Lifting Strength page revision

[Eficiente]

This thread made me think that the wording on Immeasurable Lifting Strength is imprecise & wrong.

"Infinite strength in relation to 3-dimensional entities, equated to higher-order beings on greater planes of existence and/or higher-dimensional beings when portrayed as qualitatively superior."

It is very passable. But it doesn't account for "higher-dimensional beings" that can't move and don't lift anything. To quote an allegory I used in the thread above:

"Being 4th dimensional doesn't mean lifting 4th dimensional things, just like being a mountain doesn't mean one can lift another mountain, and while a "mountain body" holds its own weight against gravity, a 4th dimensional thing doesn't have an opposing force against it, "it floats", so to speak. Following this allegory used as an example, Zamasu isn't someone who turned into a mountain & can now walk around as such, he turned into a mountain & he stays there in place, he can make other mountains become himself too but they would likewise stay there in place. Him being the universe & 4D sounds super f*cking impressive, sure, but that's not to forget what he can or can't do, and not all characters with this characteristics are built the same."

You don't need to know DBS, imagine the context starts & ends here.

So, obviously I believe the way this was worded kept in mind higher dimensional beings able to walk around and such while being bigger than timelines and such, and so it didn't count on more specific cases like this. I don't see any logical way in which 4th dimensional beings that can't move would have Immeasurable Lifting Strength, if I'm not mistaken.

---
Also, it should link to the the Tiering Q&A when saying "qualitatively superior", since it's a made up term we use.

Also also, why does it say "higher-order beings"? That sounds just made up, is this a leftover from an older time?
--
I propose the following:

Infinite

Infinite weight by 3-dimensional standards, provided that it's not a [[hyperbole]] nor that this "infinite weight" goes as in, an ever increasing weight (A limited weight that will forever grow in that aspect).

Immeasurable

When Lifting Strength allows lift or move a space-time continuum / an area of space that is [[Tiering System FAQ#Q: What is qualitative superiority?|qualitatively superior]] than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space, and up to any bigger, more complex structures. This spaces don't inhereditary have a weight on this level opposing any force trying to move them (Unless specific franchises may have it as such), meaning that simply being as large as them doesn't grant this level of Lifting Strength, it needs to be proven through [[feats]] or [[Powerscaling|scaling]].

Note: It's recognized that the latter 2 levels are hypothetical & literally impossible in real life, their purpose is that their portrayal in 1 series would carry into another different series.

 

[StekFence]

I don't see any logical way in which 4th dimensional beings that can't move would have Immeasurable Lifting Strength, if I'm not mistaken.

I agree that there should be a new justifcation, but If they could be proven to support their own weight even if they didn’t move, then that could count right?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

A being of qualitative superiority would have their statistics such as AP, durability, and most importantly LS be inherently superior than any degree of 3-D power. You can't apply 3-D levels of strength to such a being as they would inherently have a "baseline" at that level. It doesn't matter if they haven't been shown to move or lift anything because at that level of existence that degree of strength would be a absolute minimum due to their existence and in turn strength being qualitatively superior than any amount of 3-D strength.

 

[Therefir]

I agree that there should be a new justifcation, but If they could be proven to support their own weight even if they didn’t move, then that could count right?

Only if it's stated that they would crumble if they don't support their weight, something like the World Pillar of the God of War universe.

 

[Therefir]

What does "qualitative superiority" even means?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

What does "qualitative superiority" even means?

Uncountably infinite difference.

 

[StekFence]

You can't apply 3-D levels of strength to such a being as they would inherently have a "baseline" at that level.

Dragon ball would always find a way to have ass LS.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

So you’d have to physically move around to qualify for this standard?

Would things like 4D being shooting out attacks or vibrating also count?

 

[Eficiente]

A being of qualitative superiority would have their statistics such as AP, durability, and most importantly LS be inherently superior than any degree of 3-D power. You can't apply 3-D levels of strength to such a being as they would inherently have a "baseline" at that level. It doesn't matter if they haven't been shown to move or lift anything because at that level of existence that degree of strength would be a absolute minimum due to their existence and in turn strength being qualitatively superior than any amount of 3-D strength.

I don't think you know what qualitative superiority is, what you say there doesn't even make sense as such a being can have that AP but not that durability, or that durability but not that AP. It depends on in what they have has this qualitative superiority and in what they don't have -- or rather, in what they have it, period, because they don't need to show to lack something to not have it, hence the issue with LS.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

So if for example you’re qualitative superior to infinite timelines in size via R>F that wouldn’t scale to AP and Durability?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I don't think you know what qualitative superiority is, what you say there doesn't even make sense as such a being can have that AP but not that durability, or that durability but not that AP. It depends on in what they have has this qualitative superiority and in what they don't have -- or rather, in what they have it, period, because they don't need to show to lack something to not have it, hence the issue with LS.

