• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Matt

With and without space time =/= with and without time. So I agree.

@Upgrade

That's Low 2-C.
 
I'll clarify this part, a planet sized pocket reality that has time is still only 5-B; such as the case with Hyperbolic Time chamber.
 
Sera EX said:
Above all else, we need to merge High 3-A to Low 2-C or vice verse and remove the notion that a temporal dimension (which most consider to be the main source for 4D power, and incorrectly so) is superior to the infinite three dimensional space it needs to be relevant. It's causing nothing but trouble.
Click to expand...
I haven't read most of the thread, but this part is incredibly wrong.

Low 2-C is above High 3-A because Low 2-C, by virtue of having an extra dimension, is uncountably infinitely superior to three dimensional space, while High 3-A is merely countably infinitely superior.

These two tiers are differentiated for a reason.
 
I am uncertain which approach to go with here. On the one hand Sera's suggestion B seems to make sense, and on the other DontTalkDT thinks that things should remain as they are.

Perhaps somebody could ask Azathoth and DarkLK to comment here?
 
Options E and B do seem the most popular, but with E being the one I'm leaning towards the most.
 
I sent Azathoth a message on Discord, can go post a link on DarkLK's wall.

I can give my own opinion in a little bit.
 
@Agnaa

I didn't say 3+1 is not superior to 3-D, I said that +1 is not infinitely superior to the 3D. That one temporal dimension depends on the three spatial dimensions to even be relevant, otherwise it's physically meaningless. We already have discussed it before that temporal dimensions shouldn't even count towards dimensional tiering since they are not even the same as physical/spatial dimensions, which we use to determine greater degrees of size. Size has nothing to do with time.

@Ant

I'll send a message their way.
 
Sera EX said:
I didn't say 3+1 is not superior to 3-D, I said that +1 is not infinitely superior to the 3D. That one temporal dimension depends on the three spatial dimensions to even be relevant, otherwise it's physically meaningless. We already have discussed it before that temporal dimensions shouldn't even count towards dimensional tiering since they are not even the same as physical/spatial dimensions, which we use to determine greater degrees of size. Size has nothing to do with time.
Click to expand...
Exactly, thank you. This is one of the reasons there is confusion with the dimensional tiering, and leads to some people to end up saying temporal abilities are 3D. I wholeheartedly agree that temporal dimensions shouldn't count towards dimensional tiering.
 
Sera EX said:
@Agnaa

I didn't say 3+1 is not superior to 3-D, I said that +1 is not infinitely superior to the 3D. That one temporal dimension depends on the three spatial dimensions to even be relevant, otherwise it's physically meaningless. We already have discussed it before that temporal dimensions shouldn't even count towards dimensional tiering since they are not even the same as physical/spatial dimensions, which we use to determine greater degrees of size. Size has nothing to do with time.
Click to expand...
Sure, just destroying that +1 alone isn't superior to 3D. But destroying the entire contents of 4 dimensions, 3 of which are space and 1 of which is time, is superior to destroying the entire contents of 3 dimensions of space.

Size absolutely does have to do with time. If you destroy the entire contents of the universe across all of time that's a 4D scale of destruction. You're not just destroying the contents at one point in time, you're destroying it across the entire continuous dimension of time as well.

That's why time gives superior results.
 
Sera EX said:
Yes, I mean we act like time can exist without space when they were born at the same time as an entanglement. Infinite universe feats where all of space was destroyed and not time make no sense, I don't even know if that's real. What's left? Time? Time without space is meaningless so that means infinite universe feats are equal to timeline feats.

The only reason Low 2-C is separate from High 3-A is due to the myth that time is a higher dimension that is infinitely superior to 3D. It's not, it's an added dimension. If the universe was 5D, time would still be +1 and that +1 just makes the space time 6D. Time by itself means nothing. We literally have people thinking transcending time makes you High Multiversal due to our own ignorance, that just gives you temporal resistance.
Click to expand...
What's left is a universe devoid of all matter, just filled with empty space. They don't need to destroy the fundamental dimensional structure of the universe to cause those dimensions to cease to exist to count as a universal 3D feat. I don't even know what something like that would involve or imply.
 
it might be dumb of me to ask, but how do we know where OB universe starts and where it ends? for one, the idea of destryong only what we factually is out there seems very, well, stupid. like u seem to say in the OP, OB universe and it what it means/represents specifically seems to change over time, for as long as keep learning and discovering, as it pretty much means "he can destroy allllllll this stuff right here, but possibly much, much, much more, or almost nothing more at all". so, i ask again, why do we even consider that as a tier? it seems to very faulty tbh. i know that the gap between universe and multi galaxy is quit freaking huge, so why dont we add a low multi galaxy or a high multi galaxy tier to this?
 
