Ben 10 - Re-evaluation of the Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

[Firestorm808]

No, not without a direct statement saying there's an infinite amount of those multiverses across the void. The most you can get is a possibly rating since nothing directly implies they take up an infinitesimal space

You said earlier that "If there's an infinite number of 2-A spaces contained within a fraction of a space, that would require a 5-D space to contain them." Ultima and Elizaa share the same sentiment of just being a smaller size is enough.

I did say that, but a key point there is "an infinite number".

Just to clarify, you agree that there are infinite multiverses in an infinite-sized Realm A (Space Beyond). You accept this Realm as possibly Low 1-C.

Realm A exists as a tube structure within an even larger Realm B (Realm of the Timestream).

Wouldn't the larger Realm B (Realm of the Timestream) be the required 5-D space to contain Realm A?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Wouldn't the larger Realm B (Realm of the Timestream) be the required 5-D space to contain Realm A?

Previously you said the Timestream was the multiverse. It can't both contain the Space Beyond while being within it.

Wouldn't the larger Realm B (Realm of the Timestream) be the required 5-D space to contain Realm A?

You're confusing DT's point about the fifth axis. It being 5-D isn't in dispute, it's if the axis is large enough to warrant scaling to Low 1-C. Just being bigger isn't enough. You'd have to prove something akin to a power set to get there.

 

[Firestorm808]

The most you can get is a possibly rating since nothing directly implies they take up an infinitesimal space

In any case, your current stance is that Realms A and B are both Possibly Low 1-C, right?

 

[Benimōru]

The first image can imply a Low 1-C

How exactly does that support L1-C when it's decided in the previous revision that such images would not support L1-C?

 

[Qawsedf234]

How exactly does that support L1-C when it's decided in the previous revision that such images would not support L1-C?

Because if there's an infinite amount of recursive 2-A structures that don't fill out a higher space it would likely pass the threshold for Low 1-C.

 

[Benimōru]

Because if there's an infinite amount of recursive 2-A structures that don't fill out a higher space it would likely pass the threshold for Low 1-C.

And on what basis do we claim that it cannot be filled? With a picture that explains nothing?

Also, as I said before and as stated in the thread where the new standards were acceptes, such pictures cannot be presented as evidence for L1-C.

 

[Qawsedf234]

And on what basis do we claim that it cannot be filled? With a picture that explains nothing?

Exactly. There's nothing that exists to proves it can be filled or proves it can't. The evidence is non-existent so there's no solid upgrade I'm seeing here.

 

[Benimōru]

The evidence is non-existent so there's no solid upgrade I'm seeing here.

So can I assume that your opinion about Timestream is the same as the one about Space Beyond?

 

[TheShape03]

Qawsedf234 gave me permission to comment here. So, it seems like the Low 1-C standards changed or something, I'd rather leave this to the staff members, I'd just like to contribute this:

• The universes are multiverses (something that is already accepted here, but I say it just in case).
• In these universes other dimensions branch out.
• It was declared that there are infinite dimensions.
• WoG also stated that the universe is infinite, here.
• And here Paradox says that the number of dimensions is ad-infinitum (Ad-Infinitum = to infinity, that is, the number of dimensions extends to infinity, some dictionaries also say that "Ad Infinitum" means without end/without limit).
• There are an infinite number of universes.

So, the universes are 2-A structures, and there are infinite 2-A structures, which are in the Space Beyond and are surpassed in size by this same space to the point that these universes are seen as a faint glow, the characters even confuse that 2-A structure with a distant star. We also have the Timestream, an infinite structure where all existence is seen as something infinitesimal.

As I said to Qawsedf, I'm not sure if this qualifies for Low 1-C, but it's worth a try.

 

[Benimōru]

Snip

I will read and reply in 1-2 hours

 

[Benimōru]

it seems like the Low 1-C standards changed or something

"it seems"...

You need to read this from beginning to end before commenting... Anyways.

are surpassed in size by this same space to the point that these universes are seen as a faint glow, the characters even confuse that 2-A structure with a distant star

We've been through this more times than I can count. And the fact that you haven't read the new standards shows why you are making this argument.

Quote from that thread:

Firestorm's post and DT's response:

FStorm: We know these spacetimes are 4-D. If a 5-D space were to be depicted in a 3-D perspective, then pure 4-D space would depict these timelines positioned in just a flat plane. If you can show "width/height/depth" positioning of these spacetimes in this space, then it would show that they exist in a space larger than pure 4-D.