Except when it comes to beings with qualitatively superior HDE they would inherently have those statistics. It's not a case like Goku where he is a 3-D being but has tier 2 AP and durability but finite LS because in the end he is still a 3-D being. A 4-D being of such a scale would have an uncountably infinite difference in physicals to a 3-D being in almost every way barring speed.

 

[Eficiente]

So if for example you’re qualitative superior to infinite timelines in size via R>F that wouldn’t scale to AP and Durability?

Sure.

In another case, if we have omnipresence style "universe in a cup", maybe the space inside is Low 1-C, but the outside body has 10-C durability, with the regular speed and LS to match it.

Except when it comes to beings with qualitatively superior HDE they would inherently have those statistics. It's not a case like Goku where he is a 3-D being but has tier 2 AP and durability but finite LS because in the end he is still a 3-D being. A 4-D being of such a scale would have an uncountably infinite difference in physicals to a 3-D being in almost every way barring speed.

Don't just say that's the case, word it in a logical way. Break down the why of it bit by bit, otherwise I don't see why you believe this.

 

[TiltedFN]

But to become one with the universe, your physicals would also scale, that is how it is most of the time, so are you saying they actually have to show lifting an entire 4d spacetime or higher dimensional space to get the tier?

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Sure.

In another case, if we have omnipresence style "universe in a cup", maybe the space inside is Low 1-C, but the outside body has 10-C durability, with the regular speed and LS to match it.

Don't just say that's the case, word it in a logical way. Break down the why of it bit by bit, otherwise I don't see why you believe this.

1. Imagine a higher dimensional being who fulfills the standard for "qualitative superior" hence uncountably infinite difference.
2. Now that being will have such a greater magnitude than something that is even infinite 3-D
3. Out of sheer size/existence anything 3-D from finite to infinite would just be deemed "infinitesimal" in comparison to it.
4. Now imagine a 3-D being with infinite strength trying to pin down or affect the being in any sort of way. They simply cant as that being would exist on such a greater magnitude than themselves that logically no amount of 3-D strength (except an uncountably infinite amount of it which in turn would just be equated to 4-D and still by immeasurable by normal 3-D standards) will be able to do anything to them.
5. In virtue of size this would deem that beings strength "immeasurable" by 3-D standards hence they would inherently have that much strength due to their higher dimensional nature.

 

[Dominodalek]

Lifting Strength is measured as the amount you are able to lift. If you are physically incapable of lifting anything, how can you have any Lifting Strength?

 

[Eficiente]

Except when it comes to beings with qualitatively superior HDE they would inherently have those statistics. It's not a case like Goku where he is a 3-D being but has tier 2 AP and durability but finite LS because in the end he is still a 3-D being. A 4-D being of such a scale would have an uncountably infinite difference in physicals to a 3-D being in almost every way barring speed.

I can for example tell you that not all HDEs are the same, go back to the example I gave above, and that speaks by itself. You can reply to the allegory I gave if it's easier that way.

Having HDE doesn't mean that superiority goes to all those stats, only durability. Otherwise you create a false standard.

But to become one with the universe, your physicals would also scale, that is how it is most of the time, so are you saying they actually have to show lifting an entire 4d spacetime or higher dimensional space to get the tier?

He doesn't even have physicals in this case, but even if he had, one doesn't need physicals to do that feat, one doesn't need their physicals to upscale to that degree to do that feat, therefore the standard should be that we can't say that physicals scale along the way. Regardless of "how it is most of the time", if there isn't a logical way to explain it then it's flawed.

1. Imagine a higher dimensional being who fulfills the standard for "qualitative superior" hence uncountably infinite difference.
2. Now that being will have such a greater magnitude than something that is even infinite 3-D
3. Out of sheer size/existence anything 3-D from finite to infinite would just be deemed "infinitesimal" in comparison to it.
4. Now imagine a 3-D being with infinite strength trying to pin down or affect the being in any sort of way. They simply cant as that being would exist on such a greater magnitude than themselves that logically no amount of 3-D strength (except an uncountably infinite amount of it which in turn would just be equated to 4-D and still by immeasurable by normal 3-D standards) will be able to do anything to them.
5. In virtue of size this would deem that beings strength "immeasurable" by 3-D standards hence they would inherently have that much strength due to their higher dimensional nature.

That's durability, not LS.

