Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[ImmortalDread]

For a start, I should say while I dont mind it being a new page, we can also just add the whole section to the universe page also
anyway here are my thoughts
1.

I think this should just be changed to space-time
while this is true the definition for space-time continuum should be separate maybe below
and it is should be
"This is the concept of physics that refers to all the time of a certain space, i.e. the past, present and future of a space"
or something along this line
2. this should be linked to the term gravity

Gravity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. this to the "theory of relativity"

Theory of relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I will try and go through and add more materials later in the day

I have done this for you!

 

[PrinceofPein]

Great and thanks, but since recently I realized that so many members and staffs really did not get what happened in this thread, I will elaborate more on the space-time shenanigans, maybe that would be better.
Also DT help will be needed here in the long run.
I should finish the post today in some hours, I will make it as short and concise as possible (maybe some 5 lines)

 

[ImmortalDread]

You mean space-time in fiction…? I added this line in the draft, but I obviously know it is not enough.

In fiction, it is important to note that a universe is not assumed to automatically encompass a space-time continuum. In order to be considered a universe, specific conditions and characteristics must be met.

 

[PrinceofPein]

More like what makes for a universe that is spatio-temporally separate or what makes up different space-time continuum

 

[ImmortalDread]

But hey, post it at least here, so I can align your text to the page's text styling. Also, I assume this sandbox that me and @sen_ made is still valid

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yes I will

 

[ImmortalDread]

So I added a qualification section as well:

If there are many other instances, feel free to add. I did not add spatio-temporally separate one since it is already covered in guidelines.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have added the "separate" to the Tiering System page.

What drafts are concerned: In my understanding there is another version on progress or something? In that case, I will wait for that before I say my part.
Maybe one point in advance, though: Repeating what is said in the Tiering System FAQ is rather redundant and hence should be avoided. -> Just link to it.
And if you talk about physical space I will ask you what non-physical space is

 

[ImmortalDread]

I have added the "separate" to the Tiering System page.

Thanks

What drafts are concerned: In my understanding there is another version on progress or something?

Yes, this one but not done yet ---> https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User:ImmortalDread/Space-time_continuum

In that case, I will wait for that before I say my part.

Sure

Maybe one point in advance, though: Repeating what is said in the Tiering System FAQ is rather redundant and hence should be avoided. -> Just link to it.

Mind point out where we repeated this in the sandbox?

And if you talk about physical space I will ask you what non-physical space is

Mathematical space? Mental space? Social space? Digital space? It simply does not have a physical form, likely an abstract.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I have added the "separate" to the Tiering System page.

What drafts are concerned: In my understanding there is another version on progress or something? In that case, I will wait for that before I say my part.
Maybe one point in advance, though: Repeating what is said in the Tiering System FAQ is rather redundant and hence should be avoided. -> Just link to it.
And if you talk about physical space I will ask you what non-physical space is

Honestly I think we need more clarification that different dimensions or universe that does not equal "separate spatio-temporally" if there are things that says they are not spatio-temporally seperate, so maybe things that will not qualify for something to be spatio-temporal separate need to be added to the FAQ page.
Also how we treat spaces that are not physical, maybe mental space or collective space where all consciousness go.
Take a look at this thread for example, even though in terms they are not spatio-temporally separate, most did not understand and thing the word "a different dimension" simply means it is also spatio-temporally separate

 

[ImmortalDread]

And the thread got closed directly after obviously not reading the new regulations that have been made. Anyway, @Pain_to12 did you check the section I added?
We can add a section for cases that should not be qualified, but also a note behind that those are necessarily case in case basis.

 

[ImmortalDread]

So I added those currently

 

[PrinceofPein]

I'm on mobile, so when I get home I will check it properly.
the site is a prison on mobile

 

[ImmortalDread]

I'm on mobile, so when I get home I will check it properly.
the site is a prison on mobile

Alright sure, but for headers I added those

Qualifications​

---

It is important to note that in order to qualify for the low 2-C tier, a set of common qualifications or instances must be met:

• One of the most straightforward ways of meeting this requirement is for the concept of a “Space-time continuum” to be explicitly stated or
• It should be recognized that physical travel between universes is not feasible unless through the use of a portal or similar mechanism. This is because it is impossible for two distinct space-time continuums to occupy the same physical space without the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate space-time continuums may coexist in the same physical space if the space between them is of a 4-D or 5-D dimension, or higher. Therefore, in order to physically travel between universes, the space between them must be of a higher dimensional space.