DT's response: Such pictures wouldn't work. If the picture is taken literally, then the space outside the balls has the same dimension as the balls. I.e. everything would be only one universe. If we wish to assume that those are actual universes with separate spacetimes, then this isn't a size-conserving depiction and the extra dimensions could correspondingly be insignificant in size.

Edit: Firestorm itself later admitted that one cannot be L1-C based on such pictures alone.

In short, no, without a proper statement and even with things like seeing those 2-A structures as stars, it doesn't make you L1-C.

We also have the Timestream, an infinite structure where all existence is seen as something infinitesimal.

Second scan not working

Also, if you're talking about cylindrical structures that contains infinite amount of 2-As, it means that you're still making assumptions based on a "visual" and without any statement.

Besides, it doesn't matter if Timestream is infinite. It is supposed to be infinite compared to other 2-A structures, but this is not the case in the statement you linked to.

And all these things have already been answered in the first 2 pages. You didn't provide anything extra.

 

[TheShape03]

"it seems"...

You need to read this from beginning to end before commenting... Anyways.

Calm down dude, I never said it was Low 1-C, I came to provide all the main scans there are on the Timestream and Space Beyond argument, and they gave me permission to comment even though I clearly stated that my main reason for doing so was to provide those scans, not to argue in favor of Low 1-C.

In short, no, without a proper statement and even with things like seeing those 2-A structures as stars, it doesn't make you L1-C.

How about being infinitely larger than those infinite 2-A structures? the Space Beyond is not infinitely larger than these (at least not that I know of), but the Timestream is. If the Space Beyond is larger than all of those infinite 2-A structures, and the Timestream is infinitely larger, it means it is infinitely larger than those 2-A structures.

Also, if you're talking about cylindrical structures that contains infinite amount of 2-As, it means that you're still making assumptions based on a "visual" and without any statement.

Was it not accepted since the Space Beyond was within the Timestream along with the rest of existence? Why does it matter that it is something visual if we know that everything is there just as we see it?

And all these things have already been answered in the first 2 pages. You didn't provide anything extra.

How kind, thanks xd. I already said what I had to say, someone from the staff will see it and know if it is Low 1-C or not.

 

[Benimōru]

Calm down dude, I never said it was Low 1-C, I came to provide all the main scans there are on the Timestream and Space Beyond argument, and they gave me permission to comment even though I clearly stated that my main reason for doing so was to provide those scans, not to argue in favor of Low 1-C.

I am calm. I just can't tolerate that this thread has been open for 1 month and it is still not finished. I apologize if I seemed rude to you.

How about being infinitely larger than those infinite 2-A structures? the Space Beyond is not infinitely larger than these (at least not that I know of), but the Timestream is. If the Space Beyond is larger than all of those infinite 2-A structures, and the Timestream is infinitely larger, it means it is infinitely larger than those 2-A structures.

I will quote DT again.

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both. Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

There is also no proof that Timestream is infinitely larger than them, even if it doesn't matter much.

Was it not accepted since the Space Beyond was within the Timestream along with the rest of existence? Why does it matter that it is something visual if we know that everything is there just as we see it?

Yes, these are exist in the Timestream. And what else?

There is no information on whether it is really "qualitatively" bigger than them. There is only an image of it having these structures on its walls.

Everything12: Kinda got it the wrong way around, I'm not saying that anything bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C like anything bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. I'm saying that unless your bigger than 2-A in a certain qualitative way then you aren't actually bigger and Low 1-C, like only the real numbers are uncountable infinite while the integers and rationals are just countable infinite.

 

[TheShape03]

I am calm. I just can't tolerate that this thread has been open for 1 month and it is still not finished. I apologize if I seemed rude to you.

No problem, I understand how that feels.

Anyway, I saw that you asked for all the arguments on the Timestream topic, I put them up (along with the Space Beyond arguments), if it's not enough for Low 1-C, that's fine.

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both. Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

I get it, I guess being infinitely larger just serves as supporting evidence. Well, it makes sense, an infinite space is still infinitely larger than a three-dimensional object, and destroying an infinite space is still a 3D power but at an infinite level (High 3-A) instead of 4D.

Well, I'll miss Alien X being Low 1-C.

 

[Tanin_iver]

So, the universes are 2-A structures, and there are infinite 2-A structures, which are in the Space Beyond and are surpassed in size by this same space to the point that these universes are seen as a faint glow, the characters even confuse that 2-A structure with a distant star. We also have the Timestream, an infinite structure where all existence is seen as something infinitesimal.

