Why are merging and separating universe feats 2-C?

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I see your logic, but I don't think so its so simple in thses cases.

Take splitting.
At the point of divergence..... when new timelines are formed the point of divergence is essentially the past of new timelines. And as creation feats go the entire timeline from past to future already spawns from that point on.

Think of this like cell division. When the original cell splits it dies essentially and births 2 new cells. This moment is their Big Bang moment so to speak, they have a entire future beyond that.

I hope I am making sense.

 

[Agnaa]

I can certainly see the arguments for and against.

My response would just be that I wouldn't really consider that an entire timeline.

To get extremely reductive, what if the timeline only lasts for 10 seconds after that? If we consider creation equal to destruction, and destruction of any segment equal to destruction of any other equally-sized segment, we start running into some issues.

10 seconds may seem absurdly small, but that can be substituted with any other finite number, until it gets to one that seems more reasonable for fiction. I don't think there's a very good cutoff point to start qualifying other than "The entire timeline, start to finish".

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I have to ask a question here then.... do we consider timelines as infinite in length like some sort of real number line or more specifically a unidirectional ray with an origin point ? Is it a mandatory requirement for them to be so on this site? Cuz I can totally see timelines from conception/birth till their death in future as limited line segments. With an origin point and ending point.

 

[Agnaa]

Because of finite-time timelines existing and us still wanting to put them in tier 2, the requirement is "The entire axis of space and time must be affected", rather than "An infinite amount of space and time must be affected", letting limited line segments count for these tiers as long as they're the entire timeline.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Hmm thanks.
I'll think on this and get back.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Yeah then splitting feats still hold up.
Since the two new timelines even if their birth to death is limited in time , even if its 10 seconds.... thats still a complete line segment, not a portion of it. So yeah they are entire timelines however small.

 

[Agnaa]

They're not complete, the completion involves their shared past, which was not affected.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

But the "shared past" so to speak is a line segment that logically ends at divergence point.
The point of divergence is basically a common point shared by 3 distinctly different line segments. For original one its ending point but for the 2 new ones its a birthing point.

 

[Agnaa]

I think that only makes sense if we actually have a statement that the timeline was ended and then new ones were created, or something to that effect. I don't think a simple statement of merging/separating universes is enough.

I'd repeat my question from earlier, Would you consider erasing 1 second of a timeline to be a Low 2-C destruction feat followed by a Low 2-C creation feat? Since you could consider that point of erasure a divergence point, meaning that a new line segment was created afterwards, thus making it a Low 2-C feat.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I'd repeat my question from earlier, Would you consider erasing 1 second of a timeline to be a Low 2-C destruction feat followed by a Low 2-C creation feat? Since you could consider that point of erasure a divergence point, meaning that a new line segment was created afterwards, thus making it a Low 2-C feat.

I think you could look at this two ways.
But we will go with yours for moment.

You see when you destroy a single second in time its still not a single instant... since 1 second has length afterall.
But regardless the destruction itself is a singular event done by you, the creation that happens next is chain reaction. Since that particular process happens without your contribution. You destroy only which allows creation to happen on its own. You don't physically contribute into the succeeding process.

But physically splitting/merging explicitly have creation and destruction processes done in tandem. You are responsible for both, and of which creation process gives 2C.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Agnaa]

(Technically, where there was 1 second there'd now be 0 time, an instant)

Regardless, we give tiers for creation alone and destruction alone, so even if you think the creation part was a chain reaction from the destruction, that destruction would still grant Low 2-C, under your thought process.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Ah but the destruction doesn't destroy entirity of the timeline does it? It only abruptly ends it at that point in time, but timeline still exists. Thats why once there was a thread made to argue that it is 3A only not Low2C.

But creation spawns the entire timeline, hence Low2C.

 

[Agnaa]

Destruction of a timeline is Low 2-C, even if it's created again later.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

But it depends on what type of destruction does it not?
Of which you mention yes.... destroying a timeline is Low2C... if thats what you meant entire time and I mistakened it for the other kind, my sincere apologies.

But if you meant destruction of single point in time of a realm or timeline, then its still ... well 3A.

 

[Agnaa]

If this clears things up, here's how I saw things so far:

Your initial argument: When timelines are merged or split they're cut off from their shared history at the point of the merge/split. Since timelines are stopping and starting they're, it's either 2-C destruction and Low 2-C creation (for merging), or Low 2-C destruction and 2-C creation (for splitting).

My response: Couldn't you see erasing 1 second of a timeline as cutting off the future from the timeline's history? Making that a feat of Low 2-C destruction and creation?

Your response: The destruction enables the creation to happen by a chain reaction, you don't really contribute to the creation process. Unlike merging/splitting where you cause creation and destruction.

