Universe level CRT

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I disagree.

We have to remember that there is a distinct difference between time as human concept and time as physics concept. The idea of time as a timeline from beginning to end, a chronological dimension holding everything that happens, is very much a human concept. This is not the same for physics or is treated as such.

In physics time and space is fused into one matrix because of relativity and that two objects in space will have different windows and passage of time.

 

[Tago238]

How in god’s earth is that a refutation against anything Zamasu said except the “PPF” buzzword?

What even is this thread man.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It refutes by saying this statement is wrong:

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.

The local spacetime is not a snapshot from the universe's timeline.

 

[Tago238]

Nah, it’s uncountably infinitely many of those snapshots of a 3 dimensional universe which construct the space-time continuum; maybe that’s not a contradiction to what you said, who knows. Frankly, I’ve got no clue what you’re saying here; I don’t even see how it’s sequential with your first comment (which don’t get me wrong, is still genuinely incomprehensible for multiple reasons in a vacuum).

Please just phrase your argument differently, I feel I’m having an aneurysm rn.

 

[Overlord775]

The requirements are there. It’s in the OP you’re just not seeing it for some reason.

I only see circular logic

"If it's Low 2-C it's low 2-C"

Stop twisting my words. All I said was destroying any amount of universal spacetime is low 2-C. Never did I say anything about how much time passes for universal destruction.

no duration = no uncountable snapshots = only 3-A

No it’s not the same. Space measures size while time duration has the snapshots.

it seems it's you that aren't getting the point

just because something is named something it DOESN'T mean it classifies as such in the rating system automatically

naming fallacy much.

I’m convinced you have no idea what you’re actually saying. I’m not gonna waste my time repeating things with you not getting the message.

okay so you are now pulling the ignoring the opposition card, very clever of you

What the **** are you talking about? RQM theories can’t compensate for continuous cross sections but they can foreseeably compensate for discreet measurements smaller than the Planck length.

wait, but plank lenght is the small-re-checks-oh, ****** people spreading misinformation heck

Also “general relativity doesn’t deal with stuff that small”, what exactly do you mean there? Don’t wanna strawman you and definitely don’t want to steelman you after all but this argument is genuinely baffling me.

General Relativity = Macro

Quatum Relativity = Micro

Would you not consider general relativity “high level physics” then? Cause it’s pretty staple and abides by the incorrect description you gave for quantum loop gravity.

General releativity is more factual than theory. also the stuff it deals with is more mid range

also, i am not the guy that brought up quantum loops tho









Anyway, gotta love how Ant jumps at random verses threads but doesn't show up when people make a thread to revise the tiering system itself

 

[Tago238]

wait, but plank lenght is the small-re-checks-oh, ****** people spreading misinformation heck



General Relativity = Macro

Quatum Relativity = Micro



General releativity is more factual than theory. also the stuff it deals with is more mid range

also, i am not the guy that brought up quantum loops tho









Anyway, gotta love how Ant jumps at random verses threads but doesn't show up when people make a thread to revise the tiering system itself

You would know this contrarian shit if you paid attention to my discord rants smh.

But seriously, is your perspective here that unification theories like LQG are developments from the solid foundations of general relativity instead of opposing theories? Cause that’s what it sounds like going through this comment and the ones before it again.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Nah, it’s uncountably infinitely many of those snapshots of a 3 dimensional universe which construct the space-time continuum; maybe that’s not a contradiction to what you said, who knows. Frankly, I’ve got no clue what you’re saying here; I don’t even see how it’s sequential with your first comment (which don’t get me wrong, is still genuinely incomprehensible for multiple reasons in a vacuum).

Please just phrase your argument differently, I feel I’m having an aneurysm rn.

You're conflating the human concept of time with spacetime. Spacetime is not snapshots of the a 3dimension universe. Destroying spacetime is not destroying uncountably infinite snapshots of the universe. That is a made up concept on your own part.

 

[Axxtentacle]

"You are lying about how this works and people are agreeing with it" - the above post, for a quick summary.

 

[Tago238]

"You are lying about how this works and people are agreeing with it" - the above post, for a quick summary.

The justification for this apparently being “because in real physics space and time form the same matrix, plus wormholes and intervals (???) exist”, according to their first comment. I don’t think I have to explain problem with that and why at this point I am at a complete loss at how to engage further.

