Seeing like a microcosm.

[Georredannea15]

Does seeing infinite 4D universes, or infinite 2-A's, as a "micro-cosm" make you 5D?

I think it's insufficient, but I wanted to hear more people's comments.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

is there anymore context to it? Like a visual, or another statement later on or before then?

 

[Georredannea15]

is there anymore context to it? Like a visual, or another statement later on or before then?

Nope. That's the only statement

 

[Georredannea15]

is there anymore context to it? Like a visual, or another statement later on or before then?

So the only statement is that a structure with infinite 4D universes or infinite 2-A or just a 4D universe sees them as microcosms (I think it's just baseline)

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

yeah it doesn't sound like its anything that would impact tiering without more context on it.

 

[Georredannea15]

yeah it doesn't sound like its anything that would impact tiering without more context on it.

Yeah, let's consider for example a set of natural numbers,

There are countable infinite integers in this set of natural numbers, and within each integer there are countable infinite rational numbers.

Any integer we choose from this set of natural numbers will appear as a "micro-number" relative to the set of natural numbers, and will be like an infinitesimal point.

However, despite these statements, the set of natural numbers will still contain "countable infinite" counting numbers and will not transition to a superset. We can compare this to the case here.

 

[Georredannea15]

bump

 

[Fixxed]

Yes, make a infinite universes or 2A structure as microcosm or a subset/portion of it and then larger than that, is a low 1C structure

 

[Deleted member 2530]

Do you have a scan?

 

[Georredannea15]

Yes, make a infinite universes or 2A structure as microcosm or a subset/portion of it and then larger than that, is a low 1C structure

Are there any scans on this? Unless there is a dimensional statments or a dimensional attribution, a structure encompassing infinite pieces of 2-A will already see them as a "microcosm," but it will still remain 2-A. In this case, the expression "micro-cosmos" would be insufficient, but I'm not sure, I wrote an argument for this above, But I'm not sure if it's true. You can look it up if you want.

 

[Georredannea15]

Do you have a scan?

No, just asking, is it enough for low1c to see infinite or countless 2-A as microcosms without extra context? So I doubt about how this "microcosm" means ever seeing the "microcosm" through an atom.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

in theory yes.
but you need more than that to qualify it as a solid tier since being low 1-C is more than just being large compared to it. need more deets

 

[Georredannea15]

in theory yes.
but you need more than that to qualify it as a solid tier since being low 1-C is more than just being large compared to it. need more deets

So it's not enough to see countless 2-A as a microcosm.

As I guessed

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

in theory yes.
but you need more than that to qualify it as a solid tier since being low 1-C is more than just being large compared to it. need more deets

yeah it doesn't sound like its anything that would impact tiering without more context on it.

Do you have a scan?

Tier 1 expert Ultima already agreed with MGnF case the OP is clearly trying to attempt a Downgrade CRT which is definitely going to gets rejected anyway. Just saying he is referring to MG case.

 

[Reiner04]

It is enough.

 

[Georredannea15]

Tier 1 expert Ultima already agreed with MGnF case the OP is clearly trying to attempt a Downgrade CRT which is definitely going to gets rejected anyway. Just saying he is referring to MG case.

Dude how are you. Anyway, it looks like a downgrade revision is coming.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Dude how are you. Anyway, it looks like a downgrade revision is coming.

you mean a circus is coming

 

[Georredannea15]

you mean a circus is coming

I don't know if it's a circus or a movie theater or a revison . We will see.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

if your motivation is spite
then you best stop it. that kind of attitude won't get you anywhere
in this forum or in your life

 

[Georredannea15]

if your motivation is spite
then you best stop it. that kind of attitude won't get you anywhere
in this forum or in your life

Not for grudge or hatred. I will try to make it right
Also, I'm not sure why you gave me life lessons, but thank you.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Are there any scans on this? Unless there is a dimensional statments or a dimensional attribution, a structure encompassing infinite pieces of 2-A will already see them as a "microcosm," but it will still remain 2-A. In this case, the expression "micro-cosmos" would be insufficient, but I'm not sure, I wrote an argument for this above, But I'm not sure if it's true. You can look it up if you want.

Scans of what? Were you not asking a general question?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yeah, let's consider for example a set of natural numbers,

There are countable infinite integers in this set of natural numbers, and within each integer there are countable infinite rational numbers.

Any integer we choose from this set of natural numbers will appear as a "micro-number" relative to the set of natural numbers, and will be like an infinitesimal point.

First, the set of natural numbers itself is countably infinite, so it doesn't make sense to say that there are countable infinite integers within it. However, it is true that within the set of integers (which includes both positive and negative numbers), there are countably infinite integers.

