• 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.

What Tier Would This Type of Multiverse Have?

1-A or higher. A type IV multiverse contains both atemporal and aspatial objects, as well as any and everything that can be described through logic.
 
Aeyu said:
1-A or higher. A type IV multiverse contains both atemporal and aspatial objects, as well as any and everything that can be described through logic.
And they said outerverses aren't a real thing.
 
I suggest you possibly read this. It describes how really truly unspecial 1-A realms are in the context of extended maths and physics. They're not "outerverses," so to speak, more beyond-dimensional universes/realms/multiverses within a multiverse of multiverses. All permutations can be described with this.
 
Well the joke is that about how people talk about "beyond dimensional" structures being made up" when in fact they are an actual thing.
 
Aeyu said:
I suggest you possibly read this. It describes how really truly unspecial 1-A realms are in the context of extended maths and physics. They're not "outerverses," so to speak, more beyond-dimensional universes/realms/multiverses within a multiverse of multiverses. All permutations can be described with this.
Curiously it say's "ultimate multiverse" is it referring to a type 4 multiverse, which is includes all types of reality? Because the "ultimate ensemble seems to state that our universe is all we see and thats that.
 
An Ultimate multiverse is a type IV multiverse, yes.

That being said, you are likely misinterpreting what is said.

All types of structure and logic can exist, even if they are non-existent.
 
All types of structure and logic can exist, even if they are non-existent.

Yeah, as if the term non-existence is common.
 
@ProspectX

Mathematics covers a lot more than what people are usually familiar with.
 
All of that are functions within the realm of physics, Tell me what is 1 without 0?. What is 0 without 1? Nothing.

We could say that the facets of non-existence is where everything exists, only for one subject. But, these subjects cannot "non-exist" without "1".

Non-existence is not like existence, where things are compossible.
 
A Type IV multiverse transcends all possible permutations of physics and mathematics, including ones we would deem impossible in our own universe/multiverse.
 
By default, a Type IV Multiverse is at the level of holding all mathematical possibilities bound by computability, which are vast enough to include powerful 1-A possibilities.
 
See I figured it would be that high. I was just curious if it could automatically be that tier, provided it goes into some detail.
 
Marvel has a Type IV multiverse. It's not a big deal like Aeyu said.
 
@Sera

I don't appreciate the condescension. :T

I highly doubt their multiverse falls into the framework for a Tegmark Type IV multiverse (which is very specific) "Megaverses," don't equate to a type IV, that would be more equivalent to the "Omniverse," definition. Greater and smaller "multiversal," structures would exist within this, as all permutations on mathematics (and thus size) are accounted for.
 
@Lightbuster She's a she :p

But, either way, I surely hope that that's not the case. I'm not being unreasonable here.
 
Back
Top