Tier 2A : eternal/infinite timeline addition.

[Reiner04]

And I guess there are more verse's who follow such things like "universe is dying" which clearly implying for it's ending, I remembered vaguely as I am not marvel fan but I've seen this Statement in "old king thor comics" ig. So default infinite timeline thing should be removed.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

You should ask ant to tag staff members with a summary in the OP or with a summary as one of the most recent replies. So they don't have to scroll up to find the summary.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Even if these are theories but so most astronomical or cosmological things are, multiverse, higher dimensions, and popular verse's like gurren lagann seems to falls under this, so I am in support of not having infinite timeline as by default case.

The problem here is about volumes of such 4d spaces, given that infinite sized single timeline along time axis can have same volume as infinite number of finite timelines.

We not treating a singular infinite timeline as having the same volume as a infinite number of finite timelines as each timeline will have their own volume individually as well. Also IIRC volume isn’t just tied to a single dimension/timeline so it is kinda not that big of a deal.

 

[Reiner04]

We not treating a singular infinite timeline as having the same volume as a infinite number of finite timelines as each timeline will have their own volume individually as well.

I don't get it, if a timeline is infinite, it would have same volume as infinite number of finite timelines, regardless if each one of them would have any different finite volume or infinite. It'll all equate to infinite 4d in the end. Just same as what kingpin has explained above.

In terms of volume, one infinite timeline has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of finite timelines, yes. In fact, it also has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of infinite timelines. It's hard to explain without getting into complex mathematical details, but essentially, if you already have an object with a volume of ∞, adding anything more to it would still just leave it at ∞. The only way to get bigger than that, in strict mathematical terms, is to go to a higher dimension: a finite 5-measure has infinite 4-volume, but an infinite 4-measure has zero 5-volume.

 

[Reiner04]

@Antvasima can you tag all knowledgeable members to look at this thread to reach some conclusion?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I don't get it, if a timeline is infinite, it would have same volume as infinite number of finite timelines, regardless if each one of them would have any different finite volume or infinite. It'll all equate to infinite 4d in the end. Just same as what kingpin has explained above.

Technically the timelines are infinite, not finite, in the case of 2A

 

[Reiner04]

Technically the timelines are infinite, not finite, in the case of 2A

Even then if it's not aleph 1 then it'll all equate to infinite 4d regardless. Technically like how odd numbers, even numbers are still equal in size to natural numbers despite the later one can contain both. In simple terms Continuum Hypothesis >
And just as note, I am against having infinite sized timeline as default case, it has nothing to do with my above point Tho.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Dimensionless quantity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It is also technically part of dimensionless quantity as volume is related to dimensions after all.

Dimensional analysis, dimensionless quantities and ratios

What justifies the "canceling out" of the same units? I have difficulty understanding the point of dimensionless quantities. Usually, when you have a concept like mass over volume, which is density...

physics.stackexchange.com

Anyway, I am kinda neutral and not staff member.

 

[Reiner04]

I mean we have made tier low 2c overly strict by specifying "all of past, present, future" when criteria should be fullfilled by any amount of time as it'll equate to Aleph 1, what's the use of mentioning it? It should be by default case unless fiction states that we like to slice the bread of spacetime which obv is not something happens normally.
But here we are taking infinite sized timeline by default case literally for no reason.

 

[Reiner04]

It is also technically part of a dimensionless quantity as volume is related to dimensions after all.

Dimension less quantity in here doesn't stand for it having no dimensions but for it not specifying it's direction, a Scaler quantity not vector.
Literally speed, direction or all other this way will be dimensionless but that doesn't mean it's dimensionless in literal sense but only that it's direction is either missing or it doesn't follow law of parallelogram.
A scaler quantity, that's it.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Dimension less quantity in here doesn't stand for it having no dimensions but for it not specifying it's direction, a Scaler quantity not vector.
Literally speed, direction or all other this way will be dimensionless but that doesn't mean it's dimensionless in literal sense but only that it's direction is either missing or it doesn't follow law of parallelogram.
A scaler quantity, that's it.

“dimensionless quantity:
quantity for which all the exponents of the factors corresponding to the base quantities in its quantity dimension are zero”

This is the definition for it, but regardless, I will remain neutral.

JCGM 200:2008 - English - 1. Quantities and units

 

[Reiner04]

Let's wait for knowledagle members to give their opinion then...

 

[ImmortalDread]

Let's wait for knowledagle members to give their opinion then...

At least debunk his statement.

 

[Reiner04]

At least debunk his statement.

