Universe level Standards

[Ultima_Reality]

The Causality, I mean rating a chracters High 3-A because they are stated to be Infinite 3-D in the verse.

Yes, there is.
@Sera/Ultima I Guess if we fuse High 3-A & Low 2-C with the new standart , Characters who are High 3-A via a non-Universal space time feat will fall into which tier?

Non-Universal Space-Time Feats are just treated as Space-Time Manipulation, we already do that.

 

[Elizhaa]

The Causality, I mean rating a chracters High 3-A because they are stated to be Infinite 3-D in the verse.

Yes, there is.
@Sera/Ultima I Guess if we fuse High 3-A & Low 2-C with the new standart , Characters who are High 3-A via a non-Universal space time feat will fall into which tier?


Non-Universal Space-Time Feats are just treated as Space-Time Manipulation, we already do that.

From High 3-A:

Also take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP.

 

[Sera_EX]

And for the last time, I did not say all Universal feats are Low 2-C. If I did, I would've suggested we get rid of 3-A.

I said true Universe level feats start at Low 2-C. 3-A should be essentially treated as Low Universe level because the observable universe is only a region of the universe. It is not the entire Universe.

Come on now. We don't consider baseline 3-C to be a small galaxy, we use the Milky Way as the base, we don't consider Venus Planet level even though it is literally a planet. Why are we calling feats that only affect what is objevtively a region of the universe as the base standard? There is no reason why we need to remain so inaccurate regarding this tier.

Seriously, if the only excuse is "But that will require too much work" I'll do it myself.

 

[Read_this_post]

Read this post, I have being here for a while and I never saw Infinite 3-D beings; High 3-A - is usually for characters stated to be 4-D with no feat near universal or characters with Infinite Energy.

• High Universe level: Characters who have an infinite degree of 3-dimensional power. Alternately 4-dimensional power that is shown as completely qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional beings, but is less than universal in scale. Or that allows them to create large parts of a universal continuum. Take note that 4-D power should logically always be superior to countably infinite 3-D power, so characters within this tier are not necessarily comparable. Also take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP.

"treating every universe level" - this is not done and a large oversimplification. Unless specified in the fiction, the correct definition of universe is including matter and space-time - true even the Japanese language.

By Ockham's Razor, if used accurately, assuming the universe is defined accurately than the feat with it would be Low 2-C

You must have never heard of saint seiya or greek mythology then. I do agree with removing the limited 4D thing to some extent. but my point is that infinite 3-D =/= low 2-C for my reasons given

You need proof to assume the creators are going by the official definition of a universe as oppose to the observable universe which most of the time is the case.

Occams razor goes for whatever requires least speculation. For option E you would have to assume that the writer is going by the scientific definition of the universe, the writer has knowledge on the universe being an expanding time-space, the writer intends for it to be on an infinite scale and erasing space on a level where distance is gone and the writer is not talking about anything matter related and is specifically referring to time and space.

For the latter you would have to assume the writer is just talking about the universe we are familiar with and that they are not referring to space or time (which is likely considering they havent in this scenario) and maybe that they dont know much about the true definiton of a universe or follow it.

If anything, option E just requires you to speculate that the authors are always following the scientific definition of a universe when it can be defined in many other ways and have different meanings (which is appeal to definition).

 

[The_Causality]

@Ultima & Elizhaa I Talk about characters who are High 3-A via a non-Universal space time feat , they should be downgraded with the new standart?

 

[Sera_EX]

It's not just the scientific definition of the universe. It's the general, modern definition. I literally gave the Google definition in the OP for example.

The exact same argument works against you as well. The observable universe is defined separately from the universe in most recent definitions. So if someone said "I'll destroy the universe" and not "the observable/known universe", how do you know they are referring to just a region of the universe that's 93 billion light years? At this point "At least 3-A, likely Low 2-C" would be better.

 

[Elizhaa]

@Ultima & Elizhaa I Talk about characters who are High 3-A via a non-Universal space time feat , they should be downgraded with the new standart?

Based on the Tiering System, itself, they would not be High 3-A, if they don't qualify for the other categories. Frankly speaking, I don't mind downgrading them if needed.

• High Universe level: Characters who have an infinite degree of 3-dimensional power. Alternately 4-dimensional power that is shown as completely qualitatively superior to 3-Dimensional beings, but is less than universal in scale. Or that allows them to create large parts of a universal continuum. Take note that 4-D power should logically always be superior to countably infinite 3-D power, so characters within this tier are not necessarily comparable. Also take note that we consider most small scale time-space abilities as hax, not as AP.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Ultima Did you like deliberately change Dodo's name?

 

[The_Causality]

@Ultima Did you like deliberately change Dodo's name?

What?

 

[Elizhaa]

Read this post, it not just the scientific definition but the linguistic definition as well that. Universe in Japan, as Sera linked about the Japanese language, includes all space-time and matter. The standard universe have the same meaning unless specified directly in the verse.


This case is not the same as World which can vary from Planet, Universe, Multi-Continental, etc. I do agree universal feats can be varied to be lower if something different is specified liker matter is specified being created or destroyed or the universe is different like in Greek mythology

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

Well, regarding neutron stars, that's part of the problem. They are insanely beyond normal stars in durability, so using them as 3-A sets an unreachable height. This is essentially unreachable for a couple reasons. The first and most glaring is that neutron stars aren't detectable when just looking at the night sky. They are tiny in comparison with other celestial bodies, only being a bit larger than a city. Despite their high temperature and proportionate light production, you can't detect them without proper equipment. This mean that you'll never really be able to prove that you truly destroyed them. If it's a classic "all lights in the universe go out" universe bust that we often see, you can't prove that neutron stars are destroyed. You can only assume they were destroyed indirectly by accepting that "I will destroy the universe" means that said character is able to destroy even extremely durable celestial bodies that aren't conventionally visible. You can't prove that he can do that with sight or pretty much any other means that doesn't directly say that "not even neutron stars will survive".

Also, another problem arises by using neutron stars. There are neutron stars in our galaxy. Some as close as 1,000 light years. This would raise the bound of galaxy and multi-galaxy level exponentially, with no way of proving neutron star destruction for the above reasons. A galaxy's stars being put out, a la Broly's/Kid Buu's galaxy bust, would still be insanely below 3-C's baseline (even if he did it in one shot and not over time) since there is no way to prove that he destroyed the neutron stars, and yet we will still use them as the bound for those tiers.

That's the problem.

 

[Sera_EX]

It's like considering only the surface of the planet to be the Earth. I suppose all 5-B feats get downgraded to High 6-A unless they have a calc or something backing it's 5-B status.

 

[The_Causality]

@RTP What Sera said is the Definition of Universe is Low 2-C (not the scientifical, but almost all current Definition), why lowballing the "Universe" as "Physical matter" or only "space" when the definition literally said Space Time and Everything, it's like said that Galaxy level isn't 3-C unless proven via not just "destroyed a galaxy" but "destroying all the stars, the planets, nebulaes and all matters contained in the galaxy"

 

[Read_this_post]

It's not just the scientific definition of the universe. It's the general, modern definition. I literally gave the Google definition in the OP for example.
The exact same argument works against you as well. The observable universe is defined separately from the universe in most recent definitions. So if someone said "I'll destroy the universe" and not "the observable/known universe", how do you know they are referring to just a region of the universe that's 93 billion light years? At this point "At least 3-A, likely Low 2-C" would be better.

Defintion on google - "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Most writers dont know space is intertwined with time or always define cosmos as time and space.

Many writers would define universe as the known universe and not the spatial/temporal dimension. The known universe is what we are normally familiar with and is always portrayed in fiction as creating stars and galaxies as supposed to time and space itself. when it is, time and space is almost always mentioned. Going by the low 2-C definition of the universe requires you to be somewhat informed on the scientific premise of the universe and how time space works.

Considering how most people are always shown the universe in the form of the observable universe map, majority of writers would easily take that and assume the universe is just a large group of galaxies greater than the bubble shown when they are always being shown the universe as a large 3D structure.

Even if your logic of reflecting my argument true, it would only prove that just as much speculation is required to assume low 2-C as 3-A, making occams razor invalid. However it would still be a nlf to assume them a higher tier when space or time is never mentioned. At least 3-A is the most they should be given

@Elizhaa Even destroying the universe in most anime and manga (where time isnt mentioned) has only been portrayed as destroying the matter. Whilst world does technically have more definitions. The universe in fictional sense can have multiple definitions as well which not only have far greater tier jumps, but also have completely different cosmological factors and normally is portrayed as matter creation when not stated otherwise. Even the big bang by most people could be 3-A if they dont believe in an infintie sized universe or aware of how the big bang created time and distance (which even i honestly believed until i did research on the topic).

 

[Read_this_post]

@RTP What Sera said is the Definition of Universe is Low 2-C (not the scientifical, but almost all current Definition), why lowballing the "Universe" as "Physical matter" or only "space" when the definition literally said Space Time and Everything, it's like said that Galaxy level isn't 3-C unless proven via not just "destroyed a galaxy" but "destroying all the stars, the planets, nebulaes and all matters contained in the galaxy"

I am aware of that. But majority of the time, the official definition is never followed nor taken into consideration. when a galaxy is brought up, the first thing that comes to anybodys mind is the milky way. A planet would normally be the earth (or the surface depending on context) and a solar system would almost always bring our own to mind. A universe when first brought to mind can either mean "everything that exists (3D wise)" or "time and space" depending on who is using it, with the latter normally being mentioned when used.

 

[Sera_EX]

Don't pull the whole "most writers don't know space is intertwined with time" argument. I'm really tired of hearing that.

We mock writers for using "dimension" to refer to universes. Most writers aren't scientifically intuned at all but that never stopped us before.

 

[Andytrenom]

Space being interwined with time isn't some obscure fact anyway.

 

[Lorenzo.r.2nd]

sorry i havent checked in in awhile. what did i miss? did we narrow it down?

 

[Elizhaa]

The statement about the writers, you don't if it is true; it looks to be an assumption here. What matter is the term universe is used properly in the context, context wise universe by definition would be Low 2-C in Real life. The point of special rule for fictions is if the definition isn't accurate here.

@Elizhaa Even destroying the universe in most anime and manga (where time isn't mentioned) has only been portrayed as destroying the matter - I mean the cases are up to interpretation to what is shown in the feat; technically matter have to be destroyed and space-time is normally invisible - so there is that. The universe in a fictional sense can have multiple definitions - I agree but I rather wamt the standard definition of universe to be used then the assumption a different definition of universes from the assumption especially when it is not contradicted or not stated to differenent.

 

[The_Causality]

@RTP that why the Context is important, the ability of the guy ect. Sera already said that she don't want to make all "i will destroy the universe!" at Low 2-C, just the basic definition of it in a verse where nothing imply a Universal matter destruction will be now Low 2-C, before, characters needed to prove an Space Time destruction of the Universal Busting, now people will need to prove the countrary and why this Universal statemate isn't Low 2-C in a case.

@Elizaa Remove the quote of RTP in your post, this thread is already charged enough

 

[Sera_EX]

One more time. Using Planet level as an example again.

Most planetary feats get ranked at High 6-A due to only being surface level feats. Meaning: We do not consider the surface of the planet to be the Earth itself. Makes sense right?

Most universal feats will be ranked at 3-A due to only being observable universe or just the physical contents of the universe.

The difference is High 6-A is not called Planet level and 5-B isn't Planet level+. Therefore 3-A should be Low Universe level and High 3-A or Low 2-C (whichever you prefer) be Universe level.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Elizhaa Please don't quote huge walls of text.

 

[Read_this_post]

Don't pull the whole "most writers don't know space is intertwined with time" argument. I'm really tired of hearing that.
We mock writers for using "dimension" to refer to universes. Most writers aren't scientifically intuned at all but that never stopped us before.

This whole discussion is about what the authors intent is with the term "universe". If the writers are not scientifically intuned and dont factor in time and space to universe creation, then their is no reason at all to assume universe creation as low 2-C.

Also i am not arguing that destroying space should not equate to destroying time. As long as destroying space isnt just destroying everything in it, then it should logically be a low 2-C feat

Also im commenting a lot. Ill just let the comments flood in for a little 0w0

 

[Pritti]

One more time. Using Planet level as an example again.

Most planetary feats get ranked at High 6-A due to only being surface level feats. Meaning: We do not consider the surface of the planet to be the Earth itself. Makes sense right?

Most universal feats will be ranked at 3-A due to only being observable universe or just the physical contents of the universe.

The difference is High 6-A is not called Planet level and 5-B isn't Planet level+. Therefore 3-A should be Low Universe level and High 3-A or Low 2-C (whichever you prefer) be Universe level.

I strongly agree with this. The inconsistencies in the tiering is the prime example of picking roses.

 

[Yumi-tan]

How about:

>Universe based on our own = 3-A baseline/Low 2-C for entire universe continuum.

>Universe different from our own = Low 2-C until proven otherwise.

Physical contents will remain varying degrees of 3-A.

 

[Antvasima]

Weren't we going to go with Matthew's and Azathoth's suggestion of merging 3-A with High 3-A, so anything from observable to real (infinite) universe size would classified as 3-A, and also get rid of the "limited 4-D power" definition?

 

[Sera_EX]

I guess that'll make due. No one is going to listen anyway so I suppose we will just have to deal with an inconsistent system.

@Yumi

That is more or less what I wanted. Give or take.

 

[Antvasima]

@Sera

Please elaborate regarding what you think is preferable to the Matthew/Azathoth suggestion, and why you think so.

 

[Pritti]

There's also the issue of "multiple universe sized realms =/= Low Multiversal unless they are timelines/separate time spaces" that everyone keeps bringing up, especially in Dragon Ball discussions.

 

[Read_this_post]

@Sera & Causality

I know what you are trying to say. But these things are completely different.

A planet when spoken to anybody would be the full structure of the earth u╠Ân╠Âl╠Âe╠Âs╠Âs╠ ╠Ây╠Âo╠Âu╠ ╠Âa╠Âr╠Âe╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âf╠Âl╠Âa╠Ât╠ ╠Âe╠Âa╠Âr╠Ât╠Âh╠Âe╠Âr╠Â. The surface wiping example is someone destroying everything on the planet but having the context worded differently. The authors in that scenario intend for it to be a feat of destroying everything on the planet but know the true planet it the full round structure

A universe when spoken to most people could either mean the full time space or all the physical contents within it. Most writers as said earlier are not fully familiar with these kinds of definitions or knowledge on universal structures and dont intend for it to be a full physical strucure when context isnt given.

Since destroying the universe itself to them in most cases would mean destroying the contents as they normally dont consider the full structure of the universe (meaning they may believe the contents to be the actual thing), their is no reason to assume universal feats to be low 2-C unless proven 3-A. At most it would give them a possibly 3-A rating.

I think a reasonable solution however would be to treat it as low 2-C if it involves creating an entirely new space or destruction wise, involves destroying space fully to the point where not even empty space is left. The limited 4d thing can go. However infinite 3D should still be its own tier.

 

[The_Causality]

In all the honesty of the Causality itself, I'am agree with B. E seem the most simplest way but I sense that this will complicate our system in the future. That just my opinion tho

 

[Sera_EX]

One more time. Using Planet level as an example again.

Most planetary feats get ranked at High 6-A due to only being surface level feats. Meaning: We do not consider the surface of the planet to be the Earth itself. Makes sense right?

Most universal feats will be ranked at 3-A due to only being observable universe or just the physical contents of the universe.

The difference is High 6-A is not called Planet level and 5-B isn't Planet level+. Therefore 3-A should be Low Universe level and High 3-A or Low 2-C (whichever you prefer) be Universe level.

 

[Pritti]

Sounds like an "Option F" btw

 

[Read_this_post]

@Sera Oh wait... Naming wise... Im arguing about option E right now. I agree with a name change like that.

s╠Âh╠Âo╠Âu╠Âl╠Âd╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âg╠Âe╠Ât╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Â5╠ ╠Âm╠Âi╠Ân╠Âu╠Ât╠Âe╠ ╠Âb╠Âa╠Ân╠Â?╠Â

 

[Sera_EX]

@Pritti

Trust me, I thought this over for two months, I actually have proposals up to an Option J.

 

[Pritti]

Option J: Merge 3-A, High 3-A, and Low 2-C.

 

[Sera_EX]

That was actually Option "G" and is my least favorite, Option J involves a "Low 3-A".

 

[Read_this_post]

Option K: Downgrade everybody except shrek to 11-C. Merge 9-B with tier 0.

 

[The_Causality]

Well, I leave for now, hoping that tomorrow, we will reache a conclusion

 

[Elizhaa]

The Causality, ├á plus tardƒæì!