• 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.

Why are merging and separating universe feats 2-C?

Firephoenixearl

Firephoenixearl

20,509
1,590
So i saw around that a bunch of profiles have 2-C from merging 2 universes into 1 or separating 1 universe into 2. I am just gonna talk about merging but the same arguments go for separation. For a merging feat to be 2-C shouldn't the end result of the merging be "the universes have never been separated"? Isn't that what "merging the timelines" would mean? To fuse the universes in such a way so that even their past (the timeline) becomes the same.

If yes we should probably reword the note on the Tiering System page regarding merging so that it includes the fact that for the "timelines to fuse" it needs proof that the pasts of both universes have also fused.
 
That makes sense to me.
 
If we're looking at it in terms of affecting the entirety of a single timeline VS affecting a part of it, then yeah, you're right.
 
The first thread didn't cover this. It was wondering why fusing is an AP feat at all, this thread is saying that it should only be 2-C if the entire timelines get fused, not just a moment of them.

The second thread doesn't cover this, from the small amount I read, it seemed to be people interpreting "splitting a universe" as only a Low 2-C, likely 2-C feat.
 
The area affected would be around 3-A, with 2-C range.

Maybe it could also be argued to be High 3-A, as a subset of 4-D is affected.

The issue with Elizhaa's post is that the entirety of the timelines aren't really affected, only a subset, or maybe even just a slice.
 
Actually, there is one question I have: do we have any reason not to assume that merging separate spacetime continua into one would include the entirety of their respective timelines by default?
 
What do you mean? Imply what? What about timelines?
 
Well the tiering system page does mention that timelines are 4-D constructs.

Low 1-C does mention that the entirety of a higher-dimensional space has to be affected. I'm not sure if that's explicitly laid out for Low 2-C, but that is meant to apply to every tier. It's why a character erasing 10 seconds of time doesn't grant them Low 2-C; they need to affect the whole timeline.
 
what would you term the following:

Lets say there is a singular universal space time

It gets split, and then its established time flows differently in both as a result of the split
 
I'd like to stick to the topic of this thread, please.
 
Merging 2 space-times would be 2-C by default pretty sure, maybe the universe CRT changes that but don’t think so. A space-time and a timeline are essentially synonyms after all. If 2 universes are just fused together though without further context then that might only be 3-A, especially after the universe CRT, since you essentially need to prove all of space and time of those universes are being fused.
 
There's three ways timelines can be merged. It's important to pick a default, and to decide exactly what to do with verses that establish them as being a non-default option.
  • A is 3-A, arguably High 3-A AP, with 2-C range.
  • B is High 3-A, arguably 2-C AP, with 2-C range.
  • C is 2-C AP with 2-C range.
 
I doubt A ever happened or will happen, it just seems so odd, unless there’s some very specific application to merge universes for a short amount of time, I have only one example that pops up in my mind and that’s in DC and even then you could probably argue the entire timeline(s) was/were affected. B you’re still affecting half of their timelines which would need the same dimensional power as affecting the entire thing but would most likely be the most common form of merging timelines. After you’ve drawn it out like that (nice drawing btw, glad I’m not the only person crazy enough to draw 4D stuff in 2D on VSBW) I think fusing universes would remain 2-C even after the universe revision since it seems baseless to assume the fusion would only affect the present but not the future.

So since B and C would give the same result we’d only have to worry about verses where A explicitly happens, in which case it’s either 3-A or High 3-A AP (probably 3-A if it’s only for a single moment in time and High 3-A if it’s more than one moment).
 
Peptocoptr27 said:
But then how impressive a feat is it? low 2-C? How does that make any more sense?
Click to expand...
3-A as it is not fusing the pasts.

KingPin0422 said:
Actually, there is one question I have: do we have any reason not to assume that merging separate spacetime continua into one would include the entirety of their respective timelines by default?
Click to expand...
Well that would have servere impact on how the characters would view the thing as it would technically mean they wouldn't even remember it being split to begin with.

But even if you don't wanna go with that, we default to the lower as a general rule of thumb unless there's good reason to assume the higher. It's the reason we don't and shouldn't default any universe creation/destruction to low 2-C, but instead to 3-A and wait for proof that it is low 2-C.
 
