Variations on multiverses

[Hat_mchat]

Multiverses vary quite a lot across fiction, sometimes you get a multiverse of infinite parallel universes each with subtle variations from the next that extend to infinite possibilities, these universes all have the same fundamental laws of physics. However some multiverses have these infinite parallels, but they also have infinite arrays of universe with for example a law of physics that is slightly different, for example gravity is stronger or may not exist. Even further is an infinite nexus of these different arrays with completely different laws of physics, perhaps with none at all. All these infinite universes of infinite variety comprise what we still call a multiverse. My question is this: Should we differentiate between different types of multiverse when it comes to tiering and if so, how?

 

[Kaltias]

A multiverse doesn't need to be infinite actually. Even 2 universes are a multiverse.

If a multiverse is a infinitely bigger than an infinite 4D multiverse it's a 5D multiverse. If it's infinitely bigger than this as well, it's an infinite 5D multiverse. Then it becomes 6D and so on.

If a multiverse is composed of infinite orders of infinity (a Hilbert Space) and something transcend it, said being is outerversal. However, a multiverse can't be outerversal due to its nature as a construct of space-time.

Hope that this helped.

 

[Hat_mchat]

So when referring to higher dimensions what do you actually mean? As in higher geometrical dimensions, as in you can move in a direction that is perpendicular to all planes of a cube, or do you mean dimensions such as travelling between alternate universes and travelling between universes with different physical laws. I recently watched this video called "imagining the tenth dimension" which seems to talk about dimensions differently to how i see them here. Here it seems more mathematical whereas the video talks about dimensions more scientifically.

 

[Kaltias]

We use the geometrical concept of dimension here. Main reasons being:

1) It's simpler. Higher dimensions in physics are way more complicated.

2) You can add higher dimensions as you wish in geometry, while you can't do the same in physics.

3) Dimensions in physics aren't actually "separated" from one another. For example, I, 3D being, am constantly distorting the 4D space-time around myself.

 

[Hat_mchat]

Out of curiosity, how exactly could a 3-D being harm a 2-D being, i don't understand how 2-D matter can even be touched by 3-D matter when it is literally less than an infinitely small? Also, according to M-theory our universe is 11-dimensional, is that as in geometrical dimensions, physical dimensions, or am i just looking at this the wrong way and they are actually the same? Now that i think about it, they both refer to higher degrees of freedom, it's just that the physics is applied.

 

[Kaltias]

Normally it can't. The 2D being needs to have a hax that specifically work on a higher dimensional scale. For example, the Void Manipulation of the The God Emperor of Mankind is so powerful that 20D beings were unable to nullify its effect and prevent it from destroying Horus Lupercal. In normal conditions, a 20D being wouldn't even notice it.

 

[Hat_mchat]

I asked how a higher dimensional being can harm a lower dimensional being.

 

[Kaltias]

Ah, sorry. Imagine a drawing. The drawing is lower dimensional while you are higher dimensional. Now rip the paper where the drawing is drawn. Is the drawing still fine? That's how a higher dimensional can destroy a lower dimensional

By the way, M-theory uses physical dimensions.

 

[Hat_mchat]

But paper is 3-D, you can touch it because it has thickness. A 2-D plane has no such thickness, the matter in your hand would literally phase through it surely?

 

[Kaltias]

Yes, but the drawing itself is 2D. You aren't attacking the being. You are destroying the higher dimensional structure (the paper) which act as a basis for the 2D plane of existence.

 

[Hat_mchat]

But you're only causing a finite level of destruction, this wiki seems to imply that being higher dimensional means you can cause infinite levels of destruction in lower dimensions.

 

[Kaltias]

I could also easily burn the paper. And i'm just the average human. Higher dimensional beings are much more powerful.

Also, think about it. If the whole multiverse was collapsing around you due to it being literally torn apart, do you think that you would be fine?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

But you're only causing a finite level of destruction, this wiki seems to imply that being higher dimensional means you can cause infinite levels of destruction in lower dimensions.

Any finite level of 3-Dimensional power is an infinite level of 2-Dimensional power

 

[Hat_mchat]

Well you would if you were say a few centimetres from the tear. If you had a piece of paper of infinite size with lots of little 2-D flat landers on it, there is nk way you could kill them all. I just don't see how a higher dimensional being is more than infinitely greater than a lower dimensional being.

 

[The_Everlasting]

Out of curiosity, how exactly could a 3-D being harm a 2-D being, i don't understand how 2-D matter can even be touched by 3-D matter when it is literally less than an infinitely small?

The general gist is you can't, you just harm their higher-dimensional construct.

As in, if you were to rip a piece of paper in half, and there was a 2-D being on it, you're not directly harming the 2-D being, just destroying the 3-D area it exists on.

 

[Anonimoe7875]

The drawing is 2-D not the paper...

 

[Kaltias]

How much is the volume of an infinite 2D plane? And how much is the volume of a cube?

Otherwise, imagine the effect that you cause when you destroy a spider's webway. Well, that's something infinitely more durable than a 2D being.

 

[Hat_mchat]

But i don't see how you suddenly have infinite power over the 2-D being. The only way you can harm it is by interacting with a higher dimension of your own, which you certainly don't have infinite power over.

Imagine an infinite 2-D verse projected onto an infinitely large piece of paper, you couldn't one shot all the 2-D beings on the paper as you can't tear through that much paper, hence you can't affect all the 2-D beings.

 

[Anonimoe7875]

'-'

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

Even in the most infinitesimal piece of paper, an infinite number of 2D constructs can exist, so you do not need to one shot an infinitely large piece of paper. In fact,that would be overkill.

 

[Hat_mchat]

Oh i see now, i now realised i've been regarding the paper as having no thickness when it has a thickness comparable to infinity to the 2-D beings. It has an infinite internal surface area, but these 2-D beings can't reach each other due to lack 3-D travel. Is this correct understanding?

 

[Kaltias]

They can move ON the paper. They can't INSIDE of the paper

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

You've got the core aspect down but you're making it overly complicated. 2D objects have an infinitely lesser amount of substance because they only have length and width. 3D objects however, have length, width and height. This added dimension makes them infinitely greater according to M-theory and basic geometry since even an infinite amount of these two dimensions will not make this "height" any more than zero.

It has nothing to do with transversing dimensions in itself.

 

[Hat_mchat]

So destroying a fraction of 3-D space would cause an infinite scale of destruction in 2-D space?

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

They can move ON the paper. They can't INSIDE of the paper

Drawings on paper are just used as visual aid for higher dimensions. It's not to be taken quite that literally.

An infinite number of 2D objects can fit into a 3D object because in our space they would not be physical in the sense of an actual drawing which just consists of shavings of graphite or some other three dimensional object like paint (which are what actually interacts with the paper).

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

So destroying a fraction of 3-D space would cause an infinite scale of destruction in 2-D space?

Yep.

 

[Kaltias]

@Mighty

Woudn't a 2D being need a particular power to move in 3D though?

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

No, because they would not actually be there. They exist on a different plane entirely.

To manifest on a three dimensional plane they would need some kind of power, and would logically gain a dimension to suit it, but fiction usually just "lol-no" such technicalities anyway.

 

[Nakaos]

This ability is required to move through a higher dimensional space. And you don't need to be a N dimensional being to move in a N dimensional space. Time travellers basically move through the 4-D (time) and are still 3-D being. Multiverses are at least 5-D, and characters doesn't need to be 5-D to move through.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you to Kaltias and TheMightyRegulator for handling this thread.