Time dimension standard elaboration and a bit of change (whatever guess yourself)

[Reiner04]

Let me get this straight, you are trying to propose that as far it is a multiverse or space with multiple universes inside of it, it should by default have another hyper timeline?

No, It's just if there is two time dimensions, one of which services regular 4D spacetime continuum and other one acts as hyper timeline on the top of it and spans it forward. It'll be Low 1-C. Just same as before, you need 2 time dimensions active on same structure, I just elaborated more on it.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Let me get this straight, you are trying to propose that as far it is a multiverse or space with multiple universes inside of it, it should by default have another hyper timeline?

If this is the claim, then this is not a misleading wording change but rather a site wide revision, as that is different from how we currently treat it.

(Got permission to post here from Ant already)

No, that is not what Reiner is suggesting. Refer to this note on our Universe page:

In the absence of contradictory evidence, timelines are assumed to share the same time axis i.e. the same dimension of time. Note that sharing the same temporal axis does not mean that they would be connected in any way, as it only means that their time flows in the same direction. It's like how two people can both move in the same direction without their paths ever meeting, as long as they started in different places.

The reason a space-time within a greater space-time is not Low 1-C by default is because a single axis can service multiple continuums (no, this would not make them 3-A). I assume Reiner is saying that as long as a substantial space-time continuum has shown evidence of harboring its own time dimension, the overarching timeline
should automatically be considered an “additional direction,” thus that original phrase is unnecessary and leads to the misconception that a greater timeline that propagates a multiverse in another forward direction can’t be Low 1-C because time isn’t flowing in a certain “perpendicular” manner.

 

[Ovy7]

@Ovy7

What do you think about this?

This looks like a good proposal.

 

[PrinceofPein]

No, It's just if there is two time dimensions, one of which services regular 4D spacetime continuum and other one acts as hyper timeline on the top of it and spans it forward. It'll be Low 1-C. Just same as before, you need 2 time dimensions active on same structure, I just elaborated more on it.

Except your new definition goes against the definition of what a dimension is.
It is not same as before, this removes what different dimensions is supposed to mean, as two timeline flowing in the same direction is practically impossible in the same space, they are practically one and the same.
By your definition, different universes that are in a large space given the space has time flow automatically gives the space +1D, or what else is your post suggesting?

 

[GrathOfLux]

To ensure I understand the proposal correctly:

The claim made in the OP is that the current phrasing of the FAQ can be misinterpreted to argue that two perpendicular temporal dimensions (i.e.: the 'time' dimension of two universes in a 2-C structure) validate a Low 1-C rating, based on the phrasing of the FAQ, when this is not the case by our standards. Therefore, the OP is suggesting rephrasing the FAQ to address this misinterpretation, and affirm that a second temporal dimension only qualifies for Low 1-C when it acts as snapshots of the first temporal dimension, thereby suggesting a 5-dimensional structure of a single continuum.

If I have misunderstood this proposal, then correct me. However, if this is what is being proposed, than I'd have to disagree simply because I don't believe the current phrasing of the proposal can be misinterpreted in this way in the first place - at least, not without an error on the part of the reader (in which case, anything can be misinterpreted, of course). To quote the current phrasing:

"This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth."

Note the use of the term 'spacetime continuum' here - not 'spacetime continuums'. A spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions. This phrasing of the FAQ already stipulates that it only applies if a single continuum possesses two temporal dimensions. This term would not, for example, include reference to two temporal dimensions in parallel timelines - as those are two separate spacetime continuums, not a spacetime continuum. By the term in question being singular, it already establishes that it is not applicable when referencing parallel temporal dimensions.

Furthermore, the phrasing is indeed correct in this respect, at least with regard to how our tiering system functions. If a single spacetime continuum has three spatial dimensions and two temporal dimensions, than it is impossible to sort these dimensions in such a form that does not produce what we would refer to as 5-dimensional, or (in the case of tiering) a Low 1-C continuum. Therefore, the concern addressed over the way the phrasing can be misinterpreted is incorrect, and the phrasing is already in-line with what we would consider justification for a 5-dimensional continuum or a Low 1-C tiering.

