Saj: A Conlang with Two Dimensions of Time | Submission for the CCC3

[@cmyk8964]

Saj speakers when they stutter or mispronounce anything and now must restate the entire fucking paragraph

[@thezipcreator]

I mean you wouldn't really; you might have to restate some words around the misspeaking, which happens in linear languages anyway. now it is generally _worse_ to misspeak in languages with higher dimensions because in those languages more neighbors are going to be affected, but you wouldn't have to resay an entire paragraph.

[@htspencer9084]

Yeah can you desync with yourself?

[@arcturuslight_]

@htspencer9084 not really. But it may cause you to lose more time (sorta). Lateral and vertical times are independent (sorta). For example, you may start with saying phoneme/word/sentence 1, which is followed by sound 2 after it, and sound 3 katopin it. Sound 4 is katopin 2 and after 3, which are both causes of it. If you stutter in the beginning of saying 3, it just moves the proper pronunciation of 3 laterally more katopin, and as such, 4 will also occur more katopin, while still at the intended time vertically. It will however create awkward silence vertically after the place where you stuttered, katopin 2. You may fill that space by saying something, adding to 2. Or you may not. I'm not sure. Technically, nothing may be stopping you from making an informationally sparse language in that universe, where the sentence only lasts laterally for one phoneme, and katopin you stay silent, instead speaking after the first phoneme vertically for some time, and then switch to speaking purely laterally. Or speak at an angle, but only along a line that continues for one phoneme across. Now that'll be a true linear speech, a cursed conlang in-universe.

[@Wsnewname]

I always made fun of the Flatlanders, only to discover that I am a Flattimer.

[@FireyDeath4]

Everyone not in Hilbert space is already a flatlander really

[@eliascorrea8573]

@@FireyDeath4 truly meta

[@SkullTraill]

Nah Sajjers are flat timers, we’re thread timers

[@techley4322]

ive been extremely interested in multiple temporal dimensions, but I've never seen anyone mess around with the concept. This is awesome.

[@Han-b5o3p]

I think I saw a video on this topic before which I want to recommend, but I forgot what the title of the video was haha

[@callyral]

same

[@arcturuslight_]

I was thinking about it, and even thought about coding something. I was thinking about time dimensions in a very similar way to this video, but from a simplified step-based physics way, not linguistics. After watching the video, I lost inspiration for pursuing this. I just gonna bake my brain if I try.

[@techley4322]

@@arcturuslight_ Ive tried coding something like this before, and yeah, it baked my brain. There's no way to "experience" time like the beings in this world that would make sense to us.

[@lodef]

There's a puzzle game which explores this concept actually! "Entwined Time" has you controlling two robots who each move in time dimensions perpendicular to one another. Which not an "accurate" implementation of dual-time, it's still interesting to explore. Here's a link to a playthrough if you're interested kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoSapniwp7mdbMUsi=URM5qpH3De8KWkF3

[@cf6755]

i talked(prin, before) to someone random on the street and he said "i herd(prin) a lecture awhile back about the philosophy of light". i said "so what was the conclusion" and he said "it hasn't finished yet".then i waits 30 second in after. and he said "oh it's finish".

[@Ani_150]

I have literally giggled evilly when I saw the thumbnail glad to say that I am not disappointed

[@thezipcreator]

oh my god I'm not the only one who does this

[@davidhand9721]

I once saw a batshit crank physics theory that had 3 time dimensions. I think the dude is still screaming about it here on KZbin.

[@thezipcreator]

physics crackpots are an interesting breed

[@stepexgd6628]

Did they get into the formality of what the second and third time dimension would actually represent?

[@centarian2559]

You know, after watching this video I immediately made the potential connection to quantum mechanics, specifically the fact that particles properties (including position and velocity) are technically in all possible states that could derive from that particle until finally determined through interaction with another particle. It is also possible that each particle was in all possible states that could derive from it's second to last recorded state and lead to it's last recorded state.

[@theapexsurvivor9538]

​@@stepexgd6628if he's operating off of superstring (hypo)theory, then 5th and 6th are axis of probability, where moving forwards doesn't advance causality, but instead modifies the statistical outcomes (smaller values produce more similar end states that often seem identical, larger values produce extremely different end states), with the 7th-9th dimensions typically being axis of different initial conditions and laws of physics (superstring proposes 10 total dimensions that we can comprehend, but the 10th always seems like they were trying to make it a round number imo [despite 9 already being a nice 3x3 that's actually somewhat understandable])

[@adiaphoros6842]

​​@@centarian2559 Quantum had an article about 2 (if I remember correctly) theoretical physicists developing a model with 3 time dimensions. Once they ran the equations on a particle, it behaved like a quantum object (i.e. it spread out like a wave)

[@VidNudistKid]

Rotate your time plane 45° and you get a time-space diagram with causality limited by a constant speed (such as the speed of light)

[@thezipcreator]

while it may look superficially similar, it's not the same thing. on a spacetime diagram you have one axis for space and one for time; on a timeplane both are time axes. while yes, you can't affect something outside of your light cone, if you try to draw any other similarities the comparison falls apart.

[@haoyu53]

@@thezipcreator If the defining trait of time is causality, then your graph at 7:00 is identical to a light cone in 2d spacetime (the partial future regions are of space-like points to the present, while total future/past are time-like points). I fail to see any difference there is to our normal physical reality, or any difference a negative 45 degree line on the graph is to a spacial axis

[@thezipcreator]

@@haoyu53 I'll answer that in the followup video.

[@JohnSmith-of2gu]

Physicists: You cannot have complex life with more than one time dimension, that means you don't have causality! Linguist: CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! I can tell this is impressive, but it breaks my brain.