@Green I don't think it's THAT outlandish for A to be a thing. It wouldn't be so much that the merging only happens for a short amount of time and is then undone, but that the "merging" is a continual process that links the current point in time in both timelines.

I'm also hesitant about whether affecting a timeline's future is 2-C since it could be High 3-A. It's technically a subset of the timeline but it also kinda covers an infinite span. I'd like to call Ultima or someone in.
 
Agnaa said:
It's technically a subset of the timeline but it also kinda covers an infinite span. I'd like to call Ultima or someone in.
Click to expand...
Good idea.
Agnaa said:
but that the "merging" is a continual process that links the current point in time in both timelines.
Click to expand...
So you’d basically require a continuous power source to fuel the fusion? In that case you’re right but that’d be some sort of 2-C over time thing or whatever, which we don’t assume unless it’s explicitly stated it’s over time, and I haven’t run into IIRC.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
3-A as it is not fusing the pasts.
Click to expand...
Then wouldn't that mean that almost every low 2-C feat on the wiki is actually 3-A? Since the timelines destroyed in those feats did in fact have a past. If they didn't, they paradoxically would have never existed.
Agnaa said:
@Green I don't think it's THAT outlandish for A to be a thing.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm certain it already happened in many franchises. I just don't have a clear example popping up in my head for now
 
Agnaa said:
@Green I don't think it's THAT outlandish for A to be a thing. It wouldn't be so much that the merging only happens for a short amount of time and is then undone, but that the "merging" is a continual process that links the current point in time in both timelines.
Click to expand...
something like that shouldnt be assumed without any evidence, there's no reason to interpret a feat where someone merges 2 timelines as a "continual process" especially when there are statements stating that he fused said timelines
Agnaa said:
I'm also hesitant about whether affecting a timeline's future is 2-C since it could be High 3-A. It's technically a subset of the timeline but it also kinda covers an infinite span. I'd like to call Ultima or someone in.
Click to expand...
iirc, cardinal infinites even when halved remain equal this would mean that half timeline = a full timeline in terms of size,so you would still be affecting 2 space times technically
 
Arcker123 said:
The 2 universes have to be their own space times + being universal right?
Click to expand...
There are three requirements for multiversal feats in general:
  1. The universes have to be spatio-temporally separated.
  2. The entirety of the time axis of each universe has to be affected.
  3. The entirety of the spatial volume of each universe has to be affected.
1 and 3 are a given for the type of feat being discussed here, but we're discussing whether or not 2 should be assumed by default.
 
something like that shouldnt be assumed without any evidence, there's no reason to interpret a feat where someone merges 2 timelines as a "continual process" especially when there are statements stating that he fused said timelines

It could be interpreted as the act of linking them is what's meant by "having fused", characters can create dimensional portals without constantly sustaining them. But I digress, I do agree that it's a matter of opinion which of those 3 options to take as default, and I'm not married to any particular interpretation.

iirc, cardinal infinites even when halved remain equal this would mean that half timeline = a full timeline in terms of size,so you would still be affecting 2 space times technically

If we're going by cardinalities, every tier from 11-C to High 1-B is the same.

Or going closer to your argument, affecting even a nanosecond of a timeline would scale to Low 2-C. We don't treat either of those things as true, we require someone to affect the entirety of the axes to scale to a certain # of dimensions (or require statements that even a subset would hold a qualitative superiority).
 
Merging feats aren't always something that scales to physical attacks, but splitting universe into 2 or more parallel universes are clearly 2-C. Especially if it's like an "Interdimensional big bang" or "Cosmic Inflation" that births multiple universes that some characters tank the epic center of.
 
@DDM This isn't really about whether it scales. The issue is that merging and separating implies it only does that for part of the timeline, and you need to affect the entirety of timelines to get tier 2.
 
Yes I know, but merging and splitting multiple timelines is still something that requires affecting both universes and pretty much squeezing them together or splitting to duplicate them. Splitting them is basically a Low 2-C destruction feat followed by a 2-C or above creation feat.
 
I would argue that Merging/splitting feats are similarly impressive as destruction/creation of them.

