Universe level CRT

[liluzivert]

Guess ill ask this again since people skimmed over it. What happens to pocket reality feats? Ones that require dimensional travel to reach?

 

[KingPin0422]

Guess ill ask this again since people skimmed over it. What happens to pocket reality feats? Ones that require dimensional travel to reach?

It means nothing. Pocket dimensions would be treated the same as they are now.

 

[KatBoi69]

But does that make any sense at all?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I mean, I can’t really add to this lol

Yeah, the explanation wasn't directed at you in specific. More for whoever may want a more detailed explanation on why that's the case.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Ok, so I guess here I'm really using Zeno's paradox as a rhetorical tool. What I'm using it to get at is the idea that, at least as far as I can tell, destroying a small crossection of spacetime and destroying the whole spacetime represents the destruction of different sized "infinities".

Certainly, yeah, since, in this case, the total hypervolume of spacetime destroyed would be different in total. The issue is moreso that, in both cases, you are still effectively destroying uncountably-many 3-A structures, regardless of the length of the time axis.

 

[deonment]

how would PD feats be treated the same as before, if they have their own space-time and that gets destroyed in a manner that would scale to ap (No EE and the like) it should still qualify given that it is still space stretched across 4D axis in an uncountable number of snapshots, while it may not be a strong relative to other 4D universal feats and the like, it would still be 4D and as such still qualify for tier 2

 

[KatBoi69]

Certainly, yeah, since, in this case, the total hypervolume of spacetime destroyed would be different in total. The issue is moreso that, in both cases, you are still effectively destroying uncountably-many 3-A structures, regardless of the length of the time axis.

Hm. I fell like I'm rubbing up against A). The tastes of the wiki wrt what thought system they want to use in treating this matter B). The question of "combat applicability" wrt this sort of feat against an opponent, and if it would set everyone in the tier on comparable footing.

I'll pause on posting for a second as see how this develops.

 

[Wokistan]

Universal matter destruction 3-A.

Funny enough, I think this is actually wrong. 3-A is matter destruction via an explosion, which jacks the value up massively while most of the universe is empty. Turning all the matter in the universe to dust is like 4-A or something.

True universal destruction would be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
It... already is? The past present and future thing is instead a counterpoint to it actually being 4D universal.

Separate universal spaces are 2-C unless proven otherwise.
Have you dropped a "low" here? Because I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from. 2-C isn't mentioned elsewhere in the OP.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Too late here (3:30am) to reply to everything, but just two quick comments I wanted to make.

As I've already expressed elsewhere, the logic itself is sound, yes. To elaborate a bit on this: Since spacetime is a continuum, there are no "abrupt" changes in position or values between each of its coordinates (Like a sudden shift between 1 and 2 that does not account for any of the intermediate values between them, for example), and any interval that acts as a subset of it has uncountably-many points as well.

So, for instance, you can visualize this by setting universe as a space defined by the coordinates (x,y,z) added to an additional time variable, t. The number of possible values for this variable (Each corresponding to a 3-dimensional slice of spacetime) is uncountably infinite, since you can set it up to equate any real number (1, 7, 81.17519... and whatever), and since, as some of you probably know, there is an uncountably infinite amount of numbers even in-between 0 and 1, so too there are uncountably-many instances of the spatial volume of the universe even between a time interval of length 1.

Despite this, though, I am very neutral on applying the obvious implications that this has for tiering general spacetime continuums and their destruction. I don't feel like having a knife placed around my neck, as of yet, so, I'll just leave that as something for you all to decide.

For consistency sake the non-insignificant size rule would apply to time as much as to space/higher dimensions, though, right?

If I understand you correctly, this scenario would be akin to the relationship which the worldline of a single object has to the entire spacetime continuum, yes? As in, each individual body that we wish to consider would have an independent path that it traces across spacetime, which doesn't intersect with that of other objects but are still subsets of the continuum as a whole. Something like that?

If I understand you correctly, then yes. And considering relativity they can all travel at their own rate as well.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

For consistency sake the non-insignificant size rule would apply to time as much as to space/higher dimensions, though, right?

