Ben 10 - Re-evaluation of the Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

[Benimōru]

Starting note: I was planning to open this as a content revision, but I was told here that I should open something like this as a staff thread. So please excuse me this time if I am doing something wrong.

So, as you can see in the title, I am going to address a topic that I have been wondering for a long time why nobody has opened a downgrade thread for this.

And before addressing this issue, I suggest you read the cosmology blog and the other two threads where this topic is discussed so that you can make a more informed comment. You can also read this for more information.

Now let me get to the point.

First of all, here is the cosmology blog's explanation of why The Space Beyond is Possibly L1-C (5-D):

The Space Beyond is an infinite black void that extends past the boundaries of the universe and encompasses an infinite number of them, dwarfing them to mere being a insignificant tiny stars or a faint glow.[4] This space separates Universes from each other and isn't accessible via general dimension crossing devices except by for the Map of infinity and the Chrono Navigator. Due to the Space Beyond being bigger than the Universe which is an aleph null structure containing infinite dimensions/realms, the Space beyond can be deduced mathematically to at least be an Aleph 1 structure.

But is the Space Beyond really infinitely bigger than these 2-A structures and if so, does the fact that it is really infinitely bigger make it L1-C?

The answer is no. The only thing we have is that Space Beyond sees these infinite structures as stars, and it is never stated whether this is a direct size comparison or whether it has to do with distance. And even if we take it as a direct size comparison, it should not make the Space Beyond have a size of Aleph_1.

Why is that?

1. It is not said that Space Beyond sees these structures as infinitesimally small or that it is infinitely bigger than them. Nor has it been proven that there really is a size difference in a sufficient sense. It was just assumed on the basis of a single scene.

2. Seeing something as infinitesimally small is not the same as being infinitely bigger than that thing. The reason why infinitesimally small is considered a qualitative superiority on the FAQ page is to make the size comparison mentioned here seem so small that it has no weight, so small that it takes up no space in the higher dimensional plane. So seeing an infinite structure as the size of a star is not the same thing. And being infinitely bigger than something is simply a situation where one will appear to be bigger than the other, but in fact they will be equal in terms of cardinality, just like the relationship between rational numbers and real numbers, unless it can be proven that it refers to cardinality. So being infinitely bigger than something should be interpreted the same as being infinitely times bigger than it (unless shown otherwise) which just means Aleph_0 x Aleph_0 and doesn't get you to Aleph_1 (Cuz Wiki accepts the continuum hypothesis as correct - proof: here, here, here and here).

If I need to support this with standards/staff comments:

1. Everything12

The Tier above 2-A is Tier 1-C So to be a higher Tier than 2-A is Low 1-C. Like being bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. But the countable infinite natural numbers is included within the intergers which some would assume to be bigger than them, yet they are also just countably infinite. So you can seem to be bigger than baseline 2-A infinity but you aren't actually any bigger.

to use this form of argument you must prove that the difference between the countable infinite structure and the other elements is akin to that of uncountable infinite. Just because the element is outside the structure does not prove that they are bigger, such as with how the likes of the intergers or rational numbers are no greater than the natural numbers. You need to have evidence of a qualitative difference. No matter what form of argument you mean, no matter what sciences you bring. A qualitative difference is as important to reaching Tier 1 as Cantor's diagonal was to proving uncountable infinite exists and that the nature of the real numbers was different to that of the rational numbers.

The quote right above is Everything12's comment about the Space Beyond btw. And what he is saying here is exactly the logic of "we don't have detailed information about the size difference between them". Because there is only one scene that shows the difference between the Space Beyond and the 2-A universes, and that doesn't give us any proper information (to say that this is a qualitative superiority).

Kinda got it the wrong way around, I'm not saying that anything bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C like anything bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. I'm saying that unless your bigger than 2-A in a certain qualitative way then you aren't actually bigger and Low 1-C, like only the real numbers are uncountable infinite while the integers and rationals are just countable infinite.

2. DontTalkDT

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both. Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

3. Ultima_Reality

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such. A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and “gluing” them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces. The long line itself can also be generalized into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analogues, and as such the same principle holds for higher dimensions as well.

So, as I explained above, the Space Beyond is completely lacking the contexts to have a Possibly L1-C (5-D) rating.

Now let's move on to the Time Stream

The reason why it is considered as "At least L1-C (5-D)/Possiby 6-D":

This realm is the highest level of creation. The Timestream is a system that bounds all of existence with a system of cause and effect[6] (All timelines, all alternate realities, all of existence, including the space beyond[7]) in the form of a fabric. The Timestream is a kind of super imposing Time that orders all of creation Post-Annihilargh events from beginning to End. The Timestream is an infinite structure.[3] The rainbow and black void which orders all of existence trivializes everything as nothing more than insignificant fabric or paper, including the space beyond.

