• 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.
Also, I apologise for losing my patience above. I do not think that the change that I argued against is at all constructive to apply though.
 
Ant is allowed to act like a human occasionally without people trying to demonize him. Christ sake. It's a three-page long debate, let's not pretend none of us have ever gotten irritated with such a thing.

Now, can I get a plot synopsis on what's being proposed? The OP states something, but I tend to find with long threads that the OP becomes inaccurate to the current proposal. If it is the same, miraculously, do feel free to just say so.
 
GilverTheProtoAngelo said:
Nah......lmao.

Not at all.

May wanna read my comment again....thats gross misrepresentation of my question.
Click to expand...
Your premise literally required the past present and future to be explicitly stated to be destroyed to work.

If I said your question but without mentioning time it wouldn't work.

For example:

"There is a Low2C universe with two 3A realms in it. Named X and Y respectively.
If I destroy X realm only, without affecting Y realm in way. Will that give me low2C rating??"

That would be 3-A.

This attempt at some gotcha question only disproves that the standard is low 2-C for universe destruction unless time is clarified.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Now, can I get a plot synopsis on what's being proposed? The OP states something, but I tend to find with long threads that the OP becomes inaccurate to the current proposal. If it is the same, miraculously, do feel free to just say so.
Click to expand...
Premise 1: Both Wikipedia and VS Battles (according to this page), among other sources, define the universe as "all of space and time along with their contents (matter and energy)."
Premise 2: Space and time are interwoven according to the theory of relativity, hence the very name "spacetime continuum."
Premise 3: Different universes are assumed to be different spacetime continua by default, unless context points to this not being the case.
Premise 4: Creating a universe is assumed to be Low 2-C by default, unless context points to a lower tier.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, destroying the universe should be Low 2-C by default, unless context points to a lower tier.
Conclusion 2: Because space and time form a continuum, realms which are spatially separated must also be temporally separated, and thus constitute a multiverse as we define it.
 
Conclusion one seems relatively sound. Conclusion two seems like a fairly massive reach and would need proof in my book. Not excessive proof, mind you- being called an alternate timeline, for example, is sufficient, however, it sounds like here you're saying they're just... not that? Semantics is important in this instance.

But yeah conclusion one sounds absolutely fine in my book.
 
@Mr._Bambu

Thank you for the support, but please read through all of my above responses regarding that making assumptions with no further information would be a very bad idea.
 
I would appreciate if you read DontTalk's response as well.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Conclusion one seems relatively sound. Conclusion two seems like a fairly massive reach and would need proof in my book. Not excessive proof, mind you- being called an alternate timeline, for example, is sufficient, however, it sounds like here you're saying they're just... not that? Semantics is important in this instance.

But yeah conclusion one sounds absolutely fine in my book.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, as long as that space is confirmed to be a different dimension.
 
I'm aware of it, Ant, I even gave it a like the first time I was called here.
 
Okay. As I mentioned, I find placing unproven assumptions as a rule to be a very dangerous standard to set, especially as we would have to assume two degrees of infinite power capable of wiping out entire timelines/universal histories from existence based on very vague statements for lots of verses in the wiki that would have to be automatically extremely exaggerated in this manner.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT

I would still appreciate your help here.
 
So ant.

Can you answer these questions.
1- Do we actually assume every universe is a 93 billion ly sized space time?
2- is destroying a space time a low 2-C feat?
3- why do we treat the destruction of a universe the same as destroying all matter, when both are totally different things?
4- why is the destruction of a universe [which is literally according to you guys, a space time], and I mean destroying the whole structure isn't low 2-C feat, when by default the destruction of a space time is a low 2-C feat.
 
1) No. I think that we just set the size of the observable universe as a minimum for 3-A explosions.

2) Only on a universal scale, in lack of better options.

3) Because fiction is usually imprecise and inconsistent, and we do not know if it refers to simply destroying the stars and planets within it, or the entire past and future histories as well.

4) See above.
 
1- I see. Then why does the description of the universe on this cite says : the universe is all of space and time, and their content such as matter, galaxies, nebulas, stars, planet, energy. Due to the unknown size of our universe , we use the size of our observable universe for universe based feats [ Which is 93 billion ly in diameter].
Implying that we treat every fictional universe as a 93 billion ly long Space-time.