It would, yeah, but a temporal dimension, in most cases, certainly wouldn't be a direction that's largely empty of content, like compactified axes as defined in String Theory, so I imagine the rule itself wouldn't cover a great chunk of cases. Not to mention that these standards for spacetime destruction feats existed since way before I got to revise the Tiering System (Since, even if we did set High 3-A to have a high-end encompassing smaller-scale spacetime feats, the line between what was hax and what was AP was still hazy even back then, I believe), so I imagine it must come from someplace deeper than that.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

just destroying the universe is only equivalent to destroying a single snapshot, not any more

No it’s not. A universe is 4D. But anyway a single snapshot would have to be an event where time isn’t even moving.

destroying pace only destroyes current time, not past time

That doesn’t matter at all. Matter + space + time (no matter the amount of time) is still 4D.

Let me put this into perspective for everyone to pay attention. Apologies in advance but spoilers for Loki.

This is what a splitting timeline looks like from the Loki show. You see the branches? Those are new timelines. As you can see they’re finite however, they still have a PPF. In episode 2 it’s revealed that the main timeline, the long one in the center, has an end. Which proves it doesn’t matter what the duration of time is. All that matters is that’s time and space are destroyed across the universe.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I agree

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

Universal matter destruction 3-A.

Funny enough, I think this is actually wrong. 3-A is matter destruction via an explosion, which jacks the value up massively while most of the universe is empty. Turning all the matter in the universe to dust is like 4-A or something.

I mean it’s a case by case but… yeah!

True universal destruction would be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
It... already is? The past present and future thing is instead a counterpoint to it actually being 4D universal.

No it isn’t actually. Universal destruction is treated as 3-A unless proven low 2-C.

Separate universal spaces are 2-C unless proven otherwise.
Have you dropped a "low" here? Because I'm not entirely sure where this is coming from. 2-C isn't mentioned elsewhere in the OP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with DontTalkDT here

 

[Smashtwig]

Universal matter destruction 3-A.

Funny enough, I think this is actually wrong. 3-A is matter destruction via an explosion, which jacks the value up massively while most of the universe is empty. Turning all the matter in the universe to dust is like 4-A or something.

so Galaxies 4A? im so confused cuz all matter in the universe would include every galaxy right?

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

so Galaxies 4A? im so confused cuz all matter in the universe would include every galaxy right?

Galaxies contain big spaces within itself

 

[Darkmon_cns]

That doesn’t matter at all. Matter + space + time (no matter the amount of time) is still 4D.

Your wrong, but I feel like people aren't doing a very good job at explaining why, it's a none infinte scale of time, (the present) well the other dimensional Axises are infinte in scale- we have something for none universal 4D, it's called high 3-A, the 3D components might be universal, but the 4D part is far from it.

Anyway that's just what's wrong with this example/: you've- there's like other things that are well beyond my ability to properly explain, but I also don't feel like anyone else has either- so Sorry about that.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Your wrong, but I feel like people aren't doing a very good job at explaining why, it's a none infinte scale of time, (the present) well the other dimensional Axises are infinte in scale- we have something for none universal 4D, it's called high 3-A, the 3D components might be universal, but the 4D part is far from it.

Anyway that's just what's wrong with this example/: you've- there's like other things that are well beyond my ability to properly explain, but I also don't feel like anyone else has either- so Sorry about that.

High 3-A is not finite 4D, that's hasn't been a thing for a long time IIRC

 

[QuasiYuri]

Was going to write how much I disagree with this, but DontalkDT and others said everything I think already.
So yeah, definitely against that.

 

[Tago238]

The logic is probably fine without thinking about it much since spacetime is a single manifold and the two concepts are subject to the same changes but “universe” can mean multiple things and in general fiction observably tends not to go into timey whimey bullshit unless that’s the entire premise of a storyline so it seems more founded to not immediately make universal feats low 2-C.