 

[RoTt35]

I have a question, a being who can freely move his body which is composed of space-time due to the assimilation of universes, but he himself isn't universal sized just a few hundred meters tall, would qualify as Immeasurable LS or not? Sorry for the inconvenience

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

That's durability, not LS.

So not being able to pin down a being due to an incomparable size is just durability?

Also wouldn't it take immeasurable LS to lift a timeline as well? So that timeline would have immeasurable "weight" or exist on such a scale where they can only be affected by immeasurable lifting strength.

I'm done with this thread since anything I say likely wont get across.

 

[StekFence]

I have a question, a being who can freely move his body which is composed of space-time due to the assimilation of universes, but he himself isn't universal sized just a few hundred meters tall, would qualify as Immeasurable LS or not? Sorry for the inconvenience

I would assume it’s Immeasurable, maybe like, a below baseline level of it

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Sure.

In another case, if we have omnipresence style "universe in a cup", maybe the space inside is Low 1-C, but the outside body has 10-C durability, with the regular speed and LS to match it.

Don't just say that's the case, word it in a logical way. Break down the why of it bit by bit, otherwise I don't see why you believe this.

I don’t understand this example so if a character is omnipresent in a cup wouldn’t they just exist inside within that cup why would they be outside it too?


Also would this qualify if these new standards passed?

Would things like 4D being shooting out attacks or your body vibrating also count?

 

[Therefir]

So not being able to pin down a being due to an incomparable size is just durability?

There are characters that would be able to lift Infinite Zamasu, what do you mean by "not being able to pin down", why exactly? Certainly not his size because there are countless characters that can lift universes just like the one Zamasu assimilated.

Also since when is that a feat of lifting strength?

 

[Eficiente]

I have a question, a being who can freely move his body which is composed of space-time due to the assimilation of universes, but he himself isn't universal sized just a few hundred meters tall, would qualify as Immeasurable LS or not? Sorry for the inconvenience

Omnipresence is weird and needs its own standards clarified one day, basically having something bigger inside you sometimes makes you weigh as much, and sometimes that's not the case at all, you need to look at the context in the media from which this comes from. Maybe it is Immeasurable, but I can't tell you definitely from that alone, sorry.

So not being able to pin down a being due to an incomparable size is just durability?

Also wouldn't it take immeasurable LS to lift a timeline as well? So that timeline would have immeasurable "weight" or exist on such a scale where they can only be affected by immeasurable lifting strength.

I'm done with this thread since anything I say likely wont get across.

Like I said in my analogy, here in the universe we have opposing forces. A timeline doesn't have "immeasurable weight", there is a difference between

• having a hypothetical stat for someone being able to lift a timeline in their verse, meaning that they can do so in another verse. Which is real thing that can happen in-universe, but not in reality

and

• saying that a timeline has "immeasurable weight". Which is not real in-universe for a verse and in reality.

"Lifting" exists if it's applicable, and when it's not, we hypothetically imagine it, with a clear reason for it. Having opposing forces & anything that can be lifted having its own weight only exists when it's applicable, and when it's not applicable, you don't hypothetically apply it, that would only be a made up value for no reason. The laws that apply it to us are explicitly of the universe, which is a limit, all timelines in all verses don't have "immeasurable weight".

Look, I don't want to sound mean, but the way you portray it is like thinking this through in a way that aims to give anyone with HDE immeasurable LS rather than having it all logically follow, that "since anything I say likely wont get across" doesn't sound sincere at all, just a dismissive excuse since I'm just asking for your reasons, knowing one is right is meaningless if they can't explain it.

I don’t understand this example so if a character is omnipresent in a cup wouldn’t they just exist inside within that cup why would they be outside it too?

The cup itself has the omnipresence, the point is to have an easy example of something one can imagine destroying & lifting without it being the same as destroying & lifting that bigger space that the cup is omnipresent over. Since in many cases out there, someone or something having omnipresence can be treated by users as if they always have the durability & weight of what they're omnipresent over.

Also would this qualify if these new standards passed?

Would things like 4D being shooting out attacks or your body vibrating also count?

If those attacks are 4D, yes. Their size needs to be clarified. If the whole 4D body moves, yes. If the attacks are regular 3D attacks and only the 3D universe moves, no. And we obviously can't just see the universe vibrate and we say that it must be that the timeline was moving because the character is the timeline, that would be dogmatic.

 

[Reiner04]

This thread made me think that the wording on Immeasurable Lifting Strength is imprecise & wrong.



