Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[PrinceofPein]

This is the continuation of this thread, the thread has been going on for more than a year, and we decided to separate it and tackle the tier 2 in another thread after the tier 3 is done.
This thread is just to clarify what qualifies for tier 2 and what does not qualify, as many profiles which have tier 2 has their ratings do not actually qualify based on the tier system.

Tier 2 is the destruction/creation of universe/universes across all of time/space-time continuums (past, present and future). i.e. destruction or creation of universe(s) that does not happen across all of time unless those universes are self-contained space-time continuums, does not qualify for tier 2. In a simpler term, destruction of one or multiple universes won't be default tier 2 unless all of time was shown or said to be affected or the universes are a separate space-time continuum.

Here are a few of the requirements and examples of cosmologies that qualifies for tier 2
1. Well no brainer, the most straighforward way is for it to be explicitly called a "Space-time continuum"

2. Physically traveling between the universes is not possible, unless through a portal or something similar. As this is prove that these universes do not share the same physical space, as it is impossible for two separate space-time continuums to share the same physical space unless there is some sort of Higher Dimensional space seperating them. in other words, Two separate space-time continuums may share the same physical space, if the space between them is a 4-D or 5-D space or higher. So essentially unless the space between the universes was stated to be of Higher dimensional space, physically traveling among them should not be possible.
In a bit easier term, in a verse where traveling among universes is possible physically, for the verse to qualify for tier 2, there must be
i. A larger space containing all the universes/space-times
ii. There must be proof the space is a higher dimensional space

3. Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B. Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each other are not, by default, separate spacetimes. Such timelines clearly share not just a single point, but an entire interval of time, that being the timeline that existed before the moment at which they diverged., which would mean branching timelines will not qualify for higher levels of tier 2, as those branches are not big enough to qualify for tier 2 to begin with.

Note: Time flowing differently (Slower or faster) in different universes is not enough proof that they are of separate space-time continuums

These requirements will be added to the FAQ page or the Universe criteria page.

Those who helped out and gave idea for the thread: @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @KLOL506 @KingPin0422 @Agnaa

STAFF ONLY THREAD

 

[Deagonx]

For fidelity, this is the current "Tier 2" section in the Tiering System page:

Tier 2: Multiversal​

Low 2-C: Universe level+​

Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums (the entire past, present and future of 3-dimensional space) of a universal scale. However, it can be more generally fulfilled by any 4-dimensional space that is either:

A) Equivalent to a large extra dimensional space. That is, a higher-dimensional "bulk" space which embeds lower-dimensional ones (Such as our universe) as subsets of itself, whose dimensions are not microscopic / compactified.

B) Portrayed as completely transcending lower-dimensional objects and spaces in the setting of a given work of fiction.

2-C: Low Multiverse level​

Characters or objects that can significantly affect[2], create and/or destroy small multiverses which can be comprised of several separate space-time continuums ranging anywhere from two to a thousand, or equivalents.

2-B: Multiverse level​

Characters or objects that can significantly affect[2], create and/or destroy larger multiverses which comprise from 1001 to any higher finite amount of separate space-time continuums.

2-A: Multiverse level+​

Characters or objects that are capable of significantly affecting[2], creating and/or destroying a countably infinite number of space-time continuums.

So, something qualitatively greater than an infinite 3d space, the foremost example being a space-time continuum (time being a fourth dimension), or a space with an additional spatial dimension. In a nutshell:

L2-C: Single 4D universe (including a space-time continuum)

2-C: Range of 2-1000 such spaces

2-B: Range of 1001 to any finite amount

2-A: Countably infinite amount

 

[ImmortalDread]

I can argue that we have an issue in this tiering system (tier 2) that infinite – sized low 2-C should be 2-A as default. I brought this point to many experts and till now, no one brought me a counterargument, why it is not default. If you tell me the reason is “the spaces between them should be separated”, it would make no sense since the size is infinite.

• Infinite amount of timelines is still the same as infinite sized timeline.
• Infinite amount of low 2-C structures is still the same as infinite sized low 2-C structure.

And don't tell me, it is not same due the fiction functions others, the thread itself rely heavily on physics rather fiction setting.