[@zy6708]

what physicist said that :|

[@ObjectsInMotion]

@@zy6708Max Tegmark and many others

[@theapexsurvivor9538]

I mean, you still preserve causality, it's just that the causal chain may begin in a different initial point on the second time axis. So long as at least one time axis is between minimum entropy and maximum entropy, complex life is entirely possible. (Note, time most likely doesn't progress forwards, but rather we just experience it that way due to being 3 dimensional with brains operating on increasing entropy, our consciousness being shunted along a probable track by the nature of our construction [assuming that we aren't just Boltzmann brains created in this instant with an entire history of self that never happened {yet} and will cease to exist immediately afterwards, only to be created again 10↑↑↑10 years ago with memories of "the ""next"" instant" and once more 6.3215 years from now and so on ad infinitum])

[@anipodat394]

this is definitely one of the videos of all (both) time(s)

[@mistycremo9301]

I'm only at 7:39, but I'm not convinced that the two time dimensions need to be functionally different in behavior. They just need to contain different stuff. An object's momentum in one time axis being different from its momentum in the other is sufficient to differenciate the two, for example.

[@thezipcreator]

I've had that thought too, and yes it is not _strictly_ necessary for them to act differently, but making them act differently is an easy way to get different stuff to happen on both.

[@theapexsurvivor9538]

I mean, technically they should be identical, for a 5th(3+2)+ dimensional being and in a sense for a 3rd dimensional being. For a 4th(3+1) dimensional being, they should be as different as spacial and temporal dimensions are to us, with voluntary movement restricted to 4 axis while involuntary movement is present on the 5th axis. (E.g. being aware of every probable timeline and able to move between them, but forced to continue forward in causality no matter what) So to us, we should probably only be vaguely aware of the 5th dimension and it should be functionally indistinguishable from the 4th dimension (though may seem as aesthetically different as vertical and horizontal are to a dot[0th dimensional being] in flatland)

[@savazeroa]

holy shit the script looks so cool - script enjoyer

[@mutedknght]

I PROMISE you if you up your microphone quality/speech clarity a bit and work on your audio mixing you will explode in size. This is so high quality and had me hooked

[@thezipcreator]

what's specifically wrong with the audio mixing? I tried to make the music volume lower if that's what the issue is. also not really sure what to do about mic quality; I bought a new microphone because people were complaining on some of my older videos (and I started using audacity's noise removal properly) so I think I've done everything I've can there but idk

[@mutedknght]

​@@thezipcreator there's a lot of points with peaking and strong sharp sounds. If you don't have a pop filter I recommend getting one. In my personal taste opinion, so take this as a super grain of salt, I think when the music isn't being used as part of a transition it should be barely audible, right now it sounds like it's like 60% as loud as your voice in some parts. I want to be clear you have a really good voice and grasp on what your narration sounds like but it feels a little fast, like you're stumbling over some words or phrases. I feel like slowing back a little bit could help a bit. Again I really liked your style and it was super clean and still was a great listen overall, and I am just one youtube comment who has only watched this one video.

[@SaintJames14]

​@@mutedknghtI'm an audio engineer and music producer- I agree fully with everything here. We hear in one dimension, so you should really only have 2 sounds - "focused" data (like a tree, a house, words) and "setting" or "scene" data (grass, sky, BGM at 8-15% volume) Get a pop filter, stay ~6-12" away from the mic, and get yourself a sennheiser/audio-technica mic and studio headphone pair and you'll instantly rocket this channel into money-making territory

[@cubeman541]

you frighten me.

[@beamshooter]

There is a branch of quantum mechanics that operates under 3 space and 3 time dimensions. The extra time dimensions provide uncertainty in superposed states, but as you show they always lead to one absolute future (the collapsed state)

[@drdca8263]

No there isn’t.

[@frostyelkk]

​@@drdca8263 'nuh uh'

[@Konomi_io]

@@drdca8263 so insightful

[@drdca8263]

@@Konomi_io I wasn’t trying to be insightful, just correct. One cannot sensibly ask “is this state a superposition”, but rather, one can ask “is this state a superposition of these other states” or “in this state, is there a superposition of values for this particular observable”. In any reasonable quantum mechanical system, for a state in that system , there will be some observable where the state has a superposition of different values for that observable.

[@beamshooter]

@@drdca8263Superposition states can have arbitrary phase values to them. This opens up an entire degree of freedom that can be arbitrarily and uniformly mapped to extra time dimensions.

[@1d10tcannotmakeusername]

I've said it before and I'll say it again The shape of time itself can be boiled down to the Cyrillic letter Ж Glad the idea of orthogonal time is finally reaching the conlang sphere

[@qjmi]

its actually crazy that you only have 260 subs, youre gonna blow up one day your videos are so high quality!!!!!

[@borismulder9585]

roughly corresponds to half of the people on earth with IQ>200, the other half found this video too trivial

[@untainted_snail819]

"Now, one may ask, 'Why would you choose a lossless format?'" It hadn't crossed my mind, but I'm glad you thought about it.

[@ETBCOR]

HOLY SHIT, this is one of those ideas that i've had on the backburner of my brain for YEARS. i knew i couldn't possibly be the first person to conceptualize 2D time, but i decided not to dig into what had been done before so i could imagine it for myself. but once this came up on my YT feed... i had to take a look. And oh BOY was it gratifying to watch you so gracefully articulate the core idea of how that might work so closely to how i imagined it!! thank you for making this video! i also ended up just searching "2d time", then going to the "Multiple time dimensions" wikipedia page, then going down the "Time Cube" rabbit hole... so thanks for that too i guess 😂

[@ETBCOR]

also the conlang concept seems really cool! although hard to understand after one watch. i'm def gonna check out that github repo

[@amber_amber101]

It's so fascinating to see someone else come up with the exact same concept I came up with, but use it in an entirely different and really interesting way

[@lukesmith8896]

I'm just gonna trust that this makes sense

[@jktech2117]

i also understood nothing and sent to a friend that knows abt this kind of things more XD but i watched the whole thing trying to get it at least

[@m.gaiolas457]

sir, this is a wendy's

[@atlassolid5946]

sir, this is the ccc3

[@bookreviewsfromareadingmac1148]

I didn’t understand that at all. It was incredible 10/10

[@anipodat394]

sir, this is is a wendy's. will katopin you be ordering something?

