• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
PrinceofPein said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
PrinceofPein said:
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.
Click to expand...
(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.
 
Reiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
DarkGrath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.
vsbattles.fandom.com

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 vsbattles.fandom.com
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.
vsbattles.fandom.com

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 vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
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
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Considering this proposal's relative innocuousness, I went ahead and performed the edit.
vsbattles.fandom.com

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 vsbattles.fandom.com
Click to expand...
PrinceofPein said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
DarkGrath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay.
 
DarkGrath said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

so yeah, different direction part is misleading and can just be replaced by better wording imo.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
Reiner said:
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 :
Click to expand...
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?
Reiner said:
so yeah, different direction part is misleading and can just be replaced by better wording imo.
Click to expand...
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.
 
PrinceofPein said:
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?
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is what I'm saying.
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
DontTalkDT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Noted. Thank you for correcting it.
 
DontTalkDT said:
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.
Click to expand...
@Planck69
 
Reiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmmm, so this is just one out of many ways of obtaining them, I presume?
 
DontTalkDT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seems to make sense for higher levels of time/causality
 
Reiner said:
Noted. Thank you for correcting it.
Click to expand...
PrinceofPein said:
By your definition, different universes that are in a large space given the space has time flow automatically gives the space +1D,
Click to expand...
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.
 
PrinceofPein said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
KLOL506 said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Reiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Reiner said:
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.
Click to expand...
You just made the draft even more complicated.

Reiner said:
Being orthogonal mentioned or not shouldn't be a matter is all this thread about.
Click to expand...
Except that is what makes it a different time dimension to begin with, it being of another direction.
DontTalkDT said:
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.
Click to expand...
Same thing DT said.
Reiner 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IdiosyncraticLawyer said:
Apply what? I'll do it.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Reiner said:
In FAQ QnA that is related to temporal dimensions,

This second paragraph:


Has to be removed and replaced with this:
Click to expand...
Done. This can be closed.
vsbattles.fandom.com

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 vsbattles.fandom.com
 
Antvasima said:
@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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Georredannea15
  • Locked
Re:evulation of temporal dimension standards
4 5 6
Replies
208
Views
28K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Wankbreaker
  • Locked
Tier 2 hotfix.
Replies
25
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
TiltedFN
  • Locked
DBS Low 1-C upgrade pt2
2 3 4
Replies
146
Views
28K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
TheOrangeGuy09
How do time axises work?
Replies
3
Views
1K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Goshtama
Low 2-C | Finite or Infinite Timelines?
Replies
1
Views
950
Richard5128pm
Richard5128pm
Back
Top