Universe level Standards

Greetings fellow Vs. Debate Nerds, at long last I bring you the prelude the long awaited Universe level revisions. Keep in mind this is just the beginning, a general discussion to get the blood flowing. That means we should be only discussing the topic of the universe itself and not what verses may or may not be affected by this. Should this proposal be accepted, I'll make a follow up thread for discussing and organizing the actual revision project. Thank you for your patience.

Introductio
As discussed on threads prior to this, there is debate as to whether or not fiction generally differentiates between 3-A and Low 2-C, 3-A and High 3-A, or High 3-A and Low 2-C. While one could lean to either or, the general assessment that because we don't know if a character is referring to the general

The true issue with this practice comes from one simple fact. That is not the definition of universe.

Definition of "Universe"
There are many definitions of Universe.

The modern definition of the word "Universe" is:

"All of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy."

Google simply defines Universe as:

"All of matter and space"

Marvel defines Universe as:

"A dimension containing space, time, matter, and energy."

The (simplified) mathematical definition of Universe is:

"A four-dimensional time-space".

Any standard Japanese dictionary defines Universe as:

" Õà¿ÒüªÒü«µÖéÚûôÒü¿þ®║ÚûôÒÇüÒüèÒéêÒü│ÒüØÒüôÒü½ÕɽÒü¥ÒéîÒéïÒé¿ÒâìÒâ½Òé«Òâ╝Òü¿þë®Þ│¬ÒÇéÒüéÒéëÒéåÒéïþë®Þ│¬Òéäµö¥Õ░äÒéÆÕîàÕ«╣ÒüÖÒéïþ®║ÚûôÒÇéÒüéÒéëÒéåÒéïþë®õ║ï´╝êµú«þ¥àõ©çÞ▒í）ÒéÆÕɽÒéÇÕà¿ÒüªÒü«Õ¡ÿÕ£¿ÒÇé"

"All time and space, and the energy and matter contained therein. A space that encloses all matter and radiation. Also includes all living creatures and all things."

^This is relevant because most anime will follow this definition. "Uchu" and "Bansho" refer directly to Low 2-C level feats.

So what do all these definitions have in common? Three words. Space. Time. Matter. Often energy is thrown in there as well.

Therefore the Universe is literally defined as all of space, time, matter (and energy). Our debate is whether or not fiction differentiates between 3-A and Low 2-C, so let's move on to the observable universe.

The Observable Universe a.k.a the Known Universe
The observable universe is define as:

"The spherical region of the universe comprising all matter that can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes and exploratory probes at the present time".

Another common and more simple definition is:

"The region of the universe that can be observed from Earth or through it's space-based telescopes."

For reference, the observable universe is composed of 2 trillion galaxies spanning roughly 100 billion light years. This sounds like a low-end rather than a baseline for "all of space and time". Decades ago it was only 100 billion galaxies (which is now only considered our local supercluster). Even before that, the Milky Way was considered to be the known universe at the time.

The point being made here is the observable universe is only a region of the actual universe, it should not qualify for something we consider a baseline. Therefore, I suggest we do some meddling about to provide a more accurate alternative.

Proposals
There are a few propositions in dealing with this.

The simplest and arguably most effective solution is to stop treating the observable universe as the baseline for what we consider to be a universe. The observable universe is literally a region of the Universe. Interpreting "I'll destroy the universe" as "I'll destroy the region of the universe you know about" in a verse where the observable universe isn't even acknowledged (and doesn't follow real life cosmology) is bad practice because there is no evidence they are talking about only the known region of the universe. So the observable universe would instead be considered Low Universe level due to it being only a region of the actual Universe. This can be applied in many ways which include but are not limited to:

A. Make 3-A "Low Universe level" specifically for feats that involve the observable universe. Keep High 3-A and Low 2-C the same. This is a fast solution but is not exactly the most accurate.

B. Probably the most scientifically accurate solution is to merge High 3-A and Low 2-C as infinite three dimensional space is more relevant than mere four dimensional time. Time without space is meaningless and therefore treating a temporal dimension as superior to a spatial dimension attack potency wise is pretty bad and we've been ridiculed for it for ages, one of the ridicules I begrudgingly agree with. Keep in mind we would be putting universe level feats at whichever tier designation we keep, High 3-A or Low 2-C. 3-A will still become Low Universe level.

C. Merge 3-A to 3-B and make High 3-A baseline Universe level (meaning remove High 3-A as a tier, make it 3-A but keep High 3-As description). I'm not too fond of this one as it still treats four-dimensional time as superior to its counterpart which it is dependent on to even be relevant but veteran dimensional tiering users might prefer Low 2-C be left alone.