He didn't give anything to debunk, neither it was that much related to sole topic in the op. In summary, we are no where till now from where we were in start. And I myself is neutral to the op at this point although leaning towards agree for it to be included in the 2a.

 

[Reiner04]

This should be what needed.
Tier low 2c: single spacetime continuum along finite sized time axis.

Tier 2c: 2 to 1001 number of spacetime continuum each having finite sized time axis.

Tier 2B: 1001 to infinite number of spacetime continuum each having finite sized time axis.

Tier 2a: infinite number of space time continuum each having finite/infinite sized time axis or single spacetime continuum having infinite sized time axis or infinite 4d volume should also fullfill the requirement.

The question is what should be considered here as the "finite sized time axis"? Life span of the universe? How much then that would be?

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @KingPin0422

What do you think that we should do here?

 

[sen_]

This should be what needed.
...

(@Dereck03 gave me permission to speak) imo this wouldn't work, i'm concerned about a few things.
1. there are as many elements in the set of Real numbers from 1 to infinity as there are real numbers between 0 and 1 for example, thus in this case there is no difference between a space-time continuum with a finite time axis and infinite time axis, implying there is no effective difference between Low 2-C and your second requirement for 2-A.
2. Ignoring the unquantifiable distance between the space-time continuums might even complicate things and i don't think it's a good idea.
3. we don't have a precise measurement of the Life span of the Universe, black holes of 1 solar mass are estimated to evaporate in about 10^67 years. We don't even know precisely if the Universe has an effective Life span in terms of space-time.
I have other concerns but these are the biggest ones.

 

[Reiner04]

1. there are as many elements in the set of Real numbers from 1 to infinity as there are real numbers between 0 and 1 for example, thus in this case there is no difference between a space-time continuum with a finite time axis and infinite time axis, implying there is no effective difference between Low 2-C and your second requirement for 2-A.

I'll be addressing a first one at this point, I really don't understand how can one say that if something can be divided uncountably infinite times then that means it is infinite? 1 second is finite but can be divided into uncountably infinite numbers that doesn't make it infinite. It's a misunderstanding.

 

[Reiner04]

2. Ignoring the unquantifiable distance between the space-time continuums might even complicate things and i don't think it's a good idea.

This would have complicated things but has we ever taken it into account? practically it means that number of spacetime continuum's that needed to be destroyed are actually of aleph 1 numbers of spacetime continuum's? Given that it's all actually embedded in a higher dimensional structure.

 

[Reiner04]

3. we don't have a precise measurement of the Life span of the Universe, black holes of 1 solar mass are estimated to evaporate in about 10^67 years. We don't even know precisely if the Universe has an effective Life span in terms of space-time.
I have other concerns but these are the biggest ones.

Then we will have to take estimated one here, or else I don't see how we are differentiating between infinite low 1c structure and infinite numbers of low 1c structure, given that there is no elaboration of it on the wiki page.

 

[sen_]

I'll be addressing a first one at this point, I really don't understand how can one say that if something can be divided uncountably infinite times then that means it is infinite? 1 second is finite but can be divided into uncountably infinite numbers that doesn't make it infinite. It's a misunderstanding.

the interval between 0 and 1 second encompasses as many points in time as the set of real numbers. What matters is how many points in time, let the real numbers between 0 and 1 be T, T ⊂ R, There is a bijection between T and the set of real numbers R, thus they have the same cardinality.

 

[Reiner04]

the interval between 0 and 1 second encompasses as many points in time as the set of real numbers. What matters is how many points in time, let the real numbers between 0 and 1 be T, T ⊂ R, There is a bijection between T and the set of real numbers R, thus they have the same cardinality.

Going with this logic, there is no difference in destroying either 1 sec of spacetime continuum or entire past present and future. Just tell me, if something can be divided uncountably infinite number of times does it mean it's infinite? No but it's just have same uncountably infinite number of elements in it in which each one divided would be smaller than previous one, we are not getting each pieces here of some significant size but we are dividing continuously. 1 second is not infinite, never.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@DontTalkDT @KingPin0422

What do you think that we should do here?

Absolutely nothing, we have a tier 2 revision going on
The page will become better and clear any confusion after the thread is done.

And I am not sure if Reiner was listening but we consider time for any tier 2 to be infinite.
If the future is limited then that's High 3-A and not tier 2.
But everything will be sorted after the tier 2 revision going on is done

 

[Reiner04]

And I am not sure if Reiner was listening but we consider time for any tier 2 to be infinite.

That would cause tier 2a and tier low 2c to have legit same 4d volume though.

