• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Georredannea15 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Never mind whether or not the standard is "correct." We're asking if there exists an example of such a thing in the first place.
 
Georredannea15 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.
 
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
They arent accurate because time does not have directions.
Click to expand...
Time has a flow and a direction in its flow.

Time flows from past to future, but in what direction? That's the important case.

And now I think it would be better to wait for DT, Ultima and other tier 1 staff.
 
Planck69 said:
There wasn't a proper proposal. Half the argument was quoting another member, and now an example that fits this weird standard can't even be given?

This thread borders on being a farce.
Click to expand...
Can you delete the comments that go off the rails for me from now on and the comments of users who comment without permission pls? 🙏
 
Deagonx said:
I agree with this.
Click to expand...
We have already noted in the standard that such cases don't qualify, DT himself told me specially to add it. so it doesn't change anything regardless and purpose of the thread is null.
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.
Click to expand...
 
Reiner said:
We have already noted in the standard that such cases don't qualify, DT himself told me specially to add it. so it doesn't change anything regardless and purpose of the thread is null.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
DT said exactly that. He stated that it was necessary to have fully different/separate direction/axis and flow.
 
Firestorm808 said:
I propose that the thread be rejected and closed.

Staff in favor?

@Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @KLOL506 @Deagonx @Dereck03
Click to expand...
I'm good with closing this. Proposal aside, it's fundamentally a poor revision in general. There are no qualifying examples, the actual draft was made more than halfway into the thread and the OP can't seem to do more than quote a staff member that hasn't shown up on this thread.
 
So... Will it be closed when there is one staff member who participates in this and 2 staff who do not? Moreover, while no tier 1 expert came

Huh, Nice job...
 
Let me say that the last thread was not supposed to be a change of the standard, in my understanding. If it changed the standard, then the text was interpreted differently than I thought it would be.

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

So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).

I personally thought that's what the current explanation would convey. If not, I'm not against it being clarified further.
 
DontTalkDT said:
In general, the standard should still be that we ensure that the second time dimension actually flows in a different direction than the first.

So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).
Click to expand...
The issue is that there is no existing example of portraying such a thing.

It's not even in the GOW verse which currently uses hyper-timelines.
 
DontTalkDT said:
In general, the standard should still be that we ensure that the second time dimension actually flows in a different direction than the first.
Click to expand...
Yup it is taken in the mind that it didn't changed anything more than making it more clear that 2 time dimensions, not timelines (as in spacetime continuum), must work on a Universe to have it span along itself.

Previous one was treated not like "different" time axis but that "orthogonality" must be proven. Which was, impossible. Which this thread is trying to propose, if you have read the proposed draft in between 2 page, stating there must be "evidence" of orthogonality, rather than completely separate time axises.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Let me say that the last thread was not supposed to be a change of the standard, in my understanding. If it changed the standard, then the text was interpreted differently than I thought it would be.

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

So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).
Click to expand...
The change made in the previous thread eliminated this requirement and only claimed that the overarching temporal dimension would be Low 1-C.

However, this thread aims to bring back this requirement. For Low 1-C, it means that the temporal dimensions covering such timelines should flow in a fully different direction compared to the previous one.
Firestorm808 said:
The issue is that there is no existing example of portraying such a thing.

It's not even in the GOW verse which currently uses hyper-timelines.
Click to expand...
As I said, this is not the case of GoW greek cosmos being Low 1-C.
 
Planck69 said:
No, he's right. Every verse that currently has it doesn't make mentions of directions of time. So, what's even the standard at this point?
Click to expand...
Many verses do not mention the direction of time, but reference that every snapshot that time has is 4-dimensional, or refer to it as the “higher temporal dimension.” Both are different

Greek became Low 1-C because of "4-D snapshots with alternative higher time dimensions"
 
Georredannea15 said:
Many verses do not mention the direction of time, but reference that every snapshot that time has is 4-dimensional, or refer to it as the “higher temporal dimension.” Both are different

Greek became Low 1-C because of "4-D snapshots with alternative higher time dimensions"
Click to expand...
Geor, I made that CRT, I am aware of what was and wasn't used.

What you're saying here is the default conclusion of properly higher temporal dimensions. Most verses that prove said timeline encompasses lower space-time continuums don't have statements about snapshots, that's just the conclusion if time travelling back and forth is on the scale of a whole already 4-dimensional multiverse.

