Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Verse Creation: The Cosmology Part 2

[LOTM_Historian]

BUMPPPPPP

 

[Sebas-S.P-san]

Brother, already more than 3 months .

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Brother, already more than 3 months .

Ong, like this thread at this rate will never be evaluated and we will never have a Kim Dokja profile.

 

[Black-san112]

may god help us when we try to get the rest of the verse's profiles done

 

[Danny33wise]

Bump

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Bump

 

[Sebas-S.P-san]

Bump

For all eternity

 

[Pedonar]

Bump

 

[Pedonar]

Bump

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Bump

 

[Pedonar]

Bump

 

[LOTM_Historian]

⸢If this CRT can really save ORV…⸥

If you regained just a little of your memories and remember us just one more time…

….Then I’ll keep bumping this CRT for you until the end of the time, for eternity.

⸢There are three ways to upgrade a verse⸥

⸢I’ve forgotten a few by now. However, one thing’s for certain.⸥

⸢And that is, the staff reading these words will save this verse.⸥

⸢This CRT is for just that one staff member.⸥

 

[Pedonar]

⸢If this CRT can really save ORV…⸥

If you regained just a little of your memories and remember us just one more time…

….Then I’ll keep bumping this CRT for you until the end of the time, for eternity.

⸢There are three ways to upgrade a verse⸥

⸢I’ve forgotten a few by now. However, one thing’s for certain.⸥

⸢And that is, the staff reading these words will save this verse.⸥

⸢This CRT is for just that one staff member.⸥

This is pure gold. It deserves to be the signature of every future ORV CRT.

 

[Danny33wise]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Duedate8898 @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @LordTracer @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Deagonx @FinePoint @Elizio33 @Propellus @AbaddonTheDisappointment @Catzlaflame @ActuallySpaceMan42

We seem to need some help here.

 

[Danny33wise]

Bump

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. I cannot force our other staff members to be interested. My apologies.

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Hmm. I cannot force our other staff members to be interested. My apologies.

Don't worry King

Bumping this thread is my , my eternity.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Hmm. I cannot force our other staff members to be interested. My apologies.

Don't worry. Thanks for the help

 

[LOTM_Historian]

Bump

 

[GarrixianXD]

I'll go through each detail one by one:

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

Info type 2 for stories seems to be fine. Establishing that different worlds are all conceptually different with their own concepts, discrete from the other, merely based on this context that the concept of taste wasn't specified in a specific dimension, doesn't seem logical to me and leagues below concrete evidence that can prove the proposal. Simply because a world doesn't have a concept, doesn't mean they are conceptually different from every other world. It seems like the concept of time is actually fundamentally different in the Labyrinth of World Lines, which I see is depicted as a different subject than that of stories/dimensions, hence doesn't seem to have a correlation to specific dimensions itself. As for dimensions containing their own space-time axis... I mean, that's fine since they are separate space-time continuums after all, and would be logical for them to dimensionally differ from each other; it's the basis of dimensional scaling and establishing a multiverse of space-time. Stories being bound by the concept of space-time is also fine. I won't be certain on canonicity, but considering there ain't any objectification on that part over the past 3 months, I suppose it could be fine, though I'm open to arguments against it.

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

Alright. I suppose that each world can work as a 2-B structure as it seems.

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

This is probably where many of the issues arise. The microcosms are already established as separate Low 2-C space-time continuums, which would already make sense for them to have their own flow of time individually. Though, I'm struggling to see how much of these correlates with dimensional tiering and how a world with a different time axis can establish a hypertimeline. Yggdrasil would just be 2-C, and the World would just be 2-B unless you prove that their time axes ontologically differentiate from each other, otherwise, I see no reason why hypertimelines can be a plausible argument here. Simply having separate time axes, plus their axes having a different flow, just doesn't seem enough.

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

The Worldlines was said to have a different concept of time so I suppose a +1 temporal dimension is fine, and another +1 dimensional via uncountability and incessant perpetual expansion. I'll be fine with 6-D World Lines, though, that +1 dimensional from containing worlds which I explained is more accurately 2-B structures doesn't seem plausible unless you prove that World Line dimensions contain uncountable infinite amounts of worlds or its time axis is ontologically different than that of Worlds, but I don't really see it judging by the evidence shown.

Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint Cosmology

vsbattles.fandom.com

I don't really see how the Universe is quantitatively superiorly a higher infinity than the Worldlines, merely based on the fact it contains countless worldlines and no before and after. The Universe having "no before and after" doesn't grant an ontologically different time axis from the Worldlines.

As for the rest of the stuff, I won't comment, as it doesn't seem you proposed a rating for them.

 

[Lycenum_lycopersicum]

I don't really see how the Universe is quantitatively superiorly a higher infinity than the Worldlines, merely based on the fact it contains countless worldlines and no before and after. The Universe having "no before and after" doesn't grant an ontologically different time axis from the Worldlines.

It stems from the idea that a separate worldline is created whenever anyone makes a choice , thus, just from one world-line a countless world-lines are created as a byproduct of making choice and in their turn they create more world-lines on their own and so on. that would logically stack up to infinity, all of those being within The Universe which is infinite and has its own time axis independent from worldlines too . Is it a bit more convincing now?

 

[GarrixianXD]

It stems from the idea that a separate worldline is created whenever anyone makes a choice , thus, just from one world-line a countless world-lines are created as a byproduct of making choice and in their turn they create more world-lines on their own and so on. that would logically stack up to infinity, all of those being within The Universe which is infinite and has its own time axis independent from worldlines too . Is it a bit more convincing now?

The Universe being able to contain Worldlines would already make it +1 dimensionally above it, adding that the Universe was stated to be Infinite, I can see merit towards it being a higher-infinity structure. 7-D Universe is fine. Can you point out where it implied that the Universe has its own time axis independent of that of Worldlines? That can also be helpful. Also, even if the Universe contains an ontological independent temporal axis, all of its snapshots and every infinitesimal temporal coordinate will all need to contain those Worldlines; I think you get what I mean.

 

[Lycenum_lycopersicum]

The Universe being able to contain Worldlines would already make it +1 dimensionally above it, adding that the Universe was stated to be Infinite, I can see merit towards it being a higher-infinity structure. 7-D Universe is fine. Can you point out where it implied that the Universe has its own time axis independent of that of Worldlines? That can also be helpful. Also, even if the Universe contains an ontological independent temporal axis, all of its snapshots and every infinitesimal temporal coordinate will all need to contain those Worldlines; I think you get what I mean.

okay for time axis i'd need a bit story context: Kim Nawoon spent 40 000 years in The Universe(when on screenshots it mentions "workd's end" it means destruction of his worldline and him ending up in a void aka The Universe), so this /hopefully/ is enough to state that The Universe has its own time axis as a passage of time is a thing there. What would I assume, since worldlines are created whenever someone makes a choice, wouldn't there be a need for time axis to "take" all those snapshots of all worldlines(for a specific choice made in some moment in time, an indepedent and parallel world is created) , for example a time axis of The Universe within which all worldlines contained?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Info type 2 for stories seems to be fine.

Concept Type 1 too.

Establishing that different worlds are all conceptually different with their own concepts, discrete from the other, merely based on this context that the concept of taste wasn't specified in a specific dimension, doesn't seem logical to me and leagues below concrete evidence that can prove the proposal.

Well what you say is true but that's not really why I say they are conceptually independent. They are conceptually independent because of the stories, which define all aspects and concepts of an object and by extension dimensions.

Simply because a world doesn't have a concept, doesn't mean they are conceptually different from every other world.

That wasn't really my point. All I was showing was that the conceptual aspect of dimensions is also defined and created and thus contained by stories.

It seems like the concept of time is actually fundamentally different in the Labyrinth of World Lines, which I see is depicted as a different subject than that of stories/dimensions, hence doesn't seem to have a correlation to specific dimensions itself.

Everything created by Oldest Dream has a story and the Labyrinth is no exception.

As for dimensions containing their own space-time axis... I mean, that's fine since they are separate space-time continuums after all, and would be logical for them to dimensionally differ from each other; it's the basis of dimensional scaling and establishing a multiverse of space-time.

Uh that's partially true. My point with that scan was to show that each dimension has its own time axis, to somewhat avoid this basic assumption.

Stories being bound by the concept of space-time is also fine.

Uh actually it's the opposite. It is the concept of space-time which is being bound by stories as shown in this scan. This is actually to show that stories are more abstract than the concepts of a dimension and contain them.

I won't be certain on canonicity, but considering there ain't any objectification on that part over the past 3 months, I suppose it could be fine, though I'm open to arguments against it.

Fine.

Alright. I suppose that each world can work as a 2-B structure as it seems.

Hmm.

This is probably where many of the issues arise. The microcosms are already established as separate Low 2-C space-time continuums, which would already make sense for them to have their own flow of time individually. Though, I'm struggling to see how much of these correlates with dimensional tiering and how a world with a different time axis can establish a hypertimeline.

Yeah that's where it all starts. Stories by their very nature ensure that each dimension has its concepts independently of the others. The argument I'm using is not Hypertimelines but overarching timelines. The thing itself is pretty simple. The whole argument I was making about each dimension having its own time axis was actually for this. The blog itself contains pretty much what the wiki accepts regarding time dimensions and this is further supported by this post.

Yggdrasil would just be 2-C, and the World would just be 2-B unless you prove that their time axes ontologically differentiate from each other, otherwise, I see no reason why hypertimelines can be a plausible argument here. Simply having separate time axes, plus their axes having a different flow, just doesn't seem enough.

I think with the Overarching timeline the dimensional jump is explained.

The Worldlines was said to have a different concept of time so I suppose a +1 temporal dimension is fine,

Fine but also much more thanks to the aspect of the stories, which guarantees that a Worldline is an Overarching timeline.

and another +1 dimensional via uncountability and incessant perpetual expansion.

Fine.

I don't really see how the Universe is quantitatively superiorly a higher infinity than the Worldlines, merely based on the fact it contains countless worldlines and no before and after. The Universe having "no before and after" doesn't grant an ontologically different time axis from the Worldlines.

Same thing with the nature of stories. The whole world (the Universe) is just a story and everything below as a story is part of it and participates in it (much more like small concepts are part of a big concept).

As for the rest of the stuff, I won't comment, as it doesn't seem you proposed a rating for them.

This has already been covered in part 1 of the thread. Well, with that, thank you for your time and feedback

 

[GarrixianXD]

Type 1 concept seems valid at glance, though, I don't have a strong opinion about it.

Uh actually it's the opposite. It is the concept of space-time which is being bound by stories as shown in this scan. This is actually to show that stories are more abstract than the concepts of a dimension and contain them.

Ah, yeah, looks good.

 

[Pedonar]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Garrixian.

Has the information within the blog here been adjusted in a manner that makes it acceptable to apply now?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Thank you for helping out, Garrixian.

Has the information within the blog here been adjusted in a manner that makes it acceptable to apply now?

Currently I've been using overarching timelines as an argument, something Garrixian saw as Hypertimelines and had complaints about. I think the overarching timelines argument is correct, but it remains to be seen whether it's usable since DontTalkDT said that the requirements (the stuff with the time dimension of dimensions) are to be studied on a case-by-case.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Yeah that's where it all starts. Stories by their very nature ensure that each dimension has its concepts independently of the others. The argument I'm using is not Hypertimelines but overarching timelines. The thing itself is pretty simple. The whole argument I was making about each dimension having its own time axis was actually for this. The blog itself contains pretty much what the wiki accepts regarding time dimensions and this is further supported by this post.

Aren't these exactly the arguments to establish a hyper timeline? I recall overarching timelines and hyper timelines being the same thing. Profectus's blog revolves around the Dragon Ball cosmology, which IIRC established a Low 1-C overarching timeline because each timeline in Dragon Ball governs the 12 universes (separate spacetime continuums), yet shown to have an ontologically different time axis that is directly connected to the 12 universes. Time travel in Dragon Ball, like if you access another timeline, the 12 universes will still be intact and time travel with you, hence an overarching time axis that is connected and engulfs the time axes of the 12 universes. I don't really see that it's the same case with this revision; as far as I recall, you need those time axes to ontologically differ from each other, and should also be "connected" in some way, like if you time travel in a World, the Lands should also be affected by the time travelling you have done in the World.

@ProfectusInfinity Your information is being used here, it'll be nice if you can give input.

Thank you for helping out, Garrixian.

Of course

Has the information within the blog here been adjusted in a manner that makes it acceptable to apply now?

I'm so far the only staff who gave their evaluation, I'd like to wait for more input and might change my stance if someone else provides more appealing arguments.

Here's how I view this CRT:

Lands: Low 2-C
Worlds: 2-B via containing infinite lands in them
Worldlines: Worldlines are said to have their own concept of time and contain uncountable infinite amounts of Worlds, they should be 1-C at 6-D scale
The Universe: 1-C at 7-D scale via containing the Worldlines and said to be infinite in size; an overarching time axis for The Universe seems rather iffy to me even as of now, so I won't strongly consider the chances of the Universe being 8-D.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out. That is probably fine then.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Aren't these exactly the arguments to establish a hyper timeline?

Not really, no.

I recall overarching timelines and hyper timelines being the same thing.

Overarching timelines are for Multiverses that have a time dimension orthogonal to those below them. Hypertimelines are for dimensions that have more than one time dimension.

Profectus's blog revolves around the Dragon Ball cosmology, which IIRC established a Low 1-C overarching timeline because each timeline in Dragon Ball governs the 12 universes (separate spacetime continuums), yet shown to have an ontologically different time axis that is directly connected to the 12 universes. Time travel in Dragon Ball, like if you access another timeline, the 12 universes will still be intact and time travel with you, hence an overarching time axis that is connected and engulfs the time axes of the 12 universes. I don't really see that it's the same case with this revision; as far as I recall, you need those time axes to ontologically differ from each other, and should also be "connected" in some way, like if you time travel in a World, the Lands should also be affected by the time travelling you have done in the World.

A timeline is 5-D in DB.

@ProfectusInfinity Your information is being used here, it'll be nice if you can give input.

The Universe: 1-C at 7-D scale via containing the Worldlines and said to be infinite in size; an overarching time axis for The Universe seems rather iffy to me even as of now, so I won't strongly consider the chances of the Universe being 8-D.

I don't really see the Universe 2 dimensions above Worldlines.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Aren't these exactly the arguments to establish a hyper timeline? I recall overarching timelines and hyper timelines being the same thing.

You can read these posts.

 

[GarrixianXD]

DT was rather mentioning a single structure containinig 2 temporal dimensions, not necessarily a multiverse of universes with "different time axes"; like, if you have multiple space-time continuums then multiple time axes for that single overarching structure would still be in-question.

As for Profectus's comment, he directly said this:

I do have one minor suggestion though. You dedicated one section to explaining how time passing at different rates doesn’t indicate that parallel planes exist under different time dimensions.

Additionally, I think he was rather talking about a timeline having its own separate timeflow that is unbound by the other time axes of the space-times it contains; that would be Low 1-C, since the overarching timeline encompasses spatiotemporally separate universes, with each universe having its own flow of time -- manipulating the time/history across the timeline that overarches these space-time continuums would affect these space-times along with the timeline, but the vice versa would not (meaning that manipulating the time of the space-times being encompassed would not affect the overarching timeline).

 

[Digital_Franz]

DT was rather mentioning a single structure containinig 2 temporal dimensions, not necessarily a multiverse of universes with "different time axes"; like, if you have multiple space-time continuums then multiple time axes for that single overarching structure would still be in-question.

DT's answer was about a dimension with only one time dimension unless I'm misreading the post.

As for Profectus's comment, he directly said this:

Profectus's post:

Also, since I don’t believe anyone’s asked you this directly, I might as well pose the question now. Say we have a multiverse encompassed by an overarching timeline. Obviously, this isn’t inherently Low 1-C since the overarching timeline can be a single time dimension servicing all of space-time. Let’s say however, that the lesser timelines are confirmed to harbor their own time dimensions. Would you then consider the overarching timeline to be a higher time dimension, and would you consider it an additional direction? If not, is supporting evidence like the examples you gave needed for specific ratings, or is it merely an alternative form of evidence?

Additionally, I think he was rather talking about a timeline having its own separate timeflow that is unbound by the other time axes of the space-times it contains;

Yeah that's it. This is fulfilled when each space-time has its own time dimension.

that would be Low 1-C, since the overarching timeline encompasses spatiotemporally separate universes, with each universe having its own flow of time -- manipulating the time/history across the timeline that overarches these space-time continuums would affect these space-times along with the timeline, but the vice versa would not (meaning that manipulating the time of the space-times being encompassed would not affect the overarching timeline).

Yeah that's the principle of an overarching timeline with its orthogonal time axis.

 

[Pedonar]

Bump

 

[GarrixianXD]

DT's answer was about a dimension with only one time dimension unless I'm misreading the post.

Profectus's post:


Yeah that's it. This is fulfilled when each space-time has its own time dimension.

Yeah that's the principle of an overarching timeline with its orthogonal time axis.

Hmmm... if I recall correctly, the principle of an overarching timeline comes when... eh, let me make an analogy:

Timeline A encompasses Timeline B, and Timeline A is been said to have its own time axis separate from Timeline B. Timeline A, as depicted as being a superior structure, contains Timeline A, and since Timeline B acts like a subset of Timeline A, manipulating the time and time travelling in Timeline A will also affect Timeline B as a byproduct. However, if manipulating the time in Timeline B and time travelling only in Timeline B, Timeline A won't be remotely affected at all. Hence, Timeline A is a hyper-timeline / overarching timeline and, therefore has a second time axis orthogonal to the main time axis that is inter-governed and parallelly aligned with Timeline B.

^^Is your case something like this?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Hmmm... if I recall correctly, the principle of an overarching timeline comes when... eh, let me make an analogy:

Timeline A encompasses Timeline B, and Timeline A is been said to have its own time axis separate from Timeline B. Timeline A, as depicted as being a superior structure, contains Timeline A, and since Timeline B acts like a subset of Timeline A, manipulating the time and time travelling in Timeline A will also affect Timeline B as a byproduct. However, if manipulating the time in Timeline B and time travelling only in Timeline B, Timeline A won't be remotely affected at all. Hence, Timeline A is a hyper-timeline / overarching timeline and, therefore has a second time axis orthogonal to the main time axis that is inter-governed and parallelly aligned with Timeline B.

This is pretty correct except that an overarching timeline does not have two time axes, but only one, the latter being orthogonal to the time axes of the dimensions it contains and acting as you described.

To quote Profectus' post:

Also, since I don’t believe anyone’s asked you this directly, I might as well pose the question now. Say we have a multiverse encompassed by an overarching timeline. Obviously, this isn’t inherently Low 1-C since the overarching timeline can be a single time dimension servicing all of space-time. Let’s say however, that the lesser timelines are confirmed to harbor their own time dimensions. Would you then consider the overarching timeline to be a higher time dimension, and would you consider it an additional direction? If not, is supporting evidence like the examples you gave needed for specific ratings, or is it merely an alternative form of evidence?

DT's answer:

Depends on what exactly dimension means in this context. Like, if it's very strictly mathematical to the point that we can conclude that they don't point in the same direction, then it would be fine. However, per default and I suspect in most cases we would find, I would instead assume it means they each have their own flow of time which may change independently of each other.

Good evidence can come in many forms and would need case-by-case evaluation. My examples are just about the only cases I could come up with that would be sufficient.

The second time axis already falls into the case of a hypertimeline and the thing with time travel is generally used that this second axis is orthogonal and has a time-like development.

^^Is your case something like this?

Overall I would say yes, the aspect of the stories and the fact that each dimension has its time axis would guarantee the fact that affecting the time axis of a microcosm will not affect that of the macrocosm but on the contrary the time of the macrocosm can affect that of the microcosms (proven with time travel on the World-lines). And yes it's the same as what you mentioned when considering World-lines and the Universe, where time travel didn't affect the Universe but just a World-line and so by extension all dimensions will have a similar characteristic.