Partial-Timeline and HDE

[Tanin_iver]

Does a character containing a part of the timeline(which is a 4D structure) in its body, give it HDE. Not the whole timeline just a part of the timeline, since timelines are infinite by default and that might give HDE anyway.

 

[KLOL506]

Not sure TBF. I know that HDE is granted only if you have an entire timeline embedded into part of your body and if you're not the timeline itself.

 

[Planck69]

Depends on context I guess. This is very odd.

 

[Tanin_iver]

TBH, the character is exactly described as carrying part of the timeline within themself. Not much else has been said.
While I can understand carrying the whole infinite timeline within themselves should grant HDE, I am not sure if finite parts count, I mean it should logically speaking, because even a finite part would be 4D physically.
Btw, I would claify that we don't know if even part of the timeline that is described is infinite or finite, I am just assuming its finite cause its just said to be a part, so I am lowballing it to finite sized timeline.

So I just want to know the general consensus if the character should have HDE for containing a finite sized 4D structure within themself.

 

[Reiner04]

Ah, w/o further info, I guess we can't say for sure.

 

[Fixxed]

I dont think just containing some higher D object will make your existence is also higher D. I mean a universe can contain 5D object that smaller than it, but doesnt make it universe is 5D

But if you mean containing it and make it subpart that limited by your existence, yes, you have HDE. Even 1 second of time is already 4D thing, you not need to contain the timeline entirely

 

[Tanin_iver]

I dont think just containing some higher D object will make your existence is also higher D. I mean a universe can contain 5D object that smaller than it, but doesnt make it universe is 5D

But if you mean containing it and make it subpart that limited by your existence, yes, you have HDE. Even 1 second of time is already 4D thing, you not need to contain the timeline entirely

I mean the context seems to suggest the latter case not the former. It will obviously be the same existential level.

The way u are describing it, the first case isn't even containing it, its just the 5D object will have some parts (3D) of it phase through the universe and the other parts outside it as it won't be able to contain the whole thing. So it won't really be containing the 5D object, the object will just have some subsets of it present in the universe.

So I will say it would be the latter case, or of the same existential level to contain it properly.

Seems unlikely.

Any particular reason?

 

[Fixxed]

The way u are describing it, the first case isn't even containing it, its just the 5D object will have some parts (3D) of it phase through the universe and the other parts outside it as it won't be able to contain the whole thing. So it won't really be containing the 5D object, the object will just have some subsets of it present in the universe.

Yes but in fiction some higher D not work like in RL, it can work just like 3D spatial without it 4D or 5D spatial work just like in RL. So "containing" it just like yeah bigger thing contain small thing

So I will say it would be the latter case, or of the same existential level to contain it properly.

Then it will have HDE

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I do not think so.
What makes a timeline 4D is the 4th axis spanning across an infinitely expanding future which meets the criteria for uncountable infinite
taking a part of it without the future would grant only Aleph null.

furthermore, HDE in 4D requires it to be spatial in a sense
one can contain an aleph null of snapshot and remain 3D

if we are to treat snapshots as Flat entities no matter how much we stack them with finite numbers they will remain flat. unless it stacks in a way that they are treated as higher infinity wherein they can be lined up to create an additional axis. take it like a 2D object with only length and width that can be lined up to make height. normally this is impossible unless it's a higher infinity.
but if we only take a partial amount of this it would only give you a countable infinite as there is a start and end to this partial amount unlike the endless future that is generally assumed

time is relative to space

 

[Tanin_iver]

Containing a higher dimensional object within oneself wouldnt necessarily make them higher dimensional. They would need to directly exhibit capabilities associated with higher dimensions, like freely moving through an extra axis.

Keep in mind that this is merely a very general list of the abilities that a higher-dimensional entity would possess, and is not necessarily applicable to all the fiction.

Pseudo-Invulnerability: Due to the additional axis spatially inherent to them, higher-dimensional objects are comprised of more information than what can normally be described in lower-dimensional spaces, and thus may only be capable of interacting with them through lower-dimensional "slices" or cross-sections of their bodies.

Pseudo-Teleportation: Higher-dimensional entities may be capable of seemingly phasing in and out of sight by moving through additional axes imperceptible to lower-dimensional beings, granting them a notable advantage in overall range and mobility.

Unconventional Physiology: Although much of the same physical laws and principles would theoretically apply to higher-dimensional worlds, they would likely be instantiated very differently, resulting in matter behaving in strange ways compared to our own Universe.