Now, with this all said, there is a factor here I haven't acknowledged - namely, the fact that this whole discussion was started in the first place is some indication that the phrasing is not clear enough. Breaking down the semantics of an FAQ entry to explain why it is valid is not helpful if the kind of person who might need the FAQ to understand the tiering system wouldn't understand it in the first place. Evidently, that was recently the case with one of our threads. For that reason, I don't mind discussing how to rephrase the FAQ to reflect our goal of improved clarity. However, I admittedly think the current suggestion is needlessly verbose for this purpose. I honestly think just rewording 'spacetime continuum' into 'single spacetime continuum' to ensure the reader is clearly aware that it only applies to a singular instance and not multiple parallel instances would be enough to prevent further issues in the future.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I honestly think just rewording 'spacetime continuum' into 'single spacetime continuum' to ensure the reader is clearly aware that it only applies to a singular instance and not multiple parallel instances would be enough to prevent further issues in the future.

Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[PrinceofPein]

Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Why would you do that? When people have not seen her post and decided on it
It is CRT so we should relax before making edits

 

[GrathOfLux]

Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Why would you do that? When people have not seen her post and decided on it
It is CRT so we should relax before making edits

I do appreciate your input, IdiosyncraticLawyer, and I agree it's an innocuous change. But PrinceofPein is correct. We may as well discuss this topic until we can all agree on one phrasing of the FAQ, then apply that phrasing, rather than making intermediary edits.

Nothing needs to be changed now, but this ought to be kept in mind for the future.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

I do appreciate your input, IdiosyncraticLawyer, and I agree it's an innocuous change. But PrinceofPein is correct. We may as well discuss this topic until we can all agree on one phrasing of the FAQ, then apply that phrasing, rather than making intermediary edits.

Nothing needs to be changed now, but this ought to be kept in mind for the future.

Okay.

 

[Reiner04]

If I have misunderstood this proposal, then correct me. However, if this is what is being proposed, than I'd have to disagree simply because I don't believe the current phrasing of the proposal can be misinterpreted in this way in the first place - at least, not without an error on the part of the reader (in which case, anything can be misinterprete

This thread is actually to change the wording to make things clear up to remove misunderstanding regarding how additional temporal dimension works, to say, "different direction" does indicate and treated as different direction than existing one's to move in, by many, although it doesn't and it can be cleared and made more clear how it doesn't works like spatial dimensions, just by removing the word "different direction" and explain it by adding two more lines, which doesn't even create misunderstanding, to Quote @Agnaa :

Basically, to my understanding, most higher temporal dimensions in fiction (i.e. timelines) are presented as embedding uncountably infinitely many copies of the universe, rather than just being "another direction to move in" orthogonal to the universe. While spatial dimensions are generally presented as the latter. We already accept spatial dimensions that are presented as the former as qualifying for higher tiers, but we don't really make note that temporal dimensions presented as the latter shouldn't qualify.

so yeah, different direction part is misleading and can just be replaced by better wording imo.

 

[Executor_N0]

The concept of N-dimensional destruction has always been that, the idea of destroying infinitely many copies of something or potentially being able to affect that, in a significant size. Talking only regarding physical levels, any number of parallel timelines will require an extra-dimensional axis where they'll exist spread across, if not they would be one single timeline. The problem lately has been more about people thinking this is a new finding, when that has been an element of the tiering system since revisions dating back to 2018 IIRC, maybe even earlier.

I think that question is directly addressed in "Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?" (If there's enough information, it could be even a Low 2-C, 2-C, or even 2-B structure).

 

[Lonkitt]

Seems alright

 

[PrinceofPein]

This thread is actually to change the wording to make things clear up to remove misunderstanding regarding how additional temporal dimension works, to say, "different direction" does indicate and treated as different direction than existing one's to move in, by many, although it doesn't and it can be cleared and made more clear how it doesn't works like spatial dimensions, just by removing the word "different direction" and explain it by adding two more lines, which doesn't even create misunderstanding, to Quote @Agnaa :

additional temporal dimension in the same space has to be of different direction, so what's not clear about that. If those two are flowing forward they are one dimension to begin with.
Same way a space cannot be said to have two different dimensions both of which are length.
So how is the wording misleading when it means exactly the way it is?

so yeah, different direction part is misleading and can just be replaced by better wording imo.

What you are trying to prove is that when we say different direction we do not mean it so that is misleading. But actually that is what the FAQ means, so what you are trying to do is not change a misleading word but rather revise it. That is something entirely different.

 

[Reiner04]

additional temporal dimension in the same space has to be of different direction, so what's not clear about that. If those two are flowing forward they are one dimension to begin with.
Same way a space cannot be said to have two different dimensions both of which are length.
So how is the wording misleading when it means exactly the way it is?

