Timeless Voids Standards Issues (Staff only)

[PlozAlcachaz]

I'll try to get explaining maybe why I'd think zero would be Nonexistent later, but I'm glad we're mostly on the same page. I want to make this clear though that I do agree there should be change, just not the idea of scrapping that Type 3 voids aren't mathematically of that speed.

What I agree with on what was proposed:

1.) Sera's idea of the "Transcendent Void" being Immeasurable.

2.) Not all voids should be giving Infinite Speed as they're not always true to the standards of one given how fiction is dumb (though the page already somewhat follows this idea)

3.) Not every character who steps in a timeless void for very brief and secluded screen time should get Infinite Speed, even if it's a True Void. It should be more like it's a natural environment for you or at least consistent with your showings.

Though with Sera's proposal, we might have to get a new type of them.

 

[PlozAlcachaz]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I believe what I've argued fully. Given I made that entire document on the topic, it's less about the verses and just keeping consistent standards for the site imo. The idea people are arguing because their verses would be affected doesn't necessarily mean bias toward the idea is all I'm trying to say, this should still result in at least that entering Timeless Void once Ôëá immediately that speed. I've made that pretty apparent across my replies at least and when I brought up the "verses", it was mostly because the standards weren't being applied in an equal fashion.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

What I agree with on what was proposed:

1.) Sera's idea of the "Transcendent Void" being Immeasurable.

2.) Not all voids should be giving Infinite Speed as they're not always true to the standards of one given how fiction is dumb (though the page already somewhat follows this idea)

3.) Not every character who steps in a timeless void for very brief and secluded screen time should get Infinite Speed, even if it's a True Void. It should be more like it's a natural environment for you or at least consistent with your showings.

Though with Sera's proposal, we might have to get a new type of them.

I share and agree with these proposals too honestly. The only thing I really disagree with at the very least is that "it needs to be explained what is required to move within voids" or that some kind of speed is required to traverse it.

If a void is depicted as only being accessible to those who are the top of their verses food-chain, and that normal individuals can't in any way interact with the void, that should be enough to differentiate who can move inside it from those who can't. And if we aren't going to downgrade every single verse with Billionx MFTL characters that are never given a light speed statement, then we shouldn't need a speed statement for this.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Also, just want to apologize to everyone if I ever came off as aggressive or snarkish at all here. This topic is a sensitive one, to me at least, so I was trying to be defensive regarding it. Wasn't my intention to be rude in this discussion if I ever was.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. Everybody seem to make an effort to get along now.

 

[RatherClueless]

Well, I haven't followed the entire thing. But to get my stance on this out right away:

1. Moving d=any (0,∞) distance in t=0 time is not infinite speed. It's greater. ∞ m/s is a velocity, x*m/0*s is not, since it can also be written as x m/0, without the value "t", which makes it inherantly not a velocity (at least not in the traditional sence, since a velocity is always described as "d/t" and never just as "d" or just as "t"). This is also completely disregarding that x m/0 doesn't have a defined answer in the vast majority of mathematical systems.

2. Moving d=∞ in t=any (0,∞) time is infinite.

3. Timeless voids shouldn't be used regardless, since the author very likely didn't think about the logical consequences (characters needing to move very fast). It's often just a case of "timeless void or before time sounds rly cool, so imma use that". Unless it's very heavily implied or the character has simiar feats anyways, this should never used or rated "possibly infinite" at best.

Now to get to some of the arguments in here. I did skimm through most of the thread, but I think the most "major" points are commming from Ploz, so I'll pretty much only talk about document he posted. (Now I'd love to quote the stuff he said, but it won't let me and I am not willing to write everything in here by hand)

Let's start with the first point, limits. Pls don't use limits when talking about "true infinity" or "true 0". They aren't even close to being the same. lim 0 is an infinitismal (basically lim x->∞ 1/x), 0 obviously isn't. Not only Algebra doesn't allow the devision by 0, but Calcus too, unless you are using something like the Riemann sphere, which I doubt you do. I honestly don't know where you got the impression from that Calculus is fine with the division by 0.

