SMALL ADDITION TO THE LOW 2-C

[Arceus0x]

He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.

How to ruin a tier 101

 

[Agnaa]

He wants to remove the possibly low 2-C teir from yhwach's profile since past,present and future wasn't mentioned.

This is dipping my toes into a verse I'm not familiar with, but from Yhwach & Soul King's profiles I can't tell why they're both not solidly one tier or the other. And tbh I've kinda soured on using "3-A possibly Low 2-C" when there's ambiguity over whether the creation involved all of time or not. (ofc if this is due to the scaling being dubious but plausible, or the statements being concrete but unreliable, then having a possibly is fine)

And really, any downgrade in this area should be more nuanced than "past, present, and future" weren't mentioned. It should be something like "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline" or "This thing contradicts the idea that the past, present, and future were effected." Or in other words, if there's indications that an entire timeline was created/destroyed at once and not as a chain reaction, and if there's nothing contradicting all of space and time being effected, it should stay.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

It should be something like "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline" or "This thing contradicts the idea that the past, present, and future were effected." Or in other words, if there's indications that an entire timeline was created/destroyed at once and not as a chain reaction, and if there's nothing contradicting all of space and time being effected, it should stay.

There was no contradiction afaik...none were braught up on last 5 page thread.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Actually it'd probably be good to ask @Pain_to12

Since space-time continuum meaning all of space for all of the past, present, and future is already implied, why did you feel the need to make a thread for this? Is there a case where a feat was argued to be Low 2-C despite not affecting all of space and time, and the unclarified "space-time continuum" phrasing was used to make that argument in some way?

If we know why that came about, we can discuss ways to stop it, or explain to you why it qualifying is still acceptable.

Yes in a recent thread i made about yhwach it was argued that since the dangai was referred to as a "Spacetime"then the destruction of the dangai later on in the series mean that it would be all of time and space of the dangai.
so yes a clarification is needed as i had to keep on explaining for 5 pages how all universe and dimensions by default is a space time, but its destruction can range from 3A to low 2C depending on how it was destroyed.

This is dipping my toes into a verse I'm not familiar with, but from Yhwach & Soul King's profiles I can't tell why they're both not solidly one tier or the other. And tbh I've kinda soured on using "3-A possibly Low 2-C" when there's ambiguity over whether the creation involved all of time or not. (ofc if this is due to the scaling being dubious but plausible, or the statements being concrete but unreliable, then having a possibly is fine)

And really, any downgrade in this area should be more nuanced than "past, present, and future" weren't mentioned. It should be something like "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline" or "This thing contradicts the idea that the past, present, and future were effected." Or in other words, if there's indications that an entire timeline was created/destroyed at once and not as a chain reaction, and if there's nothing contradicting all of space and time being effected, it should stay.

well aside from the fact that the creation does not involve time or stated to involve time, but thats the SK and i dont really want to touch that for now.
the downgrade was about yhwach and nothing indicates or even implied that he was affecting the entire timeline or space-time continuum in bleach.
so yes the downgrade was "There is no indication that it actually involved the creation/destruction of an entire timeline"
but well since the low 2c page did not really clarify that and literally 99.9% of the wiki members wont read the linked pages or wikipedia pages that were linked for explanation i had to keep arguing for 2 pages, and literally no one could even provide the said proof that the entire timeline was affected.
so to afford such problems in the future as this is not the only thread this happened, i believe such things should be clarified on the pages.
this is the thread for anyone who wants to read it

https://vsbattles.com/threads/bleach-low-2c-removal.127041/

took this long to reply to the thread as i was busy with personal matters

 

[PrinceofPein]

"Spacetime and spacetime continuum are two different things!"

No, spacetime can simply be another term used to refer to spacetime continuum.

yes in fact they can be depending on the context, and so it should be clarified like i already said in the OP

A spacetime continuum, by its definition, includes all of space and all of time. Space definitionally encompasses up/down, left/right, and forward/backward, and time definitionally encompasses the past, present, and future. There can be more directions than three spatial and one temporal, but the point is, the past-present-future of the universe is already covered under the spacetime continuum. No need to spell out something that should be obvious to most of our users.

read this thread and i promise you will find out it is not obvious to most of our users

https://vsbattles.com/threads/bleach-low-2c-removal.127041/

 

[Agnaa]

From reading the first few posts in that thread, the rating does seem wack. A place being cut off from time and space does not mean that that its creation/destruction is Low 2-C, nor does it mean that the creation/destruction of everything in the verse is Low 2-C or above. But I'm not super interested in digging through all 5 pages of that thread.

The issue with it isn't so much that "the past and future weren't mentioned", but that a series having a place separate from space and time does not make "the whole structure of the verse" tier 2.

Although, maybe there is some other stuff I'm not aware of that makes the Low 2-C rating sensible.

 

[PrinceofPein]

then also all universe is suppose to be a low 2C structure as the time will include as past, present and future, which the bleach verse also qualifies for as a universe but the destruction of the universe can be 3A or low 2C, depending on if the destruction is all of time included, which was not the case here.
so from the fact that they could not provide prove from all the time they argued that since the universe was called a space-time the destruction of the universe much later on from when the statement was made is low 2c.

so to avoid such misconceptions, i think a little clarification will be nice

 

[Agnaa]

If that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."

 

[PrinceofPein]

If that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."

thanks for your help, let me wait for what other staffs thinks on this

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

If that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."

My issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.

If I said I have a destroyed a Planet then we don't assume that only crust is destroyed. Default fact is that everything on and inside the planet is destroyed.
Crust =/= Planet afterall.

If I identify a realm "X" as a universal sized space-time. If I destroy X...then default fact is everything encompassed by said entity would be gone, which includes space and time.
If I assume only space is destroyed on one instant then that mean there are still Uncountably Infinite more instants of space intact, which means the by and large said entity is still virtually completely intact, which contradicts the event of destruction of "X".

 

[PrinceofPein]

My issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.

If I said I have a destroyed a Planet then we don't assume that only crust is destroyed. Default fact is that everything on and inside the planet is destroyed.
Crust =/= Planet afterall.

If I identify a realm "X" as a universal sized space-time. If I destroy X...then default fact is everything encompassed by said entity would be gone, which includes space and time.
If I assume only space is destroyed on one instant then that mean there are still Uncountably Infinite more instants of space intact, which means the by and large said entity is still virtually completely intact, which contradicts the event of destruction of "X".

this is wrong
you dont have to destroy all of the time(past, present and future) of a universe to destroy the universe as there wont be a 3A then.
but let me ask this question
You do realize that all universe/dimensions no matter the size is a space-time?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

you dont have to destroy all of the time(past, present and future) of a universe to destroy the universe as there wont be a 3A then.

Unless Universe is different in both cases...what you say is paradoxical.

You seem to be too fixated on real life definition of word universe while ending up contradicting its own meaning. My arguements aren't predicated on word universe.

My problem isn't with wiki standards...but moreso grammar, context and basic logical assertions. If I destroy a defined set...it is destroyed completely..i.e all elements within said set are gone.
You cannot say Destruction of Single Element = Destruction of Set.

 

[Agnaa]

My issue with this is simple. That assertion contradicts its own statement of destruction in that case.

If I said I have a destroyed a Planet then we don't assume that only crust is destroyed. Default fact is that everything on and inside the planet is destroyed.
Crust =/= Planet afterall.

If I identify a realm "X" as a universal sized space-time. If I destroy X...then default fact is everything encompassed by said entity would be gone, which includes space and time.
If I assume only space is destroyed on one instant then that mean there are still Uncountably Infinite more instants of space intact, which means the by and large said entity is still virtually completely intact, which contradicts the event of destruction of "X".

That would make all universal destruction feats, as all universes have time, and thus are Low 2-C. But that's not how we treat things on the wiki, because purely physical destruction that doesn't affect the past/future is common.

Even if part of it is in-tact, that's just in the past, it no longer is in-tact. The future stuff remains destroyed as a chain reaction, not requiring direct interference in the future.

I think it is pretty intuitive to say that destroying all matter in every timeline in the multiverse 15 billion years after time started, is in fact destroying the multiverse.

Also, that isn't how these things are usually defined. They're not defined as "Bajookiestan is the entirety of this space-time construct", they'd just say "Bajookiestan is a different space-time to this one" or "Bajookiestan has a separate time from Gazorpzorp." The realm's identifier is rarely used to exclusively include the entirety of its time.

