- 1,047
- 2,399
Please read these disclaimers before responding, proceeding, or forming any first impressions regarding this thread
!
Before pitchforks are readied at us for reattempting a rejected revision, we've obviously come prepared with new evidence. The discussion rules quite literally prohibit us from redoing a rejected CRT like this without allowing sufficient time to follow the last CRT unless we have something new to show for it. As the title implies, we now believe that there are ample grounds for the overarching timelines in the Dragon Ball cosmology to receive a Low 1-C rating based on a recent standards change.I understand that many staff go out of their way to avoid tier 1 stuff, especially for topics like these which tend to involve confusing math and technicalities. However, I want to clarify that all the muddled discourse about the temporal dimension standards from the last CRT was primarily on account of users like myself misunderstanding and needlessly complicating stuff. This CRT isn't as long as it appears at first glance either, as I've left notes on what material can be skipped (though I strongly recommend against skipping anything). We've taken all the precedents into account, and carefully analyzed comments from Tier 1 experts to make this revision a smooth read and agreeable post. Without further ado, let's get into this.
How do temporal dimensions impact dimensional tiering?
This is answered on the tiering system faq:
Imagine space-time as a series of movie frames aligned under an extensive line. We could think of these frames as "snapshots:" static representations of the cosmos at a given time. Meanwhile, this line we call time extends infinitely to encompass the past, present, and future. Time is expected to be a continuum: a continuous parameter. This means time is not measured in discrete values: so not only does a timeline encompass infinite seconds, days, and years, but it contains every infinitesimal value in between. This is why the FAQ noted that a standard timeline is the equivalent of uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-dimensional volume. Time can be infinitely subdivided into infinitesimally small moments, each corresponding to a unique snapshot of the universe, culminating in a scope that can't be represented by an infinite set of real numbers. It's why destroying the whole fabric of space-time is a feat infinitely greater than destroying matter on a universal scale. A timeline contains snapshots for the past, present, and future, and destroying one is like destroying a universe uncountably infinitely many times over: eradicating it over every moment of its existence.
A typical space-time continuum projects a temporal dimension over a 3-dimensional space and dislocates it over the span of uncountably infinite moments. Given the continuous nature of time, this would result in the formation of uncountably infinite snapshots of 3-dimensional space. A continuum comprising of 2 temporal dimensions would have snapshots corresponding to an entire 4-dimensional space-time, and propagate a standard timeline through continuous change in an additional time direction.
When does an overarching timeline fail to qualify for Low 1-C?
Simple Explanation
You can model a cosmology with an overarching timeline in a way that makes it a larger hypervolume rather than a greater infinity. As explained by Executor_N0 right here, what determines spatiotemporal separation is the capacity for space-times to exist in parallel and therefore never intersect in space and [infinite] time. Since it has nothing to do with different time dimensions inherently, this means multiple space-time continuums can be serviced by a single time axis. The model in question takes advantage of this fact. The idea is, since spatiotemporal separation doesn't inherently introduce new time dimensions, you can assume that a single time axis (that of the overarching timeline) is a singular time dimension that services all of space-time. Therefore, a cosmology with an overarching timeline doesn't need to be modeled as a construction of two temporal dimensions. This means in order to prove that an overarching timeline makes a cosmology Low 1-C, you need evidence that the lesser space-times harbor their own time dimensions.This single time axis model was created by DontTalk who elaborates on it here, here, and here. It was actually the model that got Low 1-C timelines rejected for Dragon Ball in the past. If that's easy to understand, you can skip the complex explanation below and move on to the next section.
Complex Explanation
Let's model a multiverse of 12 universes. We start out with RxRxR, which represents standard 3-dimensional space (X*Y*Z, Length*Width*Depth). Throw in the uncountable set R, and you have (RxRxR)xR, representing Space*Time. We need a higher order space to describe these space-times as parallel to one another (the same way 1-dimensional lines can only exist in parallel under a 2-D coordinate plane), so our cartesian product comes down to (1x2x3x4,...,12)x(RxRxR)xR, with the countable set (1x2x3x4,...,12) representing 12 multiversal positions across a 5th axis.On the other hand, let’s model a timeline that holds 12 lesser space-times. We still have individual universes modeled as RxRxR, and these universes still need to be spaced apart by a higher dimension to exist in parallel. However, why don't we introduce the set (1,2,3,4,...,12) right now to represent this extra spatial axis as the fourth dimension instead (which is arbitrary numbering, quite frankly)? Now to make a timeline out of this, we once again multiply the set R. With that, our new cartesian expression is Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR): a timeline consisting of 12 space-times. Just so we're clear:
Multiverse of 12 timelines: (1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)xR
Timeline of 12 universes: Rx(1,2,3,4,...,12)x(RxRxR)
As you can see, the two constructions are the same thing: 2-C multiverses a rotation away from one another. Despite how we've depicted universes as 3-D areas, spaced apart by a 4-D space, which in turn has a 5th [temporal] dimension, are universes still Low 2-C constructs? Absolutely! This is because time is applied to all the universes across the 4th spatial dimension equally, and the bijection (multiplication) of the 12 universes (N)x(RxRxR) with the single time axis (R) provides every universe its own fabric of space-time (R1, R2, R3, etc.) Now let's represent the exact same thing with a different model, but focus on two lesser timelines and their behavior within this single time axis model.
Timeline A could be {(x,y,z,t,1)┃x,y,z,t∈R}, or in other words: the set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the extra spatial dimension).
