Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[Georredannea15]

At the moment we'll just have to rewrite the FAQ since the current one doesn't properly convey the intended message.

DT stated that he would write a more comprehensive and more understandable draft. I think we can wait for him.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

my last permissioned reply, but I have some concerns with what DT has pronounced and I would like to create a rebuttal that will include some graphs and sources but that will take some time, and will most likely be posted in 12 hours.

Turns out to be less of a rebuttal but more of a request for clarification. I open this up to any staff member who will like to add their two sense.

A)

I really want to call into question whether this criteria of the two time axes needing to be different directions is pertinent.

If what I understood is correct, DontTalk's example of a multiversal timeline would be a different direction and have a sense of progression. One example is that, if a character was to time travel across the multiversal time axis, they would be able to come to a time in the universe before or after the creation or destruction of a 4D spacetime.

However, I took the liberty of creating graphs to understand this and found out that this example is possible regardless of whether the multiversal time axis is a different or same direction to the universal time axis. Take a look at these two graphs:




The black line on both graphs represent a 4D universe. In both scenarios, a time travel can travel to anywhere on the multiverse timeline and appear before or after the creation/destruction of the 4D universe. The perpendicular time axis is not needed to conduct this feat. It can be done in both a system where the universe and the multiverse share the same time direction, and one where they don't.

B)

Most fictions don't show time travel on a strictly multiversal scale that excludes time travel on the universal scale. Is it possible to show case this progression of the multiversal timeline without time travel? Can you do so with events that affect the multiverse landscape but not necessarily the universal one?

For example: Take a fiction where every time a person travels, they create an an alternate timeline, meaning its impossible to return to the past of a specific multiversal. If for example, during the course of the story, a new universe was created in the multiverse, would this count as an example of progression within the multiversal timeline as there was once a time where that universe did not exist?

C)

If you can prove that the multiversal timeline would contain entire 4D structures in each snapshot, and therefore contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4D spacetimes, count towards Low 1-C?

 

[Reiner04]

I can probably propose my own draft at a later time. Like, when it's not 6am where I live.

Just a reminder. In case it slipped your mind.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just a reminder. In case it slipped your mind.

It didn't. Just had two very busy days. Sorry about that.

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

A: 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.

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).

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.
Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.
One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

 

[Georredannea15]

It didn't. Just had two very busy days. Sorry about that.

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

Thanks DT, it's seems good! But I have a suggestion. Do you think it is necessary to add an extra note at the bottom that "inclusive temporal dimensions, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily have different direction"? Or is that enough?

So, like that;

"Note: an inclusive temporal dimension, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily have different direction. Temporal dimensions that are independent of each other can still flow in the same direction."

A very simple note that anyone can look at and understand, at least to avoid confusion.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

It didn't. Just had two very busy days. Sorry about that.

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

Gonna use my third permitted comment up now.

Thanks for the hard work DDT, your draft looks amazing! 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. I think you should also address certain planes under an overarching timeline being “beyond space-time” or even being timeless voids, as I’ve heard those used as arguments to prove that certain space-times can’t be serviced by a single time dimension.

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?

 

[Reiner04]

It didn't. Just had two very busy days. Sorry about that.

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

It looks good to me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

Other than adding more line breaks I think it looks good.

 

[PrinceofPein]

that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past.

Prior versions of the timeline in what sense? As I do not understand this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Prior versions of the timeline in what sense? As I do not understand this.

Basically just this

 

[Reiner04]

The draft is good but I think it's bit difficult to understand. Wouldn't it be better to have such images linking on the FAQ with this draft? Just like we have bubble multiverse image on Tiering system to explain it better?

Basically just this

 

[Georredannea15]

Prior versions of the timeline in what sense? As I do not understand this.

Basically just this

I don't think this is quite the case, because the temporal dimensions you exemplify in the image below can still extend along the same direction. So, it's more like two parallel temporal dimensions, with branching timelines within them. I think for these "4-D snapshots" to happen, this change must happen in the same temporal dimension, as time continues to flow, so that every snapshot is 4-D

For example;

Timelines are an entirely changing thing, and if a temporal dimension undergoes a change within its own temporal flow without a different temporal dimension, or if one travels through time to a point in the timeline before the change( to the time before change), it is an indication of an additional axis. This is because time travel is an action performed between snapshots in time, and since the change occurs throughout the entire timeline, This timeline contains the state before it was changed at each snapshot/moment, which means a 4-D snapshot.

