What's an "insignificant" dimension?

[DavidTPPM]

when a 4D object is uncountably infinite it doesn't become 5D. it just goes on and on in an uncountable manner that they are considered infinitely going without end
for the most case this is often assumed aleph 1 (but it is not the entire thing about uncountable infinite is that it just keeps going even if you list down all possible numbers its basically a infinite that will remain infinite even if you add more sets and such)

I didn't say an uncountably infinite 4D object becomes 5D.

regular infinite is aleph 0
and an infinite set of aleph 0 is aleph 1

Aleph 1 is basically an infinite amount of set of Aleph 0
which makes aleph 0 a smaller infinite and aleph 1 the bigger infinite.
Read more....

Set Theory Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Yeah I pretty much already knew that, that didn't really tell me anything

 

[DavidTPPM]

Your question is “What is an insignificant dimension?” which in this case, mean dimensions of smaller size. Not sure why this requires a overly complicated answer being used here tbh

Yeah but the issue is "what's considered a smaller dimension"? Or rather how small does a dimension have to be to become insignificant and why?

 

[DavidTPPM]

by significant i think it means not infinitesimal,

What's an infinitesmal dimension then? And why would it matter if it's size is almost 0 compared to other 5D structures? Compared to a 4D structure it should still be uncountably infinitely bigger.

two 2 dimensional spaces stacked on each other make it an insingificant 3D space (as it is still infinitesimal),

No they don't. Two 2D spaces stacked on top of each other NEED a 3D space to exist without overlapping but those two 2D spaces don't create a 3D space.

If you have two 2D papers with infinite length and depth but 0 height you could stack any amount of them on top of each other and height would remain 0. It won't become "infinitesmal 3D" because even an infinity * 0 is still 0.
Meaning even a 3D space with even just 1/100000 of a nanometer of height could contain an uncountably infinite amount of these infinite 2D papers.

you can say 0D space is extended infinitesimally/insignificantly in all possible dimensions i think, if it helps you understand

Ngl that really doesn't help. As far as I understand it, a 0D space is just nothing. It basically can't even exist.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

infinity * 0 is still 0.

wrong
The product of infinity and zero is an indeterminate form, meaning that its value cannot be determined exactly
in layman terms undefined and thus unusable but we know it exist hence insignificant

 

[Napoleondevious]

What's an infinitesmal dimension then? And why would it matter if it's size is almost 0 compared to other 5D structures? Compared to a 4D structure it should still be uncountably infinitely bigger.

No they don't. Two 2D spaces stacked on top of each other NEED a 3D space to exist without overlapping but those two 2D spaces don't create a 3D space.

If you have two 2D papers with infinite length and depth but 0 height you could stack any amount of them on top of each other and height would remain 0. It won't become "infinitesmal 3D" because even an infinity * 0 is still 0.

Ngl that really doesn't help. As far as I understand it, a 0D space is just nothing. It basically can't even exist.

youre literally describing a qualitative superiority, a 2D space isnt '0' in a 3D hypothetical axis, its infinitesimal, if it was truly inexistent the whole dimensional system is built upon addition of literal nothingness ? a 0D space isnt non existent, its the thing we use to describe a coordinate within a space, again if it was non existent it would lack dimensional qualities, so dimensions magically posseses BDE type 1 now ? and type 2? outer dimensions fr

 

[Digital_Franz]

What? Autojr space?

Shit. Typing error. The space around the universe I meant.

What does that even mean?
Istg my main question was "what's considered significant" and people keep telling me something needs prove of being significant without anyone actually telling me what's considered significant and why

And I told you what is considered significant. If you can't prove it's significant then it's insi. That's all.

by significant i think it means not infinitesimal, two 2 dimensional spaces stacked on each other make it an insingificant 3D space (as it is still infinitesimal), youd need uncountably many of them to make it non infinitesimal iirc
this is why uncountable STC scale to low 1C because stacking them up will fill this gap to overcome this insingificance

you can say 0D space is extended infinitesimally/insignificantly in all possible dimensions i think, if it helps you understand

 

[DavidTPPM]

wrong
The product of infinity and zero is an indeterminate form, meaning that its value cannot be determined exactly
in layman terms undefined and thus unusable but we know it exist hence insignificant

You basically just said it's unusable but we use it…?

