Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[TheUnshakableOne]

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

The idea behind it. The fundamentals, the mechanics that make it work, how it operates, the science around it? Or the layman term lol the super simple version lol

How is it only Low 2-C (if i understood you right) and not a 2-B cosmology for/because of/ all these branches coming off of the trunk of the tree? Which all these branches are all parallel universes (parallel to the trunk/Main/primary Universe) that are branched off the trunk of this cosmological tree.... This is what i believe is the most confusing part.. (maybe that was a better way to phrase my question? im struggling here lol im sorry about that.)

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

What if there is infinite branches coming off the trunk of the tree? Would that change anything? Would that still only be Low 2-C (if i understood what your saying right) instead of 2-A?

 

[PrinceofPein]

The idea behind it. The fundamentals, the mechanics that make it work, how it operates, the science around it? Or the layman term lol the super simple version lol

How is it only Low 2-C (if i understood you right) and not a 2-B cosmology for all these branches coming off of the trunk of the tree that are all other parallel universes just branched off the trunk? (maybe that was a better way to phrase my question? im struggling here lol im sorry about that.)


What if there is infinite branches? Would that change anything?

I understand you perfectly, I will try and do that, soon

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah this just feels like a case by case basis regarding the branching timelines part. We can’t assume every verse functions on branching timelines unless stated otherwise, and Vice versa when claiming timelines are completely disconnected from one another. At best we can try to provide examples of franchises that function on branching timelines like say the MCU or Back to the Future, or other verses that treat timelines as separate structures that doesn’t have that much connections to begin with.

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

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!

2A alien x evidence piling up

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah this just feels like a case by case basis regarding the branching timelines part. We can’t assume every verse functions on branching timelines unless stated otherwise, and Vice versa when claiming timelines are completely disconnected from one another. At best we can try to provide examples of franchises that function on branching timelines like say the MCU or Back to the Future, or other verses that treat timelines as separate structures that doesn’t have that much connections to begin with.

I think you misunderstood the branching timeline part, we are not going to default all verses to be branching timelines, that would be absurd.
The branching timeline point is that, all verses who operate under branching timelines wont get tier 2 for the branches alone

 

[ImmortalDread]

Infinite branching timelines won't get tier 2 are you saying?

 

[Theglassman12]

So what about my point where we should provide examples of franchises that function based on branching timelines and others that do not?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Infinite branching timelines won't get tier 2 are you saying?

No one is saying that, they will still be tier 2, not just infinitely into tier 2

 

[PrinceofPein]

So what about my point where we should provide examples of franchises that function based on branching timelines and others that do not?

Actually it is a good idea, I will work up some

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[ImmortalDread]

So what about my point where we should provide examples of franchises that function based on branching timelines and others that do not?

So what are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[PrinceofPein]

So what are the staff conclusions here so far?

Waiting on DT and Ultima, although Qawdsef, Planck and Everything12 insights too will be appreciated

 

[Fixxed]

Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each other are not, by default, separate spacetimes.

Thats not make sense

Bruh sains literally talking in daughter universe theory and MWI, about multiverse created by branch of universes

So i dont know why that cant have multiversal tier by default

 

[PrinceofPein]

Thats not make sense

Bruh sains literally talking in daughter universe theory and MWI, about multiverse created by branch of universes

So i dont know why that cant have multiversal tier by default

I think your Translation is broken, if you can please rephrase, though I have a general idea of what you mean, but I dont want to be making assumptions.
Let me reply based on what I understand of your question, They cannot be multiversal by default, cause if they are still connected to the OG timeline, then they are not large enough, so for branching timelines, there needs to be provided proof that they are truly disconnected and their own contained space-time.

 

[Fixxed]

I think your Translation is broken, if you can please rephrase, though I have a general idea of what you mean, but I dont want to be making assumptions.
Let me reply based on what I understand of your question, They cannot be multiversal by default, cause if they are still connected to the OG timeline, then they are not large enough, so for branching timelines, there needs to be provided proof that they are truly disconnected and their own contained space-time.