However, this scenario is not equivalent to traveling to the beginning of creation/destruction, traveling to a time before the timeline, or traveling to a time before a timeline was created or before the creation."

Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse.

Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past.

In other words, when traveling from a different timeline to another timeline (or temporal dimension), this does not basically mean an extra direction.

For this, the changing and still flowing timelines need to be in a common temporal dimension, and when you travel to these timelines with time travel within a common temporal dimension, this means that every snapshot in this temporal dimension is actually 4-D. And it's also mean this temporal dimension is 5-D.

Btw, if I misunderstood something, @DontTalkDT can correct me.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I don't think this is quite the case, because the temporal dimensions you exemplify in the image below can still extend along the same direction

It's about the "previous version of a timeline". They're always going to go in that direction but the fact that you can have two fundamental different infinite snapshots would be an indication of another Temporal Axis.

alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past.

It's why just time travel isn't enough, the previous timeline needs an independent existence like in my image.

If your issues are with the boxes that's not an indication of space-time separation but as a way to help break up the solid white background.

 

[Georredannea15]

It's about the "previous version of a timeline". They're always going to go in that direction but the fact that you can have two fundamental different infinite snapshots would be an indication of another Temporal Axis.

But isn't the fact that they exist in parallel with each other what makes this problematic? Because in the case you exemplified, the timelines can still continue in the same direction in parallel, so for the "4-D snapshot" that DT mentioned to occur, that snapshot must be in a common temporal dimension, and what this means is that each snapshot of that temporal dimension is actually a 4-D snapshot.

It's why just time travel isn't enough, the previous timeline needs an independent existence like in my image.

Yeah that's why I wrote this

However, this scenario is not equivalent to traveling to the beginning of creation/destruction/timeline, traveling to a time before the timeline is exist, or traveling to a time before a timeline was created or before the creation."

 

[PrinceofPein]

Basically just this

Now from what I can see here there are two timelines, if time travel can make it so a character can jump from one to another, that would mean it needs to be proven that these two timelines are now indeed spatio-temporally separate and not a single timeline.

That is actually complicated and even harder than multiple direction one. As there is no way to differentiate if what the character traveled to is the previous version of the timeline or the past, as this is essentially the same thing.

Or how do we differentiate between the two?

That's what I cant understand here.

 

[Georredannea15]

Now from what I can see here there are two timelines, if time travel can make it so a character can jump from one to another, that would mean it needs to be proven that these two timelines are now indeed spatio-temporally separate and not a single timeline.

That is actually complicated and even harder than multiple direction one. As there is no way to differentiate if what the character traveled to is the previous version of the timeline or the past, as this is essentially the same thing.

Or how do we differentiate between the two?

That's what I cant understand here.

I think in this case, instead of a simple "travel to the past/before the timeline/beginning of the timeline or to a different timeline or temporal dimension", a more specific statement comes in. But DT's explanation would be better because it is a bit complicated.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Turns out to be less of a rebuttal but more of a request for clarification. I open this up to any staff member who will like to add their two sense.

A)

I really want to call into question whether this criteria of the two time axes needing to be different directions is pertinent.

If what I understood is correct, DontTalk's example of a multiversal timeline would be a different direction and have a sense of progression. One example is that, if a character was to time travel across the multiversal time axis, they would be able to come to a time in the universe before or after the creation or destruction of a 4D spacetime.

However, I took the liberty of creating graphs to understand this and found out that this example is possible regardless of whether the multiversal time axis is a different or same direction to the universal time axis. Take a look at these two graphs:




The black line on both graphs represent a 4D universe. In both scenarios, a time travel can travel to anywhere on the multiverse timeline and appear before or after the creation/destruction of the 4D universe. The perpendicular time axis is not needed to conduct this feat. It can be done in both a system where the universe and the multiverse share the same time direction, and one where they don't.

B)

Most fictions don't show time travel on a strictly multiversal scale that excludes time travel on the universal scale. Is it possible to show case this progression of the multiversal timeline without time travel? Can you do so with events that affect the multiverse landscape but not necessarily the universal one?