@Pain_to12 Thank you for making the thread possible to discuss these points. I really appreciate it!

 

[Deagonx]

I can argue that we have an issue in this tiering system (tier 2) that infinite – sized low 2-C should be 2-A as default. I brought this point to many experts and till now, no one brought me a counterargument, why it is not default. If you tell me the reason is “the spaces between them should be separated”, it would make no sense since the size is infinite.

• Infinite amount of timelines is still the same as infinite sized timeline.
• Infinite amount of low 2-C structures is still the same as infinite sized low 2-C structure.

And don't tell me, it is not same due the fiction functions others, the thread itself rely heavily on physics rather fiction setting.

I actually agree. How Tier 2 is scaled somewhat contradicts how we scale High 3-A, in principle.

This is the High 3-A description:

High 3-A: High Universe level
Characters or objects that demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

So, already within H3-A, we recognize that an infinite 3D space is indistinguishable from infinite infinite 3D spaces (as inf * inf = inf) but then we sort of flip back to counting again once another dimension is added, but the principle is the same.

However, there is a level of "suspended disbelief" that sort of becomes mandatory at this level, because if we accept that we are not just going to treat all infinities as equal, we have to also accept that the way we separate it is going to be counter-intuitive to the basic concept of infinity. It looks like an argument as already had about the 2-C and 2-B thing and was rejected by staff, so I think it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie, in that regard.

 

[ImmortalDread]

@Deagonx Thanks for understanding my point. I really appreciate it, it baffles me and I talked about it a lot with experts and can't find any logical reason for it.
Unless someone says, “We no longer rely on physics and standard principles after tier 2”

I can use the same argument for the qualification number 2 and 3 that Pain stated.

 

[Deagonx]

I really appreciate it, it baffles me and I talked about it a lot with experts and can't find any logical reason for it.
Unless someone says, “We no longer rely on physics and standard principles after tier 2”

I can use the same argument for the qualification number 2 and 3 that Pain stated.

I agree that principally, the entire Tier 2 seems out of place. Tier 3 caps at an infinite 3-D space. Tier 1 is based on levels of infinite transcendence. Tier 2 focuses on a single level of transcendence, and then breaks out into finite sections of it. It's not clear why 4D needs four separate tiers unto itself, whereas 5D/6D is Low 1-C, 7-9D is 1-C, 10-11D is High 1-C, et cetera.

Personally, I think time should just be considered an intrinsic part of a universe and that we shouldn't necessarily consider spacetime 4D in a way that is comparable to a physically 4D space (any of which will almost certainly also have time) as a truly "atemporal" location is conceptually incoherent in a storyline, as time represents change. From that perspective I think we could envision Tier 2 as Multiversal (including any multiple universes) and then Tier 1 could encompass all extradimensionality. However I don't think that'll catch on.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I agree that principally, the entire Tier 2 seems out of place. Tier 3 caps at an infinite 3-D space. Tier 1 is based on levels of infinite transcendence. Tier 2 focuses on a single level of transcendence, and then breaks out into finite sections of it. It's not clear why 4D needs four separate tiers unto itself, whereas 5D/6D is Low 1-C, 7-9D is 1-C, 10-11D is High 1-C, et cetera.

Personally, I think time should just be considered an intrinsic part of a universe and that we shouldn't necessarily consider spacetime 4D in a way that is comparable to a physically 4D space (any of which will almost certainly also have time) as a truly "atemporal" location is conceptually incoherent in a storyline, as time represents change. From that perspective I think we could envision Tier 2 as Multiversal (including any multiple universes) and then Tier 1 could encompass all extradimensionality. However I don't think that'll catch on.

