space time question

[sanicspood]

Why is it that destroying a separate spacetime that’s only the size of a planet not considered above infinite 3D

And why is it that destroying a spacetime on an universal size scale above someone who can wipe out an infinite amount of universes or an infinite sized universe if size supposedly matters

The difference between an infinite universe & a finite universe >

> difference between a planet & a universe.

For example, when Kaguya was going to destroy her own spacetime, they would have only considered that large star level at best

so why does it has to be universe sized?

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

Why is it that destroying a separate spacetime that’s only the size of a planet not considered above infinite 3D

I do not know. For some reason, for it to count as a low 2-C feat aka above infinite 3D, the space time continuum needs to be at least universe sized, "but why universe sized Sir Fluffy?", I asked a similar question and a smart person replied with "the universe size was chosen so as to be considered non-trivial".

And why is it that destroying a spacetime on an universal size scale above someone who can wipe out an infinite amount of universes or an infinite sized universe if size supposedly matters

I do not know, but I'll try my best to answer. Because someone who can destroy an infinite universe or infinite universes scales to high 3-A or countable infinity, but a space-time continuum is equivalent to an uncountably infinite number of universes or something like that, so a bigger infinity or low 2-C.

The difference between an infinite universe & a finite universe >

> difference between a planet & a universe.

IDK wtf that is supposed to mean.

For example, when Kaguya was going to destroy her own spacetime, they would have only considered that large star level at best

It needs to be universe sized to be considered low 2-C and kaguya's dimension is not universe sized, "but why universe sized Sir Fluffy?" I do not know god dammit, go back to the the first question, "I asked a similar question and a smart person replied with 'the universe size was chosen so as to be considered non-trivial'."

so why does it has to be universe sized?

"the universe size was chosen so as to be considered non-trivial"

 

[sanicspood]

I do not know, but I'll try my best to answer. Because someone who can destroy an infinite universe or infinite universes scales to high 3-A or countable infinity, but a space-time continuum is equivalent to an uncountably infinite number of universes or something like that, so a bigger infinity or low 2-C.

"It needs to be universe sized to be considered low 2-C and kaguya's dimension is not universe sized, "but why universe sized Sir Fluffy?" I do not know god dammit, go back to the the first question, "I asked a similar question and a smart person replied with 'the universe size was chosen so as to be considered non-trivial'."


If this is the case, it doesn’t make sense for it to have to be universal-sized. Since their logic is just 4D > infinite 3D. Meaning their logic would suggest a 4D spacetime the size of a room > Infinite universes..

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

If this is the case, it doesn’t make sense for it to have to be universal-sized. Since their logic is just 4D > infinite 3D. Meaning their logic would suggest a 4D spacetime the size of a room > Infinite universes..

Yes. I know.

 

[sanicspood]

i think we should get a staff to answer this

 

[sanicspood]

bump

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Its more of a arbitrary decision in my eyes to take 93 Billions LY as baseline.
But the logic is that fiction doesn't usually understand that difference, and universal space-times are considered better than room sized space-times.
Size is still used as a measuring stick in fiction.

 

[sanicspood]

bump

 

[Arceus0x]

Yeah I've a question about is as well.

A space-time continuum is still infinite snapshots even if it isn't universe sized

 

[sanicspood]

i like how this has 100+ views but only 3 people answered this

 

[Planck69]

I guess it's because very few works of fiction, if any, actually treat these lesser space-times as having their own continuous timestreams for the logic of uncountably infinite snapshots to be applied.

In theory, if it's elaborate enough then a smaller than universal space-time can be Low 2-C.

 

[Arceus0x]

huh

 

[sanicspood]

I guess it's because very few works of fiction, if any, actually treat these lesser space-times as having their own continuous timestreams for the logic of uncountably infinite snapshots to be applied.

In theory, if it's elaborate enough then a smaller than universal space-time can be Low 2-C.

i see

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I guess it's because very few works of fiction, if any, actually treat these lesser space-times as having their own continuous timestreams for the logic of uncountably infinite snapshots to be applied.

In theory, if it's elaborate enough then a smaller than universal space-time can be Low 2-C.

This is actually the smart person I was talking about.
Anyway question, how do we classify less than universal time spaces to be low 2-C or not? For example kaguya's dimension is labeled a time-space and is really big, it's large star level I think, so why is it not classified as low 2-C?

 

[Planck69]

This is actually the smart person I was talking about.
Anyway question, how do we classify less than universal time spaces to be low 2-C or not? For example kaguya's dimension is labeled a time-space and is really big, it's large star level I think, so why is it not classified as low 2-C?

Technically speaking, if it can be proven that a space-time has its own unique timeline/temporal dimension, with the 3-dimensional contents occurring in each of uncountably infinite "snapshots" of space-time then even a space-time with a planet sized 3-dimensional component would be Low 2-C.

This can't really be proven with Kaguya's dimensions as far as I'm aware.

 

[Arceus0x]

i mean isn't the flow of time what proves it being a space-time?

 

[Planck69]

i mean isn't the flow of time what proves it being a space-time?

The flow of time being isolated and unique to itself has to be proven. As in, travelling through time in said space-time bringing one to its past and future, and this being provably its own timeline and not that of some overarching space-time like the universe.

 

[Arceus0x]

so overall:
universes <3-A in physical size can be low 2-C if we can prove they have a flow of time.

 

[Planck69]

so overall:
universes <3-A in physical size can be low 2-C if we can prove they have a flow of time.

A bit oversimplified but yes. If the only difference between them and a standard universal timeline is that they contain stars instead of galaxies at any moment, then they should be Low 2-C if I'm understanding this right.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

The way I see it is that 3A universes do have time( past, present and future), its just that they share it with other 3A universe.

You cannot clap with one hand, same way.....3A universes don't exist alone in isolation, if there is a 3A universe, then there is another atleast one more with it if not more.

So in short 2 or more 3A universes form a complete timeline.