Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[TiltedFN]

This just seems like a case of qualitative superiority, we rate timeline destruction 4D/low 2-C normally, yet time technically doesn't give you an extra axis. Does that mean that low 2-C structures are really only H3-A? No, because you destroy an uncountably infinite amount of 3-A structures to get to uni+/4D. Same with the higher temporal dimension, this stuff is stated in our tiering system.

Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

This also applies for the higher tiers also, being on higher levels of infinity (uncountably) than a lower structure. That's the whole point of "levels of infinity" to grant higher tiers. Like I just don't seem to understand how any of this direction stuff makes sense. That's how i interpret it at least.

 

[Planck69]

I will remind everyone that this is still a staff thread, and to get permission before posting.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I have additional permission from @Dereck03 , for what should be my last comment.

Considering Georrs statement here , his general behavior in the ben10 thread https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-re-justification-of-low-1-c.160533/ , and Pein's behavior in the Tier 1 DB thread (which i posted earlier in this thread), I believe this was a thread hastily put together out of spite of Reiner's thread passing, which is self evident by the lack of a draft. Im not sure what the rules are on spite threads, but the foundation of this thread is dishonest, and should be closed.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I will remind everyone that this is still a staff thread, and to get permission before posting.

For TiltedFN they asked me for permission

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I got permission from @Planck69 to reply once, thank you since I had a piece to state here.

I actually want to disagree with this thread in spite of my stance in regards to the previous one (since what I was disagreeing with was not the standard).

This is more or less common knowledge, but when you get down to physics, time cares so little about direction that it is, by definition, directionally neutral. Furthermore, in the reasoning here lies a contradiction where you are acknowledging that the proposed structure has two dimensions of time and thus is far more complex than any structure with a single dimension of it, but that such complexity should be more or less assumed to disappear simply because of the concept of orthogonal direction.

When the foundation of the argument acknowledges that there is a higher, second temporal axis that is greater, runs independent and encompasses all lesser ones within its scope (independently), you are by definition acknowledging that there are two temporal dimensions. The logic implodes under its own weight because to make the argument at hand here, you are using a model of logic that contradicts everything that it's being built upon.

Shout-outs to Qawsedf for clarifying to me on what the standards are meant to be, far earlier in the previous thread though, as I did get a misguided impression on it as well at first.

 

[Georredannea15]

Alright, I'm sorry for the delay. Or, thank you for waiting.

Problematic part;

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.


Simplified and corrected explain;

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason 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). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots". However, for a spacetime continuum spanning two temporal dimensions to be 4-dimensional snapshots, the two temporal dimensions must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension. Two different temporal dimensions extending in the same direction don't add, 4-dimensional snapshots.


Sorry for the delay guys...

 

[Firestorm808]

And a practical/existing example would be?

 

[Georredannea15]

I have additional permission from @Dereck03 , for what should be my last comment.

Considering Georrs statement here , his general behavior in the ben10 thread https://vsbattles.com/threads/ben-10-re-justification-of-low-1-c.160533/ , and Pein's behavior in the Tier 1 DB thread (which i posted earlier in this thread), I believe this was a thread hastily put together out of spite of Reiner's thread passing, which is self evident by the lack of a draft. Im not sure what the rules are on spite threads, but the foundation of this thread is dishonest, and should be closed.

Btw Pein was already disagreeing before the DB thread, and the OP clearly made changes even though said "there were no changes" and I also disagreed with that.

 

[Georredannea15]

And a practical/existing example would be?

I already left a practical example in the OP

 

[Firestorm808]

I already left a practical example in the OP

That's not a practical example. What's an example narrative?

 

[Georredannea15]

That's not a practical example.

So, what do you mean by a practical example?

 

[TiltedFN]

Alright, I'm sorry for the delay. Or, thank you for waiting.

Problematic part;

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.


Simplified and corrected explain;

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason 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). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots". However, for a spacetime continuum spanning two temporal dimensions to be 4-dimensional snapshots, the two temporal dimensions must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension. Two different temporal dimensions extending in the same direction don't add, 4-dimensional snapshots.


Sorry for the delay guys...

As such, i disagree with this, its the same thing that was actually removed last time dimension thread. Because it makes absolutely no sense, time spanning in a different direction MAKES NO SENSE! It's either forwards, or backwards, simply providing a picture of your headcanon isn't very helpful at all. As explained already by profectus and many others, "orthogonal" in a temporal sense just means completely separate and spanning lesser time dimensions forward. This upside down, sideways, time doesn't exist at all. EDIT: Also got permission from firestorm to comment.

 

[Firestorm808]

So, what do you mean by a practical example?

A practical application of your proposal as if it were in a comic or something.

 

[Georredannea15]

As such, i disagree with this, its the same thing that was actually removed last time dimension thread. Because it makes absolutely no sense, time spanning in a different direction MAKES NO SENSE! It's either forwards, or backwards, simply providing a picture of your headcanon isn't very helpful at all. As explained already by profectus and many others, "orthogonal" in a temporal sense just means completely separate and spanning lesser time dimensions forward. This upside down, sideways, time doesn't exist at all.