My response: Even if you consider the creation to be a chain reaction, the destruction isn't, and so by your logic, erasing 1 second of time would still be Low 2-C destruction.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I think you put it succinctly.

Though understand that my own thought process is evolving mid discussion.... so I am still open to new logic.

As for particulars... you put my arguements for the splitting/merging perfectly. Though after this I might consider that splitting may be a bit different than merging. But we can go over their particulars later down the line. A simplistic "they are same" would do for now.

As for the singular timeline stuff... yeah here too you summarized correctly where we both stand. Though I am more in agreement with you 1 second destruction scenario than I was before.

 

[Agnaa]

While I did present the argument of "1 second erasure = Low 2-C", I disagree with actually accepting that, and think it shows a flaw in your logic, meaning we should also dismiss your reasons for merging/splitting being 2-C.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Can you explain how this would imply that??

Like I said 1 second destruction can have different interpretations other than your own.

And still don't see how this affects that.. since we are talking about each individual line segment in their entirety during splitting.
I don't see how "limited portion" here mix with this.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

And just to be clear I didn't agree with the 1 second part... only I that meant I can see some logic in it.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Merging 2 space-times would be 2-C by default pretty sure, maybe the universe CRT changes that but don’t think so. A space-time and a timeline are essentially synonyms after all. If 2 universes are just fused together though without further context then that might only be 3-A, especially after the universe CRT, since you essentially need to prove all of space and time of those universes are being fused.

I'm in agreement with this, yeah. Obviously, this kind of feat may differ from verse to verse, but if multiple spacetimes are explicitly fused together, then I'd say our default assumption should be that their entirety was affected. Doing otherwise is, in my view, the same was taking a statement like "I obliterated that planet" to mean that only half of the planet was destroyed, or whatever. It's just needlessly arbitrary.

I'm also hesitant about whether affecting a timeline's future is 2-C since it could be High 3-A. It's technically a subset of the timeline but it also kinda covers an infinite span. I'd like to call Ultima or someone in.

This just leads to a larger issue that I've been planning to address on a thread of its own at some point in the future. Namely that, while I'd be fine with affecting partitions of timelines being rated at High 3-A or something along these lines, this would force us to follow a really, really bad precedent in that, extending this logic, destroying any interval of spacetime falls under this tier, too, regardless of how small, since all of them encompass uncountably-many states of the spatial volume of the universe. So, say, destroying a portion of spacetime corresponding to the worldline of a pebble would fall under this tier, too.

 

[Agnaa]

Can you explain how this would imply that??

Like I said 1 second destruction can have different interpretations other than your own.

And still don't see how this affects that.. since we are talking about each individual line segment in their entirety during splitting.
I don't see how "limited portion" here mix with this.

I don't understand this post.

I believe I laid out the implication well.

It can have multiple interpretations, but I believe that if we interpret similar feats in the same way, merging/fusing just the future should be treated similarly to erasing a portion of the timeline.

I view "Line segments before and after splitting" as identical to "Line segments before and after a portion of time is erased."

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I view "Line segments before and after splitting" as identical to "Line segments before and after a portion of time is erased."

This still doesn't adress the fact that there are 2 line segments at the end of the day being formed rather than a destruction and recreation of singular timeline and of which in latters case destruction is not even technically low2C to begin with.

We are still giving 2C for creation of 2 or more "line segments".

I don't understand this post.

I believe I laid out the implication well.

I think we got a bit lost or atleast me. I think a proper summary from my side is in order to reaffirm my logic.

I lay it down in a few minutes.

 

[Agnaa]

This still doesn't adress the fact that there are 2 line segments at the end of the day being formed rather than a destruction and recreation of singular timeline and of which in latters case destruction is not even technically low2C to begin with.

We are still giving 2C for creation of 2 or more "line segments".

I think giving 2-C based on that perceived creation/destruction is similar to giving Low 2-C based on perceived destruction in erasing a small segment of time.

Why wouldn't the perceived destruction in erasing a few seconds of time not technically be Low 2-C? (I mean, I argue it isn't, but I think from your logic it follows).

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

With review of my stance I have come to conclusion that Merging and Splitting are severely different. This is all because abrupt ending of a timeline is not Low2C destruction but 3A. Creation is still solid low2C or 2C depending on how many 4D constructs are involved.

I will probably get lot of hate for this opinion, but once you go to far its not possible to convince yourself to stop let alone backtrack.

Splitting.
https://cdn.**********.com/attachments/710583764794867792/825981397063303178/Splitting_and_Merging_4D_shenanigans._1.jpg
As seen and I already explained splitting process is essentially stopping the timeline at a point which is 3A, and from that point on 2 new timelines are formed. And since both feats are done in tandem... its 2C as whole.