Here if you don't believe me.
2- that's fine. But if it's on a universal scale then it should be low 2-C right?
3- No, no ,no. Everyone can know the difference between "Destroying the entire universe "= implying the destruction of the entire structure. "Destroying the matter inside of the universe/ destroying everything in the universe"= means destroying the content of whatever's inside of the universe [matter basically] without actually destroying the universe itself . . . Both doesn't mean the same thing. It doesn't require a doctorate in language to know what "inside " and "entire means". One means whatever's inside the structure, whole the other means the entire structure itself. Unless if you want to tell me that the writers are stupid enough to not know the difference between the two.
4- So the cite treats universes as space times, it treats the destruction of a space time on a universal scale as a low 2-C feat. "Entire" and "inside" means different things, and the should be treated differently unless the author specifies that they are different than the general meaning of them, saying that they are the same thing ir that authors think that they are the same thing is illogical, it's like saying "above " and "forward" are synonyms for each other and that they share the same meaning and that authors don't differentiate between the two of them. Yet, according to the cite, destroying the entire universe [Which literally in the description says that it's a Space time, unless you disagree ofcourse, then you should do your own ctr about ] isn't a low 2-C feat, when low 2-C means the destruction of a universe-sized space time, which is surprisingly how we treat every universe.
That would be like treating "I will destroy the entire planet completely!" As just destroying the surface. Which mind you, both means two different things.
 
1) We likely did not think that it would cause misunderstandings or people trying to use the wording for their own ends at the time, given that our tiering system clearly makes a distinction betwen 3-A and Low 2-C.

2) Yes.

3) Different authors genuinely mean and show different things. Big Bangs are recurrently shown as enormous explosions rather than space-time expansions for example. We need some more specific information than just "he can destroy the universe", whether that is a direct explanation, visualisation, or a developing story.

4) I am referring to cases when no specifications other than "he can destroy the universe" or "this might destroy the universe" exist, as the entire point of this wiki is to prove claims of statistics for different characters, not use guesswork. I am definitely not going to budge regarding this issue, and am disappointed that more staff members have not helped me to uphold our standards here.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
1) We likely did not think that it would cause misunderstandings or people trying to use the wording for their own ends at the time, given that our tiering system clearly makes a distinction betwen 3-A and Low 2-C.

2) Yes.

3) Different authors genuinely mean and show different things. Big Bangs are recurrently shown as enormous explosions rather than space-time expansions for example. We need some more specific information than just "he can destroy the universe", whether that is a direct explanation, visualisation, or a developing story.

4) I am referring to cases when no specifications other than "he can destroy the universe" or "this might destroy the universe" exist, as the entire point of this wiki is to prove the statistics for different characters, not use guesswork. I am definitely not going to budge regarding this issue, and am disappointed that other staff members have not helped me to uphold our standards here.
Click to expand...
1- yes ofcourse 3-A and low 2-C aren't the same thing, one deals with matter on a universal scale, and the other deals with space time on a universal scale. So according to the wiki, universea by default are 93 billion ly long space times, it literally states it in the four begining words of the description of a universe. Even our universe is a space time. So no, the cites treat universes as space times, unless you have a different opinion then you should make a ctr about it. The wording literally says "all of space and all of time" meaning a universe is a space time that's filled with matter and energy. So in conclusion, based on this cite, a universe is a low 2-C structure.
3- Yeah, and different authors can genuinely have the same description or vision in mind. But but "entire " means the whole thing, "inside " means the thing inside something, within it. This is basic language. And if you are going down the rout of " different authors have different meanings " then yes, also authors don't think aaboutfatser than light speed movement, does this mean all light speed and above feats aren't legit? No, that would be illogical. Some work of fictions don't consider the big bang is what created the universe, some authors aren't knowledgeable about above 4 dimensions and such, does this mean we should just say that their work and feats aren't legit? No.
4- "He can destroy the universe " means literally what it says, a person who is Capeable of destroying the entire universe , not some small part of it, not just natter or whatever is inside the universe , but the whole damn structure. Which is surprisingly low 2-C. So by your logic: Universe = Low 2-C [it's a space time according to the cite]= destroyimg the universe = 3-A [which just means the destruction of the matter within the universe and not the universe itself as a whole].
Yet the same cite that says: space time = low 2-C= destruction of space time = low 2-C feat.
So destroying a univer sized space time is a low 2-C feat....but you guys don't treat it as such.
It's either you make every universe Suu 3-A [which is illogical], or treat every universe as a low 2-C [which is logical]
so tell me, why destructionimg the whole universe aka the whole space time, isn't a low 2-C feat?
Statements such as "I will destroy the whole, entire, entirety, entirely of the universe " means destroying the whole structure , the whole universe , the whole space time.
Statement such as "I will destroy the matter within the universe/ everything inside the universe/ all thing in the universe." Means destroying the matter within the universe , but not necessary the while structure , you can destroy the matter and the universe would be relatively fine.
 
Antvasima said:
1) We likely did not think that it would cause misunderstandings or people trying to use the wording for their own ends at the time, given that our tiering system clearly makes a distinction betwen 3-A and Low 2-C.

2) Yes.

3) Different authors genuinely mean and show different things. Big Bangs are recurrently shown as enormous explosions rather than space-time expansions for example. We need some more specific information than just "he can destroy the universe", whether that is a direct explanation, visualisation, or a developing story.

4) I am referring to cases when no specifications other than "he can destroy the universe" or "this might destroy the universe" exist, as the entire point of this wiki is to prove claims of statistics for different characters, not use guesswork. I am definitely not going to budge regarding this issue, and am disappointed that more staff members have not helped me to uphold our standards here.
Click to expand...
@Mr._Bambu @DontTalkDT @AKM sama
 
Orange, you reply is too messy to respond to, but I hold fast in the fundamental wiki principle that we cannot use assumptions and need some form of reliable evidence. Sorry.
 
I actually see the points of both arguments rather well here.

While the proposal does make sense, the counter argument is that statements saying "I'm going to destroy the universe" or "Destroying the universe" and such are too vague to be low 2-C, yes?

What's being proposed is that statements that say such are supposed to be assumed as Low 2-C, correct?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I just arrived here and I'll try to help here to the best of my ability.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that is roughly correct. We need more specific information, both for this type of situation and feats in general.
 
Tell me if I understand this correctly:

Creation of a universe from scratch involves creating both space and time. Hence it is treated as Low 2-C. That's fair.

When somebody talks about destroying the universe, however, it can either mean the destruction of all matter in it leaving nothing, or destruction of both space and time. Both methods fulfill the purpose and would logically qualify as "destroying the universe".

Currently, we go with the lowball and consider it 3-A by default, unless we have explicit reason to treat it as Low 2-C. The OP is proposing that we should consider it Low 2-C by default, unless we have explicit reason to treat it as 3-A.
 
I see, that does make sense that assuming such a vague statement as being Low 2-C would be questionable.

I believe that changing the description of what 3-A is, is the best solution here.

Statements saying "I'm going to destroy the universe" or "Destroying the universe" are too vague and can be interpreted as multiple different things.

Such as it meaning that you'll only destroy all the matter in the universe. The statements are just too vague for it too warrant any real meaning and it can be interpreted as multiple thing as said before.

I believe saying such statements should be rated as Unknown since it could either mean the physical matter of the universe is being destroyed or the destruction of both space and time.

Which is why such statements should have supporting evidence rather than just that single statement.
 
Last edited:
AKM sama said:
Tell me if I understand this correctly:

Creation of a universe from scratch involves creating both space and time. Hence it is treated as Low 2-C. That's fair.

When somebody talks about destroying the universe, however, it can either mean the destruction of all matter in it leaving nothing, or destruction of both space and time. Both methods fulfill the purpose and would logically qualify as "destroying the universe".

Currently, we go with the lowball and consider it 3-A by default, unless we have explicit reason to treat it as Low 2-C. The OP is proposing that we should consider it Low 2-C by default, unless we have explicit reason to treat it as 3-A.
Click to expand...
I think so, yes, but given that this would assume a complete universal spacetime destruction that wipes out all past and present history of the universe and two degrees of infinite power, which would recurrently not make any sense for the settings and would likely require that lots of verses are revised accordingly, I much prefer if we require more evidence than just a casual statement for such a high rating.

This is no different from that statistics in general need sufficient evidence to apply.
 
Cosmic_King_of_SAO said:
I see, that does make sense that assuming such a vague statement as being Low 2-C would be questionable.

I believe that changing the description of what 3-A is the best solution here.

Statements saying "I'm going to destroy the universe" or "Destroying the universe" are too vague and can be interpreted as multiple different things.

Such as it meaning that you'll only destroy all the matter in the universe. The statements are just too vague for it too warrant any real meaning and it can be interpreted as multiple thing as said before.