For example: Take a fiction where every time a person travels, they create an an alternate timeline, meaning its impossible to return to the past of a specific multiversal. If for example, during the course of the story, a new universe was created in the multiverse, would this count as an example of progression within the multiversal timeline as there was once a time where that universe did not exist?

C)

If you can prove that the multiversal timeline would contain entire 4D structures in each snapshot, and therefore contain an uncountably infinite amount of 4D spacetimes, count towards Low 1-C?

I guess B and C have been answered, but my point A still stands, I see absolutely no evidence of why different time directions is a requirement.

 

[Reiner04]

I guess B and C have been answered, but my point A still stands, I see absolutely no evidence of why different time directions is a requirement.

Two different time axis exist on same structure = they're in different direction by default. Is what Donttalkdt's draft as far i can read.

 

[KLOL506]

Two different time axis exist on same structure = they're in different direction by default. Is what Donttalkdt's draft as far i can read.

So what is this I'm hearing about having to separately prove them to be different or that they must be perpendicular or orthogonal?

 

[Reiner04]

So what is this I'm hearing about having to separately prove them to be different or that they must be perpendicular or orthogonal?

As per DT's own draft, unless he meant to write smth else but did a mistake, different direction concept is only applies when there is no proof of 2 separate time axis (we know fiction mostly don't deal with two time axis), but just that a multiverse temporal axis exist to server many timelines/Universes. Then mental gymnastics of different direction, time travel, etc is needed.

A: 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.

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).

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse.

 

[Planck69]

It didn't. Just had two very busy days. Sorry about that.

So here is my first draft. Feel free to suggest improvements:

This seems to work for me as it is.

 

[Georredannea15]

Two different time axis exist on same structure = they're in different direction by default. Is what Donttalkdt's draft as far i can read.

2 different temporal dimensions do not necessarily mean different time axis and direction, you will understand if you look at the first post of DT and the points I quoted from his draft above.

That was one of the requirements of the old standards that he didn't want to change.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

multiverse temporal axis

Time in the multiverse and time in the universe can move along the same axis if the universes themselves are just subspaces within multiversal space. To the denizens of the universe, time begins when the universe was created because they have no frame of reference outside of the universe, while to the denizens of the multiverse, time begins at the start of the multiverse and the creation of each universe happened at a specific non-zero time.

In this exact scenario you can travel to before and after the creation and destruction of the universes, specifically to a earlier or later version of the multiverse. Two time axes are not needed for this.

 

[Reiner04]

2 different temporal dimensions do not necessarily mean different time axis and direction, you will understand if you look at the first post of DT and the points I quoted from his draft above.

That was one of the requirements of the old standards that he didn't want to change.

I'm talking as per DT's draft. If you have problem with that, feel free to suggest changes or more elaboration in them. For now, it is what it is.

 

[PrinceofPein]

As per DT's own draft, unless he meant to write smth else but did a mistake, different direction concept is only applies when there is no proof of 2 separate time axis (we know fiction mostly don't deal with two time axis), but just that a multiverse temporal axis exist to server many timelines/Universes. Then mental gymnastics of different direction, time travel, etc is needed.

I think you are taking his words out of context, I have told you this many times.
What DT said is that, for them to be considered separate they have to be of different direction, not "different direction only when there is no proof of separation". What makes them separate is the different direction.

The important thing is that it's clear that different directions are a necessity. If "separate" means something in that sense it's fine. If separate just means separate in space or separate due to one being a subset of the other, then not.

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.

In general, the standard should still be that we ensure that the second time dimension actually flows in a different direction than the first.

The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.

As I have explained and as DT has said
What makes time axis separate is the different direction to begin with.


The new draft should elaborate on the following
Independent time
Time flow
Time axis/direction.

As that is getting a lot of people confused.

Also for examples of different time axis and verses that would qualify
DC does
Lord of the ring does
Some of the R>F verses
Marvel(I cannot verify this, since the person who said this, has not provided proof)

 

[Reiner04]

I think you are taking his words out of context, I have told you this many times.
What DT said is that, for them to be considered separate they have to be of different direction, not "different direction only when there is no proof of separation". What makes them separate is the different direction.




As I have explained and as DT has said
What makes time axis separate is the different direction to begin with.

Two different time axis exist on same structure = they're in different direction by default. Is what Donttalkdt's draft as far i can read.

I'm talking as per DT's draft. If you have problem with that, feel free to suggest changes or more elaboration in them. For now, it is what it is.