 

[Agnaa]

destruction of a single element can cause chain reaction that would in turn mean destruction of the whole set. destruction of all physical matter in a universe would cause chain reaction that would delete the past of the universe and the future of the universe would also stop exisitng

This is incorrect, destruction of all physical matter in a universe would have no effect on the past of the universe, but it would stop there from being any matter in the future of the universe.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

That would make all universal destruction feats, as all universes have time, and thus are Low 2-C. But that's not how we treat things on the wiki, because purely physical destruction that doesn't affect the past/future is common.

Universe as we define will not be same as universe as defined by fiction all the time.
Universe can be 3A i.e just a single instant in timeline
Or Universe can be low2C....synonymous with Timelime.

I remember a past thread which tried to get wiki to accept all universes to be by default be space-times, but it wasn't accepted.

Even if part of it is in-tact, that's just in the past, it no longer is in-tact. The future stuff remains destroyed as a chain reaction, not requiring direct interference in the future.

I have no problems with chain reactions...I know destroying space+matter in present will make causality ensure its future will gone. I never proposed a low2C for this. I know past section of timeline is still intact.

But again...this is not the case I used.
When I say X is destroyed....its needs its past to be gone as well. Nothing involving chain reaction.

I think it is pretty intuitive to say that destroying all matter in every timeline in the multiverse 15 billion years after time started, is in fact destroying the multiverse.

Not in technicality.

Also, that isn't how these things are usually defined. They're not defined as "Bajookiestan is the entirety of this space-time construct", they'd just say "Bajookiestan is a different space-time to this one" or "Bajookiestan has a separate time from Gazorpzorp." The realm's identifier is rarely used to exclusively include the entirety of its time.

That would be moreso determining the nature of realm, something that should be done before analyzing any feat involving said realm. Since afterall one must identify the entity before determining how it is being affected before it is rated.

In my example above, I have chosen a genuine low2C structure.

 

[Agnaa]

Universe as we define will not be same as universe as defined by fiction all the time.
Universe can be 3A i.e just a single instant in timeline
Or Universe can be low2C....synonymous with Timelime.

I remember a past thread which tried to get wiki to accept all universes to be by default be space-times, but it wasn't accepted.

No fictional universe is 3-A, they have time.

Not in technicality.

This is a bad general standard to set for fiction as a whole.

But again...this is not the case I used.
When I say X is destroyed....its needs its past to be gone as well. Nothing involving chain reaction.

In my example above, I have chosen a genuine low2C structure.

If it's ultra-explicit then sure, but I don't think that's super common, and is more often than not baselessly assumed. Thus, we should try to move the culture towards being more critical of these sorts of feats.

 

[Teezar]

If the bleach universe is called a spacetime and contains 2 other universal sized universes in it isn't it low 2-C to destroy it or possibly Low 2C?

 

[Agnaa]

If the bleach universe is called a spacetime and contains 2 other universal sized universes in it isn't it low 2-C to destroy it or possibly Low 2C?

Every universe is a spacetime. Saying "our universe has space and time" and "our reality is a spacetime" are equivalent statements, neither of which would make "I can destroy the universe" a Low 2-C statement.

 

[Teezar]

If dangai contains 2 universes inside if it doesn't destroying all of it at the same time makes it a possible low 2-C?

 

[Odinson]

If dangai contains 2 universes inside if it doesn't destroying all of it at the same time makes it a possible low 2-C?

Is Dangai (a space time) itself is getting destroyed or just the contents (two universes) inside it ? If the latter then no.

 

[Agnaa]

If dangai contains 2 universes inside if it doesn't destroying all of it at the same time makes it a possible low 2-C?

Destroying everything inside a space-time that contains two universes, without affecting the past or future (i.e. at one point in time), is just 3-A. It is a small-scale quilted multiverse feat.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

No fictional universe is 3-A, the have time.

Universe from our veiwer perspective yes....from fictions perspective it could just be a single instant of a timeline..an infintismal slice of whole timeline..i.e they do constitute to time. We do this case by case basis from what I know. Unless fiction tells us universe is timeline or Space-Time continuum, we don't assume their size to low2C.

Also I would never say fictional universes(from our perspective) to be existing as timeless.

This is a bad general standard to set for fiction as a whole.

The example you gave would be matter destruction on a 2A range. Would lead to a High3A result.