 

[KatBoi69]

You're conflating the human concept of time with spacetime. Spacetime is not snapshots of the a 3dimension universe. Destroying spacetime is not destroying uncountably infinite snapshots of the universe. That is a made up concept on your own part.

We could play a very fun game with universe physics, and try to figure out the actual physics the verse functions on, if you want to go down this rabbithole.

I will add that, in the scientific community, yeah, the idea that space and time are properties of matter's existence is widely, if not universally, accepted so a spacetime destruction feat in that sense would involve destroying all matter in a dimensionally/universally bounded area, thus causing space and time to vanish.

The issue with this is that I'm pretty sure very few verses are actually written with this physics in mind and explicitly have "videotape" time, where you can pause, rewind, and fast forward with the right tech or powers.

Strict relativity also completely eliminates the concept of a "snapshot" if I'm thinking about this correctly.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Bump.

 

[Greenshifter]

I agree with the OP, seems very straightforward.

 

[Stefano4444]

Agree too.

 

[sanicspood]

i agree with the op

 

[KingPin0422]

I'm not really decided on what I think about this proposition, but if I may say one thing, I feel like this revision, if passed, can only go one of two ways:

1. Considering the push to have spatially separate areas always be treated as separate space-time continua, pretty much any vague "another space" statement can be high-balled to tier 2, which would lead to a ton of feats needing to be reevaluated and upgraded to a tier they probably don't deserve - in other words, a lot of work for no tangible benefit.
2. The clause of "the universe" needing to be specified as referring to space-time for feats of creating/destroying it to default to Low 2-C very well could end with little to nothing coming out of this, since this detail is rarely included within fiction - I'd wager that cases where "the universe" explicitly means "the space-time continuum" are a very small minority, small enough that this revision wouldn't actually manage to accomplish anything.

Either way, even if we pledge to be as critical as possible, there will only be more of an effort on certain people's part to push for more tier 2 ratings solely because it makes their favorite verse be seen as stronger, and if enough of them slip through the cracks, someone will cry foul and we'll end up doing this song-and-dance all over again.

I'm not necessarily arguing against this CRT (although I have been hearing counterpoints from some people on Discord who don't want to come here and voice them for some reason), I just want everyone to keep this in mind and be careful.

 

[KatBoi69]

I'm not really decided on what I think about this proposition, but if I may say one thing, I feel like this revision, if passed, can only go one of two ways:

1. Considering the push to have spatially separate areas always be treated as separate space-time continua, pretty much any vague "another space" statement can be high-balled to tier 2, which would lead to a ton of feats needing to be reevaluated and upgraded to a tier they probably don't deserve - in other words, a lot of work for no tangible benefit.
2. The clause of "the universe" needing to be specified as referring to space-time for feats of creating/destroying it to default to Low 2-C very well could end with little to nothing coming out of this, since this detail is rarely included within fiction - I'd wager that cases where "the universe" explicitly means "the space-time continuum" are a very small minority, small enough that this revision wouldn't actually manage to accomplish anything.

Either way, even if we pledge to be as critical as possible, there will only be more of an effort on certain people's part to push for more tier 2 ratings solely because it makes their favorite verse be seen as stronger, and if enough of them slip through the cracks, someone will cry foul and we'll end up doing this song-and-dance all over again.

I'm not necessarily arguing against this CRT (although I have been hearing counterpoints from some people on Discord who don't want to come here and voice them for some reason), I just want everyone to keep this in mind and be careful.

I think this is the most pragmatic argument on the thread. This revision would be a whole lot of work for little to no good outcome, and might need to be reversed later anyway.

 

[Antvasima]

I have had similar concerns as the ones described in the first post at times, but have a massive amount of trust in DontTalk's knowledge and analytical abilities, and think that his evaluation seems to make sense above.

@AKM sama @Promestein @SomebodyData @The_real_cal_howard @Dragonmasterxyz @Celestial_Pegasus @Soldier_Blue @Saikou_The_Lewd_King @Andytrenom @DarkDragonMedeus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions

What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, gotta love how Ant jumps at random verses threads but doesn't show up when people make a thread to revise the tiering system itself.

