A downgrade for space beyond??[Ben10]

[Georredannea15]

Alr, here we go!

Normally I wouldn't want to deal with it, but let's see

Space beyond upgraded from 2-A to Low 1-C in this thread, that's good but... Is it really true? Let's see...

A small quote for the main argument from upgrade thread;

The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.
A spacetime continuum with two time axes, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of quantitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C.

Yes, "if each snapshot of a timeline contains 4-D timelines and stretches infinitely, that gives you 5-D from uncountably infinite 4-D snapshots"

But is that the case in Ben10? Let's take a look with quotes; Let's go step by step and comment on the contexts one by one.


The first;

"Think of time and space as this tree. Down here is when you were 10 years old. Right here is now. Up here is when you'll be 30 years old. The trunk is the main timeline. These branches represent alternate timelines, where reality literally branches off and becomes a different timeline, each containing its own Ben Tennyson."

This statement speaks only of past, future and present and says that there are different Ben Tenysons in the timelines branching from the main timeline, which means that there are only different timelines.

In fact, Paradox use of a phrase like "10 years old in one and 30 years old in the other" for snapshots with Ben here actually means that these snapshots consist of limited time periods such as "10 years or "30 years" and it means 4-D snapshots are directly refutes.

And the next statement that followed;

"Paradox: As Gwen guessed, cross-time is made up of parallel versions of the history we know. There are hundreds of them... a world where Gwen found the Omnitrix, a world where albedo turned to alien x and was trapped motionless for nearly a year, a world where you didn't have to destroy the Omnitrix to defeat Vilgax.
Ben 10K: Et cetera.
Paradox: Ad infinitum."

In short, Paradox elaborates further on the "different timelines" that I simply summarized above and basically says that they are like realities with different versions, each with a different event that happens in each of them, that they are infinite and going to infinitium (just like in a default timeline), which basically implies that there are infinite alternate timelines/realities and they all have a past, future and present.

While not assuming much importance like above, let's look at the other arguments in the previous revision;

• Gwen 10's universe where Ben doesn't get the Omnitrix is an alternate snapshot of 10 year old Prime Ben getting the Omnitrix.
• Albedo transforming into Alien X is an alternative snapshot of the second last and last episode of Alien Force
• Another Universe where Ben did not destroy his Recalibrated Omnitrix to defeat Vilgax which is another snapshot for the last episode of Alien Force.

3) In Ben 10 Classic, Ben and Gwen traveled to some alternative universe where Ben was wearing a Prototype Omnitrix which could be a universe where Ben neither lost Feedback nor removed the Omnitrix.

Along with those above... It doesn't really refer to any hypertimeline or anything like that, nor does it act like a higher-dimensional timeline with each snapshot being a 4-D timeline. They are just alternate timelines with different snapshots within them, these snapshots go on infinite (this is basically what happens in standard 4-D timelines and it basically doesn't make any difference that it is extra in the verse because a standard 4-D timeline goes on infinite by default as well) and there are infinitely many of these branching alternate timelines. This is basically a classic 2-A scale.

In short, rather than being a higher dimensional timeline with 4-D snapshots, space beyond has a mechanic that simply involves different and infinite branching timelines, with different snapshots and scenarios in each timeline, which is basically just 2-A.

Yes, there is one last argument left regarding hypertimeline and let's quote it too;

The Space Beyond depicts a higher temporal dimension than those of the branching timelines. The banching timelines exist inside the Space Beyond. In Ben 10 Omniverse Season 6 Episode 1, Vilgax uses the Chronosapien Time Bomb to destroy all branching timelines except No Watch Ben's Timeline. The Space Beyond was unaffected by the CTB and the destruction of the timeline branches. It is not bound by the temporality of the branching timelines. Since a Chronosapien's time powers only work with a higher temporal dimension existing, Clockwork was able to use his abilities with the Space Beyond's Temporal Dimension to bring back the other lower temporal dimensions.

As I have highlighted in bold, having a timeline that is not affected by an explosion affecting other timelines or temporal dimensions just means that this timeline is an independent timeline from the others, and having an extra timeline or an extra temporal dimension does not mean a hypertimeline.

In fact, as Ultima explains here and here, having an extra independent timeline or temporal dimension over a multiverse does not give you extra dimensionality (Even Agnaa says this too)

I'm even quoting a few quotes from the previous revision for added security;

Since both future and past are part of the same axis, time in one universe could flow in reverse to another universe and they could still have the same time axis as well.
So the flow of time in different universes can be very independent while they have the same time axis.

So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).

In short, an extra timeline or temporal dimension independent of the others can still extend in the same dimensional axis.

It's even explained in FQA;

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.

Okay, although that's basically the OP from the previous thread, but it's not over yet, there are a few other arguments and I'll touch on those as well.

Possible different arguments;

- Another argument that has been defended, apart from the 4-D snapshots argument, is the "uncountable infinite timelines" argument, but this is essentially irrelevant here because all we have is an infinite number of branching alternative timelines that differ from each other and continue on infinite.

- Another argument for Low 1-C is that there is an infinitely larger space covering 2-A, but structures that covering 2-A and infinitely larger than 2-A structures are still fundamentally 4-D/2-A. We revised this in full here, and once it was brought to the agenda once again here, it disappeared on the dusty shelves of history.

Another problem is that calling this space "infinite" does not mean much, because a space covering the 2-A multiverse should already be infinite by default.

- Another major argument is as follows; In fact, this is why Space Beyond has also +1 extra dimension expect hypertimeline

At the moment, we have verified the following:

A Single Number = A Single Separate Spactio-Temporal Layer
Aleph-0 = An infinite number set of Spactio-Separate Temporal Layers which fit inside a Single Timeline
Aleph-1 = An infinite number set of Timelines in which an infinite number set of Separate Temporal Layers fits inside each

It appears that the Ben 10 time tree itself meets Aleph 1.

There are two main factors that make this wrong;

- Basically, based on the statements I explained above with quotes and links, the situation I marked in bold does not exist in Ben10. As I explained above, Space Beyond just has a mechanic of infinite alternate timelines that each have their own separate snapshots, going on forever in each timeline.

- Another is that infinite structures, each containing infinite 2-A timelines and multiverses, are basically still aleph-0, it will not give you aleph-1, this is clearly explained in the FAQ and it's just basically infinite 2-A's... And it's even explained here. It's like 2-A + 2-A +2-A + 2-A...(going on infinitely...) still 2-A... And this cycle continues infinitely... still 2-A (but above baseline)

TL;DR: To briefly summarize the arguments I quoted above, the "uncountable infinite timelines" or "Aleph-1 timelines" arguments move Space Beyond into 5-D, while the hyper-timeline arguments make it 6-D, but the uncountable infinite timelines and the hypertimeline arguments are also wrong, which takes the Space Beyond back to 2-A.


Agree: LordGriffin1000,
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[zaraus]

looks alright.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Everything looks good, I agree.

 

[Floxiaaa]

No bad. It looks nice. I agree.

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

Disagree. As for me the arguments in favor of 5D sound more convincing.

 

[Georredannea15]

Disagree. As for me the arguments in favor of 5D sound more convincing.

So which argument? I touched on all of them, if there is a mistake please feel free to tell me.

 

[Robo432343]

bro said disagree and left forever

 

[Georredannea15]

bro said disagree and left forever

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Sounds good to me

 

[Forthegood]

bro said disagree and left forever

Ong

 

[RaveeCPN]

Yeah, I have no idea why this is accepted as Tier 1 in the first place. Count me in

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

So which argument? I touched on all of them, if there is a mistake please feel free to tell me.

I planned to write why, but in the course of reflection I came to the conclusion that you are right, I agree.

 

[Firestorm808]

To clarify, the proposal was that a character used time manipulation on a higher causality to rewind the destruction of the timelines.

 

[Georredannea15]

To clarify, the proposal was that a character used time manipulation on a higher causality to rewind the destruction of the timelines.

Basically, this does not require a higher dimensional temporal axis. In fact, as I quoted from Ultima, timelines don't matter much in dimensionality, even if you add a bigger, extra temporal axis or timeline to an infinite multiverse, it doesn't give you +1 or something like that. I have mentioned these above, both in quotes from DT and Ultima, and in quotes from the FAQ.


This is why I said "it is misunderstood" in the previous revision

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Finally, a thread regarding something about Tier 1 that my tiny brain can comprehend to some extent. Right now I'm leaning towards agreement and get the arguments regarding why it's 2-A but I will wait for counter arguments before i give my full vote.

 

[Firestorm808]

Basically, this does not require a higher dimensional temporal axis. In fact, as I quoted from Ultima, timelines don't matter much in dimensionality, even if you add a bigger, extra temporal axis or timeline to an infinite multiverse, it doesn't give you +1 or something like that. I have mentioned these above, both in quotes from DT and Ultima, and in quotes from the FAQ.


This is why I said "it is misunderstood" in the previous revision

So, do we have an accepted example elsewhere on the site that meets your proposal to give better clarity on what we are meant to look for?

In practical application, how has "time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions" been properly portrayed?

 

[DonkeySlayer06]

I talked about this when the first upgrade revision was launched, but nobody listened. Finally there was a downgrade on this issue. I agree, it's simple and straightforward enough.

 

[Georredannea15]

So, do we have an accepted example elsewhere on the site that meets your proposal to give better clarity on what we are meant to look for?

In practical application, how has "time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions" been properly portrayed?

The FAQ explained them one by one (quotes available in the OP). And if I could find it (even in the revision you are in) DT would usually say that the best way to do this would be to prove that each of the time points in a bigger timeline contains a timeline and is 4-D. So... if each of your timepoints contains a timeline, that means each timepoint is 4-D, and since a timeline can contains uncountably infinite snapshots/timepoints, it means this timeline contain uncountable infinite 4-D snapshots and it becomes 5-D. This is also mentioned in the FAQ


As I quoted above, the OP in the upgrade revision was suggesting this, but I went through the contexts one by one and explained that this is basically just infinite timelines branching to infinity. That's why it should be downgraded to 2-A

 

[Firestorm808]

The FAQ explained them one by one (quotes available in the OP). And if I could find it (even in the revision you are in) DT would usually say that the best way to do this would be to prove that each of the time points in a bigger timeline contains a timeline and is 4-D. So... if each of your timepoints contains a timeline, that means each timepoint is 4-D, and since a timeline can contains uncountably infinite snapshots/timepoints, it means this timeline contain uncountable infinite 4-D snapshots and it becomes 5-D. This is also mentioned in the FAQ


As I quoted above, the OP in the upgrade revision was suggesting this, but I went through the contexts one by one and explained that this is basically just infinite timelines branching to infinity. That's why it should be downgraded to 2-A

That... didn't answer my question. I'm asking if there is another verse on the site that portrays the requirement properly for us to cross reference with.

 

[Georredannea15]

That... didn't answer my question. I'm asking if there is another verse on the site that portrays the requirement properly for us to cross reference with.

Don't get mo wrong pls, but why do we cross-reference? After all, they are different verses, so different contexts. I am not comparing 2 verses with 2 different contexts by "whatabouism" in this way... After all, as I said... Different verses, different contexts. (Btw there may of course be verses with similar context) Anyway...

But if you are asking about this... Yeah, there is, DHB. For the reason I explained above, DBH has hypertimeline, but there was too much there. For example, when they time traveled in the biger timeline, there were whole 4-D timelines in the places they traveled to, But it was also supported by the fact that it was a bigger and encompassing timeline, and somethings like that...

 

[Firestorm808]

Don't get mo wrong pls, but why do we cross-reference? After all, they are different verses, so different contexts. I am not comparing 2 verses with 2 different contexts by "whatabouism" in this way... After all, as I said... Different verses, different contexts. (Btw there may of course be verses with similar context) Anyway...

But if you are asking about this... Yeah, there is, DHB. For the reason I explained above, DBH has hypertimeline, but there was too much there. For example, when they time traveled in the biger timeline, there were whole 4-D timelines in the places they traveled to, But it was also supported by the fact that it was a bigger and encompassing timeline, and somethings like that...

When it comes to conceptual topics such as these, I work better with demonstrable examples alongside the Rules-As-Written standards.

Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

So the flow of time in different universes can be very independent while they have the same time axis. So other than R>F where one is fictionalized in depiction, what would count as an orthogonal timestream if even an independent time flow could be within the same axis?

vsbattles.com

During the previous standards revision, DontTalk had the following to say regarding a time dimension of a realm containing timelines.

Let's say we have this example:

A being exists in an empty realm. This being creates 3 timelines in this realm. It later creates 5. This being is capable of time traveling back to when there were 3 and even no timelines.

Would a higher dimension of time apply here?

Depends on context, but possibly yes. Although that hinges on the word time travel.

Like, fundamentally you could say that you have one timeline that spans multiversal space. In the beginning, that space is empty. Then you rewrite the past so that 3 universes already existed in the space (which is the same as creating 3 timelines). So you rewrite the timeline of the multiversal space.
Then you do the same again to add 5 more.

Technically, you could say you only spawned several more multiverse spanning timelines. Like, now a empty multiverse spanning timeline, a multiverse spanning timeline with 3 universes and a multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes exist. The total number of timelines is only 11.
If you are able to travel between multiverse spanning timelines, you would also be able to switch back from the multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes to the one without any universes/timelines.

However, if you do that specifically via time travel, then that could be a good indicator that you are actually dealing with an additional time dimension. Because that indicates that the progression of the creation of timelines is done within a (presumably continuous) flow of time and that time wouldn't be that of the regular past where those universes always existed.

Due to Clockwork's use of the higher time dimension, he rewinds time from 1 Timeline in the Realm back to many. Per DT, doesn't this demonstrate the higher time dimension flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions?

 

[Georredannea15]

When it comes to conceptual topics such as these, I work better with demonstrable examples alongside the Rules-As-Written standards.

Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

So the flow of time in different universes can be very independent while they have the same time axis. So other than R>F where one is fictionalized in depiction, what would count as an orthogonal timestream if even an independent time flow could be within the same axis?

vsbattles.com

Ahhh yeah... When I opened it and I kind of regretted opening it because all the wiki was against it except DT... I had to defend this against all the people.

During the previous standards revision, DontTalk had the following to say regarding a time dimension of a realm containing timelines.

Let's say we have this example:

A being exists in an empty realm. This being creates 3 timelines in this realm. It later creates 5. This being is capable of time traveling back to when there were 3 and even no timelines.

Would a higher dimension of time apply here?

Let me explain this as simply as I can because this is what DT told me when I asked him...

Imagine a bigger encompassing timeline, this timeline is undergoing a change to form a continuum and the change it undergoes is basically the destruction of a 4-D timeline within it. And suppose you are in the time after the change. And if you time travel from the time when you were in this encompassing timeline to the time when the timeline as a whole has not been destroyed, this is a sign that the encompassing timeline is 5-D.

Because time travel takes place in "snapshots" within the timeline, and if there is an infinite timeline where you time travel or go back in time, then it follows that each snapshot of the overarching timeline is 4-D.

I already gave an example above from DBH, they have exactly that.

Depends on context, but possibly yes. Although that hinges on the word time travel.

Like, fundamentally you could say that you have one timeline that spans multiversal space. In the beginning, that space is empty. Then you rewrite the past so that 3 universes already existed in the space (which is the same as creating 3 timelines). So you rewrite the timeline of the multiversal space.
Then you do the same again to add 5 more.

Technically, you could say you only spawned several more multiverse spanning timelines. Like, now a empty multiverse spanning timeline, a multiverse spanning timeline with 3 universes and a multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes exist. The total number of timelines is only 11.
If you are able to travel between multiverse spanning timelines, you would also be able to switch back from the multiverse spanning timeline with 8 universes to the one without any universes/timelines.

However, if you do that specifically via time travel, then that could be a good indicator that you are actually dealing with an additional time dimension. Because that indicates that the progression of the creation of timelines is done within a (presumably continuous) flow of time and that time wouldn't be that of the regular past where those universes always existed.

Yes, it seems similar to the incident I mentioned above, I just gave an example through the verse for better understanding

Due to Clockwork's use of the higher time dimension, he rewinds time from 1 Timeline in the Realm back to many. Per DT, doesn't this demonstrate the higher time dimension flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions?

Not really.

The two are very different, while there DT talks about "temporal dimensions", here we talk about "infinite alternative timelines". Both are different

As for this example you gave, this event is just "a constant flashback of a time-changing event that occurred in the past."

As long as if this cycle continues within 3D snapshots, it means timeline still becomes 4D.

If we consider this logic you mentioned as Low 1-C, any feat that travels from the present to the past time in a simple 4-D timeline or rewinds the present time to an event in the past would be Low 1-C, but need to prove that the snapshots are 4-D in this timeline.

If you still have any doubt, you can tag him if you want.

 

[Georredannea15]

@Firestorm808 To clarify a little more, given the example you gave above and the timelines branching out in the verse, the mechanics of the verse literally go something like this, and it's still basically 4-D as DT siad here. And yeah, which means 3-D snapshots with same axis.

 

[Celestial_Scaler25]

I disagree.
For Paradox reality/existence includes time(4D) and causality and then he states that reality branches off and becomes a different timeline.

So it is a infinitely off branching 4D timeline.

 

[Georredannea15]

I disagree.
For Paradox reality/existence includes time and causality

Timeline, especially causality, has nothing to do with dimensional layers.

If you read the quotes and pages in the OP, you'll see.

 

[Georredannea15]

I disagree.
For Paradox reality/existence includes time(4D) and causality and then he states that reality branches off and becomes a different timeline.

So it is a infinitely off branching 4D timeline.

Ahhh... just saw this.
Btw thank you for explaining, as I explained with quotes in the OP, they are infinite timelines branching to infinity and are a good example of 2-A.

And still, causality doesn't really matter.

 

[Firestorm808]

Let's try to use this example.

Let's say we have a room with 3-D Vases. I drop a 3-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 3-D explosion and restore the 3-D vases. Can we agree that a 4-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

Now, let's say we have a room with 4-D Vases. I drop a 4-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 4-D explosion and restore the 4-D vases. Can we agree that a 5-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

 

[Georredannea15]

Let's try to use this example.

Let's say we have a room with 3-D Vases. I drop a 3-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 3-D explosion and restore the 3-D vases. Can we agree that a 4-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

Now, let's say we have a room with 4-D Vases. I drop a 4-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 4-D explosion and restore the 4-D vases. Can we agree that a 5-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

There is nothing like the example you gave because there is a contradiction in the example you gave, and that contradiction is that the 4-D room and the 4-D bomb basically take place in a "finite" period of time. In order for a "snapshot" to be 4-D, every snapshot "must have an infinite 4-D timeline."

That is, a 4-D snapshot in a 5-D timeline cannot have a finite time period. As it is 4-D, it must also be infinite because that is the requirement of an infinite timeline, but your example suggests that there is a 4-D bomb exploding in a 4-D room, but this "explosion" is self-contradictory because this 4-D snapshot in a finite time period. So, a somewhat contradictory example

In any verse, every timelines are infinite and 4-D by default, so there cannot be a snapshot that is both 4-D and has a finite/non-infinite time period. This wouldn't happen, and having these snapshots "with limited time period" out of any context would be againts the 5-D timeline

Saying this is like saying that an infinite sized multiverse is contained by a finite/limited sized space. Such an example would be a contradiction just like this one.

 

[Celestial_Scaler25]

I disagree.
For Paradox reality/existence includes time(4D) and causality and then he states that reality branches off and becomes a different timeline.

So it is a infinitely off branching 4D timeline.

Ahhh... just saw this.
Btw thank you for explaining, as I explained with quotes in the OP, they are infinite timelines branching to infinity and are a good example of 2-A.

And still, causality doesn't really matter.

You stated that they are normal timelines and aren't 4D but Paradox's definition of a reality includes time(4D). Thus if the reality branches off infinitely it would be a infinitely off branching 4D timeline.

Yes, "if each snapshot of a timeline contains 4-D timelines and stretches infinitely, that gives you 5-D from uncountably infinite 4-D snapshots"

- Another argument for Low 1-C is that there is an infinitely larger space covering 2-A, but structures that covering 2-A and infinitely larger than 2-A structures are still fundamentally 4-D/2-A. We revised this in full here, and once it was brought to the agenda once again here, it disappeared on the dusty shelves of history.

Another problem is that calling this space "infinite" does not mean much, because a space covering the 2-A multiverse should already be infinite by default.

If a space covering a multiverse is so large that it makes the multiverse look infidesimal in comparison then it is most likely qualitative superior to that multiverse.

