Destroying infinite timelines that all root back to one timeline

[MightyFrogBeyond]

my Cosmology: infinite 5D space> one 5D atom containing an infinite amount of 4DSTCs> each 4DSTC is “spatial-temporally” separate> each 4DSTC has its own infinite amount of timelines rooted to itself.

1. If a 5D being destroyed one 4DSTC, would it still be Low-2C?
2. Is there a general consensus on how to travel between timelines that connect to one original timeline VS traveling to a separate 4DSTC ? Or is it up to me?
3. Did I describe say “spatially-temporally separate” correctly? This is the version of a multiverse that gets you 2-C all the way to 2-A, correct?

 

[GarrixianXD]

1. Since your version fo the 4-D Spacetime Continuums contains infinite timelines rooted within itself, then destroying one of it will be 2-A.

2. The latter. It revolves around the logic of the verse. Though, in the end it all retrospect to Dimensional Travel no matter the magntitude.

3. No. Your cosmology is rather Low 1-C on an infinite 5-D scale, therefore far beyond the ranges of 2-C to 2-A. If one 4-D STC already contains infinite unexpanding timelines rooted to itself, then it is already 2-A. Each 5-D atom contains infinite amount of 4-D STCs, therefore its volume is infinity * infinity therefore it is at least one-order of infinity above baseline 2-A, if those 4-D STCs aren't infinitely expanding and branching out and that 5-D atom isn't a bulk space. And now zooming out to that Infinite 5-D space of yours, it'll be Low 1-C on an infinite 5-D scale; the 5-D atoms that contains the infinite STCs would be rather negligible since its cardinality is still aleph-0 therefore 2-A, unless otherwise stated that those STCs are infinitely or endlessly expanding.

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

1. Since your version fo the 4-D Spacetime Continuums contains infinite timelines rooted within itself, then destroying one of it will be 2-A.

2. The latter. It revolves around the logic of the verse. Though, in the end it all retrospect to Dimensional Travel no matter the magntitude.

3. No. Your cosmology is rather Low 1-C on an infinite 5-D scale, therefore far beyond the ranges of 2-C to 2-A. If one 4-D STC already contains infinite unexpanding timelines rooted to itself, then it is already 2-A. Each 5-D atom contains infinite amount of 4-D STCs, therefore its volume is infinity * infinity therefore it is at least one-order of infinity above baseline 2-A, if those 4-D STCs aren't infinitely expanding and branching out and that 5-D atom isn't a bulk space. And now zooming out to that Infinite 5-D space of yours, it'll be Low 1-C on an infinite 5-D scale; the 5-D atoms that contains the infinite STCs would be rather negligible since its cardinality is still aleph-0 therefore 2-A, unless otherwise stated that those STCs are infinitely or endlessly expanding.

1. I’ve read that to qualify for 2-C to 2-A requires your 4DSTCs to be spatially-temporally separate? So, my single 4DSTC, despite having infinite timelines rooted to itself, shouldn't count right? I’m confused, I’m being told two different answers.
2. My 4DSTC’s infinite rooted timelines are always expanding. For example, each individual timeline takes into account an infinite amount of possibilities ( whether logical or not ) down to the last measure of time closest to zero. And from it, more timelines are created. And those new timeline repeat this process, and so on. This happens forever. What does this make my cosmology now?
3. Okay, so, let’s forget that each individual 4DSTC contains infinitely-rooted timelines. If there are an infinite amount of spatially-temporally separate amount of 4DSTCs, and I state there are always an infinite amount more constantly being created ( expanding ), are my 5D atoms now eligible to be a higher infinity?

 

[GarrixianXD]

1. I’ve read that to qualify for 2-C to 2-A requires your 4DSTCs to be spatially-temporally separate? So, my single 4DSTC, despite having infinite timelines rooted to itself, shouldn't count right? I’m confused, I’m being told two different answers.

One timeline is already Low 2-C. I think you're confusing a timeline with a 3-D Universe, or a single coordinate in time. A conventional 4-D space-time continuum is equivalent to a single timeline.

2. My 4DSTC’s infinite rooted timelines are always expanding. For example, each individual timeline takes into account an infinite amount of possibilities ( whether logical or not ) down to the last measure of time closest to zero. And from it, more timelines are created. And those new timeline repeat this process, and so on. This happens forever. What does this make my cosmology now?

If all of those infinite timelines are perpetually expanding and each individual timeline within has infinite possibilities, then its cardinality is aleph-1 and therefore is Low 1-C.

3. Okay, so, let’s forget that each individual 4DSTC contains infinitely-rooted timelines. If there are an infinite amount of spatially-temporally separate amount of 4DSTCs, and I state there are always an infinite amount more constantly being created ( expanding ), are my 5D atoms now eligible to be a higher infinity?

Yes.

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

One timeline is already Low 2-C. I think you're confusing a timeline with a 3-D Universe, or a single coordinate in time. A conventional 4-D space-time continuum is equivalent to a single timeline.

If all of those infinite timelines are perpetually expanding and each individual timeline within has infinite possibilities, then its cardinality is aleph-1 and therefore is Low 1-C.

Yes.

3. I see now. But why do I specially have to state that my spatial-temporally separate, infinite amount of 4DSTCs,

are always infinitely expanding? Is it so that the amount reaches uncountably infinite? And that the only thing that could contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4DSTCs is a 5 dimensional object?

 

[GarrixianXD]

3. I see now. But why do I specially have to state that my spatial-temporally separate, infinite amount of 4DSTCs,

are always infinitely expanding? Is it so that the amount reaches uncountably infinite?

Iirc if I'm not mistaken, the uncountable infinities go on forever and forever and could never be computed even with an infinite amount of time, so its pretty much infinitely expanding on every segment if you think about it. Arbitrarily expanding pass the point of countability.

And that the only thing that could contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4DSTCs is a 5 dimensional object?

A 5-dimensional equivalent of a 4-D STC, aka 5-D STC.

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

Iirc if I'm not mistaken, the uncountable infinities go on forever and forever and could never be computed even with an infinite amount of time, so its pretty much infinitely expanding on every segment if you think about it. Arbitrarily expanding pass the point of countability.

A 5-dimensional equivalent of a 4-D STC, aka 5-D STC.

I’m not following. Can’t a regular 5D object of any size,
contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4DSTCs? Why does it have to be a 5-D StC?

 

[GarrixianXD]

I’m not following. Can’t a regular 5D object of any size,
contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4DSTCs? Why does it have to be a 5-D StC?

No. Not at all. Just imagine this: you try and fit an unbendable 2-D paper with an area of 50 m^2 into a 3-D cardboard box that is only 27 cm^3. That of course, would not work since the lengths of the paper far surpass the length of the box, and since the paper cannot be bent, it cannot be stored inside the box and would pierce the cardboard as well. Simply because an object is extra-dimensional, it doesn't necessarily mean it can fit in any lower-dimensional object. Take the Calabi-Yau manifold for example; the 6 dimensions of the manifold are compactified on a quantum scale below the magnitude of a Planck length; it cannot fit any objects despite being 6-dimensional.

 

[Sdjlakjh]

I’m not following. Can’t a regular 5D object of any size,
contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4DSTCs? Why does it have to be a 5-D StC?

Pretty sure dimensional gaps are just uncountably infinitely wide in differences

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

No. Not at all. Just imagine this: you try and fit an unbendable 2-D paper with an area of 50 m^2 into a 3-D cardboard box that is only 27 cm^3. That of course, would not work since the lengths of the paper far surpass the length of the box, and since the paper cannot be bent, it cannot be stored inside the box and would pierce the cardboard as well. Simply because an object is extra-dimensional, it doesn't necessarily mean it can fit in any lower-dimensional object. Take the Calabi-Yau manifold for example; the 6 dimensions of the manifold are compactified on a quantum scale below the magnitude of a Planck length; it cannot fit any objects despite being 6-dimensional.

I see that makes sense. For my cosmology, I want to keep the specifics casual friendly so that’s why I choose 5D atoms to be containers.
And I believe there’s still a way to do that because you said “necessarily mean”. So, if I wanted to make my 5D atoms, despite being smaller in size compared to the amount of lower-dimensional objects it contains, how would I go about describing that?

 

[GarrixianXD]

I see that makes sense. For my cosmology, I want to keep the specifics casual friendly so that’s why I choose 5D atoms to be containers.
And I believe there’s still a way to do that because you said “necessarily mean”. So, if I wanted to make my 5D atoms, despite being smaller in size compared to the amount of lower-dimensional objects it contains, how would I go about describing that?

Well... a 5-D atom itself cannot fit actual 4-D timelines in itself. Unless those timelines are compactified and curled up, or infinitesimal in size. So to answer your question, if you want a 5-D atom to fit lower-dimensional objects that have an overall bigger area than it, I suppose you can curl the lower-dimensional object towards that extra-dimensional axis for it to fit.

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

Well... a 5-D atom itself cannot fit actual 4-D timelines in itself. Unless those timelines are compactified and curled up, or infinitesimal in size. So to answer your question, if you want a 5-D atom to fit lower-dimensional objects that have an overall bigger area than it, I suppose you can curl the lower-dimensional object towards that extra-dimensional axis for it to fit.

Understood I’ll bookmark this for reference.
I am disappointed about a detail I was told, that is: any higher-dimensional space/object would have an extra dimensional axis. And so, any lower dimensional object would always fit.
This is because when we measure the Lower object, it would always equal to 0 because it’ll have no numerical unit when it’s applied to the full measurements, of the higher-dimensional space/object.

I have some more questions and want to move this convo to Discord for better discussion. Would that be okay?