• 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.

Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification

Status
Not open for further replies.
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Your grammar is still quite poor.
Click to expand...
I would suggest some changes:
Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.
In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.
Click to expand...
Note that I capitalize Low 1-C and Low 2-C since I think they serve as a proper noun here.
I will say I'm not quite happy with the formulation
being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it
Click to expand...
but it's about as accurate as I can get with something of that spirit without involving cardinals again.
 
DontTalkDT said:
I would suggest some changes:

Note that I capitalize Low 1-C and Low 2-C since I think they serve as a proper noun here.
I will say I'm not quite happy with the formulation

but it's about as accurate as I can get with something of that spirit without involving cardinals again.
Click to expand...
Fine by me. Can this be applied now?
 
Antvasima said:
I obviously trust DontTalk's sense of judgement.
Click to expand...
@Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @Theglassman12 @Planck69 @Deagonx Can I apply DT's draft now?
DontTalkDT said:
Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.
In that regard it is important to consider that, by its nature, it is not possible to accurately depict 5 dimensional space. As such depictions of the multiverse are usually not to be understood as accurate representation of the distance between the universes, but rather just qualitative analogies of the multiverse's structure.

As usual, evaluation of any additional evidence needs to be done case-by-case.
Click to expand...
 
Antvasima said:
I obviously trust DontTalk's sense of judgement.
Click to expand...
Qawsedf234 said:
Sure
Click to expand...
Done. This can be closed now.
vsbattles.fandom.com

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Firestorm808 said:
Would it be possible to include common examples of what applies and not to give users a better idea of what portrayals to look for to support a rating?

For example:

A Depiction of [Example A] without further context does not support Low 1-C

A Depiction of [Example B] without further context does support Low 1-C
Click to expand...
Firestorm808 said:
@DontTalkDT

For example, @Qawsedf234 gave his thoughts on Low 1-C being applicable for the following scenario:

If there's an infinite/finite number of 2-A spaces contained within a fraction of a larger space, that would require the larger space to be significant 5-D to contain them.
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT
 
Firestorm808 said:
@DontTalkDT

For example, @Qawsedf234 gave his thoughts on Low 1-C being applicable for the following scenario:

If there's an infinite/finite number of 2-A spaces contained within a fraction of a larger space, that would require the larger space to be significant 5-D to contain them.
Click to expand...
Infinite 2-A multiverses have the same number of universes as a single one, so the first part adds nothing to size. And being a finite amount above 2-A isn't Low 1-C, so the fraction doesn't help either.

What examples are concerned: If someone writes them. Practical examples are probably more useful than theoretical ones, but I don't really know any verses that qualify.
 
@Deagonx @DontTalkDT

Perhaps a better question is, what are the precedent examples of describing "uncountably infinite"?

It's common for authors to say there is an infinite amount of something, but what are some examples of describing/portraying something uncountably infinite without blatantly saying it?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Infinite 2-A multiverses have the same number of universes as a single one, so the first part adds nothing to size. And being a finite amount above 2-A isn't Low 1-C, so the fraction doesn't help either.

What examples are concerned: If someone writes them. Practical examples are probably more useful than theoretical ones, but I don't really know any verses that qualify.
Click to expand...
Firestorm gave me permission to help out here, so let me see what I can add. First off, I want to quote both Qawsedf and yourself:

Qawsedf

@Qawsedf234

I'm a bit confused by one of your views.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures looks small compared to the space around it and is not explicitly described as infinite, you say "Yes, if the 2-A space is described as infinitesimal or embedded within the larger space. No otherwise"
If An infinite # of 2-A Structures looks small compared to the space around it and is not explicitly described as infinite, you say "no."
Wouldn't the view for Finite 2-A apply to Infinite 2-A so long as even a single 2-A is embedded within the larger space?
Additionally, can you give a brief example of what a structure "embedded within the larger space" would look like?
Click to expand...
The Mystara Multiverse when viewed from the perspective of the Immortals are viewed as two-dimensional rivers in an infinite void with infinite rivers. A 2-A space embedded within a void.
Click to expand...
Qawsedf seems to suggest that this depiction could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

DontTalk
RFD was always about seeing a plane of reality as fiction. I don't think giant ball universes floating in a void would indicate that.
If your universe is a book or an apple on a tree or otherwise something that metaphorically represents in a higher world, one can talk if it contextually is maybe RFD. Something very small like atoms could be debatable as well. Depends on if it's more a size thing or a qualitative point.
Of course, the simplest way to have R>F is if it's actually stated to be fictional or just being a story.
Click to expand...
Here, you suggest that a lower realm being depicted as a book or apple, or perhaps an atom in a higher realm could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

Herein lies the problem. On one hand, it's unanimously agreed that you can't infer qualitative superiority from depictions of higher order spaces, as such is fundamentally impossible. However, these statements suggest that there's a certain point where depictions of lower dimensions suggest that a higher realm embeds a lower one as an infinitesimal subsection of itself. This seems like a stark contrast, no? It sounds like you can either infer a finite or uncountably infinite gap from depictions of lower realms in higher order spaces. What about an infinite gap, or a transfinite one? The line seems very thin, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

On that note, let me try to provide an example of an uncountably infinite gap being depicted to further this discussion a little. This explanation from the Demonbane respect threads is used as supporting/conclusive evidence for a High 1-B hierarchy of universes:
----Let’s consider a hypothetical story.
A universe inside a reactor.
A universe inside a test tube.
A universe inside a chewing gum wrapper.
This is the story of a universe outside another universe.
This is the story of a universe inside another universe.
This is the story of an eternity contained in a single moment.
This is the story of infinity contained in the tiniest speck of dust.
A universe reaches to the outside of another universe, a universe reaches to the outside of another universe reaches to the outside of another, a universe reaches to the outside of another universe reaches to the outside of another reaches to the outside of another universe…… This is the story of endless, infinite universes.
Click to expand...
There are several different ways you could infer an uncountably infinite gap from this. For one, you could say the reactor/test tube/gum wrapper analogies indicate an R>F difference. Secondly, eternity being the equivalent of a single moment or infinity being viewed as a speck of dust seems to explicitly demonstrate a lower realm being embedded as an infinitesimal subsection of a higher one.

Let me sum up my concerns in a few questions. Where exactly is the line between an insufficient depiction and infinitesimal embedding? Take this depiction for instance, where a higher dimension views timelines as crystals displaced no differently from stars in a galaxy. What gap would this constitute between a higher dimension and a lower one? A finite gap? An transfinite gap? An infinite gap? An uncountably infinite gap? The fundamental question is not only why, but where exactly and specifically is the cutoff point? Based off what I've said, can you think of examples of depictions that would suffice for an R>F difference in your mind?
 
Firestorm808 said:
Perhaps a better question is, what are the precedent examples of describing "uncountably infinite"?
Click to expand...
Previous precedents of uncountable infinite w/o mentioning "uncountable infinite", was bigger than "countable infinite" or just "infinite" to make a size difference. But after this thread, that's not applicable anymore ig...
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
Firestorm gave me permission to help out here, so let me see what I can add. First off, I want to quote both Qawsedf and yourself:

Qawsedf



Qawsedf seems to suggest that this depiction could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

DontTalk

Here, you suggest that a lower realm being depicted as a book or apple, or perhaps an atom in a higher realm could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

Herein lies the problem. On one hand, it's unanimously agreed that you can't infer qualitative superiority from depictions of higher order spaces, as such is fundamentally impossible. However, these statements suggest that there's a certain point where depictions of lower dimensions suggest that a higher realm embeds a lower one as an infinitesimal subsection of itself. This seems like a stark contrast, no? It sounds like you can either infer a finite or uncountably infinite gap from depictions of lower realms in higher order spaces. What about an infinite gap, or a transfinite one? The line seems very thin, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

On that note, let me try to provide an example of an uncountably infinite gap being depicted to further this discussion a little. This explanation from the Demonbane respect threads is used as supporting/conclusive evidence for a High 1-B hierarchy of universes:

There are several different ways you could infer an uncountably infinite gap from this. For one, you could say the reactor/test tube/gum wrapper analogies indicate an R>F difference. Secondly, eternity being the equivalent of a single moment or infinity being viewed as a speck of dust seems to explicitly demonstrate a lower realm being embedded as an infinitesimal subsection of a higher one.

