Dryunya wrote:Ok. Now I'll try to make sense of the Witch's interpretation of the model. I'm bad at spatial four-dimensional thinking (space-time thinking is still OK), so I'll need your opinion.Wicked Witch wrote:The problem with this is that wormholes only work within the four dimensions of space and time. Wormholes will either bridged distances in 3 dimensions or connect alternate universes with your universe.
You can break through the connecting walls of each alternate universe, but you cannot connect to a universe that is completely separate from your own. For those of you who are familiar with four dimensional geometic shapes: instead of connecting to another cube in a tesseract, I need to connect to a completely different tesseract and cross what could be considered a fifth dimension – this White Void, or Fourth Wall, or what have you. Wormholes can’t do that, so I’m still stuck here.
Ok. By the second sentence, she lost me.
So our universe is represented with 3 spatial coordinates and 1 temporal coordinate. Makes sense.
Now adding one more dimension would represent our entire universe and its history as a 5-dimensional plane. Travelling along the 5th axis would mean travelling between the parallel planes representing other universes (oh hey, that is why they are called "parallel worlds" ).
The way I see it, we may divide the 5-dimensional space in two by an impassable (via wormholes, or whatever) 5-dimensional plane which we call The White Void. The halves of the metaverse are still infinite, so it's ok. Travelling along the 5th axis in the fictional half would mean travelling between different stories.
...and now that I have to include the intersections of the fictional universes, canon weldings and whatnot, and especially nested universes, I'm officially baffled. Considering that every 4-dimensional space in the fictional half should still have its sub-universe... Ok, I'm stuck in my own words. Basically, I'm saying that our model implies infinite-dimensional space, no matter how hardcore it may sound.
Now is your turn to say it in a way that actually makes sense.
UPD: I'm not sure what she meant by "separate tesseracts". If she meant separated in the 5-dimentional space - most of them are. If she still meant 4-dimensional one, then the tesseracts would have to be finite, which is hardly correct.
Sicon112 wrote:Oh, and don't bother about time. Just remove it from the equation like I did. It's not important enough to think about.
Pixelmage wrote:Sicon112 wrote:Oh, and don't bother about time. Just remove it from the equation like I did. It's not important enough to think about.
What about my image..?
Well, I guess it was just what you said in graphic form... But...
Dryunya wrote:I Cannot Grasp The True Form.
I think the biggest problem with the Witch's model is that even if most of us finally get it, the explanations for it will be totally different, and thus incompatible (for example, most of my interpretations of higher dimensions are more like a vector field in 3d - I told you I can't comprehend higher dimensions. That's why, btw, I don't get that "tesseract is 6 cubes" interpretation). Basically, understanding the multi-dimensional model is Something One's Got To Do Himself.
So far, I'm failing. If I don't succeed, I'll officially become useless in my own brainchild thread. I've Made Myself Sad.
Some comment from me: If we look at our current model and represent every point in those purple squiggly lines with a 3-dimensional space, we basically get a tesseract. It still gets more confusing if I come back to the "parallel 5-dimensional planes" model.
I think the GMs have invited some mathematician to screw with us for making them comprehend our model.
Some stray right-before-submitting thought: I think we can consider our model complete from the mathematical standpoint when we have a universal coordinate system, so that we can define a point in any universe, time and position with a set of numbers (possibly infinite). I haven't developed that thought into anything sensible, but it's some food for thought.
AND nearly forgot: Somebody has mentioned "universe", "metaverse" and "omniverse". I think it's about time we define the terms. I propose the following: "universe" is something limited by 3 (the number can be different, but let's not go there) spatial and 1 temporal coordinate; can be real and fictional (who's who depends on the direction of those through-the-wall interactions). "Metaverse" is all universes combined, both real and fictional. I don't remember what the omniverse was, but for now I just assume it as a badass-sounding word.
I'm sorry my posts lack their usual order. That's either because I sleep too little, or because I don't use lists. Probably the latter.
Sicon112 wrote:
Like I said, there is a connection of sorts between a universe and it's fiction, probably a one way one, at least normally. This allows the fiction to be written. However, I can't really think of a good way to represent that.
Dryunya wrote:I Cannot Grasp The True Form.
I think the biggest problem with the Witch's model is that even if most of us finally get it, the explanations for it will be totally different, and thus incompatible (for example, most of my interpretations of higher dimensions are more like a vector field in 3d - I told you I can't comprehend higher dimensions. That's why, btw, I don't get that "tesseract is 6 cubes" interpretation). Basically, understanding the multi-dimensional model is Something One's Got To Do Himself.
So far, I'm failing. If I don't succeed, I'll officially become useless in my own brainchild thread. I've Made Myself Sad.
Some comment from me: If we look at our current model and represent every point in those purple squiggly lines with a 3-dimensional space, we basically get a tesseract. It still gets more confusing if I come back to the "parallel 5-dimensional planes" model.
I think the GMs have invited some mathematician to screw with us for making them comprehend our model.
Some stray right-before-submitting thought: I think we can consider our model complete from the mathematical standpoint when we have a universal coordinate system, so that we can define a point in any universe, time and position with a set of numbers (possibly infinite). I haven't developed that thought into anything sensible, but it's some food for thought.
AND nearly forgot: Somebody has mentioned "universe", "metaverse" and "omniverse". I think it's about time we define the terms. I propose the following: "universe" is something limited by 3 (the number can be different, but let's not go there) spatial and 1 temporal coordinate; can be real and fictional (who's who depends on the direction of those through-the-wall interactions). "Metaverse" is all universes combined, both real and fictional. I don't remember what the omniverse was, but for now I just assume it as a badass-sounding word.
I'm sorry my posts lack their usual order. That's either because I sleep too little, or because I don't use lists. Probably the latter.
Qara-Xuan Zenith wrote:Sicon112 wrote:
Like I said, there is a connection of sorts between a universe and it's fiction, probably a one way one, at least normally. This allows the fiction to be written. However, I can't really think of a good way to represent that.
Well, just assume that the Void is what prevents the connection between a universe from its fiction being two-way.
Refer to my diagram/explanation and replace my idea of the Void as a circle around only OUR reality with a circle around EVERY reality.
Krika wrote:The void can just be the walls, the edges on the tesseract model. Also, a proper Tesseract is 8 cubes, not 6.
Universe: A single room, a single story. We are in our own specific Universe. A 3d construct.
Multiverse: All given permutations of a given Universe. A 4d construct.
Metaverse: All given stories, where each story is it's own Multiverse. A 5d construct. With the same layer structure as our metaverse model.
Good definitions?
Krika wrote:Universe: A single room, a single story. We are in our own specific Universe. A 3d construct.
Multiverse: All given permutations of a given Universe. A 4d construct.
Metaverse: All given stories, where each story is it's own Multiverse. A 5d construct.
Dryunya wrote: Thus, by your definition, metaverse is 6-dimensional.
Krika wrote:The void can just be the walls, the edges on the tesseract model. Also, a proper Tesseract is 8 cubes, not 6.
Universe: A single room, a single story. We are in our own specific Universe. A 3d construct.
Multiverse: All given permutations of a given Universe. A 4d construct.
Metaverse: All given stories, where each story is it's own Multiverse. A 5d construct.
Good definitions?
Victin wrote:I think it's more like:
Universe: Limited number of spatial and temporal coordinates (Real and Fictional Multiverse)
Multiverse: Variations of a same universe.
Metaverse: Group of different Universes/Multiverses
Omniverse: Everything that there is
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests