And that is exactly what I said, I didn't say that they were in separated same 3D space, but rather that the various 3D spaces were separated by the 4th spatial axis. What you mention of "larger space" is the same thing I mentioned, my point is that Time is an unnecessary thing to mention for 2-C and above as being "spatiotemporally" different when it only really needs to have different space. If "time" isn't being affected, then it's not Low 2-C, to begin with. If something is already Low 2-C and is being discussed as being 2-C, what would matter is the existence of separated 3D volumes across a 4th spatial axis.
Well we are saying the same thing only the last part is what we seem to disagree with each other, space and time(change) goes hand in hand. I think we agree on that, and to use your definition of time, the distinction between tier 3 and tier 2 is time. tier 3 is destruction of universe sized 3-D space or infinite 3-D space, tier 2 is the destruction of uncountable infinite 3-D space. hence why it is the destruction of a space time continuum, as a space-time continuum destruction will require destruction of uncountable infinite 3-D space
And this is actually accurate and I dont really think there can be any argument against this, reason:-
the !D which is a line/length will never become 2-D even if you stack infinite of lines together, but the moment you stack uncountable infinite lines together, you get a line with width, which is 2-D, now same way to get height(3-D) you need to stack uncountable infinite 2-D structures together.
Same goes for 4-D, for 3-D space to be quantified, to be 4-D(low 2-C) you need to destroy uncountable infinite amount of them.
So I hope this explains why I said time does not really matter here.
If the "infinite snapshots" exists across an axis and can be accessed separately from having to "return all the change to that point", implies the existence of a physical temporal axis, if the notion of time is mere as the rate of how things changes in the physical universe following a certain direction, it implies that there's a singular existence of space that is always changing and lacks proper physically existing "snapshots of 3D space".
that is the thing, there is no accessing any of this separately, when you return to a point in time or turn back a change, it is still the same space, just the space before X happened, also we have fiction and we have statements like
A - He blew up the universe
B- He destroyed the universe across all of time
C - He destroyed the universe
D - He erased the entire timeline.
A and C implies the character in question only destroyed the universe as at the present, meaning the moment the universe is currently existing in.
B and D implies that e destroyed the entire continuum, all moment the universe(space of the universe) ever existed in.
A and C is just destruction of infinite 3-D space, but B and D is destructiion of uncountable infinite 3-D space.
one is a 3-D feat, while one is a 4-D feat, one is tier 3 and one is tier 2.
My term "snapshots" of the universe came from this.
I really wish I can draw with my laptop, but let me explain with words hopefully you understand
Tier 2 is not undoing changes that happened, on a grid or graph, lets say 5-D grid. and we have a space-time continuum drawn on that graph as a straight line since time is linear,each dots on that line represents every moments in the space of that universe, now we have another line drawn parallel to it, not touching and will never meet on the same grid.
two things should not be possible here.
1. Able to cross from one line to another
2. The two lines meeting
two destroy the line, you can either destroy the present moment and let casaulty take place, or destroy the entire line, a single moment(point) destruction is 3-D and the entire line is 4-D
Why? cause they are separate, now to destroy the two lines, you need to destroy the lines and the space separating them (the higher D grid).
so for higher levels of tier 2, what you need to destroy is
2 distinct 4-D structures
I hope you can get my illustration from these words.
If you can put the many "snapshots of 3D space" as existing physically and order them, they would be ordered in the direction of time. If a physical temporal axis of time does not exist, then "snapshots of 3D space" do not exist physically, therefore the idea of traveling back in time without "changing the rate of change" does not exist, making the very idea of destroying "uncountable infinite snapshot of 3-D space" as non-existing because they don't have a physical existence, because all that really exists is an ever-changing present. If this is the current understanding, then I don't have anything really to say.
I am confused by this, can you elaborate? do you mean that once a change occur then the universe before the change would stop existing and there should be nothing called a past in this scenario?
Sorry for this conversation.
No no it is fine, this is all a vortex of complications