I'm specifically referring to that +1D alone. In other words "4D less than universal in scale" for example. Time feats are so overhyped it's almost New Age movement levels of cringe.

Again, the only reason why that +1 is superior is due to its relation to those 3 spatial dimensions. By itself, it's nothing. Past, present, or future, if there's no space or matter.
 
what do u mean by that? im not very versed in the topic itself, but i did read what u wrote to get a better understading, but while ur here now, can u explain it more simply to me please? thanks... ps time is an idea, not a thing. its like saying "oh, i have math manipulation. ha, u aint never gonna find out what 2+2 is now, fool", so yeah, overhyped lol since, well, by logic, if someone were to actually destroy time itself, all it should technically do, is make thing stop from moving lol
 
Sera EX said:
I'm specifically referring to that +1D alone. In other words "4D less than universal in scale" for example. Time feats are so overhyped it's almost New Age movement levels of cringe.

Again, the only reason why that +1 is superior is due to its relation to those 3 spatial dimensions. By itself, it's nothing. Past, present, or future, if there's no space or matter.
Click to expand...
I've never really know what "4D less than universal on scale" means or why it's included in High 3-A tbh. I would be fine removing it if I knew why it existed in the first place.
 
@Agnaa

She said all of space. So what's left can't be empty space if empty space was destroyed. All matter in the universe is like 4-A so that's not even relevant.
 
well, space can be destroyed if, in the verse its in, is only one among many (it means it has bounderies after all, which means it has an ending and beggining). but if it doesnt, then it souds real iffy lol
 
@Lorenzo

I didn't even see your reply lol. My bad. The known universe is vastly above 3-B. But I don't think making high and lows for it are necessary, it's the same as 4-A more ore less.
 
The Reclusive One said:
@Agnaa

She said all of space. So what's left can't be empty space if empty space was destroyed. All matter in the universe is like 4-A so that's not even relevant.
Click to expand...
That's creating all the matter in the universe. Destroying it all in an omnidirectional explosion is 3-A.

But hell, if "empty space" was "destroyed" at only one point in time, then the one temporal dimension by itself doesn't really do much. That doesn't mean it can't theoretically exist. And the temporal dimension would still have importance in reference to its "history" from before all space was destroyed.
 
@sera well, how much higher is multi galaxy to just galaxy? its also quite a big jump after all. two new tiers can actually solve this problem, by making the difference between them big enough to fill the gap between mutli galaxy to universe. see what i mean? its not the best idea, but i think it could work. plus, it not a permanent thing after all. its not like we wont find an aswer to this eventually lol
 
Galaxy level is one galaxy (the Milky Way is baseline). Multi-Galaxy level is two galaxies at baseline. The distance between galaxies is taken into account, the distance we use is that between the Milky Way and the Andromeda. 3-B literally stops just short of 3-A, two trillion galaxies a.k.a the observable universe.
 
If this is accepted I'd like to make a CRT lol. So, the "it is low 2-c until proven otherwise." Is accepted, it is that part still being talked about? It seems merging tiers us what is mostly not accepted???
 
ok thanks. um, about the distance between galaxies, do we consider space as perfect vaccum, or with gases in it, and stuff, btw?
 
lol oh if only i knew what that is. im not that knowledgeable in physics and algebra, etc, like u guys are lol im but a student of sleep, food, tv, games, and other really importatn stuff
 
@Upgrade

Everyone is leaning more on E than B, so yes.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I don't think it should be all or nothing. There is definitely a difference between Universal with and without space-time.
Click to expand...
I don't think E would be a good solution, I'm sorry, plus it would be a gigantic headache which I'm already seeing..

My proposal is that Universal should say as is, as should Universe level+.

3-A and Low 2-C are fine as it is, the problem seems to be High 3-A. With it, there are two options: Merge it with 3-A or merge it with Low 2-C. Both work.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I agree Wokistan. PArtly 4D High 3-A needs to go, 100%. It is pointless and won't fit at all with the system once Ultima's Revisions happen.

What we should do is make the "Infinite 3D" High 3-A the endpoint of 3-A. So rather than 3-A having an indeterminate transfinite gap between weakest and strongest, it will have an infinite gap.
Click to expand...
So you mean High 3-A will be 3-A+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Type III-IV Multiverse Wank Rant
Replies
1
Views
315
DanTheEyeMan01
DanTheEyeMan01
MightyFrogBeyond
Creating an infinite sized universe?
Replies
3
Views
443
ArcaneAbyss
Fixxed
Concept type 1 are (low-)Outerversal level
Replies
23
Views
3K
Fixxed
Fixxed
MightyFrogBeyond
(Writing My Cosmology ) Aleph 1 and Aleph 0 gap.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Success0906
Success0906
NucleerChaos1922
Questions About the Tier System
Replies
3
Views
608
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
The_2nd_Existential_Seed
Back
Top