If it's ultra-explicit then sure, but I don't think that's super common, and is more often than not baselessly assumed. Thus, we should try to move the culture towards being more critical of these sorts of feats

I still standby my point. I don't find this baseless.

Every universe is a spacetime. Saying "our universe has space and time" and "our reality is a spacetime" are equivalent statements, neither of which would make "I can destroy the universe" a Low 2-C statement.

This logic can be used fairly for lower tiers as well.
In any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.

Should we consistently apply this logic accross all the boards??

 

[PrinceofPein]

In any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.

this is false equivalence

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

this is false equivalence

Prove it is.

 

[Gio]

2c stuck

 

[PrinceofPein]

Prove it is.

sigh, it is pointless to argue this with you. this has always been the standard no one is trying to change i just said they should clarify it better
how would you equate the asking for proof that all the past and future of a universe was destroyed to asking for proof a mantle or core of a planet was destroyed?
for one if the mantle or core of a planet was not destroyed, it will not be 5B, but ranging from High 6A - low 5B,
so yes if you cannot prove the core and mantle of a planet was affected you are not planet level.
but i will like for you to show me in what world that it was stated that the planet was destroyed but not the core and mantle and they are 5B.

anyway this is derailing as no one is trying to change the standards, you not understanding the standards and not trying to understand it is no one's fault

 

[Agnaa]

Universe from our veiwer perspective yes....from fictions perspective it could just be a single instant of a timeline..an infintismal slice of whole timeline..i.e they do constitute to time. We do this case by case basis from what I know. Unless fiction tells us universe is timeline or Space-Time continuum, we don't assume their size to low2C.

Also I would never say fictional universes(from our perspective) to be existing as timeless.

My bad, my statement was too general. I'm not educated enough to discuss this point, I don't know whether one snapshot of the universe being the only thing that exists is actually something metaphysically possible, and if it is possible, I don't know how much that conflicts with our standard assumptions for verses.

The example you gave would be matter destruction on a 2A range. Would lead to a High3A result.

I didn't specify infinite timelines, but if there were infinitely many it would be High 3-A yeah. I think I'd disagree with 2-A range, since it doesn't demonstrate the capability to strike anywhere in time in those timelines, I'd consider it Interdimensional.

I still standby my point. I don't find this baseless.

I didn't say your point was baseless, I said your point seems more-often-than-I'd-like implemented without a base.

This logic can be used fairly for lower tiers as well.
In any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.

Should we consistently apply this logic accross all the boards??

I think "planet" tends to include the mantle and core, but there are many cases where context indicates that it doesn't, and in those cases we don't include those. Characters who "destroy the world" by killing everyone on it, rather than literally being planet-busting.

 

[Luziifero]

Universe from our veiwer perspective yes....from fictions perspective it could just be a single instant of a timeline..an infintismal slice of whole timeline..i.e they do constitute to time. We do this case by case basis from what I know. Unless fiction tells us universe is timeline or Space-Time continuum, we don't assume their size to low2C.

Also I would never say fictional universes(from our perspective) to be existing as timeless.

My bad, my statement was too general. I'm not educated enough to discuss this point, I don't know whether one snapshot of the universe being the only thing that exists is actually something metaphysically possible, and if it is possible, I don't know how much that conflicts with our standard assumptions for verses.

The example you gave would be matter destruction on a 2A range. Would lead to a High3A result.

I didn't specify infinite timelines, but if there were infinitely many it would be High 3-A yeah. I think I'd disagree with 2-A range, since it doesn't demonstrate the capability to strike anywhere in time in those timelines, I'd consider it Interdimensional.

I still standby my point. I don't find this baseless.

I didn't say your point was baseless, I said your point seems more-often-than-I'd-like implemented without a base.

This logic can be used fairly for lower tiers as well.
In any instance if statement is provided that a planet was destroyed....it would be baseless to assume that the mantle and core were destroyed as well, they will still be intact.

Should we consistently apply this logic accross all the boards??

I think "planet" tends to include the mantle and core, but there are many cases where context indicates that it doesn't, and in those cases we don't include those. Characters who "destroy the world" by killing everyone on it, rather than literally being planet-busting.

yhwach has his "possibly 2c" rating because he was going to undo the 2c cosmology the soul king created

 

[Agnaa]

He has possibly Low 2-C, not possibly 2-C.