Agreed with your points one to one.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@Deagonx Thanks for understanding my point. I really appreciate it, it baffles me and I talked about it a lot with experts and can't find any logical reason for it.
Unless someone says, “We no longer rely on physics and standard principles after tier 2”

I can use the same argument for the qualification number 2 and 3 that Pain stated.

it is not that we no longer rely on physics after tier 2, we find a fine line for it. and just because one portion uses physics fully does not mean we need to make all other part of the tiering system use physics, that is a weird argument, as even our indexing of 9-B to 3-A, does not follow physics fully and deviates from it, we only find a way bothscience and fiction can co-exist.
Anyway that said, I already mentioned the continuum hypothesis not allowing for distinction between one or two or infinte tier 2 destruction. As that means that there is nothing that can be higher than low 2-C before tier 1, which our FAQ supports but the tiering system contradicts that, so the plan is to fix the FAQ, cause there is no way or in any fictional verse is there a character A whose limit is destruction of one timeline, as strong as character B who can destroy infinite timelines.

I can argue that we have an issue in this tiering system (tier 2) that infinite – sized low 2-C should be 2-A as default. I brought this point to many experts and till now, no one brought me a counterargument, why it is not default. If you tell me the reason is “the spaces between them should be separated”, it would make no sense since the size is infinite.

low 2-C, should be infinite in size by default (uncountable infinite snapshots of a 3-A to High 3-A destruction), so yes technically for low 2-C.
1 infinity + 2 infinity, is still infinity, so you are not wrong there.
But the entire the space between them argument makes sense when you bring fiction into it, as there are people who can contain infinite sized universe in the palm of their hands, which should not be possible since it is infinite, but fiction makes it possible.
That said, I dont believe in the entire for 2 universes to be separated there should be a higher D space between them, that is wrong a void can simply separate them too.
That siad physics says you cannot be bigger than infinity while still remaining infinite, but in fiction, we have stated universes all of infinite size, contained inside another bigger universe that is also infinite in size and not some Higher D space, so well again we need to find a good line.
Which is why after this thread, universal destruction alone without further proof will no longer be tier 2,

• Infinite amount of timelines is still the same as infinite sized timeline.

correct

• Infinite amount of low 2-C structures is still the same as infinite sized low 2-C structure.

yes

And don't tell me, it is not same due the fiction functions others, the thread itself rely heavily on physics rather fiction setting.

I think this is a fiction indexing site, so we cannot exactly throw out what happens in majority of fictional verses, that this thread affects.
This thread relies on physics to determine what cosmology or structure is tier 2, not what AP or feat is tier 2, that is a different case in which your argument fits, and yes I have been there and my suggestion was to edit the FAQ accordingly.

Personally, I think time should just be considered an intrinsic part of a universe and that we shouldn't necessarily consider spacetime 4D in a way that is comparable to a physically 4D space (any of which will almost certainly also have time)

A 4D space with time becomes a 5-D structure.
I really don't understand your point here, as even physics and maths dictates that 3-D space and 1-D time is a 4-D structure, this is not a fiction thing this is RL

as a truly "atemporal" location is conceptually incoherent in a storyline, as time represents change

No it is not, Lord of the Rings, Unsong e.t.c. which is why we have acausal beings, they can exist without need for a change system

. From that perspective I think we could envision Tier 2 as Multiversal (including any multiple universes)

That is what tier 2 is currently, we just have some distinctions for it,

and then Tier 1 could encompass all extradimensionality. However I don't think that'll catch on.

Anyway that said, I am glad with both of you points,
And I have already mentioned it, either we do it that way or we edit to FAQ to fit our current system, so you guys can bring this up in that thread, as this thread is just for what qualifies for tier 2 structure, not really the levels of tier 2.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will respond to your points later when I have a chance, but I need to comment on one of your qualifications:

• If travelling through universes is not possible, it should grant a speed tier aka infinite?

 

[Deagonx]

A 4D space with time becomes a 5-D structure.
I really don't understand your point here, as even physics and maths dictates that 3-D space and 1-D time is a 4-D structure, this is not a fiction thing this is RL

I think there's a miscommunication. I am not saying that spacetime isn't considered 4-D by physicists. I am saying that time should not be considered comparable to a physical geometric dimension in the same way, and that time is almost universally a fair assumption in anything involving the destruction of a universe.

No it is not, Lord of the Rings, Unsong e.t.c. which is why we have acausal beings, they can exist without need for a change system

I recognize that such beings exist, but how many of them can be said to exist in a space with physical geometric dimensions? Remember, the lack of a temporal dimension in this instance constitutes a lower tier, not a higher tier.