It is very passable. But it doesn't account for "higher-dimensional beings" that can't move and don't lift anything. To quote an allegory I used in the thread above:

"Being 4th dimensional doesn't mean lifting 4th dimensional things, just like being a mountain doesn't mean one can lift another mountain, and while a "mountain body" holds its own weight against gravity, a 4th dimensional thing doesn't have an opposing force against it, "it floats", so to speak. Following this allegory used as an example, Zamasu isn't someone who turned into a mountain & can now walk around as such, he turned into a mountain & he stays there in place, he can make other mountains become himself too but they would likewise stay there in place. Him being the universe & 4D sounds super f*cking impressive, sure, but that's not to forget what he can or can't do, and not all characters with this characteristics are built the same."

You don't need to know DBS, imagine the context starts & ends here.

So, obviously I believe the way this was worded kept in mind higher dimensional beings able to walk around and such while being bigger than timelines and such, and so it didn't count on more specific cases like this. I don't see any logical way in which 4th dimensional beings that can't move would have Immeasurable Lifting Strength, if I'm not mistaken.

---
Also, it should link to the the Tiering Q&A when saying "qualitatively superior", since it's a made up term we use.

Also also, why does it say "higher-order beings"? That sounds just made up, is this a leftover from an older time?

What can be the alternative definition for immeasurable LS? Because that is necessary if current definition has need to go.

 

[Ss3micah]

A timeline doesn't have "immeasurable weight", there is a difference between

So numerous characters I can name across fictions such as Marvel, DC, Dr. Who, SMT, Twin Peaks, etc who can physically move timelines would get what?
Unknown Rating?

 

[StrymULTRA]

So numerous characters I can name across fictions such as Marvel, DC, Dr. Who, SMT, Twin Peaks, etc who can physically move timelines would get what?
Unknown Rating?

You're misunderstanding.

Characters who embody timelines do not qualify, because they do not have arms to begin with.

Carrying around still counts.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Omnipresence is weird and needs its own standards clarified one day, basically having something bigger inside you sometimes makes you weigh as much, and sometimes that's not the case at all, you need to look at the context in the media from which this comes from. Maybe it is Immeasurable, but I can't tell you definitely from that alone, sorry.

Like I said in my analogy, here in the universe we have opposing forces. A timeline doesn't have "immeasurable weight", there is a difference between

• having a hypothetical stat for someone being able to lift a timeline in their verse, meaning that they can do so in another verse. Which is real thing that can happen in-universe, but not in reality

and

• saying that a timeline has "immeasurable weight". Which is not real in-universe for a verse and in reality.

"Lifting" exists if it's applicable, and when it's not, we hypothetically imagine it, with a clear reason for it. Having opposing forces & anything that can be lifted having its own weight only exists when it's applicable, and when it's not applicable, you don't hypothetically apply it, that would only be a made up value for no reason. The laws that apply it to us are explicitly of the universe, which is a limit, all timelines in all verses don't have "immeasurable weight".

Look, I don't want to sound mean, but the way you portray it is like thinking this through in a way that aims to give anyone with HDE immeasurable LS rather than having it all logically follow, that "since anything I say likely wont get across" doesn't sound sincere at all, just a dismissive excuse since I'm just asking for your reasons, knowing one is right is meaningless if they can't explain it.

The cup itself has the omnipresence, the point is to have an easy example of something one can imagine destroying & lifting without it being the same as destroying & lifting that bigger space that the cup is omnipresent over. Since in many cases out there, someone or something having omnipresence can be treated by users as if they always have the durability & weight of what they're omnipresent over.

If those attacks are 4D, yes. Their size needs to be clarified. If the whole 4D body moves, yes. If the attacks are regular 3D attacks and only the 3D universe moves, no. And we obviously can't just see the universe vibrate and we say that it must be that the timeline was moving because the character is the timeline, that would be dogmatic.

Omnipresence is weird and needs its own standards clarified one day, basically having something bigger inside you sometimes makes you weigh as much, and sometimes that's not the case at all, you need to look at the context in the media from which this comes from. Maybe it is Immeasurable, but I can't tell you definitely from that alone, sorry.

Like I said in my analogy, here in the universe we have opposing forces. A timeline doesn't have "immeasurable weight", there is a difference between

• having a hypothetical stat for someone being able to lift a timeline in their verse, meaning that they can do so in another verse. Which is real thing that can happen in-universe, but not in reality

and

• saying that a timeline has "immeasurable weight". Which is not real in-universe for a verse and in reality.

"Lifting" exists if it's applicable, and when it's not, we hypothetically imagine it, with a clear reason for it. Having opposing forces & anything that can be lifted having its own weight only exists when it's applicable, and when it's not applicable, you don't hypothetically apply it, that would only be a made up value for no reason. The laws that apply it to us are explicitly of the universe, which is a limit, all timelines in all verses don't have "immeasurable weight".