Regardless, I'll just wait for DT to elaborate.
 
Planck69 said:
Geor, I made that CRT, I am aware of what was and wasn't used.

What you're saying here is the default conclusion of properly higher temporal dimensions. Most verses that prove said timeline encompasses lower space-time continuums don't have statements about snapshots, that's just the conclusion if time travelling back and forth is on the scale of a whole already 4-dimensional multiverse.

Regardless, I'll just wait for DT to elaborate.
Click to expand...
You were the one who made this thread and these snapshots contained 4D primordial beings. This is one of the things that supports this the most.

And please, let's stop giving examples from different verses and focus on the thread
 
I got permission from Firestorm to speak here


I’m pretty sure what DT is saying that a timeline encompassing multiple timelines can be modeled with a single temporal dimension, so it wouldn’t suffice. I don’t think his example is using a timeline that encompasses multiple timelines with their own time dimension, but DT can correct me if I’m wrong.


Edit: I made a minor typo I meant a timeline encompassing multiple timelines
 
Last edited:
TheGodOfICE777 said:
I got permission from Firestorm to speak here


I’m pretty sure what DT is saying that a timeline encompassing multiple time dimensions can be modeled with a single temporal dimension, so it wouldn’t suffice. I don’t think his example is using a timeline that encompasses multiple timelines with their own time dimension, but DT can correct me if I’m wrong.
Click to expand...
I think we should let them say it instead of making it any longer. DT clearly said it should be the same as before, and that's mostly the point of this thread
 
BasedNecoScaler69 said:
How does that even work? Literally everyone in this thread is confused on that point.
Click to expand...
Firestorm808 said:
The issue is that there is no existing example of portraying such a thing.

It's not even in the GOW verse which currently uses hyper-timelines.
Click to expand...
The classical example comes from R>F differences. Time in the book flows from first page to last page. Time in the higher world flows from presence to future. Those are independent dimensions.
Given, probably not the most relevant example.

Next would be to have it explicitly stated like for example in clockwork planet.

Outside of that it probably requires some kind of fitting analogy or otherwise convincing explanation. Like, in a time travel fiction you might have prior versions of timelines and later versions after some time travel event altered them. If you then can proof that those aren't discrete alternate version (i.e. not like in fiction where every time travel just spawns a new timeline), but a continuous time-like progression of the timeline, that should work.

However, honestly, if the fiction doesn't intend to use the concept it is likely hard to prove.
 
I was given permission from @LordGriffin1000

Sorry my phone acting up again

Anyway
1. I keep seeing people talking about different time direction is a must, top requirement, but never once showing an example of what is different time direction is, so that mean this different time direction standard is just, vaguely left in the air without a concrete foundation. And multiple peoples have been saying mutliple time, time "direction" isn't spatial "direction" so apply the logic do not work

2. Next would be to have it explicitly stated like for example in clockwork planet.

@DontTalkDT I want to address this "perpendicular" thing, if two time axes (could be more but well) is perpendicular, we currently default that time axis is infinite in length by default, which mean at one point on their length, two time axes will cut each other due to being perpendicular, which they will become one, a single time axis at that cut point and meaning they are connected, thus completely go against the logic there are multiple temporal dimensions, we already established this in @PrinceofPein previous CRT about tier 2, so isn't that contradictory??
 
Last edited:
Outside of that it probably requires some kind of fitting analogy or otherwise convincing explanation. Like, in a time travel fiction you might have prior versions of timelines and later versions after some time travel event altered them. If you then can proof that those aren't discrete alternate version (i.e. not like in fiction where every time travel just spawns a new timeline), but a continuous time-like progression of the timeline, that should work.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but it is this basically saying that you have to prove that the timelines within this overarching temporal axis have to showcase progress or have past and future versions (Like how I may have my future and past version to someone who time travelled)?
 
Reiner said:
Which this thread is trying to propose, if you have read the proposed draft in between 2 page, stating there must be "evidence" of orthogonality, rather than completely separate time axises.
Click to expand...
If the space spanned by the two time dimensions is 2 dimensional, then one could find two orthogonal axis to span it up. However, I guess it might also be confusing to just talk about orthogonality.
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.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Outside of that it probably requires some kind of fitting analogy or otherwise convincing explanation. Like, in a time travel fiction you might have prior versions of timelines and later versions after some time travel event altered them. If you then can proof that those aren't discrete alternate version (i.e. not like in fiction where every time travel just spawns a new timeline), but a continuous time-like progression of the timeline, that should work.

However, honestly, if the fiction doesn't intend to use the concept it is likely hard to prove.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if I'm getting you correct; To qualify as different temporal dimensions, it must be proven that the temporal axis are completely independent in their progression of time. As in the time flow in one temporal dimension is irrelevant to the time flow in another. Is that correct?
 
Planck69 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but it is this basically saying that you have to prove that the timelines within this overarching temporal axis have to showcase progress or have past and future versions (Like how I may have my future and past version to someone who time travelled)?
Click to expand...
It's just one possible criteria, but yes.

But as said, you must be careful that those aren't just discrete versions. If the timeline only gets a future version whenever someone timetravels, then that wouldn't work. Should be clear, as then the number of total separate versions of the timeline that exist is equal to the number of times that someone time traveled, which would be much less than uncountably infinite.

And, it should go without saying, but you would need to make sure that if a feat happens, it actually includes that time axis. Like, someone destroying all of spacetime should probably not be assumed to automatically include the second time axis.
 
DontTalkDT said:
It's just one possible criteria, but yes.

But as said, you must be careful that those aren't just discrete versions. If the timeline only gets a future version whenever someone timetravels, then that wouldn't work. Should be clear, as then the number of total separate versions of the timeline that exist is equal to the number of times that someone time traveled, which would be much less than uncountably infinite.

And, it should go without saying, but you would need to make sure that if a feat happens, it actually includes that time axis. Like, someone destroying all of spacetime should probably not be assumed to automatically include the second time axis.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
So, can we call this true? In other words, the temporal dimension has a different direction and flow from the other.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If the space spanned by the two time dimensions is 2 dimensional, then one could find two orthogonal axis to span it up. However, I guess it might also be confusing to just talk about orthogonality.
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.
Click to expand...
Quick question, would time flowing backwards count?
 
DontTalkDT said:
It's just one possible criteria, but yes.

But as said, you must be careful that those aren't just discrete versions. If the timeline only gets a future version whenever someone timetravels, then that wouldn't work. Should be clear, as then the number of total separate versions of the timeline that exist is equal to the number of times that someone time traveled, which would be much less than uncountably infinite.
Click to expand...
Thanks for replying. Would the existence of already 4-dimensional beings or realms having a past and future (in the perspective of the higher temporal dimension) be good support for that?
DontTalkDT said:
And, it should go without saying, but you would need to make sure that if a feat happens, it actually includes that time axis. Like, someone destroying all of spacetime should probably not be assumed to automatically include the second time axis.
Click to expand...
Noted.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Let me say that the last thread was not supposed to be a change of the standard, in my understanding. If it changed the standard, then the text was interpreted differently than I thought it would be.

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

So a time dimension just encompassing multiple timelines should in itself indeed not suffice, as that could still go into the same direction (i.e. flow into the same future, just on a spatially greater scale).

I personally thought that's what the current explanation would convey. If not, I'm not against it being clarified further.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
Okay, so if I'm getting you correct; To qualify as different temporal dimensions, it must be proven that the temporal axis are completely independent in their progression of time. As in the time flow in one temporal dimension is irrelevant to the time flow in another. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
The problem there is the theory of relativity for a start. Like, even in the same timeline it is possible in physics for time to flow slower in one place than in another and for the rate at which time flows to change.
IIRC black holes can even do funky stuff like letting you see future and past simultaneously from the inside.
Since both future and past are part of the same axis, time in one universe could flow in reverse to another universe and they could still have the same time axis as well.

So the flow of time in different universes can be very independent while they have the same time axis.

LordGriffin1000 said:
Quick question, would time flowing backwards count?
Click to expand...
Seems like I by accident already answered that above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Compsito
Question about temporal dimensions
Replies
14
Views
1K
Executor_N0
Executor_N0
Reiner04
  • Locked
Time dimension standard elaboration and a bit of change (whatever guess yourself)
2 3
Replies
83
Views
10K
Antvasima
Antvasima
DontTalkDT
Context is always important - Changing a bad formulation of the Tiering System
Replies
17
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
TheOrangeGuy09
Temporal axises and HDE manipulation
Replies
26
Views
1K
Laviossiii
Laviossiii
Question about power system and higher dimensions
Replies
2
Views
698
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Back
Top