The problem here, as in the case of the Space Beyond, is that it lacks sufficient context.

It has L1-C (5-D), Possibly 6-D because it contains the Fabric of Existence, which includes the Space Beyond, within its walls and "supposedly" sees these walls as 2D.

Now let's look at the scans of the walls, which are said to be 2D:



In the 5th photo, the boundaries of these walls are drawn as lines, so it is claimed that Time Stream sees these walls in 2-D and is therefore qualitatively superior to it.

Which, again, lacks any statement or supporting evidence. The additional evidence needed for qualitative superiority based on a single image (and it is not clear whether this is drawn this way to refer to an actual dimensional difference) is ignored.

And in the same way, this thread claims that this whole structure is infinitely bigger than the Space Beyond, but again, it lacks the statements that say this. The only reason they claim this is because the Time Stream is bigger, it contains this structure inside of itself and the 2-D walls scan, which has no proof and is just an assumption.

So I'm suggesting that both Space Beyond and Time Stream should be downgraded back to 2-A if additional context is not presented.

I also feel @Georredannea15 has as much right to write in this staff thread as I do, as he helped me prepare this, so I would appreciate it if any staff member would not delete his comments.

Votes for 2-A Space Beyond;

Agree: @Georredannea15, @Qawsedf234, @Larssx, @Maverick_Zero_X, @DarkDragonMedeus, @ProfectusInfinity, @TheGreatJedi13, @Firestorm808 (Possibly L1-C), @IdiosyncraticLawyer, @Tanin_iver, @Everything12

Disagree: @Reiner

Neutral:

Votes for 2-A Time Stream;

Agree: @ProfectusInfinity, @Qawsedf234, @Maverick_Zero_X, @DarkDragonMedeus, @IdiosyncraticLawyer, @Firestorm808 (Possibly L1-C), @Georredannea15, @Everything12

Disagree: @Tanin_iver

Neutral:

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @LephyrTheRevanchist @Moritzva @Duedate8898 @Lonkitt @CrimsonStarFallen @DarkGrath @Deagonx @Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Celestial_Pegasus @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Everything12 @Qawsedf234 @Abstractions @Sir_Ovens @ByAsura @Starter_Pack @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa Your opinion here would be appreciated.

 

[Benimōru]

bump&bump

 

[Benimōru]

Bump

 

[Firestorm808]

I disagree with the OP.

I believe you are misunderstanding the cosmology blog. It's similar to that of the MCU.

Per our senior staff:

"Having infinite multiverses is just 2-A. The space that contains infinite multiverses would be Low 1-C."

"What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

It's currently agreed that each dimension (Standard, Dagon, Ledgerdomain, etc) in the Ben 10 Franchise is it's own 2-A structure

It's also currently agreed that there are At least millions, Possibly infinite of these Dimensions.

Therefore, the Space Beyond is Possibly Low 1-C for containing these possibly infinite 2-A structures.

Regarding the Cylindrical Timestream Structure, the most recent thread is the currently agreed justifications for it, not really the earlier threads on the topic.

 

[Benimōru]

Therefore, the Space Beyond is Possibly Low 1-C for containing these possibly infinite 2-A structures.

Just because you containing something does not mean you are qualitatively bigger than them. That's the whole problem with Ben 10.

And stop bringing in other verses like MCU. The first purpose of the OP is to find out if Space Beyond is qualitatively bigger than these 2-A's. Not the L1-C of MCU.

Also, what Qawsedf means by being bigger, as I mentioned, is being qualitatively bigger. Which is stated on the FAQ page as seeing infinitesimally small. And the Space Beyond lacks this feat. The only evidence you have is that it containing 2-A universes. Which is not enough

Regarding the Cylindrical Timestream Structure, the most recent thread is the currently agreed justifications for it, not really the earlier threads on the topic.

Oh, I didn't know this, I'll read it when I get home. So, for now, the Time Stream part can be put aside.

 

[Reiner04]

Well as I was asked and since I'm really busy these days I'll just end my stance in one post,

We had a quite a lengthy discussion on this topic for more than 2 months and I already explained it in detail in upgrade threads for why it's Low 1-C, everything12 misunderstood how infinities works, bigger than 2-A in size that corresponds to actual real difference in size is indeed Low 1-C, 2-A structures in space beyond are nothing more than thin glows or tiny stars and that's enough for low low 1-C. Even Ultima confirmed it in that thread that if we take visuals and statements of them just being mere stars then it's indeed qualitative superiority.

