Universe level Standards

[Agnaa]

Featless anything should be Unknown unless it has power scaling or statements to substitute for the lack of feats.

Are you suggesting moving Monarch of Pointland to Unknown? He has no feats of actually affecting 0D constructs.

 

[Sera_EX]

I don't really care about anything below 10-C being featless. Tier 11 was literally just a compliment to the system until SCP came along. There's nothing inflated about claiming a 0D being is the weakest tier on the site despite having no feats since it's so obscure it's hardly relevant. No one really cares about lower dimensional beings in vs debates for obvious reasons. Only we do.

 

[Hellbeast1]

^^^

 

[Endless_Astrograph_Sorcerer]

Honestly, Low 2-C being the default for universal feats is the most common sense thing ITT. Defaulting to 3-A isn't choosing a safe low end, it's assuming that the writer is using an unconventional definition of the word: universe; meaning that the burden of proof lies on the pro-3-A side in any given case of a universal feat.

 

[Elizhaa]

Honestly, Low 2-C being the default for universal feats is the most common sense thing ITT. Defaulting to 3-A isn't choosing a safe low end, it's assuming that the writer is using an unconventional definition of the word: universe; meaning that the burden of proof lies on the pro-3-A side in any given case of a universal feat.

I agree. This is not just about a rating is higher than another. Probe should be required the feat regarding universe is universal+.

 

[Kaltias]

@Endless

It isn't unconventional though. "Universe" being used to refer to the totality of celestial bodies isn't some kind of weird thing that we made up, it simply happens to be an ambiguous word.

That's why you have to look at context instead of focusing on the definition of the dictionary which is really not that relevant

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Endless & Elizhaa

I really, really disagree with Low 2-C being the default for universal statements. Many many uses of "universe" do not seem to imply the literal destruction of the fabric of space-time. Having to prove something is stronger than an equally possible interpretation is the norm.

Having to prove that space-time destruction isn't implied or used is almost asking someone to prove a negative. I am majorly against this. Like almost as hard as you can be against this.

 

[Elizhaa]

Currently, in physics and I also believe in many field of science, for example, it is unconventional to refer to the universe as just the totality of celestial bodies. Time and space are also included in the definition.

 

[Elizhaa]

Many many uses of "universe" do not seem to imply the literal destruction of the fabric of space-time,

Like what uses, for example, Assaltwaffle?

 

[Kaltias]

Ok, but that's not relevant, because scientists don't draw mangas, comics, they don't program games, make movies, etc.

What matters is if the word isn't ambiguous (it is)

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

If nothing implies space-time being destroyed then it's 3-A.

 

[Elizhaa]

Ok, but that's not relevant, because scientists don't draw mangas, comics, they don't program games, make movies, etc.
What matters is if the word isn't ambiguous (it is)

It is relevant. This is taught in schools and the fact is taught in required science classes. This is mostly the case in Japan. The defintion is not as ambigous.

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh dear...why are we still talking about universe statements being Low 2-C? I been dropped that, as that wasn't even my primary proposal.

 

[Crzer07]

Authors intent was used as an argument for 3-A as a universal default, when we usually dismiss them that could suggest anything higher than whats shown for other situations. Which is double standard.

 

[Elizhaa]

If nothing implies space-time being destroyed then it's 3-A.

Pretty much, note: the standard definition of universe implies space-time destruction as well though.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Which doesn't make it any less ambiguous in a fictional setting.

 

[Agnaa]

We can drop this universal statements being Low 2-C stuff.

Oh dear...why are we still talking about universe statements being Low 2-C? I been dropped that, as that wasn't even my primary proposal.

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh dear...why are we still talking about universe statements being Low 2-C? I been dropped that, as that wasn't even my primary proposal.

A lady doesn't like to be ignored.

 

[Elizhaa]

Oh dear...why are we still talking about universe statements being Low 2-C? I been dropped that, as that wasn't even my primary proposal.

A lady doesn't like to be ignored.

Truthfully, I was busy. To be honet, a large number of vote were for option E

 

[Elizhaa]

Which doesn't make it any less ambiguous in a fictional setting.

Ambiguous how? We basically have a standardized definition of the universe that includes space-time. Space-time is also invisible in real-life, there is that. If the verse defined the universe term incorrectly, then the feat would be not Low 2-C. It weird to make the assumption if there are no such cases of incorrect definitions.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, creating, and recreating a universe is still Low-2c, correct? Or is that also 3-A still...? I thought i saw a comment above about the current standard is low-2c? but i din't know if misread it or misunderstood lol.

