Why did fire force cosmology become 2-c?

[Reiner04]

This is wrong. It's because the space is infinite. There were no size comparison/ size superiority statement at all.

There was given when I was present, that's the whole reason I agreed for.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Additionally, an infinite-sized space-time continuum is essentially the same as having an infinite number of universe-sized space-time continuums.

No? Why would it be?
You're equating an infinitely large Low 2-C structure (an infinite SINGLE space-time continuum) to a "countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums" - which, by the way, is quoted directly from the Tiering System page.

Why would one huge Low 2-C structure become 2-A based on size alone? Relative size to something else (like how I THINK you can get 2-A by having a structure big enough to make a Low 2-C one look infinitesimally small), sure, but its own size is functionally irrelevant once it's big enough to count as a universe.

 

[ImmortalDread]

There was given when I was present, that's the whole reason I agreed for.

Ok but I was there since the concept existence of "2-A Rimuru", and I know what I am talking about.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No? Why would it be?
You're equating an infinitely large Low 2-C structure (an infinite SINGLE space-time continuum) to a "countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums" -

I am aware of what I am equating. Thanks for pointing out. Also, low 2-C in tiering system is universe-sized space-time continuum, so it's far from being infinite-sized one.

Why would one huge Low 2-C structure become 2-A based on size alone?

The whole tiering system is based on size

Relative size to something else (like how I THINK you can get 2-A by having a structure big enough to make a Low 2-C one look infinitesimally small), sure, but its own size is functionally irrelevant once it's big enough to count as a universe.

They are all 4D by sheer size and dimensionality. I pointed above, what is low 2-C by our definition.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I don’t get it. A countably infinite structure vs a countably infinite structure. Significantly affectting/destroying/creating both should definitely 2-A wether or not it’s one countably infinite space times or finite number of countably infinite space time continuums. Right?

Low 2-C if for finite space time continuums where there’s a beginning and possibly end right?

 

[Reiner04]

I don’t get it. A countably infinite structure vs a countably infinite structure. Significantly affectting/destroying/creating both should definitely 2-A wether or not it’s one countably infinite space times or finite number of countably infinite space time continuums. Right?

Low 2-C if for finite space time continuums where there’s a beginning and possibly end right?

Our standards Don't allow it, All Low 2-C structures are infinite.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Okay if ya say zo

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don’t get it. A countably infinite structure vs a countably infinite structure.

Aye, we are still talking within countable infinite. Uncountable will result in low 1-C

 

[ImmortalDread]

Our standards Don't allow it, All Low 2-C structures are infinite.

Not space-size. Only temporal axis (time axis) is infinite, has no relation to space.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Also, low 2-C in tiering system is universe-sized space-time continuum, so it's far from being infinite-sized one.

I know that. A single universe-sized space-time continuum is Low 2-C, we agree. Past this point, making it any bigger is still Low 2-C. It could be 2x the size of our universe, 20x, 20,000x, infinitely large. Still Low 2-C.
It's only when you start increasing the number of separated space-time continuums that you go higher into tier 2.

Anywhere from 2-1000 separated space-time continuums? 2-C.
1001 to any higher finite value? 2-B.
Countably infinite number of separated space-time continuums? 2-A.

But a single space-time continuum, even if it is infinite large spatially, is only Low 2-C.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I respectfully hold a differing viewpoint. When considering a space-time continuum that is twice the size of the universe, it would be more appropriate to classify it as 2-C rather than low 2-C, and this principle remains consistent in subsequent instances.

You have still sagaciously discovered the absence of a clear distinction between numbers and size, as no evidence has yet been substantiated to demonstrate any inherent difference between the two within this context.

 

[Reiner04]

Not space-size. Only temporal axis (time axis) is infinite, has no relation to space.

Every Verse assumed to have Spacetime dread. Just because the Universe is infinite in that verse doesn't mean anything. If it's just matter it'll be High 3-A, if spacetime included then Los 2-C.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, this is wrong. It is incorrect to assume that the default classification for “universe” is automatically low 2-C. Me, along with Pain and DT, have established specific standards in this regard.

 

[Reiner04]

No, this is wrong. It is incorrect to assume that the default classification for “universe” is automatically low 2-C. Me, along with Pain and DT, have established specific standards in this regard.

That's for destroying Universe like statements or feats. It can mean character has just destroyed matter or can mean Spacetime, we tier them as per feat but structure on its own will be baseline reality that is low 2-C unless proven, said otherwise.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, we have collectively established standards that encompass the determination of “universe” as “space-time continuum” in various cases

 

[Reiner04]

Dum dum, agree to disagree.

 

[SeijiSetto]

When considering a space-time continuum that is twice the size of the universe, it would be more appropriate to classify it as 2-C rather than low 2-C, and this principle remains consistent in subsequent instances.

Please show me instances of this.

You have still sagaciously discovered the absence of a clear distinction between numbers and size, as no evidence has yet been substantiated to demonstrate any inherent difference between the two within this context.

Where did I say this, or where did you infer this from? I have just said that the number of space-time continuums, regardless of size (as long as they all meet the bare minimum requirement of being as large as the observable universe) is what determines how far into tier 2 you are. They are distinct.

The size is only relevant for lower tiers that actually hinge on destroying physical things, like DB's universe destruction being 27x that of baseline 3-A iirc.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Please show me instances of this.