There are 1201 "Low 2-C" profiles, but only 213 "High 3-A"

It is nearly six times more common to have a character considered capable of destroying a 4-D Spacetime continuum as it is for them to be considered capable of destroying an infinite 3D "timeless" universe. Even looking at some of the H3-A profiles, these realms clearly have time. In Lady Death's profile, this scan is used for the infinite space, she says "The graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity."

But the full quote is "I searched so long months turned to years. The Graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity." So time is clearly at play here.

I just think the distinction is too vague and doesn't constitute actual transcendence, since 99% of these realms have time regardless.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I think there's a miscommunication. I am not saying that spacetime isn't considered 4-D by physicists. I am saying that time should not be considered comparable to a physical geometric dimension in the same way, and that time is almost universally a fair assumption in anything involving the destruction of a universe.

Indeed, it is due to the fact that time is a temporal dimension.

I recognize that such beings exist, but how many of them can be said to exist in a space with physical geometric dimensions? Remember, the lack of a temporal dimension in this instance constitutes a lower tier, not a higher tier.

There are 1201 "Low 2-C" profiles, but only 213 "High 3-A"

It is nearly six times more common to have a character considered capable of destroying a 4-D Spacetime continuum as it is for them to be considered capable of destroying an infinite 3D "timeless" universe. Even looking at some of the H3-A profiles, these realms clearly have time. In Lady Death's profile, this scan is used for the infinite space, she says "The graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity."

But the full quote is "I searched so long months turned to years. The Graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity." So time is clearly at play here.

I just think the distinction is too vague and doesn't constitute actual transcendence, since 99% of these realms have time regardless.

Agreed with your points again.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz

What do you think about this?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am following for now, I might need to come back later, have a light headache atm. I have talked about being a bit uneasy for being a bit too stern for what qualifies as Low 2-C or 2-C as opposed to 3-A. But I will need more time to read over to see if I am reading correctly of if the proposals were different from last time.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. I hope that you will recover well soon.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I think there's a miscommunication. I am not saying that spacetime isn't considered 4-D by physicists. I am saying that time should not be considered comparable to a physical geometric dimension in the same way, and that time is almost universally a fair assumption in anything involving the destruction of a universe.

The 4-D part of low 2-C, is the ability to destroy uncountable infinite of 3-D space, I think you miss the time point, when a universe is destroyed across all of time, each moment in that timeline/universe contains a 3-A or High 3-A space, and the timeline contains uncountable infinite of the 3-A space, hence 4-D.
Same way stacking up uncountable infinite 1-D(line) will give you 2-D(breadth)
And stacking up uncountable 2-D(breadth) will give you 3-D(height).
In this case also, stacking up uncountable 3-D will give you 4-D, so the destruction is not time itself, as time is simple the unit to measure change, and destroying time won't give anything pass time manipulation.I hope you understand that time destruction really has little to do with the entire tier 2.

I recognize that such beings exist, but how many of them can be said to exist in a space with physical geometric dimensions? Remember, the lack of a temporal dimension in this instance constitutes a lower tier, not a higher tier.

God Unsong can exist anyhere I am not sure what you mean

There are 1201 "Low 2-C" profiles, but only 213 "High 3-A"

It is nearly six times more common to have a character considered capable of destroying a 4-D Spacetime continuum as it is for them to be considered capable of destroying an infinite 3D "timeless" universe.

timeless? again I think you should read my post above
Also not the worry half of those profiles will probably get downgraded.

Even looking at some of the H3-A profiles, these realms clearly have time. In Lady Death's profile, this scan is used for the infinite space, she says "The graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity."

But the full quote is "I searched so long months turned to years. The Graveyard was infinite, it stretched to eternity." So time is clearly at play here.

This has no hold here, I don't even understand your argument at this point, check my definition and reason for tier 2 above.
Destroying a universe in which time occurs is not tier 2, when you destroy a universe in the present, the past will be gone and the future too will cease to exist, but that is still a single moment you are destroying as opposed to the uncountable infinite moment tier 2 requires.