To summarize, in order for a verse to qualify for the tier 2 classification regarding traveling between universes, there must be:

1. An evidence of a larger space that encompasses all the universes or space-times
2. And proof that this space is of a higher dimensional nature.

Additionally, it is important to distinguish certain instances from one another regarding spatio-temporal seperation to avoid confusion:

• Not all dimensions or universes meet the criteria for spatio-temporal separation.
• Non-physical spaces, such as mental or collective spaces, may exist without being spatio-temporally separate.
• The term “a different dimension” should not be assumed to automatically imply spatio-temporal separation without further clarification.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out, DontTalk.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Mind point out where we repeated this in the sandbox?

Isn't the Guidelines section supposed to be essentially the information of the Tiering System FAQ reformulated?

Mathematical space? Mental space? Social space? Digital space? It simply does not have a physical form, likely an abstract.

Seems rather unclear in context. I think just saying "space" is fine in context of the page. Or otherwise an explanation of physical needs to be added, but... yeah, people probably understand.

Honestly I think we need more clarification that different dimensions or universe that does not equal "separate spatio-temporally" if there are things that says they are not spatio-temporally seperate, so maybe things that will not qualify for something to be spatio-temporal separate need to be added to the FAQ page.

What would that be other than the stuff already considered? (i.e. either they don't even qualify as separate universes by the universe standards or they are intersecting timelines, which is handled)

The fire force thing was about the travel criteria we have, for instance, no? (although the case sounds weird, so idk)

Also how we treat spaces that are not physical, maybe mental space or collective space where all consciousness go.

Is that still on topic? Feel like that's a separate issue, going more into the direction of composite hierarchies and stuff. Never encountered much of a problem regarding those, but if there are some that need adressing, I believe that is subject to a later thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Isn't the Guidelines section supposed to be essentially the information of the Tiering System FAQ reformulated?

Meh, you can add it under universe page as well. I don't see an issue here, is it bad? Also check the page as well.

Seems rather unclear in context. I think just saying "space" is fine.

Space or non-physical space. Both can work honestly.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Meh, you can add it under universe page as well. I don't see an issue here, is it bad? Also check the page as well.

I would have to fix some wording stuff and the programmer in me hates that kind of redundancy lol

Btw., if you want review of that draft already, a basic problem is that it adds stuff that wasn't agreed upon. E.g.

• Therefore, in order to physically travel between universes, the space between them must be of a higher dimensional space. To summarize, in order for a verse to qualify for the tier 2 classification regarding traveling between universes, there must be:

1. An evidence of a larger space that encompasses all the universes or space-times
2. And proof that this space is of a higher dimensional nature.

That's just not the case.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I would have to fix some wording stuff and the programmer in me hates that kind of redundancy lol

Alright..........................

Btw., if you want review of that draft already, a basic problem is that it adds stuff that wasn't agreed upon. E.g.

That's just not the case.

Mhm? I thought everyone agreed with it.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What would that be other than the stuff already considered? (i.e. either they don't even qualify as separate universes by the universe standards or they are intersecting timelines, which is handled)

correct

The fire force thing was about the travel criteria we have, for instance, no? (although the case sounds weird, so idk)

it is, from another space, time travel makes you end up in another space, which would mean they are connected. it is not so weird i guess the standard just passed so not many knows about it yet

Is that still on topic? Feel like that's a separate issue, going more into the direction of composite hierarchies and stuff. Never encountered much of a problem regarding those, but if there are some that need adressing, I believe that is subject to a later thread.

Well another thread can be made for this, it is not really much of an issue as of now

Mhm? I thought everyone agreed with it.

