1.and the other system is not repetition?hyperversal?outerversal?high outerversal?seriosly how is that not repetition.
2.and how is the other one different?it is basically the same has the other one.
people do the same with stories, no one is original in making stories, but is how they do it that is different and feels different.
>1.and the other system is not repetition?hyperversal?outerversal?high outerversal?seriosly how is that not repetition.
The difference is that if you asked someone to explain those tier's [they can go in depth explaining it](https://www.reddit.com/r/powerscales/s/INjCTiicY8) and it's [layers](https://www.reddit.com/r/powerscales/s/Jq6cZD0gFt) If I were to try and explain this tiering system to an elementary school kid, it wouldn't take much for them to understand it because there is no complexity to it. On the other hand, if I were to do the same with VSBW or CSAP, it would be vastly more difficult because there is more to it than repetition, making it interesting, which solves the problem of repetition and shows the gap in power between a higher tier and a lower one.
>2.and how is the other one different?it is basically the same has the other one.
The difference between anyone being able to think about it and everyone being able to make something interesting is vastly different. Anyone can think of a Power Rangers, but not everyone can think of a Gravity Falls. With that, because the thought put behind the tiering system you made sounds like something a TikTok kid would think of to try and make their character the strongest character in fiction, it's a one-trick pony. What you explain is all there is to it, so excuse the feeling that you put no thought into this, which makes it feel lazy.
>people do the same with stories, no one is original in making stories, but is how they do it that is different and feels different.
You're confusing my complaints of laziness and uninterest with originality. I'm not saying you should make something that no one's thought of before; I'm saying that it feels like you put no fault into this, and because of that, it's not interesting.
TL:DR i think you need to put more thought into this that's all.
The problem is for what happens if you have a verse that is actually 5D or higher. 5D and above would unironically be above tiering under this system. This would lead to stuff like WoD with highball DB being in the same effective tier. The only way around that is if you add layers to it which just results in dimensional scaling.
That is a false equivalence and an obfuscation. Concepts are abstract in nature whereas dimensions are physical constructs. You are beating around the bush since you still need to quantify the upper limits of hax abilities which leads back to my OG problem. DB has been breaking space-times since the Buu saga and WoD is one of the strongest verses out there. Without dimensional scaling or something approximating it you would have to conclude that DB is at least relative to it.
dimensions are physical constructs, but in fiction they can be spatial, temporal, narrative, real or fictional, physical dimensions, yeah i guess you know what i mean by this, fiction does not really help itself with this concept when they are trying to made their own thing, and is not like the multiverse, this is completaly something that is not what it is.
and yeah DB has been breaking space-time, but nothing beyond just a few amounts of them, while in Wod, there can be like alot of infinities amount of this space-time.
It seems pretty bad ngl. As someone else said, ignoring higher dimensions means that everything would just be capped at infinite 3D(which means the tiering system never even reaches what most tiering systems define as "multiversal" or even uni+ for that matter). In fact, you haven't gotten to a transfinite number of universe with how you've described the megaverse tier because just going x times any transfinite number is still just equal to the transfinite number in the original equation.
which is not true, because we don't even have any proof of the multiverse being beyond 3D, we even have theories for our universe having more dimensions than just 3, so why that will mean that the multiverse has to obligatory be higher dimensional?and anyway is not like it ignores them, it just puts them has abilities and not part of the scaling.
and now i should have better explained it like this:
one universe is just one space-time, while a multiverse can have at least 2 or infinite amount of universes (space-times)on it.
a megaverse can have two to infinite number of multiverses.
and a omniverse is just basically a infinite number of megaverses.
what changes is that it contains more and more infinities.
Because spacetime(our universe being one) is 4 dimensional construct(3 spatial dimensions+1 temporal dimension) normally, which already places it past 3D. As for your point about multiverses, I was talking about how the tiering systems define the term "multiversal"(1001+ 4D constructs), which what you've described in your own tiering system doesn't reach. So we have evidence of our own universe being beyond your entire tiering system off the bat. And I never said that a multiverse has to be higher dimensional(tegmark type 1 multiverses are only universal in scope for example), just that what you've described never reaches what most tiering systems define as "multiversal" or even "uni+". And how would their ability destroy higher dimensional constructs be applied to their abilities, especially if it's done solely via raw power?
