Search results for query: *

Imo not sure about this. Because there are series whose cosmology/numbers of dimensions are higher than fourth dimensional. Take for instance To Aru, most Esper Teleporters in that verse teleport by moving through the 11th dimension, so that makes the To Aru universe 11th dimensional and the void it exists in 12th dimensional. So by this standard To Aru universe (not world) would be > a normal universe, even though the toaru universe was specifically created by the big bang and for all purposes is a normal universe. Just think that such a system is just gonna lead into VSB "my dimensions are bigger than yours" autism.

imo i think we need to decide on the terms first, for example, do we consider the DB universe a multiverse or universe+ for vs purposes?

But how do we quantify the "void" though? Time and space are properties of the universe, This "void" would be unquantifiable because time and space wouldn't exist, there would be no distance, and if distance, time, space, etc does exist, that would make the void technically part of the universe, the universe would simply be a small section of this "void".

Idk man, shit like DB and To Aru have what are universe-sized dimensions connected/around the main universe. Technically destroying them should be multiversal by our standards even though DB for instance is a universe, but still below an infinite universe/multiverse.

fuck this is hard:dead

Actually wait the existence of multiversal+ by my own definition would negate the need for universal+ (at least when talking about DB):whathekong

Imo Universe+ should mean destroying something larger than a universe, but still finite, stuff like DB, toaru, marvel, dc, etc, have universes/cosmologies where they stack additional dimensions, worlds, etc onto the universe but its still considered a part of the universe. I guess it could look like this? Need a better name than infinite universal and infinite multiversal but as far as I'm aware this should make some sense.

I also think we need some new categories. This is our standard for universe level, but what if you destroy a larger-than-universe structure that isn't infinite? Take DB's universe for instance, heaven and hell are equal to the main universe in size but are still considered a part of the universe. So do we just assume anybody who can destroy the db universe is multiversal? Destroying a universe of infinite size would also be better than our standard for multiversal actually, cause our standard for multiversal assumes that the universes are finite. So technically destroying a universe of infinite size > a finite multiverse, unless the universes in that multiverse are also infinite.

Imma post what I said there here Imo I think the baseline system is fine, if we get to mathy or overcomplicated we could end up like VSwiki. There's not going to any one size fits all type of thing for this so I think the process we need is just have a good baseline and for series with non-standard cosmologies have trustworthy people go in and post info about it to let others decide. Much like we already do, of course there are problems with this, like for example Suggs and the get backers deception, and other such wankery. The main problem is to find people who are actually trustworthy and would post unbiased info about series instead of wanking them unfairly.