"New" potential Universe criteria (Staff only)

[Bobsican]

It has risen to some attention quite recently that there's one more thing to add as a potential criteria for some spatial structure in a verse to qualify as a universe for our purposes:

• If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel or existing next to each other and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions in bubbles, and most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them universal in nature, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

This most likely would go below the "These are notes that the worlds are indeed universes; while they don't need all of these, at least one of them should indicate this." part, and according to @DarkDragonMedeus , this was accepted around 2019 and 2020. In any case this appears to just have been forgotten and it'd be appropiate to evaluate once more to ensure it's still a good idea and all.

 

[DontTalkDT]

See some problems with that.
Sometimes small bubbles attached to a universe are used to depict pocket dimensions of that universe.

And then there is the problem of saying that one of them is a universe by other criteria. Some of the criteria somewhat work for that... others do not.
One criteria is that something is said to be the size of the universe. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that something is also the entirety of 3D space. Another bubble of similar size and nature could be floating together with it in 3D space and that would, of course, by our standards not qualify as being 2 universes. (despite each of them qualifying as 'universe' enough to get the 3-A rank)

So spontaneously two restrictions to the above would need to be added.
1. the bubbles should be of equal size to each other
2. the bubbles (and we technically don't need to restrict this to bubbles) are known to not float together in 3D space, but to each have its own spacetime.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I agree with this addition as I have said.

See some problems with that.
Sometimes small bubbles attached to a universe are used to depict pocket dimensions of that universe.

And then there is the problem of saying that one of them is a universe by other criteria. Some of the criteria somewhat work for that... others do not.
One criteria is that something is said to be the size of the universe. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that something is also the entirety of 3D space. Another bubble of similar size and nature could be floating together with it in 3D space and that would, of course, by our standards not qualify as being 2 universes. (despite each of them qualifying as 'universe' enough to get the 3-A rank)

So spontaneously two restrictions to the above would need to be added.
1. the bubbles should be of equal size to each other
2. the bubbles (and we technically don't need to restrict this to bubbles) are known to not float together in 3D space, but to each have its own spacetime.

Actually, this is an addition to the universe page and adding it to the list of the rest of these bullet points. And this is already taking into account that the 6 bullet points already within the statements that justify being universes. And assuming that there exists a world/dimension/universe confirmed to be Low 2-C sized. And there exist many different dimensions stated parallel to said Low 2-C sized realm individually, I see no reason for the rest of the realms not to be Low 2-C sized.

It was never implied that a simple "Existing a giant collection of realms are automatically assumed universes part of a big multiverse". As context and semantics are important otherwise, I'm fully aware that collection of bubbles shown in outerspace could just be pocket realities, but there's often times no reason for bubbles appearing the same size on the visual aspect that appear to be the same size wouldn't be the same size. If one of them is at least planet sized, all of them are at least planet sized. One of them is at least 4-A sized via visual demonstrations, all of them are at least via being parallel. And it's not just the common example where we see a symbolic where comparing bubbles are used a a metaphor for explaining many worlds interpretations; as there could be other examples such as dimensional gates to different realities and what not. It especially makes no sense for finite sized realms to be considered "Parallel" to infinite sized realms or better yet 3-D realms to be parallel to 4-D realms. As parallel means having similar shape existing besides each other on the same plane but not intersecting.

I think those two pointers are just redundant for the other 6 requirements. But I suppose the confusion wasn't fully explained in the OP.

 

[Antvasima]

See some problems with that.
Sometimes small bubbles attached to a universe are used to depict pocket dimensions of that universe.

And then there is the problem of saying that one of them is a universe by other criteria. Some of the criteria somewhat work for that... others do not.
One criteria is that something is said to be the size of the universe. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that something is also the entirety of 3D space. Another bubble of similar size and nature could be floating together with it in 3D space and that would, of course, by our standards not qualify as being 2 universes. (despite each of them qualifying as 'universe' enough to get the 3-A rank)

So spontaneously two restrictions to the above would need to be added.
1. the bubbles should be of equal size to each other
2. the bubbles (and we technically don't need to restrict this to bubbles) are known to not float together in 3D space, but to each have its own spacetime.

This seems to make sense to me.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with this addition as I have said.


Actually, this is an addition to the universe page and adding it to the list of the rest of these bullet points. And this is already taking into account that the 6 bullet points already within the statements that justify being universes. And assuming that there exists a world/dimension/universe confirmed to be Low 2-C sized. And there exist many different dimensions stated parallel to said Low 2-C sized realm individually, I see no reason for the rest of the realms not to be Low 2-C sized.

