• 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.

Questions about new changes related to Temporal Dimension treatment, is this Low 1-C, or higher?

521
177
Hello, I'm new here, and for my first post on this forum, my question is related to a specific change of definitions on FAQ. More specifically, it is this :
Ksj1zy5.png


Now for my question, let's assume that there are 3 space-times, A, B and C. If Space-Time A and B are inside Space-Time C [Assume Space-Time C to be a multiverse], and if both Space-Time A, and Space-Time B, have their own Dimension/Axis of Time, inside the Space-Time C that also has it's own Time Axis. Than will Space-Time C as a whole be Low 1-C[5D] or Low 1-C [6D].
Reminder, this is assuming that all of the mentioned space-times, A, B, and C, have a time axis of their own, and Space-time A and B are inside C like how a Multiverse has multiple space-time continuums inside of it, and that A and B are Low 2-C, while C contains them, and that the time axis of A and B are distinct/do not flow in the same direction, I.E. they are parallel, but not overlapping.

Summary Of the Question : If a multiverse has two space-times inside of it, and each space-time has its own time axis, and so does the multiverse itself as a whole, would it be Low 1-C[5D] or Low 1-C[6D]?

Editing and adding this after MY 10th reply, for further context, as I mentioned before in the 6th line below the image provided, none of the temporal axis of space-time A or B is overlapping, they are parallel, but not overlapping, neither are they themselves parallel as space-times. For more context, Space-time C was supposed to contain many to countless other space-times like like A and B [A,B,D,E,.... not infinite], and same as before, all are parallel and non-overlapping, oh, and while the space-times A and B[and countess more] are parallel and non-overlapping, their time axes are all in different directions than one another [that's what my source says].
 
Last edited:
have their own Dimension/Axis of Time, inside the Space-Time C that also has it's own Time Axis. Than will Space-Time C as a whole be Low 1-C[5D] or Low 1-C [6D].
It would be the bare minimum needed to fit all of them. If they all have a different temporal axis then the total cosmology (which isn't Space C) would be 6th Dimensional.
 
It would be the bare minimum needed to fit all of them. If they all have a different temporal axis then the total cosmology (which isn't Space C) would be 6th Dimensional.
Thank you for your input here, Qawsedf234

But can you please explain what you mean by "total cosmology" that "isn't space C"?. Are you implying that Space-Time C is 6th Dimensional, or are you implying that the even bigger container if it exists, that contains Space-Time C, is 6th Dimensional? Could you please make that more clear?

Once again, thanks.
 
But can you please explain what you mean by "total cosmology" that "isn't space C"?. Are you implying that Space-Time C is 6th Dimensional, or are you implying that the even bigger container if it exists, that contains Space-Time C, is 6th Dimensional? Could you please make that more clear?
A universe is just 3-A. A Low 2-C feat requires destroying space-time since it would entail destroying an Aleph-1 amount of 3-A spaces.

By the same metric Space C is just a Low 1-C space, for holding an infinite snapshot of a 4D construct. But would need to destroy Space C both physically and temporally to get 6D.
 
A universe is just 3-A. A Low 2-C feat requires destroying space-time since it would entail destroying an Aleph-1 amount of 3-A spaces.

By the same metric Space C is just a Low 1-C space, for holding an infinite snapshot of a 4D construct. But would need to destroy Space C both physically and temporally to get 6D.
Understood perfectly. I just had the question if you meant that Space-time C AS A WHOLE was not 6D, which you explained later that it is, and how.

Again, thank you so much for your input on this. As I have gotten my answer, and if you could answer, will the rating [of 6D] increase if we increase the amount of space-times that are contained within Space-time C?[assuming that each of those also has a distinct temporal axis].
 
Last edited:
A universe is just 3-A. A Low 2-C feat requires destroying space-time since it would entail destroying an Aleph-1 amount of 3-A spaces.

By the same metric Space C is just a Low 1-C space, for holding an infinite snapshot of a 4D construct. But would need to destroy Space C both physically and temporally to get 6D.
I edited my reply because I forgot to ask something, so please don't close the thread[that I stated before I edited the reply] yet.
 