 

[Benimōru]

2-A structures in space beyond are nothing more than thin glows or tiny stars and that's enough for low low 1-C. Even Ultima confirmed it in that thread that if we take visuals and statements of them just being mere stars then it's indeed qualitative superiority.

1. The fact that one of the characters says they look like stars does not in itself even refer to dimensionality (a higher infinity).

2. We don't know if they look like stars there because of a direct size comparison or just because of the distance between them.

3. To see an infinite structure as a star is not to see it as infinitely small.

 

[Reiner04]

1. The fact that one of the characters says they look like stars does not in itself even refer to dimensionality (a higher infinity).

2. We don't know if they look like stars there because of a direct size comparison or just because of the distance between them.

3. To see an infinite structure as a star is not to see it as infinitely small.

Benimōru, As long as there is a proof that a structure is bigger than 2-A structure then that in itself means it's a higher infinite. That's the general maths we have on how infinities works. There doesn't have to be a statement of "infinitely bigger than 2-A" but just "bigger than 2-A in the sense that it corresponds to actual size difference".

For it being far away, regardless of how far you are, if you're of same size as of space containing you then you won't end up being star small. The general analogy here that has been used is that space beyond is way bigger than 2-A structures that they just end up looking like stars in space.

 

[Benimōru]

Benimōru, As long as there is a proof that a structure is bigger than 2-A structure then that in itself means it's a higher infinite. That's the general maths we have on how infinities works. There doesn't have to be a statement of "infinitely bigger than 2-A" but just "bigger than 2-A in the sense that it corresponds to actual size difference".

Reiner, no. It depends on how its defined in verse. I explained this in the OP. Unless you prove that this size difference is of a qualitative degree, you are not bigger in the sense of infinity. It doesn't make the same sense as finite numbers. Things of the same infinity can contain each other, just as integers contain the natural numbers. Seeing it as a star is no different than this.

For it being far away, regardless of how far you are, if you're of same size as of space containing you then you won't end up being star small. The general analogy here that has been used is that space beyond is way bigger than 2-A structures that they just end up looking like stars in space.

Yes, you can. The same infinite structures can look bigger or smaller from the outside.

The important thing is whether they are different in the sense of infinity. Infinities don't have the same logic as finite numbers in defining the size of physical structures. When a finite-sized structure encompasses another finite structure within it, it logically follows that the structure encompassing that structure will be larger, but not necessarily so with infinities.

Also, if there are more responses, I will be able to respond after 6-7 hours at the earliest

 

[Georredannea15]

Benimōru, As long as there is a proof that a structure is bigger than 2-A structure then that in itself means it's a higher infinite. That's the general maths we have on how infinities works. There doesn't have to be a statement of "infinitely bigger than 2-A" but just "bigger than 2-A in the sense that it corresponds to actual size difference".

For it being far away, regardless of how far you are, if you're of same size as of space containing you then you won't end up being star small. The general analogy here that has been used is that space beyond is way bigger than 2-A structures that they just end up looking like stars in space.

I disagree with the OP.

I believe you are misunderstanding the cosmology blog. It's similar to that of the MCU.

Per our senior staff:

"Having infinite multiverses is just 2-A. The space that contains infinite multiverses would be Low 1-C."

"What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

It's currently agreed that each dimension (Standard, Dagon, Ledgerdomain, etc) in the Ben 10 Franchise is it's own 2-A structure

It's also currently agreed that there are At least millions, Possibly infinite of these Dimensions.

Therefore, the Space Beyond is Possibly Low 1-C for containing these possibly infinite 2-A structures.

Regarding the Cylindrical Timestream Structure, the most recent thread is the currently agreed justifications for it, not really the earlier threads on the topic.

What DT says actually completely nuked your claims.

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both.

Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

Also see: Why destroying infinite multiverses (which is basically what being infinitely larger than 2-A may mean) is not Low 1-C.

These are some more recent explanations and have been added to the page. So wait for them.

In short, being infinitely larger than 2-A or Low 2-C not enough for Tier 1

 

[Firestorm808]

Just because you containing something does not mean you are qualitatively bigger than them. That's the whole problem with Ben 10.

And stop bringing in other verses like MCU. The first purpose of the OP is to find out if Space Beyond is qualitatively bigger than these 2-A's. Not the L1-C of MCU.