It was never implied that a simple "Existing a giant collection of realms are automatically assumed universes part of a big multiverse". As context and semantics are important otherwise, I'm fully aware that collection of bubbles shown in outerspace could just be pocket realities, but there's often times no reason for bubbles appearing the same size on the visual aspect that appear to be the same size wouldn't be the same size. If one of them is at least planet sized, all of them are at least planet sized. One of them is at least 4-A sized via visual demonstrations, all of them are at least via being parallel. And it's not just the common example where we see a symbolic where comparing bubbles are used a a metaphor for explaining many worlds interpretations; as there could be other examples such as dimensional gates to different realities and what not. It especially makes no sense for finite sized realms to be considered "Parallel" to infinite sized realms or better yet 3-D realms to be parallel to 4-D realms. As parallel means having similar shape existing besides each other on the same plane but not intersecting.

I think those two pointers are just redundant for the other 6 requirements. But I suppose the confusion wasn't fully explained in the OP.

What do you think, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Actually, this is an addition to the universe page and adding it to the list of the rest of these bullet points. And this is already taking into account that the 6 bullet points already within the statements that justify being universes. And assuming that there exists a world/dimension/universe confirmed to be Low 2-C sized. And there exist many different dimensions stated parallel to said Low 2-C sized realm individually, I see no reason for the rest of the realms not to be Low 2-C sized.

It was never implied that a simple "Existing a giant collection of realms are automatically assumed universes part of a big multiverse". As context and semantics are important otherwise, I'm fully aware that collection of bubbles shown in outerspace could just be pocket realities, but there's often times no reason for bubbles appearing the same size on the visual aspect that appear to be the same size wouldn't be the same size. If one of them is at least planet sized, all of them are at least planet sized. One of them is at least 4-A sized via visual demonstrations, all of them are at least via being parallel. And it's not just the common example where we see a symbolic where comparing bubbles are used a a metaphor for explaining many worlds interpretations; as there could be other examples such as dimensional gates to different realities and what not. It especially makes no sense for finite sized realms to be considered "Parallel" to infinite sized realms or better yet 3-D realms to be parallel to 4-D realms. As parallel means having similar shape existing besides each other on the same plane but not intersecting.

I think those two pointers are just redundant for the other 6 requirements. But I suppose the confusion wasn't fully explained in the OP.

I'm aware where it was supposed to go, but the proposed text does not say what you said here. The current proposed formulation has the problems I mentioned. It for instance doesn't actually require anything to be stated to be parallel, since all criteria are connected by an "or".

If you mean that the universe the others are "scaled" from should already posses proof to be the entirety of 3D space, then that should as well be stated in the proposed definition. Unless you strictly wish to focus on infinitely sized universes?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The text is simply supposed to be that worlds or dimensions that are parallel to a universe sized dimensions (Or a literal universe for that matter) are universe sized dimensions or universes respectively. But of course case by case; 3-A universes are parallel to other 3-A universes, High 3-A dimensions/universes parallel to other High 3-A dimensions, and Low 2-C dimensions/universes parallel to other Low 2-C dimensions/universes.

Also, it's within a section where simply one or two criteria confirms universes, it was never agreed all criteria needed to be qualified in that section.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Should I summon the other bureaucrats and administrators here as well, or are DontTalk and Medeus enough?

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.
It's quite a minor thing, but I'd say a bit more staff input would be nice given this can affect several pages.

 

[Nehz_XZX]

It makes sense to me that worlds, dimensions or realms that are depicted as equivalent to each other would be of the same size and that this would extend to universes, so I definitely agree with the general idea of the addition. If there are any problems with the current wording of the addition, then that needs to be fixed of course.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @Ultima_Reality @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou

Would you be willing to help out here please?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Well, from my experience something called a parallel world or universe typically indicates that it's the same size of whatever it'd being compared to. However usually it's limited solely to "Is a alternate universe" and lack some type of multiverse scale map.

Anyways to be on topic, if the world is an alternate reality like Earth-2 it's likely narratively to be as large their main equalivent but with something changed.

But, if it's proven that it's a pocket dimension or the like then it defaulting to Low 2-C is questionable.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[AKM sama]

Just so I get this right, the proposition is to add a point basically saying that:

If there are multiple worlds stated to be parallel or similar to each other, and if one of them fulfils the criteria of being a universe, then they all should be universes and the resulting structure should be a multiverse.

Right?

 

[Antvasima]

Is that correct, Bobsican? Also, have our staff members here agreed with it?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Just so I get this right, the proposition is to add a point basically saying that:

If there are multiple worlds stated to be parallel or similar to each other, and if one of them fulfils the criteria of being a universe, then they all should be universes and the resulting structure should be a multiverse.

Right?

More or less yes. There is still a case by case in mind such as bubble multiverses and I'm not saying things like Low 2-C sized multiverses containing a multitude of 3-A sized pocket realities aren't a thing, but those examples are actually rarer than legit multiverses. But even so, if one of those worlds/dimensions has legit facts of being Low 2-C sized, and those other world/dimensions in the same batch are parallel to it, then I see no reason for all those other realms to also be Low 2-C individually.