I do not have the time to check for new threads to respond to every day, but always appreciate when people inform me about genuinely important discussions that need my attention.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with points 2, 3, and 4. But I do not fully agree with points 1 and 2 unless given further context. I do not think having different bodies of space combined with universe comparable if not larger than the Observable Universe is enough for it to be a space-time continuum. Well for one, I would especially consider Afterlifes part of the same timeline even if different bodies of space unless said otherwise. Alternate realities and alternate dimensions that have universe statements or "Parallel Universes" I would consider them different timelines by default unless spoken otherwise. As well as things thought of as Mirror Dimensions/worlds. For example, I think stuff like Universe 1 and Universe 2 examples are different timelines, but I do not think having a Heaven and Hell larger than the physical universe equates to Universe containing all three of those to be 2-C.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

1. Considering the push to have spatially separate areas always be treated as separate space-time continua, pretty much any vague "another space" statement can be high-balled to tier 2, which would lead to a ton of feats needing to be reevaluated and upgraded to a tier they probably don't deserve - in other words, a lot of work for no tangible benefit.

It depends on context tbh. But I don’t see why not. A different space would have its own measurement of movement AKA time. If it’s a different space and time is moving, then bingo! You got yourself a different spacetime.

1. The clause of "the universe" needing to be specified as referring to space-time for feats of creating/destroying it to default to Low 2-C very well could end with little to nothing coming out of this, since this detail is rarely included within fiction - I'd wager that cases where "the universe" explicitly means "the space-time continuum" are a very small minority, small enough that this revision wouldn't actually manage to accomplish anything.

I didn’t actually say that. I said verses that treat their universes as low 2-C should have universe destruction feats at low 2-C. As long as it’s the entire universe. But if universe, in context, means 3-A, then 3-A for something like, “I’ll destroy this entire universe!!”

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I agree with points 2, 3, and 4. But I do not fully agree with points 1 and 2 unless given further context. I do not think having different bodies of space combined with universe comparable if not larger than the Observable Universe is enough for it to be a space-time continuum. Well for one, I would especially consider Afterlifes part of the same timeline even if different bodies of space unless said otherwise. Alternate realities and alternate dimensions that have universe statements or "Parallel Universes" I would consider them different timelines by default unless spoken otherwise. As well as things thought of as Mirror Dimensions/worlds. For example, I think stuff like Universe 1 and Universe 2 examples are different timelines, but I do not think having a Heaven and Hell larger than the physical universe equates to Universe containing all three of those to be 2-C.

Well I already explained above why different spaces already have their own time. It makes no sense that a universe can have a separate space but share time with another universe. It’s like you guys are forgetting the “space” part in spacetime.

Also, for the love of everything holy, and this goes for everyone, do not talk about dragon ball. Please.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I didn't really say that name of that verse, but I was going off hypothetical examples. I could have been talking about various JRPG verses for all you know.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

 

[KingPin0422]

It depends on context tbh. But I don’t see why not. A different space would have its own measurement of movement AKA time. If it’s a different space and time is moving, then bingo! You got yourself a different spacetime.

Mmm... I'm not really in the state of mind to attempt to debunk this. Still, as Kat and I have pointed out, passing this would mean a lot of work with likely little to nothing to genuinely gain out of it because of this, especially if something happens that leads to it getting reversed. We are talking hundreds to possibly thousands of pages being affected, and for what? Upgrades to tier 2 based on something dubious?

I didn’t actually say that. I said verses that treat their universes as low 2-C should have universe destruction feats at low 2-C. As long as it’s the entire universe. But if universe, in context, means 3-A, then 3-A for something like, “I’ll destroy this entire universe!!”

Okay, but how would we know if the verse treats a universe as Low 2-C and if it treats it as 3-A? And what would be the default assumption if the context doesn't clearly point towards one or the other?

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Mmm... I'm not really in the state of mind to attempt to debunk this. Still, as Kat and I have pointed out, passing this would mean a lot of work with likely little to nothing to genuinely gain out of it because of this, especially if something happens that leads to it getting reversed. We are talking hundreds to possibly thousands of pages being affected, and for what? Upgrades to tier 2 based on something dubious?

This is a big bruh moment right here. By this logic the entire wiki is fundamentally pointless. You really think a good reason to reject this is because of hard work? The entire reason I decided to do this in the summer was because it was a less busy time of year.

Okay, but how would we know if the verse treats a universe as Low 2-C and if it treats it as 3-A? And what would be the default assumption if the context doesn't clearly point towards one or the other?

Fam, it ain’t that hard. Someone above even said that some fictions are don’t treat the universe as spacetime mumbo jumbo.

As for the default assumption. Why not low 2-C? We do it for universal creation and we assume 2-C for different universes. So tell me, why is universal creation low 2-C by default but universal destruction is 3-A by default? Doesn’t seem consistent to me.

 

[SomebodyData]

As for the default assumption. Why not low 2-C? We do it for universal creation and we assume 2-C for different universes. So tell me, why is universal creation low 2-C by default but universal destruction is 3-A by default? Doesn’t seem consistent to me.

In order to have movement in a universe, you need time. Destruction by contrast lacks this need ergo the difference.

Kinda like destroying the Earth (without overwhelming GBE) isn't as impressive of a feat as creating it.

 

[KingPin0422]

This is a big bruh moment right here. By this logic the entire wiki is fundamentally pointless. You really think a good reason to reject this is because of hard work? The entire reason I decided to do this in the summer was because it was a less busy time of year.

Hard work and a lack of any visible benefit, which is exactly how multiple projects got shut down in the past. Even then, there's a point where something just isn't practical to execute no matter how beneficial it would be - if you remember the audit group, that thing isn't really around anymore because it was agreed that evaluating literally every verse on the site (a.k.a. nearly 25,000 pages) would need a ton of time and effort that the auditors may not necessarily always have.

This is an extreme example, I'll admit, and this revision certainly wouldn't even affect 10% of all characters on the site, which is why I also specified "for no tangible benefit" from the start. Why should we do a project if the amount of work needed to implement it comes with disproportionately small gains?

Fam, it ain’t that hard. Someone above even said that some fictions are don’t treat the universe as spacetime mumbo jumbo.

It shouldn't be hard, but you sure as hell are making it hard by not giving me examples.

"some fictions don't treat the universe as spacetime mumbo jumbo" But how do we know this? What would we use as evidence that the universe doesn't refer to the spacetime continuum?

As for the default assumption. Why not low 2-C? We do it for universal creation and we assume 2-C for different universes. So tell me, why is universal creation low 2-C by default but universal destruction is 3-A by default? Doesn’t seem consistent to me.

It... isn't? Most universe creation feats that we consider Low 2-C are rated such because they involve creating it from absolutely nothing and (more importantly) that event being regarded, in one way or another, as the beginning of time. In fact, I'm pretty sure the IRL Big Bang is Low 2-C because of being the origin point from which all of space and time expanded, but on the other hand, the Big Bang is more often than not portrayed as simply a massive explosion in fiction, and we calculated that at 3-B.

As for assuming that different universes are inherently separate space-time continua, I'll admit that I don't know the full details, but I believe that it's because in multiverse theory, a quilted/type I "multiverse" is really just a single infinite universe with Hubble volumes (a.k.a. observable universe-sized regions of space) fulfilling the role of "alternate universes."

And just in case I'm about to be accused of doublethink or something like that, I'm not saying that I'm in agreement with this standard, per se. Again, I don't know enough to have a detailed opinion. I'm just citing my observations.

 

[Arceus0x]

On a somewhat unrelated note, why is a 3-A sized universe's timeline considered low 2-C but a 4-A, 3-C, 3-B timeline would be "at least [insert the aforementioned tiers here]"? Like aren't they all uncountably infinite snapshots as either type of dimension would have time? I'd get it if you needed high 3-A universe size to achieve low 2-C timeline but you don't, you only need 3-A and that makes no sense as a timeline of any size would be almost the same as a normal one with a 3-A universe size as any tier from 10 to 3 (except high 3-A) is finite

 

[Joycap]

After the projected goatfuck that was the Pokemon Legends revision thread of a few days ago, imma just leave this here.

Abstaining and following. Food for thought.