No need for proof that. If the verse talking about branching timelines, then they talking about parallel universe, and its clearly and straightforward mean multiverse

I dont get why verse that clearly talking about multiverse cant have multiversal tier

 

[PrinceofPein]

No need for proof that. If the verse talking about branching timelines, then they talking about parallel universe, and its clearly and straightforward mean multiverse

I dont get why verse that clearly talking about multiverse cant have multiversal tier

Branching timelines and parallel timelines are two entirely different things, i don tknow where you are seeing that they are the same thing.
Parallel timelines are timelines in which for each timelines all sequences of events happen in the same chronological order at the same time.
While for Branching timelines, timelines that can divurge from the order based on options or choices made.
Two separate things.
So if you have a valid concern you can drop them, but the branching timelines been the same as parallel timelines is wrong.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Branching timelines and parallel timelines are two entirely different things, i don tknow where you are seeing that they are the same thing.
Parallel timelines are timelines in which for each timelines all sequences of events happen in the same chronological order at the same time.
While for Branching timelines, timelines that can divurge from the order based on options or choices made.
Two separate things.
So if you have a valid concern you can drop them, but the branching timelines been the same as parallel timelines is wrong.

Would parallel timelines also not be separate? Similar to how Branching timelines are not separate spacetimes?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Branching timelines and parallel timelines are two entirely different things, i don tknow where you are seeing that they are the same thing.
Parallel timelines are timelines in which for each timelines all sequences of events happen in the same chronological order at the same time.
While for Branching timelines, timelines that can divurge from the order based on options or choices made.
Two separate things.
So if you have a valid concern you can drop them, but the branching timelines been the same as parallel timelines is wrong.

I guess he meant by, since the author is involving the following:

• parallel universe
• branching timelines
• Why would not be multiversal? 3-A sounds unreasonable.

I don't see where he mentioned parallel timelines…

 

[PrinceofPein]

Would parallel timelines also not be separate? Similar to how Branching timelines are not separate spacetimes?

parallel timelines are in no way connected, they just have the same sequence of events even though each is its own contained space-time, hence why they are called parallel, same way parallel lines dont have the same beginning and can never meet in the future.

I guess he meant by, since the author is involving the following:

• parallel universe
• branching timelines
• Why would not be multiversal? 3-A sounds unreasonable.

I don't see where he mentioned parallel timelines…

now this is incoherent. And I think they can speak for themselves so let them speak.

parallel universes = parallel timelines. pretty much the same thing and interchangeable. either way branching timeline is never the same as parallel universes/timelines

 

[ImmortalDread]

It sounds more being strict overall and ignoring the plot's context. In no way, this is still “3-A” if the author involved parallel worlds/universes/branching timelines which means involving parallel world theory and most of the verses ended up in 2-A since they involve infinite possibilities.

Alone branching timelines (I said timelines, plural of one timeline) should qualify at least for multiverse structure.

 

[PrinceofPein]

It sounds more being strict overall and ignoring the plot's context. In no way, this is still “3-A” if the author involved parallel worlds/universes/branching timelines which means involving parallel world theory and most of the verses ended up in 2-A since they involve infinite possibilities.

Branching timelines are still tier 2, just the branches alone would not be tier 2, and parallel universes are just that and not automatic 2-A unless there are infinite of them.
I still do not understand why you are grouping the two together when they are different

Alone branching timelines (I said timelines, plural of one timeline) should qualify at least for multiverse structure.

The branches itself are not large enough to be a tier 2 structure unless they are no longer connected to the main tree, in other words, unless they are their own self-contained space-time continuum.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Branching timelines are still tier 2, just the branches alone would not be tier 2, and parallel universes are just that and not automatic 2-A unless there are infinite of them.
I still do not understand why you are grouping the two together when they are difference

No one said 2-A, I said most of the verses ended up in 2-A for having this main argument and some other “infinite” support argument for 2-A

The branches itself are not large enough to be a tier 2 structure unless they are no longer connected to the main tree, in other words, unless they are their own self-contained space-time continuum.

How can “branches timelines” not be tier 2? I am not even saying 2-A, but alone the fact there are more than one timeline qualifies alone.

 

[PrinceofPein]

No one said 2-A, I said most of the verses ended up in 2-A for having this main argument and some other “infinite” support argument for 2-A

for any 2-A tier, the main argument is infinite not the support, but I understand what you mean

How can “branches timelines” not be tier 2? I am not even saying 2-A, but alone the fact there are more than one timeline qualifies alone.

You are misreading what I wrote, for branching timelines, there is a tree and the branches, the entire tree is tier 2, but the timelines that divurge(branches) from it are not unless there is a proof that those timelines are self-contained.
To explain better, you are human with two arms, your entire body is considered a full human (tier 2) but your arms should not be considered so.

 

[ImmortalDread]

for any 2-A tier, the main argument is infinite not the support, but I understand what you mean

Lol… sorry, I gotta rephrase better when I am on phone. Sure

there is a tree and the branches, the entire tree is tier 2, but the timelines that divurge from it are not unless there is a proof that those timelines are self-contained.
To explain better, you are human with two arms, your entire body is considered a full human (tier 2) but your arms should not be considered so.