I'm saying that whether or not it's stated to be perpendicular shouldn't be relevant as far as tiering goes, in the case of "hyper-timelines" of any higher number of temporal dimensions.

The main logic used here is that a timeline is continuous and thus consists of uncountably infinite snapshots of the 3-dimensional universe, making it Low 2-C. A "hyper-timeline" would be a timeline whose temporal dimension would be one in which the uncountably infinite snapshots are of already 4-D space-time continuums with their own established temporal dimensions.

In simple terms, it's the same as how a 4-dimensional space gaining an extra spatial axis of significant length is Low 1-C, only with time dimensions instead.

Is what I'm saying.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Unless fiction shows otherwise, a multiversal temporal dimension that spans several Universes with their time axes or even a single universe with its two temporal dimensions qualifies

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

 

[Reiner04]

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

Noted. Thank you for correcting it.

 

[KLOL506]

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

@Planck69

 

[Reiner04]

@Planck69

Plancks said same thing, he's not against it, he said as long as we have hypertimlines separate from temporal dimension governing Universes, they qualifies w/o any other elaboration, same as DT, one example of such dimensions is orthogonal temporal dimensions.

 

[KLOL506]

Plancks said same thing, he's not against it, he said as long as we have hypertimlines separate from temporal dimension governing Universes, they qualifies w/o any other elaboration, same as DT, one example of such dimensions is orthogonal temporal dimensions.

Hmmmmmmmm, so this is just one out of many ways of obtaining them, I presume?

 

[Reiner04]

Hmmmmmmmm, so this is just one out of many ways of obtaining them, I presume?

Yup.

 

[Firestorm808]

I think that is easily misinterpreted to mean that a time dimension that applies to many universes automatically makes the structure Low 1-C. It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

Seems to make sense for higher levels of time/causality

 

[PrinceofPein]

Noted. Thank you for correcting it.

By your definition, different universes that are in a large space given the space has time flow automatically gives the space +1D,

I already pointed out DT's concern, as that is what your wording means.

You know he is saying the same thing currently on the FAQ, different direction of time from the regular time dimension. I.e. orthogonal.
Cause I am honestly confused about what you are then proposing if you agree with DT.
The current standard is not broken, and if something is not broken, dont try to fix it.
To clear up the misinformation like you said, we can add DT edits as notes to it though.

 

[KLOL506]

From what I can understand, Reiner has made this CRT so as to clarify that orthogonal temporal dimensions aren't the only way to obtain Low 1-C hyper-timelines.

Am I right, @Reiner ?

 

[Reiner04]

I already pointed out DT's concern, as that is what your wording means.

You know he is saying the same thing currently on the FAQ, different direction of time from the regular time dimension. I.e. orthogonal.
Cause I am honestly confused about what you are then proposing if you agree with DT.
The current standard is not broken, and if something is not broken, dont try to fix it.
To clear up the misinformation like you said, we can add DT edits as notes to it though.

As i stated before, my point is not about orthogonality of extra temporal dimension than existing one or not. But just that if it exist and services other regular temporal dimension (not one temporal dimension that servicing many), then it qualifies. I've already updated draft so that it is not misunderstood for multiverse with single temporal dimension servicing many Universes qualifies. DT concern is addressed in his wording and he seems to only want me to elaborate on that part more, which I did. It's all fine.

From what I can understand, Reiner has made this CRT so as to clarify that orthogonal temporal dimensions aren't the only way to obtain Low 1-C hyper-timelines.

Am I right, @Reiner ?

Well, more of to exclude it being treated as spatial dimensions and rather just uncountable infinite snapshots of Low 2-C structure along a new temporal dimension. Being orthogonal mentioned or not shouldn't be a matter is all this thread about.

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway pain, if you disagree with the draft coz you think it's not needed and previous one is fine as it is, then, agree to disagree is all I have to say.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

Well, more of to exclude it being treated as spatial dimensions and rather just uncountable infinite snapshots of Low 2-C structure along a new temporal dimension. Being orthogonal mentioned or not shouldn't be a matter is all this thread about.

This. Time doesn't have the same conception of "direction" space does. It only has forwards and backwards. We cannot treat it like a spatial dimension.

