- 165,064
- 71,915
-
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.
Universe level CRT Part 2 (Alternate Dimension Edition)
- Thread starter Zamasu_Chan
- Start date
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #42
Bump.
- 3,106
- 3,176
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #45
I mean, isn’t it sort of their job to evaluate threads to see if they’re right or wrong?
- 165,064
- 71,915
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,514
- 18,812
It is our job to attend to a number of things. It is unlikely you will ever see all major staff members working on a single project all at once.
I'm not sure I fully like the semantics being put forward by the OP if it is any help. If I'm understanding DT's little math shpeal there, he's basically putting forward that a multiverse can share the same temporal dimension across all of its spatial dimensions, which is... fair, I suppose. I'm not a huge fan of that being the default assumption but I believe that was an area where I was outvoted by other staff generally more involved in these revisions in the previous thread.
- 311
- 190
- 311
- 190
Do we even have default assumptions?
- 3,106
- 3,176
What about Tago's comment? Was that evaluated?
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #56
I mean, when he said this he was describing them as spacetime continuums, so still 2-C.
- 29,955
- 31,046
I have already given my thoughts on the matter, but I will note that being a different body of space shouldn't be alternate timeline assumption by default. While I agree that alternate universe or parallel universe would logically be a different space-time continuum by itself as Multiverse inherently means 2 or more timelines. But otherwise, I think DontTalkDT summarized it a great deal.
- 311
- 190
If I had unilateral choice, I'd implement this. I think a purely mathematical definition of universes as sets with dimensions described in analogy to graph axies is more widely applicable/generalizeable than just assuming GR applies to everything.
I don't think many authors think of time as something dependent on mass, and usually, time is treated as it's own thing in fiction, not a property dependent on other objects existing. Plus, as seen earlier with DT's argument, GR isn't completely compatible with a strict math description of dimensions and timelines.
As I see it, there is no reason to throw the GR wrench into a discussion of space, time, and dimensions, unless there's evidence that the verse explicitly requires it.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #59
Dude. In DT’s summary he straight up says the universes in his example are spatiotemporally separated. Meaning, it’s 2-C. If you’re gonna agree with him, at least know 100% what he’s saying.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #61
He basically said that two different timelines can share the same dimension of time. At least that’s what I’m getting at.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #63
Well it almost sounds as if DT supports my claim in the OP, but that's not too clear.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #65
Universes that are at least spatially separated should be 2-C. With their own space, they have their own spatial movement and spatial movement is time. So logically a different space = a different spacetime. The only works for spatially separated universes. Not universes where matter is in a different part of space.
- 165,064
- 71,915
- 3,046
- 2,598
The idea that different timelines needs to have different time axes is just a big misunderstanding, but somehow that is what most people think of and that is why so many people are trying to get 2-C because "times flows differently" or downgrade to Low 2-C because "time flows the same".
The graphical explanation that given here is basically the perfect example to how that should work. The parallel 4 dimensional spaces are all perpendicular to a fifth dimensional axis and that is all. Their dimensions are still "shared" among them, but something to affect them would need, in a way, cross the distance between them.
The idea, as far as I can remebmer has always been like this, was to affect the multiple 4D spaces across the fifth dimensional space they are in. As long as they are parallel to each other it could be enough. Yet that could change depending in various reasons and that is why it's needed not only an undestanding of the system, but also the franchise that is being analyzed.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #68
Big brain EX! This is interesting btw. I feel like that’s something that should be added to the notes of either the tiering system, the universe page, or the multiverse page.
Anywho, what are your thoughts on the OP?
Anywho, what are your thoughts on the OP?
- 3,106
- 3,176
Bump
- 165,064
- 71,915
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #71
Bump.
Last edited:
- 15,989
- 25,045
Video isn't workingBump.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #73
It’s Saitama grinding his teeth.Video isn't working
- 9,222
- 3,365
bump
- 5,466
- 12,474
Speaking purely from a practical standpoint, is there anything that would be significantly changed by this? Like Executor and DontTalk said up there, a multiverse can be 2-C and up regardless of whether or not each of the universes comprising it have independent temporal dimensions. And if a verse has a character destroying a multiverse whose universes occupy different spatial positions, but share the same time axis (Drawing from DT's counterexample here), then we would (Or at least, should) still demand evidence that these universes were both destroyed across time, or more generally that all of time was destroyed, for the feat to qualify as 2-C.
To illustrate this, I can bring up the concept of a worldline, which in brief is basically just the path that a single object traces through spacetime, or, in other words, its history, which is itself a 4-dimensional object that records every position it ever assumed in space, pretty much a mini-timeline, if you will. Now imagine two objects in the same spacetime, like, say, two bricks: If you destroy said bricks completely, does it necessarily mean you destroyed both of their worldlines? Obviously not.
