Neutral Space Downgrade Thread

[Mbpoops]

The downgrade thread is that it doesn’t need to have 4D space plus time to hold the macrocosm.

No one’s provided evidence that it must have 4D space either through direct evidence or the wiki standards

but the neutral zone has to be 4D to contain the 12 (previously 18) macrocosms which are 3 spatial + 1 time. its not only containing the spatial dimensions of the macrocosms but the their time dimensions aswell which would make the neutral zone spatially 4D and as per the previous threads its accepted the neutral zone has its own independant time axis from the macrocosms which would grant it its own temporal axis and it was also accepted that the NZ has an insignificant 5th axis so yea it would just be (4spatial + N) + 1time

 

[Qawsedf234]

The wiki standards says no. A 4D (3 space plus 1 time) can also do that. You do not need it to have explicitly 4 dimensions of space.

The wiki standards you link quite literally state this in the staff thread:

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

The thread is about a container that is infinite in comparison to a 4D space which is infinite, and if it can be called 2-A or not.

Your comparison would work if the last thread was about the NZ being 2-A, but it's not. The NZ to contain the seperate Macrocosmos has to be spatially 4D. Most of the time we assume a same temporal axis as this container space, which is why not every multiverse is Low 1-C but rather a 4th dimensional structure with a 5th dimensional element.

Because the NZ has an accepted perpendicular time axis, it does not follow the temporal axis of the Macrocosmos. So it's not a 3D space holding onto 3D spaces within the same temporal snapshot, but a seperate structure that happens to contain them.

Your example would only make sense to my knowledge if the NZ had the same temporal direction as the Macrocosmos. Because it doesn't, it needs to just be 4D spatial to hold them. If you're wanting to downgrade the NZ, I think it would be better to argue that a hyper timeline doesn't exist rather than it being 3D+1+1 as you're currently doing.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

There is a way better attempt to do it but this reason is a huge no-no. It would still be spatially 4D with 2 dimensions of time added perpendicularly.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Because the NZ has an accepted perpendicular time axis, it does not follow the temporal axis of the Macrocosmos. So it's not a 3D space holding onto 3D spaces within the same temporal snapshot, but a seperate structure that happens to contain them.

Your example would only make sense to my knowledge if the NZ had the same temporal direction as the Macrocosmos. Because it doesn't, it needs to just be 4D spatial to hold them. If you're wanting to downgrade the NZ, I think it would be better to argue that a hyper timeline doesn't exist rather than it being 3D+1+1 as you're currently doing.

Fine this acceptable. I would have to either prove the time dimension is not perpendicular or prove the hypertimeline doesn’t exist.

You can close this then. I could do that at a later time.

 

[Huesito88]

Fine this acceptable. I would have to either prove the time dimension is not perpendicular or prove the hypertimeline doesn’t exist.

You can close this then. I could do that at a later time.

Welp now that, that's done. It's time to wait for Chariot's thread to be made.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Welp now that, that's done. It's time to wait for Chariot's thread to be made.

He can cross one argument off the list.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Fine this acceptable. I would have to either prove the time dimension is not perpendicular or prove the hypertimeline doesn’t exist.

You can close this then. I could do that at a later time.

Alright