Also, what Qawsedf means by being bigger, as I mentioned, is being qualitatively bigger. Which is stated on the FAQ page as seeing infinitesimally small. And the Space Beyond lacks this feat. The only evidence you have is that it containing 2-A universes. Which is not enough


Oh, I didn't know this, I'll read it when I get home. So, for now, the Time Stream part can be put aside.

You seem to misunderstand our FAQ.

Per the FAQ:

"Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on."

We are not working with just one 2-A structure.

Let's say that the Earth dimension Prime timeline is a line. The dimension's timeline branches off into infinity, creating a 2-A plane.

Each of the other dimensions creates its own separate 2-A planes.

All these 2-A planes stack together to make the proverbial cube. This "Cube" is then contained within the Space Beyond.

 

[Firestorm808]

What DT says actually completely nuked your claims.

These are some more recent explanations and have been added to the page. So wait for them.

In short, being infinitely larger than 2-A or Low 2-C not enough for Tier 1

The staff agreements don't say anything about being bigger than a single 2-A structure is Tier 1.

Again, "None of the Multiverses are Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

 

[Georredannea15]

The staff agreements don't say anything about being bigger than a single 2-A structure is Tier 1.

Again, "None of the Multiverses are Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

That's not what I wanted to say.

What I meant in what I quoted was that the infinite multiverses and the infinitely larger spaces that encompass the infinite multiverses are not tier 1.

Let me make another quote;

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such.

A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and “gluing” them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces.

The long line itself can also be generalized into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analogues, and as such the same principle holds for higher dimensions as well.

In short, rather than contain and being infinitely larger than an infinite multiverse, the multiverse must be proven to have 0 volume relative to space, because that is not containing and being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in the "size" sense, it is being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in the "volume" sense.

Yeah both different. But still, the decision is up to you.

 

[Reiner04]

That's not what I wanted to say.

What I meant in what I quoted was that the infinite multiverses and the infinitely larger spaces that encompass the infinite multiverses are not tier 1.

Let me make another quote;

In short, rather than contain and being infinitely larger than an infinite multiverse, the multiverse must be proven to have 0 volume relative to space, because that is not containing and being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in the "size" sense, it is being infinitely larger than an infinite structure in the "volume" sense.

Yeah both different. But still, the decision is up to you.

Lemme get straight to this point,

Are you saying being bigger than 2-A structure to the point it gets dwarfs to just being a small star is not Low 1-C?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

snip

you're quoting a response in proving higher dimensional existence via uncountable infinities which is where they tried to separate being uncountable infinite as a form of QS not qualify for HDE

Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically? @PrinceofPein

vsbattles.com

Here said that gluing an uncountable space as simply a line thus retaining it as 1 dimensional line
yet retains its uncountable infinite nature.
that doesn't apply here we're not arguing higher dimensional space
we're arguing qualitative superiority by being larger than infinite

 

[Georredannea15]

you're quoting a response in proving higher dimensional existence via uncountable infinities which is where they tried to separate being uncountable infinite as a form of QS not qualify for HDE

Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically? @PrinceofPein

vsbattles.com

Here said that gluing an uncountable space as simply a line thus retaining it as 1 dimensional line
yet retains its uncountable infinite nature.
that doesn't apply here we're not arguing higher dimensional space
we're arguing qualitative superiority by being larger than infinite

Again, it doesn't make much difference because the main point is to include 2-A multiverses, being infinitely large, and seeing them as small pieces.(In fact, this does not exist in the context here. It's just a matter of seeing it from afar like stardust)

The point I quoted already explains this in full detail, and I have given examples from topology many times before. The rest is up to the staffs. So I expect Tier 1 experts and I don't want to argue about the same thing all the time

 

[Reiner04]

In fact, this does not exist in the context here. It's just a matter of seeing it from afar like stardust

How the hell you can see infinite sized object as finite just because you're far away from it? It's impossible unless you're in the space that is even bigger than infinite, aka low 1-C space. You can never see infinite larger object as finite regardless of how far you're, unless ofc, uncountable infinite.

 

[Georredannea15]

How the hell you can see infinite sized object as finite just because you're far away from it? It's impossible unless you're in the space that is even bigger than infinite, aka low 1-C space. You can never see infinite larger object as finite regardless of how far you're, unless ofc, uncountable infinite.

Again, this has nothing to do with "size", a larger infinite line that sees an infinite line as finite is still 1 dimensional.

 

[Reiner04]

Again, this has nothing to do with "size", a larger infinite line that sees an infinite line as finite is still 1 dimensional.

Okay but a larger infinite line that sees a smaller infinite line as finite is indeed higher infinite, which means it is of higher tier if not dimension. You're misunderstanding the entire thing, it's not about "HDE", it's about Tier 1.

 

[Georredannea15]

Okay but a larger infinite line that sees a smaller infinite line as finite is indeed higher infinite, which means it is of higher tier if not dimension. You're misunderstanding the entire thing, it's not about "HDE", it's about Tier 1.

Yes, but, in such infinite spatial and geometrical spaces, higher dimensionality means qualitative superiority, and the dimensionality that this space has scales to the corresponding Tier. Because this is not an R>F

Therefore, even if there is an infinite difference between them, the AP of both lines is equal(because both are 1 dimensional), because such infinite- sized geometric (spatial) spaces are scale according to the dimensionality they have, which means QS.


4-D infinite space can't get you a 5-D AP.(Even if this 4-D space, infinitely bigger than an infinite 4-D.)

 

[Reiner04]

Yes, but, in such infinite spatial and geometrical spaces, higher dimensionality means qualitative superiority, and the dimensionality that this space has scales to the corresponding Tier. Because this is not an R>F

Therefore, even if there is an infinite difference between them, the AP of both lines is equal(because both are 1 dimensional), because such infinite- sized geometric (spatial) spaces are scale according to the dimensionality they have, which means QS.


4-D infinite space can't get you a 5-D AP.(Even if this 4-D space, infinitely bigger than an infinite 4-D.)

Agree to disagree. I stand on my point.

 

[Georredannea15]

Agree to disagree. I stand on my point.

Alr, me too

 

[Fixxed]

Let me say this

Infinity that bigger than other infinity is higher infinity

In continuum hypothesis there are no set that it cardinality is between the integers and real number. So more than the integers is real number and less than real number is integers. The integers is aleph 0 and real number is aleph 1

 

[Benimōru]

I will read and reply to the above messages, but I will also ask you not to write more if you don't have permission. Before things get more complicated.

 

[Benimōru]

You seem to misunderstand our FAQ.

First of all, you need to stop claiming that people misunderstand things.

Neither side misunderstood the FAQ. If this Space Beyond bigger (in a qualitative sense) than 2-A's, then this structure must already be L1-C, no one is denying that. The problem is that what is written in the cosmology blog does not by itself support what is stated in the FAQ.

Let's say that the Earth dimension Prime timeline is a line. The dimension's timeline branches off into infinity, creating a 2-A plane.

Each of the other dimensions creates its own separate 2-A planes.

All these 2-A planes stack together to make the proverbial cube. This "Cube" is then contained within the Space Beyond.

1. The cosmology blog does not mention such a thing

2. If what you are saying is that these branches accumulate on top of each other and form a structure just like 2D squares form a cube, I would like you to prove it here. Is this just your interpretation or are these things stated in the same way or in a way that means this?

The staff agreements don't say anything about being bigger than a single 2-A structure is Tier 1.

Again, "None of the Multiverses are Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

That's a good point. But it doesn't matter if there's one or two or infinite 2-A's. It's strange that after you told me "you misunderstand the FAQ" and then you make this comment when you know that even 1, 2 or infinite 2-A structures would be the same.

It can be a place that contains 1, 8, or infinite 2-A structures. The important thing is to be qualitatively bigger than these 2-A's. Because your goal is to prove that it has a higher infinity. You can't make such a claim just because it contains them, you know that infinities don't work like finities.

Are you saying being bigger than 2-A structure to the point it gets dwarfs to just being a small star is not Low 1-C?

Yes, it's not. The 2-A thing that you call as small as a star is still in the same infinity as that structure. What you call seeing something infinitely small means seeing it even smaller than seeing it as a star.

If I need to express myself better with an example;

Let's consider an infinite 4D structure. When we divide this structure in half, we will have two 4D structures of the same infinity. Then let's take one of these two structures and divide it in half. This time we have 3 structures, but one of them looks bigger than the other two. But actually they are all equal in terms of infinity (cardinality).

This is similar to the way Space Beyond sees 2-A structures as stars. They are all at the same infinity, just like when we divide an infinite structure into parts, they are equal even though there are some that look bigger than each other.

Snip

Snip

Do you guys have permission to write here?

If so, I would be glad if you could state your stance as well.

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm writing this for the last time before the staff comes.

Let me say this

Infinity that bigger than other infinity is higher infinity

No, it's infinity x infinity, so still same infinity. I have illustrated and quoted this many times. So drawing circles won't make any sense.

In continuum hypothesis there are no set that it cardinality is between the integers and real number. So more than the integers is real number and less than real number is integers. The integers is aleph 0 and real number is aleph 1

The continuity hypothesis is nothing like this. No matter how far you advance a finite structure, it is still a finite structure.

For example, the set of natural numbers is larger than the set of even integers, but they still have the same infinity. So this logic is flawed and unsupported.

Because aleph 1 is not simply being bigger than aleph 0, it is something equal to aleph 0^aleph 0, and something is simple like "being infinitely greater than infinity" does not provide this.

 

[Firestorm808]

If this Space Beyond bigger (in a qualitative sense) than 2-A's, then this structure must already be L1-C, no one is denying that. The problem is that what is written in the cosmology blog does not by itself support what is stated in the FAQ.

1. The cosmology blog does not mention such a thing

2. If what you are saying is that these branches accumulate on top of each other and form a structure just like 2D squares form a cube, I would like you to prove it here. Is this just your interpretation or are these things stated in the same way or in a way that means this?

That's a good point. But it doesn't matter if there's one or two or infinite 2-A's. It's strange that after you told me "you misunderstand the FAQ" and then you make this comment when you know that even 1, 2 or infinite 2-A structures would be the same.

It can be a place that contains 1, 8, or infinite 2-A structures. The important thing is to be qualitatively bigger than these 2-A's. Because your goal is to prove that it has a higher infinity. You can't make such a claim just because it contains them, you know that infinities don't work like finities.

Per the blog:

"Each universe contains possibly infinite (2-A) dimensions (the ones mentioned in the first part of the blog) and there an infinite (2-A) number of such universes."

"The Space Beyond is an infinite black void that extends past the boundaries of the universe and encompasses an infinite number of them"

The FAQ talks about how a dimensional space is filled with lower-dimensional objects. The use of lines and planes is meant to show it in a geometric sense.

How many 4-D objects is needed to require a 5-D space?

It becomes a matter of math per our senior staff:

"Having an Aleph-1 amount of Low 2-C things requires a Low 1-C space. It's why having an Aleph-2 amount of Hamburgers would require an Aleph-2 space, since nothing until Aleph-2 would be able to contain that number."

It's currently agreed that the Space Beyond contains the possibly Aleph-1 amount of Low 2-C Timelines.

I acknowledge that we can re-write the blog to make this agreement more clear.

 

[Benimōru]

"Each universe contains possibly infinite (2-A) dimensions (the ones mentioned in the first part of the blog) and there an infinite (2-A) number of such universes."

Yes which is Possibly Aleph_0 x Aleph_0. And again 2-A amount of timelines.

"The Space Beyond is an infinite black void that extends past the boundaries of the universe and encompasses an infinite number of them"

So another structure encompassing the Aleph_0 amount of timeline

The FAQ talks about how a dimensional space is filled with lower-dimensional objects. The use of lines and planes is meant to show it in a geometric sense.

How many 4-D objects is needed to require a 5-D space?

First, you can't use this part without even proving that Space Beyond has a higher dimension (5-D).

"Having an Aleph-1 amount of Low 2-C things requires a Low 1-C space. It's why having an Aleph-2 amount of Hamburgers would require an Aleph-2 space, since nothing until Aleph-2 would be able to contain that number."

It's currently agreed that the Space Beyond contains the possibly Aleph-1 amount of Timelines.

What is accepted is that Space Beyond has an Aleph_1 size, not that it has an Aleph_1 amount of timelines.

These two are separated in one part.

You can have Aleph_1 size even by containing Aleph_0 timelines, if you see this Aleph_0 amount of 4D structure as infinitesimally small. And this is what the OP rejects.

The Space Beyond does not see this Aleph_0 amount of 4D structures as infinitesimally small.

And for the blog:

Due to the Space Beyond being bigger than the Universe which is an aleph null structure containing infinite dimensions/realms, the Space beyond can be deduced mathematically to at least be an Aleph 1 structure.

So even the Blog rejects the Aleph_1 amount of timeline thing. And the thing is that the feat of seeing something as infinitesimally small (the qualitative superiority written in the FAQ) does not exist.

Also it is a bit annoying to repeat the same thing and to see you here trying to evade the OP's point

 

[Firestorm808]

So even the Blog rejects the Aleph_1 amount of timeline thing. And the thing is that the feat of seeing something as infinitesimally small (the qualitative superiority written in the FAQ) does not exist.

Per our blog, a single Universe is a (2-A) Aleph-0 structure.

The infinite number of these Aleph-0 Structures brings it to the Aleph-1 quantity needed.

