I'm not "arguing" anything. This is the way the universe works.Are you trying to argue this about OUR Universe or other fictional Universes altogether?
I thought that’s what people were arguing for?Destroying all the physical matter in the universe is a different story
Yeah but thats different from destroying the universe. All of the physical matter in the universe like planets, stars, galaxies ect in the observable universe make up the least of its mass. The universe is largely filled with dark energy and matter that don't interact with physical matter so it might as well just be empty space. Yet they account for over 90% of the universes mass. So just destroying the physical matter in the universe isn't nearly as impressive as destroying the universe itself.I thought that’s what people were arguing for?
That's incredibly vague. What qualifies for this? The existence of stars? What are examples of such accepted reasoning?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"
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.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.
You say obviously, but is it that obvious given the criteria we are debating above?Well obviously Isekais would be their own universe
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.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
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.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
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)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.
Sure. In that case we should write down that a multiverse is defined as a group of universes, though.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
obviously we need terms like hyperversal or outerversal, thats how the traffic gonna get a level up - nomura style
olf o bee dee needs to step up it's game, we need new content, stop being so narrow minded, noobs, smh
I would respond to all of this but I just don't have the energy for it. work has been beating my ass into the ground the last couple days with people being absolute spud lords about their taxes.That's incredibly vague. What qualifies for this? The existence of stars? What are examples of such accepted reasoning?
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.
You say obviously, but is it that obvious given the criteria we are debating above?
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.
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 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.
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...
It's very explicit, but it never says "the universe was universe-sized". Pretty sure many fictions we currently rank as universe level don't have statements of that nature... I mean, why would an author even state something like that when he already qualified that it is the universe as we know it?While they had turned their attention to Crepuscular and the Hosts’ plan, Obsidian had ended the universe. He’d started at the edges, working from the outside in. He’d wiped away the stars and the planets and the space between them, wiped away galaxies and black holes and cosmic clusters and civilisations both ancient and burgeoning. The light that had escaped those stars – the light that became the only thing left of those stars – had also been wiped away. It was all gone. The universe was over. The only thing left was the Earth and its solar system, and Obsidian was taking his time with that. A throwback, perhaps, to when he had been human.
I get what you're saying, but I feel like the quote you are using is misleading. Because that isn't really a universe-level feat.Yeah, I can relate. Work's killing me, too.
Then just the two most important points:
1. If we use the term multiverse we should define what a multiverse is in our terms. How do we determine if a group of universes is one or two multiverses?
2. The "Must have more than one statement saying that what was destroyed is universe sized"-thing is IMO way too restrictive.
E.g. by that requirement, the following isn't a feat of universe destruction, despite it being as obviously that as it gets:
It's very explicit, but it never says "the universe was universe-sized". Pretty sure many fictions we currently rank as universe level don't have statements of that nature... I mean, why would an author even state something like that when he already qualified that it is the universe as we know it?
I guess you mean because it was over (a probably rather short) time?I get what you're saying, but I feel like the quote you are using is misleading. Because that isn't really a universe-level feat.
No, but because that dude isn't actually destroying the entire universe. He hasn't destroyed space-time. He's emptying it out. Right above there's a conversation about how all the physical matter in the universe amounts to 5% of its total mass.I guess you mean because it was over (a probably rather short) time?
Yeah, I guess one can argue that. Then, for the sake of argument, imagine that quote, but done instantly.
He's explicitly wiping out the space between stars actually, so he definitely is erasing space.No, but because that dude isn't actually destroying the entire universe. He hasn't destroyed space-time. He's emptying it out. Right above there's a conversation about how all the physical matter in the universe amounts to 5% of its total mass.
It's probably galaxy buster+ or something above that, but not universal.
idk, I don't watch dragonballAlthough, if we demand spacetime destruction, does that mean BoG Dragon Ball isn't Universe level anymore, because they were not implied to destroy spacetime itself IIRC?
Yeah, but they were just destroying the celestial bodies and shit, no? No erasing space itself.They was going to wipe out the entire Universe AND the Afterlife which Akira Toriyama states is bigger(or at the very least equal to) than our known Universe at the same time.
That's why they got Universal+ in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?