Merging.
https://cdn.**********.com/attachments/710583764794867792/825981364699922432/Splitting_and_Merging_4D_shenanigans._2.jpg
This is same principle as above, but difference is in counting, as crazy as that sounds.
So abruptly ending 2 timelines on convergence points is 3A or 2×3A to be exact,
But from that point formation of singular timeline is Low2C.
So Merging as a whole is Low2C.

Of course if the original timeline or timelines before convergence or divergence are destroyed completely then you get Solid 2C in both cases. Since complete destruction of timeline is Low2C and doing it to multiple timelines is 2C. So both destruction and creation end up covering each other's asses in the process.

Hope I don't get burned on stake for this.

-----------×------------×------------

Why wouldn't the perceived destruction in erasing a few seconds of time not technically be Low 2-C? (I mean, I argue it isn't, but I think from your logic it follows).

Currently this is not accepted here on this wiki. Why is this so I am open to discussion. But as of know I am neutral on this.

I think giving 2-C based on that perceived creation/destruction is similar to giving Low 2-C based on perceived destruction in erasing a small segment of time.

After I have reclarified, I think this a wrong comparison in my opinion. And this segment arguement doesn't affect splitting and merging at all since it never even comes into play in anyway.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I'm also hesitant about whether affecting a timeline's future is 2-C since it could be High 3-A. It's technically a subset of the timeline but it also kinda covers an infinite span.

Wouldn't affecting the future be a subset of affecting the present? A chain reaction if you will. I think of it the same way as killing a person in the present, he won't exist in the future anymore but that is not because his future was affected but rather a form of time paradox.

Unless you mean specifically affecting the futures without affecting the present, but then idk.

Also i called ultima yesterday.

 

[Agnaa]

Currently this is not accepted here on this wiki. Why is this so I am open to discussion. But as of know I am neutral on this.

Because it's only affecting a subset of a 4-D realm (by not affecting the entirety of that realm's time), and since people didn't want affecting subsets of dimensions to scale to the entire dimension, as that would make small higher-D beings high-tiered despite not really having a good reason for that.

Wouldn't affecting the future be a subset of affecting the present? A chain reaction if you will. I think of it the same way as killing a person in the present, he won't exist in the future anymore but that is not because his future was affected but rather a form of time paradox.

Unless you mean specifically affecting the futures without affecting the present, but then idk.

I mean "affecting the future" as in "merging two timelines by connecting their present and the future", leaving only one timeline going into the future. Rather than something like.

What you're describing sounds something more like, adding the contents of Timeline A at time X to Timeline B at time X, and vice versa, then letting each timeline continue to evolve and tick along to its own clock.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

What would be the difference between the 2 cases you mentioned though? I mean from a practical point of view. You see a feat, how do you make sure it's not just merging the matter but rather merging their future timelines?

Also wouldn't the same effect be achieved if you fuse their flow of time as well? So you merge 2 universes and fuse their flow of time (which the way i see it would just be a form of time hax along with the 3-A merging as you're still only fusing the presents), then from that point onwards since the flow of time is now the same, it'll be the same as having the timelines get their futures fused.

 

[Agnaa]

What would be the difference between the 2 cases you mentioned though?

Theoretically the difference would be that, if you copy the present and let chain reactions handle the rest, there will be two timelines that can be traveled between, one can be affected without affecting the other, etc. While if you actually combined the timelines, you'd only be left with one at the end of the day.

But from seeing it I'm not sure how you could distinguish it.

Also wouldn't the same effect be achieved if you fuse their flow of time as well? So you merge 2 universes and fuse their flow of time (which the way i see it would just be a form of time hax along with the 3-A merging as you're still only fusing the presents), then from that point onwards since the flow of time is now the same, it'll be the same as having the timelines get their futures fused.

So something like, both timelines still exist and are technically their own cosmic entities, but their flow of time and spatial contents are linked? That would be affecting the entire temporal future of both all at once, to tie all the points together. In that case, the only practical difference is that they're technically distinct cosmic entities.

Actually, you said "you're still only fusing the presents", if they're only pinched together in the present then I'd agree that it'd only be 3-A with some 2-C range. In that case, the practical difference would be that if you travel into the future of one, your actions there probably won't affect the other timeline. It would only affect both if they were conjoined at every point in time, rather than being pinched together with a chain reaction handling the rest.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

But from seeing it I'm not sure how you could distinguish it.

Yeah from seeing the feat is what i mean, so judging from your answer i assume your stance is "without more explanation given the feat should just be 3-A"?

if they're only pinched together in the present then I'd agree that it'd only be 3-A with some 2-C range

We agree on this then. Let's wait for Derp and Ultima to see what they think too.

