Dragon Ball Super and Hypertimeline?

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Just a question for a clarification,

On the FAQ page it says this here:

"However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.

Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.

One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria."

Every time, someone time travels in Dragon Super, a new timeline is created. The FAQ page says this would disqualify the notion of an extra time axis. Can someone explain what is special about the Dragon Ball Super hypertimeline, that waves away this disqualification?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Time travel isn't the justification used for the Hyper-Timelines. It's to show that the timelines themselves are seperate things not really relevant to each other. The main justification is thst multiple independent origins of time and how the complete destruction of time in one Macrocosom wouldn't effect the others.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

There are other things too, which despite the reviews, are still confusing.

It practically depends on which staff member you ask and each one can tell you something different (as almost all level 1 works).

Like, for Planck and KL0, by default timelines are countless infinite points.

Like, for this reason level 2 is level 2, because in a timeline, there are infinitely countless 3D spaces.

For hypertimelines it would be the same thing, only in 4D.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Time travel isn't the justification used for the Hyper-Timelines. It's to show that the timelines themselves are separate things not really relevant to each other. The main justification is thst multiple independent origins of time and how the complete destruction of time in one Macrocosom wouldn't effect the others.

That's not really what I'm asking. The FAQ says that the creation of alternate timelines upon timetravel, shows that the snapshots of of the timeline are limited.

How does the timelines being separate and having independent origins of time lead to an uncountable infinite snapshots of timelines?

 

[Qawsedf234]

How does the timelines being separate and having independent origins of time lead to an uncountable infinite snapshots of timelines?

Well of the justifications is as follows

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.

With the idea being that since the timelines can start and end while a greater temporal progression is present (destruction of time in anyone or even all 12 of the Macrocosoms would still fails to halt time), would indicate that a higher temporal axis is needed to regulate everything.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.

Every time, someone time travels in Dragon Super, a new timeline is created. The FAQ page says this would disqualify the notion of an extra time axis. Can someone explain what is special about the Dragon Ball Super hypertimeline, that waves away this disqualification?

Sounds like a wild misinterpretation, honestly.

DT: Like, in a time travel fiction you might have prior versions of timelines and later versions after some time travel event altered them. If you then can proof that those aren't discrete alternate version (i.e. not like in fiction where every time travel just spawns a new timeline), but a continuous time-like progression of the timeline, that should work.

DT: But as said, you must be careful that those aren't just discrete versions. If the timeline only gets a future version whenever someone timetravels, then that wouldn't work.

He's not saying saying that time travel creating new timelines invalidates hypertimelines. That's actually an absurd notion when you consider how he gave multiple examples of when time traveling to different versions of a multiverse would prove hypertimelines. So this:

Every time, someone time travels in Dragon Super, a new timeline is created.

Means absolutely nothing. The FAQ is simply saying that if you're given a fiction where time travel creates new timelines, hypertimelines would be demonstrated if there's supporting evidence to suggest that the alternate timelines created don't represent only a discrete set of versions of the timeline, but a continuous progression of the timeline where at any given moment, there is a distinct version of the timeline. The most straightforward way to prove this is if you time travel to a point where there were more or less timelines in a multiverse (keyword time travel, because in a vacuum, going to a point where there were more or less space-times could involve some other mechanism that wouldn't prove a continuous progression of space-time). The reason why this example works is because if several space-time continuums don't exist, and you travel back to a point in time when they did, you'd require a different axis than those used by the multiversal timelines. An instance where this wouldn't work is if you travel back to when a space-time continuum was a mere void (something like pre-big bang) since that could just use the axis of the regular timeline.

Dragon Ball even has a direct example of this, since the main cast could create a new timeline by reaching a point in Trunks' future before the multiverse was erased, but I refrained from including this example into the justifications (despite how blatant it is) since that feat would introduce a whole new can of worms. Just for fun, I feel like it'd be convenient to drop this conversation.

Yeah, pretty blatant example.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

With the idea being that since the timelines can start and end while a greater temporal progression is present (destruction of time in anyone or even all 12 of the Macrocosoms would still fails to halt time), would indicate that a higher temporal axis is needed to regulate everything.

I'm sorry. I'm a bit more confused. Because a universe was destroyed and time did not stop for the other universes, that means a higher temporal axis is needed?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I'm sorry. I'm a bit more confused. Because a universe was destroyed and time did not stop for the other universes, that means a higher temporal axis is needed?

Because time can start in end while time still progresses in a greater sense. Which from what I got with DT would imply a greater temporal axis.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Because time can start in end while time still progresses in a greater sense. Which from what I got with DT would imply a greater temporal axis.

Okay. One more question, well two more. Let me give you some examples.

