• 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 Standards (Continued)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I perfer low 2-C as 4D stuff as opposed to strictly multiversal. All the other tiers from here on up work like this.

Anyways, my final solution:

  • No more High 3-A. Infinity is the new upper border for 3-A, Oryx style high 3-As get tiered off their other feats, and people High 3-A for just being 4D go to Low 2-C. This let's the Highs be easily changed by just bumoing off oneoword.
  • Low 2-C is made inclusive of 4D physicality in the same way as the other higher dimensional tiers. This keeps things consistent and solves the niche issue the physically 4D high 3-A without causing too many issues.
 
Also, as Sera mentioned, I still think that the Multiverse tier 2 should be focused on that specifically, and that tier 3-A should start with the actual current estimation of the size of the whole universe, not just the observable part.
 
I know the actual universe is indeed much bigger than the observable universe, just impossible to determine the exact size; but many theories believe it to be infinite. Observable Universe was just a massive lowball and all 3-A characters are technically lowballed by massive amounts.
 
Well, I think that we should go by the best available calculated estimation.
 
That's the issue. We're a lot more technical than most other debate/index sites. In fact, we're only surpassed by VIW in the technicality department.

If guys on Reddit can estimate an appropriate theoretical size for the unobservable universe than we should be able to as well.

Also TheUpgrade said:

"I just went through a hundred articles at least. The 2 newest ones i found are within 2 years. The newest one says "the Universe is at least 10^(1030) times the size of our observable Universe" while the oldest one is 10^(10^23) so i guess we got a high end and a low end if it does get calc'ed."

This might be usable.
 
When people refer to things they often refer to what can actually be observed by them though. Like if someone says "I'm gonna blow up this universe" they don't necessarily consider that which lay beyond what they know of. I think with nothing else to go off of the observable universe is a fine baseline. For all intents and purposes, it is the entire universe. That which we can't observe in any way beyond sorts thinking it exists is not really important to our conception of a universe for the time being, and I'd think this applies to many fictions.

Gtg for a ehile
 
That would also drastically upgrade the speed of almost every single "Moving to or from the edge of the universe" speed feats regardless of the added 1030 or 10^23 digits at the end.
 
My idea.

I think 3-A should range from observation to infinity because it matches more with relativity. The reason I say that is because there are theories that assume the universe is infinite. Then low 2-C should be all the 4-D stuff along with the universal feats.

Maybe slap low universal on 3-A and universal on low 2-C.
 
Space and time are completely intertwined, so in an ideal system I think 3-A would be destroying a spacetime continuum, while destroying an observable universe's worth of matter would just be a really high level of 3-B. Tier 2 would be reserved solely for multiversal characters.

I imagine that would be a ton of work to implement, though I think it would look the most accurate from an outsider's perspective.
 
I think it should be better and must less problematic if we just make a few changes the tiers intro something like this.

Universe Level/3-A = Observable universe (baseline) up to anything than isn't infinite.

Universe Level+/High 3-A = Infinite 3th dimensional power, as i think that a tier should be reserved for characters who had show such feats, like we do with characters who had perform Multiversal+ feats.

High Universe Level/Low 2-C = 4th dimensional power, create/destroy an entire universal space-time continuum.

And for anyone who say that Tier 2 shoud only be limited to trully Multiversal characters, i really don't see the big deal, i mean 4-A (Multi-Solar System Level) are placed in Tier 4 (Stellar).
 
Antvasima said:
Yes, it would upgrade several speed feats, but I think that we can live with that. I cannot recall any universe destruction or creation feats that seemed to imply less than the entire universe. The observable part is unfathomably small compared to the totality.
Click to expand...
Thank you for understanding the issue, Ant.
 
But we have no clue how big the true universe is. While it is likely not all, the observable universe is all we know exists for certain.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
But we have no clue how big the true universe is. While it is likely not all, the observable universe is all we know exists for certain.
Click to expand...
From what I understand, scientists have been able to deduce a larger minimum size for the universe. Even if it's not directly observable, it might be able to be derived from things in our observable universe.
 
I don't know about how I feel about that for creation feats though. Generally people aren't gonna be making stuff beyond their perception, and many characters with the statements like "destroy the universe" don't necessarily know of that which lay beyond the observable area.
 
Ant seems to think that isn't as common as you're implying.

Antvasima said:
Yes, it would upgrade several speed feats, but I think that we can live with that. I cannot recall any universe destruction or creation feats that seemed to imply less than the entire universe. The observable part is unfathomably small compared to the totality.
Click to expand...
 