It would only affect both if they were conjoined at every point in time, rather than being pinched together with a chain reaction handling the rest.

Actually if you go to the future wouldn't you end up in the future of them both combined same thing as the chain reaction?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah from seeing the feat is what i mean, so judging from your answer i assume your stance is "without more explanation given the feat should just be 3-A"?

My stance is "I have no clue what the default should be, but pinching is 3-A, merging the future is High 3-A, and merging the entirety of the timelines is 2-C."

We agree on this then. Let's wait for Derp and Ultima to see what they think too.

fwiw Ultima thinks that the assumption should be that the entirety of both timelines are merged, unless we have evidence indicating otherwise.

Actually if you go to the future wouldn't you end up in the future of them both combined same thing as the chain reaction?

The future would be one where they were both combined, but your actions would only affect one.

If timelines are pinched together at one point like this, and that point is constantly moved so that each timeline continues affecting the other, they'd only have influence to each other during that externally defined "present", but if you were to jump to the future where the timelines aren't joined to each other yet, the contents of the universe would be one which shows effects of the timelines having been merged, but your actions would only affect one timeline.

If your actions were to affect both timelines, that would require the timelines to be merged at every point in time, which would be a 2-C feat.

 

[Greenshifter]

So ehm I think affecting only a subset of a timeline that extends all the way into the future (see it as a halfopen interval) would still be low 2-C, or at least is currently treated that way. For one I know of a feat in Ben 10 where a bomb destoys all timelines but a single one, but due to (Ben 10's version) of MWI the past shared by the one timeline that survived and those that didn't would still be intact. Yet everyone seems to accept it as a 2-B feat (even in-verse and it would be weird to not consider it that since the shared past would be insignificant in comparison to all branches being destroyed). Another reason (kinda the same but in reverse) would be that it'd be technically impossible to completely destroy a single timeline in an MWI cosmology without destroying the entire multiverse, since if the shared past gets affected then the futures of all alternate timelines would be paradoxed out of existence. And clearly destroying a single timeline in an MWI-based multiverse is still possible in fiction without destroying the entire structure.

 

[Agnaa]

That Ben 10 example and MWI stuff does complicate things. With that in mind, I don't think a good and consistent answer can be reached. We can consider all MWI feats Low 2-C, since there are less than 2 complete timelines. This would be consistent but probably not accepted by many people. Or, we could treat MWI/merging/separating feats as higher-end tier 2, despite that leading to contradictions with how we treat other subsets of 4-D spacetimes.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ok i will wait to see what Ultima thinks.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

If timelines are pinched together at one point like this, and that point is constantly moved so that each timeline continues affecting the other, they'd only have influence to each other during that externally defined "present"

Can you give example of such a phenomenon.
Seems I have never come accross such an example.

 

[Agnaa]

I just talked to Dee about the MWI issue. She says that series utilizing MWI usually have it so that all those timelines always existed. Rather than them literally splitting off from a shared history, they're separate timelines that are identical until an event occurring differently highlights that they're different.

This would mean that destroying multiple MWI timelines would still be a feat, since they're their own complete timelines.

 

[Agnaa]

Can you give example of such a phenomenon.
Seems I have never come accross such an example.

I'd really doubt there is one, that's just what happens when the model's taken to its logical conclusion.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

I'd really doubt there is one, that's just what happens when the model's taken to its logical conclusion.

But that would mean that it isn't a ideal or general conclusion to default too...

 

[Greenshifter]

That Ben 10 example and MWI stuff does complicate things. With that in mind, I don't think a good and consistent answer can be reached. We can consider all MWI feats Low 2-C, since there are less than 2 complete timelines. This would be consistent but probably not accepted by many people. Or, we could treat MWI/merging/separating feats as higher-end tier 2, despite that leading to contradictions with how we treat other subsets of 4-D spacetimes.

If we keep it to halfopen intervals we basically dodge all the 10 seconds stuff, that seems to be how it's treated now.

 

[Sevil Natas]

If we're going by cardinalities, every tier from 11-C to High 1-B is the same.

Or going closer to your argument, affecting even a nanosecond of a timeline would scale to Low 2-C. We don't treat either of those things as true, we require someone to affect the entirety of the axes to scale to a certain # of dimensions (or require statements that even a subset would hold a qualitative superiority).

you're missing my point here, the whole reason that low 2-C structures are superior to 3-A & high 3-A ones is that a low 2-C realm is made up of uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-A structures (AFAIK), simply affecting half of the realm would still be affecting uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-A realms

 

[Greenshifter]

Rather than them literally splitting off from a shared history

Aren't there also a lot of verses with the every action or inaction creates a new timeline type of deal, which would imply they do literally split off?