D. Merge 3-A to 3-B and merge High 3-A and Low 2-C into the new 3-A. Same as before but without the differentiation between time and space as anything meaningful.

E. The simplest application of them all would be having the tiers themselves will be left alone, but all universal feats are Low 2-C until proven otherwise rather than being 3-A.

There are more proposals but I'll reveal them as we discuss so to not overwhelm everyone with just my own thoughts. Others should feel welcome to propose similar or different suggestions to this endeavor.

Reminder
This is just an open discussion to get all the ideas thrown out there. This is not the official revision. Again, the actual organized revision will be posted shortly following this one should we agree that the current standards for Universe level need to change. Please keep this discussion on topic as I'm not making another one for open discussions.

I don't think we should merge 3-B with 3-A. And I believe that the accepted baseline for 3-A should stay as the Observable Universe.

What about the High 3-A/Low 2-C issue?

Isn't the Observable universe 93 billion light-years wide?

I mean the Cosmic Microwave Background.

So, coming from a guy who just goes with the flow...why can't we merge High 3-A and Low 2-C? Or merge 3-A and High 3-A? Either or is fine by me. So basically proposal B.

The word universe by most definitions should refer to Low 2-C and AFAIK it is generally treated that way anyways. I agree with the second proposal the most since High 3-A is relatively pointless as it stands anyways- 3-A should just extend to infinite 3-D, Low 2-C is 4-D.

The problem is that we have no idea how big the universe actually is. Either it's finite with unknown size or infinite.

So having a "True universe" tier would mean that we have a value for the entire universe. Which we don't, unless we start treating all universes as infinite by default. It's why we even use the observable universe for universal feats. Because we have nothing to go by beyond that, when it comes to concrete non-infinite sizes.

I agree with Bambu and Sera's second proposal.

I agree with the second proposal alongside Sera and Bambu as well.

DMB 1 said:

Isn't the Observable universe 93 billion light-years wide?

I mean the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Click to expand...

Give or take. I've seen sources round up and say 100 billion light years.

Dragonmasterxyz said:

So, coming from a guy who just goes with the flow...can't we merge High 3-A and Low 2-C? Or merger 3-A and High 3-A?

Click to expand...

Above all else, we need to merge High 3-A to Low 2-C or vice verse and remove the notion that a temporal dimension (which most consider to be the main source for 4D power, and incorrectly so) is superior to the infinite three dimensional space it needs to be relevant. It's causing nothing but trouble.

Great job on the CT Sera. Anyway, I'm not really a big fan of merging teirs, but I also noticed AssaltWaffle mentioning flaws with High 3-A, the 4-dimensional beings less than Universal really makes no sense.

Any, here's my proposal, I'd rather not merge any of the tiers and keep the borders as they are, with the exception of High 3-A simply meaning 3-D space, but rather that we just rename 3-A, High 3-A and Low 2-C. IMO, I'd say 3-A is Observable Universe level, High 3-A is Low Universe level, and Low 2-C is just Universe level.

Renaming stuff is a fair amount of surfing through pages, Low 2-C at least can remain at Universe level+ for simplicity's sake. High 3-A can probably just be Universe level if we take the + for Low 2-C. 3-A... the name sounds clunky but I don't have a better solution.

DarkDragonMedeus said:

IMO, I'd say 3-A is Low Universe level, High 3-A is Universe level, and Low 2-C is just Universe level+.

Click to expand...

Do these names sound better DDM? I just don't like the sound of Observable Universe level. I always made fun of Ven for saying "Pre-Universe level" but even that sounds better.

Btw thanks! I typed this up dead at night since I have the time and promised it'd be posted this month.

I mean, I don't think that there are many characters who were actually going to destroy specifically the observable universe in their story unless they only specify matter, galaxies etcetera.

As for High 3-A, we have very few characters who are High 3-A via just being 4D, so most of them would be affected by the Dimensional Tiering revision from a while ago, if ti ever comes back.

Btw, a lot of scientists believe that the universe actually stretches infinitely, but that its expansion happens within itself, separating galaxies over time.

Above all else, we need to merge High 3-A to Low 2-C or vice verse and remove the notion that a temporal dimension (which most consider to be the main source for 4D power, and incorrectly so) is superior to the infinite three dimensional space it needs to be relevant. It's causing nothing but trouble.