So you are basically saying that 2 different 1-dimensional lines extending in the same direction are 2-dimensional... I see.

But as you will see in the quote I quoted, DT also stated that. That's why I think it's healthier to wait for more staff with DT and Ultima

 

[TiltedFN]

So you are basically saying that 2 different 1-dimensional lines extending in the same direction are 2-dimensional... I see.

But as you will see in the quote I quoted, DT also stated that. That's why I think it's healthier to wait for more staff with DT and Ultima

"This just seems like a case of qualitative superiority, we rate timeline destruction 4D/low 2-C normally, yet time technically doesn't give you an extra axis. Does that mean that low 2-C structures are really only H3-A? No, because you destroy an uncountably infinite amount of 3-A structures to get to uni+/4D. Same with the higher temporal dimension, this stuff is stated in our tiering system.
Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.
This also applies for the higher tiers also, being on higher levels of infinity (uncountably) than a lower structure. That's the whole point of "levels of infinity" to grant higher tiers. Like I just don't seem to understand how any of this direction stuff makes sense. That's how i interpret it at least."

You ignored my earlier comment also on your "axis" point. Also, STOP applying spatial qualities to temporal qualities.

 

[Georredannea15]

You ignored my earlier comment also on your "axis" point.

I hope you realize that uncountable infinite basically gives you "extra axis" on the wiki. What you call dimensionality already depends on the axis, i.e. the direction of movement

For example, a 4-D structure is not enough for an uncountably infinite 4-D structure to fit, you need an infinite-sized extra axis "i.e. the 5th axis".
Anyway, let's not drag this out any longer and let's wait for the tier 1 experts.

 

[KingNanaya]

So, what do you mean by a practical example?

Give an example of a verse that does it accurately and explain how it does so

 

[Omegabronic]

guys, this is still a staff thread, admins can only give a limited number of posts, so please don't spam answers to the OP of the thread to not clog this, i know that i am kind of breaking this rule as well with this comment, i just felt like someone should say this, if someone wishes to delete my post i will understand, just wanted to point something i am seeing here, again, if it is too much of a problem feel free to delete my post and warn me to not do it again

 

[Georredannea15]

Give an example of a verse that does it accurately and explain how it does so

The verses does not usually explain this as a temporal dimension that "flows in different directions," but rather implies that each snapshot in the higher-dimensional time contains "past, future, and the present moment."


I already touched this point in the OP. I suggest you look a little more carefully.

 

[Firestorm808]

The verses does not usually explain this as a temporal dimension that "flows in different directions," but rather implies that each snapshot in the higher-dimensional time contains "past, future, and the present moment."


I already touched this point in the OP.

Verses like?

 

[TiltedFN]

I hope you realize that uncountable infinite basically gives you "extra axis" on the wiki. What you call dimensionality already depends on the axis, i.e. the direction of movement

For example, a 4-D structure is not enough for an uncountably infinite 4-D structure to fit, you need an infinite-sized extra axis "i.e. the 5th axis".

So do you admit that this additional temporal dimension containing uncountably infinite low 2-C structures would give you this extra "axis" as per wiki standards? Because you already said that temporal dimensions don't give you extra axes, yet you realize that uncountably infinite would also give you an extra axis. Temporal dimensions give you just that, a higher infinite (uncountably). Last comment im allowed to make btw.

 

[Georredannea15]

Verses like?

Like God of War

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Like God of War

.... you have to clarify how it fits your argument.

 

[Georredannea15]

So do you admit that this additional temporal dimension containing uncountably infinite low 2-C structures would give you this extra "axis" as per wiki standards? Because you already said that temporal dimensions don't give you extra axes, yet you realize that uncountably infinite would also give you an extra axis. Temporal dimensions give you just that, a higher infinite (uncountably). Last comment im allowed to make btw.

The situation there is not exactly like that.

The reason space-time essentially gives you 4-D is because it contains "3-D" moments in every snapshot.

However, a different time dimension with the same flow as the time dimension that contains 3-D moments in each snapshot will also contain 3-D moments in each snapshot and it's still 4-D.

This is the case if it flows in the same direction even though there is a time dimension different from it.

 

[Georredannea15]

.... you have to clarify how it fits your argument.

That's why I quoted the page, but the basic situation here is that the timeline in the verse is covered by a "higher alternative time dimension, and this higher alternative time contains the entire time it covers in each moment and each moment also contains 4-D primordials" and there are 6 alternative hypertimelines like this

 

[Firestorm808]

Like God of War

Let me get this straight.

You are proposing that a time dimension in a verse "must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension."

Yet, you say the example you do give us doesn't do that. Your example implies that each snapshot in the higher-dimensional time contains "past, future, and the present moment."

If a higher dimension of time encompasses other lower timelines, then a snapshot of that higher dimension of time would already include "past, future, and the present moment" of the lower timelines. This is no different than what DT originally gave us.

 

[Georredannea15]

Let me get this straight.

You are proposing that a time dimension in a verse "must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension."

Yet, you say the example you do give us doesn't do that. Your example implies that each snapshot in the higher-dimensional time contains "past, future, and the present moment."