And that's very out of context. Yes infinity*0 is generally indeterminate because it depends on how the infinity interacts with the 0. But adding an infinite amount of 0s on top of each other can't logical give you a different number than 0 because all you're doing is 0+0+0+… which cannot yield a different result than 0.
So stacking planes with 0 height on top of each other has no way of ever reaching a non 0 height and becoming a 3D being.

 

[DavidTPPM]

youre literally describing a qualitative superiority, a 2D space isnt '0' in a 3D hypothetical axis, its infinitesimal, if it was truly inexistent the whole dimensional system is built upon addition of literal nothingness ?

No the HEIGHT of a 2D space IS 0, otherwise it would be 3D. The 3rd dimension in a 2D object isn't infinitesimal it straight up isn't a thing.

a 0D space isnt non existent, its the thing we use to describe a coordinate within a space, again if it was non existent it would lack dimensional qualities, so dimensions magically posseses BDE type 1 now ? and type 2? outer dimensions fr

So it's not a space but a concept used to describe a single point. You said it "extends infinitesimaly" when it just doesn't. It literally doesn't have any directions to expand to, otherwise it wouldn't be 0 dimensional.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Shit. Typing error. The space around the universe I meant.

But that space isn't being affected with every tier 2 feat. What?

And I told you what is considered significant. If you can't prove it's significant then it's insi. That's all.

You said it has to be infinite to be "significant" and I told you that doesn't make any sense to me and you just didn't say anything about it afterwards.

 

[Digital_Franz]

But that space isn't being affected with every tier 2 feat. What?

It affects this space actually. The energy that destroys a space-time continuum disperses and affects this space but without feats it is Low 2-C. The energy that destroys more than one universe also affects this space but everything goes from 2-C to 2-A.

You said it has to be infinite to be "significant" and I told you that doesn't make any sense to me and you just didn't say anything about it afterwards.

Showing that it is infinite on this length is the only way because except for a statement (that an author will never give if he does not do powerscaling because he does not even know what it is), it is impossible to show that it is significant on its 5th axis.

 

[DavidTPPM]

It affects this space actually. The energy that destroys a space-time continuum disperses and affects this space but without feats it is Low 2-C. The energy that destroys more than one universe also affects this space but everything goes from 2-C to 2-A.

It "dispersing" through a higher dimensional space doesn't mean it's affecting the space itself.
By that logic we would give tier 2 rating to anyone who moves through a portal as well.

Showing that it is infinite on this length is the only way because except for a statement (that an author will never give if he does not do powerscaling because he does not even know what it is), it is impossible to show that it is significant on its 5th axis.

So you don't even know what makes a dimension significant.
Because when I asked why, you said it has to be infinite but suddenly it doesn't have to be infinite (since that wouldn't make any sense) it's just that it's the only way you know to prove it's significant.

But what are you proving? What makes it significant?

 

[Digital_Franz]

It "dispersing" through a higher dimensional space doesn't mean it's affecting the space itself.
By that logic we would give tier 2 rating to anyone who moves through a portal as well.

It does. For the one moving through the portal, no energy affects an entire space-time continuum so I don't really see the connection with what I said.

So you don't even know what makes a dimension significant.

It is significant when it is long enough on its 5th axis. I talked about it here in my first posts.

Because when I asked why, you said it has to be infinite but suddenly it doesn't have to be infinite (since that wouldn't make any sense) it's just that it's the only way you know to prove it's significant.

I said since you can't show that it's significantly long, show directly that it's infinite.

But what are you proving? What makes it significant?

Because it's necessary. As I said, a dimension doesn't need to be significantly long on its 5th axis to contain multiple space-time continuums. Many of us here yapped here about that.

 

[DavidTPPM]

It does. For the one moving through the portal, no energy affects an entire space-time continuum so I don't really see the connection with what I said.

Yeah and for the one affecting 2 spacetime continuums in a 5D container no energy is affecting the entire container.

It is significant when it is long enough on its 5th axis. I talked about it here in my first posts.

And I'm still asking, what IS "long enough" and why/how can it not be long enough?

Because it's necessary. As I said, a dimension doesn't need to be significantly long on its 5th axis to contain multiple space-time continuums. Many of us here yapped here about that.

I'm not asking why it's necessary to prove it I'm asking WHAT ARE YOU PROVING.
So far not a single person of the "many that yapped here" has told me what makes a dimension "long enough" and how can a dimension not be long enough.

I appreciate the effort regardless but my question has not really been answered yet

 

[deonment]

An insignificant dimension is one that has no proof of actually being infinite in size, because higher dimensions do not necessarily have to be infinite in size, see Compactification, where Dimensions are compactified to the Planck Length in total size. This is what is typically known as an insignificant dimension, and we typically assume the lowest necessary extent for stuff, so we do not assume that potential higher dimensions in fiction are fully formed because most of the stuff that would require the existence of one would still work with it being even 1 millimeter (Because fun fact, even if you have an infinite amount of space-times displaced throughout a higher dimensional axis in a higher construct, the construct would still be infinitesimally 5D, and thus could be displaced across the axis which String Theory deals with, and thus not even close to low 1-C)

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

You basically just said it's unusable but we use it…?

yes that's why it doesn't grant a tier unless you factor in the idea of higher infinities or uncountable infinite.
We know it exist but it being indeterminate meaning it has no specific value and if the value is not specific we can't just say
oh this is significant size without further proof.

I'm honestly lost at what you really want to know whether it is why small dimension is =/= large dimension
or whether it is to know why is this the standard
cause I'm pretty sure many here already answered satisfactorily in the former
cause the latter point of interest is honestly anyone's guess but it is most likely to follow uniformity which I also explained way earlier

 

[Vietthai96]

Insignificant dimension is just a thing born from this site as a mean to prevent verse get their rating inflated. For example, a room sized space-time is still uncountable infinitely more than infinite-sized space alone due to time being infinite will mutiplied the room sized space at uncountable infinite amount, that mean as long as you can destroy space-time, no matter how small space is you still can get low 2-c via math alone. Thus insignificant dimension thing was born to prevent this kind of situation, which require space-time to be universal in size at least to get low 2-c, this is to make sure that you not get low 2-c before you can at least reach 3-A first, and then this applied to higher tier too

I saw some comment about you are not 5D or 4D or something if dimensions is not significant enough. You need to know that, you are N-dimensional as long as you have N amount of dimensional axes, the different between insignificant and signficant is only relevant when you want to put tier into these dimensions. For example space-time is 4D no matter how small it is, but it will not get tier Low 2-C as long as it size is no significant, such as being universal sized or infinite, same with 5D, 6D, etc.......string theory is considered as 10 to 26 dimensional depend on what kind of theory we talking about, but it being High 1-C to 1-B depend if these dimensions are compactified or not. That is the thing

 

[Digital_Franz]

I saw some comment about you are not 5D or 4D or something if dimensions is not significant enough. You need to know that, you are N-dimensional as long as you have N amount of dimensional axes, the different between insignificant and signficant is only relevant when you want to put tier into these dimensions. For example space-time is 4D no matter how small it is, but it will not get tier Low 2-C as long as it size is no significant, such as being universal sized or infinite, same with 5D, 6D, etc.......string theory is considered as 10 to 26 dimensional depend on what kind of theory we talking about, but it being High 1-C to 1-B depend if these dimensions are compactified or not. That is the thing

Literally my point which was explained again by Dao as you did. He wants everything 5-D to be Low 1-C and doesn't care about the size on the 5th axis

 

[Digital_Franz]

Yeah and for the one affecting 2 spacetime continuums in a 5D container no energy is affecting the entire container.

Yes but the space that is affected is undeniably 5-D.

And I'm still asking, what IS "long enough" and why/how can it not be long enough?

To expand at least as a universe on that axis. How? I took the example with a 1 cm somewhere. In fact it does not need to be very long to contain the space-time continuum.

I'm not asking why it's necessary to prove it I'm asking WHAT ARE YOU PROVING.

The length on the 5th axis.

So far not a single person of the "many that yapped here" has told me what makes a dimension "long enough" and how can a dimension not be long enough.

Dao, me and the others

I appreciate the effort regardless but my question has not really been answered yet

Insignificant dimension is just a thing born from this site as a mean to prevent verse get their rating inflated. For example, a room sized space-time is still uncountable infinitely more than infinite-sized space alone due to time being infinite will mutiplied the room sized space at uncountable infinite amount, that mean as long as you can destroy space-time, no matter how small space is you still can get low 2-c via math alone. Thus insignificant dimension thing was born to prevent this kind of situation, which require space-time to be universal in size at least to get low 2-c, this is to make sure that you not get low 2-c before you can at least reach 3-A first, and then this applied to higher tier too

I saw some comment about you are not 5D or 4D or something if dimensions is not significant enough. You need to know that, you are N-dimensional as long as you have N amount of dimensional axes, the different between insignificant and signficant is only relevant when you want to put tier into these dimensions. For example space-time is 4D no matter how small it is, but it will not get tier Low 2-C as long as it size is no significant, such as being universal sized or infinite, same with 5D, 6D, etc.......string theory is considered as 10 to 26 dimensional depend on what kind of theory we talking about, but it being High 1-C to 1-B depend if these dimensions are compactified or not. That is the thing

There is this and then the post I linked in my first post that you didn't read (it is very interesting because you will understand).

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Insignificant dimension is just a thing born from this site as a mean to prevent verse get their rating inflated. For example, a room sized space-time is still uncountable infinitely more than infinite-sized space alone due to time being infinite will mutiplied the room sized space at uncountable infinite amount, that mean as long as you can destroy space-time, no matter how small space is you still can get low 2-c via math alone. Thus insignificant dimension thing was born to prevent this kind of situation, which require space-time to be universal in size at least to get low 2-c, this is to make sure that you not get low 2-c before you can at least reach 3-A first, and then this applied to higher tier too

I saw some comment about you are not 5D or 4D or something if dimensions is not significant enough. You need to know that, you are N-dimensional as long as you have N amount of dimensional axes, the different between insignificant and signficant is only relevant when you want to put tier into these dimensions. For example space-time is 4D no matter how small it is, but it will not get tier Low 2-C as long as it size is no significant, such as being universal sized or infinite, same with 5D, 6D, etc.......string theory is considered as 10 to 26 dimensional depend on what kind of theory we talking about, but it being High 1-C to 1-B depend if these dimensions are compactified or not. That is the thing

Dimensional reduction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That isn’t necessarily true.

You see here, we got dimensional reduction as well as compactifaction. It wasn’t made up out of nowhere as even Compactifaction can technically applies to any theory as far as I am aware and not just strictly string theory as well.

Compactification (physics) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vietthai96]

Dimensional reduction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That isn’t necessarily true.

You see here, we got dimensional reduction as well compactifaction. It wasn’t made up out of nowhere as even Compactifaction can technically applies to any theory as far as I am aware and not just strictly string theory as well.

Compactification (physics) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I didn't say compactified dimensions is string theory only, i just mention it cause it is more common and an easy example

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I didn't say compactified dimensions is string theory only, i just mention it cause it is more common and an easy example

Fair enough there.

 

[Ezaru]

I am fairly sure that it is literally just arbitrary

Like, destroying any 4D object should put you above infinite 3D

But we just, don't scale it that way

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

So my question is what exactly is an "insignificant higher dimension" and what's the logic behind it? Also how does it affect scaling and how does a dimension qualify as significant or insignificant?

Basically, when we're talking about individual axes rather than all of them bunched together, it gets more complicated and stuff like "Significance" and "Insignificance" is involved.

Basically, an "Axis" is akin to a line, and two dimensional axes are akin to 2 perpendicular lines. An axis that is an infinite line [both sides extending to infinity] is significant in size, and that which does not extend to infinity [at which point it's not even a "Line" other than in name, and is more or rather just a Line segment]] is an insignificant space.

The best way to explain this is by example. Consider two space-times, we consider the "Space" that separates space-time to be a 4-dimensional space. Not because it's "uncountably infinite times 3D Space" by default, but because "it extends in a different perpendicular direction".
Now, here, we assume that for the 4-dimensional hyperspace, the 3 normal dimensions are, well, significant, but the 4th axis is insignificant [by default, unless proven otherwise] because to prove its significance, there's a need to prove its infinite nature.

Note that, here, by "4-dimensional space", I mean purely spatial dimensions, not counting the time dimension. If we go by order, then the 4th spatial dimension[of this hyperspace] would be the 5th dimension with respect to a space-time.

You may ask, why? Why do we not consider it as infinite by default?
Well, to elaborate, it is infinite, but only with respect to lower-dimensional beings [any 4D space is infinite in the view of a 3-dimensional being, but not necessarily uncountably infinite]. An example of this is a space-time. While by default, we assume that a space-time's "time dimension" [the fourth dimension by order] is uncountably infinite, which is why we consider it as 4D, because by it being a line/uncountably infinite, it would span a 3D snapshot/structure at each instance/point of time. Since a line has uncountably infinite points, this means an uncountably infinite amount of 3D snapshots are spawned, resulting in 4D.

But what if, for the sake of this explanation, we say that the time dimension is not uncountably infinite? What if its a line segment, and not a line?
Well, a line segment still has infinite points [there can be a point between any two points in a line segment after "zooming" enough]. But there are only a countably infinite amount of points here[just like the set of natural numbers].
Thus, by this, the snapshots spawned by this time dimension would just be a countably infinite amount of 3D structures, thus tiering it at just the high-end of High 3-A, rather than Low 2-C.

This is essentially what applies at the "4th spatial axis, the 5th dimension by geometrical order that separates space-times". However, in this case, we by default assume that its not uncountably infinite, and there is a need for that to be proven.

Hope that explanation was good enough to clear most if not all of your doubts.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Basically, when we're talking about individual axes rather than all of them bunched together, it gets more complicated and stuff like "Significance" and "Insignificance" is involved.

Basically, an "Axis" is akin to a line, and two dimensional axes are akin to 2 perpendicular lines. An axis that is an infinite line [both sides extending to infinity] is significant in size, and that which does not extend to infinity [at which point it's not even a "Line" other than in name, and is more or rather just a Line segment]] is an insignificant space.

The best way to explain this is by example. Consider two space-times, we consider the "Space" that separates space-time to be a 4-dimensional space. Not because it's "uncountably infinite times 3D Space" by default, but because "it extends in a different perpendicular direction".
Now, here, we assume that for the 4-dimensional hyperspace, the 3 normal dimensions are, well, significant, but the 4th axis is insignificant [by default, unless proven otherwise] because to prove its significance, there's a need to prove its infinite nature.

Note that, here, by "4-dimensional space", I mean purely spatial dimensions, not counting the time dimension. If we go by order, then the 4th spatial dimension[of this hyperspace] would be the 5th dimension with respect to a space-time.

You may ask, why? Why do we not consider it as infinite by default?
Well, to elaborate, it is infinite, but only with respect to lower-dimensional beings [any 4D space is infinite in the view of a 3-dimensional being, but not necessarily uncountably infinite]. An example of this is a space-time. While by default, we assume that a space-time's "time dimension" [the fourth dimension by order] is uncountably infinite, which is why we consider it as 4D, because by it being a line/uncountably infinite, it would span a 3D snapshot/structure at each instance/point of time. Since a line has uncountably infinite points, this means an uncountably infinite amount of 3D snapshots are spawned, resulting in 4D.

But what if, for the sake of this explanation, we say that the time dimension is not uncountably infinite? What if its a line segment, and not a line?
Well, a line segment still has infinite points [there can be a point between any two points in a line segment after "zooming" enough]. But there are only a countably infinite amount of points here[just like the set of natural numbers].
Thus, by this, the snapshots spawned by this time dimension would just be a countably infinite amount of 3D structures, thus tiering it at just the high-end of High 3-A, rather than Low 2-C.

This is essentially what applies at the "4th spatial axis, the 5th dimension by geometrical order that separates space-times". However, in this case, we by default assume that its not uncountably infinite, and there is a need for that to be proven.

Hope that explanation was good enough to clear most if not all of your doubts.

So by following this logic, even an insignificant 4D space would still be high 3-A and an insignificant 5D space should be 2-A?

Honestly given the importance and range of opinions on this topic in this thread I'm very surprised we don't have a page strictly explaining the topic…

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

So by following this logic, even an insignificant 4D space would still be high 3-A and an insignificant 5D space should be 2-A?

For the High 3-A part, yes. For the 2-A part, well, going by the math logic here, it should be 2-A, but it's not treated as such for some reason, an example being this staff thread. This seemed like one of those "incoherencies with the tiering system" like how Ultima did it with R>F, but this time with mathematical infinities and dimensionality. Because by the same logic of spawning snapshots and RxRxR stuff that comes with "Time" and "RxR" multiplication as a whole, even a finite 4th spatial dimension between universes should make the whole structure 2-A.

I do want to discuss it in that staff thread, too, so I'll ask for permission from a staff and present the above analogy there. Because we have cases where using the same analogy, a structure is accepted as High 3-A.

So if you're wanting to make a thread for getting 2-A for some verse via that, the best move would be to hold on for a while until that staff thread is finished.

Honestly given the importance and range of opinions on this topic in this thread I'm very surprised we don't have a page strictly explaining the topic…

I suppose over the last year, most of the standard revisions were focused on the ontological/1-A side of the tiering system, so the dimensionality stuff was left untouched....
After all, there was a time where this wiki classified "Super-dimensions" as 1-A so...... it just seems like one of those old assumptions that are still alive.

 

[DavidTPPM]

For the High 3-A part, yes. For the 2-A part, well, going by the math logic here, it should be 2-A, but it's not treated as such for some reason, an example being this staff thread. This seemed like one of those "incoherencies with the tiering system" like how Ultima did it with R>F, but this time with mathematical infinities and dimensionality. Because by the same logic of spawning snapshots and RxRxR stuff that comes with "Time" and "RxR" multiplication as a whole, even a finite 4th spatial dimension between universes should make the whole structure 2-A.

I do want to discuss it in that staff thread, too, so I'll ask for permission from a staff and present the above analogy there. Because we have cases where using the same analogy, a structure is accepted as High 3-A.

So if you're wanting to make a thread for getting 2-A for some verse via that, the best move would be to hold on for a while until that staff thread is finished.

I suppose over the last year, most of the standard revisions were focused on the ontological/1-A side of the tiering system, so the dimensionality stuff was left untouched....
After all, there was a time where this wiki classified "Super-dimensions" as 1-A so...... it just seems like one of those old assumptions that are still alive.

Interesting. Either way, thank you for the answers

 

[HammerStrikes219]

AFor the High 3-A part, yes. For the 2-A part, well, going by the math logic here, it should be 2-A, but it's not treated as such for some reason, an example being this staff thread. This seemed like one of those "incohere

Infinite 3D dimensional space is what should been used for High 3A rather than the insignificant 4D though. That and I don’t usually go for the pure mathematical logic shenanigans since once again, it is purely theoretical rather than practical when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Interesting. Either way, thank you for the answers

No problem.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

In additional to that, we might render the entire Tier 2 section useless and merged into Tier low 1C all because of a hypothetical spatial axe…. Funny how theories are still being used and applied after all this time

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Infinite 3D dimensional space is what should been used for High 3A rather than the insignificant 4D though. That and I don’t usually go for the pure mathematical logic shenanigans since once again, it is purely theoretical rather than practical when it comes to stuff like this.

I think I should have worded it better like in my detailed post

Thus, by this, the snapshots spawned by this time dimension would just be a countably infinite amount of 3D structures, thus tiering it at just the high-end of High 3-A, rather than Low 2-C.

It's basically like how 2-A x countably infinite is still 2-A. The same applies to High 3-A.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

In additional to that, we might render the entire Tier 2 section useless and merged into Tier low 1C all because of a hypothetical spatial axe….

Personally, I'm very much of the thought that the "Space between space-times" should not be a default assumption for all Multiversal models unless stated otherwise in-verse to keep the tiering system consistent, because no matter how common the "space between universes" may be in fiction, there is still a possibility that some verses may not have it.

I do want to discuss that in a staff thread if I ever get the chance, too.

Funny how theories are still being used and applied after all this time

I mean, for all the above single space-time tiering, it's all theoretical framework after all. But it's still not just a pure theory with no logic, at least.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I think I should have worded it better like in my detailed post

It's basically like how 2-A x countably infinite is still 2-A. The same applies to High 3-A.

Yeah, that part makes more sense.

If memories serve me right, DontTalk brought up a old video about a 5th dimension once. Don’t remember if it being brought up as a dimensional axis as the theoretical application of that multiverse theory was there I think

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Personally, I'm very much of the thought that the "Space between space-times"

Hmmm, space between space times is a theoretical topic to begin with.


There is no set standards in whatever that would inherently granted a tier of a quantification superiority and simply just being a container. Nothing more nothing less in terms of theoretical application at least

 

[DavidTPPM]

In additional to that, we might render the entire Tier 2 section useless and merged into Tier low 1C all because of a hypothetical spatial axe…. Funny how theories are still being used and applied after all this time

Not really I think? As far as I understand it, affecting multiple low 2-C structures inside of a larger 5D structure doesn't necessarily mean you're "significantly affecting" the container itself. In other words you don't necessarily need to "significantly affect" the 4th spatial dimension to affect the individual spacetime continuums?

 

[Digital_Franz]

It's basically like how 2-A x countably infinite is still 2-A. The same applies to High 3-A.

Thus, by this, the snapshots spawned by this time dimension would just be a countably infinite amount of 3D structures, thus tiering it at just the high-end of High 3-A, rather than Low 2-C.

This is assuming that this time segment contains a countably infinite amount of "snapshots" because it can just be one. Well for Tier 2, it is currently managed and does not really pose a problem otherwise the destruction of all space-time can also be placed at Low 2-C regardless of its size because it would still be an uncountably infinite amount of 3-D "snapshots" and thus it would require more than an infinite energy.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Not really I think? As far as I understand it, affecting multiple low 2-C structures inside of a larger 5D structure doesn't necessarily mean you're "significantly affecting" the container itself. In other words you don't necessarily need to "significantly affect" the 4th spatial dimension to affect the individual spacetime continuums?

4D is usually associated with time… key word being “usually”.

Time is what has been considered as the 4D if we using Albert Einstein’s theories related to the topic of space and time.

 

[DavidTPPM]

4D is usually associated with time… key word being “usually”.

Time is what has been considered as the 4D if we using Albert Einstein’s theories related to the topic of space and time.

Uhh yeah ik. I'm saying that just because 2 separate 4D spacetime continuums exist in a 5D container, you don't necessarily have to "significantly affect" the container itself to significantly affect the STCs

 

[Digital_Franz]

Not really I think? As far as I understand it, affecting multiple low 2-C structures inside of a larger 5D structure doesn't necessarily mean you're "significantly affecting" the container itself.

No need really. The space that is affected is already 5-D and according to your logic that you presented yesterday, any 5-D space should be Low 1-C because infinitely superior to any 4-D space.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Hmmm, space between space times is a theoretical topic to begin with.

Indeed, but we're talking about if a fictional verse uses the theoretical logic in-verse or not.

There is no set standards in whatever that would inherently granted a tier of a quantification superiority and simply just being a container. Nothing more nothing less in terms of theoretical application at least

For the container part, indeed, that really depends on context. I mean, a bigger box can be filled with smaller boxes to the point that there's no space left, but that doesn't mean the bigger box is infinite. So in the end, it all depends on context.

Not really I think? As far as I understand it, affecting multiple low 2-C structures inside of a larger 5D structure doesn't necessarily mean you're "significantly affecting" the container itself. In other words you don't necessarily need to "significantly affect" the 4th spatial dimension to affect the individual spacetime continuums?

Although not fully sure, I think we deny multipliers after tier 2 on this wiki based on the logic that the space between universes is "unknown", so that technically means above Low 2-C ratings account for hyperspaces between space-times as well. Although, once again, I'm not fully sure.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

This is assuming that this time segment contains a countably infinite amount of "snapshots" because it can just be one.

Indeed, and that's what I clarified before presenting that part of the theory in my first post.

Well for Tier 2, it is currently managed and does not really pose a problem otherwise the destruction of all space-time can also be placed at Low 2-C regardless of its size because it would still be an uncountably infinite amount of 3-D "snapshots" and thus it would require more than an infinite energy.

I mean, I just said it would be higher into High 3-A and not Low 2-C because we don't have any additional tier for "multiple infinite 3-D Spaces", whereas we do, in fact, have additional tiers for "multiple 4D Space-times", so you're forgetting that part.

It also depends on if [and how] the standards deal with the space between universes.