Large Size: Due to the additional angles possessed by them, higher-dimensional objects and beings would be much larger than lower ones.

Seems to be non-mandatory requirements that fictions need not showcase or posses according to the HDE page, so it seems to be fine on that front.
I should also add that I have rarely seen any HDE character in the wiki to have all the general abilities associated with HDE.

I do not think so.
What makes a timeline 4D is the 4th axis spanning across an infinitely expanding future which meets the criteria for uncountable infinite
taking a part of it without the future would grant only Aleph null.

furthermore, HDE in 4D requires it to be spatial in a sense
one can contain an aleph null of snapshot and remain 3D

Isn't time considered the 4th dimension and also continuous instead of discrete?

The relationship between the spatial dimensions of a universe and the additional temporal dimension(s) may be visualized as something akin to the frames of a movie placed side-by-side. Basically, the time-like direction may be thought of as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the whole universe at any given moment, with the set of all such events comprising the totality of spacetime.

From what is described in the wiki, it seems to be suggesting any amount of time can have uncountable infinite snapshots, just like if we pick a line-segment out of a line, the number of points in that line-segment will still be uncountably infinite, just that there are an infinite number of such line-segments that comprise the totality of the line or timeline in this case.

Basically, that even a time frame of 1 or 2 seconds would have uncountably infinite(Aleph-1) snapshots of the universe, but for the totality of timeline, the timeline is presumed to have no end or infinite length or could be said to have infinite(Aleph-0) seconds of time.

So I think any amount of a timeline would be a 4D structure, and physically containing it should logically imply the character should be spatially 4D at least.

But I just want to be sure of the stuff so asking for opinions to see if I may have overlooked something.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

From what is described in the wiki, it seems to be suggesting any amount of time can have uncountable infinite snapshots, just like if we pick a line-segment out of a line, the number of points in that line-segment will still be uncountably infinite, just that there are an infinite number of such line-segments that comprise the totality of the line or timeline in this case.

i do not think so
Take for example the video explained by Vsauce in our tierring explanation


He can say that line 1 to 2 would have infinite numbers between them
0.0001... to 0.9999999...

now apply that to time
as we can easily make cuts and shorts with it
and how the time between 1-2 or 5-9 will have the same amount of aleph null numbers between them.

doesn't matter if one adds more seconds to it
it will remain as aleph null

the only time it reaches Aleph 1 is when said line now extends infinitely or said time now has no end instead of having an end that can be put into a set

 

[Tanin_iver]

He can say that line 1 to 2 would have infinite numbers between them
0.0001... to 0.9999999...

The open interval (0, 1) is uncountably infinite. The number of numbers between this open interval is uncountable or Aleph-1 cardinal or equal to the set of Real numbers. This also can be extrapolated to any interval of time which will have the same cardinality of 3D snapshots for any interval of time of a timeline whether it is 1 second or Aleph-0 amount of seconds the cardinality of 3D snapshots is equal to Aleph-1 as unintuitive as it may be.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

The open interval (0, 1) is uncountably infinite. The number of numbers between this open interval is uncountable or Aleph-1 cardinal or equal to the set of Real numbers. This also can be extrapolated to any interval of time which will have the same cardinality of 3D snapshots for any interval of time of a timeline whether it is 1 second or Aleph-0 amount of seconds the cardinality of 3D snapshots is equal to Aleph-1 as unintuitive as it may be.

That is not the default assumption
we only default to set Theory in terms of timeline if it is shown that way hence there are a few exceptions to gaining low 2-C without having a full timeline
it includes these kinds of examples.

Furthermore, this theorem already assumed one can list all infinite numbers between 0, 1
but using a trick he is able to produce a number not within those listed infinity thus making it uncountably infinite a higher infinity

unlike Set theory when used on tier 1
tier 2 still falls under scientific logic thus we can't simply bypass such rules just because math assumes so
and as I have said earlier
time is relative

 

[Planck69]

Any amount of time has uncountably infinite snapshots of its 3-dimensional component. It's why a timeline is actually Low 2-C to begin with and that same logic is why uncountable infinite lower-dimensional objects are equivalent to large-sized higher-dimensional objects in Tier 1.

That is not the default assumption
we only default to set Theory in terms of timeline if it is shown that way hence there are a few exceptions to gaining low 2-C without having a full timeline
it includes these kinds of examples.

Furthermore, this theorem already assumed one can list all infinite numbers between 0, 1
but using a trick he is able to produce a number not within those listed infinity thus making it uncountably infinite a higher infinity

unlike Set theory when used on tier 1
tier 2 still falls under scientific logic thus we can't simply bypass such rules just because math assumes so
and as I have said earlier
time is relative

Our entire system uses mathematics, I dunno what this is supposed to mean.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Our entire system uses mathematics, I dunno what this is supposed to mean.

then with that logic of being strictly mathematics, you encounter scenarios such as

If we assume the timeline is infinitely expanding to the future that is yet another higher set
as if we assume the timeline between 0s and 2s is uncountable infinite snapshots
then if you extend it infinitely into the future that is equivalent to having another higher set
because if 2s or any snapshots between 1 period of time to another are uncountable
that makes the entire timeline a set of uncountable infinite snapshots on different time periods
thus if you have for say the infinite amount of 2 seconds you get and arrange in a set to complete an infinitely expanding future timeline
that as a whole becomes a higher infinity
thus making an infinitely expanding future of a timeline low 1-C which isn't what we assume here
we don't default to higher infinities from the get-go
we assume the default infinite that is aleph 0 if the fiction brought up the idea of continuum hypothesis for such a scenario and apply that only when it would be assumed so that the number between 0 and 1 is infinite

 

[Planck69]

Idk how the timeline going on endlessly is a higher infinity. Like, this isn't some high-brow mathematics, this is the very basic logic of "how many times can you divide a second, minute etc."

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Idk how the timeline going on endlessly is a higher infinity. Like, this isn't some high-brow mathematics, this is the very basic logic of "how many times can you divide a second, minute etc."

then with that logic we can't assume 1s and 0s has uncountable infinite snapshots
because its a matter of how many times can you divide these snapshots into seconds and milliseconds nanoseconds.

the thing here is he's trying to use the continuum hypothesis to give proof the snapshots between time is uncountable infinite rather than just the default infinite that we default to
if you apply it to such and not to the entirety of timeline you fall into this logic

 

[Planck69]

then with that logic we can't assume 1s and 0s has uncountable infinite snapshots
because its a matter of how many times can you divide these snapshots into seconds and milliseconds nanoseconds.

You can do it endlessly... because time is continuous. It is the same thing as the whole "how many real numbers are between 1 and 2". It's not something complicated to understand.... and we already use it in our tiering system.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

You can do it endlessly... because time is continuous. It is the same thing as the whole "how many real numbers are between 1 and 2". It's not something complicated to understand.... and we already use it in our tiering system.

ok
now in a 3seconds timeline, there is an uncountable infinite snapshots which makes it low 2-C
cool

now
since we have proven that 3seconds can have uncountably infinite snapshot via higher infinity
by using the logic here

now for the snapshot, we simply assumed the numbers aligned here are snapshots
and we can list all infinite snapshots yet with this logic we can still come up with a number not listed despite us listing all possible numbers as snapshots.

Cool low 2-C

now apply that logic in seconds rather than snapshots
and as proven by this theorem we can conclude as well that there is also an uncountable infinite amount of 3s in an infinite timeline.

cool low 1-C

do you see where the logic goes if we assume 3s have uncountable infinite snapshots? instead of defaulting to the regular infinity

if you apply this logic on the 3s but not on the entirety of the timeline that's equivalent to selective application.
the logic is sound but this isn't how we work regular timelines here.

we use it on our tierring system yes but we also work it in conjunction with other things to make it applicable for tierring.
and I basically proven that a regular timeline can be low 1-C using thus Theorem but we don't default to that nor do we treat regular timeline as low 1-C

 

[Planck69]

.....? The seconds thing is an example. The core point is that all of time is continuous, so space-time continuum can be subdivided into an uncountably infinite amount of times of 3-dimensional aspect.

I'm genuinely not seeing how you're getting that mathematics. But eh, I've said my piece. You can continue believing as you will.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Well only fully sized construct is accepted to be HDE

 

[Tanin_iver]

Well only fully sized construct is accepted to be HDE

Any particular reason for full sized, because a timeline is 4D and any part of it should still be 4D, and physically containing it should imply atleast 4D spatial existence, no?
Just want to understand the reasoning, the character has some other time shenanigan context, but can this be used in a vaccum.