Let me sum up my concerns in a few questions. Where exactly is the line between an insufficient depiction and infinitesimal embedding? Take this depiction for instance, where a higher dimension views timelines as crystals displaced no differently from stars in a galaxy. What gap would this constitute between a higher dimension and a lower one? A finite gap? An transfinite gap? An infinite gap? An uncountably infinite gap? The fundamental question is not only why, but where exactly and specifically is the cutoff point? Based off what I've said, can you think of examples of depictions that would suffice for an R>F difference in your mind?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
Firestorm gave me permission to help out here, so let me see what I can add. First off, I want to quote both Qawsedf and yourself:

Qawsedf



Qawsedf seems to suggest that this depiction could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

DontTalk

Here, you suggest that a lower realm being depicted as a book or apple, or perhaps an atom in a higher realm could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

Herein lies the problem. On one hand, it's unanimously agreed that you can't infer qualitative superiority from depictions of higher order spaces, as such is fundamentally impossible. However, these statements suggest that there's a certain point where depictions of lower dimensions suggest that a higher realm embeds a lower one as an infinitesimal subsection of itself. This seems like a stark contrast, no? It sounds like you can either infer a finite or uncountably infinite gap from depictions of lower realms in higher order spaces. What about an infinite gap, or a transfinite one? The line seems very thin, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

On that note, let me try to provide an example of an uncountably infinite gap being depicted to further this discussion a little. This explanation from the Demonbane respect threads is used as supporting/conclusive evidence for a High 1-B hierarchy of universes:

There are several different ways you could infer an uncountably infinite gap from this. For one, you could say the reactor/test tube/gum wrapper analogies indicate an R>F difference. Secondly, eternity being the equivalent of a single moment or infinity being viewed as a speck of dust seems to explicitly demonstrate a lower realm being embedded as an infinitesimal subsection of a higher one.

Let me sum up my concerns in a few questions. Where exactly is the line between an insufficient depiction and infinitesimal embedding? Take this depiction for instance, where a higher dimension views timelines as crystals displaced no differently from stars in a galaxy. What gap would this constitute between a higher dimension and a lower one? A finite gap? An transfinite gap? An infinite gap? An uncountably infinite gap? The fundamental question is not only why, but where exactly and specifically is the cutoff point? Based off what I've said, can you think of examples of depictions that would suffice for an R>F difference in your mind?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality
 
ProfectusInfinity said:
Firestorm gave me permission to help out here, so let me see what I can add. First off, I want to quote both Qawsedf and yourself:

Qawsedf



Qawsedf seems to suggest that this depiction could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

DontTalk

Here, you suggest that a lower realm being depicted as a book or apple, or perhaps an atom in a higher realm could constitute an uncountably infinite gap.

Herein lies the problem. On one hand, it's unanimously agreed that you can't infer qualitative superiority from depictions of higher order spaces, as such is fundamentally impossible. However, these statements suggest that there's a certain point where depictions of lower dimensions suggest that a higher realm embeds a lower one as an infinitesimal subsection of itself. This seems like a stark contrast, no? It sounds like you can either infer a finite or uncountably infinite gap from depictions of lower realms in higher order spaces. What about an infinite gap, or a transfinite one? The line seems very thin, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

On that note, let me try to provide an example of an uncountably infinite gap being depicted to further this discussion a little. This explanation from the Demonbane respect threads is used as supporting/conclusive evidence for a High 1-B hierarchy of universes:

There are several different ways you could infer an uncountably infinite gap from this. For one, you could say the reactor/test tube/gum wrapper analogies indicate an R>F difference. Secondly, eternity being the equivalent of a single moment or infinity being viewed as a speck of dust seems to explicitly demonstrate a lower realm being embedded as an infinitesimal subsection of a higher one.

Let me sum up my concerns in a few questions. Where exactly is the line between an insufficient depiction and infinitesimal embedding? Take this depiction for instance, where a higher dimension views timelines as crystals displaced no differently from stars in a galaxy. What gap would this constitute between a higher dimension and a lower one? A finite gap? An transfinite gap? An infinite gap? An uncountably infinite gap? The fundamental question is not only why, but where exactly and specifically is the cutoff point? Based off what I've said, can you think of examples of depictions that would suffice for an R>F difference in your mind?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality
 
He said it in another thread as well (2-A and Low 1-C stuff), and though most of it was for 2-A, the overall sentiment still stands (He eventually clarified on the Low 1-C aspect as well).

Anyway, I think we're pretty much done here. IDK why we keep coming back to this already-concluded thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reiner04
Bigger than 2-A structures feat
Replies
23
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Fwyzzverse
  • Locked
Revisions (Tiering System) : Tier 2
Replies
10
Views
3K
Fwyzzverse
Fwyzzverse
TiltedFN
2-A structures
Replies
3
Views
793
TWILIGHT-OP
TWILIGHT-OP
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Tiering System Question
Replies
17
Views
1K
Arc7Kuroi
Arc7Kuroi
TheUnshakableOne
Being endlessly/endless/infinitely larger than 2-C structure = 2-A?????
Replies
11
Views
780
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
Back
Top