Like a 5d axis?
It is unquantifiably 5D, it depends on how the verse describes it.
But shouldn't a higher space that views uni+ structures as finite be 5d? That would also make that space another spacetime, which again is defaulted to infinite.
It can be, but there is no such thing as default in fiction, so it depends on the verse.
well just in terms of wiki standards, 4d spacetime would be infinite unless having contradictions, i have a specific verse in mind where the space that holds uni+ structures i feel like should be considered 5-D, but it isn't as of now and i just wanted to know what the logic is behind that and what we consider to be a 5d space, or space between universes, or spaces that house them
AFAIK containing things doesn't inherently make you superior to them. Think about the set of all natural numbers (1, 2, 3...) and the set of all natural even numbers (2, 4, 6...)
Doesn't time stem from the set of all real numbers? Is that not how we treat it on the wiki, uncountably infinite? This means the space containing it would also be uncountably infinitely larger than these uni+ structures, which would make it 5-D, or at least that is what i got from the standards.
Actually, it's not quite like that. According to Ultima, the plane encompassing perfectly parallel 1-dimensional lines that do not touch each other must be at least 2-dimensional. If we think of it as a space-time continuum, a plane that encompasses universes that share the same axis and plane, but at the same time are perfectly parallel to each other, may be higher dimensional, but there may be cases where it is not.
Here is an excerpt from Ultima's comment.
That actually makes a lot more sense.
Not sure, though that would make sense, since there's always a smaller time interval between 2 points in time, similar to how there's always a smaller number to pick from if you tried to count up from 0 using real numbers.
i see, so what about this? These are excepted as 2-C structures, and there is a neutral space in between them, they will never touch, and are parallel to each other, would this be a 5-D space according to ultima's explanation?
yeah i can never get a hold of them, so i might be making a crt about it, because i feel like the space that holds these structures fits the criteria for low 1-C, just trying to get a better understanding to formulate my arguments better.
If you can find a few statements or contexts referring to that space and if you can find a few statements between universes. Why not, we can see Low 1-C DB. After all, as I said, it is a logic I support as long as there is context and statement.
I think the space between universes can be higher dimensional depending on the verse, but its no always the case, for example DC has The Bleed as the space between universes but it is only a 4 dimensional structure.
Exactly, the neutral space would be uncountable infinitely larger making it 5-D, along with ultima's explanation also.
the bleed space is different, it's depicted as a tunnel spatial temporal construct that leads between universes and was directly explained to be 4-D, that isn't the case with the neutral zone.
In fact, instead of being infinitely larger than 4D, it is to have +1 dimensional axis, movement or +1 coordinate axis according to 4D universes. It would be more correct to interpret it in this way.
Would that be in terms of another temporal dimension in this case? When talking about spaces that contain 4-D spacetimes?
It's more like having 4 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. So +1 spatial dimension
I'm confused, how would it be a spatial dimension instead of 3 spatial + 2 temporal? Or can a 4th spatial dimension hold temporal dimensions?
Because instead of +1 high hypertime/temporal dimension, it covers them spatially, i.e. physically, and has a +1 coordinate axis relative to them. This plane has the same temporal axis as the 4 dimensional space-time continuum, but it has +1 more dimensional axis than their spatial dimension. But it can be 3+2 depending on the situation.
could you elaborate?
oh okay, so higher spatial dimensions can hold 4d spacetimes? Alright then, i'll keep that in mind.
Ofc. It's even one of the requirements of 2-C. These universes must exist in a plane of at least 4 dimensional
It's the reason why you can't use multipliers to move from Low 2-C to 2-C. That universes are separated by indefinite intervals of space.
yes but im kind of confused on your comment here, are you saying the space that holds these uni+ structures are not 5d?
Okay, I fully understand your point now how a larger spatial dimension can hold a 4d spacetime, here, so this would align with my premise in DB that these spaces are likely a higher spatial dimension, containing these 4d macrocosms, 12 of them to be exact, capable of holding 18. And the fact they do not touch each other at all, and aren't even visible when seen in a very large scope.
I just talked to my friend and he said that there are "two sides of the coin" for the universes in DB, whose name I forgot, and they are parallel separate Low 2-C universes. If the other universes in the scan are parallel to each other like these two universes and they never touch each other in the same physical space, I guess these contexts... could make the plane 5-D. But as I said, I don't know the context very well, so what I say may not hold.
He was talking about this right here. And the universes in DB are currently accepted to be 2-C having 5 or 6 universal spacetimes. And yes in that space they will never touch ever, you can't even actually see them even from a very large portion of the neutral zone, yet it's shown multiple times these universes are pairs to each other, i think this qualifies for low 1-C.
yeah and as i linked above in the kingdom hearts thread, their verse follows a nearly identical line of reasoning, so i don't see why this wouldn't qualify, i'll probably make a crt, just need to formulate my arguments in a way that makes sense and is convincing.
Good luck man
O What does having Galaxies, planets, and stars prevent from being a higher dimension?
