Default Assumption for Parallel Universes

[Stefano4444]

When it come to parallel universes (for that i'm not referring to timelines), the default assumption its to consider them as Low 2-C or 3-A structures?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Low 2-C, the definition of a Universe includes Matter, Space, and Time.

 

[Stefano4444]

Low 2-C, the definition of a Universe includes Matter, Space, and Time.

That work fine with verses with cosmology who are no different than our own, but does that work with multiple universes?

Because while parallel timelines are by definition different space-time continuums, i did notice that the same definition can't be apply with parallel universes.

While for be parallel universe they must be assumed to be separate by space, there is nothing that indicate that they are separated by time.

And does that work when we have verses with both type of multiverse? Aka multiple parallel universes within a timeline (or timelines).

Do we still assume by default that those parallel universe are Low 2-C even if they exist within a timeline, or we need actual evidence before claim that as otherwise they should be tier at 3-A/High 3-A only?

And if in case time travel equally affect all parallel universes in the same way, would that disprove those parallel universes to be Low 2-C or not?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Low 2-C structures are the default assumption I'd say.

 

[Stefano4444]

Low 2-C structures are the default assumption I'd say.

But for what i understand parallel universes (like bubble universes) for be the way they are only requid to have its own 3D space (as otherwise it just an extension of the same universe), they not necessarely need to be 4D space (which its a requisite for separated timelines). Wouldn't you need actually proof that they have their own space-time instead to assume by default? Especially when it come with universes existing within a single timeline.

I ask since i'm want to be certain about the general standard, the current debate about DBS universes made me second-guessing how things work, since for that verse the universes have been accepted as Low 2-C due of the ROSAT's existence instead to be assumed to be Low 2-C by default.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

But for what i understand parallel universes (like bubble universes) for be the way they are only requid to have its own 3D space (as otherwise it just an extension of the same universe), they not necessarely need to be 4D space (which its a requisite for separated timelines). Wouldn't you need actually proof that they have their own space-time instead to assume by default? Especially when it come with universes existing within a single timeline.

I ask since i'm want to be certain about the general standard, the current debate about DBS universes made me second-guessing how things work, since for that verse the universes have been accepted as Low 2-C due of the ROSAT's existence instead to be assumed to be Low 2-C by default.

Pocket Realities need proof and stuff like Afterlifes being parallel to the Living Universes need statements about having different flows of time. But if universe A is an established universe with spacio-temporal barriers and Universe B is parallel to it, then Universe B already has those stuff by default.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Pocket Realities need proof and stuff like Afterlifes being parallel to the Living Universes need statements about having different flows of time. But if universe A is an established universe with spacio-temporal barriers and Universe B is parallel to it, then Universe B already has those stuff by default.

bro, but we can't use Afterlifes because it's part of the wiki rules, and the databook itself is not acceptable here

In short: we have evidence, but we can't use it because we have a rule;-;

 

[Excellence616]

Sometimes databooks contradict what the author wrote.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Sometimes databooks contradict what the author wrote.

but the problem is that there is no contradiction, but interpretations of some, like four Galaxies there, that I still cry laughing at this counterargument.