Next up is the quote about needing infinite speed to stop time... which is false.

For you, the person that is moving, moving faster means time around you seamingly moves faster. Even if we ignore the fact that you can't move faster than c, if you were to go at ∞ m/s, within an instant, infinite time would have passed for everyone else. For people "watching" you move at those speeds, I guess you would seem like time is frozen, since no matter for how long you move, you won't age even a bit. This is not the same as moving within t=0 time however. This is just basic relativity and if we allow relativity, this is already true if you were to move at the speed of light.

Next up the "non existant = 0"

Nope, that is false. 0 is an answer to a mathematical equation, "nothing" isn't. As an example. We allow numbers from [1,9] and now we want to find a solution for 3+x=167. The answer to this is non existant {}, not however 0 {0}. Equating these two is a big nono.

Now to the rebuttals. Turns out I've already covered the first 2. I don't care much about the rest, since they aren't directly math based and more so about standarts.

I think this should be most of them... I hope

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

So from what I heard, characters who are native to a Timeless Void qualify for Infinite speed?

 

[Sera_EX]

That's not a definitive conclusion, but is what we'd have to do if the insistence on keeping voids doesn't waver.

 

[VenomElite]

Timeless voids shouldn't be used unless it's treated as a speed feat. Most verses don't treat it was anything special speed wise and mostly refers to how one perceives or is affected by the normal flow of time. It's that simple. So many people overemphasize time in these speed feats. It's like those guys claiming Deku flicking his finger against one of Todo's attacks is FTL+ for similar reasons.

The semantics and the math is also not helping this thread at all. It doesn't matter if technically based on what this fancy big-thonk philosopher or mathematician said. For example, Platonic concepts are not automatically treated as 1-A. It doesn't matter because unless the verse is Platonism, it's just based off the philosophy, not rooted within it to the complete accuracy.

Translation? Unless the verse is using the logic that timeless voids require infinite speed to navigate (or any of the mathematical jargon involved), they shouldn't be assumed to under any circumstances. Especially since these assumptions are never listed as a "likely" or a "possibly" but as definitive (as if it's based on fact or research, when it isn't - it's an assumption). We do the same for dimensions. Unless they verse treats dimensions as "higher infinites, we no longer rate them as such.

For all his bluntness, Matt has been making the most sense here.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with VenomElite.

 

[TriforcePower1]

@VenomElite

"Timeless voids shouldn't be used unless it's treated as a speed feat. Most verses don't treat it was anything special speed wise and mostly refers to how one perceives or is affected by the normal flow of time. It's that simple."

We've never considered author intent and we'll not start now. Obviously, if there's an in-universe reason for why people can move in timeless voids, that takes precedence because it's no longer author intent but verse mechanics, but in the case of no particular explanation being given, I'm okay with Sera/Ploz' standards for the reasons they expressed above. Obviously, it requires that the Timeless void to actually be a timeless void, and to be shown to be one rather than just stated to be one (Or in general, there needs to be sufficient proof), because, just as you said, there are verses that refer to "timeless voids" as just "how one perceives or is affected by the normal flow of time", but that doesn't mean that true timeless voids don't exist in fiction. If the problem is that our standards are too lax, then we just need to tighten our standards.

"So many people overemphasize time in these speed feats. It's like those guys claiming Deku flicking his finger against one of Todo's attacks is FTL+ for similar reasons."

It's pretty natural to take in consideration time in speed feats. Time is in the formula for speed, after all. That example is simple Calc stacking.

"The semantics and the math is also not helping this thread at all. It doesn't matter if technically based on what this fancy big-thonk philosopher or mathematician said."

Uh, this is just all based on Calculus. It's a branch of mathematics, just like Algebra or Geometry. It's nothing complicated and, just like everything else in Maths, it's objective.

"For example, Platonic concepts are not automatically treated as 1-A. It doesn't matter because unless the verse is Platonism, it's just based off the philosophy, not rooted within it to the complete accuracy."

Philosophy =/= Maths. Philosophy is subjective and based human ideas. Math is objective. Obviously this is not maths, but it's still based on Calculus.

"Especially since these assumptions are never listed as a "likely" or a "possibly" but as definitive (as if it's based on fact or research, when it isn't - it's an assumption). We do the same for dimensions. Unless they verse treats dimensions as "higher infinites, we no longer rate them as such."

Even if it is an assumption, it's still the one more grounded on reality and maths. And using the example of dimensions, just like a higher dimension needs to be shown to be a "higher infinity", a timeless void needs to be shown to be actually timeless in order for infinite speed to kick in. We just need to change our standards on timeless voids if we end up with contradictions, not taking the lazy way and just erasing this kind of feats.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im 100% agreeing with Triforce. We've been over this already in this thread and needing to have a void be treated as a speed feat is flawed. We just need to tighten the standards and make sure the void in question for a verse is an actual timeless void.

 

[VenomElite]

I said nothing about author intent. I'm talking about in universe, by the characters it's usually not treated as anything impressive speed wise.

 

[Antoniofer]

Like 1/3 of the argument against the changes involve Author Intent, apparently, needing infinite speed is the objective truth, and if the author make someone that obviously do not have infinite speed moves within these voids then is considered "stupidity".

 

[Sera_EX]

It's not objective truth.

 

[Antoniofer]

And that's why I made this thread.

 

[Sera_EX]

Just think about this argument for a sec: A speed feat does not need to be treated/understood/demonstrated as a speed feat to be accepted as a speed feat.



I will walk out right now if that's seriously the logic being used here. Keep in mind that I know a speed feat can be determined by whatever we see. If we see someone do something and calc it at a certain speed, it's that speed even if it isn't showcased as a speed feat. But by all means it has to actually be speed.

I'm also not going to bother with the author intent shenanigans because: 1. That's not the main point of the opposing argument against timeless voids. 2. It's not author intent so much that it's author's understanding of the concept. They can "intend" for a planet busting feat to yield 5-B results but if it's calc'd at only High 6-A, it's High 6-A. It works for both results that are higher and lower than what was "intended". That's not the issue here, the issue is whether or not it's even acknowledged as such, since temporal resistance or atemporal awareness could easily be what was actually being suggested.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

I agree with Sera

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

>Temporal resistance in a place where nothing temporal exists...

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes, that's a thing. Ren Fuji says "hello". I also said "atemporal" awareness, aka an awareness of timelessness due to the lack thereof within the environment.

 

[Keiyu]

Maybe infinite speed can be more accepted if there is other evidence for it outside of the stuff with timeless voids. Something like a statement, or some other supporting evidence other than void movement itself. I think the lack of other feats is the problem most actually have with using them, they are the only evidence being used and often, are overused.

 

[Pritti]

That's a rather good way of looking at it Keiyu

 

[Elizhaa]

Maybe infinite speed can be more accepted if there is other evidence for it outside of the stuff with timeless voids. Something like a statement, or some other supporting evidence other than void movement itself. I think the lack of other feats is the problem most actually have with using them, they are the only evidence being used and often, are overused.

Yeah, I think the standards of Powerscaling, Inconsistency, and Outlier should be better considered when making an upgrade; I think it could be a good idea to had a note mentioned this point that Timeless Voids Standards speed feats should be rejected regardless of its accurate typing if the speed feats fail to meet the correct standards.

 

[Sera_EX]

We all seem to agree about consistency. I think that we need to just apply that the character needs to naturally exist in a void and that it has to be treated as a feat (no, not specifically a "speed" feat) of superiority - rather than not being considered as anything notable in the universe itself. If this isn't the ideal compromise, I don't know what is.

 

[Pritti]

Well, again, the idea that zero time can be the same as nonexistent time is wrong. Something happening at zero time intervals is not the same as no time at all. Zero is a value, nothing is not.

If someone did something in zero time, it wouldn't be called "timeless", it'd be called "instantaneous". I already went into detail on why several times.