Look, I don't want to sound mean, but the way you portray it is like thinking this through in a way that aims to give anyone with HDE immeasurable LS rather than having it all logically follow, that "since anything I say likely wont get across" doesn't sound sincere at all, just a dismissive excuse since I'm just asking for your reasons, knowing one is right is meaningless if they can't explain it.

The cup itself has the omnipresence, the point is to have an easy example of something one can imagine destroying & lifting without it being the same as destroying & lifting that bigger space that the cup is omnipresent over. Since in many cases out there, someone or something having omnipresence can be treated by users as if they always have the durability & weight of what they're omnipresent over.

If those attacks are 4D, yes. Their size needs to be clarified. If the whole 4D body moves, yes. If the attacks are regular 3D attacks and only the 3D universe moves, no. And we obviously can't just see the universe vibrate and we say that it must be that the timeline was moving because the character is the timeline, that would be dogmatic.

Ah so you’re saying that somebody that their AP and durability don’t change because they’re omnipresent over something and can get destroyed by 10-C attacks if I’m getting this right

So regarding them attacking the size of the attacks would have to be clarified to count towards immeasurable LS? It just cant be assumed to be higher D by default

So numerous characters I can name across fictions such as Marvel, DC, Dr. Who, SMT, Twin Peaks, etc who can physically move timelines would get what?
Unknown Rating?

It’s just removing those who get immeasurable LS via omnipresence

 

[Reiner04]

It’s just removing those who get immeasurable LS via omnipresence

Zamasu wasn't really just omnipresent tho but he was everything. So I don't know if it'll solve any issue regarding DB.

And just mentioning problem is not enough since our many pages and infact tiering system itself has problem. What matters is if we have any alternative to the problem in hands. So unless I see the new definition being proposed by someone, I won't go to any side.

 

[Eficiente]

What can be the alternative definition for immeasurable LS? Because that is necessary if current definition has need to go.

I updated the op with it.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I'd argue that a 4D being (4 spatial dimensions [not 3D+ time]) should qualify by merely supporting itself. If we assume gravity works because a 4D spatial being would at least have a center of gravity (like GBE or something)

But a timeline or temporal dimension having a center of gravity or GBE is kinda hard to imagine or argue to work similarly to a 4D spatial being with GBE/Center of gravity because we know Temporal dimension do not function like Spatial ones

 

[Jaakor48]

When the rules say 4D

Does it mean 4D in spatial dimensions only or 3D+1D space time?

In either case I am not sure how a constuct of universal size on either qualification won't be immeasurable to something of just 3D tbh

I mean, is it possible to measure how much strength it would take to move either of them with JUST 3D calculations?

 

[Therefir]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Antvasima This thread needs more staff attention as it's a wiki standard change.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I recall Ultima Reality saying that simply being Omnipresent across Space-Time or being an Upper-Dimensional lifeform doesn't warrant Immeasurable lifting strength as they aren't always lifting up or holding the space-time continuum.

 

[Reiner04]

Shouldn't @DontTalkDT or @Ultima_Reality be pinged? It's changing the standard falls under the expertise of their area if I'm not mistaken.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay. @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality seems your input would also be appreciated.

 

[Jaakor48]

Yeah, I recall Ultima Reality saying that simply being Omnipresent across Space-Time or being an Upper-Dimensional lifeform doesn't warrant Immeasurable lifting strength as they aren't always lifting up or holding the space-time continuum.

But if they literally become the continuum, wouldn't they have it by simply not collapsing on themselves?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

But if they literally become the continuum, wouldn't they have it by simply not collapsing on themselves?

That would more so be durability, not lifting strength.

 

[Jaakor48]

That would more so be durability, not lifting strength.

I thought supporting your own weight counted as lifting strength or is that only durability? I mean I'd assume he wouldn't be able to attack or even laugh at all of he couldn't support his own weight

 

[omegabronic]

I thought supporting your own weight counted as lifting strength or is that only durability? I mean I'd assume he wouldn't be able to attack or even laugh at all of he couldn't support his own weight

Well you only can colapse via not supporting yourself via gravity, i don't think that this applies to 4D beings

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Simply being really heavy is not lifting strength. Is someone can move with decent agility despite their great weight or lift objects as heavy as they are, then it is lifting strength. But Omnipresent characters are essentially immobile as since they already occupy all space, they don't really move around in space.

 

[Eficiente]

But if they literally become the continuum, wouldn't they have it by simply not collapsing on themselves?

To note, if you become something that "something" doesn't get sustained because of you & thus avoids collapsing into itself. It just exists, and it would do so w/o you. Be it a universe or a much smaller thing. If specific verses have it otherwise then good for them.