Suggest changes or more elaboration then. As I said, DT's draft implies 2 different time axis on single structure = unparalleled.

 

[Georredannea15]

I think you are taking his words out of context, I have told you this many times.
What DT said is that, for them to be considered separate they have to be of different direction, not "different direction only when there is no proof of separation". What makes them separate is the different direction.




As I have explained and as DT has said
What makes time axis separate is the different direction to begin with.

Yes, that's what I meant, that the independent and different temporal dimensions doesn't necessarily mean these temporal dimensions flow in different axes and directions.

 

[Georredannea15]

Suggest changes or more elaboration then. As I said, DT's draft implies 2 different time axis on single structure = unparalleled.

This can be the case not only in parallel, also in temporal dimensions that stand side by side and extend in the same direction. Imagine that you extend 2 lines by placing them side by side in the same direction. To extends on the same axis is not necessarily to be parallel.

 

[Reiner04]

This can be the case not only in parallel, also in temporal dimensions that stand side by side and extend in the same direction. Imagine that you extend 2 lines by placing them side by side in the same direction. To extends on the same axis is not necessarily to be parallel.

Get DT to imagine it. I'll say it again. Argue with the one who created draft. Because I'll be reading only what draft says. Not gonna argue with who misunderstood what as I think contrary of what you think on that topic. So no point in back & forth.

 

[Tanin_iver]

Ain't this a staff thread, you guys should cut back on the back and forth and let DT himself come over here and clarify stuff, and iron out the draft if needed

 

[Deagonx]

DTs statements indisputably establish that different directions are a requirement and the notion of two axes automatically being considered orthogonal seems to be a clear violation of what he said.

 

[Reiner04]

DTs statements indisputably establish that different directions are a requirement and the notion of two axes automatically being considered orthogonal seems to be a clear violation of what he said.

We can have a long chat over it if needed, and can surely say that I can present my interpretation as much as u can. But I don't believe there is any point in arguing it when draft and drafter is here, right? Just tell DT to be clear in his draft as it exactly says what my draft said but just added few cases where 2 time axis confirmation is not evident. So better to just ask DT or tell him to elaborate/add it, if u think that's what he said.

 

[Georredannea15]

Btw, I already suggested to DT if this can be added as a simple note above.

Basically, I suggested adding the note to avoid such confusion.

 

[Deagonx]

Sure, it wouldn't be productive to argue. DT's meaning was clear and if there's some misunderstanding about that we can clarify the wording in the draft to reflect that better.

 

[Georredannea15]

Sure, it wouldn't be productive to argue. DT's meaning was clear and if there's some misunderstanding about that we can clarify the wording in the draft to reflect that better.

I wrote above, how do you find adding something like this in the form of a simple note to clear up confusion?

Like that ;

Note: an inclusive temporal dimension, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily mean these temporal dimensions have different direction. Temporal dimensions that are independent of each other can still flow in the same direction."

 

[Reiner04]

I wrote above, how do you find adding something like this in the form of a simple note to clear up confusion?

Like that ;

Nah, as per what is being suggested it must be like:

Note: 2 different time axis on a higher spacetime continuum do not by default mean they're in different direction or unparalleled, they must have evidence or statement that they are unparalleled.

Says it more clear. If have to be the case.

 

[Georredannea15]

Nah, as per what is being suggested it must be like:

> Note: 2 different time axis on a higher spacetime continuum do not by default mean they're in different direction or unparalleled, they must have evidence that they are unparalleled.

Says it more clear. If have to be the case.

How about combining the two?

Like this ;

Note: an inclusive temporal dimension, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily mean these temporal dimensions have different direction. Temporal dimensions that are independent of each other can still flow in the same direction, or 2 different time dimension/axis on a higher spacetime continuum do not by default mean they're in different direction or unparalleled, they must have evidence that they are unparalleled."

Or

Note: an inclusive temporal dimension, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily mean these temporal dimensions have different direction. Temporal dimensions that are independent of each other can still flow in the same direction, or 2 different time dimension/axis on a higher spacetime continuum do not by default mean they're flows in different direction and unparalleled, they must have evidence that they are flows to different direction.

Is this be okay? Here I edited the "unparalleled" section a bit more.

In other words, to be able to explain it in the most descriptive, clearer and comprehensive way possible.

 

[Reiner04]

Sure, it wouldn't be productive to argue. DT's meaning was clear and if there's some misunderstanding about that we can clarify the wording in the draft to reflect that better.

Btw considering you have read it. Do u agree with current draft of DT?

 

[Qawsedf234]

But isn't the fact that they exist in parallel with each other what makes this problematic?

Afaik no, since time will be moving forward regardless. But having two independent timelines with the difference being one branched and one didn’t would be a snap shot of a previous timeline, which is what DT is talking about.

As there is no way to differentiate if what the character traveled to is the previous version of the timeline or the past, as this is essentially the same thing.

Or how do we differentiate between the two?

Statements. Otherwise the default will be just that they travelled back and made a new branch.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Thanks DT, it's seems good! But I have a suggestion. Do you think it is necessary to add an extra note at the bottom that "inclusive temporal dimensions, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily have different direction"? Or is that enough?

So, like that;

"Note: an inclusive temporal dimension, or temporal dimensions that are distinct or independent of each other, do not necessarily have different direction. Temporal dimensions that are independent of each other can still flow in the same direction."

A very simple note that anyone can look at and understand, at least to avoid confusion.

I think that note isn't well formulated. Mostly because multiple temporal dimensions being mentioned in the proper sense of the words dimension (i.e. as additional direction) would in all likelihood qualify by being a direct statement of multiple time axis. I would add it in more like:

A: 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.

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).

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.
Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.
One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

Gonna use my third permitted comment up now.

Thanks for the hard work DDT, your draft looks amazing! 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. I think you should also address certain planes under an overarching timeline being “beyond space-time” or even being timeless voids, as I’ve heard those used as arguments to prove that certain space-times can’t be serviced by a single time dimension.

That's a weird example, as it seems pretty obvious that something without time or beyond time wouldn't be serviced by any time unless it contradicts itself.
I suppose I could add something in like:

A: 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.

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).

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.
Neither would dimensions that are timeless voids or are described as beyond spacetime in general qualify. Unless they cotradict themselves, these realms should not have a time dimension at all, with change in them happening according to other principles. If they, on the other hand, do contradict themselves, the statement of them not having regular time would inherently not be reliable, making the idea equally unusable.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.
Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.
One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

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?

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.

---

I added the following bolded lines based on the above suggestions:

A: 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.

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).

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.
Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.
Neither would dimensions that are timeless voids or are described as beyond spacetime in general qualify. Unless they cotradict themselves, these realms should not have a time dimension at all, with change in them happening according to other principles. If they, on the other hand, do contradict themselves, the statement of them not having regular time would inherently not be reliable, making the idea equally unusable.

Of particular consideration are instances in which timelines as a whole being changed, such that there is a timeline (or multiple timelines) before they were changed and after they were changed or created / destroyed. As the timelines as a whole are changed, the before and after in this context can't be the past and future the timelines usually use, but should be a separate direction.
However, caution is necessary. As explained above, we require that the additional time dimension is "a line comprised of uncountably infinite points". If new versions of timelines are only created if they are changed, due to time travel for example, then the number of "snapshots" of the timeline would be far more limited. The amount of snapshots would be one more than the times the timeline was changed. So, for example, if the timeline is rewritten 2 times, there would be 3 snapshots of the timeline: the original, the timeline after the first rewrite and the timeline after the second rewrite. That are far less than the required uncountably infinite many.
Aside from direct statements, the easiest way to confirm that the line is comprised of uncountably infinite points/"snapshots" is to show that the development of the timelines is time-like. I.e. typically one would want a statement like the alteration of the timelines being subject to its own flow of time or by saying that special time travel can go to prior versions of the timelines instead of the past. The keyword in the latter case is time travel, as that specifies that the action happens through movement through something like time. Note that such statements can be considered contradicted if the fiction specifies that new versions of the timeline, i.e. additional snapshots, are only created when the timeline is altered or similar.
One other pitfall to consider is the case of branching timelines, where one can return to a past with less timelines by just going back to a point in the regular past that was before the split happened. In such cases one has to decide based on context if that is meant or if a prior version where the splits also didn't exist in the regular future is meant. The former case doesn't qualify for an additional time dimension, while the latter might if it meets the other outlined criteria.

Everyone still ok with the draft?