I was watching this thread, but Well since this thread is still open, I would like to ask a question about the reply that Qawsedf234 gave .

A universe is just 3-A. A Low 2-C feat requires destroying space-time since it would entail destroying an Aleph-1 amount of 3-A spaces.

By the same metric Space C is just a Low 1-C space, for holding an infinite snapshot of a 4D construct. But would need to destroy Space C both physically and temporally to get 6D.
I understand that a 3A universe would be L2C because of the temporal axis alongside the other 3 spatial axis of the universe.

But in the next paragraph you said Space C would be L1C since it's holding infinite snapshots of 4d structure (which I presume ur talking about the Space-time B or Space-time A).
Which would be the case because Space C is spatially 4D from holding the 4D structures and adding the temporal dimension of it, thus making it 5D.

The thing I did not understand is, from where did the extra 6D came from ?
 
Last edited:
increase the amount of space-times that are contained within Space-time C?[assuming that each of those also has a distinct temporal axis].
No. Because no amount of universes would be bigger than an uncountable infinite set.

The thing I did not understand is, from where did the extra 6D came from ?
The third temporal axis from Space C, which is separate from the other two temporal axis of the subspace.
 
The third temporal axis from Space C, which is separate from the other two temporal axis of the subspace.
I don't understand.
Wdym 3rd ?
The space time continuum A and Space time continuum B are both just separate 4D structures, exisiting within the space time continuum C.

So this would make the spatiality of Space time continuum C to be 4D as well.
And then if u add the temporal dimension to the spatiality it becomes 5D.
There is nowhere from which I see 6D here.

There are 3 Space time continuums are at work here, but the situation isn't like ST continuum A is inside B and B is inside C for which it would grant 6D to C.
Its just A and B together are just inside C.
C is just uncountable infinite times greater than 4D.
I don't see it gaining R^2 over the 4D structure.

so, once again, from where did the 6D came from ?
 
No. Because no amount of universes would be bigger than an uncountable infinite set.
What about if a structure is like this:
In a higher dimension space, there exists a tree with countless to infinite branches, each representing its own world. Each of these branches possesses a separate time axis independent of the others. Thus, if we were to consider the entire tree collectively, it would be classified as 1-B or not?
 
What about if a structure is like this:
In a higher dimension space, there exists a tree with countless to infinite branches, each representing its own world. Each of these branches possesses a separate time axis independent of the others. Thus, if we were to consider the entire tree collectively, it would be classified as 1-B or not?
I would like an answer to this as well.
 
No. Because no amount of universes would be bigger than an uncountable infinite set.


The third temporal axis from Space C, which is separate from the other two temporal axis of the subspace.
I mean, if there are multiple space-times, like A and B, in Space-Time C, than a single snapshot along Space-Time C, its inside at any moment, would be two space-times, no? Moving on, than that snapshot, that has 2 Space-times each with different Time axis, will have two sets of uncountably infinite amount of 3-A snapshots, not 1 set, but two sets. Would that not change anything?
 
I don't understand.
Wdym 3rd ?
The third temporal have their own Dimension/Axis of Time, inside the Space-Time C that also has it's own Time Axis.

So this would make the spatiality of Space time continuum C to be 4D as well.
It would make it 2-C or Low 1-C depending on where you say the higher Axis operates at.

so, once again, from where did the 6D came from ?
It's explicitly noted in the FAQ every additional temporal axis would be an additional level of QS. It would go from 4D -> 5D (2) -> 6D (3).

In a higher dimension space, there exists a tree with countless to infinite branches, each representing its own world. Each of these branches possesses a separate time axis independent of the others. Thus, if we were to consider the entire tree collectively, it would be classified as 1-B or not?
Seperate time branches mean nothing. It's about a different temporal direction. You can have a Multiverse of High 1-B universes still operating off of a single Axis.

If you mean if every universe has their own temporal axis then the overall space-time continuum would be High 1-B.

Would that not change anything?
No. The tiers given in the FAQ is what we use.
 
Seperate time branches mean nothing. It's about a different temporal direction. You can have a Multiverse of High 1-B universes still operating off of a single Axis.

If you mean if every universe has their own temporal axis then the overall space-time continuum would be High 1-B.
This is probably my last question, so if there are countless/infinite universes in a multiverse, and each universe has its own temporal direction/axis, and none of the universes nor the time axis are parallel, than the multiverse in question, given that it is a space-time too, and with a different time axis too, than the multiverse would be 1-B/High 1-B[countless/infinite]?
 
Last edited:
It would make it 2-C or Low 1-C depending on where you say the higher Axis operates at.
It would be 4D (2C) spatially based on the information OP gave.

And the entire ST continuum C would be L1C (5D) because of being 4D spatially + 1D of time.

It's explicitly noted in the FAQ every additional temporal axis would be an additional level of QS. It would go from 4D -> 5D (2) -> 6D (3).
The FAQ said this about additional temporal axis of the same space-time continuum.
Though we can use it in the sense that one timeline is within another, thus making the entire structure to posses 2 temporal dimension.

But that's where I am seeing the issue here. According to the information in OP, the temporal axises of ST continuum A and B are pertinent to each other, just like an usual 2C cosmology. One isn't overarching another here, for which one would be higher than the other temporally (through which I could have gotten 5D for one of them).

The only higher additional temporal axis here would be the temporal axis of ST continuum C because it does encompasses the lower ST continuums.

Why are you exactly implying that one of the temporal axis from the two ST continuums A and B is a "higher additional temporal axis" ? When there's nothing here to base it upon.
They both are just parallel L2C structures (have their own time and space), encapsulated in C.
 
Last edited:
Seperate time branches mean nothing. It's about a different temporal direction. You can have a Multiverse of High 1-B universes still operating off of a single Axis.
I should have worded better. Here, 'separate' means having different time axes moving in different directions.

If you mean if every universe has their own temporal axis then the overall space-time continuum would be High 1-B.
I see. Thx for answering
 
Reminder, this is assuming that all of the mentioned space-times, A, B, and C, have a time axis of their own, and Space-time A and B are inside C like how a Multiverse has multiple space-time continuums inside of it, and that A and B are Low 2-C, while C contains them, and that the time axis of A and B are distinct/do not flow in the same direction, I.E. they are not parallel.

Why are you exactly implying that one of the temporal axis from the two ST continuums A and B is a "higher additional temporal axis" ? When there's nothing here to base it upon.
They both are just parallel L2C structures (have their own time and space), encapsulated in C.
However I did state just before concluding the summary in the OP that the time axis are not parallel.

Also, if there is lack of context here, than I should add, the universes/space-time A and B are also not parallel. Neither are the space-times parallel, nor are the time axis. There were supposed to be many to countless of these space-times in Space-Time C, each non-parallel, but I only mentioned 2, naming them A and B, thinking it would simply the example.
 
This is probably my last question, so if there are countless/infinite universes in a multiverse, and each universe has its own temporal direction/axis, and none of the universes nor the time axis are parallel, than the multiverse in question, given that it is a space-time too, and with a different time axis too, than the multiverse would be 1-B/High 1-B[countless/infinite]?

 
Isn't it similar to my question? It would be H1B.
yes, but I feel like as if it had something to do with the High 1-B space[with 1 time axis] that he mentioned before, that's why I asked again to confirm that he meant a multiverse[tree] with countless/infinite branches[space-times] that are non-overlapping in all ways, with different time axis, and not the one he stated before as an example.
 
Last edited:
However I did state just before concluding the summary in the OP that the time axis are not parallel.

Also, if there is lack of context here, than I should add, the universes/space-time A and B are also not parallel. Neither are the space-times parallel, nor are the time axis. There were supposed to be many to countless of these space-times in Space-Time C, each non-parallel, but I only mentioned 2, naming them A and B, thinking it would simply the example.
Now that I am specifically noting that particular point, I have to say this doesn't makes sense at all.

The ST continuum A and B or even those countless others ST continuums would already have their own space and time dimension of themselves respectively (because they are space time continuum), and since they are all separate (not touching each other or is in contact with one another) they are parallel to each other.
 
By non-parallel, I meant that they aren't in a straight line parallel to each other, but more like randomized dots in a circle[I am not sure if that counts as being parallel or not]

Okay, nvm, I checked again from my source which this thread was for, and it was non-overlapping, not non-parallel, I'll edit that.
 
By non-parallel, I meant that they aren't in a straight line parallel to each other, but more like randomized dots in a circle[I am not sure if that counts as being parallel or not]
Straight line or not, as long they do not come in contact with each other no matter how far they stretch they would be parallel to each other, or atleast will not be connected in some sorts.
So you mentioning that they are ST continuum of their own and yet not parallel was really odd for me.
Okay, nvm, I checked again from my source which this thread was for, and it was non-overlapping, not non-parallel, I'll edit that.
So with the changes made, what does the OP means currently.
I'm assuming nothing has really changed, the ST continuums A and B are still seperate from each other and Exists in ST continuum C.
Am I ryt ?
 
So with the changes made, what does the OP means currently.
I'm assuming nothing has really changed, the ST continuums A and B are still seperate from each other and Exists in ST continuum C.
Am I ryt ?
Yeah, all in all ST continuum C contains ST continuum A and B [with countless more like A and B if I had to add context].

However, it is mentioned [in my source] that the time axis of all of these are in different directions than each other.
 
However, it is mentioned [in my source] that the time axis of all of these are in different directions than each other.
Well their temporal dimension of each of them may be flowing in different directions, but I don't see how that really matters here, since we already know they are different than each other because of being a space time continuum themselves individually.

Let's say the time dimension of ST continuum B is flowing in different direction than the other ST continuums present there, it would still just hold aleph 1 snapshots of it's 3D space and thus would be 4D (L2C).

For you to gain even higher tier, the temporal dimension of ST continuum B would need to encompass other ST continuums. (Which is the case here, ST continuum C encompasses ST continuum A and B).

And then I don't understand how Qawsedf getting upto 6D.
ST continuum A is 4D, and so is ST continuum B, there's nothing to get 5D here, much less you get 6D overally.

The only actual 5D rating comes from ST continuum C encompassing the other ST continuums.
 
Well their temporal dimension of each of them may be flowing in different directions, but I don't see how that really matters here, since we already know they are different than each other because of being a space time continuum themselves individually.

Let's say the time dimension of ST continuum B is flowing in different direction than the other ST continuums present there, it would still just hold aleph 1 snapshots of it's 3D space and thus would be 4D (L2C).

For you to gain even higher tier, the temporal dimension of ST continuum B would need to encompass other ST continuums. (Which is the case here, ST continuum C encompasses ST continuum A and B).

And then I don't understand how Qawsedf getting upto 6D.
ST continuum A is 4D, and so is ST continuum B, there's nothing to get 5D here, much less you get 6D overally.

The only actual 5D rating comes from ST continuum C encompassing the other ST continuums.
That is one of the reasons why I asked my "Last question" too, as I too am a bit confused on that. Although I don't completely understand the logic behind that, I guess it all ends at the last line on FAQ that says :

A spacetime continuum with two time axis, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinite points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one level of qualitative superiority above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time.

However I also have a bit of confusion on how that is 6D. [Am assuming that if Space-Time 1 is inside Space-time 2, and both have different time axis, than that will be the same as a space-time collectively having 2 time and 3 space dimensions.... Although this logic likely as some of flaws]
 
However I also have a bit of confusion on how that is 6D. [Am assuming that if Space-Time 1 is inside Space-time 2, and both have different time axis, than that will be the same as a space-time collectively having 2 time and 3 space dimensions.... Although this logic likely as some of flaws]
This is the correct logic.
That 2 temporal dimension + 3 spatial dimension are what that gives you the 5D rating for ST continuum C here.

Or you can understand it in this manner
Temporal dimensions takes aleph 1amount of snapshots of its spatial axis.
From this we can see how a 3A universe fused with time becomes L2C.

We will consider that this L2C is the ST continuum A from the OP.
This ST continuum A Exists "within" another ST continuum C.
This would make the spatial axis of ST continuum to be 4D (because it is holding a L2C structure within it).

Now just add the temporal dimension of C with the space of it.
It gets you 5D.

That's my answer to you question in the main OP.
But then again I have yet to understand how and why Qawsedf got it upto 6D.
 
Last edited:
This is the correct logic.
That 2 temporal dimension + 3 spatial dimension are what that gives you the 5D rating for ST continuum C here.

Or you can understand it in this manner
Temporal dimensions takes aleph 1amount of snapshots of its spatial axis.
From this we can see how a 3A universe fused with time becomes L2C.

We will consider that this L2C is the ST continuum A from the OP.
This ST continuum A Exists "within" another ST continuum C.
This would make the spatial axis of ST continuum to be 4D (because it is holding a L2C structure within it).

Now just add the temporal dimension of C with the space of it.
It gets you 5D.

That's my answer to you question in the main OP.
But then again I have yet it understand why Qawsedf got it upto 6D.
Yes, but I think in the end, it's all related to THAT ONE LINE at the end of the para....
" Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time. "
 
Yes, but I think in the end, it's all related to THAT ONE LINE at the end of the para....
" Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of qualitative superiority each time. "
That line was made for cases where several other temporal dimensions may exist within one single space time continuum.

A typical space-time continuum would have 3 spatial axis + 1 temporal axis, thus making it 4D.
Now if you add additional n numbers temporal axes all flowing in different directions than each other, the Space time continuum would scale to 3 spatial axis + those n numbers of temporal axis.

It's actually easier to get Higher dimensionality via additional temporal dimension when it's a case of a timeline being encompassed within another instead of trying to prove that one single universe contains several times dimensions from a verse.
 
That line was made for cases where several other temporal dimensions may exist within one single space time continuum.

A typical space-time continuum would have 3 spatial axis + 1 temporal axis, thus making it 4D.
Now if you add additional n numbers temporal axes all flowing in different directions than each other, the Space time continuum would scale to 3 spatial axis + those n numbers of temporal axis.

It's actually easier to get Higher dimensionality via additional temporal dimension when it's a case of a timeline being encompassed within another instead of trying to prove that one single universe contains several times dimensions from a verse.
I get that part too, but the problem is how is it "exactly" applied when the example is like in the OP....
Seperate time branches mean nothing. It's about a different temporal direction. You can have a Multiverse of High 1-B universes still operating off of a single Axis.

If you mean if every universe has their own temporal axis then the overall space-time continuum would be High 1-B.
But here the admin implies that if a structure[let's say S] has infinite space-times in it, and those space-times each have their own time axis that IS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION [which is the case in the OP], than the structure S would be High 1-B, or infinite dimensional, am assuming that if you change the starting amount as countless instead of infinite, than the H1-B rating would also be degraded to simply 1-B instead [countless but still finite dimensional]. And if I say so myself, the actual structure for which I had a confusion, was EXACTLY like that, countless space-times within a larger one but with different time axis in different directions....

My guess is, although just a random one, that it has something to do with the direction [of the line] of time being different for each of those space-times, so it means the bigger space-time stretches[don't know if this word can describe it perfectly] to an uncountably infinite amount of distance in each of the direction that the all the lines are in, and that somehow gives it dimensionality higher than 5D

Again, this is a very random guess which I myself am doubting, so I won't be sure....
 
I get that part too, but the problem is how is it "exactly" applied when the example is like in the OP....
For cases where it isn't about one ST continuum having different temporal axis but a situation where different timelines exists within one another, it would be just like how I explained here.

Or you can understand it in this manner
Temporal dimensions takes aleph 1amount of snapshots of its spatial axis.
From this we can see how a 3A universe fused with time becomes L2C.

We will consider that this L2C is the ST continuum A from the OP.
This ST continuum A Exists "within" another ST continuum C.
This would make the spatial axis of ST continuum to be 4D (because it is holding a L2C structure within it).

Now just add the temporal dimension of C with the space of it.
It gets you 5D.
I get that part too, but the problem is how is it "exactly" applied when the example is like in the OP....

But here the admin implies that if a structure[let's say S] has infinite space-times in it, and those space-times each have their own time axis that IS IN DIFFERENT DIRECTION [which is the case in the OP], than the structure S would be High 1-B, or infinite dimensional, am assuming that if you change the starting amount as countless instead of infinite, than the H1-B rating would also be degraded to simply 1-B instead [countless but still finite dimensional]. And if I say so myself, the actual structure for which I had a confusion, was EXACTLY like that, countless space-times within a larger one but with different time axis in different directions....

My guess is, although just a random one, that it has something to do with the direction [of the line] of time being different for each of those space-times, so it means the bigger space-time stretches[don't know if this word can describe it perfectly] to an uncountably infinite amount of distance in each of the direction that the all the lines are in, and that somehow gives it dimensionality higher than 5D

Again, this is a very random guess which I myself am doubting, so I won't be sure....
This portion is the one I am myself finding surprising.
It feels like now 2A space wouldn't be 2A but H1B instead.
As I before said above, they might be different than each other, but it only gives higher tier if u take snapshots of higher spatial axis.

But let's see what Qawsedf have to say about it. 🤧

Edit - anyways, I'm off to sleep now. So gn
 
No. The tiers given in the FAQ is what we use.
If going by the same example as OP, except that each of those time axis is in a different direction, what would be the tier than? [Because from your reply to the tree and branch example, I'm assuming that those different time axis having a separate direction changes something here....]

Also, on a completely separate note, if the same example is used, different time axis with different directions each, however, the worlds are not parallel, than would something change as well? [this is from another source of mine]
 
For cases where it isn't about one ST continuum having different temporal axis but a situation where different timelines exists within one another, it would be just like how I explained here.



This portion is the one I am myself finding surprising.
It feels like now 2A space wouldn't be 2A but H1B instead.
As I before said above, they might be different than each other, but it only gives higher tier if u take snapshots of higher spatial axis.

But let's see what Qawsedf have to say about it. 🤧

Edit - anyways, I'm off to sleep now. So gn
Welp yeah, I guess it would be, given the infinite continuums inside that 2-A structure have different time axis.... in different directions too at least
Though am waiting for Qawsedf to hopefully explain how that is.....

And yeah, let's see what he replies 🤧
 
No. Because no amount of universes would be bigger than an uncountable infinite set.


The third temporal axis from Space C, which is separate from the other two temporal axis of the subspace.
I didn't meant adding space-times/4D snapshots to the uncountably infinite snapshots, I meant adding space-times like A and B, like adding C so that space-time C contains 3, or keep adding more so it will contain 4, 5, 6 and so on[but not infinite] amount of space-times [each with different time axis in different direction. I think you misunderstood my part there, as shown from your reply on the tree and branch example by the other user...
 
I didn't meant adding space-times/4D snapshots to the uncountably infinite snapshots, I meant adding space-times like A and B, like adding C so that space-time C contains 3,
Space C on its own is holding two universal spaces, which is only 2-C size wise. The total space-time continuum would still be 5D for a 4D+1 space and collectively it would entail a 6D total cosmology due to three different temporal axis.
 
Space C on its own is holding two universal spaces, which is only 2-C size wise. The total space-time continuum would still be 5D for a 4D+1 space and collectively it would entail a 6D total cosmology due to three different temporal axis.
Ah, ok, gotten, I wanted to confirm more on that 6D part.

Than, what about this :

A Space-time A has Space-time B, C, D, E, F.... Z in it. [A total of 25 space-times in A]. Each of these space-times have different temporal axis, each of these axis have a different flow/their direction is different too.

What would be the tier of Space-Time A AS A WHOLE. Can it be 1-B[As implied by your answer to the tree example]? This would be my final question in this thread given no other person posses an interesting question that I would want to know too.

Thanks!
 
Back
Top