Destruction of uncountable infinite 3-D space is a 4-D feat which is low 2-C, time has little to do with this

 

[KingPin0422]

I'm gonna keep an eye on this thread and wait for any interesting points to be raised. For now, I'll just reiterate that I hard disagree with the idea that affecting two or more universes is inherently tier 2 and has to be proven otherwise, much for the same reasons as destroying the universe shouldn't be Low 2-C by default.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm gonna keep an eye on this thread and wait for any interesting points to be raised. For now, I'll just reiterate that I hard disagree with the idea that affecting two or more universes is inherently tier 2 and has to be proven otherwise, much for the same reasons as destroying the universe shouldn't be Low 2-C by default.

Got question, but do you agree on those points:

• Infinite amount of timelines is still the same as infinite sized timeline.
• Infinite amount of low 2-C structures is still the same as infinite sized low 2-C structure.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm gonna keep an eye on this thread and wait for any interesting points to be raised. For now, I'll just reiterate that I hard disagree with the idea that affecting two or more universes is inherently tier 2 and has to be proven otherwise, much for the same reasons as destroying the universe shouldn't be Low 2-C by default.

Pretty much one of the major things this thread will change

 

[Deagonx]

The 4-D part of low 2-C, is the ability to destroy uncountable infinite of 3-D space, I think you miss the time point, when a universe is destroyed across all of time, each moment in that timeline/universe contains a 3-A or High 3-A space, and the timeline contains uncountable infinite of the 3-A space, hence 4-D.

Yeah, I understand the premise, I'm just saying I don't really agree with it.

God Unsong can exist anyhere I am not sure what you mean

I was saying that yes, while acausal and atemporal beings do exist, that's not really what's being represented when we differentiate between an infinite 3D space and a "spacetime continuum."

Destroying a universe in which time occurs is not tier 2, when you destroy a universe in the present, the past will be gone and the future too will cease to exist, but that is still a single moment you are destroying as opposed to the uncountable infinite moment tier 2 requires.

I think the difference is essentially moot, if destroying that single moment causes the destruction of past and present as well.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

3. Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B. Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each other are not, by default, separate spacetimes. Such timelines clearly share not just a single point, but an entire interval of time, that being the timeline that existed before the moment at which they diverged., which would mean branching timelines will not qualify for higher levels of tier 2, as those branches are not big enough to qualify for tier 2 to begin with.

I got permission from Ant to talk here

Id like to ask for some questions to get more clarification here to clear up any confusion, and misunderstandings.


because a lot of verses does branching timeline logic and i believe some on the wiki use it to get tier 2-B would they end up getting downgraded?

 

[Sir_Ovens]

The OP makes sense.

 

[KLOL506]

3. Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B. Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each other are not, by default, separate spacetimes. Such timelines clearly share not just a single point, but an entire interval of time, that being the timeline that existed before the moment at which they diverged., which would mean branching timelines will not qualify for higher levels of tier 2, as those branches are not big enough to qualify for tier 2 to begin with.

I... have an issue with this.

How do we know that the timelines are still linked after said divergence? How do we know if destroying the original template timeline will also result in the diverging timeline ceasing to exist? How do we know that the timelines are not completely separate from each other's influence post-divergence?

Honestly, this part should be a case-by-case basis approach, but I'd like to see what @DontTalkDT and @Ultima_Reality think of this.

 

[Reiner04]

Type 3 multiverse (MWI) is a only type of multiverse theoretically that actually deals with seprate spacetime's perfectly, type 1 and type 2 don't really give any solid evidence for spacetim's being seprate and type 4 is just a another thing to even talk about. So all or many of the franchise tends to use MWI when establishing seprate spacetime's, so removing this only possibility is not that of a good idea. Seprate spacetime's are seprate even if they're linked at certain point doesn't mean anything if they can still exist independently and are as real as trunk.