Secondly, it is not true that within each integer there are countably infinite rational numbers. In fact, within each integer there are only finitely many rational numbers. For example, within the integer 1, there are only two rational numbers: 1 and 1/2. Within the integer 2, there are also only two rational numbers: 2 and 2/1.

Finally, the idea of an integer appearing as a "micro-number" relative to the set of natural numbers doesn't make sense. Each integer is a discrete, separate element of the set, not an infinitesimal point within it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Scans of what? Were you not asking a general question?

Yeah.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yeah.

So asking the person above for “scans” even tho, this question was in general and not specific to any verse was a bad move.

 

[Georredannea15]

First, the set of natural numbers itself is countably infinite, so it doesn't make sense to say that there are countable infinite integers within it. However, it is true that within the set of integers (which includes both positive and negative numbers), there are countably infinite integers.

There are infinities greater than infinities man, so there can be a larger countable infinity that includes countable infinity

Secondly, it is not true that within each integer there are countably infinite rational numbers. In fact, within each integer there are only finitely many rational numbers. For example, within the integer 1, there are only two rational numbers: 1 and 1/2. Within the integer 2, there are also only two rational numbers: 2 and 2/1.

No, for example is: It goes from 0 to 1 like this: 0.1- 0.2- 0.3- 0.4... goes on forever. There are infinite numbers among these rational numbers, but they are smaller countable infinities.

Finally, the idea of an integer appearing as a "micro-number" relative to the set of natural numbers doesn't make sense. Each integer is a discrete, separate element of the set, not an infinitesimal point within it.

A target or an integer in each cluster can be compared to that cluster as a "micronumber". Or a bacterium, cell, parasite or atom in a human body... These structures are also "micro-structures" but are still 3D structures.

Of course, these are just examples and analogies.

 

[Georredannea15]

So asking the person above for “scans” even tho, this question was in general and not specific to any verse was a bad move.

Mb. Sorry

 

[ImmortalDread]

Your argument lacks a solid foundation.

For instance, the Alien X verse received a low 1-C rating based on a star comparison with a structure of 2-A visually, but the range of structures being discussed here is an infinite amount of 2-A, which is a larger range than the baseline 2-A being compared. As such, while the comparison you make can be/is sufficient to support a low 1-C rating in your specific case.

There are infinities greater than infinities man, so there can be a larger countable infinity that includes countable infinity

It seems that you have misunderstood my point, therefore, I suggest that you read it again as you are not using the term correctly.

No, for example is: It goes from 0 to 1 like this: 0.1- 0.2- 0.3- 0.4... goes on forever. There are infinite numbers among these rational numbers, but they are smaller countable infinities.

No, this is not correct. The argument being presented is specifically about rational numbers within integers, not rational numbers between 0 and 1. While it is true that there are countably infinite rational numbers between 0 and 1, this does not address the specific claim being made in the argument.

The argument is stating that within each integer, there are only finitely many rational numbers, which is true. For example, within the integer 1, there are only two rational numbers: 1 and 1/2. Within the integer 2, there are also only two rational numbers: 2 and 2/1.

The argument is not referring to the rational numbers between integers or between 0 and 1.

Please take a moment to read again what I precisely stated.

A target or an integer in each cluster can be compared to that cluster as a "micronumber". Or a bacterium, cell, parasite or atom in a human body... These structures are also "micro-structures" but are still 3D structures.

They are not capable of doing so, as they are separate sets.

I have already mentioned this thrice, and I would like to request that you read my explanation again, since you seem to be reiterating the same point I have already addressed.

Furthermore, your analogy is not applicable in this context since we are discussing the comparison of sizes, specifically infinite sizes. Any statement that involves comparing to other infinite structures can be interpreted as an uncountable infinite, which is generally accepted in vsbw standards.

I have elaborated on this topic in a different thread and almost every mathematical cosmology is going in this direction.

 

[Georredannea15]

Your argument lacks a solid foundation.

For instance, the Alien X verse received a low 1-C rating based on a star comparison with a structure of 2-A visually, but the range of structures being discussed here is an infinite amount of 2-A, which is a larger range than the baseline 2-A being compared. As such, while the comparison you make can be/is sufficient to support a low 1-C rating in your specific case.


It seems that you have misunderstood my point, therefore, I suggest that you read it again as you are not using the term correctly.

No, this is not correct. The argument being presented is specifically about rational numbers within integers, not rational numbers between 0 and 1. While it is true that there are countably infinite rational numbers between 0 and 1, this does not address the specific claim being made in the argument.

The argument is stating that within each integer, there are only finitely many rational numbers, which is true. For example, within the integer 1, there are only two rational numbers: 1 and 1/2. Within the integer 2, there are also only two rational numbers: 2 and 2/1. The argument is not referring to the rational numbers between integers or between 0 and 1.