[@aceman0000099]

Lazy joke!

[@zackdrake8735]

Atypical people... Maybe...

[@AlexandHuman]

As someone working on a 3 dimensional time traveling story, I am trying my best to develop some sort of 3-dimensional time language. I am excited if you have anything to expand on this towards 3-D time.

[@thezipcreator]

this language doesn't really have anything to do with time travel or multiple timelines, so I'm not sure anything here would be particularly helpful for your project.

[@AlexandHuman]

@@thezipcreator My bad, I may have misunderstood the scope here, and maybe also where/when the creatures of this language exist

[@Ethan-lx1vv]

This makes me wonder how would these creatures speak this language? Speaking this language would require that you can make sounds which propagate along one axis, but not the other, and by simultaneously speaking the two axes of the sentence, while themselves moving diagonally, they make the rectangular area which constitutes the sentence. This would imply that, somehow, they can choose the direction in which the sound travels in time. But how would they do that? How does choosing to move through time work?

[@thezipcreator]

first of all, they don't "move diagonally"; you need to stop thinking of it linearly. at all points within the area of an entity's lifetime they exist, and there's two future directions that they're moving in (it's very hard to wrap your mind around, I know). sounds would propagate across _both_ time directions, it's just that if you sample linearly, going forward in either time direction, it sounds like the entity is producing either component of a phoneme. but of course, an entity experiences the entire plane, and so they experience the phonemes more or less as one sound. now, most likely, that double pronounciation would alter the quality of the other phoneme (which is why some combinations are disallowed in the first place; since they'd be too hard to actually put together) but to go farther then saying that would probably require me to do some actual physics and I'm too stupid for that

[@Ethan-lx1vv]

@@thezipcreator I think I get it, more or less. The place where my confusion stemmed from was the idea that the "present" in this space is a singular point, and thus the trajectory of a being's life is the line that it traces through time. I realize in the video you stated lines don't exist in here, but for me it was the only way I could interpret it. Sorry. Given this explanation though, the way I am seeing it now is that there is 2 "presents", corresponding to the current moment for each axis, independently. In theory there is still an "absolute present" where these two presents intersect, which WOULD be a point, but the absolute present wouldn't be a very useful construct, sense the two other presents are much more important. Did I get it right? Even if I didn't, I find this really interesting and I think I will look into this further. Any places you recommend looking into to learn more about this? You aren't obligated to do anything, I will search regardless, you just might have a better idea of where to start.

[@hem9483]

​@Ethan-lx1vv I think you're doing the equivalent of applying graduate level theoretical physics to a rhetorical question by OUR logic and OUR math what you're saying makes sense, but in a universe with two temporal dimensions it probably doesn't work out the way we'd expect. also this is a conlang and OP presumably isn't in the business of understanding things literally beyond human comprehension

[@thezipcreator]

@@Ethan-lx1vv The current present is still a point in time; you could draw future lines from the present I guess but the present is still a point. there's no universal "current moment for each axis" since you could start measuring from anywhere (since planes have translational symmetry, this is analogous to the fact that in 1d time we can set "year 1" to anything and different cultures have assigned it different times); so if your time coordinates are (t,u) whatever points (t,0) and (0,u) happen to be is probably not particularly relevant, especially if (0,0) was a long time ago. I wish I had resources to give you but I don't because I don't think anyone has really conceptualized of 2d time in this way, as far as I know. if I do a follow-up video I will definitely try to clear up things, however

[@drdca8263]

Wouldn’t you just make your speaker-membrane (or vocal cords or whatever) oscillate with a frequency that is fully in one time direction? (Or, like, I guess the frequency is in frequency space, not in time, but there’s a clear correspondence in the directions, even if not in the scales, so whatever) If the membrane only oscillates along that axis, then the wave it produces should also only oscillate along that axis.

[@FireyDeath4]

Of course it's been an extremely long time katopin the submission timeframe and that's why he managed to come up with all of it before it's 10 years after the CCC3 and they're running CCC8 or something And this guy is secretly a bitemponian passing through the tempolinear realm

[@FloatingChameleon]

Forget 4 dimensional space, bruh just invented 2 dimensional time 💀💀💀 Btw i love your unique video style!

[@EdwardNavu]

Reminds me of the light cone when you visualize 2-D Time that way. The Partial Future looks like the area outside the light cone. And now all I have to do is to figure out which word/glyph/waveform corresponds to the word "Edward" just to express my name in Saj. Great. And yeah, we still can't speak Saj with 1-D Audio that we can hear, right? lol

[@thezipcreator]

I translated "Edward" as "wealth guard" since that's what the name means etymologically. you can find the glyphs for it if you match up the gloss with the writing at the final example

[@Starblazer-oc4nt]

I would love another video on this, wonderful idea

[@dinhero21]

You could translate the sentence into a graph where nodes are events and lines represent causality This would also allow for a greater generalization of graph time languages where events can cause any other event arbitraraly of course, this breaks causality, so you could limit it to only acyclic graphs This allows for some things impossible in Saj (or other 2D languages): A causes B A causes C B causes D C does not cause D If you were to build it like: ^BD |AC then, C would cause D

[@thezipcreator]

ooh, that's a cool idea. the thing is with 2d time is that it is still continuous, so maybe you could formulate it as a limit of planar graphs that are more and more dense? that makes me curious about the limits of other graph constructions now too... allowing cyclic graphs could be interesting also; those would represent "time loops" I guess. (and I suppose that it means that everything in a time loop causes everything else?)

[@drdca8263]

@@thezipcreatorOne interesting thing is that, it turns out that a lot of stuff about spacetime can be reconstructed from just the partial order on events? Apparently if two Lorentzian manifolds have isomorphic partial orders (where the partial order is “is timelike-before”), then they are related by a conformal map, and so in a sense differ only by how much volume things have? Or something like that. You can talk about “chains”, sequences of events where each in the sequence is timelike-before the next one in the sequence, and can define things like geodesics and such, and I think an analogy to Cauchy-hypersurfaces, etc. Though, it kinda seems to me like this might always result in a at most single time dimension?? The notion of a geodesic in the "causal sets" program, seems to apply to any locally finite poset… though, maybe that's just because the definitions were chosen to produce a single time dimension. Maybe if instead of a path being a *sequence* of events, we could consider a set of events such that there exists a partial-order-preserving map from it into R^2 (with the ordering you used on R^2) (or, we could have a type of chain for any fixed poset, where the usual notion of a chain would be an R-chain, and where they are mapped to R^2 would be an R^2-chain) And we could talk about what R^2-chains within a given set are maximal, or which can’t have additional elements from the larger power added to it which are strictly between elements already in it while still being an R^2-chain ? Maybe this would work to generalize the concept of causal sets to a version with multiple time dimensions? (Or possibly even to a not-an-integer-number-of time-dimensions??) So, then, one could maybe view the same poset as if it was a causal set for one time dimension, but could also view it in the context of multiple time dimensions? (… another thing that could maybe be an option could be to try to generalize the concept of a partial order to, instead of a relation on two inputs, a relation on 3 or more inputs? There are cyclical orders, but maybe there is something more beyond that.)

[@goomygaming980]

couldn't this still be built? ^D |B |AC

[@CyanBlack_0011]

Amazing, understandable from the semantic (the meaning of and what we are trying to say) point of view and quite a challenge to overcome if you do not have any backgrounds in this field of study... but it is amazing. Perfectly explained in an old fashioned style of screen displays and a funny use of subtitles. I don't know if it is going into nguh's competition because of the scarcity of a more dense matrix of features and more cursed stuff even if it would distract them from the original intended thing, but I see isolated and developed ideas that could be integrated perfectly in another creation or be taken as a paradigm for the creation of other Cursed Conlang Mechanic or Feature (call it as you will), ever improving the conglang landscape. I repeat, amazing. The other thing that I loved is the fact that it makes an attempt at defining an untranslatability to linear languages. I have never seen anyone trying to create barriers between classical or traditional kinds of languages and conlangs and these non-linear languages. It makes me truly wonder what are the limits in the imagination of these creators and how could they sustain such claims and make them look cool as this one, without too much of a science or math-logic jargon included in the script. I simply stand in awe and in hope you continue your project, even if presented in such a modest way and manner. Overrated? My take, it is. And that, dear creator, is what I call my next suscription. Keep up the good work.

[@ulipink]

glad to see you came back for CCC3 :3, good luck

[@matiasnovabaza8208]

I think it would feel better for the 2D vector comunication using the lateral mouth, (I will use x and y as the acus bc i forgot the name of the other future) like in the "futureX" you know what the posX of the event is, in the futureY you know the posY, and in absolute future you know the absolute pos of the event, this is really cool because you can imagine walking to the event in the two separates timenlines and meeting at the same point in the timeplane

[@thezipcreator]

it kinda does work like that; for small numbers (as shown in the video) it kinda just looks like one block but when you get to bigger numbers it does sorta separate into two lines across both axes.

[@hihihirenx1513]

Really fascinating. Fun to think about. Thanks.

[@Т1000-м1и]

The style for this is absolutely perfect. 467th sub

[@terdragontra8900]

Making a phoneme component in one time axis, and another in the other, is crazy to think about in detail. Both phonemes would have to start with the same mouth position if they both start at the same (2D) time, but that restriction can be avoided by just being silent for a split second a bit after, and a bit katopin, though whatever the (presumably non human) mouth is doing to “mix” the two in the middle is nuts. Being simultaneously caused by things in two different directions that line up seemingly magical is nuts, in general.

[@Attaxalotl]

Almost anyone who's read Sphereland can intuit the 4th dimension reasonably enough by way of analogy, which I won't attempt to explain here because I'll do a much worse job than the author and there's an edition that comes as a 2-in-1 with Flatland which is basically required reading for anyone with even a passing interest in this stuff. But we're used to one dimension of time, a 2D being has a much easier time understanding a 3rd dimension; than a 1D being understanding a 2nd dimension; because the 2D being has a concept and understanding of more than one direction. We don't have a concept of more than one direction in this case.

[@bebemichelin425]

This is gonna blow up mark my words

[@etruscanetwork]

After watching this and IO I now have a new category of conlang in my mind, and it's called schizolang, a conlang that transcends reality and/or the speaker's plane of existence

[@thezipcreator]

never really was a fan of the term "schizo" used in this way, like schizophrenia is a real thing people have to deal with, not just funny internet bullshit. maybe "extrauniversal conlang" would be a better term?

[@etruscanetwork]

@@thezipcreator Well, my bad, I was thinking about the schizo shitpost thing, but that makes sense, extrauniversal conlang is better and more respectful

[@4thalt]

Katopin Past is an awesome band name

[@jktech2117]

love the DOS style of this video, keep that up dood!

[@vk8a8]

this just sounds like a fancy spatial dimension ngl

[@tottiman3939]

time is kind of a fancy spatial dimension

[@Spiderslay3r]

one of the top comments describes a situation where someone is both observing a lecture in a classroom while simultaneously on the street talking to the narrator. the reality is that they were also at home cooking, out buying groceries, and engaged in possibly hundreds to thousands of other distinct activities, as well as the spectrum of activities between each. In that slice of the time shape of their life, what would be an instant in one dimensional time, that person exists as infinitely many instances of their self, each one able to experience all of them with perfect clarity, and recall the memories of each no differently than their own. assuming a rectangular timeshape, eventually they will die in one axis, and every single instance will experience that death. then for the rest of their life in the other axis, *at every single moment in time*, they will be experiencing their own death from infinitely many perspectives, until they die in the other dimension, at which point, they start experiencing their own death twice at every instant, their infinitely many selves getting less and less infinite (so to speak) from both ends, until in the last instant of their life, they die for the last time, alone for the first time since... whichever point in development they started diverging. Certainly from a narrative perspective +1Dt > +1Ds

[@leethejailer9195]

Can’t wait to hear Saj music

[@thezipcreator]

now I'm thinking, rhyming schemes would be insane in 2d time

[@tristanridley1601]

I clicked because the thumbnail seemed like this language existed with real human natural speakers.