 

[Overlord775]

No it’s not. A universe is 4D. But anyway a single snapshot would have to be an event where time isn’t even moving.

No, if there's no proof of all of time being affeced, than only the instant the universe is destroyed would be the snapshot destroyed

That doesn’t matter at all. Matter + space + time (no matter the amount of time) is still 4D.

you need to destroy a large amoung of time, not a litteral insignificant amount of it otherwise it's not 4-D, as you aren't actually destroying the entire dimension, just the screenshot of the present

you need an uncountable infinite amount of screenshots to be Low 2-C

Let me put this into perspective for everyone to pay attention. Apologies in advance but spoilers for Loki.

This is what a splitting timeline looks like from the Loki show. You see the branches? Those are new timelines. As you can see they’re finite however, they still have a PPF. In episode 2 it’s revealed that the main timeline, the long one in the center, has an end. Which proves it doesn’t matter what the duration of time is. All that matters is that’s time and space are destroyed across the universe.

first off, a lot of verses don't work under the splitting timeline model

second off, the standard assumption is that timeline don't have an end, the opposite must be proven

so that exemple doesn't work in the first place

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

No, if there's no proof of all of time being affeced, than only the instant the universe is destroyed would be the snapshot destroyed

I think you mean all of *spacetime dude. I already said matter + time would be wrong. Besides if spacetime in the universe is being destroyed, you’re not destroying a single snapshot.

you need to destroy a large amoung of time, not a litteral insignificant amount of it otherwise it's not 4-D, as you aren't actually destroying the entire dimension, just the screenshot of the present

What makes an arbitrary larger amount of time infinitely superior to a smaller amount of it?

you need an uncountable infinite amount of screenshots to be Low 2-C

There are uncountable infinite intervals between every number, no matter how small.

first off, a lot of verses don't work under the splitting timeline model

second off, the standard assumption is that timeline don't have an end, the opposite must be proven

so that exemple doesn't work in the first place

So a timeline with an end is 3-A to you or something? I provided that example to show that finite timelines are low 2-C.

but “universe” can mean multiple things and in general fiction observably tends not to go into timey whimey bullshit unless that’s the entire premise of a storyline so it seems more founded to not immediately make universal feats low 2-C.

I don’t mind this (kinda). I just don’t like the idea of a character destroying space being written off as 3-A. By arguing that I feel like it’s making the assertion that basic relativity isn’t a thing in that verse.

For example characters stated to destroy time are treated as > characters stated to destroy space. I find that hypocritical because “time” isn’t 4D.

 

[KingPin0422]

I don’t mind this (kinda). I just don’t like the idea of a character destroying space being written off as 3-A. By arguing that I feel like it’s making the assertion that basic relativity isn’t a thing in that verse.

For example characters stated to destroy time are treated as > characters stated to destroy space. I find that hypocritical because “time” isn’t 4D.

Someone who destroys space or time by themselves shouldn't be Low 2-C, I agree. Such a feat would have Low 2-C consequences, yes, but that would be as a chain reaction from destroying one of the fundamental properties of the universe and not something that the character did directly.

If we have characters who are Low 2-C purely off of destroying time with no indication of space being destroyed by the same attack and not as a consequence of time being destroyed, then that's a problem.

 

[Overlord775]

I think you mean all of *spacetime dude. I already said matter + time would be wrong. Besides if spacetime in the universe is being destroyed, you’re not destroying a single snapshot.

First off you need proof that it's destroying the space-time and not just the physical

second off, destroying space-time isn't destroying all of time since time doesn't exist all at the, well, same time

past, present and future don't exist all togheter

What makes an arbitrary larger amount of time infinitely superior to a smaller amount of it?

there's a very large difference between 1 and infinity

There are uncountable infinite intervals between every number, no matter how small.

Actually no, Plank Time is the smallest you can go down

So a timeline with an end is 3-A to you or something? I provided that example to show that finite timelines are low 2-C.

arguable

also like i already said, not a very good exemple since it needs two pretty heavy assumptions

 

[KingPin0422]

Actually no, Plank Time is the smallest you can go down

Under general relativity, space and time are continuous. This means that they each are a spectrum of points where, given any two points, there exist an uncountably infinite number of other points in-between them. While there are theories in which the Planck length and the Planck time are treated as "pixels" of space and time respectively (such as loop quantum gravity), they are incompatible with general relativity and so they are rarely considered.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

First off you need proof that it's destroying the space-time and not just the physical

It’s like you’re not listening. As a matter of fact, that goes for others as well. I should add a small detail to the OP so there’ll be less confusion.

second off, destroying space-time isn't destroying all of time since time doesn't exist all at the, well, same time

past, present and future don't exist all togheter

You are treating PPF as point A, point B, and point C. That’s not how it works. Any duration of time has a past present and future.

there's a very large difference between 1 and infinity

1 second has uncountably infinite snapshots so your point ur moot.

Actually no, Plank Time is the smallest you can go down

KingPin explained it best.

arguable

also like i already said, not a very good exemple since it needs two pretty heavy assumptions

What heavy assumptions? Do you think a finite timeline is 3-A or not?

 

[Tago238]

The way Planck measurements were originally conceived were to just be fundamental (not literally) constants in quantum physics such as the length when the Compton wavelength and Schwarzschild radius are the same iirc. In fact even theories that find discreet solutions to violations of Lorentz symmetry have to have the universe’s continuity be at least 14 orders of magnitude below a Planck length.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

EDIT: To cause less confusion I want to add this in. If a verse establishes that their universe is low 2-C then statements like “I’m going to destroy the entire universe!” would be low 2-C. However, if a verse treats their universe as the matter then a statement like that would warrant 3-A.

• If a verse treats a universe as low 2-C then universal destruction would automatically be low 2-C unless proven otherwise.
• If a verse treats a universe as 3-A then universal destruction would automatically be 3-A unless proven otherwise.

I added these to the OP so my point could be understood further.

 

[Overlord775]

It’s like you’re not listening. As a matter of fact, that goes for others as well. I should add a small detail to the OP so there’ll be less confusion.

you litterally had said nothing about it int he OP <-<

You are treating PPF as point A, point B, and point C. That’s not how it works. Any duration of time has a past present and future.

that's ... how time works mate, it's called timeLINE for a reason

Any duration of time does have it, but they don't exist simultaneusly, the past is what was, the future is what will be, they don't co-exist with the now

1 second has uncountably infinite snapshots so your point ur moot.

Universe destruction doesn't happen in a second, so moot point is on your part

What heavy assumptions? Do you think a finite timeline is 3-A or not?

First off, you didn't give any actual proof for your claim

second off, no, the assumpton you making is that because something works one way in a verse then it applies to every verse, which is a HELLA big assumption to make

 

[Overlord775]

Under general relativity, space and time are continuous. This means that they each are a spectrum of points where, given any two points, there exist an uncountably infinite number of other points in-between them. While there are theories in which the Planck length and the Planck time are treated as "pixels" of space and time respectively (such as loop quantum gravity), they are incompatible with general relativity and so they are rarely considered.

except it works with quantum relativity, cuz you know, we still haven't figured out how to conciliate the two

 

[Tago238]

Okay Over but we assume relativity in our models of universes since loop quantum gravity is a much less solid theory and is known much less.

 

[Overlord775]

Completly ruling out quantum relativity is dumb considering it's accepted by the scientific comunity and proven multiple times as working

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

you litterally had said nothing about it int he OP <-<


that's ... how time works mate, it's called timeLINE for a reason

Any duration of time does have it, but they don't exist simultaneusly, the past is what was, the future is what will be, they don't co-exist with the now

When did I say they exist simultaneously?

Universe destruction doesn't happen in a second, so moot point is on your part

I was giving an example. I don’t get what the point of this comment was or what it implies.