Please take a moment to read again what I precisely stated.

They are not capable of doing so, as they are separate sets.

I have already mentioned this thrice, and I would like to request that you read my explanation again, since you seem to be reiterating the same point I have already addressed.

Furthermore, your analogy is not applicable in this context since we are discussing the comparison of sizes, specifically infinite sizes. Any statement that involves comparing to other infinite structures can be interpreted as an uncountable infinite, which is generally accepted in vsbw standards.

I have elaborated on this topic in a different thread and almost every mathematical cosmology is going in this direction.

You can ask ultima or DT for this or I will post a link soon.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I need to ask what, Georr be specific.

 

[Georredannea15]

I need to ask what, Georr be specific.

just waıt . I playıng LOl

 

[ImmortalDread]

Oh, which server? I am Euw

 

[Georredannea15]

Oh, which server? I am Euw

Tr, Euw. It doesn't matter

 

[ImmortalDread]

lets play

 

[Georredannea15]

Your argument lacks a solid foundation.

For instance, the Alien X verse received a low 1-C rating based on a star comparison with a structure of 2-A visually, but the range of structures being discussed here is an infinite amount of 2-A, which is a larger range than the baseline 2-A being compared. As such, while the comparison you make can be/is sufficient to support a low 1-C rating in your specific case.


It seems that you have misunderstood my point, therefore, I suggest that you read it again as you are not using the term correctly.

No, this is not correct. The argument being presented is specifically about rational numbers within integers, not rational numbers between 0 and 1. While it is true that there are countably infinite rational numbers between 0 and 1, this does not address the specific claim being made in the argument.

The argument is stating that within each integer, there are only finitely many rational numbers, which is true. For example, within the integer 1, there are only two rational numbers: 1 and 1/2. Within the integer 2, there are also only two rational numbers: 2 and 2/1.

The argument is not referring to the rational numbers between integers or between 0 and 1.

Think of an arrow and it will travel the distance between 1 and 2 .While this arrow will travel an infinite distance to travel that distance, it also shrinks to infinity. There were good theories about it.

Please take a moment to read again what I precisely stated.

Don't worry, I respect you and read your posts carefully.

They are not capable of doing so, as they are separate sets.

I have already mentioned this thrice, and I would like to request that you read my explanation again, since you seem to be reiterating the same point I have already

To understand better, let's take a cell or an atom. There are too many cells in our body to count, and too many atoms inside the cells to count.

Our body encompasses all of these, and each appears as a "micro-structure" to our body, but our cells, body, atoms, and even subatomic particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons are also 3D. You can compare it to a cardinal and an integer in that cardinal.

addressed.

Furthermore, your analogy is not applicable in this context since we are discussing the comparison of sizes, specifically infinite sizes. Any statement that involves comparing to other infinite structures can be interpreted as an uncountable infinite, which is generally accepted in vsbw standards.

I have elaborated on this topic in a different thread and almost every mathematical cosmology is going in this direction.

I mentioned above but to summarize, I don't think calling a 2-A or an innumerable/infinite 2-A a "micro-cosome" would impart qualitative transcendence without extra statement (without a dimensional statement or dimensional attribution or extra statements)

 

[Georredannea15]

lets play

why not

 

[ImmortalDread]

What you don't think does not matter when vsbw standards already allow this instance to be low 1-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

What you don't think does not matter when vsbw standards already allow this instance to be low 1-C.

I didn't see anything about it being sufficient for Low 1-C (except for the extra statements)

So I don't think it's qualitative transcendence to see 2-A or the myriad 2-A's as microcosms, and I haven't seen an article about it, so I think there are errors in some of the characters.

 

[ImmortalDread]

If you see a structure (which is infinite x 2-A in your OP) that is compared as small, this is low 1-C.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Think of an arrow and it will travel the distance between 1 and 2 .While this arrow will travel an infinite distance to travel that distance, it also shrinks to infinity. There were good theories about it.

Is this based on a paradox called Zeno's paradox of motion, which was first proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea?

The arrow may theoretically traverse an infinite number of smaller distances, the sum of those distances approaches a finite value, which is the distance between points 1 and 2. The arrow's shrinking to infinity is also an illusion because it is only an infinitely small distance that it covers at any given moment.

 

[ImmortalDread]

To understand better, let's take a cell or an atom. There are too many cells in our body to count, and too many atoms inside the cells to count.

Our body encompasses all of these, and each appears as a "micro-structure" to our body, but our cells, body, atoms, and even subatomic particles such as neutrons, protons, and electrons are also 3D. You can compare it to a cardinal and an integer in that cardinal.

You are comparing finite stuff to infinite cardinal. This example won't work.