So from what I can see, the Space beyond is 5D (4 spatial + 1 time dimension) for encompassing multiple 2-A structures, and these 2-A structures will have to be spatio-temporally separate in a higher dimension as explained in the Universe page:

Universes must be separated by something other than 3 dimensional distance or physical barriers, otherwise they would be considered to both be part of one large universe for our tiering purposes.

The most typical example is the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate universes coexist in a four dimensional or even higher dimensional space, occupying different position along some additional dimensional axis. Therefore, in order to travel between such universes, the movement must be through the higher dimensional space between them. To summarize, two realms are separated through a higher dimension space if

1. A larger space encompasses all the universes or space-times
2. This space is of a higher dimensional nature.

But there is an uncertainity if this Space Beyond qualifies for a significant sized 5D space as explained by the new addition to FAQ:

Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

So Space Beyond may not qualify for Low 1-C even if it is a 5D structure because it could be a 5D space of non-significant size.

However, as u have provided evidence for the Time stream to be of infinite size and by all of existence being seen as infinitesimal if you mean to say that the Space beyond along with all the universes (which would be a 5D structure) is encompassed by the timestream and is infinite in size, then I can see Low 1-C for Timestream.

As DT explained in the new standards thread, for a structure to be Low 1-C (5D), " You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. "

So the Timestream is an infinite sized 5D structure, which should qualify for being significant sized in the 5th dimension as it is infinite, hence Low 1-C structure.

Also, @Firestorm808 has granted permission to post in this thread.

 

[Benimōru]

However, as u have provided evidence for the Time stream to be of infinite size and by all of existence being seen as infinitesimal if you mean to say that the Space beyond along with all the universes (which would be a 5D structure) is encompassed by the timestream and is infinite in size, then I can see Low 1-C for Timestream.

Anything that contains a 2-A structure is basically infinite anyway. And you left out the rest of what DT said.

And that's the most important part for what you're saying rn:

Space being infinite in itself doesn't matter, as space at that level is infinite in some sense anyway. You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. But I figure if you have information that specific then you wouldn't need this thread. In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.

In short, calling it infinite in general does not include the 5th axis without extra wording. It only implies that the first 4 axes are infinite as in 2-A's.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Benimōru requested that I ping some staff for evaluation.
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33

 

[Georredannea15]

So from what I can see, the Space beyond is 5D (4 spatial + 1 time dimension) for encompassing multiple 2-A structures, and these 2-A structures will have to be spatio-temporally separate in a higher dimension as explained in the Universe page:


But there is an uncertainity if this Space Beyond qualifies for a significant sized 5D space as explained by the new addition to FAQ:

So Space Beyond may not qualify for Low 1-C even if it is a 5D structure because it could be a 5D space of non-significant size.

However, as u have provided evidence for the Time stream to be of infinite size and by all of existence being seen as infinitesimal if you mean to say that the Space beyond along with all the universes (which would be a 5D structure) is encompassed by the timestream and is infinite in size, then I can see Low 1-C for Timestream.

As DT explained in the new standards thread, for a structure to be Low 1-C (5D), " You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. "

So the Timestream is an infinite sized 5D structure, which should qualify for being significant sized in the 5th dimension as it is infinite, hence Low 1-C structure.

Essentially a space containing 2-A multiverses would already be infinite, no extra statement needed for this but only 4 axes are infinite and the timeline running through these universes is 4 dimensional by default which is infinite along only 4 axes, none of which extend to the 5th axis cannot reach and has 0 volume along the 5th axis.

Actually, this is the summary of the incident

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

However, as u have provided evidence for the Time stream to be of infinite size and by all of existence being seen as infinitesimal if you mean to say that the Space beyond along with all the universes (which would be a 5D structure) is encompassed by the timestream and is infinite in size, then I can see Low 1-C for Timestream.

There's a major problem with this argument though. Aside from the fact that being infinite doesn't inherently refer to the extent of its 5th dimensional volume or directional displacement (as Beni and Geo explained), the Time Stream is a time-like dimension, not a space-like one. Why is this important?

Time is considered infinite by default, so the Time Stream being infinite holds no water.

It should be noted that timelines are assumed to be infinite in length, unless evidence to the contrary is provided. Hence, unless otherwise indicated, the destruction of timelines that branch off from one another and never merge would still be ranked between 2-C and 2-A (depending on the number).

You could be tempted to argue that the time stream could be a higher temporal dimension, but overarching timelines aren't inherently Low 1-C. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't necessarily introduce new time axes, so as DontTalk explained, you could assume that a single time axis (that of the overarching timeline) is servicing the multiverse and all its space-times.

 

[Firestorm808]

Benimōru requested that I ping some staff for evaluation.
@Antvasima @AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Andytrenom @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Shadowbokunohero @Ogurtsow @QrowBarr @Crazylatin77 @Zaratthustra @ElixirBlue @Tllmbrg @Nehz_XZX @Dereck03 @Marvel_Champion_07 @Therefir @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Eficiente @DarkGrath @Moritzva @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33

I'm fine with Qaw's Possibly Low 1-C rating for both.

 

[Brogeefrong]

So X is going down to 2-A possibly Low 1-C?

 

[Benimōru]

Qaw's Possibly Low 1-C

QAWSEDF specifically said that there is no evidence to say L1-C, so I don't understand exactly how you can say possibly L1-C when there is no supportive evidence for your interpretation.

 

[Robo432343]

QAWSEDF specifically said that there is no evidence to say L1-C, so I don't understand exactly how you can say possibly L1-C when there is no supportive evidence for your interpretation.

He said possible Low 1-C

it would look like this
2-A, possibly Low 1-C

 

[Benimōru]

He said possible Low 1-C

Exactly. There's nothing that exists to proves it can be filled or proves it can't. The evidence is non-existent so there's no solid upgrade I'm seeing here.

If there is no evidence to prove something even a little bit, then it is not "possibly".

Should be used to list a statistic for a character with some basis, but inconclusive due to the justification being vague or non-definitive. The probability of the justification in question for being reliable should be notable, but mild. This term should be used sparingly

Aside from the "reliable" part of the possibly ratings explanation, there is no statement exists in this case.

 

[Georredannea15]

If there is no statement or material, there is no such thing as "possibly". It's simple

 

[Fixxed]

QAWSEDF specifically said that there is no evidence to say L1-C, so I don't understand exactly how you can say possibly L1-C when there is no supportive evidence for your interpretation.

He say there are no SOLID upgrade,this is why from above he say just POSSIBLY. He not exactly disagree with that. And @Firestorm808 say possibly because qaw literally say possibly

 

[Antvasima]

@Firestorm808 and @Qawsedf234 :

What do you think should be done here and why?

 

[Firestorm808]

@Firestorm808 and @Qawsedf234 :

What do you think should be done here and why?

I'm fine with Qaw's Possibly Low 1-C rating for both.

Per Qaws:

Space Beyond:
At least 2-A, possibly Low 1-C
"I can see the Space Beyond being possibly Low 1-C then."

Realm of the Timestream:
At least 2-A, possibly Low 1-C
"The most you can get is a possibly rating since nothing directly implies they take up an infinitesimal space."

 

[Benimōru]

He say there are no SOLID upgrade,this is why from above he say just POSSIBLY.

So, I explained why it couldn't even be possibly and that Qawsedf was contradicting himself.

Saying that there is no evidence and calling it "possibly" contradicts the explanation of the possibly rating. With this logic, I can interpret something however I want and have it accepted as possibly

This is so ridiculous that if you only have a space that contains more than one 2-A, than you can say that this is possibly L1-C. Even though it was decided that the "visuals" cannot be supportive evidence

 

[Tanin_iver]

Anything that contains a 2-A structure is basically infinite anyway. And you left out the rest of what DT said.

And that's the most important part for what you're saying rn:

In short, calling it infinite in general does not include the 5th axis without extra wording. It only implies that the first 4 axes are infinite as in 2-A's.

Essentially a space containing 2-A multiverses would already be infinite, no extra statement needed for this but only 4 axes are infinite and the timeline running through these universes is 4 dimensional by default which is infinite along only 4 axes, none of which extend to the 5th axis cannot reach and has 0 volume along the 5th axis.

There's a major problem with this argument though. Aside from the fact that being infinite doesn't inherently refer to the extent of its 5th dimensional volume or directional displacement (as Beni and Geo explained)

Space being infinite in itself doesn't matter, as space at that level is infinite in some sense anyway. You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. But I figure if you have information that specific then you wouldn't need this thread. In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.

I think you are missing a very important detail and trying to bury it. I am talking about the space that we add to the standard timelines that is space beyond in here which will be 5D and the timestream which should be atleast 5D to encompass the space beyond.

• The universes are multiverses (something that is already accepted here, but I say it just in case).
• In these universes other dimensions branch out.
• It was declared that there are infinite dimensions.
• WoG also stated that the universe is infinite, here.
• And here Paradox says that the number of dimensions is ad-infinitum (Ad-Infinitum = to infinity, that is, the number of dimensions extends to infinity, some dictionaries also say that "Ad Infinitum" means without end/without limit).
• There are an infinite number of universes.

Your concerns of it only talking about the 4D infinite size is already handled in the above section.


What I am talking about is the Timestream being an infinite sized 5D structure, not the 4D Universes, because it is supposed to encompass the Space Beyond which should logically be a continuous 5D space to keep the infinite number of infinite sized 4D Universes(which are themselves a 2-A structure) spatio-temporally separate. So the Timestream is encompassing all 5 dimensional axes not just 4 dimensions and that structure is stated to be infinite in size, so logically, it should apply for infinite extent in all 5 dimensions, just like how the Universes stated to be infinite applied to all 4 dimensions.
U can't avoid the Timestream being a 5D structure, and just exclude one dimension out of it and only consider it infinite in only 4D extent.

the Time Stream is a time-like dimension, not a space-like one.

Oh, is that so, u mean to say its a higher temporal dimension? Then it makes the case even more solid if it governs the time in Space beyond and not just the multiverse.

You could be tempted to argue that the time stream could be a higher temporal dimension, but overarching timelines aren't inherently Low 1-C. This is because spatiotemporal separation doesn't necessarily introduce new time axes, so as DontTalk explained, you could assume that a single time axis (that of the overarching timeline) is servicing the multiverse and all its space-times.

I am well aware that spatio-temporal separation and higher temporal dimensions are different things.
DT's explaination is for a case of a multiverse of 12 univereses that are spatially separated and where the time dimension doesn't govern the space between the universes (4th spatial dimension) only the 3D universes time.

We have three dimensions of space, which we could (in a simplified version) model as RxRxR, that is the cartesian product of three infinite real number lines.
Time we could model as a single infinite real numbers line R.
A timeline is then (RxRxR)xR i.e. space x time.
Now, for multiple timelines, we need to operate in a 5-dimensional space. In the 5th dimension, they would all lay beside each other. Let's say we have 12 timelines, with their positions in the 5th dimensions being 1,2,3,4,..., 12. {1,2,3,4,...,12} is the set of those positions.
The multiverse consisting of 12 timelines would then be described by {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR.
In other words the cartesian product of the locations of each timeline, with one timeline.

Let's compare this to a timeline consisting of 12 universes. One universe is again RxRxR.
Those universes are in a multiverse. We again model their positions as {1,2,3,4,...,12}, just that this time those positions wouldn't be across the 5th dimensional axis, but the 4th one. (Which is really just arbitrary numbering)
So the multiverse is {1,2,3,4,..,12}x(RxRxR), in other words, a universe for each of the 12 positions.
Now let's make a timeline out of that. How do we do that? We again multiply (take the cartesian product) with the time axis. The same way we previously went from universe to timeline. The time axis is again modelled as R.
What we get is Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR). That is in mathematical terms a timeline consisting of 12 universes.
Let's make sure we got that right: We wanted Low 2-C universes, i.e. entire spacetimes. Are those entire spacetimes? Yes! Because the time dimension we added is equally applied to all universes. We, for example, have a point that is 5 seconds in the future of universe 3 at the coordinates (0,1,15). That point is in the construction above {5}x{3}x(0,1,15).
So those construction meets all demands. A timeline consisting of multiple universal spacetimes.

Let's compare those two constructs now.
Multiverse from 12 timelines was: {1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)xR
Timeline of 12 Universes was: Rx{1,2,3,4,...,12}x(RxRxR)

However if the Timestream is a temporal dimension that governs even the Space Beyond (the 4th spatial dimension, the distance between the universes to keep them spatially separate) and not just the 3D universes, then it would look something like this instead

Normal Multiverse: {1,2,3,4,...}x(RxRxR)xR
Timestream: {R ; the 4th spatial dimension is continuous because of space beyond instead of discrete like normal multiverse}x(RxRxR)x{R; time dimension}

Timestream will be Low 1-C in this case.

 

[Fixxed]

So, I explained why it couldn't even be possibly and that Qawsedf was contradicting himself.

Saying that there is no evidence and calling it "possibly" contradicts the explanation of the possibly rating. With this logic, I can interpret something however I want and have it accepted as possibly

This is so ridiculous that if you only have a space that contains more than one 2-A, than you can say that this is possibly L1-C. Even though it was decided that the "visuals" cannot be supportive evidence

He say the no evidence in here is just about "can be filled or cannot", he not say it entirely not have evidence. So he bassically mean we cannot say it can be filled or cannot, and no solid rating because of that

 

[Benimōru]

Snip

Gonna answer this when I got home.

