Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards

[Firestorm808]

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?

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.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

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?

They arent accurate because time does not have directions.

 

[Deagonx]

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

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

I agree with this.

 

[Planck69]

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

They arent accurate because time does not have directions.

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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?

 

[Firestorm808]

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.

I agree.

 

[Reiner04]

I agree with this.

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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.

DT said exactly that. He stated that it was necessary to have fully different/separate direction/axis and flow.

 

[Firestorm808]

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.

I propose that the thread be rejected and closed.

Staff in favor?

@Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @KLOL506 @Deagonx @Dereck03

 

[Planck69]

I propose that the thread be rejected and closed.

Staff in favor?

@Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @KLOL506 @Deagonx @Dereck03

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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...

 

[Firestorm808]

Moreover, while no tier 1 expert came

Does Qaws not count?

 

[Georredannea15]

Does Qaws not count?

He was just complaining about there being no draft but hasn't said anything for the OP yet. That's why I think more tier 1 staff should come. And i have also submitted the draft already.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Give me some time and I'll comment.

 

[DontTalkDT]

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.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

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

How does that even work? Literally everyone in this thread is confused on that point.

 

[Firestorm808]

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).

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.

 

[Reiner04]

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

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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).

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.

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.

As I said, this is not the case of GoW greek cosmos being Low 1-C.

 

[Planck69]

As I said, this is not the case of GoW greek cosmos being Low 1-C.

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?

 

[Georredannea15]

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?

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"

 

[Planck69]

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"

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.

 

[Deagonx]

My understanding is the same as DTs.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

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

 

[Deagonx]

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.

If it's all flowing in the same direction then it shouldn't.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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

 

[DontTalkDT]

How does that even work? Literally everyone in this thread is confused on that point.

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.

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.

 

[Vietthai96]

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??

 

[Planck69]

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.

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)?

 

[DontTalkDT]

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.

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.

 

[Qawsedf234]

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.

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?

 

[DontTalkDT]

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)?

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.

 

[Georredannea15]

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.

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.

So, can we call this true? In other words, the temporal dimension has a different direction and flow from the other.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

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.

Quick question, would time flowing backwards count?

 

[Planck69]

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.

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?

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.

Noted.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

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.

I agree with this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

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?

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.

Quick question, would time flowing backwards count?

Seems like I by accident already answered that above.

 

[TiltedFN]

Sorry, but so is being like perpendicular only one way of proving higher time axis? And is the like totally separate time flows another? Just to be clear, there are multiple ways?