Is this 6D

[Yohata]

1-Having a 2-A world inside a Space-time

2- 2-A world being just a small part of a Space-time


Wich one is valid for higher D
Or are they both valid
Or both invalid

 

[Arkenis]

none.

 

[Yohata]

none.

Isn't having a low 2-C inside a Space-time 5D ?

 

[Braking]

Isn't having a low 2-C inside a Space-time 5D ?

Pretty sure looking down a low 2-c is 5d

 

[Sniper670]

Why should make such an assumption in the first place

Okay so what if the verse doesn't treat it that way. Then what do we do

 

[Arkenis]

Why should make such an assumption in the first place

Okay so what if the verse doesn't treat it that way. Then what do we do

then its not 6d.

 

[Yohata]

then its not 6d.

What about 5D
2-A is just a small part of the space
And since this world is a space-time
We have uncountably infinite snapshots of this world that have 2-A structure as a small part of it wich mean its at least uncountably infinite snapshots of 2-A

 

[Arkenis]

What about 5D
2-A is just a small part of the space
And since this world is a space-time
We have uncountably infinite snapshots of this world that have 2-A structure as a small part of it wich mean its at least uncountably infinite snapshots of 2-A

So like the infinite 2-As are contained within a spacetime? I think that would just be 2-A+ which is infinite

 

[Yohata]

So like the infinite 2-As are contained within a spacetime? I think that would just be 2-A+ which is infinite

Its uncountably infinite not just infinite

Its the same thing that make a difference between 3-A (3D) and low 2-C (4D)
A low 2-C space-time have a infinite time
And there is a snapshot of the spacetime in each part of the time wich is infinite snapshots and each snapshot is spacetime wich mean each snapshot have also infinite snapshots of it and those infinite snapshots have infinite snapshots and it go like this wich lead to a uncountably infinite 3D = 4D

And now since we have uncountably infinite 2-A wich is uncountably infinite 4D it Should be 5D

 

[sen_]

So like the infinite 2-As are contained within a spacetime? I think that would just be 2-A+ which is infinite

if something is contained within a temporal dimension, there is one "snapshot" of said thing for every single point in time, so there would be uncountably infinite 2-A = Low 1-C

 

[Yohata]

if something is contained within a temporal dimension, there is one "snapshot" of said thing for every single point in time, so there would be uncountably infinite 2-A = Low 1-C

Uncountably infinite low 2-C is already low 1-C
Does this mean that uncountably infinite 2-A is infinite number of low 1-C ? Since its the same as infinite number of uncountably infinite low 2-C

 

[sen_]

Uncountably infinite low 2-C is already low 1-C
Does this mean that uncountably infinite 2-A is infinite number of low 1-C ? Since its the same as infinite number of uncountably infinite low 2-C

nope, it's still baseline Low 1-C i'm pretty sure.

 

[Sus]

5D if I'm being generous

 

[Fixxed]

Number 2, and it just 5D

 

[Vietthai96]

No, in both case, hypertimeline was mentioned multiples time but get rejected. Unless there is extreme context to support the space-time that contain 2-A world is superior to the 2-A world

 

[Yohata]

No, in both case, hypertimeline was mentioned multiples time but get rejected. Unless there is extreme context to support the space-time that contain 2-A world is superior to the 2-A world

The 2-A structures are part of the space of the timeline

And since we have uncountably infinite snapshots of this timeline = uncountably infinite snapshots of 2-A = uncountably infinite snapshots of 4D = 5D
Doesn't this work ?
If it doesn't work
What if the infinite timelines (2-A) are microcosm of this spacetime

 

[Sniper670]

If the verse hasn't said so, we won't assume anything for anyone

 

[Fixxed]

No, in both case, hypertimeline was mentioned multiples time but get rejected. Unless there is extreme context to support the space-time that contain 2-A world is superior to the 2-A world

2A structure being a small part in large structure is enough to get higher D, because there are no structure large then 2A and still same as 2A

 

[NIK_FARIS]

1-Having a 2-A world inside a Space-time

If you want to get tier 1 using the idea of universe inside universe(chain universes theory|nested universes|recursive universes), the latter had to be shown different in nature showing some kind of superiority (It doesn’t necessarily need to mention r>f, infinite or uncountable infinite. Just show it higher level in nature when compare to the one which it encompasses and not just simply the same). Although in this case, it doesn’t have to be 2A structure.

2- 2-A world being just a small part of a Space-time

Yes, if the 2-A structure is shown to be smaller part of much large world then it would qualify for tier 1. This the case for Chrono and Doomslayer. Though, some little extra evidences may proof necessary for it.

 

[Yohata]

If you want to get tier 1 using the idea of universe inside universe(chain universes theory|nested universes|recursive universes), the latter had to be shown different in nature showing some kind of superiority (It doesn’t necessarily need to mention r>f, infinite or uncountable infinite. Just show it higher level in nature when compare to the one which it encompasses and not just simply the same). Although in this case, it doesn’t have to be 2A structure.

Yes, if the 2-A structure is shown to be smaller part of much large world then it would qualify for tier 1. This the case for Chrono and Doomslayer. Though, some little extra evidences may proof necessary for it.

infinite timelines (2-A structure) are microcosm of the space-time that contain them
Is this enough for the superiority ?