Timeline B could be: {(x,y,z,t,2)┃x,y,z,t∈R}, or in other words: the set of all points in 3 dimensions, at any given time, in multiversal position 1 (i.e. 1 is the position in the extra spatial dimension).
The universes are separated by time and space: they're spatially separate, temporally separate, and spatiotemporally separate. There is not a single point simultaneously in A and B because all points in A have 1 as the "5th axis," and all points in B have 2 as the "5th axis." However, as with any standard multiverse model, we've used 4 dimensions of space, 3 of which are significant, and a single dimension of time. Even though there are two different timelines, we don't need a new way of measuring time for each. Just one time axis works for both. That's why they share the same time axis, but they're still separate spatiotemporally.
Standards/Precedents
I've already provided a simple and in-depth explanation of when overarching timelines qualify for Low 1-C. However, to ensure with absolute certainity that everyone's on the same page and knows "these are the temporal dimension standards, and this is why Dragon Ball meets them," I will directly quote a tier 1 expert's reasons for rejecting hypertimelines for Dragon Ball.Remember how I said Low 1-C timelines were rejected for Dragon Ball using DontTalk's model? Well, here's a part of how it went down. Here, Gilver tries to argue that the Dragon Ball cosmology is Low 1-C since the multiverse is dislocated in an additional time direction
However, DontTalk contests this line of reasoning:
As DontTalk explains, you can't weasel your way into Low 1-C by providing these convoluted explanations for how space-time works differently and chalking it up to a higher time dimension; many explanations like that could be explained under the single time axis model anyway. What you need is cold hard evidence that the overarching timeline can be considered a second temporal dimension.
What is the new evidence that allows Dragon Ball to qualify for Low 1-C?
This is the part most of you were waiting to see. As I've been explaining, an overarching timeline is only Low 1-C if you can confirm that the lesser space-times it services harbor their own time dimensions on top of being spatiotemporally separate: only then can you say the cosmology consists of two temporal dimensions. As for the evidence, we won't be providing it for acceptance in this CRT as it's been approved already. Through these two recent minor CRT's that aimed to increase the tier 2 justifications, it was accepted that the Low 2-C space-times of Dragon Ball are serviced by their own time dimensions. Beyond that, you have the overarching timeline we all know and love. This means technically speaking, the cosmology is already approved for Low 1-C. Our cosmology now has the exact same justifications as the hypertimelines which have been accepted already. This thread is just to have tier 1 formally accepted. I know I should end this CRT now, but knowing how Dragon Ball threads tend to go, I might as well address some potential talking points.In a higher time dimension, time needs to flow in a different direction like backwards or diagonally.
I can't believe I have to address this notion. So the basis for this is that an object in 1-dimensional space could only be displaced left/right along an R^1 coordinate axis. In R^2 space, a 2-dimensional object could displace itself in another direction and gain width. Following this same pattern, an object in 3-dimensional space could displace itself in a direction perpendicular to the last two. From there, a higher time dimension should demonstrate a perpendicular time flow, right? Most definitely not. Time is an independent parameter [unlike spatial dimensions] that can be applied to any dimensional space and is expected to propagate objects forward only and prohibit free movement in other directions. An "additional time direction" as described in the tiering system FAQ simply needs to overarch a space-time continuum with its own time axis as a part of its greater time flow.I have no idea how this argument resonated with staff or other people in the past. The tiering pages make no mention of a requirement for a perpendicular time flow (they actually suggest the opposite, since non-linear flow of time is a natural phenomenon that can occur under a single space-time), none of the verses that have been approved for Low 1-C hypertimelines have had to prove this, and the person who proliferated this argument could be found on other time dimension threads refraining to use it: which means it was a bad faith argument from the get-go. To top it off, let me direct you back to this comment where DontTalk blatantly says that overarching timelines which propagate a multiverse in a new forward direction can qualify for Low 1-C, it's just not inherently tier 1 since the overarching timeline doesn't need to be a second time dimension:
I don't think I need to say more, I will never comprehend for the life of me how this clownery of an argument was ever taken seriously.
Higher dimensions still need to be of significant size.
The problem is that we're dealing with an added temporal dimension here, and well... Ultima explains it better than I could:We already consider time dimensions to be of significant size, hence why the 4th dimension of a Low 2-C construct is considered to hold qualitative superiority even if we know nothing regarding the time dimension besides that it forms a continuum: this is because time is infinite by default, and bijects with a dimensional space to form uncountably infinitely many elements. Here's another statement Ultima made regarding time dimensions and their significance:
Conclusion
As we've known for a while, the Dragon Ball multiverse consists of 12 Macrocosms, each of which are 2-C, being encompassed by a greater timeline. The reason why the overarching timeline was rejected for Low 1-C in the past is because a cosmology like that doesn't need to consist of two temporal dimensions. Spatiotemporal separation doesn't need to introduce new time dimensions, and a single time axis can service multiple space-times. However, now that the space-times in Dragon Ball are accepted as harboring their own time dimensions, the overarching timeline now qualifies for Low 1-C. Unlike the past threads which saw plenty of disorganized conversation regarding the higher time dimension standards, we've done our research, scavenged and carefully analyzed every statement from Ultima and DontTalk concerning higher time dimensions, looked over all the CRT's that have accepted higher time dimensions, and can now say with confidence that Dragon Ball automatically and genuinely qualifies for Low 1-C.Remember to show civility and good faith while participating, okay
?
Last edited:
