Oh, so we goes with the path of IT > SoQ, interesting, if that is the case, then IT will be Low Complex Multiverse while SoQ goes down to Low 2-C, which perfectly fit the VN statement about it only have 4 infinite dimensions and IT being higher-dimensional compare to 4D space-time
1. Nothing here stated Aeons
have to descend to physical plane, the text simply say the arbiter
had descend onto physical plane,
2. The projection scan is fine, but the physical plane is only 4D, so it just help the 5D argument
This scan?. Oke so what is the "reality" in this context? Is it referring to the Sea or just the World Durandal is standing within at that moment?
Yeah, it can't be described in a 3 or 4-dimensional mathematical framework, because it is a 11D structure with 4 dimensions extend infinitely and 7 extra compactified dimensions
Also, the funny part is later
we have this
Q: "Why does the 2nd Divine Key have to be used to break the Quantum Manifold to get to the Tree of the Imaginary Numbers? Isn't the Sea of Quanta submerged with roots? Aren't we the leaves?"
Screenwriter's answer: "The model of the Tree and the Sea is only an analogy proposed by Otto. For human beings, the Tree of Imaginary Numbers and the Sea of Quanta are both higher dimensional concepts, and their relationship cannot be described concretely in three dimensions."
Yeah, not 4, just 3 dimensions, it is like the devs keep debunking themselves
With this conclusion, the Ether Bathtub and the Sugar Space dimension that's within SoQ are 5-D, the physical plane of the Tree is 6-D through Otto and 7-D from Aeons given their superiority over the physical plane.
No either you goes with IT > SoQ which make SoQ go down to Low 2-C, or IT = SoQ, with both of them being Low 1-C
1.
This scans i guess, there are two problems
- The first is that the statement exists in a vacuum, and we don't know what it applies to, and probably I remember this wrong but back in the day of the VN, Imaginary Tree wasn't a thing. and if it point toward SoQ, then the 11D statement just contradict the infinite dimensions statement
- The second is how the statement was phrased; they all stated "can" which implies abstract potentiality, not physical actuality. So the meaning of Einstein's statement is that spatial dimension can potentially have infinite amount, not that there are infinite spatial dimensions already existing
2. I think I already went over the Transfinite argument back in Low 1-A thread, and Super Nova already argued about this. There is no High 1-B+ here. I remember a thread also discuss this; you can have cardinality with 0-dimension, and uncountable infinitely multiplying it still result in 0-dimension since stacking up 0-dimensional points does not mean you are adding another direction. So Einstein's transfinite statement is a non-factor statement that affect almost nothing,
So i disagree with this thread, or, downgrade SoQ to Low 2-C if you want to argue IT > SoQ