When you "merge" them you are essentially destroying old 4D constructs and creating new ones.
And "splitting" is opposite process of this where you destroy one and end up with 2 4D constructs.
"Splitting" and "merging" are infact not what happens even if they are what a character may do.

This may sound "da fuq" right now but I'll explain after my breakfast.
This has got to do with how maths become wonky in 4D shenanigans.
 
@DDM Would you consider erasing 1 second of a timeline to be a Low 2-C destruction feat followed by a Low 2-C creation feat?

I would argue that Merging/splitting feats are similarly impressive as destruction/creation of them.

Yeah but the argument is that the entirety of a tier 2 construct isn't being affected in these instances, only a subset which isn't tier 2.
 
Uh no, erasing a small portion of a timeline isn't really enough to be Low 2-C, Low 2-C is for effecting entire timelines.

Also, I think it needs to be specified when the term "Merging" is used. Simply creating multiple portals to the other universes isn't fully merging them and neither is merging some random locations from respective universes; I wouldn't consider those AP but range. But squeezing the entire universes or timelines together would be 2-C AP outright.
 
Agnaa said:
@DDM Would you consider erasing 1 second of a timeline to be a Low 2-C destruction feat followed by a Low 2-C creation feat?

I would argue that Merging/splitting feats are similarly impressive as destruction/creation of them.

Yeah but the argument is that the entirety of a tier 2 construct isn't being affected in these instances, only a subset which isn't tier 2.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean.... you say we require "past, present, future" to get affected tight?
But unlike destruction of single timeline where this is sound logic , it won't matter much in this case.

I'll explain.
You agree that Big Bang is a creation feat right? Even if its a singular event it spawns an entire timeline the moment it occurs.
So unlike destruction feats where "past, present, future" is important, Creation already takes care of all of that.

Now you somewhat agree with my analogy of explaining merging/splitting feats as creation and destruction..... you and me seem to be on same page on that atleast atleast in understanding if not agreement.

Well creation part of the process is what grants those 2C rating for these shenanigans.

I'll be more explainative in further posts, I'll make a drawing just like you. Hehehe
 
Uh no, erasing a small portion of a timeline isn't really enough to be Low 2-C, Low 2-C is for effecting entire timelines.

There's the exact issue, timelines can be meaningfully merged without affecting the entire timeline. You could connect both timelines at the current point in time in both, or you could merge only the future of the timelines together, leaving their pasts disjointed.
 
Agnaa said:
Uh no, erasing a small portion of a timeline isn't really enough to be Low 2-C, Low 2-C is for effecting entire timelines.

There's the exact issue, timelines can be meaningfully merged without affecting the entire timeline. You could connect both timelines at the current point in time in both, or you could merge only the future of the timelines together, leaving their pasts disjointed.
Click to expand...
The point is that the "crossroads point of merger" is in fact birth of two new timelines hence its 2C and at that moment the old timeline siezes to exist from that point on.
 
And I think that makes about as much sense as considering the point where someone erases 10 seconds of a timeline to be the death of a timeline and the birth of a new timeline.

I think it makes more sense to consider it a modification of a whole, rather than a cutoff and creation of something new.
 
But the things is "removing 10 seconds of timeline" is a process which involves taking a limited section of a timeline that already exists and destroying it. So essentially past, present and future already exist. You are just taking just a section out of it. There is no birth or destruction of timeline involved at all.
 
And fusing/merging timelines is done with limited sections of timelines that already exist. Even if you argue that going from 2 > 1 or 1 > 2 is destruction/creation, it's not doing that for an entire timeline, but only for part of it, and we don't consider partial timeline destruction to be Low 2-C.

It wouldn't be a new past, present, and future, only a new future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
2K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Questions about Multiverse level feats and Multipliers
Replies
14
Views
986
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
TheOrangeGuy09
Environmental Destruction, Low Multi and Qualitative Superiority
Replies
21
Views
2K
TheTenno07
TheTenno07
TheOrangeGuy09
How do time axises work?
Replies
3
Views
1K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Pepsimanslover_69
This logic for why Multipliers don't work for 2-C doesn't make sense
Replies
5
Views
1K
DionicioSB
Back
Top