Since, like I said, worldlines are just mini-timelines that represent only the set of all states a single particle assumed throughout its history, the same principle applies in the aforementioned scenario, with the only difference between the fact that we'd be talking about universes instead of bricks with that one.
- 8,821
- 9,404
- Thread starter
- #78
Yes. Bodies of matter in different spatial directions would need more evidence, but that’s not my premise. All I’m saying is that bodies of space can have their own time. Since we use general relativity, the destruction of that space would destroy time, or the destruction of time would destroy that said space. Unless it’s proven otherwise.
This is interesting and easy to understand for me at least. Those this is simply matter destruction throughout all of time. No space. One other thing I want to mention was what DT said.
What caught my attention was what’s written in bold. Different timelines can share the same dimension of time a good example of this is shown here. Where a day in the present timeline also means a day passed in the future.
This proves that universes having the same flow of time doesn’t mean they aren’t low 2-C.
- 2,252
- 387
You told me this in discord DMs and I feel like the argument applies to how we treat multiverse busting feats now as it does for Zamasu’s proposal. The only point of this thread seems to be that a difference in dimensions of length, depth and width allow for the existence of separated hyper volumes that for all intents and purposes are individually universes.
Or at least, I feel like that makes more sense as a proposition given that “bodies of space” doesn’t really make sense as space isn’t an object distinguished by the space surrounding it. The squares on DT’s graph have to be seen as the world hypervolumes of observable universes, from my perspective.
- 5,466
- 12,474
They can, yes, but whether or not we should take that as the default assumption is another matter entirely, and I believe DontTalk already provided a simple enough counterexample to that up there. The core premise of your argument seems to hinge on the idea that a temporal dimension is just a measure of spatial movement, and thus that spatially disjoint areas should have their own time-axes, but that's not necessarily true, as I'll further explain in the response below.
What exactly do you mean by "the destruction of that space"? Due to how higher-dimensional spaces work, the universe of three dimensions we are familiar with is just a single slice out of the infinitely-many that comprise the spacetime continuum, and so arbitrarily removing some from the overall structure would hardly have any effect, much like how removing a single point out of the 1-dimensional real number line would result in... the same number line, but one where the choosen point was removed.
Granted, "destroying space" can also mean directly removing the axes themselves, instead of just objects that are extended in them, which is another can of worms entirely, but even in such a scenario, destroying space doesn't necessarily mean destroying time, either. Since, like DontTalk said in the previous thread, a fundamental property of a dimension is that it exists independently from other axes of the space which it forms.
To write up an in-depth explanation of why that's the case, I'll have to talk a bit about the concept of a linear combination, which in the most intuitive terms possible is essentially a sum of two or more vectors, whose result is another vector of the same space.
For example, imagine three unit vectors (That is, the most basic vectors of a space, whose length is exactly 1), a, b and c, and then multiply them by any triple of real numbers (in this case, that could be represented by a2, b4 and c6); a linear combination involving these three vectors would be a2 + b4 + c6, and since an unit vector's length is 1, the operation in this case is a trivial one and is the exact same thing as 2 + 4 + 6, with the only caveat being that these three numbers are being interpreted as each corresponding to the length of an individual vector.
For any set of vectors, we can also talk about its span, which is just the set of all possible linear combinations that can be done with each of them, and in the case of the unit vectors of a space, their span is just the entirety of said space. For instance, the vectors (1,0,0), (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) have all of three-dimensional space as their span, since you can multiply them by any real number and then sum up the results to reach any point within the latter, with the total number of such combinations being infinite.
Now, like I mentioned before, a single vector can be written out as the linear combination of other vectors, and DontTalk provided a good practical example of that in the previous thread: North and East are separate directions from one another, but Northeast is not, since it is just the combination of the former two and thus can't exist without them. If that is the case with any vector, then we say it's "linearly dependent" of others.
On the other hand, we say a vector is linearly independent if it cannot be expressed as the linear combination of other vectors, meaning it exists completely outside of their span and represents a new dimension. A good practical example of that would be saying that South is linearly independent from North and East: No possible combination of the latter two will ever allow you to go South, and so it's a different axis entirely.
So, the time dimension, being linearly independent from the other directions of the spacetime continuum, behaves in the exact same way. You might say that it only exists as a measure of spatial movement, sure, but that's not the entire picture when we are conceiving of time as something that physically exists; in such a case, it's just another direction, but one that we experience differently from the other three, and thus it can exist without them. So, if you erased the latter, you didn't create a dimensionless void, just reduced the universe to a 1-dimensional existence, which is a perfectly coherent notion. Quantum Field Theory uses models that have 0 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal, even, as a quick search on Google can tell you.
Similar threads
