Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[Georredannea15]

Alr, here we go! I'd like to mention that I obtained permission from @Qawsedf234

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions, which is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes, or equivalents to it are serviced by (This is similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifying it for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning universes that themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not the same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and is shared by them), or even a single universe with two active temporal dimensions, qualifies. The same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

Simply put, by our current standards, an "inclusive temporal dimension" that spans more than one space-time continuum is sufficient to qualify for Low 1-C.

But, something is missing here. That is, whether the temporal dimension extends along the same axis as the temporal dimension it spans.

If we take an example, imagine two lines stacked on top of each other. If these lines extend in the same direction and axis, what we would have is still a one-dimensional plane. For it to be two-dimensional, the two lines need to extend in different directions and along different axes.

The same holds true for temporal dimensions. If the encompassing temporal dimension in the verse extends along the same axis as the timelines it encompasses, this wouldn't introduce an extra axis, that is Low 1-C. That's why, the encompassing timelines should fundamentally not be sufficient for Low 1-C. And the acquisition of Low 1-C should only be removed and made more consistent with the encompassing temporal dimension.

And I have a quote that supports this;

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

As I quoted above, DantTalkDT also expressed that this temporal dimension needs to have a different axis (essentially orthogonal), otherwise, just being an encompassing temporal dimension wouldn't be sufficient(i.e extra temporal dimension) So yes, as I explained above, another temporal dimension covering multiple space-time continuities should not fundamentally be sufficient for Low 1-C. Yes, indeed, this can be misunderstood, and it needs to be fixed.


I agree that most verses primarily convey the presence of such higher temporal dimension within generally uncountable infinite moments, each containing universes. But, looking at it from a different perspective, many verses also possess an encompassing temporal dimension that covers multiple space-time continuities. The passage I quoted in bold in OP (current standart) leads to a significant misunderstanding of this situation.

That's why, it should be noted that not every extra temporal dimension(encompassing temporal dimension) is sufficient for Low 1-C, extra temporal dimensions should only grant for Low 1-C if they have different axes and flows.


I don't mean to offend anyone with what I'm saying, but in the previous thread where changes were proposed to the standards, it was suggested that the aim was to make the standards more transparent without any alterations. However, after the new standards were implemented, a lot has changed, and encompassing temporal dimensions that were previously insufficient for Low 1-C without having different axes and flows are now considered suitable for Low 1-C.

As I've explained multiple times above, this is terribly wrong and highly prone to misunderstanding. I'm not accusing anyone, of course, this could be a mistake. But yeah, it should be fixed


Note : Please do not make comments here without taking permission from any staff. That's my only request. Any user who comments without staff permission will be reported.

 

[Reiner04]

As a original creator of previous thread, 3 months of wait is needed for argument that has been proposed and outvoted thank you.

Rules:
Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded.

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

This thread can be closed.

 

[Georredannea15]

As a original creator of previous thread, 3 months of wait is needed for argument that has been proposed and outvoted thank you.

Rules:
Please do not bump topics that have been inactive for over 3 months without a legitimate argument, and entirely avoid bumping topics that have been concluded.

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

This thread can be closed.

These are not arguments that have been presented and rejected before, just a correction, and yes, I'll wait for the staff's input. Please don't make comments without staff permission again. Thank you!

 

[KLOL506]

IDK if this thread was made out of sheer spite or salt, if it is, don't do that please.

Anyways, tagging people now.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @KingTempest @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Lonkitt @DarkGrath @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @LordGriffin1000

 

[Qawsedf234]

As a original creator of previous thread, 3 months of wait is needed for argument that has been proposed and outvoted thank you.

Actually the source you posted doesn't back this claim

When creating content revisions, it is essential to ensure that the topic has not been addressed previously. Rejected content revisions cannot be resubmitted within a short period of time (typically defined as within 3 to 4 months), except in cases where a staff member has a good reason to do so (e.g. important unconsidered information, violation of site standards or flaws in a calculation). This only applies to threads that have received extensive debate or have been rejected due to a clear conflict with the wiki's rules or standards. If a thread passes or is rejected without significant opposition, then opposition should not be restricted from making a point.

The time limit according to the rules only applies to rejected threads.

Now if this thread is rejected, it cannot be changed for three months. But the thread itself isn't against the rules.

 

[Reiner04]

These are not arguments that have been presented and rejected before, just a correction, and yes, I'll wait for the staff's input. Please don't make comments without staff permission again. Thank you!