@Wokistan

It's not "beyond their perception". People make higher dimensional beings and we don't restrict those. Universal feats should be assumed to be the entire physical universe, not just a region.

Plenty authors don't even know anything beyond the Milky Way. Does that mean to lowball all their characters feats to 3-C?

This "they don't know" nonsense is getting old. That's no reason to lowball and assume they are referring to the observable universe, which they also may not even know astronomers differentiate between the two.
 
Not of author perceptions, of fhe characters themselves. Not every character is going to be inherently aware of these types of things if they're making their own statements.
 
I agree with Agnaa and Sera that if there's any legit calc proving the universe's size is at least this much bigger than the observable universe, that should be a more baseline standard for physical universe feats or finite sized universe busting feats.
 
Because we can't assume people know things that they have no real reasons to. It's one thing if it's some sort of in universe research team saying this and another if some punchy dude is just like "I'm gonna blow up the universe".
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I agree with Agnaa and Sera that if there's any legit calc proving the universe's size is at least this much bigger than the observable universe, that should be a more baseline standard for physical universe feats or finite sized universe busting feats.
Click to expand...
To clarify, I'm neutral on whether the baseline actually gets moved or not, but I believe that it is possible (and hence usable in our site) for scientists to get a minimum size for the universe that's larger than the observable universe.
 
Even that may not be a good reason to assume only observable universe. How often have we seen a character explain plot details that they logically shouldn't have known much about.

But they are a way for the author to explain ehat is going on so assuming the information given is inaccurate based on what the character should logically know isn't going to be the best course of action.

It's the same here. They may not logically have a way to know the size of the universe if you think about but, if the statement isn't considered illegitimate it would be in all likelihood supposed to explain what will actually happen in the story.
 
@Agnaa Ah, I see.

@Back to main thread on topic. I'm pretty sure most religions consider the universe infinite in size is also another thing to consider. It isn't about the Author knowing how big the universe is, but rather a universe busting feat is well intended to literally mean everything in the universe and not just the observable universe or what they know.
 
That isn't really great writing. Also, characters can and often will be wrong in statements they make. Many a story hinges entirely on this. If the character contextually had some sort of reason to k ow then that's fine, but if they don't we should really examine that sort of thing more closely. This goes for more than just the universe thing.
 
We shouldn't be tiering things off of unrelated religions either. If there's a reason to believe that an author has infused such concepts within their verse snd you feel confident that you can push this argument successfully for your verse then go for it, but "religions think this" isn't really proof of anything. Aren't we in general the site thst goes by what's actually shown and stuff over authorial itent, to the chagrin of others? Why should a different take happen here?

Gotta sleep in a bit so if I just dissapear you guys know ehy
 
I strongly agree with Sera, and maintain my proginal statement that it is silly to assume that universe-busting or creation feats only encompass the comparatively unfathomably tiny observable universe. We should definitely change the lower border to the mathematical best estimation for the actual size of the universe instead.
 
I'm gonna have a lot of work to do tonight and won't be able to respond, most likely. You guys don't have to wait if you really don't want to though.
 
If "High Universe level" is really as "cringey" as people say, then we can keep Universe level+.

Make no mistake, as Ultima once said, we should try and be consistent and accurate with our names instead of "sounding cool". "It sounds cooler" is one of the worst arguments you can make.

Also, how is High Universe level cringeworthy but not High Multiverse level, High Complex Multiverse level, High Hyperverse level, and especially High Outerverse level?
 
Not that I honestly care what name choice any of you choose, but to be fair, one certain color can look good on many things but cringy on another, and there's no reason as to why other than "it just is".

But this is irrelevant so just ignore me as I go back to stalking the thread.
 
If not on mobile hold control and hit 0, you may have accidentally zoomed out.

Post in a bit.
 
Sera EX said:
If "High Universe level" is really as "cringey" as people say, then we can keep Universe level+.
Click to expand...
Thinking about it, Universe level+ may be better term for infinite 3th dimensional level characters, since Multiverse level+ is already used for infinite 4th dimensional level characters.

So that High Universe level can be used for 4th dimensional level characters, just like how High Multiverse level+ (that personally speaking, the plus in the name is kinda unnecessary) is used for 4th dimensional level characters.
 
I'm fine with either, but it needs to be High 3-A regardless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
552
ArcaneAbyss
Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
463
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Von Neumann Universe & Grothendieck Universe scaling
Replies
3
Views
429
Laxxius
Laxxius
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
Laxxius
Post your personal Tiering System here
Replies
0
Views
153
Laxxius
Laxxius
Back
Top