Because the problem with this transitional scaling from High 3-A to tier 2 and onward (in our case) is that you end up justifying shit like this:

https://cdn.**********.com/attachments/724715694553563146/858104969386786836/UniFal.png

(I means infinite)

But hey, the 3 smaller universes are still 'infinite', right?

EDIT: Before I forget:

https://cdn.**********.com/attachments/724715694553563146/858301659410464799/NairobiUni.png

 

[Greenshifter]

Using Nia to pass a revision, now this is getting interesting.

Although I'm not quite sure if this is what Zamasu's going for with this revision.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

On a somewhat unrelated note, why is a 3-A sized universe's timeline considered low 2-C but a 4-A, 3-C, 3-B timeline would be "at least [insert the aforementioned tiers here]"? Like aren't they all uncountably infinite snapshots as either type of dimension would have time? I'd get it if you needed high 3-A universe size to achieve low 2-C timeline but you don't, you only need 3-A and that makes no sense as a timeline of any size would be almost the same as a normal one with a 3-A universe size as any tier from 10 to 3 (except high 3-A) is finite

I asked this previously too. The response I got was more like “ion know ”

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Hard work and a lack of any visible benefit, which is exactly how multiple projects got shut down in the past. Even then, there's a point where something just isn't practical to execute no matter how beneficial it would be - if you remember the audit group, that thing isn't really around anymore because it was agreed that evaluating literally every verse on the site (a.k.a. nearly 25,000 pages) would need a ton of time and effort that the auditors may not necessarily always have.

This is an extreme example, I'll admit, and this revision certainly wouldn't even affect 10% of all characters on the site, which is why I also specified "for no tangible benefit" from the start. Why should we do a project if the amount of work needed to implement it comes with disproportionately small gains?

I don’t even know what to say to this. You’re undermining this by saying “What’s the point? It only means some verse are going from 3-A to low 2-C or low 2-C to 3-A. :v” Do you know the difference between 3-A and low 2-C? It’s a literal infinite jump. If these changes are such “small gains” then why go through the effort of creating two different universal tiers and making sure some verses are 3-A or low 2-C?

It shouldn't be hard, but you sure as hell are making it hard by not giving me examples.

"some fictions don't treat the universe as spacetime mumbo jumbo" But how do we know this? What would we use as evidence that the universe doesn't refer to the spacetime continuum?

It depends on the cosmology. If a verse has a low 2-C cosmology, bare minimum. Then it’s low 2-C. To give an example, Emperor Joker. He’s 3-A for being able to reshape the universe. However, since the universe in DC is low 2-C, he should be low 2-C. See what I mean?

It... isn't? Most universe creation feats that we consider Low 2-C are rated such because they involve creating it from absolutely nothing and (more importantly) that event being regarded, in one way or another, as the beginning of time. In fact, I'm pretty sure the IRL Big Bang is Low 2-C because of being the origin point from which all of space and time expanded, but on the other hand, the Big Bang is more often than not portrayed as simply a massive explosion in fiction, and we calculated that at 3-B.

ok

As for assuming that different universes are inherently separate space-time continua, I'll admit that I don't know the full details, but I believe that it's because in multiverse theory, a quilted/type I "multiverse" is really just a single infinite universe with Hubble volumes (a.k.a. observable universe-sized regions of space) fulfilling the role of "alternate universes."

And just in case I'm about to be accused of doublethink or something like that, I'm not saying that I'm in agreement with this standard, per se. Again, I don't know enough to have a detailed opinion. I'm just citing my observations.

ok.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Bump.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[Everything12]

Staff are mostly leaning toward disagreement, but there's no real consensus and I think some Staff are agreeing on some things (not sure on what though)

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Orange]

Upon reading the OPs point, I am leaning on agreeing with the point ge made.
Also fiction treats the size of the observable universe as the true size of the universe [more technically, we assume every universe in any world of fiction as a space-time with the size of 93 billion ly. And we treat destroying a whole universe as just a 3-A feat which it just means destroying the matter withing [galaxies, nebulas and such] but most "I will destroy the universe blah blah" means destroying the entire structure aka a space time, not just the matter within but that's just moi opinion]

 

[Antvasima]

Staff are mostly leaning toward disagreement, but there's no real consensus and I think some Staff are agreeing on some things (not sure on what though)

What does DontTalk think?

 

[Everything12]

Disagrees.