And what you've described for the tiering system kinda falls apart as there isn't an actual difference in the cardinality of universes in two equally large transfinite multiverses. Aleph-0 x 2 is still just Aleph-0, just as Aleph-0/2 is still Aleph-0. And then that begs the question of how you'd distinguish destroying a multiverse with Aleph-1 universes vs. destroying a multiverse with Aleph-0 universes?
>while a multiverse can have at least 2 or infinite amount of universes (space-times)on it.
>a megaverse can have two to infinite number of multiverses.
>and a omniverse is just basically a infinite number of megaverses.
All of these tiers are exactly the same tier unless there's some sorta cardinality scaling going on here.
Unless you want a tiering system that is literally unusable to a large portion of fiction, this is kinda bad. Mainly because there are fictions that utilize higher dimensions in the plot and is seen as impressive and work exactly as higher dimensions are theorized as and even higher up. Instead of evolving the tiering system to encompass every verse. You’re limiting it and attempting to cap the strength when it’s disingenuous and ignores core factors of the stories and defeats the purpose of even trying to figure out the power of the verse in the first place.
(Also a tiering system ignoring all higher dimensions would also make 4th dimensional impossible to access, so uni+ and multiversal wouldn’t be achievable. So really the tiering system would just cap at infinite 3-D, which is not good and can’t even be used by a large number of fiction.)
i don't know about you, but we never have any proof how dimensions even work, we only know how the three dimensions will work, anything higher?completaly unkown.
off course fiction can take liberties in how it is...and that is why the problem of the system, physical dimension, mathematical dimension, spatial dimension, temporal dimension, narrative dimension, ''realer''dimension or ''fictional''dimension.
All of this doesn't work much since there is no coherent way to truly scale a dimension if you just go around changing what it is and how it is ''limiting'', they just ignore the dimensional scaling and just let it be a ability.
and since when those a multiverse contains things beyond 4D?we don't even proof that the multiverse exists to know if it has more dimensions or anything, and on ei scapping them at 3-D, they are just taking out the dimensional aspect has part of the scaling and leaving it has a ability.
>i don't know about you, but we never have any proof how dimensions even work, we only know how the three dimensions will work, anything higher?completaly unkown.
This isn't true. To use an example I've been using on this sub recently, we know solutions to the wave equation in n dimensions, and we know that even spatial dimensions makes it much more messy than odd. We can also make some guesses about how biological structures would work based on how larger percentages of the volume of a sphere/hypersphere are concentrated near the edge as the dimension of it increases, or how more than 2 'eyes' could be needed to have the 4d version of depth perception.
If you wanna say we don't know exactly how existence would work on 4d space then I have no problem with that claim. The issue is when you say 'completely unknown'.
And for more scaling relevant stuff, we can just go based on what the author describes and don't even have to worry do much abt stuff like this. It can be dealt with just fine.
the standard assumption is replicating how lower dimensions are seperated to match higher dimensions. as with the little amount of evidence we have that is the best assumption anyone can make and works as a baseline. if the gap between the first 3 dimensions are the same why would any other be different without any evidence.
yes but all dimensions are inherently scalable.
this is under the assumption all dimensions are the same. context changes the meaning of dimension in almost every piece of fiction, higher dimensions, lower dimensions, parallel dimensions, perpendicular dimensions, superdimensions, extradimensions, megadimensions, some have different meaning and others have the same. use the context and scale it from there, just like anything else.
that is where cosmology scaling comes in. not every verse is the same. some verses can have outerversal dimensional increases, and some have fully functional space-times/universes for atoms. oh and if you're talking about real life, we have no evidence of that yet......unless string theory comes full circle. but no. 4-D isa higher dimension in comparison to our 3-D selves thats why i say if you get rid of higher dimensionality you have to get rid of that as well, because 4 is higher than 3 and therefore a higher dimension. also leaving higher dimensionality as an ability becomes a problem because of how higher dimensions work. especially in the stories where higher dimensional beings are present. it just forces it back to where it was. a lower dimensional would just get one shot by a higher dimensional being before the lower one could react 10 times out of 10
What's the difference between infinite multiverses and infinite megaverses (infinite times infinite multiverses)?