And about destroying more than one universes not being tier 2, I remember AKM disagreed with that notion when brought up by certain staff as fiction don't tends to go like that, if destroying more than one universe and still not affecting spacetim's or just parts of spacetim's would be vague, I'll suggest for his current opinion on this matter.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I got permission from Ant to talk here

Id like to ask for some questions to get more clarification here to clear up any confusion, and misunderstandings.


because a lot of verses does branching timeline logic and i believe some on the wiki use it to get tier 2-B would they end up getting downgraded?

Yes if that is the only thing that holds them at that tier

How do we know that the timelines are still linked after said divergence? How do we know if destroying the original template timeline will also result in the diverging timeline ceasing to exist? How do we know that the timelines are not completely separate from each other's influence post-divergence?

Unless stated otherwise, i think it is fair to assume, that branching timelines are still connected to the starting timeline, it is like a tree, all branches can be traced back to the main body, unless those branches have been stated to be cut off from the mainbody already.
So I will say even if it is a case by case basis, you need to provide evidence that the branching timelines are disconnected from what they branched from

Seprate spacetime's are seprate even if they're linked at certain point doesn't mean anything if they can still exist independently and are as real as trunk.

If they can be traced back to the same origin, they are not really separate, which is the entire point.

I think the difference is essentially moot, if destroying that single moment causes the destruction of past and present as well

There is a pillar that holds up a building, Character A is wall level+ meaning him punching that pillar would collapse that building, then there is character B who can literally stand outside the building a decimate the entire building with shockwaves from his punch, are they equal??
Character A can destroy the building due to destruction of the pillar that roof of the building stand, while character B can outrightly destroy the entire building, the difference is not moot and they are not equal.
The present needs to continue to exist for there to be a future, just because someone can destroy the present alone, does not mean they are equal to someone who would outrightly wipe out all of the space-time continuum of a universe

 

[Reiner04]

If they can be traced back to the same origin, they are not really separate, which is the entire point.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unive...ternate-dimension-edition.121139/post-3981991

 

[PrinceofPein]

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unive...ternate-dimension-edition.121139/post-3981991

?? point is?
Read what I wrote and what he said

 

[Reiner04]

?? point is?
Read what I wrote and what he said

Point is, DT is saying they'll not have their timelines intersected in the future and so will be spatiotemprally seprate, Just same as universes who shares same time dimension but do not intersect at any point in time and so, spatiotemporally seprat.

 

[KLOL506]

Unless stated otherwise, i think it is fair to assume, that branching timelines are still connected to the starting timeline, it is like a tree, all branches can be traced back to the main body, unless those branches have been stated to be cut off from the mainbody already.
So I will say even if it is a case by case basis, you need to provide evidence that the branching timelines are disconnected from what they branched from

No, I would argue you would need to provide evidences for both cases, disconnected or not.

 

[KLOL506]

If they can be traced back to the same origin, they are not really separate, which is the entire point.

Only if you have further evidence that the branched timeline's survival is linked to the original template timeline.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Point is, DT is saying they'll not have their timelines intersected in the future and so will be spatiotemprally seprate, Just same as universes who shares same time dimension but do not intersect at any point in time and so, spatiotemporally seprat.

I am saying how is it relevant to my own point? In any multiverse, all universe share the same time dimension/direction, and they will still be spatial-temporally separated, that is not my argument and never mentioned it.
The argument is branching timelines, can be traced to a single timeline, which means they are not large enough to be a tier 2 construct.

No, I would argue you would need to provide evidences for both cases, disconnected or not.

you cannot ask to prove a negative, that is just impossible

Only if you have further evidence that the branched timeline's survival is linked to the original template timeline.

this is a negative, if it never happened, or if we are not told otherwise we cannot know, so the burden of proof will be on those who claim that they are turly disconnected, hence they will provide evidence for their reasoning

 

[KLOL506]

you cannot ask to prove a negative, that is just impossible

this is a negative, if it never happened, or if we are not told otherwise we cannot know, so the burden of proof will be on those who claim that they are turly disconnected, hence they will provide evidence for their reasoning

There is no negative to prove here because without evidence on either side we're running blind on their structure.

 

[Reiner04]

The argument is branching timelines, can be traced to a single timeline, which means they are not large enough to be a tier 2 construct

How you're getting this conclusion while accepting that they're seprate spacetime continuum's?