 

[Benimōru]

Per our blog, a single Universe is a (2-A) Aleph-0 structure.

The infinite number of these Aleph-0 Structures brings it to the Aleph-1 quantity needed.

No.

2-A is equal to Aleph_0.

Having infinitely many of them means Aleph_0 x Aleph_0. So it is still Aleph_0

I also explained in the OP that wiki accepts the continuum hypothesis and that this means Aleph_0^Aleph_0 to get you to Aleph_1.

Even the FAQ page claims that infinite amount 2-A's are no different from one 2-A.

FAQ:

Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?

A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A

 

[Firestorm808]

No one is saying that the total multiverses is Tier 1. We're talking about the container of them.

"None of the Multiverses are Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

"Having infinite multiverses is just 2-A. The space that contains infinite multiverses would be Low 1-C."

@Qawsedf234

Your input regarding this topic is appreciated.

We are dealing with a space (The Space Beyond) containing an infinite number of 2-A structures/multiverses.

 

[Benimōru]

No one is saying that the total multiverses is Tier 1. We're talking about the container of them.

Sir, you just said that there's Aleph_1 amount of timelines. That makes the total of all universes L1-C.

"None of the Multiverses are Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is that the space containing those infinite multiverses have to be bigger."

"Having infinite multiverses is just 2-A. The space that contains infinite multiverses would be Low 1-C."

I am also willing to wait for QAWSEDF on this issue, but if I have to say something, the messages you quoted contradict the messages you just said that the infinite amount of 2-A's are L1-C.

Just a small point.

 

[Firestorm808]

Apologies if I'm getting my aleph numbering mixed up. I'm currently doing this away and on mobile.

However the precedent staff statements regarding spaces that contain an infinite number of 2-A multiverses still stands.

I'm sure the other staff will help clarify the matter.

 

[Benimōru]

Apologies if I'm getting my aleph numbering mixed up. I'm currently doing this away and on mobile.

No problem, maybe I'm the one who misunderstood something. I hope QAWSEDF and other staff will clarify the situation soon

And thank you for taking the time to write here as well

 

[Qawsedf234]

We are dealing with a space (The Space Beyond) containing an infinite number of 2-A structures/multiverses.

The main issue here is more along the lines that the characters and the universes themselves exist within the same movement axis. Kevin is going in a direction towards another universe and they can see the current and future universes (assuming there's no additional context).

In which case the Space Beyond can imbed a 2-A space without being Low 1-C like how the Marble Aliens from MIB imbed normal universes without being Tier 2 or 1. Its just bigger without being qualitatively bigger. There also isn't evidence for an infinite amount of 2A structures in the video or scenes linked to my understanding.

 

[Firestorm808]

The main issue here is more along the lines that the characters and the universes themselves exist within the same movement axis. Kevin is going in a direction towards another universe and they can see the current and future universes (assuming there's no additional context).

In which case the Space Beyond can imbed a 2-A space without being Low 1-C like how the Marble Aliens from MIB imbed normal universes without being Tier 2 or 1. Its just bigger without being qualitatively bigger. There also isn't evidence for an infinite amount of 2A structures in the video or scenes linked to my understanding.

The number of dimensions and the 2-A structures that branch from each one has been extensively discussed in prior accepted threads.

Keeping on topic, can you elaborate on your previous statement on why a space that contains an infinite number of 2-A structures, not just one 2-A structure, would be Low 1-C.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Keeping on topic, can you elaborate on your previous statement on why a space that contains an infinite number of 2-A structures, not just one 2-A structure, would be Low 1-C.

Alright, so the reason why sometimes something can be Low 1-C without being 5-D is how we treat an Aleph-1 number within a space. If that space contains an Aleph-1 set of universes then you'd need a Low 1-C space to hold them all, while an Aleph-1 amount of Hamburgers could be contained within a Tier 2 space.

But an Aleph-1 isn't just an infinite number, its part of set theory. An Aleph-0 can be any true infinite set of numbers. To quote Wikipedia as an example:

• The set of all integers
• Any infinite subset of the integers, such as the set of all square numbers or the set of all prime numbers,
• The set of all rational numbers,
• The set of all constructible numbers (in the geometric sense),
• The set of all algebraic numbers,
• The set of all computable numbers,
• The set of all computable functions,
• The set of all binary strings of finite length, and
• The set of all finite subsets of any given countably infinite set.

Any of the above is an Aleph-0 or a uncountable infinity. They are also called Ordinal Sets

To get Aleph-1 you would need to prove that a set contains all possible ordinal sets or every single combination of Aleph-0 numbers. It the cardinal set of an infinite amount of ordinal sets.