I will honestly disagree with this. Each branch, which presents a timeline, should be tier 2. Unless you are talking about “branching timeline”, then I agree with it.
But branching timelines should be tier 2. A tree is having tons of branches (timelines), then each of timeline is already low 2-C.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Lol… sorry, I gotta rephrase better when I am on phone. Sure

I will honestly disagree with this. Each branch, which presents a timeline, should be tier 2. Unless you are talking about “branching timeline”, then I agree with it.
But branching timelines should be tier 2. A tree is having tons of branches (timelines), then each of timeline is already low 2-C.

The thing is each of this timelines can be traced back to the same past, which would mean they are not separate spatio-temporally, Two timelines are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that both are in the same space or time. but for branching timelines, there was a point in which they are the same.
So which is why those branches are not separate space-times unless proven otherwise i.e. whoever is claiming those timelines are of different spacetimes need to provide proof that they are separate or self-contained on their own

 

[ImmortalDread]

So theoretically talking and declaring the terminology, you mean the tree is a timeline and those branches that supposedly to present timeline is not real one.
Am I correct?

 

[PrinceofPein]

So theoretically talking and declaring the terminology, you mean the tree is a timeline and those branches that supposedly to present timeline is not real one.
Am I correct?

I dont understand, but what I mean is that, they share the same space and time with the tree, so they are not separate space-times, and the entire thing for multiple tier 2 structures is separate space-times

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is just, it's hard to say they are "timelines" without involving the concept of the term that those should separated of them. Since we equate timeline to space-time continuum.

I know, I am lacking information but it just sounds wrong, conceptually and theoretically.

 

[KingPin0422]

As the one who proposed the "branching timelines should not be separate spacetimes" thing, let me clear a few things up.

First of all, I never said a multiverse in which timelines branch off of each other isn't tier 2. I simply said that without some good context, such a multiverse should not be tiered any higher than Low 2-C. Think of such a multiverse as a tree: there are many branches (timelines) on this tree that shoot off from each other, but these branches can nonetheless be traced back to other branches and, eventually, the trunk from which they all emerged. If a cosmology is shown to work under the logic of timelines branching off of other timelines, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, then we should hold the assumption that those timelines all have a common past, and thus, would not qualify for the multiversal tiers.

Now, parallel timelines are completely different: unlike branching timelines, parallel timelines do not intersect at any point. They may be identical up to a certain moment, but that doesn't erase the fact that they are parallel lines, which we learned as children are straight lines that never, ever touch each other. A multiverse using this logic does count for tiers higher than Low 2-C by default because its timelines match our qualification that two universes are spatiotemporally separate if they do not intersect at any point in space or time, as laid out by DontTalk.

All I can say is, pay attention to the wording fiction uses, and then decide for yourself if a verse is implying that timelines have common histories (or futures) or not.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Thanks for clarifying the second part, I was also confused why it would not be tier 2. You pretty much explained very well as usual.

As for branching part, I feel redundant to call it timelines and excluding the fact that a timeline is a spacetime continuum but can't be applied in this case.

It's just, it should have other name, I would even call it fake timeline because the concept of real timeline does not apply.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

It kind of sounds like time is being expanded and within that expansion new spaces are being created such are known as "universes" but since their all under the same liner flow of time. Its just one big timeline that is expanding (branching out)

That's what it sounds like to me. It's all under the same liner time flow and connected but that same flow because... their literally shared at some point/coordinate - and - /they are the same past events/ etc basically the same continuum of time and space just expanding

My personal interpretation from what I'm reading and trying to understand why it's not a multucerse level feat

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

As the one who proposed the "branching timelines should not be separate spacetimes" thing, let me clear a few things up.

First of all, I never said a multiverse in which timelines branch off of each other isn't tier 2. I simply said that without some good context, such a multiverse should not be tiered any higher than Low 2-C. Think of such a multiverse as a tree: there are many branches (timelines) on this tree that shoot off from each other, but these branches can nonetheless be traced back to other branches and, eventually, the trunk from which they all emerged. If a cosmology is shown to work under the logic of timelines branching off of other timelines, unless there is reason to believe otherwise, then we should hold the assumption that those timelines all have a common past, and thus, would not qualify for the multiversal tiers.

Very interesting, considering i am replaying Eternity Sword, have yet to get into the 2nd part which involves the "multiversal" stuff, however from memory, Et Ca Repha's sword is said to be the trunk from which the Time Tree was born, each universe is basically on an infinitely long branch, which continuously splits, and combines with other branches forming new universes, as while the branches themselves are infinite, there is only a finite number of mana to sustain them.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

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.