But, what if you only destroy the matter in the universe?

3-A and High 3-A are technically both lower than a true "Universal" feat by definition of Universe level; think Dwarf Star level vs Small Star level. And if the problem is it being to lengthy, than High Complex Multiverse level is an example of it being a bit more lengthy.

I'm fine with that proposal if others are, but I honestly think what defines "Universe" should be what defines Universe level with not "high" or "Low" or "+" signs ect.

Also, as far as looking through profiles to rename, someone like Promestein or DarkAnine could use a script for fast editing.

All in all, Low 2-C is by far the only one that I can agree shouldn't be messed with unless it has to be merged. High 3-A is just wrong, Assalt, Aeyu, and myself pointed out the "4D less than universal in scale part" but most agree that needs to go anyway and likely will due to the dimensional tiering adjustments Ultima proposed.

Someone should notify Ant, DT and all the other experts of this.

They'll see it. I "highlighted" the thread after all. Ant is likely just busy elsewhere, he'll come around soon.

Btw, instead of "100 biillion" you wrote "10 billion".

@God of Procrastination

Destroying all physical matter in the universe is debatably 4-A.

Shouldn't we move this thread to the staff forum, as if concerns our fundamental tiering system standards, and it will likely turn very chaotic otherwise?

A is fine. B is the best solution. C and D are out of the question.

>Expecting this to be about neutron stars

>Is about the entire system for classifying universe level

As odd as it is, I disagree with changing this. The observable universe is everything we know and can know. While it may seem odd at first that our universe level doesn't include space, having the + symbol denote something infinitely greater is equally as counter-intuitive (and that's something I'd want to change).

I'm fine with the currently described distance and if we discover more in the future (we being cosmologists/astronomers) we can adjust it from there.

I also don't think we should merge 3-B with 3-A, neutral about the rest.

Antvasima said:

Shouldn't we move this thread to the staff forum, as if concerns our fundamental tiering system standards, and it will likely turn very chaotic otherwise?

Click to expand...

Ant can we not, yet again, imply that the word of regular users is irrelevant with the frankly elitist idea that every important thread should be staff only

You meant time right? Not space? Universe level does include space.

Sera EX said:

@God of Procrastination
Destroying all physical matter in the universe is debatably 4-A.

Click to expand...

What if it's an infinite universe (and it still exists in the past)? What about doing that to more than one at once?

Sera EX said:

You meant time right? Not space? Universe level does include space.

Click to expand...

Not the fabric of space itself.

I agree that High 3-A is rather pointless tho.

I think that solution B. kind of clashes with the whole idea of Tier 2 though.

2-C and 2-B characters are based on the number of space-times they can create/or destroy. If now time doesn't matter at all, and just space does, unless we get into higher degrees of infinite space, that becomes a problem.

Then it's fine at High 3-A. Infinite three dimensional space is fine for High 3-A.

I always disliked High 3-A and found it wrong tbh, so i agree with that.

Neutral on the rest.

@Assalt

Well, I mean as Bambu said, Universe essentially refers to all space time and so forth, I think we should just re-evaluate certain 3-A feats and probably bump a few up to Low 2-C because Sera does make a good point that we have no evidence that it's only the known universe being affected by some of those feats.

@DMB

The alternative was Low 2-C being assimilated into High 3-A, meaning Tier 2 starts with 2-C.

@Rec

I actually agree with that. If we don't fiddle with the tiers that's fine, I trust Matt and Assalt, but we definitely need to stop assuming universal feats absolutely must begin with 3-A. It's not even the universe in most contexts other than real life and fiction that follows that cosmological makeup.

@Ant

If the water gets too hot, I'll move the kettle.

Matthew Schroeder said:

Ant can we not, yet again, imply that the word of regular users is irrelevant with the frankly elitist idea that every important thread should be staff only

Click to expand...

You know that is not why I want to do it, as I have explained it previously. The threads risk to erupt into unmanageable chaos otherwise, as there are too many replies too quickly, and the threads risk to be hijacked by very inexperienced members. It is just a safety measure.

So what would this do to characters who are infinite 3D, and what would this do to characters who can destroy multiple material universes, but not temporal ones?

Sera EX said:

The alternative was Low 2-C being assimilated into High 3-A, meaning Tier 2 starts with low multiverse level

Click to expand...

Not exactly what I was trying to argue:

If time doesn't matter anymore, just space and so High 3-A is just infinitely large universe/space, what does classify as Multiversal? Since as of right now, Multiverses are defined by the number of space-times in them.