And why would it only be possibly if we know he was going to undo a cosmology we know is tier 2?

Why is Soul King 3-A to Low 2-C if we know the cosmology is tier 2?

The ratings may not be wrong, but the justifications are bad for not answering these questions. It should explain the evidence for the 3-A end, and the evidence for the Low 2-C end, and why the evidence for the Low 2-C end could work but is dubious. The current ratings just say "Soul King split the universe into other universes" and "Yhwach can destroy and sustain realms", telling us nothing about the relative merits of those two ratings.

 

[Luziifero]

He has possibly Low 2-C, not possibly 2-C.

And why would it only be possibly if we know he was going to undo a cosmology we know is tier 2?

Why is Soul King 3-A to Low 2-C if we know the cosmology is tier 2?

The ratings may not be wrong, but the justifications are bad for not answering these questions. It should explain the evidence for the 3-A end, and the evidence for the Low 2-C end, and why the evidence for the Low 2-C end could work but is dubious. The current ratings just say "Soul King split the universe into other universes" and "Yhwach can destroy and sustain realms", telling us nothing about the relative merits of those two ratings.

its possiblly 2c because he have no idea as to how he was gonna do it we just know that he was going to undo the 2c cosmology

 

[PrinceofPein]

yhwach has his "possibly 2c" rating because he was going to undo the 2c cosmology the soul king created

i will very much like it for everyone to stop bringing bleach to this, but this will be tackled later, the soul king would also likely lose his possibly low 2c rating

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

this has always been the standard no one is trying to change i just said they should clarify it better

Then its should be clarified on page with full honesty that we use logical fallacy for universal standards exclusively. We acknowledge universes as space-time continuums(Low2C) by default but destruction of said universe(low2C) should be 3A.

And I'll be content.

how would you equate the asking for proof that all the past and future of a universe was destroyed

A universe. Past, present and future of A Universe. You unknowingly committed a tactical error by using that preposition.
If said Universe is low2C....then its destruction accross past, present and future will low1C.
Since when you imply that an entity has a past, present and future...it stands to reason that said entity would have many versions accross time. If you destroy past, present and future of a universe(low2C) accross time( which would be 2nd temporal dimension) it will be low1C.

But if you had said past, present and future inside a universe(low2C)...then said destruction would be low2C.
But such an requirement is redundant when we know by default that Universe(low2C) contains "past, present and future". Thus destruction of said Universe(low2C) is low2C.

Also in case of a 3A universe...I already suggested the required clarification for FAQ thread as you wanted...

Simple way of attaining Low2C is destroying 3A or higher sized 3D structure accross past, present and future. Another method is by simply destroying entity/structure which is defined as atleast an universal or higher sized spacetime.

In fact it covers low2C destruction for both types of Universes(3A or low2C).

how would you equate the asking for proof that all the past and future of a universe was destroyed to asking for proof a mantle or core of a planet was destroyed?
for one if the mantle or core of a planet was not destroyed, it will not be 5B, but ranging from High 6A - low 5B,
so yes if you cannot prove the core and mantle of a planet was affected you are not planet level.

If proof is required to show that for low2C destruction we need prove past, present and future inside a Universe(Low2C) was destroyed simultaneously....
Then
Proof is also requires to show that planet destruction involves destruction of all components contained inside this structure simultaneously.

Also, I don't care ""how"" of destruction or rating itself....rather I care much about determining which component was destroyed.
Because ""how"" was something destroyed cannot be asked without determining "what" was destroyed.

anyway this is derailing as no one is trying to change the standards, you not understanding the standards and not trying to understand it is no one's fault

I am not derailling technically....thread was already derailed with discussion of Bleach which I am not responsible for...I am asking for a candid clarification to be written on page...on why and under which logic we determine destruction of Universe(Low2C) requires extra proof of ""destruction of past, present and future"" which is already contained inside it.

 

[Luziifero]

He has possibly Low 2-C, not possibly 2-C.

And why would it only be possibly if we know he was going to undo a cosmology we know is tier 2?

Why is Soul King 3-A to Low 2-C if we know the cosmology is tier 2?