[@thezipcreator]

ah, I'll add conlang to the title. sorry for disappointing

[@anipodat394]

​@thezipcreator you don't have to change the title, just practice until you're a natural speaker :)

[@eliascorrea8573]

@@anipodat394 he would need a mathematical sledgehammer to do so

[@cosmicvoidtree]

I think more than anything, this video really got the idea into my head that it is pretty much impossible to interpret 2D time in 1D time. Trying to do kinda invalidates the entire point of 2D time. If there is a way to fully understand it, it's definitely way more difficult than understanding 4 spatial dimensions, at least there we can build up analogies and have more flexibility since it's only a 33% increase in dimension

[@gustamanpratama3239]

This multilinear language lives on a planet in a universe with 2 temporal and (..?..) space dimensions. Cool 😎

[@CryptoMynd]

Since this is an area of time, and the axes shift according to individual perception or entropy progression along the diagonal, this means all partial futures collapse into the absolute past eventually, and the superposition of existence ceases to become a superposition the instant it becomes a memory. The partial futures and partial pasts likely exist in the form of semi-memory what-ifs.

[@kirbvsongs]

me listening to my two-dimensional music playlist

[@deronnamadeuspanti-tk3sm]

tiduna,xalAn was mindbreaking when it was released THIS IS EVEN WEIRDER (in a good way)

[@leightonholley4342]

Partial futures are an actual useful concept. There are plenty of things in the world that have not happened that we also can not affect. Although for us this is more due to a lack of spatial reach than lack of temporal reach.

[@thezipcreator]

I mean yeah, but what I'm referring to as "partial future" is very specifically something that would be _physically impossible_ to affect, in any possible way.

[@leightonholley4342]

​@@thezipcreator Exactly, the driving principle is different, but in practice the ideas are similar. For instance, no matter what I do in my life, it is physically impossible for me to stop the earth's rotation. I'm not saying the underlying phenomenon of the "partial future is what we experience, just that on a practical level the idea can be approximately experienced. The emotion, the helplessness, we experience it too.

[@juliangoulette7600]

The creator of the CCC2’s BFB Bleh-esque lang has returned

[@paconoack8548]

Don’t think I didn’t notice that Boisian editing! This came out really good!

[@Т1000-м1и]

I'm absoluted freaked up and the beginning music sounds like the wide putin song mene thing from like 4 years ago, why do I even remember that no eay thats the definition of hypnosis

[@electro_fisher]

greg egan mention got me hooked

[@thomasmueller618]

i will suffer for eternity in both time dimensions for enjoying this work

[@nice3294]

This is indeed a very cursed conlang also I wonder how is this system of 2 time dimensions would differ to a 1+1D spacetime in terms of the physics? They both seem to have the same rules of causality, like total past seems to be the past light cone, the partial futures are the two disconnected portions of the spatially separated points and the total future is the future light cone. If I were to try interpret the example you gave at 9:31 this way (where the partial-future direction going diagonally down-right is thought of as a spatial direction), the ball is a noodle in this which starts off in the air, hits the ground (one side falls into a hole while the other side doesn't) and a person picks it up afterwards.

[@thezipcreator]

I've responded to a similar observation in some other comments; you can go find those. Otherwise, you can wait for the followup video where I'll address it also.

[@nice3294]

@@thezipcreator Unfortunately I can't seem to find much on how this 2d time system differs. I wonder how a metric/spacetime interval is defined on this (if it's even possible), you'd need to have the total past and future be nonnegative while the partial futures be negative to match the rules of causality. Regardless I am looking forward to the followup!

[@noahnaugler7611]

Very cool, I might steal some of your ideas

[@thezipcreator]

please do! it'd be cool to see what other people come up with with this concept

[@raphaelgonzales3481]

I was wondering what the cursed aspect of the language was until I saw the 2D Consonnant/Vowel system. After that was only a haze

[@raphaelkap]

good gods man, how did you even think of this

[@thezipcreator]

thinking about extra spatial dimensions a lot eventually got me curious about extra time dimensions, and this is just my specific instantiation of that idea. then the CCC3 started and I was like "oh I could make a very cursed conlang around this idea"

[@cientosdeluces]

I need to go outside and touch some grass rn sorry

[@thezipcreator]

you use your time better than me

[@anipodat394]

​@@thezipcreatormaybe you touched grass in the other past, wait for the katopin future (i might be butchering the concept)

[@nulliisnotreal]

I understood barely anything, but its a great video anyway. Great concept and execution! also are the music subtitles ispired by philosophytube ones? it might be an accidental similarity but they really have the same vibe

[@thezipcreator]

yeah, they are inspired by the philosophytube ones. I thought it was funny so I stole it

[@yeetrepublic9142]

16:06 Because of this, Choose Your Own Adventure books are just regular books for Saj speakers

[@thezipcreator]

nah, Saj speakers hear the entire plane of things. CYOA books would be much harder to write in Saj because you have to fit multiple pieces of story together like a puzzle and make sure it works no matter the path taken

[@davidhand9721]

This is fascinating and useless and I bet it was super fun to design.

[@kevinschreiner4179]

Bobby Broccoli editing! love it

[@thezipcreator]

yeah his style was a big inspiration for mine

[@haniamritdas4725]

Hard for me to follow you here but I will be thinking in terms of temporal, causal, and percipience measured axes of experience. The trick is scalar spatial convolution as always 😂

[@kadavr314]

You cant order vectors unless you wanna get weird shenanigans (the relation becomes something else)

[@thezipcreator]

you can't make an ordered field from a vector space, but I don't really need that for this to work. the ordering defined in the video is partial anyway, as shown in the chapter "Untranslatability to Linear Languages".