 

[Bobsican]

What DDM has said, yes.
Anyways, I think the current text for the proposed standard should be reworded a bit given what DT has said.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies.

I think the current text for the proposed standard should be reworded a bit given that DT has said.

Okay. Does anybody here have a suggestion for a draft text based on our current rules and DontTalk's posts then?

 

[Bobsican]

I'm rather unsure myself.

Perhaps DarkDragonMedeus could help given he's more than aware of the premise and is aware of DT's thoughts on the matter.

 

[Antvasima]

I'm rather unsure myself.

Perhaps DarkDragonMedeus could help given he's more than aware of the premise and is aware of DT's thoughts on the matter.

@DarkDragonMedeus @DontTalkDT

Would any of you be willing to help out with this please?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not sure how else to reword it other than what I already have above.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so should we just apply what was stated in the first post then, as you see it?

 

[Bobsican]

One thing for sure is that we shouldn't restrict portrayals for these purposes to just "bubbles", but rather any space that's visually displayed as similar for such purposes or so.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Actually, I might find a way to reword it.

If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel or existing next to each other and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles, portals, mirrors, dimensional doors that appear similar in size). And most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them the Universe level+ sized, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

Does that look better?

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. It looks mostly good to me, but let's wait for DontTalk.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Actually, I might find a way to reword it.


Does that look better?

I would make just some slight changes:

If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles or other structures that appear similar in size). And most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

To explain:
1. Existing just 'next to' a universe does seem rather vague. Think for example the Kaioshin realm in Dragon Ball that could be described as 'next to' the universe.
2. I'm not sure about portals and doors and stuff. These often represent more entrances to the dimensions than something that would reflect its size. It's kinda case by case, of course, but I think just writing structures here is better.
3. Specified spacetime continuum to account for weird cases of universe+ sized realms in the same spacetime.

Aside from that it seems fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk. I think that your suggested wording seems fine.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I never heard of Kaioshin example being stated to be "Next to Universe 7". It was inside it and stated to be a different body of space from Living World and perhaps the Other World, but not "Next to it". Plus describing something as "Next to" is commonly used as another way to say parallel.
Portals and Doors I can agree aren't the best examples but shows gateways to alternate dimensions. But I have seen examples of animations when a guru character is explaining some many worlds interpretation to the main character.
And yeah, I did acknowledge that Brane cosmologies are a thing and 2-C to 2-B sized timeline exist in fiction. But makes sense.

 

[AKM sama]

I agree with DT's wording but I feel this could be case-by-case. The suggested wording only works in cases where we have no other information and those words are either depicted as the same or said to be similar where one of them fits the criteria. Of course, if more context to these worlds are presented, things would change.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so do you have specific suggestions for how DontTalk's draft should be adjusted?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I never heard of Kaioshin example being stated to be "Next to Universe 7". It was inside it and stated to be a different body of space from Living World and perhaps the Other World, but not "Next to it". Plus describing something as "Next to" is commonly used as another way to say parallel.

It's not so much about whether it was actually called that. I'm just using it as an example. My point is that the description would make sense and is easily something an author could consider using to describe the relationship.
Basically, if an author says there is something next to the universe, I wouldn't rely on that something being universe sized based on that information. It might be weakly supportive, but much less so than the rest of the criteria.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, so do you have specific suggestions for how DontTalk's draft should be adjusted?

@AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles or other structures that appear similar in size). And most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

I might as well just accept this, which is the most recent wording DontTalkDT proposed.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluation.

Is that acceptable for you as well, AKM?

 

[Nehz_XZX]

"at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum"

One thing I'm wondering about is how many other requirements are supposed to be needed since the current wording sounds like as if multiple ones or even all of them are needed. The Universe-sized Pocket Realms Guidelines say that not all requirements are needed to confirm if something is a universe and that at least one requirement should be there as indication, so I wonder how we would handle this in the case of a collection of worlds/dimensions since the current wording uses plural for requirements.

 

[DontTalkDT]

"at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has the other requirements to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum"

One thing I'm wondering about is how many other requirements are supposed to be needed since the current wording sounds like as if multiple ones or even all of them are needed. The Universe-sized Pocket Realms Guidelines say that not all requirements are needed to confirm if something is a universe and that at least one requirement should be there as indication, so I wonder how we would handle this in the case of a collection of worlds/dimensions since the current wording uses plural for requirements.

Might be better to just say universe level+ in size, yeah. So:

If there is shown to be a collection of multiple alternate worlds/dimensions that are either stated to be parallel and/or there are visual depictions resembling each of those worlds/dimensions to be metaphorically similar to each other (Such as bubbles or other structures that appear similar in size). And most importantly, at least one of those individual worlds/dimension has shown enough evidence to consider them a Universe level+ sized spacetime continuum, then the conclusion is to consider all of those individual worlds/dimensions universes and that the entire collection is a multiverse.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, that works for me

 

[Antvasima]

I will ask AKM to comment here.