He say the no evidence in here is just about "can be filled or cannot", he not say it entirely not have evidence.

Fixxed, I really don't want to prolong the discussion with you. But if there is no proof of whether it can be filled or not, which is the main stuff, then you can't get any rating

 

[Antvasima]

I'm fine with Qaw's Possibly Low 1-C rating for both.

Per Qaws:

Space Beyond:
At least 2-A, possibly Low 1-C
"I can see the Space Beyond being possibly Low 1-C then."

Realm of the Timestream:
At least 2-A, possibly Low 1-C
"The most you can get is a possibly rating since nothing directly implies they take up an infinitesimal space."

Okay. That is probably fine, but what are both of your reasons for it, in summary?

Also, what do other staff members here think, if there are any?

 

[Fixxed]

Fixxed, I really don't want to prolong the discussion with you. But if there is no proof of whether it can be filled or not, which is the main stuff, then you can't get any rating

*you cant get solid rating. This just fall to vagueness not falseness

 

[Benimōru]

*you cant get solid rating. This just fall to vagueness not falseness

A statement that does not exist cannot be false or vague

There is no statement here where we can make an idea that "what if this place can never be filled with these 2-A structures".

You are just trying to put your own interpretation on something that doesn't exist and give it a possibly rating.

Like, I can say that "what if this structure is infinite (spatial) dimensional?" to any structure I want without any statement and get "Possibly H1-B" rating with your logic. Because in both cases there is "NO" proof.

Edit: I will reply to Tanin when I can, probably tonight

 

[Georredannea15]

I think you are missing a very important detail and trying to bury it. I am talking about the space that we add to the standard timelines that is space beyond in here which will be 5D and the timestream which should be atleast 5D to encompass the space beyond.


Your concerns of it only talking about the 4D infinite size is already handled in the above section.


What I am talking about is the Timestream being an infinite sized 5D structure, not the 4D Universes, because it is supposed to encompass the Space Beyond which should logically be a continuous 5D space to keep the infinite number of infinite sized 4D Universes(which are themselves a 2-A structure) spatio-temporally separate. So the Timestream is encompassing all 5 dimensional axes not just 4 dimensions and that structure is stated to be infinite in size, so logically, it should apply for infinite extent in all 5 dimensions, just like how the Universes stated to be infinite applied to all 4 dimensions.
U can't avoid the Timestream being a 5D structure, and just exclude one dimension out of it and only consider it infinite in only 4D extent.

It doesn't make any difference, because the 5th vertical axis of the 5-dimensional space they occupy is still insignificant in its 5-dimensional volume...

Your logic is that space beyond is infinite and has a 5th axis, but since the multiverses you have are all 4-dimensional, no matter how infinite they are, they will not prove to you that the 5th volume is infinite.


Maybe you can say "but space is infinite" but at that level a space has to be infinite already and it doesn't make your 5th axis infinite, it only makes your 4 axis, your 4th dimensional volume infinite and inclusive timelines are not hyper timelines

In short, since the 5th axis covered by the Timestream is a trivial 5th axis, it does not scale either.

 

[KingNanaya]

Reminder that this is still a staff thread, so back and forth conversations between non staff should probably stop so other staff can evaluate

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think should be done here and why?

The most I see with the new standards is a possibly Low 1-C justification. Otherwise I think it's just higher into 2-A.

 

[Benimōru]

It doesn't make any difference, because the 5th vertical axis of the 5-dimensional space they occupy is still insignificant in its 5-dimensional volume...

I will prepare a proper response in a few hours to Tanin, but this is not what he is trying to say.

The fact that each universe contains infinite timelines means that there is a 5th axis in "unknown size" separating them. And since there are infinitely many of these universes, this means there are infinitely many 2-A structures, so infinitely many 5D spaces, and since Timestream contains them and is said to be infinite, he says that the Timestream is a infinite 5D structure, hence L1-C.

But I don't think it's that simple.

 

[Benimōru]

The most I see with the new standards is a possibly Low 1-C justification.

Also, I am waiting for you to answer which statement you are using to support the "possibly" rating.

You have said that it is not known whether these 2-As will fill this space or not, so it should be "possibly", but you have not provide any statement that refer to or imply that it cannot be filled.