[@htspencer9084]

I mean he kinda of says exactly this. We can't order it because our concept of causality is one dimensional. But the inhabitants of this world have no such limitations.

[@terdragontra8900]

Yooooo nice Sevish music btw, good taste

[@Black_Hole_Institute]

These logographs reminds structures from Conway Game of Life.

[@TinyFoxTom]

Two-dimensional sentences would require that meaningful phrases branch off from each word in a one-dimensional sentence, using each word in the first sentence as the first words of perpendicular sentences. Likewise, the first sentence branching from the first word would also be generating sentences from each word in it. Think of it like a magic square where every row, column and diagonal sum to the same number. Every direction has the same total meaning despite being constructed with different numbers. Having a 2d sentence behave this way ensures that the same meaning is conveyed across multiple timelines.

[@thezipcreator]

I mean, that's effectively what linear speech accomplishes, just with less empty space (but with an equivalent time shadow). what would be interesting is to _not_ have all directions mean the same thing, for maximum compactness of information. it's mostly fine to have a time shadow in casual situations. I wish I'd thought of doing it like that; that'd actually be really cool. if I make another 2d time conlang I might base it off of that concept.

[@stephenweigel]

This is amazing, I love it! And hey, the orthography background music is microtonal isn't it!!! Is it 22-TET?

[@jakobr_]

Funny thing about multiple time dimensions in the way you’ve set it up here: It’s basically the same as having one space dimension and one time dimension, with a causal speed limit. It’s lineland! Consider: space dimension x and time t, with a causal speed limit c, with the rule that, as you move, t is always increasing. Now change axes: a = x/c + t, b = -x/c + t Both a and b act as time dimensions, always increasing. If you look at your diagrams in this video, just turn your head 45 degrees right and the new vertical will be t, and the old will be x. A similar thing doesn’t happen in higher dimensions, sadly, because quadrants/octants/etc and cones stop being the same shape as each other.

[@thezipcreator]

this only works if you assume that every being is omnipresent within their future light cone (at least until their death), and that that the "speed of causality" can differ from object to object.

[@jakobr_]

@@thezipcreator All I assume is that beings might be able to choose what direction they travel through the double time plane as long as their coordinate on each axis never decreases. The speed of causality is dictated by the units that they measure space and time with, but the edges of causality (paths of max speed) are always the directions of the axes on the double-time plane and at a 45 degree angle on the unscaled space-time plane. All objects are subject to the same geometry of space.

[@thezipcreator]

@@jakobr_ that doesn't really represent what I've talked about in the video then. observers in this universe occupy a plane of time, which in your model would be their entire future light cone

[@user-pr6ed3ri2k]

20:47 still have that idea of moving orthogonally across a diagonal line of time the true present of someone moving equally fast in both dimensions is diagonal vertical and horizontal lines correspond to moving faster than the speed of light in the diagonal moving line

[@joannasthings]

CCC3 might just be the most insane one yet....

[@frendlyleaf6187]

I'm so lost

[@BleachWizz]

8:48 - it's impressive how this is not weird to think at all; I can imagine real life metaphors to represent and understand all of those scenarios.

[@thezipcreator]

interesting; I often have trouble explaining the concept to people due to a _lack_ of metaphors, so I'd like to hear some.

[@BleachWizz]

@@thezipcreator It's not exactly metaphor but more a scenario. And I also got a little bit lost when you started writting phrases. The idea is you'd have 2 people, one of them runs to the right grabs an apple an throws back, the second one runs to the left set up a target which is going to be hit by the apple. The events 'setting a target' and 'throwing an apple' can be considered in this new past future tense one for another. It's not that hard to see that each person can have a little degree of freedom to when they're going to perform these actions. And if you're kinda used to relativity you can even imagine being able to switch the order of these events by simply being closer to one than another; since the light from it will get to you first. I know it looks like I just used space to mock a situation, but in reality what I'm thinking here is the space is used to create this disconnection from A to B while the actual timelines we want to think about is each person perspective. Person A doesn't care when person B does it's thing; as long as they finish before having to interact. Person A at some moment can look at what person B did and decide react after the fact. Person B at moments can do the same thing to person A. No this does not create a paradox because this moment needs one of them to take action first then it won't be able to change it; if both parties decide to wait the other to create the paradox they'll wait and do nothing; until one of them breaks the rule, act first and makes it impossible to undo. The only way then to really be capable of choosing and changing the order of events is if both of them hasn't seen the other's action before acting himself; then for sure somewhere between both events they happened at the same time and in each side you have the closer event happening first. What this means is any 2 events that are disconnected by causation can be seen existing in a 'different time'. ex.: these people -> ran to the left -> threw an apple ran to the right in the direction of the target set up a target -> got an apple thrown -> which hit bullseye;

[@anipodat394]

bro is used to living in two times

[@akaHarvesteR]

What impressed me was that because the entire concept of 2D time is being presented from the context of a _language,_ it automatically becomes somehow easier to wrap one's head around. It really shows just how much language is tied to intuition and understanding of anything... and makes me think of the difficulty people have explaining and understanding things like quantum physics... it's weird and hard to comprehend, maybe _exactly because_ we don't have the right tools in our languages to properly talk about it.

[@eliascorrea8573]

The music caught me off guard, those changes hit haaard 24:31 PS: Microtonal music is such a good fit for this video, also what was that ending lmao

[@CasualMitosisCollective]

Our brain broke. 10/10. -Ian

[@voicedmemes6251]

this. is. so cool!!!!

[@7177YT]

Very interesting material! You should turn down the background music, it's distractingly loud in some spots. Btw:I suspect you could view your two timelines moving at different velocities as something like the spectral decomposition of one intervoven timeline where events occuring at different rates can't influence eachother but are well ordered.