 

[PrinceofPein]

That would cause tier 2a and tier low 2c to have legit same 4d volume though.

No it won't.

 

[Reiner04]

Also

High 3-A - All Matter in an infinitely sized universe / Infinite sized Pocket Dimension, Up to Infinite quantity of 3-D Pocket dimensions

This is the revised version of high 3a, I don't see why smaller than infinite timeline would be high 3a as it's still uncountably infinite number of times greater than high 3a.

 

[Reiner04]

No it won't.

Reason? I am sure kingpin has explained same thing in the above. I can simply quote here what he said.

 

[sen_]

Going with this logic, there is no difference in destroying either 1 sec of spacetime continuum or entire past present and future. Just tell me, if something can be divided uncountably infinite number of times does it mean it's infinite? No but it's just have same uncountably infinite number of elements in it in which each one divided would be smaller than previous one, we are not getting each pieces here of some significant size but we are dividing continuously. 1 second is not infinite, never.

exactly, there is absolutely no difference in terms of math. The infinite timeline was estabilished because of feats like pocket dimensions or things not comparable to an effective Universe-sized space-time continuum.

 

[Reiner04]

In terms of volume, one infinite timeline has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of finite timelines, yes. In fact, it also has the same 4-volume as an infinite number of infinite timelines. It's hard to explain without getting into complex mathematical details, but essentially, if you already have an object with a volume of ∞, adding anything more to it would still just leave it at ∞. The only way to get bigger than that, in strict mathematical terms, is to go to a higher dimension: a finite 5-measure has infinite 4-volume, but an infinite 4-measure has zero 5-volume

Just look at if what I am saying and what he is saying is any different. @Pain_to12

 

[Reiner04]

exactly, there is absolutely no difference in terms of math. The infinite timeline was estabilished because of feats like pocket dimensions or things not comparable to an effective Universe-sized space-time continuum.

Then it's going against the tiering system and what @Pain_to12 is suggesting, I am also against it. 1 sec is not infinite.

 

[sen_]

Then it's going against the tiering system and what @Pain_to12 is suggesting, I am also against it. 1 sec is not infinite.

again, no one is saying 1 second is infinite. The points in the real number line between 0 and 1 are uncountably infinite. Using a finite time axis would lead to a lot of inconsistent stuff

 

[PrinceofPein]

Then it's going against the tiering system and what @Pain_to12 is suggesting, I am also against it. 1 sec is not infinite.

You will never get tier 2 with destroying one sec worth of time, just High 3-A.

It is something we allow for here, as in fiction destruction of 2 timelines >> 1 timeline
And by default the future is infinite until stated otherwise

 

[Reiner04]

again, no one is saying 1 second is infinite. The points in the real number line between 0 and 1 are uncountably infinite. Using a finite time axis would lead to a lot of inconsistent stuff

Bruh you need to stop at this point. 1 second despite it have uncountable infinite number of elements, it's not infinite. Just can be divided uncountably infinite number of times.

 

[Reiner04]

I'll suggest it's need to be discussed briefly.
Or it'll may never be sorted out

 

[Antvasima]

Absolutely nothing, we have a tier 2 revision going on
The page will become better and clear any confusion after the thread is done.

And I am not sure if Reiner was listening but we consider time for any tier 2 to be infinite.
If the future is limited then that's High 3-A and not tier 2.
But everything will be sorted after the tier 2 revision going on is done

Okay. Noted. Do you think that we should close this thread then?

 

[Reiner04]

@Pain_to12 if I am not wrong it's going to be discussed in new thread that what is need to be done with time axis, this particular topic suggested here will may not be addressed and got ignored, given that the concern has been already started to be discussed here and many has given their opinions including donttalkdt, this can finish here early. Not only I am who have this reasoning but kingpin also shared same thought. But will leave it to you...

 

[PrinceofPein]

Okay. Noted. Do you think that we should close this thread then?

I don't mind

@Pain_to12 if I am not wrong it's going to be discussed in new thread that what is need to be done with time axis, this particular topic suggested here will may not be addressed and got ignored, given that the concern has been already started to be discussed here and many has given their opinions including donttalkdt, this can finish here early. Not only I am who have this reasoning but kingpin also shared same thought. But will leave it to you...

It certainly will be addressed
I will bring it up and I guess although it is a staff thread, you are welcome to give your input

 

[Reiner04]

It certainly will be addressed
I will bring it up and I guess although it is a staff thread, you are welcome to give your input

If it'll be addressed then I won't mind it's closed.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will close this thread then. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.