 

[Firestorm808]

@DontTalkDT

Your help is appreciated in determining if a higher time dimension exists in the following scenario:

Let's say we have a room with 3-D Vases. I drop a 3-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 3-D explosion and restore the 3-D vases. A 4-D Time dimension exists for this to occur, yes?

A large realm contains many 4-D timelines. A 4-D explosion occurs and destroys all but one timeline. A character uses time manipulation to reverse the 4-D explosion and bring back the destroyed timelines. A 5-D Time dimension in the larger realm should exist for this to occur, yes or no?

 

[Georredannea15]

You stated that they are normal timelines and aren't 4D but Paradox's definition of a reality includes time(4D). Thus if the reality branches off infinitely it would be a infinitely off branching 4D timeline.

The branching timelines themselves are 4-D, but the snapshots in them are not 4-D. In fact, the place where Paradox says Ben Tenyson "here you are 10 years old, here you are 30 years old" is actually where Paradox refers to the snapshots in the timelines, and in one of them The fact that he's 10 years old and the other is 30 years old actually means that these time points have finite time periods like "10 years" and "30 years", and the 4-D snapshot argument is refuted from that statement alone

If a space covering a multiverse is so large that it makes the multiverse look infidesimal in comparison then it is most likely qualitative superior to that multiverse.

But Space Beyond just "has an infinite size that encompasses infinite alternative timelines, and being bigger than."


Space Beyond was originally Low 1-C due to this requirement, but has been rejected before due to current standards.

 

[Georredannea15]

@DontTalkDT

Your help is appreciated in determining if a higher time dimension exists in the following scenario:

Let's say we have a room with 3-D Vases. I drop a 3-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 3-D explosion and restore the 3-D vases. A 4-D Time dimension exists for this to occur, yes?

A large realm contains many 4-D timelines. A 4-D explosion occurs and destroys all but one timeline. A character uses time manipulation to reverse the 4-D explosion and bring back the destroyed timelines. A 5-D Time dimesnion in the larger realm should exist for this to occur, yes or no?

The Space Beyond depicts a higher temporal dimension than those of the branching timelines. The banching timelines exist inside the Space Beyond. In Ben 10 Omniverse Season 6 Episode 1, Vilgax uses the Chronosapien Time Bomb to destroy all branching timelines except No Watch Ben's Timeline. The Space Beyond was unaffected by the CTB and the destruction of the timeline branches. It is not bound by the temporality of the branching timelines. Since a Chronosapien's time powers only work with a higher temporal dimension existing, Clockwork was able to use his abilities with the Space Beyond's Temporal Dimension to bring back the other lower temporal dimensions.

Isn't that exactly what you're talking about? Actually, I mentioned this in the OP quotes from DT, Ultima and FAQ, but it would be much better to hear it from him personally

And actually, it will be good if he took a look at OP when he arrived. Mutual profit, heh.

 

[Georredannea15]

Btw I forgot to tell you too, this is basically very important because it implies that these time points go through limited periods like 10 years or 30 years. @Firestorm808

In fact, the place where Paradox says Ben Tenyson "here you are 10 years old, here you are 30 years old" is actually where Paradox refers to the snapshots in the timelines, and in one of them The fact that he's 10 years old and the other is 30 years old actually means that these time points have finite time periods like "10 years" and "30 years", and the 4-D snapshot argument is refuted from that statement alone

A large realm contains many 4-D timelines. A 4-D explosion occurs and destroys all but one timeline. A character uses time manipulation to reverse the 4-D explosion and bring back the destroyed timelines. A 5-D Time dimesnion in the larger realm should exist for this to occur, yes or no?

Edit : Some news, when I asked Ultima about this, his answer was no. I guess this might help us here but let's wait anyway...

 

[Fixxed]

It happen in the time structure or in branching timeline?

If it happen in the line/axis of time, it need higher time structure for make it happen. Because if you already destroy the entirety of time-line, it mean there are no past present and future anymore, you cannot rewind time to the point it wasnt destroy cause there is not time or past. If you can, it mean you doing that by manipulating higher time structure, rewind that to the past-self of the timeline inside that higher structure. The higher time-line here surely encompasses the entirety of other time-line (yeah make the lower time-line as its snapshoot)

If it just a branching timeline, someone can say you doesnt rewind time in higher structure but just jump to other point of that branching timeline

 

[Fixxed]

Or just some causality manipulation that doesnt even require time to begin with

 

[Hellformer]

A large realm contains many 4-D timelines. A 4-D explosion occurs and destroys all but one timeline. A character uses time manipulation to reverse the 4-D explosion and bring back the destroyed timelines. A 5-D Time dimesnion in the larger realm should exist for this to occur, yes or no?