I myself literally removed it with overwhelming vote, against it argument were presented, but it still changed, since I found it unnecessarily demanding. Idk if we won't call it rejected then what else.

Anyway leaving it to staff now.

 

[Georredannea15]

IDK if this thread was made out of sheer spite or salt, if it is, don't do that please.

No, please don't be taken in such a perception man. @Reiner

Anyways, tagging people now.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @KingTempest @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Lonkitt @DarkGrath @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234

Thx

 

[Georredannea15]

I myself literally removed it with overwhelming vote, against it argument were presented, but it still changed, since I found it unnecessarily demanding. Idk if we won't call it rejected then what else.

Anyway leaving it to staff now.

Actually, you're contradicting yourself on this matter. In the previous thread, you stated that there were "there was no change, it just made it more clearer"" but now you're saying you've changed the standard...

Anyway. As I said, there may be misunderstandings, i opened this to fix. Let's not get derailed anymore

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Got permission from Qawsedf to participate here, so let me sum up my thoughts.

What is Orthogonality?​

In mathematics, two vectors are considered orthogonal if their dot product is zero. For example, in a two-dimensional coordinate plane, two vectors are orthogonal if they are perpendicular to each other, meaning the angle between them is 90 degrees. The space-time interval (Δs² = Δt² - Δx² - Δy² - Δz²) is the mathematical framework that demonstrates the orthogonality of time.

What makes time orthogonal to space (in simple terms)?​

When physicists describe time as "orthogonal" to spatial dimensions, they are using the concept of orthogonality in a more abstract, mathematical sense, rather than in the conventional spatial sense of being physically perpendicular. When two dimensions are orthogonal, they are not related in a way that one depends on the other. In simple terms, it means they're like two things that have nothing to do with each other.

• Example of Orthogonality: In a simple graph, the x-axis and y-axis are orthogonal. If you move left or right (x-axis), it doesn't change your up or down position (y-axis), and vice versa.

Time isn't orthogonal to space in the sense that it's physically perpendicular and the forward flow of time is a perpendicular direction to left/right, up/down, etc. In a total vacuum where time doesn't flow, changing your position in space won't change your position in time. Likewise, Moving backwards or forward in time within a single area won't change your position in space. That's what it means to say time is "perpendicular." That's what DontTalk meant in saying a higher time dimension should be orthogonal.

How do higher time dimensions demonstrate orthogonality?​

As I said before, time flowing in a different direction like sideways or upside down isn't what makes time dimensions orthogonal. Take this simple visual of a single space-time continuum serviced by two temporal dimensions.

As you can see, the higher time dimension is perpendicular. To be specific, in a total vacuum where you don't consider things like timelines splitting due to time travel, changing your position across the past/present/future of the lower time axis doesn't affect your position under the higher time dimension. In this way, the higher time dimension serves as an additional degree of freedom that measures the change of a whole space-time. That's why they're considered different directions, yet time is flowing forward in both axes.

Is orthogonality a requirement?​

Yes, but not in the sense that it's required evidence. If a substantial space-time continuum under an overarching timeline is recognized as being serviced by its own time dimension, then the overarching timeline is automatically considered orthogonal: hence why the wording for the temporal dimension standards was changed. A statement for the overarching timeline being orthogonal is all in all: supporting or alternative evidence, but not required evidence if a lesser space-time is already recognized as harboring a self-contained temporal dimension.

 

[Georredannea15]

Is orthogonality a requirement?​

Yes, but not in the sense that it's required evidence. If a substantial space-time continuum under an overarching timeline is recognized as being serviced by its own time dimension, then the overarching timeline is automatically considered orthogonal: hence why the wording for the temporal dimension standards was changed. A statement for the overarching timeline being orthogonal is all in all: supporting or alternative evidence, but not required evidence if a lesser space-time is already recognized as harboring a self-contained temporal dimension.

Essentially, what you're saying is correct, but what you're expressing here also fundamentally applies to encompassing temporal dimensions. An encompassing temporal dimension can be a "different temporal dimension" that has its own temporal dimension and encompasses space-time continuities, but it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be on a perpendicular (different) axis. If this extra temporal dimension still extends along the same axis, it would be like the example I gave above, "two stacked lines extending in the same direction/axis," and this fundamentally doesn't give you 5-D.

I had also quoted this from DT in the OP. He's also stated this.