JUst having an infinite number of universes or multiverses doesn't mean anything for getting an Aleph-1, since that's just a set of all integers or Aleph-0. You would need to prove that the space should contain all possible ordinal sets of every type of infinite set that is contained within a space, which is usually done by proving some infinity dense infinity long nested cosmology of universes.

 

[Georredannea15]

Alright, so the reason why sometimes something can be Low 1-C without being 5-D is how we treat an Aleph-1 number within a space. If that space contains an Aleph-1 set of universes then you'd need a Low 1-C space to hold them all, while an Aleph-1 amount of Hamburgers could be contained within a Tier 2 space.

But an Aleph-1 isn't just an infinite number, its part of set theory. An Aleph-0 can be any true infinite set of numbers. To quote Wikipedia as an example:

• The set of all integers
• Any infinite subset of the integers, such as the set of all square numbers or the set of all prime numbers,
• The set of all rational numbers,
• The set of all constructible numbers (in the geometric sense),
• The set of all algebraic numbers,
• The set of all computable numbers,
• The set of all computable functions,
• The set of all binary strings of finite length, and
• The set of all finite subsets of any given countably infinite set.

Any of the above is an Aleph-0 or a uncountable infinity. They are also called Ordinal Sets

To get Aleph-1 you would need to prove that a set contains all possible ordinal sets or every single combination of Aleph-0 numbers. It the cardinal set of an infinite amount of ordinal sets.

JUst having an infinite number of universes or multiverses doesn't mean anything for getting an Aleph-1, since that's just a set of all integers or Aleph-0. You would need to prove that the space should contain all possible ordinal sets of every type of infinite set that is contained within a space, which is usually done by proving some infinity dense infinity long nested cosmology of universes.

I agree with what you say.(Btw Aleph 0 is countable infinity)

But, the meaning of aleph 1 number of 4-D is uncountably infinite number of 4-D, which also means that the space, Low 1-C, and also geometrically 5-D, because an uncountably infinite number of 4-D universal structures cannot exist in a 4-D space.

For this, there must be at least 5-D space and already "uncountable infinite" means N+1, uncountable infinite 4-D means, Low 1-C, and also means 5-D space.

"uncountable infinite number of A= A+1( both dimensional and qualitative)."

Because an uncountably infinite number of universes cannot exist on the same axis (even if they do not intersect on the same plane, on any angular axis), an extra axis is necessary.

 

[Firestorm808]

Alright, so the reason why sometimes something can be Low 1-C without being 5-D is how we treat an Aleph-1 number within a space. If that space contains an Aleph-1 set of universes then you'd need a Low 1-C space to hold them all, while an Aleph-1 amount of Hamburgers could be contained within a Tier 2 space.

But an Aleph-1 isn't just an infinite number, its part of set theory. An Aleph-0 can be any true infinite set of numbers. To quote Wikipedia as an example:

• The set of all integers
• Any infinite subset of the integers, such as the set of all square numbers or the set of all prime numbers,
• The set of all rational numbers,
• The set of all constructible numbers (in the geometric sense),
• The set of all algebraic numbers,
• The set of all computable numbers,
• The set of all computable functions,
• The set of all binary strings of finite length, and
• The set of all finite subsets of any given countably infinite set.

Any of the above is an Aleph-0 or a uncountable infinity. They are also called Ordinal Sets

To get Aleph-1 you would need to prove that a set contains all possible ordinal sets or every single combination of Aleph-0 numbers. It the cardinal set of an infinite amount of ordinal sets.

JUst having an infinite number of universes or multiverses doesn't mean anything for getting an Aleph-1, since that's just a set of all integers or Aleph-0. You would need to prove that the space should contain all possible ordinal sets of every type of infinite set that is contained within a space, which is usually done by proving some infinity dense infinity long nested cosmology of universes.

So, I'm trying to correlate the numeric model to the geometric model from the FAQ.

A single 4-D (Low 2-C) structure is a geometric line with a numeric value of 1.

The line branching to infinity (2-A) would make a geometric plane with a numeric value of one set of infinity. I believe this is an Aleph-0 set.

Other separate lines would branch out and each make their own geometric plane with a numeric value of one set of infinity or Aleph-0.

This collection of infinite plane squares would make an infinite cube, each layer of the cube being Aleph-0.

This infinite cube would be the absolute limit of 4-D space. It's an infinite number of Aleph-0 sets, but still Aleph-0.

The space beyond this cube would be in the Aleph-1 (5-D) range, right?