Yes, but I think a portal is necessary either way, so the point should really be teleportation or a portal of some sort for traveling between universes to be possible

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ah...? This has been already addressed in the draft

It should be recognized that physical travel between universes is not feasible unless through the use of a portal or similar mechanism

 

[PrinceofPein]

Alright sure, but for headers I added those

Qualifications​

---

It is important to note that in order to qualify for the low 2-C tier, a set of common qualifications or instances must be met:

• One of the most straightforward ways of meeting this requirement is for the concept of a “Space-time continuum” to be explicitly stated or
• It should be recognized that physical travel between universes is not feasible unless through the use of a portal or similar mechanism. This is because it is impossible for two distinct space-time continuums to occupy the same physical space without the presence of a higher dimensional space serving as a separator. In other words, two separate space-time continuums may coexist in the same physical space if the space between them is of a 4-D or 5-D dimension, or higher. Therefore, in order to physically travel between universes, the space between them must be of a higher dimensional space.

To summarize, in order for a verse to qualify for the tier 2 classification regarding traveling between universes, there must be:

1. An evidence of a larger space that encompasses all the universes or space-times
2. And proof that this space is of a higher dimensional nature.

Additionally, it is important to distinguish certain instances from one another regarding spatio-temporal seperation to avoid confusion:

• Not all dimensions or universes meet the criteria for spatio-temporal separation.
• Non-physical spaces, such as mental or collective spaces, may exist without being spatio-temporally separate.
• The term “a different dimension” should not be assumed to automatically imply spatio-temporal separation without further clarification.

I think the 2nd point about mental space of a thing will require a separate thread so it should be removed.
and the 1 and 3 point are practically the same thing so you can add them together.
Another point that should be added is regarding time travel, time traveling through the universes should not be possible,
And messing with the time of one timeline should not affect the other timeline, if it is affected they are not separate

 

[PrinceofPein]

its tuesday bump

 

[Executor_N0]

Is there really a reason to specify "space-time separated" if the temporal dimension isn't separated in any models I have seen so far?
The system seems to indicate that "space-time" needs to be different. However, overall the time can still be the same considering it all happens inside the exact temporal coordinates, only differing by the spatial coordinates.

Time being affected in Tier 2 is necessary for Low 2-C to being with, at that point, it's already a requirement to affect the timeline. From 2-C up to 2-A, the only thing that is changing is the volume of destruction across of 4th spatial axis, so the basis for the destruction would be 3D space being separated across a 4th spatial axis, and isn't related to time per se.

Of course, the overall idea of "space-time" being separated is true, but because they are separated by space alone, and not really by time. The common misunderstanding about the system seems to always have been due to the "time" aspect, the reason why many people attempted to show different space-times because Time flowed differently for two points of space.

If what is necessary for 2-C up to 2-A is affecting many Low 2-C (3D space and 1D time) structures across a 4th spatial axis, then the main point of discussion should be about how they differ in the spatial axis, and not related to the time axis per se (If time is not affected, it's not Low 2-C per the standards, although really discussing that could result in a lot of complications for the tiering system). The point should be in helping the user to define the overall 5D volume thanks to the extra spatial axis instead of dealing so much with time (And talking about how "different time flows" isn't evidence would need a lot of explanation to really be used IMO).

Take for example this part of the explanation:

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.

Except that time is shared between those timelines for all the time axis, not just the point of divergence and before, but literally, everything there happened is in the same time axis. What differed in the point of divergence is that it branched off across the spatial axis, not the temporal axis. Even on DontTalkDT diagram showing how the 5D Volume would be the same, it still showed how they all shared the same temporal axis always, only differing by spatial axis. Different timelines exist under the generic Tier 2 (2-C up to 2-A) not because time is different, but because space is different.

 

[KLOL506]

Is there really a reason to specify "space-time separated" if the temporal dimension isn't separated in any models I have seen so far?
The system seems to indicate that "space-time" needs to be different. However, overall the time can still be the same considering it all happens inside the exact temporal coordinates, only differing by the spatial coordinates.

Time being affected in Tier 2 is necessary for Low 2-C to being with, at that point, it's already a requirement to affect the timeline. From 2-C up to 2-A, the only thing that is changing is the volume of destruction across of 4th spatial axis, so the basis for the destruction would be 3D space being separated across a 4th spatial axis, and isn't related to time per se.