The ratings may not be wrong, but the justifications are bad for not answering these questions. It should explain the evidence for the 3-A end, and the evidence for the Low 2-C end, and why the evidence for the Low 2-C end could work but is dubious. The current ratings just say "Soul King split the universe into other universes" and "Yhwach can destroy and sustain realms", telling us nothing about the relative merits of those two ratings.

here's the post made explaining the cosmology

The Bleach Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[PrinceofPein]

Anyway lets wait for more staffs to decide this and leave bleach out of this thread as it is not relevant to this

If that's what you're worried about, the wording would need to get across something like "Just because a series has a multiverse that contains multiple spacetimes, does not mean that the destruction of it is necessarily tier 2, as each universe could simply have its contents destroyed at one point in time, without affecting the past and future."

for the FAQ page

and also space time continuums meaning (past, present and future) should be added, linked to the wikipedia page that no one reads as shown in previous threads

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

My bad, my statement was too general. I'm not educated enough to discuss this point, I don't know whether one snapshot of the universe being the only thing that exists is actually something metaphysically possible, and if it is possible, I don't know how much that conflicts with our standard assumptions for

From what I know we allow fictions to determine their definition of universe.

And we don't assume timeless realms without past, present and future. That requires extremely stringent conditions to be met...as I have gathered from yourself in recent Low2C Alien X downgrade...Basically void standards.

I didn't specify infinite timelines, but if there were infinitely many it would be High 3-A yeah. I think I'd disagree with 2-A range, since it doesn't demonstrate the capability to strike anywhere in time in those timelines, I'd consider it Interdimensional

Depends of delivery and nature of attack technically.

think "planet" tends to include the mantle and core, but there are many cases where context indicates that it doesn't, and in those cases we don't include those. Characters who "destroy the world" by killing everyone on it, rather than literally being planet-busting.

World has fluid meaning depending om verse and context...it can mean society, planet, universe, multiverse, Outerverse...anything really. But destroying said world will destroy anything contained within it no matter what it is.

My planet example was genuine planet with a standard structure.

 

[Agnaa]

World has fluid meaning depending om verse and context...it can mean society, planet, universe, multiverse, Outerverse...anything really. But destroying said world will destroy anything contained within it no matter what it is.

My planet example was genuine planet with a standard structure.

I already answered your question. I said that sometimes we wouldn't include those, and sometimes we wouldn't; that it depends on context. Now it sounds like you're saying "What if the context is explicit that it's the entire planet?" Well I've already given you the answer for that.

Not responding to the rest of your post since I don't have much to say besides "sure".

 

[Teezar]

Destroying everything inside a space-time that contains two universes, without affecting the past or future (i.e. at one point in time), is just 3-A. It is a small-scale quilted multiverse feat.

AKm sama stated destroying 2 universes simultaneously is 2-C(no mention of time being destroyed) so why does destroying a construct which contains 2 other space-time continuums = 3A (at the same time).

 

[Agnaa]

AKm sama stated destroying 2 universes simultaneously is 2-C(no mention of time being destroyed) so why does destroying a construct which contains 2 other space-time continuums = 3A (at the same time).

AKM would be wrong on that, then. Destroying the matter in 2 universes simultaneously is just 3-A, and can be even be calced. High 3-A's description even explicitly mentions destroying infinitely many universes. Wouldn't it be weird for destroying 2 universes to be 2-C, but destroying infinitely many to only be High 3-A?

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

"What if the context is explicit that it's the entire planet?" Well I've already given you the answer for that

Under same logic, I fail to see why a universe in fiction determined explicitly to be a Spacetime continuum be treated to different standards and be unfairly given 3A upon their destruction.

My problem is this contradiction in logic for both cases. My intention was to demonstrate this exactly...and my request is either we acknowledge this descripency and carry on as it is...by giving cadid reasons on FAQ page for this logical contradiction....or we do something to address this inconsistency in logic.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Under same logic, I fail to see why a universe in fiction determined explicitly to be a Spacetime continuum be treated to different standards and be unfairly given 3A upon their destruction.

My problem is this contradiction in logic for both cases. My intention was to demonstrate this exactly...and my request is either we acknowledge this descripency and carry on as it is...by giving cadid reasons on FAQ page for this logical contradiction....or we do something to address this inconsistency in logic.

It is because we don’t know if they actually destroying time or not unless with explicit proof and such.