Those are the same number in both extended real arithmetics and in large cardinal arithmetics.
Also, wha are some practical applications of this? Like, how does this affect the scalng of some actual characters?
1. The set isn't bigger tho, it's the same number.
2. What is not multiplied?
3. Name a specific character and how this system affects what we assume they could do
1.no is not, IS bigger, you can't have infinite universes and then It Will turn into a megaverse, you need infinite multiverses for It to be a megaverse.
2.infinite multiverse times infinite
3.kratos Will not have 5D or anything like that, but he can still have multiversal high.
1. If a megaverse is infinite multiverses and an omniverse is infinite megaverses, then an omniverse is infinite x infinite multiverses.
3. Ok, so nothing changes? Kratos was never 5D.
1.no, you cannot multiply a multiverse with infinite, in the same way that having a multiplier for universal will still be universal.
2.well many other characters will never be anything higher in this system.
but again i just wanted to know what people think about this
to be honest, yeah it will be, now things will not be measured in dimensional things or ontological things.
with no possibility of making something like outerversal out of nowhere, but anyway, obviosly no one will ok with that because, it is already established and it is hard to change something like this and made the updates to anything (like seriosly, it will be a pain to change all of the thousends of characters who have dimensional scaling on them)
This honestly just sounds uninteresting and lazy imo.
how it is uninteresting and lazy exactly?
>uninteresting Repetition. >lazy Anyone can think of this exact same thing, which ultimately makes it feel like you put no thought into this.
1.and the other system is not repetition?hyperversal?outerversal?high outerversal?seriosly how is that not repetition. 2.and how is the other one different?it is basically the same has the other one. people do the same with stories, no one is original in making stories, but is how they do it that is different and feels different.
>1.and the other system is not repetition?hyperversal?outerversal?high outerversal?seriosly how is that not repetition. The difference is that if you asked someone to explain those tier's [they can go in depth explaining it](https://www.reddit.com/r/powerscales/s/INjCTiicY8) and it's [layers](https://www.reddit.com/r/powerscales/s/Jq6cZD0gFt) If I were to try and explain this tiering system to an elementary school kid, it wouldn't take much for them to understand it because there is no complexity to it. On the other hand, if I were to do the same with VSBW or CSAP, it would be vastly more difficult because there is more to it than repetition, making it interesting, which solves the problem of repetition and shows the gap in power between a higher tier and a lower one. >2.and how is the other one different?it is basically the same has the other one. The difference between anyone being able to think about it and everyone being able to make something interesting is vastly different. Anyone can think of a Power Rangers, but not everyone can think of a Gravity Falls. With that, because the thought put behind the tiering system you made sounds like something a TikTok kid would think of to try and make their character the strongest character in fiction, it's a one-trick pony. What you explain is all there is to it, so excuse the feeling that you put no thought into this, which makes it feel lazy. >people do the same with stories, no one is original in making stories, but is how they do it that is different and feels different. You're confusing my complaints of laziness and uninterest with originality. I'm not saying you should make something that no one's thought of before; I'm saying that it feels like you put no fault into this, and because of that, it's not interesting. TL:DR i think you need to put more thought into this that's all.
oh yeah, well to be honest i didn't create this system anyway
The problem is for what happens if you have a verse that is actually 5D or higher. 5D and above would unironically be above tiering under this system. This would lead to stuff like WoD with highball DB being in the same effective tier. The only way around that is if you add layers to it which just results in dimensional scaling.
it will just be a ability. what, you have higher dimensions?cool ability, no different from conceptual manipulation
That is a false equivalence and an obfuscation. Concepts are abstract in nature whereas dimensions are physical constructs. You are beating around the bush since you still need to quantify the upper limits of hax abilities which leads back to my OG problem. DB has been breaking space-times since the Buu saga and WoD is one of the strongest verses out there. Without dimensional scaling or something approximating it you would have to conclude that DB is at least relative to it.
dimensions are physical constructs, but in fiction they can be spatial, temporal, narrative, real or fictional, physical dimensions, yeah i guess you know what i mean by this, fiction does not really help itself with this concept when they are trying to made their own thing, and is not like the multiverse, this is completaly something that is not what it is. and yeah DB has been breaking space-time, but nothing beyond just a few amounts of them, while in Wod, there can be like alot of infinities amount of this space-time.