Scenario A

Let's say there is a multiverse with multiple universes. If a character destroys one universe, but time still exists for the other universes, that means a greater temporal axis is needed?

Scenario B

Let's say characters exist in Universe 1, and a villain creates a new universe, let's call it universe 2. If Universe 2 is destroyed after it is created, and time still exists for universe 1, that means that a greater temporal axis is needed also?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Let's say there is a multiverse with multiple universes. If a character destroys one universe, but time still exists for the other universes, that means a greater temporal axis is needed?

No, since the assumption with those is that it's a branched multiverse space.

Let's say characters exist in Universe 1, and a villain creates a new universe, let's call it universe 2. If Universe 2 is destroyed after it is created, and time still exists for universe 1, that means that a greater temporal axis is needed also?

No, since Universe 2 is a different space from Universe 1, since they're seperate space-time wise.

 

[Georredannea15]

Because time can start in end while time still progresses in a greater sense. Which from what I got with DT would imply a greater temporal axis.

And especially if one were to time travel to the point in time before this change and end, from the greater timeline after change and beginning, that would support it immensely. Basically these changes need to happen on the same timeline

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

No, since the assumption with those is that it's a branched multiverse space.

Multiverse spaces are assumed to be branched by default? So you would have to prove they are not branched and (based on what you said below) also not separated? How does that work?

No, since Universe 2 is a different space from Universe 1, since they're seperate space-time wise.

I'm again confused. Because you've stated here:

The main justification is thst multiple independent origins of time and how the complete destruction of time in one Macrocosom wouldn't effect the others.

Time in the macrocosms are supposed to be independent from each other. If Scenario 2 doesn't necessitate a higher temporal access, what is the difference between two universes having independent time origins, and two universes having separate spacetimes?

 

[Georredannea15]

Time in the macrocosms are supposed to be independent from each other. If Scenario 2 doesn't necessitate a higher temporal access, what is the difference between two universes having independent time origins, and two universes having separate spacetimes?

A single temporal dimension can hold more than one space-time continuum or different timelines. So you can have 2-C, 2-B or 2-A cosmology with just one temporal dimension.

Having a different and extra temporal dimension does not mean a hypertimeline, but it is different from multiple different timelines extending in the one temporal dimension

 

[Qawsedf234]

Multiverse spaces are assumed to be branched by default? So you would have to prove they are not branched and (based on what you said below) also not separated? How does that work?

Prove that the spaces are unrelated to each other in a space-time origin.

If Scenario 2 doesn't necessitate a higher temporal access, what is the difference between two universes having independent time origins, and two universes having separate spacetimes?

Scenario 2 is a seperate creation overall. All of DB's Macrocosmos exist within a larger void of space in a disk like formation. The same space having independent temporal origins along with it being not completely effected by a segment of time being erased is why it would be Low 1-C rather than 2-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

Scenario 2 is a seperate creation overall. All of DB's Macrocosmos exist within a larger void of space in a disk like formation. The same space having independent temporal origins along with it being not completely effected by a segment of time being erased is why it would be Low 1-C rather than 2-C.

Btw also with that you said, in the DB they time travel through time points within this overarching timeline and there is a timeline at each point they time travel to.

Actually, this, along with what you said, strongly supports that every time point is 4-D.

I guess that was the biggest reason why DB was Low 1-C

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Prove that the spaces are unrelated to each other in a space-time origin.


Scenario 2 is a seperate creation overall. All of DB's Macrocosmos exist within a larger void of space in a disk like formation. The same space having independent temporal origins along with it being not completely effected by a segment of time being erased is why it would be Low 1-C rather than 2-C.

So universes that exist within a larger singular space, but their individual destruction does not affect each other, have a hyper timeline?

 

[Qawsedf234]

So universes that exist within a larger singular space, but their individual destruction does not affect each other, have a hyper timeline?

From what I understand, if they coexist in the same space, then yes.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Okay. Thank you. I understand now.

I asked DT to respond, but I doubt that will happen. Your answer should be sufficient. You can close this if you want or wait to see what other staff responds.

 

[Georredannea15]

From what I understand, if they coexist in the same space, then yes.

Btw doesn't this just mean that these timelines are independent of each other? I think DT mentioned that

 

[TiltedFN]

Btw doesn't this just mean that these timelines are independent of each other? I basically think there needs to be more than this

I don't think he's saying that's ALL that is necessary for hypertimelines, but this along with what he said above.

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't think he's saying that's ALL that is necessary for hypertimelines, but this along with what he said above.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. He may not mean it's enough alone for hypertimeline, but he may mean that DB is 5-D with all its possessions and evidence.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Okay. Thank you. I understand now.

I asked DT to respond, but I doubt that will happen. Your answer should be sufficient. You can close this if you want or wait to see what other staff responds.

Closing