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, to make it clearer.
I, in the previous thread, proposed the draft that made it clear if the Universe is being serviced by two different temporal dimensions then it's low 1-C. There's no need for orthogonality or anything to be matter whatsoever.

DT said same: I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

He gave example that as orthogonal time axis is different from regular one's. We only need two separate time dimensions.

You're saying that 2 time dimensions servicing 1 Universe in a parallel direction won't qualify, but, my brother, they're not different in that case. They're same if they can be imposed upon each other and so no different. Difference dimensions will only qualify. Done.

 

[TiltedFN]

Profectus pretty much summed it all up perfectly so I won't say to much, orthogonal when talking about time is in reference to spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions being completely separate from each other.

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

This is also why DT also said "fully separate" then followed up with, "orthogonal". But just not in a spatial sense. And i still have yet to see any examples of what this, "upside down, sideways time" even means when time is expected to propagate either forwards or backwards, with backwards still being very rare unless a character manipulates it. The whole concept makes no sense at all.

 

[Georredannea15]

Profectus pretty much summed it all up perfectly so I won't say to much, orthogonal when talking about time is in reference to spatial dimensions and temporal dimensions being completely separate from each other.

This is also why DT also said "fully separate" then followed up with, "orthogonal". But just not in a spatial sense. And i still have yet to see any examples of what this, "upside down, sideways time" even means when time is expected to propagate either forwards or backwards, with backwards still being very rare unless a character manipulates it. The whole concept makes no sense at all.

The phrase "completely separate" here actually implies extending in different directions. And what DT said is about the standards we had before being completely changed. In fact, by affirming what DT said, you are approving the previous standard. Because the previous standards were saying these things.


Also, did you take permission from any staff member?

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

The phrase "completely separate" here actually implies extending in different directions. And what DT said is about the standards we had before being completely changed. In fact, by affirming what DT said, you are approving the previous standard. Because the previous standards were saying these things.


Also, did you take permission from any staff member?

Qawsedf gave him permission.

 

[Georredannea15]

Qawsedf gave him permission.

Ohh. Okay then. It would be better if they specify. And personally, I would like to wait for DT, Ultima and other tier 1 staff without further ado.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

IDK if this thread was made out of sheer spite or salt, if it is, don't do that please.

Anyways, tagging people now.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Dereck03 @UchihaSlayer96 @KingTempest @Emirp sumitpo @LephyrTheRevanchist @Lonkitt @DarkGrath @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Qawsedf234 @LordGriffin1000

Pein made these comments, but im not sure.

 

[Georredannea15]

Pein made this comment, but im not sure.

If she want, they can comment here, I suppose. Or to be fair, it would be best for them to obtain permission from a staff member as well.

Anyway, to make it clearer.
I, in the previous thread, proposed the draft that made it clear if the Universe is being serviced by two different temporal dimensions then it's low 1-C. There's no need for orthogonality or anything to be matter whatsoever.

Ahhh, I forgot about that.

Anyway, a "different" temporal dimension can encompass a temporal dimension, and in this case, we call it an "encompassing temporal dimension." But, this encompassing temporal dimension, even though it's different from the temporal dimension it encompasses, can extend in the same direction. In this case, it only means "two different temporal dimensions stacked on top of each other, extending in the same direction." And since these two different temporal dimensions extend in the same direction/axis, it doesn't give you extra dimensionality-axis/5-D.

Because even if there are two different temporal dimensions, they can still extend in the same direction.

So, having "an encompassing temporal dimension or two different temporal dimensions in a verse" should fundamentally not be enough. It would be more accurate to say "an extra temporal dimension flowing in a different direction" rather than "a different temporal dimension.

 

[Planck69]

Not sure what this thread even aims to accomplish? It seems to be a backwards sort of argument, in that one needs orthogonality to be specifically mentioned for a hyper-timeline to be Low 1-C.

In reality, if it is already established that multiple space-time continuums (with their own proven temporal axes) are under an overaching time dimension then that's more or less it being orthogonal, since its specifically a different temporal dimension from the other time axis, which is what's meant by it being orthogonal. If it wasn't then it wouldn't even be a hyper-timeline to begin with.

Disagree for now. This seems to be founded on a misunderstanding of both the current standard and running head long with a comment from a knowledgeable member.

Of course, if any staff can clarify otherwise I may change my stance.

 

[Georredannea15]

Not sure what this thread even aims to accomplish? It seems to be a backwards sort of argument, in that one needs orthogonality to be specifically mentioned for a hyper-timeline to be Low 1-C.

In reality, if it is already established that multiple space-time continuums (with their own proven temporal axes) are under an overaching time dimension then that's more or less it being orthogonal, since its specifically a different temporal dimension from the other time axis, which is what's meant by it being orthogonal. If it wasn't then it wouldn't even be a hyper-timeline to begin with.

As I mentioned, an encompassing temporal dimension can extend in the same direction as the temporal dimension it encompasses. So, in the old standards, only the encompassing temporal dimension was not sufficient for Low 1-C because what mattered was its extension in a different direction (essentially orthogonal).

And while it might be said that nothing will change, by removing this, something significant has actually changed.

But, this encompassing temporal dimension, even though it's different temporal dimension from the temporal dimension it encompasses, can extend in the same direction. In this case, it only means "two different temporal dimensions stacked on top of each other, extending in the same direction." And since these two different temporal dimensions extend in the same direction/axis, it doesn't give you extra dimensionality-axis/5-D.

I'm not sure if this is a change, but the purpose of this thread is fundamentally about the insufficiency of an encompassing temporal dimension(or two temporal dimensions) for Low 1-C. It was already like that, actually...

 

[Qawsedf234]

As I mentioned, an encompassing temporal dimension can extend in the same direction as the temporal dimension it encompasses. So, in the old standards, only the encompassing temporal dimension was not sufficient for Low 1-C because what mattered was its extension in a different direction (essentially orthogonal).

I mean, if its a wording change you want, what is your suggestion about what the FAQ should read.

 

[Firestorm808]

Taking into consideration of what other staff discussed in the earlier thread, I lean toward disagreeing.

Within a narrative, how would one even portray whether the temporal dimension extends along the same axis as the temporal dimension it spans or not?

 

[Georredannea15]

I mean, if its a wording change you want, what is your suggestion about what the FAQ should read.

So... I don't have a draft for this yet, but to explain it simply, an encompassing temporal dimension or two temporal dimensions are fundamentally not sufficient for 5-D. For the reasons I explained above.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

As I mentioned, an encompassing temporal dimension can extend in the same direction as the temporal dimension it encompasses. So, in the old standards, only the encompassing temporal dimension was not sufficient for Low 1-C because what mattered was its extension in a different direction (essentially orthogonal).

And im not sure how that changes anything, like, at all. You cant portay time to move in a direction spatially, only a line extending to the past and future. Any additional time axis would be a quantitative superiority + 1 due to having uncountable infinite amount of snapshots of the lower time axis, for the same reason as why an uncountable infinite amount of 3d snapshots is 4D. Its a logical extension. Portaying time as moving in a direction is to begin with, logically flawed.

 

[Georredannea15]

Within a narrative, how would one even portray whether the temporal dimension extends along the same axis as the temporal dimension it spans or not?

Essentially, it's to say that the temporal dimension has a different flow/direction from the temporal dimension it encompasses, but we can't assume that every encompassing temporal dimension does this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So... I don't have a draft for this yet

Why would you make a Staff Thread if you didn't even have a draft for what your change would be?

 

[Firestorm808]

Essentially, it's to say that the temporal dimension has a different flow/direction from the temporal dimension.

And a practical/existing example would be?

 

[Georredannea15]

And im not sure how that changes anything, like, at all. You cant portay time to move in a direction spatially, only a line extending to the past and future. Any additional time axis would be a quantitative superiority + 1 due to having uncountable infinite amount of snapshots of the lower time axis, for the same reason as why an uncountable infinite amount of 3d snapshots is 4D. Its a logical extension. Portaying time as moving in a direction is to begin with, logically flawed.

I borrowed it from above; it's essentially something like that.

 

[Planck69]

A staff thread was seriously made regarding a Tier 1 standard, where there wasn't even a draft for the new proposal or change and the bulk of the argument seems to be quoting an admittedly knowledgeable member and largely misinterpreting it. Really?

 

[Qawsedf234]

I borrowed it from above; it's essentially something like that.

So is your suggested change just... adding a picture to the FAQ?

I guess we do that for another section so I'm not completely against it, but it is a bit of a weird change.


Otherwise your issue is that the current wording of the FAQ section is confusing, because the image you posted here and what the paragraph is saying are the same thing. Two independent time axis would need a higher temporal dimension to include them all.

 

[Georredannea15]

Why would you make a Staff Thread if you didn't even have a draft for what your change would be?