I believe saying such statements should be rated as Unknown since it could either mean the physical matter of the universe is being destroyed or the destruction of both space and time.

Which is why such statements should have supporting evidence rather than just that single statement.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I also think that we need some sort of specification to determine whether a feat is 3-A, High 3-A, or Low 2-C.
 
The description of 3-A should preferably be changed since it causes confusion since the description itself is so vague.

Yes, I believe that 3-A should be destroying matter throughout the entire universe only. Please see Lord Aizen's video for his tiering system about his 3-A, High 3-A and Low 2-C since it's different from ours and makes more sense imo.

Edit: An example of only all the matter in the universe being destroyed instead of space and time would be Beerus and SSJG Goku since it's clear that they are only destroying matter and not space and time. Though I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
What is the video link?

Also, I thought that our 3-A description already said that.
 
Here's the link. Around the 7:35 mark.

The current description of 3-A in our tiering system is vague. Here:

Characters who can significantly affect, create and/ or destroy a universe at least the size of our own, but not infinitely bigger.

It does not state whether it is the destruction of matter or anything else which is why people are confused.

The ones who agree to the OPs proposal are correct. The destruction of the entire structure of the universe is a Low 2-C feat, yes. If that structure includes space and time that would be Low 2-C.

Again it's a feat. Do not and I repeat do not use statements saying "I'll destroy the universe" or "Destruction of the universe" without supporting evidence since they are too vague and you should preferably use a feat rather than a statement.
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
Yeah, sure. Would something like this be better instead?:

Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy an area of space at least comparable in size and mass to the observable universe, as well as any larger structure of finite size
Click to expand...
Would the mass part account for the matter of the universe?

Just want to make sure.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
Yeah, sure. Would something like this be better instead?:

Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy an area of space at least comparable in size and mass to the observable universe, as well as any larger structure of finite size
Click to expand...
The issue here seems to be that the old 3-A description clarified that this tier is reserved for only destroying the physical contents of a universe of less than infinite size, i.e. the stars and planets, rather than its entire space-time continuum. Would you be willing to better clarify that part again please?
 
Our Attack Potency page clarifies where 3-A starts, which is 6.752x10^82 J. That is based on a calculation and supposed to be the energy necessary to destroy all celestial bodies in the observable universe, except black holes.
With that in mind, one could put 3-A as: "Destruction of all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes, or equivalent feats of power. Destruction or creation of finite universes, which doesn't involve the destruction or creation of spacetime, falls into this tier as well."
 
DontTalkDT said:
Our Attack Potency page clarifies where 3-A starts, which is 6.752x10^82 J. That is based on a calculation and supposed to be the energy necessary to destroy all celestial bodies in the observable universe, except black holes.
With that in mind, one could put 3-A as: "Destruction of all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes, or equivalent feats of power. Destruction or creation of finite universes, which doesn't involve the destruction or creation of spacetime, falls into this tier as well."
Click to expand...
Thank you. That seems good to apply to me.
 
Cosmic_King_of_SAO said:
I believe it would be simpler to just use "all matter" instead or something along those lines. Especially considering that some characters will be able to destroy black holes.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think that converting all matter in the universe into energy is necessary, just to overcome the GBE of all celestial bodies.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I don't think that converting all matter in the universe into energy is necessary, just to overcome the GBE of all celestial bodies.
Click to expand...
I see, but there are other ways to destroy universes. Either way, I'll edit it a bit to make it clearer:

"Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes or equivalent feats of power. Creation and/or destruction of a finite universe, which do not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time, fall under this tier as well."

Also I believe we should run this through Ultima first if possible.
 
Cosmic_King_of_SAO said:
I see, but there are other ways to destroy universes. Either way, I'll edit it a bit to make it clearer:

"Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy all celestial bodies within the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion, with the possible exception of black holes or equivalent feats of power. Creation and/or destruction of a finite universe, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time, fall under this tier as well."

Also I believe we should run this through Ultima first if possible.
Click to expand...
I suppose that seems reasonable.

What do you think about this suggestion @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

UchihaLik
Question about 3-A and L2-C.
Replies
1
Views
459
Lloydblitzed
Lloydblitzed
Unqver
On the issue of time and space
Replies
5
Views
448
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
2K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
Animus-sama
spongebob low 2c upgrade
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
Jason_Courne
Jason_Courne
Back
Top