This isn't actually true.

Our universe is 4D because we can measure it in four dimensions: x,y,z,t. Time being the fourth dimension. I know in fiction and in our day to day lives, we like to think of time that is happening all at the same time in a sequence of moment to moment but this isn't the case at all.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, time doesn't happen simultaneously and is actually different depending on the observer. For example, this thought experiement:

Two events: Event 1 and Event 2. These events are not related to each other and are not correlated.

Observer A can view Event 1 and Event 2 as happening at the same time.
Observer B can view the events happening at different time.

Which observer is correct? They both are, because time is relative.

So when a character destroys space, they are also destroying time simultaneously. Separate spaces would also have separate time as well.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This isn't actually true.

Our universe is 4D because we can measure it in four dimensions: x,y,z,t. Time being the fourth dimension. I know in fiction and in our day to day lives, we like to think of time that is happening all at the same time in a sequence of moment to moment but this isn't the case at all.

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, time doesn't happen simultaneously and is actually different depending on the observer. For example, this thought experiement:

Two events: Event 1 and Event 2. These events are not related to each other and are not correlated.

Observer A can view Event 1 and Event 2 as happening at the same time.
Observer B can view the events happening at different time.

Which observer is correct? They both are, because time is relative.

So when a character destroys space, they are also destroying time simultaneously. Separate spaces would also have separate time as well.

Again, I will not go over this again, time is not a physical construct and you cannot destroy time physically it is simply the unit in which you measure change and nothing more.
And I dont know how theory of relativity entered this tbh, as that is not even close to what I am saying at all.
And if you don't understand what I am saying, ask questions, as nothing about that is not true like you claim, in fact I will like you to point out the statement that is not true

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Again, I will not go over this again, time is not a physical construct and you cannot destroy time physically it is simply the unit in which you measure change and nothing more.

Time is physical in the same way that space is. We know this is true because time dilation exists. An hour next to black hole could be years on earth.

We can use time abstractly to measure change, but there is a physical component too.

fact I will like you to point out the statement that is not true

That our universe is 4D because of uncountable infinity 3D space.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Time is physical in the same way that space is. We know this is true because time dilation exists. An hour next to black hole could be years on earth.

This is absurd to say the least, I am not about to dive into the 'black hole' of wrong things you said here, please refer to this, or any advance physics textbook.

We can use time abstractly to measure change, but there is a physical component too.

There is no physical component, Time is a mental construct used to make sense of movement/change. Movement/change produces the sensation and experience of time, not the other way around.

That our universe is 4D because of uncountable infinity 3D space.

No dude read what I wrote again, where are you even seeing that

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.

Please read it again, thank you.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This is absurd to say the least, I am not about to dive into the 'black hole' of wrong things you said here, please refer to this, or any advance physics textbook.

nothing I said is wrong.

There is no physical component, Time is a mental construct used to make sense of movement/change. Movement/change produces the sensation and experience of time, not the other way around.

Time is not just a mental construct. It is a real dimension that is necessary for the theory of relativity.

No dude read what I wrote again, where are you even seeing that

you said this: “The 4-D part of low 2-C, is the ability to destroy uncountable infinite of 3-D space”

an uncountable infinite 3-D space does not create a new dimension.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Time is not just a mental construct. It is a real dimension that is necessary for the theory of relativity.

Sent you a link, read that please

you said this: “The 4-D part of low 2-C, is the ability to destroy uncountable infinite of 3-D space”

and what part there said that the our universe is 4-D cause it contains uncountable infinite 3-D space like you claim I said

an uncountable infinite 3-D space does not create a new dimension.

It actually does

 

[ImmortalDread]

you said this: “The 4-D part of low 2-C, is the ability to destroy uncountable infinite of 3-D space”

an uncountable infinite 3-D space does not create a new dimension.

it does.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Sent you a link, read that please

Read your own wikipedia link. I am not wrong.

and what part there said that the our universe is 4-D cause it contains uncountable infinite 3-D space like you claim I said

I did not mean to mischaracterize what you said. I should have said specifically that destroying a universe is 4D because spacetime is 4D not because you’re destroying uncountable infinite 3D spaces.

It actually does

it does.

that it does not. An uncountable infinite amount if 3D space does not make 4D space.

you can stack these spaces in any configuration and the space will still be 3-D. The only thing that makes 3D space, 4D is the dimension of time. Of course in fiction, you can add as many multiple dimensions you want but that’s case by case.