• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Seeing like a microcosm.

ImmortalDread said:
If you see a structure (which is infinite x 2-A in your OP) that is compared as small, this is low 1-C.
Click to expand...
I mean, a structure "Y" that sees an "X" structure that is 2-A as a microcosm, I don't think of it as qualitative transcendence. For this to happen, additional context is needed.
 
ImmortalDread said:
You are comparing finite stuff to infinite cardinal. This example won't work.
Click to expand...
Anyway, that's the context here, 'containing an infinite space'
bigger infinity is so big it sees infinite space as finite" this statement was also present in the last GoW edit but was not accepted (you can have the disc if you want. It's not good to argue here)
 
Georredannea15 said:
I mean, a structure "Y" that sees an "X" structure that is 2-A as a microcosm, I don't think of it as qualitative transcendence. For this to happen, additional context is needed.
Click to expand...
In the VSBW standards, it is considered enough. It is unclear why some people find it difficult to understand. While additional context could be helpful, the standard alone is sufficient.
Georredannea15 said:
Anyway, that's the context here, 'containing an infinite space'
bigger infinity is so big it sees infinite space as finite" this statement was also present in the last GoW edit but was not accepted (you can have the disc if you want. It's not good to argue here)
Click to expand...
This is a bad statement honestly, it will obviously not be accepted, but your OP's instance is way different to this statement.
 
ImmortalDread said:
In the VSBW standards, it is considered enough. It is unclear why some people find it difficult to understand. While additional context could be helpful, the standard alone is sufficient.
Click to expand...
I mean, in some verse, there are s referring to these statements, but they are not accepted. I think it would be better for an admin to answer for this
ImmortalDread said:
This is a bad statement honestly, it will obviously not be accepted, but your OP's instance is way different to this statement.
Click to expand...
I just wrote it because you said it.
 
Georredannea15 said:
I mean, in some verse, there are s referring to these statements, but they are not accepted. I think it would be better for an admin to answer for this

I just wrote it because you said it.
Click to expand...
The statement made by the OP and this one are completely separate issues, and it's unfair to conflate them.

Is the matter solved now?
 
Since no one dropped the context...

You have a normal standard space time. Inside this space time there's a near infinite universe that's ever expanding and at the far reaches of this space is a gate to a higher realm.

Said higher realm contains like a billion different dimensions. The main dimension of this higher realm is endless (infinite) and countains countless structures. Each of these structures are 2-A.

The higher dimension where all these 2-A structures reside along with the near infinite universe is then encompassed by another infinite space. The 2-A structures are merely a microcosm of the entire space time.

Further context, there's a cluster structure formed from the four of the 2-A realms that is seen as "huge" when compared to the other 2-A realms.
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Since no one dropped the context...

You have a normal standard space time. Inside this space time there's a near infinite universe that's ever expanding and at the far reaches of this space is a gate to a higher realm.

Said higher realm contains like a billion different dimensions. The main dimension of this higher realm is endless (infinite) and countains countless structures. Each of these structures are 2-A.

The higher dimension where all these 2-A structures reside along with the near infinite universe is then encompassed by another infinite space. The 2-A structures are merely a microcosm of the entire space time.

Further context, there's a cluster structure formed from the four of the 2-A realms that is seen as "huge" when compared to the other 2-A realms.
Click to expand...
I think there was a revision about it. But what is called is higher than baseline 2-A, so 2-A also gives baseline. But again, it would be better for an admin to comment so that there is no misunderstanding.
 
Georredannea15 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, making 2A a pieces of that structure is already low 1C. The question is why is still remain 2A?

If we take continuum hypothesis for example in this, every sub of R (real number) is can be mapped one to one into Z (integers) (well it can be or cannot be). Make Z is equal to one sub number of set of R and then make R=power set of Z. And yeah set of R=aleph 1

Yeah i think more simple is, cardinality is a size. When 2A are microcosm of that structure, 2A will strictly smaller than that structure, make cardinality of that structure is bigger than 2A it self

The problem if that structure just containing the 2A but not make it strictly smaller in that, we can assume they have same size or cardinality. If a structure is already stated to be strictly larger than 2A that the cardinality is countable then that will automatically make the structure's cardinality is uncountable that is low 1C by default
 
Fixxed said:
No, making 2A a pieces of that structure is already low 1C. The question is why is still remain 2A?

If we take continuum hypothesis for example in this, every sub of R (real number) is can be mapped one to one into Z (integers) (well it can be or cannot be). Make Z is equal to one sub number of set of R and then make R=power set of Z. And yeah set of R=aleph 1

Yeah i think more simple is, cardinality is a size. When 2A are microcosm of that structure, 2A will strictly smaller than that structure, make cardinality of that structure is bigger than 2A it self

The problem if that structure just containing the 2A but not make it strictly smaller in that, we can assume they have same size or cardinality. If a structure is already stated to be strictly larger than 2A that the cardinality is countable then that will automatically make the structure's cardinality is uncountable that is low 1C by default
Click to expand...
Dude baseline system and ZFC set theory are rotting.

Any number in a cardinal will be a "micro-number" of that cardinal.(A countable infinity greater than countable infinity but still countable infinity). But still the same cardinality will remain. Or a parasite, cell, chromosome, DNA, atom and even subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons and electrons are "micro-structures" compared to our bodies, but the human body and microstructures are still 3D.

Seeing the 2-A universe as a "microcosm" means that you are much larger than 2-A and you only see it as a "cell" or "atom", but that "greater infinity" would still be 2-A ( A 2-A build greater than 2-A).

But if there are dimensional attributions, dimension statements, or an uncountable infinity state, this can give qualitative transcendence.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Any number in a cardinal will be a "micro-number" of that cardinal.(A countable infinity greater than countable infinity but still countable infinity). But still the same cardinality will remain. Or a parasite, cell, chromosome, DNA, atom and even subatomic particles such as protons, neutrons and electrons are "micro-structures" compared to our bodies, but the human body and microstructures are still 3D.
Click to expand...
Where you get any number in cardinality will be a micronumber??
And there are no "N0" (Aleph 0) or countable infinite that is bigger then N0 and still N0, if it is bigger than N0 then it is N1 or uncountable

Georredannea15 said:
Seeing the 2-A universe as a "microcosm" means that you are much larger than 2-A and you only see it as a "cell" or "atom", but that "greater infinity" would still be 2-A ( A 2-A build greater than 2-A).
Click to expand...
Yeah and much larger than 2A is low 1C, it is very clear that 2A or countable infinite is just small size compare to that structure, make it cardinality is bigger
 
Last edited:
Georr may I ask something? Is your main concern that there is something bigger than aleph 0 and still aleph 0? Since this is false and it has been addressed in one whole blog and as well as vsource actually explained it can't be aleph 0
 
Unless you don't trust no one of us, but this topic has been heavily discussed. I can link you the YT link and explanation behind it in dms (it's a bit big post)
 
Georredannea15 said:
(A countable infinity greater than countable infinity but still countable infinity)
Click to expand...
Nope. There's no such thing as a countable infinity bigger than countable infinity. When bringing up the set of integers, natural numbers, rational numbers etc. None is strictly bigger than the other. Their size remains the same except that the power set contains more elements.

Georredannea15 said:
Seeing the 2-A universe as a "microcosm" means that you are much larger than 2-A and you only see it as a "cell" or "atom", but that "greater infinity" would still be 2-A ( A 2-A build greater than 2-A).
Click to expand...
Not when you are strictly defined as being bigger than 2-A. There is literally no gap between countably infinite and uncountably infinite hence being bigger than the former makes you the latter. In the first place, countable infinity is capable of containing countable infinity inside it hence the 2-A structure is already capable of containing the others.
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Nope. There's no such thing as a countable infinity bigger than countable infinity. When bringing up the set of integers, natural numbers, rational numbers etc. None is strictly bigger than the other. Their size remains the same except that the power set contains more elements.
Click to expand...
No, an infinity is a countable infinity unless it is an uncountable infinity. And in that there are infinities greater than infinities, there are also countable infinities larger than infinities.
 
