Yeah just being called a universe wouldn't be enough, it needs to be something comparable to what our standard of a universe is, which would be our own universe. Some sort of information supplied somewhere that's more than just "its a universe"
That's incredibly vague. What qualifies for this? The existence of stars? What are examples of such accepted reasoning?
We cant assume a dimension is universe sized just because it mirrors the real world as that dimension can be localized to a planet and still mirror the real world.
I would agree for, like, other worlds that mirror real life. But if a fiction basically plays in "our world" (with minor adjustments) as the stage that seems like being a little too questioning IMO. Assuming Kafka's America plays in a planet size pocket dimension, because it specifies nothing else, just seems a little ridiculous.
Well obviously Isekais would be their own universe
You say obviously, but is it that obvious given the criteria we are debating above?
Well yeah destroying a concept would rank higher than just destroying a physical space. Destroying just a universe would obviously be universal but destroying it and its timeline would easily put you higher
It's more impressive. In the same way making it so that a planet never existed is more impressive than just blowing it up. I just don't think that "more impressive" translates to a "punches harder" kind of thing.
Time shenanigans are usually hax and this seems like impressive for hax more than raw power.
I mean that's the whole point of this thread, to get this classified properly. I was hoping the other people in this thread would comment on this part when i said it, but they kinda didnt
Ok. In that case I would argue the line should be at infinite Universe OR destroying multiple universe-sized dimensions simultanously. Infinite is much more impressive than basic universe level for obvious.
However, considering that we rank destroying multiple finite sized universes as the yet still higher level of Multiversal, we give value to destroying large separate spaces, even if their total volume is smaller than an infinite universe.
Destroying a universe with universe sized dimensions is basically half a step into the multiversal direction. The only difference between that and a multiversal feat is that the dimensions are not quite as separated from the universe, as full other universes are. However, there is still a degree of separation there. So it would make sense for it to get a rating between universe level and multiverse level, which would be universe level+.
I get you, though even if they were in other multiverses, destroying the 2 universes from each one would still only make you multiversal but with a fuck off huge range.
I suppose you have a point. Although that line of thought makes me wonder: What if you destroy 2 universes from each multiverse, but each multiverse has 5 universes? (so 4 destroyed in total with 6 left)
Particularly in a fiction that doesn't explicitely call things 'multiverse' but just has different groups of universes.
One could argue that each of the two universes that were destroyed in each multiverse were subgroups and hence qualify as small multiverses in themselves. Or one could say it doesn't count as not the complete groups were destroyed.
Yeah but writing it out that way may come across as confusing to some people. Its best to keep stuff simple but defined so no one can play dumb or semantics with it
Sure. In that case we should write down that a multiverse is defined as a group of universes, though.
That brings up the question how we draw the line between something being two different groups of universes or just being one group...
