Why does Creation count as an AP feat? (Staff only)

[Andytrenom]

How is that a '''semantics''' argument? That's what I'm asking.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

What exactly do you mean by this? Or did I misunderstand what the word actually means?

 

[Andytrenom]

Semantics is when you focus too much on what specific words someone uses instead of what the person is trying to convey with those words

i really do not understand why you think something like this is happening here

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I... didn't really catch the meaning of the word, lol.

Anyway, like I said, creating a universe should be Universe level, easy as that.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Because?

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Because?

Because you're literally creating a universe, duh.

 

[Crabwhale]

Excuse me, but are we really discussing whether creating a universe gives you universe level or not? Because if so, that's just depressing.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Well, the total energy of the universe is zero...

 

[The_Causality]

Well, the total energy of the universe is zero...

That's balantly false, the universe itself have an energy, even in considering only his mass, creating an universe is Universe level, dunno why it's even a debate. i guess E=MC┬▓ is also a lie since the energy of creation is zero.

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

 

[The_Causality]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity
	~ Link​

Firstly, it's an hypotesis so can't even be used, secondly, it's stated that the positive energy is cancelled by the negative energy, basically, it has energy but it cancelled, it's like make fire into water, you create energy but it's cancelled.

 

[Andytrenom]

Here's the problem with that, The threshold for 3-A under our tiering system is the energy needed to destroy everything in the universe though an an explosion while factoring in principles such as the inverse square law

Unless the feat of creation logically requires as much energy to perform as the feat of destruction under the conditions we've established then the feat won't fulfill the requirements for 3-A

Saying a universe creation feat should logically be universe level doesn't mean anything since our system is focused more on what amount of energy is being utilized in a feat rather than how the feat can be described and what impression the description immediately leaves on someone

 

[The_King_of_Prudence]

Well, there goes not-even-11-C-universe-creation. By the way, how would we tier someone who is literally incapable of exerting any force at all?

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

I'll be blunt. This place is so obsessed with numbers it's honestly idiotic. We devolve into convoluted shit when it comes to such easy things, to the point we forget it's fiction we're talking about. It's obvious that applying science doesn't always work.

 

[The_Causality]

@Andy The energy of Creation is logically higher than destruction but we treat this as Equal, so Universal Creation or Destruction, this is Universe level.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Reb What even is your point about "applying science doesn't always work"? The tiers are what they are because we calculated feats based on science and so whether a feat will fall within a tier or not depends fundamentally on what it's value is based on science, you can very well call creating all the matter in the universe a universe level feat but that only applies when dealing with a different system of ranking feats than our own

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

The fact that this debate even exists is just sad tbf

 

[Andytrenom]

Yeah very sad indeed, and lamenting about a discussion as if the opposition is just being stupid is as worthless of a thing to do as it has always been

 

[The_Causality]

@Andy You can't create an Universe if you doesn't have the energy to do this, as you can't destroy Universe without it, Create an universe will be always at the same league at the destruction. or you mean that create Universe doesn't need energy when Destroying Universe need ?

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Calcs are not the only way of estimating feats, bro. Hell, we already have hundreds of profiles that go off of statements & descriptions.

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

Yeah very sad indeed, and lamenting about a discussion as if the opposition is just being stupid is as worthless of a thing to do as it has always bee

You are literally fighting common sense with your arguments, dude

 

[Andytrenom]

@Causality Of course creating a universe needs energy but that energy is around tier 4 (4-A iirc)

The reason 3-A is so high is because of inverse square law which causes an explosion to become extremely weak when crossing large distances thus requiring a universe busting explosion to be ridiculously strong at its epicentre

But is this something that can be applied to creation as well? Why would a wave of creation have to abide by the same rules as an explosion? That is what makes it suspect for me if creating all the matter in the universe should actually be 3-A

 

[The_Causality]

Well, firstly why it's 4-A? we don't even know a single method to calculate the energy of a creation if not E=MC┬▓ which could give good but inflated result so i want to know what methiod used firstly to 4-A (if it's about the fact of create the energy of all Celestial body in the universe, that doesn't count space itself (and other unknow factor like dark energy) which are not negligable

Ok for the inverse square law but how this is a problem? i don't think it need to follow the same rule but an "Unknown" rule which make the same result since it involve thje same process (Universal Creation/Destruction, or just use the basic E=MC┬▓ if nobody know how much energy creation in a large scale is.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Reb A lot of the profiles based on statements will provide enough information to reliably pin down what tier the energy the character can release will fall into, and the profiles based on statements that do not, are flawed

Characters getting a tier for being the size of the object their tier corresponds to is a big offender of this

 

[Andytrenom]

@Causality It's the sum of GBE iirc

Why exactly would there be an unknown rule that just conviniently causes creation to yield the same result as a hypothetical destruction feat we put together to represent universe level strength?

 

[The_Causality]

@Andy Well then, we can't count this calc as Universe level calculation since it doesn't involve everything in the universe.

