Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[Reiner04]

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:



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:


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:

Everyone still ok with the draft?

Looks fine but seems quite wordy...

 

[Deagonx]

Looks good to me

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm fine with the draft.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

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:



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:


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:

Everyone still ok with the draft?

Question, what if there is a realm that is a Nexus of "All time" where past, present, and future are....

A.) Merged together and thar new almagation is how time flows in that realm

B.) They only intersect there

C.) Is a realm "beyond time" but past, present, and future "coexisting" there.

Thank you!

 

[Deagonx]

Not that I don't understand, but I think we should avoid inundating DT with hypotheticals from specific verses, only because 1) His time and cosmological stamina is limited and 2) His response will be taken as gospel even though he may not have the full context or info, which will just lead to drama down the line.

For verses where it's pretty complicated or esoteric it'll be on a case by case basis with the draft text as a guideline.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Not that I don't understand, but I think we should avoid inundating DT with hypotheticals from specific verses, only because 1) His time and cosmological stamina is limited and 2) His response will be taken as gospel even though he may not have the full context or info, which will just lead to drama down the line.

For verses where it's pretty complicated or esoteric it'll be on a case by case basis with the draft text as a guideline.

I understand.

This is something I seen in several different and separate verses, but not a lot. I wouldn't say its hyper specific to one verse.

But I get what your saying

 

[Georredannea15]

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:

Thank you DT My intention was just to explain that independent and extra temporal dimensions should extend along different directions, that's why I did that, but yes, your explanation is more shorter and clearer.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sounds like general agreement. I have applied the draft. Can this be closed?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Sounds like general agreement. I have applied the draft. Can this be closed?

Sure.