More specifically the powers of this character only works on a higher temporal dimension existing.

 

[Hellformer]

Or just some causality manipulation that doesnt even require time to begin with

It's time manip

 

[Hellformer]

The branching timelines themselves are 4-D, but the snapshots in them are not 4-D. In fact, the place where Paradox says Ben Tenyson "here you are 10 years old, here you are 30 years old" is actually where Paradox refers to the snapshots in the timelines, and in one of them The fact that he's 10 years old and the other is 30 years old actually means that these time points have finite time periods like "10 years" and "30 years", and the 4-D snapshot argument is refuted from that statement alone

Stop cherry picking arguments and making stuff on your own. Him saying 10 year old, 16 year old and 30 year old were simply examples given to NW Ben for the sake of understanding. I've given several other examples in the OP which weren't from these. And how do you expect Paradox to explain all the snapshots in an episode which barely lasts 22 minutes. AND NW Ben wasn't aware of this so it's obvious that he simply wanted him to understand instead of wasting time.

 

[OMNIVERSAL-KING]

This statement speaks only of past, future and present and says that there are different Ben Tenysons in the timelines branching from the main timeline, which means that there are only different timelines.

So linear time (time in a straight line) but the when it branches , it goes in multiple directions (at least 2 axis of time making 3 spatial and 2 temporal dimensions)
Also each universe branches to infinite , then each branch would repeat this so uncountable infinity+ as firestorm mentioned , argument was made on following reasoning (and your debunk doesn't cover it)

Let's say we have a room with 3-D Vases. I drop a 3-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 3-D explosion and restore the 3-D vases. Can we agree that a 4-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

Now, let's say we have a room with 4-D Vases. I drop a 4-D Grenade into the room and destroy all but one Vase. Time Manipulation is used to reverse the 4-D explosion and restore the 4-D vases. Can we agree that a 5-D Time dimension exists for this to occur?

To clarify, the proposal was that a character used time manipulation on a higher causality to rewind the destruction of the timelines.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

- Another is that infinite structures, each containing infinite 2-A timelines and multiverses, are basically still aleph-0, it will not give you aleph-1, this is clearly explained in the FAQ and it's just basically infinite 2-A's... And it's even explained here. It's like 2-A x 2-A x 2-A x 2-A...(going on infinitely...) still 2-A... And this cycle continues infinitely... still 2-A (but above baseline)

still reading the rest but

2-A x 2-A x 2-A.... going infinitely is literally aleph 1

it is literally [2-A^Infinite]
which makes it aleph 1
cause [2-A x 2-A] is [2-A^2]
and we can't also try to reduce this to mere additions like
2-A x 5 where it is 2-A + 2-A + 2-A + 2-A + 2-A
but since
2-A is literally a value of the infinite amount of timelines
we instead consider it as 2-A^2 because there is already a set of infinite

I'm afraid you might be mistaken in this case

furthermore, the faq specifically discusses Countably many multiverses that are 2-A which is different when these set goes infinitely where in it starts going into the territory of Infinite Sets

To elaborate my point

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

This only discusses 2 different sets which are infinite multiverses
yet what they did is simply say that although there are differences on what they contain they still have the same number of elements

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components.

A key point in this is that it talks about how adding the collective of all these multiverses is still equivalent to just one of the set of infinitely sized multiverses.

This is by far very very different from the multiplicative nature that is discussed here
i would agree if it is just 2-A x 2-A since it would just be 2-A^2
but it is not and you also clearly explained how it is not and it goes into how there are infinite sets of 2-A multiverse rather than limited amount which bars it from being an infinite set

TLDR : You tried to equate a set of infinite 2-A into 2-A +1 which isn't the argument at all
2-A x infinite
2-A x 2-A
2-A + 2-A
are all different from 2-A^infinite and you just tried equating one of it