 

[Elizhaa]

Question, creating, and recreating a universe is still Low-2c, correct? Or is that also 3-A still...? I thought i saw a comment above about the current standard is low-2c? but i din't know if misread it or misunderstood lol.

Usually, Low 2-C as space-time is created as well from universal creation

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

Question, creating, and recreating a universe is still Low-2c, correct? Or is that also 3-A still...? I thought i saw a comment above about the current standard is low-2c? but i din't know if misread it or misunderstood lol.

Unless if the aforementioned creation is mentioned to involve space-time, then it's 3-A.

 

[Kaltias]

Ambiguous how? We basically have a standardized definition of the universe that includes space-time.

Read this.

This definition doesn't include space-time, and it's 3-A.

There are multiple definitions, so it is ambiguous

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, creating, and recreating a universe is still Low-2c, correct? Or is that also 3-A still...? I thought i saw a comment above about the current standard is low-2c? but i din't know if misread it or misunderstood lol.

Unless if the aforementioned creation is mentioned to involve space-time, then it's 3-A.

What if there is no statement, powerscale, or anything stating space-time was involved? Its just a simple statement of "Did he just create a universe with his power!?"

 

[Elizhaa]

Ambiguous how? We basically have a standardized definition of the universe that includes space-time.

Read this.
This definition doesn't include space-time, and it's 3-A.

There are multiple definitions, so it is ambiguous

everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets,galaxies, etc. in space:

Well, it did say "everything that exists" until etc. If one doesn't believe the time is included this is that.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

In japan there ismany usages of the word "universe" each one with a different way of spelling, and different meaning. For example."Õ«çÕ«Ö " The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.

"þò░õ©ûþòî " = parallel universe (e.g. in SF); different-dimension world

"Õà¿Õ«çÕ«Ö " = whole universe; total universe; all of creation

"õ©ÇÕñ®ÕøøµÁÀ" = the world; the universe

"ÚÇáÕîû" = creation; nature; the Universe

so, i guess it depends on which version of the word is used, but none acutally specify time-space/spacetime

Edit: Spacetime is the only one that states time and space alongside the universe. "µÖéþ®║ " = In physics, spacetime (or space-time, space time, space-time continuum) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions. From a Euclidean space perspective, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

Edit 2: in Japan, every usage of the word "universe" has no mentioning of a space-time continuum unless a specific word is used. Such as, Timespace, spacetime, space-time continuum. This is a language barrier difference. So, when looking at low 2-C feats. we just have to look at other context.

 

[Kaltias]

I know?

"Everything that exists in space" doesn't include space.

 

[Elizhaa]

ShadowWarrior1999, to be honest, most of these are rated Low 2-C here.

 

[Elizhaa]

I know?
"Everything that exists in space" doesn't include space.

Kaltias, I mean time exists in space; space and time are intrinsically related. I mean the word everything is there, I thought everything would be enough here.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Elizhaa

If I have a jar full of cookies and someone asks what is in it, saying that the jar itself is in the jar or that glass (which makes the jar itself) is in the jar would sound ridiculous. Obviously I'm this case the things in the jar are just the cookies.

Odd metaphor, sorry, but it's what I first thought of.

 

[Sera_EX]

Oh. My. God.

 

[Agnaa]

Jesus guys. Stop this discussion, it's settled.

We can drop this universal statements being Low 2-C stuff.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

well.. if its settled.. does that mean we reached a conclusion... im curious to know what was accepted?? i am sorry if i come off being impatient...

 

[Elizhaa]

Assaltwaffle, I mean the standard definition of the universe is everything that exists include matter and space-time.

 

[Agnaa]

well.. if its settled.. does that mean we reached a conclusion... im curious to know what was accepted?? i am sorry if i come off being impatient...

Sera has dropped the proposal for changing what the default universe feat is rated it. So that will be left as it currently is.

 

[Elizhaa]

Agnaa, we didn't really reach a concrete conclusion; a large number of people voted for option E.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Oh. My. God.

Sorry Sera. I don't want to keep arguing about this, but I'm worried if we stop Low 2-C will somehow end up as the standard even though you aren't pushing for it.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

@Agnaa... does this mean nothing will be changed...? *Confused look*

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa... does this mean nothing will be changed...? *Confused look*

There's still the changes to High 3-A being considered.