I was given permission to participate/post by @LordGriffin1000

 

[PrinceofPein]

As i stated before, my point is not about orthogonality of extra temporal dimension than existing one or not. But just that if it exist and services other regular temporal dimension (not one temporal dimension that servicing many), then it qualifies. I've already updated draft so that it is not misunderstood for multiverse with single temporal dimension servicing many Universes qualifies. DT concern is addressed in his wording and he seems to only want me to elaborate on that part more, which I did. It's all fine.

You just made the draft even more complicated.

Being orthogonal mentioned or not shouldn't be a matter is all this thread about.

Except that is what makes it a different time dimension to begin with, it being of another direction.

It should be that it strictly only qualifies if that multiversal dimension is confirmed to be fully separate (i.e. basically orthogonal) from the regular time axis.

Same thing DT said.

Anyway pain, if you disagree with the draft coz you think it's not needed and previous one is fine as it is, then, agree to disagree is all I have to say.

It's not about agree to disagree, I understand you. You mean that if there is bigger space servicing multiple space times they automatically become low 1-C based on your draft so far as time flows in that space.
And we are saying you don't get two dimensions of time for a single space if those dimensions are not of different direction.
And you have failed to explain how it is logical for time flowing in the same direction can be if different time dimensions.

 

[Reiner04]

Agree to disagree.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

IMO, I think DT didn't mean "Orthogonal" in a directional/spatial sense, but rather as "Independent from (X)". But that's just me.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Agree to disagree.

No.

 

[Reiner04]

No.

My heart hurts and can't handle such rejections, pain.

 

[Reiner04]

As it has more than enough staff support to be called accepted, would anyone be kind enough to apply it?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

As it has more than enough staff support to be called accepted, would anyone be kind enough to apply it?

Apply what? I'll do it.

 

[Reiner04]

Apply what? I'll do it.

In FAQ QnA that is related to temporal dimensions,

This second paragraph:

This structure can then be generalized to any amounts of dimensions, and is also the reason destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth.

Has to be removed and replaced with this:

This structure can then be generalized to any number of dimensions and is why destroying a spacetime continuum is a greater feat than destroying only the contents of the physical universe (Low 2-C, rather than 3-A or High 3-A). For example, a higher spacetime continuum with two temporal dimensions (instead of just one) comprises a higher temporal axis that spans regular temporal dimensions that the entirety of 4-dimensional spacetimes or equivalents to it are serviced by (similar to how the time dimension in a 4-dimensional spacetime continuum spans uncountably infinite 3-dimensional snapshots of the universe), qualifies for Low 1-C. Unless fiction shows otherwise, a different multiversal temporal dimension spanning Universes who themselves have their own time dimensions as well (not a same multiversal time dimension that services many Universes and shared by them) or even a single universe with two temporal dimensions active on it, qualifies; the same applies to three or more temporal dimensions.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

In FAQ QnA that is related to temporal dimensions,

This second paragraph:


Has to be removed and replaced with this:

Done. This can be closed.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Dereck03]

Closing.

 

[Antvasima]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer @Reiner04 @PrinceofPein @ProfectusInfinity

Wait a minute. I thought that @DontTalkDT , @DarkGrath , @Firestorm808 , and possibly other staff members disagree with this revision. If so, it should not have been applied.

 

[Reiner04]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer @Reiner04 @PrinceofPein @ProfectusInfinity

Wait a minute. I thought that @DontTalkDT , @DarkGrath , @Firestorm808 , and possibly other staff members disagree with this revision. If so, it should not have been applied.

Darkgrath disagrees but I was waiting for input after clarifying the proposal and thought to put her in disagree after her reconfirmation. Firestorm agrees, and what Donttalkdt said was just misunderstood ig. Regardless DT has rewrote the FAQ QnA related to this herself. So nothing really is left here to do, it won't change or add anything.

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer @Reiner04 @PrinceofPein @ProfectusInfinity

Wait a minute. I thought that @DontTalkDT , @DarkGrath , @Firestorm808 , and possibly other staff members disagree with this revision. If so, it should not have been applied.

Like Reiner said, this thread was followed up by this other thread in which DT rewrote the FAQ’s wording personally, so everything here is taken care of.

 

[KLOL506]

@IdiosyncraticLawyer @Reiner04 @PrinceofPein @ProfectusInfinity

Wait a minute. I thought that @DontTalkDT , @DarkGrath , @Firestorm808 , and possibly other staff members disagree with this revision. If so, it should not have been applied.

Pretty sure it was taken care of in this thread as per DT's advice.

Really, this thread has no reason to remain open anymore.