I'm in favor of doing it based on the thread's direction because there may be changes.

That's why I prefer to wait and see where the thread is heading to avoid constant changes in such matters. But, if you're determined that I do, I suppose I can make one. But i believe it's healthier to see where this is going before taking any action.

 

[Georredannea15]

A staff thread was seriously made regarding a Tier 1 standard, where there wasn't even a draft for the new proposal or change and the bulk of the argument seems to be quoting an admittedly knowledgeable member and largely misinterpreting it. Really?

That's why I prefer to wait and see where the thread is heading to avoid constant changes in such matters. But, if you're determined that I do, I suppose I can make one. But i believe it's healthier to see where this is going before taking any action.

...

 

[KLOL506]

So... I don't have a draft for this yet, but to explain it simply, an encompassing temporal dimension or two temporal dimensions are fundamentally not sufficient for 5-D. For the reasons I explained above.

Georre. Let me get this straight.

You made a STAFF-ONLY SITEWIDE CRT THREAD without even having forged a F-U-C-K-I-N-G draft of what your proposals are? Are you actually insane or what?

 

[Firestorm808]

I'm in favor of doing it based on the thread's direction because there may be changes.

That's why I prefer to wait and see where the thread is heading to avoid constant changes in such matters. But, if you're determined that I do, I suppose I can make one. But i believe it's healthier to see where this is going before taking any action.

A CRT implies that you had a revision proposal ready.

 

[Qawsedf234]

That's why I prefer to wait and see where the thread is heading to avoid constant changes in such matters. But, if you're determined that I do, I suppose I can make one. I believe it's healthier to see where this is going before taking any action.

The current state of the thread is that every single person who has commented other than you has expressed a negative opinion and disagreed with the change. The thread is heading towards a complete rejection if anything.

Also you can't just, make a Tiering System change (especially a Tier 1 change) without literally having a proposal made. You don't turn in a blank sheet of homework and tell your teacher you wanted to see where the class was heading before you did anything and expect anything other than a failing grade.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm in favor of doing it based on the thread's direction because there may be changes.

That's why I prefer to wait and see where the thread is heading to avoid constant changes in such matters. But, if you're determined that I do, I suppose I can make one. But i believe it's healthier to see where this is going before taking any action.

Dude, no. That is not how you do Staff CRTs. Shit like this requires planning in advance before you go making site-wide changes, else you **** something up and destabilize the site. This is the last thing you want to do on God's Green Earth, go in guns blazing knowing f-u-c-k-all about the verse and making such haphazard changes without actually consulting IDK, the people who are knowledgeable in this and approved of it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Alright, why are you guys so nervous? I'm making one right away.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I borrowed it from above; it's essentially something like that.

Again, the concept of direction does not apply for time ( honestly, im not really sure a hypothetical where it would even make any sense.)
It still embeds the lower axis an uncountable infinite amount of times. You cannot apply a 3 dimensional concept such as direction to time, unless you get some logic errors. see what i did there? logic errors? heh.

in my honest opinion, considering geor and peins past comments, and the lack of prep, I think this was hastily put together out of spite.

 

[Dereck03]

Georre. Let me get this straight.

You made a STAFF-ONLY SITEWIDE CRT THREAD without even having forged a F-U-C-K-I-N-G draft of what your proposals are? Are you actually insane or what?

Dude, no. That is not how you do Staff CRTs. Shit like this requires planning in advance before you go making site-wide changes, else you **** something up and destabilize the site. This is the last thing you want to do on God's Green Earth, go in guns blazing knowing f-u-c-k-all about the verse and making such haphazard changes without actually consulting IDK, the people who are knowledgeable in this and approved of it.

Okay, Tone down your comments. I know it can be frustrating but it's not to use that kind of language either.

 

[Firestorm808]

Alright, why are you guys so nervous? I'm making one right away.

That's not the point. You basically went against SOP and wasted our time up to now.

 

[Planck69]

The argument here doesn't even seem to make sense, the lack of a proposal aside. As I understand it, if a multiversal time dimension specifically treats space-time continuums, with their own time axes, as objects the way a timeline treats the 3-dimensional universe as being uncountably infinite slices that make it up, then it being orthogonal is self-evident.

So far, the only retort to this seems to be some weird mentions of direction, and no actual example of what that would even entail. This entire thread not only has no proposal to speak of but doesn't even seem to properly understand what it's arguing for or against.