Because that's logic to me, Creation will be always equal to destruction and since we don't know how to calculate the energy of creation, it's the best assumption we can do.

Sometime, we need to not focus on the "how much energy" but more the scale, like we do for Multiversal characters, nobody will ask how much energy is to create a Multiverse because we can't rate it (i know space time too but you got the idea), same for universe, we can't proprely calc it, why we still try when it's just more easy to rate with the scale or the same scale as the destruction

 

[Antvasima]

I think that The Causality makes sense.

 

[Kaltias]

@Andy

The reason why creating a universe is 3-A, creating a galaxy is 3-C, etc is pretty much "because we say so".

It's the same story as rating the creation of a planet as 5-B, is there an actual scientific formula that says that it yields that much? Of course not, because reality warping isn't a thing irl, so the only way to quantify it is setting a standard (which will be arbitrary no matter what).

Just like creating Earth is 5-B, creating the universe is 3-A because those are the standards that the community agreed upon.

 

[Antvasima]

Kaltias also makes sense.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Causality Creation will be greater than destruction when the creation is the inverse of the destruction.

Making all the stars of a constellation pop into existence will be a greater feat than making them all spontaneouly blow up at the same time, but there's no reason it should be a greater feat than creating an explosion that covers the entire constellation and has enough power at its centre to destroy the stars at the very border

On that note would throwing a hammer at sublight speed to destroy a vase require less energy than putting the vase back together, given that "creation will always be equal to destruction"? Or would you say no because the method involved in creating something isn't comparable to the method involved in destroying that same something?

 

[Crabwhale]

I agree with Kal.

This entire thread is honestly going in circles, and has devolved significantly from it's original purpose.

 

[The_Causality]

@Causality Creation will be greater than destruction when the creation is the inverse of the destruction.
Making all the stars of a constellation pop into existence will be a greater feat than making them all spontaneouly blow up at the same time, but there's no reason it should be a greater feat than creating an explosion that covers the entire constellation and has enough power at its centre to destroy the stars at the very border

Because in your exemple, you just create the stars when for the destruction, it cross the space between the stars to envelop the constellation.

And for the other exemple, the energy of the destruction of the vase is the same as the recreation of it (even if in this case it invlove more KE), you don't count the energy of the hammer you throw.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Kal The difference with the planet case is that there isn't really a better method than GBE when it comes to quantifying planet creation but there is with the creation of celestial formation, that is the sum of GBE. And another difference is that it technically contradicts how we rate constellation feats which doesn't use the explosion method despite also being a collection of celestial objects with empty space in between

 

[PrettyFearMachine]

There's no other way of measuring universe creation feats. That, and our calculation for baseline 3-A isn't exactly accurate either, so it's arbitrary either way.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Causality and how is that different for creating all the matter in the universe vs destroying it?

 

[Kaltias]

While I do agree that it contradicts how we rate constellation feats, GBE is indeed the standard that we set and that's it.

You could use mass energy, you could use fragmentation, you could use pulverization, you could use the formula for a planet sized explosion, anything. It's not the best method, it's the method we chose.

Rating creation feats will always come down to standards set by us no matter what, because science can't tell you how many joules are used to create something out of nothing, because you just can't, it violates the law of conservation of mass

 

[The_Causality]

@Causality and how is that different for creating all the matter in the universe vs destroying it?

I think you misunderstood with the matter case:

• Uno: Creating only the matter of the Universe (Only Celestial bodies) is not Universe level but for the destruction, to Destroy all the matter of the universe, it need to cross all the universe (so crossing the space between celestial bodies) so indeed, in this specific case, Destruction>Creation because Creation only pop into existence celestial body and not iinvolve the space between them
• Due: Creation the whole Universe (so Space and Celestial bodies) is universe level since it involve all the universe, not only the "matter" aka Celestial bodies and in this case, it's the same scale as the destruction since both cross all the space.

So basically, the Creation of the whole Universe = Destruction because it involve space, in your case, you only count the celestial body and not the space itself, in the most common situation, Both creation and Destruction involve the creation/Destruction of all the space + the matter

 

[Andytrenom]

@Kal Tbh even in your examples Mass energy is the only method that makes sense to use for creation, fragmentation, pulversiation and planet sized explosions aren't just arbitrary like GBE they are just straight up perplexing to base creation feats off of

 

[Andytrenom]

@Causality I was just talking about the physical parts of the universe, creating the whole universe should be low 2-C anyway

 

[The_Causality]

I know, i doesn't involved time in my exemple nut if you want another exemple, i'am free: In most case:

• Destruction = An explosion which cross all the universe, so it involve all the celestial bodies + the space (or the matter) between us
• Creation = the creation of everything in the universe physically or a wave (or not) which bring everything in the universe physically (so Celestial bodies + the space (or the matter) between us)

you understand? the creation of Celestial bodies doesn't equal to the destruction since it involve the whole universe but the creation of everything in the universe physically =