 

[PrinceofPein]

There is no negative to prove here because without evidence on either side we're running blind on their structure.

We have one evidence, branching timelines starts from a tree, which means they are still connected to their past, unless stated otherwise, which is why the person who needs to provide proof is the one that says they are no longer connected to their past

How you're getting this conclusion while accepting that they're seprate spacetime continuum's?

I am not accepting they are a different space-time continuum, they share the same past.
Oh lets go over this again, what is your main argument?

 

[Reiner04]

I am not accepting they are a different space-time continuum, they share the same past.

Sharing same past doesn't mean anything when they've been branched off in future and are not connected anymore at any given point in time in the future and do not intersect and never will.

The same argument and same statement as DT. A time like variable "t" and x,y,z coordinates. Even if they had the same beginning at some point "t1" [(x,y,z,t1) common in both] even so ever since branching they will never intersect at all for all other points since branching and will despite sharing the same coordinates(if they may will) will be seprated on a 5d axis or multiversal axis, that spatiotemporally seprate.

Just same as universes who shares same time dimension but do not intersect at any point in time and so, spatiotemporally seprat.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/unive...ternate-dimension-edition.121139/post-3981991

These two are the DT posts I am referring to which says the samething as I am.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Sharing same past doesn't mean anything when they've been branched off in future and are not connected anymore at any given point in time in the future and do not intersect and never will.

No one is saying they are connected, the point is they are not large enough to be tier 2 to begin with, as the entire tree is the tier 2 structure.
I still dont see what you are saying, is your claim that they are large enough to be tier 2 structures?

 

[Reiner04]

No one is saying they are connected, the point is they are not large enough to be tier 2 to begin with, as the entire tree is the tier 2 structure.
I still dont see what you are saying, is your claim that they are large enough to be tier 2 structures?

is your argument that "branches" do not consist of seprate pasts as they are shared and so all timelines do not have seprate "past's" and hence each branches do not qualify for "low 2c" because "each branch" is not complete past, present and future on its own but by sharing, so the entire tree is actually L2C?

 

[PrinceofPein]

is your argument that "branches" do not consist of seprate pasts as they are shared and so all timelines do not have seprate "past's" and hence each branches do not qualify for "low 2c" because "each branch" is not complete past, present and future on its own but by sharing, so the entire tree is actually L2C?

I could word it better, but potato pothato, so pretty much yes

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I am saying how is it relevant to my own point? In any multiverse, all universe share the same time dimension/direction, and they will still be spatial-temporally separated, that is not my argument and never mentioned it.
The argument is branching timelines, can be traced to a single timeline, which means they are not large enough to be a tier 2 construct.

Could you explain how this doesn't make a verses cosmology 2-B for those who are not understanding the logic behind this please... Thank you..

We have one evidence, branching timelines starts from a tree, which means they are still connected to their past, unless stated otherwise, which is why the person who needs to provide proof is the one that says they are no longer connected to their past

So one piece of evidence to prove their separate from each other is to prove that changes to the past (such as destruction of the past, or also the "Trunk" of the tree) doesn't affect any of the branches and its leaves?

 

[Reiner04]

I could word it better, but potato pothato, so pretty much yes

I see- I disagree with the notion though. Alternate timelines even if they lose some moments or parts of their timeline like past, they'll still be infinite, half of infinite is infinite, 1/4 of infinite is infinite and so each branches are of same size as of trunk itself.
And anyway, reason for MWI branches being tier 2 is given as they're still uncountably larger than high 3A's and are seprate spacetime continuum's. I am not convinced with the arguments so far(and likely will not either) so it's better to leave the things for staff members as my interpretation and understanding can be wrong.

I won't be replying any further.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Could you explain how this doesn't make a verses cosmology 2-B for those who are not understanding the logic behind this please... Thank you..

Logic behind it as how?
Do you mean in layman term?

So one piece of evidence to prove their separate from each other is to prove that changes to the past (such as destruction of the past, or also the "Trunk" of the tree) doesn't affect any of the branches and its leaves?

yes correct, or changing of the past does not affect the current timeline.