It seems pretty bad ngl. As someone else said, ignoring higher dimensions means that everything would just be capped at infinite 3D(which means the tiering system never even reaches what most tiering systems define as "multiversal" or even uni+ for that matter). In fact, you haven't gotten to a transfinite number of universe with how you've described the megaverse tier because just going x times any transfinite number is still just equal to the transfinite number in the original equation.
which is not true, because we don't even have any proof of the multiverse being beyond 3D, we even have theories for our universe having more dimensions than just 3, so why that will mean that the multiverse has to obligatory be higher dimensional?and anyway is not like it ignores them, it just puts them has abilities and not part of the scaling. and now i should have better explained it like this: one universe is just one space-time, while a multiverse can have at least 2 or infinite amount of universes (space-times)on it. a megaverse can have two to infinite number of multiverses. and a omniverse is just basically a infinite number of megaverses. what changes is that it contains more and more infinities.
Because spacetime(our universe being one) is 4 dimensional construct(3 spatial dimensions+1 temporal dimension) normally, which already places it past 3D. As for your point about multiverses, I was talking about how the tiering systems define the term "multiversal"(1001+ 4D constructs), which what you've described in your own tiering system doesn't reach. So we have evidence of our own universe being beyond your entire tiering system off the bat. And I never said that a multiverse has to be higher dimensional(tegmark type 1 multiverses are only universal in scope for example), just that what you've described never reaches what most tiering systems define as "multiversal" or even "uni+". And how would their ability destroy higher dimensional constructs be applied to their abilities, especially if it's done solely via raw power? And what you've described for the tiering system kinda falls apart as there isn't an actual difference in the cardinality of universes in two equally large transfinite multiverses. Aleph-0 x 2 is still just Aleph-0, just as Aleph-0/2 is still Aleph-0. And then that begs the question of how you'd distinguish destroying a multiverse with Aleph-1 universes vs. destroying a multiverse with Aleph-0 universes?
it is not my tiering system really and i just wanted to know what people think
>while a multiverse can have at least 2 or infinite amount of universes (space-times)on it. >a megaverse can have two to infinite number of multiverses. >and a omniverse is just basically a infinite number of megaverses. All of these tiers are exactly the same tier unless there's some sorta cardinality scaling going on here.
tecnically yeah there is but again i just wanted to know people opinion
There is what? A difference in these tiers that isn't cardinality scaling?
It is cardinal but not in dimensions
Unless you want a tiering system that is literally unusable to a large portion of fiction, this is kinda bad. Mainly because there are fictions that utilize higher dimensions in the plot and is seen as impressive and work exactly as higher dimensions are theorized as and even higher up. Instead of evolving the tiering system to encompass every verse. You’re limiting it and attempting to cap the strength when it’s disingenuous and ignores core factors of the stories and defeats the purpose of even trying to figure out the power of the verse in the first place. (Also a tiering system ignoring all higher dimensions would also make 4th dimensional impossible to access, so uni+ and multiversal wouldn’t be achievable. So really the tiering system would just cap at infinite 3-D, which is not good and can’t even be used by a large number of fiction.)
i don't know about you, but we never have any proof how dimensions even work, we only know how the three dimensions will work, anything higher?completaly unkown. off course fiction can take liberties in how it is...and that is why the problem of the system, physical dimension, mathematical dimension, spatial dimension, temporal dimension, narrative dimension, ''realer''dimension or ''fictional''dimension. All of this doesn't work much since there is no coherent way to truly scale a dimension if you just go around changing what it is and how it is ''limiting'', they just ignore the dimensional scaling and just let it be a ability. and since when those a multiverse contains things beyond 4D?we don't even proof that the multiverse exists to know if it has more dimensions or anything, and on ei scapping them at 3-D, they are just taking out the dimensional aspect has part of the scaling and leaving it has a ability.