Fixxed said:
Where you get any number in cardinality will be a micronumber??
And there are no "N0" (Aleph 0) or countable infinite that is bigger then N0 and still N0, if it is bigger than N0 then it is N1 or uncountable


Yeah and much larger than 2A is low 1C, it is very clear that 2A or countable infinite is just small size compare to that structure, make it cardinality is bigger
Click to expand...
No. As I said, infinities greater than 2-A were opened and rejected for revision to be Low 1-C.

Also, an infinity containing the set N0 (Aleph 0) would still be a countable infinity, not an uncountable infinity. Or, N0 will always be countably infinite, unless N0 is uncountably infinite. Because no matter how many infinities you add to countable infinity, the result will still be countably infinity. Or, no matter how big you are from countable infinity, it will still be countably infinity (a larger infinity but still not uncountable infinity.)
 
ImmortalDread said:
Georr may I ask something? Is your main concern that there is something bigger than aleph 0 and still aleph 0? Since this is false and it has been addressed in one whole blog and as well as vsource actually explained it can't be aleph 0
Click to expand...
In fact, it would be great if an admin who knows about this could reply.

At least misunderstandings can be avoided.
 
But there is no really misunderstanding, Ultima actually addressed this in MG thread and in other threads. This is just repeating the same things they said.
 
ImmortalDread said:
But there is no really misunderstanding, Ultima actually addressed this in MG thread and in other threads. This is just repeating the same things they said.
Click to expand...
No I don't have a problem with that but when I looked at the revision I didn't see any additional context (for bubble worlds). I really think this needs a revision
 
But there is no rule or policy for additional context if size comparison is enough, I am struggling to find this new “rule” rn
 
Georredannea15 said:
No. As I said, infinities greater than 2-A were opened and rejected for revision to be Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
Where the revision?
Georredannea15 said:
Also, an infinity containing the set N0 (Aleph 0) would still be a countable infinity, not an uncountable infinity. Or, N0 will always be countably infinite, unless N0 is uncountably infinite. Because no matter how many infinities you add to countable infinity, the result will still be countably infinity. Or, no matter how big you are from countable infinity, it will still be countably infinity (a larger infinity but still not uncountable infinity.)
Click to expand...
Bruh you know cointaing something isnt necessary make you bigger than it. Containing a 2A structure will not make you low 1C by default

Yeah no matter how many infinite, of course, but because what?? Because the size or cardinality is same. It different if the bigger structure literally view the countable infinite as small portion in it self

No matter big you are from countable infinite?
Bruh "how many" and "how big" is different thing, countable infinite will still countable infinite if you just add more infinite number of thing, in other word just add quantity. "How big" is about quality of the infinite
 
ImmortalDread said:
Like this is actually going in circles. Ultima explicitly said that a size that is bigger than 2-A structure is by definition low 1-C since high 2-A no longer exist.
Click to expand...
That's what the revision I was talking about was about. It was discussed that infinities larger than 2-A should be Low1-C, but it was rejected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheOrangeGuy09
Is destroying uncountably infinite universes Low 1-C?
Replies
16
Views
2K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
Ioffersomename12
A cosmology Question
Replies
0
Views
526
Ioffersomename12
Ioffersomename12
Fwkiyo
Classroom of the Elite Shiba's possible 2 times multiplier
Replies
2
Views
419
Fwkiyo
Fwkiyo
HELLO_THERE779
Can an infinite multiverse have a finite amount of energy?
Replies
2
Views
368
HELLO_THERE779
HELLO_THERE779
DoFliesCallUsWalks
How do we scale this type of infinite iteration?
Replies
6
Views
718
DoFliesCallUsWalks
DoFliesCallUsWalks
Back
Top