If a higher dimension of time encompasses other lower timelines, then a snapshot of that higher dimension of time would already include "past, future, and the present moment" of the lower timelines. This is no different than what DT originally gave us.

The situation is little different here, the situation here is not "time dimensions flowing in different directions." The 4-dimensional snapshots at each moment of these alternative higher time dimensions"

 

[Firestorm808]

The situation is little different here, the situation here is not "time dimensions flowing in different directions," the 4-dimensional snapshots at each moment of these alternative higher time dimensions"

Why are you proposing "must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension" when you don't have an actual example of this taking place in a verse?

 

[KLOL506]

This is a bit confusing, it's just devolving into "he-said, she-said".

 

[KLOL506]

Why are you proposing "must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension" when you don't have an actual example of this taking place in a verse?

Does any verse abide by such a stringent rule to begin with?

 

[Firestorm808]

Does any verse abide by such a stringent rule to begin with?

None as far as I'm aware.

 

[Georredannea15]

Why are you proposing "must extend in different directions, or in other words, one of the temporal dimensions must extend in a direction orthogonal to the other temporal dimension" when you don't have an actual example of this taking place in a verse?

Btw I didn't say anything like that. I said at the beginning that there aren't many verses that don't have this, and that it's generally "described as having a higher dimension of time, with each moment being a 4D snapshot." And you asked for an example of this. And i gave it too

 

[KLOL506]

But this says nothing about "orthogonal dimensional axis".

 

[Georredannea15]

But this says nothing about "orthogonal dimensional axis".

Look at the above, the example he asked me for was "a verse have higher time dimension with 4-D snapshots" example

Here

 

[Reiner04]

Btw I didn't say anything like that. I said at the beginning that there aren't many verses that don't have this, and that it's generally "described as having a higher dimension of time, with each moment being a 4D snapshot." And you asked for an example of this. And i gave it too

I'm not sure what you're saying but that exactly our standard is currently? 2 different time dimension for single Universe would span it 4-D continuum to uncountable infinite numbers of times. If they are parallel then they are not different and if different despite being parallel then don't work on same structure since it'll "confuse" the timeline. As only thing parallel time axis can be different in is "flow" at most and thus, one Universe will have two time flow at the same time and place? Weird isn't it? And impossible as well. Thus "orthogonality" mentioned is reductant since that would be the case anyway if different.

I don't see what changes you're suggesting.

 

[Firestorm808]

Look at the above, the example he asked me for was "a verse have higher time dimension with 4-D snapshots" example

Here

Do you have a practical example of "time dimensions flowing in different directions", yes or no?

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm not sure what you're saying but that exactly our standard is currently? 2 different time dimension for single Universe would span it 4-D continuum to uncountable infinite numbers of times. If they are parallel then they are not different and if different despite being parallel then don't work on same structure since it'll "confuse" the timeline. As only thing parallel time axis can be different in is "flow" at most and thus, one Universe will have two time flow at the same time and place? Weird isn't it? And impossible as well. Thus "orthogonality" mentioned is reductant since that would be the case anyway if different.

I don't see what changes you're suggesting.

If they are parallel to each other in two temporal dimensions, how can they have different directions and flows? This is essentially what the overarching temporal dimensions do, without any extra context. A parallel temporal dimension stacked on top of each other with the already existing temporal dimension. They do not have different flows separate from each other. They have same flow and direction. And if that's the case, this shouldn't add any extra axis. I hope it is understood now.

Do you have a practical example of "time dimensions flowing in different directions", yes or no?

No, and is that really a big deal? Do we make standards because they are truly right or to fit with the verses?

 

[Reiner04]

If they are parallel to each other in two temporal dimensions, how can they have different directions and flows? This is essentially what the overarching temporal dimensions do, without any extra context. A parallel temporal dimension stacked on top of each other with the already existing temporal dimension. They do not have different flows separate from each other. They have same flow and direction. And if that's the case, this shouldn't add any extra axis. I hope it is understood now.

Then they're not different. The end. They're same dimension. Our standards clearly says:

not same multiversal temporal dimension that services many Universes and shared by them.

 

[Firestorm808]

No, and is that really a big deal? Do we make standards because they are truly right or to fit with the verses?

Yes. It's a big deal. The site has standards because said standards can be applied to an existing verse for categorization. Why have a standard that nothing applies to?

 

[Georredannea15]

Then they're not different. The end. They're same dimension.

So why do you claim that an overarching temporal dimension would provide an extra axis, regardless of its flow and direction? Why do you say it doesn't have to be in the "perpendicular direction" for the extra axis?

You say this will add extra axis regardless of whether the flow is different or not. Because an overarching temporal dimension does not have a different flow and direction by default.

Yes. It's a big deal. The site has standards because said standards can be applied to an existing verse for categorization. Why have a standard that nothing applies to?

So, even if the standards are correct, do you think that incomplete or incorrect standards should be applied because they do not comply with many verses?

The accuracy of the standards is not important to you, what is important is whether the verses comply with it or not, do you prefer this?