First off, you didn't give any actual proof for your claim

second off, no, the assumpton you making is that because something works one way in a verse then it applies to every verse, which is a HELLA big assumption to make

When did I say it applies to every verse? I gave an example of a timeline with an end. It’s a timeline, therefore it’s low 2-C. You need to prove why it’s not.

 

[Tago238]

Completly ruling out quantum relativity is dumb considering it's accepted by the scientific comunity and proven multiple times as working

This is about standard assumptions. We have two possibilities, one is more likely than the other and ergo we assume that possibility is the case over the other if we aren’t given reason to believe otherwise. I don’t know what else you want to be done.

Also I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s an uncontroversial theory that hasn’t been disproven. I literally posted a refutation of its mathematics in the post you are responding to here.

 

[Overlord775]

When did I say they exist simultaneously?

because you are saying destroying the universe automatially means destroying all three

I was giving an example. I don’t get what the point of this comment was or what it implies.

then what's your point ?

When did I say it applies to every verse? I gave an example of a timeline with an end. It’s a timeline, therefore it’s low 2-C. You need to prove why it’s not.

i can call a 3 meter wide pocket dimension a universe and it doesn't make destroying it any more impressive

 

[Overlord775]

This is about standard assumptions. We have two possibilities, one is more likely than the other and ergo we assume that possibility is the case over the other if we aren’t given reason to believe otherwise. I don’t know what else you want to be done.

quantum relativity litterally breaks if you try go underneath plank time, while general realtivity doesn't even deal with things that small, so it's not really two possibilities, it's either one way or ignore it

Also I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s an uncontroversial theory that hasn’t been disproven. I literally posted a refutation of its mathematics in the post you are responding to here.

that applies to almost all high-end physics tbh

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

because you are saying destroying the universe automatially means destroying all three

It does, depending on context of course. I edited it in the OP to make it clearer.

then what's your point ?

What I’ve been saying for the last couple of hours now. Any form of duration has uncountably infinite snapshots no matter how you look at it.

i can call a 3 meter wide pocket dimension a universe and it doesn't make destroying it any more impressive

I’m talking about time my guy. This example refers to space.

 

[Overlord775]

It does, depending on context of course. I edited it in the OP to make it clearer.

i have read it and tbh, it seems rather subjective

you are just saying "if the verse threats it as Low 2-C it's Low 2-C" without even giving the actual requirements for it

What I’ve been saying for the last couple of hours now. Any form of duration has uncountably infinite snapshots no matter how you look at it.

except universal destruction doesn't factor in any duration, so nada uncountably snapshots

I’m talking about time my guy. This example refers to space.

it's litterally the same, just because something is called in a way it doesn't mean it automatically fits in our system

you shouldn't take stuff at face value

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

i have read it and tbh, it seems rather subjective

you are just saying "if the verse threats it as Low 2-C it's Low 2-C" without even giving the actual requirements for it

The requirements are there. It’s in the OP you’re just not seeing it for some reason.

except universal destruction doesn't factor in any duration, so nada uncountably snapshots

Stop twisting my words. All I said was destroying any amount of universal spacetime is low 2-C. Never did I say anything about how much time passes for universal destruction.

it's litterally the same, just because something is calles in a way it doesn't mean it automatically fits in our system

you shouldn't take stuff at face value

No it’s not the same. Space measures size while time duration has the snapshots.

I’m convinced you have no idea what you’re actually saying. I’m not gonna waste my time repeating things with you not getting the message.

 

[Tago238]

quantum relativity litterally breaks if you try go underneath plank time, while general realtivity doesn't even deal with things that small, so it's not really two possibilities, it's either one way or ignore it


that applies to almost all high-end physics tbh

What the **** are you talking about? RQM theories can’t compensate for continuous cross sections but they can foreseeably compensate for discreet measurements smaller than the Planck length. Also “general relativity doesn’t deal with stuff that small”, what exactly do you mean there? Don’t wanna strawman you and definitely don’t want to steelman you after all but this argument is genuinely baffling me.

Would you not consider general relativity “high level physics” then? Cause it’s pretty staple and abides by the incorrect description you gave for quantum loop gravity.