the entire universe " and "I will destroy the matter within the universe ".
This cite treats "destroying the entire universe " like "Destroying the matter within the universe ".
And I don't need to explain how to are not similar at all.
The former deals with the entire structure as whole, whole the latter only deals with the matter siad inside the structure.
So please tell me, why destroying the universe , which is a space time according to our cite, is only 3-A, when 3-A means only destroying the matter within the universe and not the universe itself.
 
Ottavio_Merluzzo said:
...

Are you happy now that you made me feel bad Ant? Because of your illness or whatever that is?

I'm unsubscribing from this thread, since I'm just an asshole ok? I'll return later. Maybe


I've been bullied for all my life and I don't need to be bullied more. People always try to make me feel bad for whatever I do, nobody likes what I do and i'm sick of this. Thanks
Click to expand...
Otto, you’re ranting. If you are in a stressed mental state then I suggest a break of some kind.
 
@Antvasima Actually on the topic of staff members not helping out. Maybe you should get a new consultant for this kind of stuff (considering you’re currently 1 consultant short last I checked), that way you don’t have to deal that much with these types of issues while still having a staff on stand-by who’s job it is to literally participate in these kinds of threads.
 
I am not sure who would be suitable for that sort of position, and we do not have a set number of them, but it is off-topic in any case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

UchihaLik
Question about 3-A and L2-C.
Replies
1
Views
462
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Unqver
On the issue of time and space
Replies
5
Views
450
Unqver
Unqver
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Cosmology Upgrade
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
William_Joee
William_Joee
REX9097
Ben 10 Cosmology simple Upgrade
2 3
Replies
82
Views
3K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
Animus-sama
spongebob low 2c upgrade
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Jason_Courne
Jason_Courne
Back
Top