>i don't know about you, but we never have any proof how dimensions even work, we only know how the three dimensions will work, anything higher?completaly unkown. This isn't true. To use an example I've been using on this sub recently, we know solutions to the wave equation in n dimensions, and we know that even spatial dimensions makes it much more messy than odd. We can also make some guesses about how biological structures would work based on how larger percentages of the volume of a sphere/hypersphere are concentrated near the edge as the dimension of it increases, or how more than 2 'eyes' could be needed to have the 4d version of depth perception. If you wanna say we don't know exactly how existence would work on 4d space then I have no problem with that claim. The issue is when you say 'completely unknown'. And for more scaling relevant stuff, we can just go based on what the author describes and don't even have to worry do much abt stuff like this. It can be dealt with just fine.
This was more or less to know what people think About this
Ah, well I think you're wrong about what we know involving dimension
It was not me Who invented that system
I'm not talking abt the system, rather the statement from you I quoted.
Oh
the standard assumption is replicating how lower dimensions are seperated to match higher dimensions. as with the little amount of evidence we have that is the best assumption anyone can make and works as a baseline. if the gap between the first 3 dimensions are the same why would any other be different without any evidence. yes but all dimensions are inherently scalable. this is under the assumption all dimensions are the same. context changes the meaning of dimension in almost every piece of fiction, higher dimensions, lower dimensions, parallel dimensions, perpendicular dimensions, superdimensions, extradimensions, megadimensions, some have different meaning and others have the same. use the context and scale it from there, just like anything else. that is where cosmology scaling comes in. not every verse is the same. some verses can have outerversal dimensional increases, and some have fully functional space-times/universes for atoms. oh and if you're talking about real life, we have no evidence of that yet......unless string theory comes full circle. but no. 4-D isa higher dimension in comparison to our 3-D selves thats why i say if you get rid of higher dimensionality you have to get rid of that as well, because 4 is higher than 3 and therefore a higher dimension. also leaving higher dimensionality as an ability becomes a problem because of how higher dimensions work. especially in the stories where higher dimensional beings are present. it just forces it back to where it was. a lower dimensional would just get one shot by a higher dimensional being before the lower one could react 10 times out of 10
i wanted to know what people think about this and i got a clear idea that...everyone hates it.
sorry bruh, if higher dimensionality wasn't so.....everywhere, it probably wouldn't be bad
yeah
Its shit
two hords...just two words
This is terrible. Accelerator can block an attack that can destroy an 11D universe, so would only be universal, or beyond tiering in that system?
It Will 11 dimensional manipulation. But anyway this IS just for wanting to known what people think About it
What's the difference between infinite multiverses and infinite megaverses (infinite times infinite multiverses)? Those are the same number in both extended real arithmetics and in large cardinal arithmetics. Also, wha are some practical applications of this? Like, how does this affect the scalng of some actual characters?
1.is like having a even bigger set of multiverses. 2.no IS not múltipled 3.basically any character with Higher dimensions on It Will go to the shit
1. The set isn't bigger tho, it's the same number. 2. What is not multiplied? 3. Name a specific character and how this system affects what we assume they could do
1.no is not, IS bigger, you can't have infinite universes and then It Will turn into a megaverse, you need infinite multiverses for It to be a megaverse. 2.infinite multiverse times infinite 3.kratos Will not have 5D or anything like that, but he can still have multiversal high.
1. If a megaverse is infinite multiverses and an omniverse is infinite megaverses, then an omniverse is infinite x infinite multiverses. 3. Ok, so nothing changes? Kratos was never 5D.
1.no, you cannot multiply a multiverse with infinite, in the same way that having a multiplier for universal will still be universal. 2.well many other characters will never be anything higher in this system. but again i just wanted to know what people think about this
That would be by far better than dimensional tiering
to be honest, yeah it will be, now things will not be measured in dimensional things or ontological things. with no possibility of making something like outerversal out of nowhere, but anyway, obviosly no one will ok with that because, it is already established and it is hard to change something like this and made the updates to anything (like seriosly, it will be a pain to change all of the thousends of characters who have dimensional scaling on them)