[@scoutgaming737]

Actually Audio in Saj wouldn't use png, as png uses a 1d alogrithm, which is obviusly inneficient in that universe

[@thezipcreator]

I mean they probably wouldn't have png specifically anyway. I said the optimal _pre-existing_ (i.e. in our universe) format for Saj audio.

[@fnytnqsladcgqlefzcqxlzlcgj9220]

Very happy to see someone discussing non 1D time, I think everyone preaching Cartesian delta time as being how the world actually works rather than a useful model of macro physics is ridiculous and a good example of the failure of pop science and science educators

[@Chan-lq7wp]

If a normal audio waveform can be visualized on a spatially 2D spectrogram (horizontal time dimension, vertical frequency dimension), I wonder if it would make sense to visualize 2D audio on a 3D spectrogram with two horizontal time dimensions? The intensity could influence the color and the transparency, so you would end up with a sort of point cloud contained within a box, and my intuition is that those would form distinct, interesting looking structures.

[@thezipcreator]

yeah, you could view 2d audio on a 3d spectrogram if you wanted. I actually thought of that, but there's not really a compact way to store that as a file (there do exist voxel file formats but they don't have much compression)

[@ghoom]

Defining a timeline by causality is like saying me drinking water causes a bomb to explode two hours later.

[@thezipcreator]

it's more like "could've possibly caused". you drinking water probably didn't cause a bomb to explode 2 hours later, but it is physically possible for it to have (however unlikely). and whatever caused that bomb to explode had to have happened before it did. I mean, how else do you define a timeline? literally our entire concepts of past and future are based around causality (our current state is caused by what happened in the past, and the future is defined by our actions)

[@ghoom]

@@thezipcreator Not every state is caused by every state before it.

[@thezipcreator]

@@ghoom how else do you propose to define a timeline. I'm actually curious. if you were to simulate a newtonian universe, every state actually is directly caused by the state before it. if you add special relativity that gets more complicated with light cones and stuff, but still every point is caused by its past light cone.

[@ghoom]

@@thezipcreator This discussion emphasizes the ambiguity of human language. See, when you say "a timeline is defined by causality," it gets confusing when you put the event of me drinking water at 0s and the event of the bomb exploding at 2s. If we follow what you said, then I would have caused the bomb to explode. You see where I'm coming from?

[@thezipcreator]

@@ghoom no, all I'm saying is that you drinking water could have physically possibly caused the bomb exploding. an event that occurred after another event isn't necessarily caused by the other; they could be unrelated, but it is physically possible for one to have caused the other. if it is physically possible for A to have had some influence in B, then it can be said that B happened after A.

[@reeeraaaw]

Holy moly

[@FireyDeath4]

Can 2D events be concave? Like, can you have an event in the shape of a spiral or an exaggerated crescent or something? Are there limits on what shapes events can take?

[@drdca8263]

I don’t see why they couldn’t, but it might be difficult to set up.

[@thezipcreator]

sure, you hypothetically could. I'm not sure if that would naturally occur, however.

[@redfangtabris7405]

5:27 you mention it makes the function less intuitive but I’d dare say it’s just complex but more intuitive

[@thezipcreator]

maybe "intuitive" wasn't the right word to use, yeah

[@FinnPlanetballs]

music would be crazy

[@decare696]

special relativity already has the three kinds of regions: the past and future are called "light cones" and everything outside them is what you called the "partial future".

[@thezipcreator]

sort of? the thing is even if physics was purely newtonian, in a 2d time universe you still wouldn't be able to affect a partial future. it doesn't really have anything to do with relativity; it just happens that relativity has a different notion of "future you can't affect".

[@htspencer9084]

This isn't spacetime, it's just time time. So spacetime in this universe would be three dimensional perhaps?

[@thezipcreator]

@@htspencer9084 well, spacetime in our universe if four-dimensional, and since we're adding another time dimension that brings it to five. really though, I'm not sure if the concept of "spacetime" as we know it would really translate in such a universe; it'd probably need entirely different physics in order for life to be able to evolve.

[@MrRhombus]

I feel like this needs a university course to understand

[@falpsdsqglthnsac]

opus magnum soundtrack!!?!???!

[@Lachness900]

I have never seen you on KZbin but somehow I recognise you from beat saver golf… Funny how the algorithm works.

[@thezipcreator]

I've had people in random discord servers I'm in start recognizing me too lol

[@CascadianBraeden]

This doesn't explain how one HEARS something in Saj, only how they would say it. When you hear someone speak, you can only hear things from the past (to the before direction) as if they are said in your future, then you have not heard them yet. So if something was said in the Prin-Past then you've probably heard it, If something is said in your Katopin-Future, you cannot know it because it has not been said yet. But what if it is being said in your Prin-Future or Katopin-Past? Can you hear it? Can you hear only part of it? What does it sound like? Is it something where you understand part of it, but the rest is it like a garbled mess. But then as time moves forward-katopin and you continue the conversation you begin to understand what was said earlier and that garbled mess, you begin to realize, was in response to a comment you made pren-after the other person said it? Do you hear only the parts of the sentence that were said towards your temporal direction? Does the rest get heard instantaniously? But then that raises the question, where were you a few seconds prin-future ago? Does a person's conscious mind exist as a single point in 2-D time, Are they multiple points simultaniously? Are they a line? If you choose to seek your future and your friend chooses to follow their Katopin, will you ever see your friend again?

[@thezipcreator]

Partial futures are still in the future, so anything said in a partial future would still not yet be audible to the other person (since it, y'know, hasn't happened yet and can't cause anything in the present according to the causality rules I defined). To answer your second question, if we think of ourselves as a line (in a Block Universe way; if you don't know what that is I don't really feel like explaining it so look it up), then the creatures occupying this reality are a plane.

