# Here's some math for you nerds - Calculating Multiversal Divergence for Beginners

#### Prez

The empirical experience of "time," is that which the collective mass majority agree upon. Let me explain further, and what the implications are.

In present reality (which I will call P) there are certain causality events that are indisputable. These are things such as the big bang, eclipses, transits, solstices, etc. Anything that is not a fixed point is a flux point that can potentially be changed.
• Let's call the set of all indisputable fixed points I.
• Let's call the set of all flux points Y.
• I and Y are disjointed sets within P.
So, P = {Y1, I1, Y2, I2, ... Yn, In,}

It's also important to note that some flux points can be "stickier" or more rigid depending on the event. Take the US Presidential elections as an example, which occur periodically every 4 years. They are not fixed points, but they do have enough rigidity that you can mostly count on them.
• We call things like these "Anchor points," or Q.
• In the empirical reality, anchor points unify fixed points and flux points.
We can now represent empirical reality as follows, P = { Y U Q U I }

Adam is a cadet. Reality to him is PAdam which happens to coincide with P right now.
Were Adam to go back and kill his grandfather, he would find himself at odds with the empirical because P'Adam<> P.

What does this mean?! It means you take a hard fork in the road. Classic grandfather paradox.
But what's the impact? The impact is the difference between P'Adam and P.

To begin calculating the divergence, P'Adam \ P, one needs to know Adam's relative anchor points. The % divergence will vary depending upon Adam's significance.

Quantifying divergence can be subjective and is messy. Estimating is much easier.
WHEN you're measuring and for HOW LONG also matters. The Aztecs got that right. I may elaborate later.

To communicate divergence in a common language, we can assign point values to sets.
• Fixed points (I) are worth 10.
• Flux points (Y) are worth 5.
• Anchor points (Q) are worth 8.
Assigning numerical values to types of points allows us to calculate the total "Reality Value" (RV) of P.
In practicality we're talking about orders of infinities, but I'm trying to keep it simple to chew on for now.

Alrighty, let's see what calculating divergence actually looks like. For simplicity, lets imagine we have 10 fixed points, 20 flux points, and 5 anchor points in our microverse P. Using our assigned values we have (10 * 10) + (20 * 5) + (5 * 8) which gives us a total RV of P = 240

Ok, now imagine Adam goes back in time, punches 7 people in the face on the same day, and then returns home. Of these people, 2 may have been important. We'll call those 5 flux point punches and 2 anchor point punches.

Using our assigned values we have a change factor of (5 * 5) + (2 * 8) = 41

(41/240) * 100 = ~17.0833% divergence.

I think the morale of this story is that you should feel free to save a few people from Pompeii, but just be careful if you go around punching Presidents.
This is also an oversimplification of multiversal mechanics, but it may be enough to get the gears turning. The more known points, the greater the predictable divergence. Divergence isn't some arcane thing that can't be calculated, and doesn't really get messy until you go really granular. General Relativity is more than enough.

There's still more to it, but I figured "How else could I begin to explain things to these people if they have no frame of reference?"
In practical application, a well-educated Traveler could estimate the RV of their P for usage as a benchmark. Then, as they travel and observe, they can re-estimate the RV of P to differentiate divergence.

Ok, so what use is knowing divergence?
Weeeeeeeelp

Last edited by a moderator:
@Cosmo I can't edit my post & noticed I made two minor errors in my symbols. The numerical calculation itself is still correct, but there's one symbol missing from somewhere & I accidentally swapped symbols in another place. I'd rather edit for my OP to be more accurate.....or potentially leave it as-is and see who notices

@Cosmo I can't edit my post & noticed I made two minor errors in my symbols. The numerical calculation itself is still correct, but there's one symbol missing from somewhere & I accidentally swapped symbols in another place. I'd rather edit for my OP to be more accurate.....or potentially leave it as-is and see who notices
Let me know what changes need to be made, and I'll fix your post.

Let me know what changes need to be made, and I'll fix your post.
But what's the impact? The impact is the difference between PAdam and P.
To communicate divergence in a common language, we can assign point values to sets.
• Fixed points (Y) are worth 10.
• Flux points (I) are worth 5.
^ For the above I meant to use Fixed points (I) and Flux points (Y) for consistency

@Prez - I believe I fixed it for you. Did I?

Dropping a note for @RainmanTime

Professor, once you've caught up on my beginner post on actually calculating divergence--make sure to also follow up on my beginner post on calculating multiversal convergence. I'm assuming you must know a little bit of physics so this should be easy enough for you to grasp if you also know a little bit of set theory. Maybe later we can compare credentials and challenge coins.

Dropping a note for @RainmanTime

Professor, once you've caught up on my beginner post on actually calculating divergence--make sure to also follow up on my beginner post on calculating multiversal convergence. I'm assuming you must know a little bit of physics so this should be easy enough for you to grasp if you also know a little bit of set theory. Maybe later we can compare credentials and challenge coins.

Now that I have pointed out your sophomoric attempt to quantify divergence, go ahead and give me a link to your "calculating multiversal convergence."

It would seem I know a lot more about physics than you do, but I can still be convinced otherwise.
RMT

Now that I have pointed out your sophomoric attempt to quantify divergence, go ahead and give me a link to your "calculating multiversal convergence."

It would seem I know a lot more about physics than you do, but I can still be convinced otherwise.
RMT
I saw your attempted refutation & responded kindly on the other post. You haven't proven anything to me yet old friend.
Linked below is my post on calculating multiversal convergence. These get harder and harder, so if this one felt beneath you--stick around and let me entertain you.