Of course, the overall idea of "space-time" being separated is true, but because they are separated by space alone, and not really by time. The common misunderstanding about the system seems to always have been due to the "time" aspect, the reason why many people attempted to show different space-times because Time flowed differently for two points of space.

If what is necessary for 2-C up to 2-A is affecting many Low 2-C (3D space and 1D time) structures across a 4th spatial axis, then the main point of discussion should be about how they differ in the spatial axis, and not related to the time axis per se (If time is not affected, it's not Low 2-C per the standards, although really discussing that could result in a lot of complications for the tiering system). The point should be in helping the user to define the overall 5D volume thanks to the extra spatial axis instead of dealing so much with time (And talking about how "different time flows" isn't evidence would need a lot of explanation to really be used IMO).

Take for example this part of the explanation:

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.

Except that time is shared between those timelines for all the time axis, not just the point of divergence and before, but literally, everything there happened is in the same time axis. What differed in the point of divergence is that it branched off across the spatial axis, not the temporal axis. Even on DontTalkDT diagram showing how the 5D Volume would be the same, it still showed how they all shared the same temporal axis always, only differing by spatial axis. Different timelines exist under the generic Tier 2 (2-C up to 2-A) not because time is different, but because space is different.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @AKM sama @DarkDragonMedeus @Planck69 @KingPin0422 Thoughts?

 

[Reiner04]

Also that it would be better if we can really describe how the sharing same time along different bodies of space making each individual bodies of space Low 2C is any different than timeline/universe having multiple bodies of space/dimensions but aren't considered separate spacetime despite not having any intersection point in time or space.

 

[Executor_N0]

And considering that a lot of works here are Japanese, it might be needed to give some context to how some Japanese works might misuse some Tiering terms (Maybe something like "common uses of terminology in fiction").

For example, a time axis in itself refers to a temporal axis of time. Many temporal axes would mean different temporal dimensions in the same way as a spatial axis. However, many times in Japanese fiction "time axis" is used as synonymous with a timeline (Referring to the same temporal dimension, but differing in space after a certain point in time).

When certain works refer to "different temporal axis/time", they aren't literally referring to a different time dimension per se, but a different timeline (3D time and 1D space, differed by a 4th spatial axis). Even here the difference is in space, although it starts after a point in time.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

And considering that a lot of works here are Japanese, it might be needed to give some context to how some Japanese works might misuse some Tiering terms (Maybe something like "common uses of terminology in fiction").

For example, a time axis in itself refers to a temporal axis of time. Many temporal axes would mean different temporal dimensions in the same way as a spatial axis. However, many times in Japanese fiction "time axis" is used as synonymous with a timeline (Referring to the same temporal dimension, but differing in space after a certain point in time).

When certain works refer to "different temporal axis/time", they aren't literally referring to a different time dimension per se, but a different timeline (3D time and 1D space, differed by a 4th spatial axis). Even here the difference is in space, although it starts after a point in time.

The confusion for such a thing comes from the kanji 時間軸 which can mean both "Time axis" and "Timeline." The only way to distinguish the two is through the context the story provides. In such cases its probably best to get an expert on the Japanese language to look at the sentence.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Is there really a reason to specify "space-time separated" if the temporal dimension isn't separated in any models I have seen so far?
The system seems to indicate that "space-time" needs to be different. However, overall the time can still be the same considering it all happens inside the exact temporal coordinates, only differing by the spatial coordinates.

Time being affected in Tier 2 is necessary for Low 2-C to being with, at that point, it's already a requirement to affect the timeline. From 2-C up to 2-A, the only thing that is changing is the volume of destruction across of 4th spatial axis, so the basis for the destruction would be 3D space being separated across a 4th spatial axis, and isn't related to time per se.

Of course, the overall idea of "space-time" being separated is true, but because they are separated by space alone, and not really by time. The common misunderstanding about the system seems to always have been due to the "time" aspect, the reason why many people attempted to show different space-times because Time flowed differently for two points of space.

If what is necessary for 2-C up to 2-A is affecting many Low 2-C (3D space and 1D time) structures across a 4th spatial axis, then the main point of discussion should be about how they differ in the spatial axis, and not related to the time axis per se (If time is not affected, it's not Low 2-C per the standards, although really discussing that could result in a lot of complications for the tiering system). The point should be in helping the user to define the overall 5D volume thanks to the extra spatial axis instead of dealing so much with time (And talking about how "different time flows" isn't evidence would need a lot of explanation to really be used IMO).

Take for example this part of the explanation:

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.

Except that time is shared between those timelines for all the time axis, not just the point of divergence and before, but literally, everything there happened is in the same time axis. What differed in the point of divergence is that it branched off across the spatial axis, not the temporal axis. Even on DontTalkDT diagram showing how the 5D Volume would be the same, it still showed how they all shared the same temporal axis always, only differing by spatial axis. Different timelines exist under the generic Tier 2 (2-C up to 2-A) not because time is different, but because space is different.

Well since I am bad at corel draw and I dont know how I can draw an image to explain what we mean by separate space-time, I will have to use pen and paper later on.
But to clarify, low 2-C, is the destruction a space-time continuum (past, present and future) i.e. destruction of every moment of universe sized 3-D space in every moment in time, from time 0 till time infinity i.e. past, present and future but generally this can be fulfilled with just past to the present too - Mathematically that is the destruction of uncountable infinite snapshots of 3-D space.
Now this is where it gets weird mathematically or rather following the continuum hypothesis, there is no difference between destruction of a single space-time continuum or an infinite space-time continuum, since multiple infinites cannot be larger than a single one unless you are superimposing them.
So by your definition, destruction of one or 10000000000 or infinite universes will always be equal. So, how do we solve this problem? by adding the term that for your destruction to count for higher levels of tier 2, you need to prove that this universes are contained space-times or are not spatio-temporally joined, that way for you to reach destroy multiple, you will need to destroy the space between them too (higher D space, 5-D axis, or void) but the space between this universes or timelines, will be larger than a single space-time continuum, which is why multipliers do not work for tier 2.

That said Time has no axis that needs to be joined to some space to destroy it to be more precise, time is not really relevant here, and you cannot destroy time, what is relevant is the number of 3-D space you destroy. Time is just the unit which you measure change, time itself is an illusion. So for tier 2 or the new revision, destruction of any form of temporal axis is not what we are asking.

So Temporal axis just really means the direction change is flowing, is it forward or backward. And for most universes or fiction, time flows forward, so in that case they do share the same time axis, but that does not mean they are spatio-temporally together, cause just because time flows in the same direction for them all does not mean when you are in universe A and you turn back time, you can get to a point in universe B, rather for you to be spatio-temporally separate, if you turn back time in A you should get to point 0 i.e. time before the universe starts existing and even beyond to before change started, not that you are able to get into another universe by turning back time or rather tracing back the time of universe A.

 

[Executor_N0]

So Temporal axis just really means the direction change is flowing, is it forward or backward. And for most universes or fiction, time flows forward, so in that case they do share the same time axis, but that does not mean they are spatio-temporally together, cause just because time flows in the same direction for them all does not mean when you are in universe A and you turn back time, you can get to a point in universe B, rather for you to be spatio-temporally separate, if you turn back time in A you should get to point 0 i.e. time before the universe starts existing and even beyond to before change started, not that you are able to get into another universe by turning back time or rather tracing back the time of universe A.

What you are describing is that they are separated by space, not time. If they are separated only by space, I still don't know why it's necessary to mention time when it should be the standard for Tier 2.

And yes, if you went back to universe A, you would also go back into Universe B, because the temporal axis is the same. If you are only moving across time, you wouldn't expect to travel across space (Kind of, because any time travel needs to also be space travel for it to work for the desired objective), but if you were to travel to universe A in time, reach a point in time, and then travel to Universe B, you would be going into the past of universe B as well. And if the time axis is separated, it might get a bit confusing, but it wouldn't be surprising if a time divergence isn't only going to affect a single universe, but also the entire multiverse of parallel earths (It might get super confusing, but it might be a valid idea to think about).

My point is if time really isn't what is mattering (Only important to explain the big picture, but it's supposed to already be included for it to be even Low 2-C, to begin with), there's no need to say that they are "separated spatiotemporally", when what is really mattering is that they are separated by space.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Now this is where it gets weird mathematically or rather following the continuum hypothesis, there is no difference between destruction of a single space-time continuum or an infinite space-time continuum, since multiple infinites cannot be larger than a single one unless you are superimposing them.
So by your definition, destruction of one or 10000000000 or infinite universes will always be equal. So, how do we solve this problem? by adding the term that for your destruction to count for higher levels of tier 2, you need to prove that this universes are contained space-times or are not spatio-temporally joined, that way for you to reach destroy multiple, you will need to destroy the space between them too (higher D space, 5-D axis, or void) but the space between this universes or timelines, will be larger than a single space-time continuum, which is why multipliers do not work for tier 2.

Funny how we already follow this in Tier 1.

But alas Tier 2 is given special treatment.

We don't have subtiers inside 5D, or 6D or any Tier 1 for that matter. But 4D does? I wonder why......

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

What you are describing is that they are separated by space, not time. If they are separated only by space, I still don't know why it's necessary to mention time when it should be the standard for Tier 2.

And yes, if you went back to universe A, you would also go back into Universe B, because the temporal axis is the same. If you are only moving across time, you wouldn't expect to travel across space (Kind of, because any time travel needs to also be space travel for it to work for the desired objective), but if you were to travel to universe A in time, reach a point in time, and then travel to Universe B, you would be going into the past of universe B as well. And if the time axis is separated, it might get a bit confusing, but it wouldn't be surprising if a time divergence isn't only going to affect a single universe, but also the entire multiverse of parallel earths (It might get super confusing, but it might be a valid idea to think about).

My point is if time really isn't what is mattering (Only important to explain the big picture, but it's supposed to already be included for it to be even Low 2-C, to begin with), there's no need to say that they are "separated spatiotemporally", when what is really mattering is that they are separated by space.

I also think that, kind of no work is going to claim that another universe has separate spacetime or something like that, for me Universes should be low 2-C by default, it doesn't need mention or something like that.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

Funny how we already follow this in Tier 1.

But alas Tier 2 is given special treatment.

We don't have subtiers inside 5D, or 6D or any Tier 1 for that matter. But 4D does? I wonder why......

I don't understand why tier 2 always has to have these difficult things, it should be tier 1, since it is much more complex, people do this in order to complicate things more

 

[Executor_N0]

Funny how we already follow this in Tier 1.

But alas Tier 2 is given special treatment.

We don't have subtiers inside 5D, or 6D or any Tier 1 for that matter. But 4D does? I wonder why......

It's more due to most works not giving enough information to any sub-tiers to really matter

With a super detailed system, there might be a sub-tier for n-dimensional Tree level, n-dimensional building level, n-dimensional planet level, and so on. Although some works do feature something of "real world-looking higher dimensional space" that could be used as an example, under our current system giving that much detail in the tiering system itself wouldn't work

The type of system with that amount of detail that I have seen before would be putting dimensionality/level of existence in a different category while the energy amount goes simply from 0 to infinity with the dimensionality informing how many levels of existence that energy can affect. Of course, doing that here would mean changing the entire structure of the system and all the profiles (And all to better define a few works that feature such a system, with most other franchises simply being unknown), and that is just too much work.

Basically, the system becomes less defined the less common it's to define them. Well-defined 4/5 dimensional systems (numbered parallel timelines for example) are somewhat common, so it makes sense to define how many timelines are affected, but after that into sixth dimensional and above it becomes so much more abstract most of the time that being that precise in the tiering system itself that most of the time there's not enough information to do anything in the system itself. Although of course affecting the entirety of a sixth dimensional infinite realm would be more impressive than simply exisitng in said sixth dimensional realm while having superiority tot he ones bellow as the standard for the series. But that is better explained in the reasoning of the character instead of creating a more detailed tiering system.

 

[PrinceofPein]

What you are describing is that they are separated by space, not time. If they are separated only by space, I still don't know why it's necessary to mention time when it should be the standard for Tier 2.

they are separated by a larger space and not of the same 3-D space.
Well it is easier to explain when we mention time or rather across time. and time is not really mentioned in any of the standard, what is mentioned in the standards is separate space time continuum, which like I explained is uncountable infinite snapshot of 3-D space.