[@CascadianBraeden]

@@thezipcreator So you exist as a line running from Prin-Past to Katopin-Future, and all of your memories exist back in the Katopin past, but in between those regions are memories that are still propogating outward from their origen point and have not yet reached your full self... Or havn't yet interacted with thoughts that origenated at a different place on your "present line". But if you are really a continuous unbroken line in 2T... Lets say one night you concider staying at a friend's house who lives down the street to the west. In your Katopin-future you pack your things and head out for a sleep-over. In your meso-present you hear a weather report and decide to call it off and stay home that night. And in your Prin-past you get a phone call from a sick relative who lives far away to the east, so you book an overnight flight to Hawaii. So you are simultaniously and intentionally spending the night in at least 3 different places. But if you are a truely a continuous and unbroken line from Katopin-Future to Prin-Past, then you are also spending the night in every location BETWEEN those destinations. In every place along the street to your friend's place, at home, and everywhere in the middle of the ocean on the way to Hawaii. Of course riding on a 2T airplane may somehow allow for this, it's still strange setteling down and spending the night in between destinations.

[@marumaru2105]

I’m not sure I understand how the two dimensions are actually separate. Like, wouldn’t time move upward/rightward on y=x with events on each side of the line occurring simultaneously? Idk I’m gonna have to watch this again. Fascinating video btw!

[@thezipcreator]

this seems to be a common misconception (probably because I explained it badly) but in short, no; time here is planar, not linear. things aren't just mapped onto a line and then time works as we're used to, time works fundamentally differently, and so does the conscious experience of observers in this universe. basically, every point influences the point immediately katopin and the point immediately after, but those two points don't influence eachother. those points influence their neighbors katopin and after, and so on. each point here is its own point in time, and creatures in the universe would experience them as they are: on a plane. I don't really know if that clarified things; in the followup video I'll think of a better way to explain it.

[@marumaru2105]

@@thezipcreator so like. An event occuring at (0,0) will lead to an event at (1,0) (which leads to events (2,1) and (1,1)) and (0,1) (which leads to events at (1,1) and (0,2))? And y=x itself would be a timeline but everything that happens during it propagates out into different timelines? But the entites within this universe perceive all of this as a single thing? Also I don’t blame you for having trouble explaining it. This isn’t really something the human brain is meant to understand easily.

[@thezipcreator]

@@marumaru2105 the y=x line is irrelevant and arbitrary; the beings in the universe just experience a plane of time. as for the event causal relations: (0, 0) causes (0, 1) and (1, 0) (0, 1) causes (1, 1) and (1, 2) (1, 0) causes (2, 0) and (1, 1) and so on. note how (1, 1) is caused by two different points; in general a point (i, j) is caused by (i-ε, j) and (i, j-ε), where ε is any positive real number (in the case of the previous points listed, it was 1). the points at (x, x) where x is a number (aka the y=x line) isn't particularly special. we could set any point to be our origin (thereby changing which points fall on the y=x line) and everything would work the same, just with points labelled differently (like how we can set any year to be "year 0" on our calendar and time works the same, but years would be labelled differently). all of these points are experienced as-is; they aren't projected onto a timeline or anything. they also aren't experienced "at once"; "at once" means the same time, and they're at different times.

[@JasminUwU]

This is a super cool video, but the loud music makes it hard to understand at times

[@ArcheoLumiere]

I'm a fucking math nerd, fuck you this video is awesome!

[@loganboi2166]

Few weeks ago, thought about time a lot and tried to figure out how a universe would exist without time (just do time spatially) and this is something similar to what I've thought (i was thinking about multiple stuff) also is this animated in something like google earth?

[@thezipcreator]

it's animated with my video editor, Texed.

[@loganboi2166]

@@thezipcreator Cool (it just reminded me of that because the panning motion seems similar)

[@real_nosferatu]

There is a second dimension of time, eternity. There's also hyparxis where only the present exists so it's not a dimension.

[@FireyDeath4]

So what you're saying is, ℵ=i? Huh... Imagine how that number system would work

[@LucasBucur]

this language can be used to represent multiple timelines i think

[@thezipcreator]

no, a second time dimension is distinct from timelines. one of many things is that a second time dimension is continuous, while timelines are discrete along one axis and not on another. also it's not exactly clear how you would order timelines.

[@LucasBucur]

​​@@thezipcreator I was talking about the time shadows but your still right you can't represent multiple timelines like I thought. also loved the style and the video. and your CCC2 submission.

[@Ceereeal]

Is the second time dimension something akin to different timelines? Like a horizontal line (ex: graphing y=1) would represent all possible outcomes at a certain time? Or am I off the mark

[@thezipcreator]

no, it's another time axis that works similarly to our own (combining both of them together is when it gets weird). multidimensional time doesn't have much to do with alternate timelines, although you could combine the concepts to get something even more mindbending.

[@Ceereeal]

@@thezipcreator yeah, I guess I couldn’t wrap my head around it at all so I tried applying a concept to it that’s a bit easier for me to understand. Interesting video though. Funny enough I feel like a fourth spatial dimension is easier to grasp than an extra time dimension, I’d like to see a conlang based around that as well

[@thezipcreator]

@@Ceereeal oh yeah, extra spatial dimensions are much easier to understand since they don't really change anything _too_ fundamental to conscious experience. Honestly, conlanging in 4D doesn't really change that much; the major differences would be (1) there'd be words for 4D objects and shapes, and (2) the writing system would be 3D (since 3D objects are flat in 4D). that's about it.

[@lunafoxfire]

I've done a bit of thinking about 2D time. I Framing I can't things never overstate in had how terms such cool of a this multiple clear is. axes intuition. of causality is such a good way to visualize things really makes it more concrete This video expanded my brain, haha! Awesome!!

[@Kay-ql2wl]

Do NOT let a mathematician anywhere NEAR humanities subjects with hypothetical areas 😨😨😨😨

[@AidenOcelot]

I wonder if someone could program a game based on the two time dimensions explained here, so I can better understand it