“Instances” in this context means cases of tiers.

Where did I say this, or where did you infer this from? I have just said that the number of space-time continuums, regardless of size (as long as they all meet the bare minimum requirement of being as large as the observable universe) is what determines how far into tier 2 you are. They are distinct.

I never claimed you said anything, I pointed out that you did not establish the difference. And size plays a good role here, so no, its not "regardless of size".

The size is only relevant for lower tiers that actually hinge on destroying physical things, like DB's universe destruction being 27x that of baseline 3-A iirc.

What? The size is relevant till tier 0. DB is the worst verse to use since they use “multipliers” as in sheer power.

 

[SeijiSetto]

I never claimed you said anything, I pointed out that you did not establish the difference. And size plays a good role here, so no, its not "regardless of size".

Say I have 2 space-time continuums, A and B.
B is the size of our observable universe.
A is 2x the size of B.
Destroying A in its entirety is Low 2-C.
Destroying B in its entirety is also Low 2-C, no difference between them. I can multiply my power by as much as I want but it will still be Low 2-C.
To get to 2-C, I have to destroy both. Their size is not relevant. A could be 50x as big as B.

What? The size is relevant till tier 0. DB is the worst verse to use since they use “multipliers” as in sheer power.

They do use multipliers, correct.
Multipliers don't affect tier.
All of DBS (Anime) Goku's keys are 2-C because no amount of multiplication will get you to a higher number of universes, you simply scale above baseline, that's how it works on VSBW.

Another example, MegaMan.EXE. He is 2-C and has a massive scaling chain to be above baseline 2 universes. No amount of scaling chains or multipliers will get him to 2-B because his cosmology is only 2-C.

In tier 2, once the space-time continuum is big enough to be considered as its own Low 2-C space, the size really doesn't matter for higher tiers.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will not delve into the discussion of multipliers as it is unrelated to the topic and not the focal point of my argument.

However, I do recognize and acknowledge the distinction between A and B that you have presented, and I believe that size plays a crucial role in this context. It is puzzling to me how size could be deemed irrelevant when the tiering system and universe model are inherently dependent on it.

 

[Abstractly_a_Protagonist]

I think it's already clear that Fire Force is at least 2-C. No need to delve into "This is actually 2-A shenanigans."

So, girls, I think you all can stop discussing it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I did not know she is a girl too. I don't know, I already agreed that the original post was referring to high 3-A one, lol.

 

[SeijiSetto]

However, I do recognize and acknowledge the distinction between A and B that you have presented, and I believe that size plays a crucial role in this context. It is puzzling to me how size could be deemed irrelevant when the tiering system and universe model are inherently dependent on it.

All I'm saying is past a certain point (that certain point being the size of the observable universe) it don't matta. 20 space-time continuums that are the size of the observable universe and 20 space-time continuums that are infinitely spatially large are the same 2-C.

 

[Reiner04]

All I'm saying is past a certain point (that certain point being the size of the observable universe) it don't matta. 20 space-time continuums that are the size of the observable universe and 20 space-time continuums that are infinitely spatially large are the same 2-C.

You forgot to add "Nyaa~~" at the end. Everything else is alight.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ok but I disagree with your premise because you have not presented any convincing scientific or logically sound evidence to support the idea that size does not play a role, especially considering the tiering system is dependent on size.

Furthermore, you have not demonstrated the irrelevance or insignificance of size in any of the instances you mentioned.

Your arguments, although forceful, are not sufficient to convince me.

 

[SeijiSetto]

Ok but I disagree with your premise because you have not presented any convincing scientific or logically sound evidence to support the idea that size does not play a role, especially considering the tiering system is dependent on size.

What more evidence do I need to provide than the tiering system page? It explicitly talks about the number of separate space time continuums and not their size, thus their size should not play a factor in their rating. All of the tier 2 sections are written as "...[number] of space time continuums".

You can call my arguments forceful all you want but what is written on the page is written on the page. That's what it says, that's what we use, no?

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is not evidence, this is an interpretation from VSBW viewpoint.

I will clarify my stance later in full details to prevent misunderstanding in my comments.

 

[Seriall001]

Exactly.

The 2-C rating comes from the merger between two completely separate space-time which is treated as a 2-C feat here on the wiki.

In essence. Adolla (being a low 2-C structure by itself at least) merging with the another separate low 2-C structure, results in a low multiversal feat.

hmm so you mean that 2-C was given because haumea can combine two spacetimes?

 

[Seriall001]

We’re not starting this f*cking shit again Pain I’m literally gonna have an aneurism

Also, is the unification of universes something like this visually?

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Also, is the unification of universes something like this visually?

yep pretty much.

 

[Testarossa002]

I didn't even know it was possible to derail a ******* QnA thread but here we are

 

[Seriall001]

yep pretty much.

Okey thx

 

[KingNanaya]

agree fra

 

[Arnoldstone18]

In a QnA thread?

 

[Arkenis]

Did OP question even get answered?

 

[SeijiSetto]

Did OP question even get answered?

Yes.

tl;dr there's enough evidence in the blog to prove that both Adolla and the main universe are universe-sized (they're both infinite actually) and completely separate from each other. That's enough evidence for a 2-C cosmology, I believe.

Tier 2 doesn't require you to destroy or create multiple universes, the bar is set at "significantly affecting". Trying to make 2 universes merge counts as significantly affecting.

Right here.