And yes, if you went back to universe A, you would also go back into Universe B, because the temporal axis is the same. If you are only moving across time, you wouldn't expect to travel across space (Kind of, because any time travel needs to also be space travel for it to work for the desired objective), but if you were to travel to universe A in time, reach a point in time, and then travel to Universe B, you would be going into the past of universe B as well. And if the time axis is separated, it might get a bit confusing, but it wouldn't be surprising if a time divergence isn't only going to affect a single universe, but also the entire multiverse of parallel earths (It might get super confusing, but it might be a valid idea to think about).

you speak like time is a physical thing that connects everything together and the same for all universe, I should say again time is simple the rate of change and change can be forward or backward
Let's say there is a void or vacuum, if there are two different universes and they were created at different time (yes I know I said time is not the same for every universe, but permit me to use it here), so now in one part of the void, since universe A now exist there, change has started occuring hence time has started flowing, now Universe B was also created and time also started flowing in another part of the void, but there is still a void between them regardless, now my question is
If I am in Universe B and a turned back time, will time also keep turning back even though now I am back at universe B 'time 0' in the void where no change exists hence no time is flowing?
You can answer the question but let me provide an answer and the reason, the answer will be "No" because you already got to a point in which universe B and its time (change) stopped existing, and it does not affect A cause there was no point in A space in which its and B intersect.

My point is if time really isn't what is mattering (Only important to explain the big picture, but it's supposed to already be included for it to be even Low 2-C, to begin with), there's no need to say that they are "separated spatiotemporally", when what is really mattering is that they are separated by space.

I still do not think you get what I mean, if universe A and B are not spatio-temporally separate, there is no way you will be destroying all of universe A space from every point in time without destroying Universe B also, but if they are, you can as well go ahead and destroy A and B will remain unaffected since there is no point in A and B space in any point in time that are in both.

 

[Reiner04]

Let's not debate ourselves before we atleast get some direction towards correctness of points and argument that has been brought up from ultima/DT/kingpin or atleast can have some direction or fictional uses of those points or in which case they will be valid (?), So many doubts.

 

[Executor_N0]

they are separated by a larger space and not of the same 3-D space.
Well it is easier to explain when we mention time or rather across time. and time is not really mentioned in any of the standard, what is mentioned in the standards is separate space time continuum, which like I explained is uncountable infinite snapshot of 3-D space.

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.

you speak like time is a physical thing that connects everything together and the same for all universe, I should say again time is simple the rate of change and change can be forward or backward
Let's say there is a void or vacuum, if there are two different universes and they were created at different time (yes I know I said time is not the same for every universe, but permit me to use it here), so now in one part of the void, since universe A now exist there, change has started occuring hence time has started flowing, now Universe B was also created and time also started flowing in another part of the void, but there is still a void between them regardless, now my question is
If I am in Universe B and a turned back time, will time also keep turning back even though now I am back at universe B 'time 0' in the void where no change exists hence no time is flowing?
You can answer the question but let me provide an answer and the reason, the answer will be "No" because you already got to a point in which universe B and its time (change) stopped existing, and it does not affect A cause there was no point in A space in which its and B intersect.

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".

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. Sorry for this conversation.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am in agreement with Executor and Gilver

 

[KLOL506]

I am in agreement with Executor's point.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

And yes, if you went back to universe A, you would also go back into Universe B, because the temporal axis is the same. If you are only moving across time, you wouldn't expect to travel across space (Kind of, because any time travel needs to also be space travel for it to work for the desired objective), but if you were to travel to universe A in time, reach a point in time, and then travel to Universe B, you would be going into the past of universe B as well. And if the time axis is separated, it might get a bit confusing, but it wouldn't be surprising if a time divergence isn't only going to affect a single universe, but also the entire multiverse of parallel earths (It might get super confusing, but it might be a valid idea to think about).

This does work in theory if memories served right so unironically, time remains the same; but space being separated is a something I have considered.

Also as a note; I am well aware I not a staff, but this has been bothering me for years given how time itself can arguably been the same regardless of space being separated. At least in theory, that is.