Within a timeless void, there is no speed equatio, nothing to calculate. I know when I come home from school I'm going to see another wall of text of arguments and it'll just keep going in circles but I'm sticking to it, as I've already talked it over with Aeyu and Ultima, with both sharing my viewpoint.

So at this point everyone else needs to just pick which one of us they agree with as to prevent us from arguing back and forth any further than we have to.

 

[Sera_EX]

I suppose doing the classic "vote" is the better solution. I just want to be done with this. If this doesn't conclude soon (and I mean very soo), I won't be able to rework the page, I have a family to support.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I find it rather peculiar that this feels, in a way, sort of like the issue of True Godly assuming and being reliant on outside circumstances entirely removed and tangentially unimportant to the issue, i.e., the environment rather than the main thing (regenerating from the erasure of all levels of existence and moving in a timeless void regardless of further context).

That said, killing authorial intent is dumb. It has been always dumb and it will remain dumb. Doing so when there's inherent clashing between the authorial intent and what is shown in the work is one thing, doing so when there's not and stripping any sort of comment or intent by the author is for me personally, and doing so further when things do line up with said authorial intent or comment is the dumbest to me.

This is merely my sentiment in regards to what Tri said. "Never will and never have" is a freaking bold faced lie. And it should never be done either when it can be treated as proof like any other when there's other proper backing behind it. Taking it as an all or nothing deal has no logic behind it.

Aside from that, I can agree on the matter on the stuff Sera and other's agreed from Ploz's comment. It always annoyed me to see speed that is not at all congruent with infinite whenever the character was not in a timeless void still get accepted. I think those were some of the cases were I was left most dumbfounded.

That aside, I am sorry if this has gotten on the nerve's of people more than necessary, but I am personally grateful for a chance to see this being discussed and gain a better grasp of the subject. Lord knows I am dumb enough as it is.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm just here to say that PlozAlcachaz still has a ton of stuff to say, namely what RatherClueless brought up, but he's quite tired and needs a break, so please keep that in mind so that he may continue this Sunday or so.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Venom Elite, Pritti, and Sera all make sense.

 

[AKM sama]

So from what I heard, characters who are native to a Timeless Void qualify for Infinite speed?

Imo, only if the story somehow hammers home the point that regular characters are completely unable to move in such an area and movement is solely dependent on speed and not some other extraordinary ability.

 

[Antvasima]

So given the staff support, should we apply the solution suggested by Sera, Venom, and Pritti?

 

[Antvasima]

Imo, only if the story somehow hammers home the point that regular characters are completely unable to move in such an area and movement is solely dependent on speed and not some other extraordinary ability.

Agreed.

 

[Kepekley23]

No verse ever does that in explicit terms.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we need some sort of clarification in any case.

 

[Sera_EX]

It just needs to be a feat (again, it doesn't have to be an actual speed feat). Void movement should be treated as something notable, if not impressive. FFXIII is a good example as you'll come to see during its CRT.

Of course, Pritti seems to have thoroughly debunked timeless voids = infinite speed to begin with. However, whether it be immeasurable or not, I think it being a feat is important.

And adding on what Keiyu said, in any case additional supporting evidence would be appreciated other than the void stuff itself.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm already aware of the Final Fantasy XIII upgrades coming. Talked about it with a good friend offsite.

 

[The_Causality]

So, what is the concesus precisely?

If it's to keep the page, it need to be at least rewrited enough for at least not give Infinite to any characters just because they exist in a Timeless void which didn't show any proof of Void proprieties so basically don't make overall standards when the verse don't show stuff whorthy for IS (and i see no real reason to keep the type of voids listed there).

I have actually no real interest to the wiki's stuff so i am fine with every choice you guys choose.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree that any infinite speed ratings need to be removed.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

All of that is still applying theories to a concept that does not exist in real life (or has never been observed if it does), and is fully up to the writer to decide the mechanics of.

 

[DatOneWeeb]

You do realize that you're trying to equate fiction to real life? We might as well remove many other things in this wiki because these theories don't exist in real life.