Can you get 2-A tier by having infinite size relative to multiple 4-D object ?

[KLOL506]

Not all 4D objects or space are of universal size. There has to be size mentioned.

Bold of you to assume this thread does not use 4D objects of universal size as the assumption.

Also this won't even be a starter point with the upcoming revisions Ultima's been cooking, whenever the **** they come up.

 

[Reiner04]

Bold of you to assume this thread does not use 4D objects of universal size as the assumption.

I mean.. I just answered as per premises in the OP but if it's Universal in size, then Low 1-C sure.

Also this won't even be a starter point with the upcoming revisions Ultima's been cooking, whenever the **** they come up.

 

[Georredannea15]

I mean.. I just answered as per premises in the OP but if it's Universal in size, then Low 1-C sure.

The fact that such a situation is Low 1-C was rejected by Ultima and DT personally. So NO. Definitely not Low 1-C, just 2-A. You need statement of "transcends" or something similar for be Low 1-C.

 

[Fixxed]

The statement of the "microcosm" is not fundamentally sufficient by itself for qualitative transcendence. For example, Low 2-C universes would be a "microcosm" compared to a 2-A or 2-B multiverse.(Because basically all of the 2-A and 2-B multiverses would be infinitley or uncountably(not infinite) larger than a single Low 2-C structure.)

The decisive things here are the extra expressions and the nature of the universes seen as microcosms.

Other than that, As DT said, not every plane holding multiple 4-D universes is 5-D. This requires multiple 4-dimensional universes located in the same physical space, completely parallel to each other, never intersecting at 90 degrees and other angles.

Ahh no, microcosm is literally mean small thing or miniature compare to the larger one. Basically 2A is just infinitely many low 2C, when it go to infinity bigger than the default structure of low 2C, the safest rating is 2A, but if it have some proof like microcosm or something that indicate the low 2C structure is small thing compare to the infinity bigger structure then it is low 1C

Yeah about size we talking about higher infinite, 2A is just more infinite. And yeah in this i talking about the space that contain the low 2C structure not a multiple low 2C structure called multiverse

 

[Georredannea15]

Ahh no, microcosm is literally mean small thing or miniature compare to the larger one. Basically 2A is just infinitely many low 2C, when it go to infinity bigger than the default structure of low 2C, the safest rating is 2A, but if it have some proof like microcosm or something that indicate the low 2C structure is small thing compare to the infinity bigger structure then it is low 1C

Yeah about size we talking about higher infinite, 2A is just more infinite. And yeah in this i talking about the space that contain the low 2C structure not a multiple low 2C structure called multiverse

A 2-A multiverse will already by default see a Low 2-C universe as one of the very small/miniature infinite pieces. Because microcosm means a very small piece anyway, and a Low 2-C universe would already be one of an infinite number of very small pieces of the 2-A multiverse.

Since DT already clarified this above, I don't know why we're still arguing.

 

[KLOL506]

I mean.. I just answered as per premises in the OP but if it's Universal in size, then Low 1-C sure.

Eh, what?

Pretty sure you need more than just that to reach Low 1-C. DT and Ultima made it painfully clear.

 

[Reiner04]

Eh, what?

Pretty sure you need more than just that to reach Low 1-C. DT and Ultima made it painfully clear.

Nope, as per our standards Low 2-C being infinitesimal is straight up Low1-C. That's infact is one of justification for shiva being Low 1-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

Nope, as per our standards Low 2-C being infinitesimal is straight up Low1-C. That's infact is one of justification for shiva being Low 1-C.

1- It doesn't make much sense to defend this because the people who made the standards said it

2- The situation there also contained an R>F situation. I talked to Agnaa about seeing a Low 2-C structure as a point, or whether it's a microcosm of yours, and he said it's definitely not enough for Low 1-C.

 

[KLOL506]

Nope, as per our standards Low 2-C being infinitesimal is straight up Low1-C. That's infact is one of justification for shiva being Low 1-C.

DontTalkDT said no. Qawsedf said no. DT even elaborates a bit on this.

Basically what you said only works if the number of universes itself is 2-A prior. It's a lot worse if you're doing it with Low 2-C, 2-C and 2-B structures, in which case, R>F, transcendence statements and size-comparison statements are all required in combination to pull off Low 1-C.

 

[Reiner04]

1- It doesn't make much sense to defend this because the people who made the standards said it

2- The situation there also contained an R>F situation. I talked to Agnaa about seeing a Low 2-C structure as a point, or whether it's a microcosm of yours, and he said it's definitely not enough for Low 1-C.

I'm pretty sure that's just misinterpretation.

DontTalkDT said no. Qawsedf said no. DT even elaborates a bit on this.

Uh.. DT is talking about different stuff than premises that follows up this thread. Same for Qawsed. Multiverse is insignificant 5D but that just general multiverse. It is not equated to this scenario in our standards since we take infinitesimal as Low 1-C as written.

 

[KLOL506]

Uh.. DT is talking about different stuff than premises that follows up this thread. Same for Qawsed. Multiverse is insignificant 5D but that just general multiverse. It is not equated to this scenario in our standards since we take infinitesimal as Low 1-C as written.

We're not talking about the RBR here, but about Yggdrasil and similar. That's different stuff.

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm pretty sure that's just misinterpretation.

I am sure there is no misunderstanding.

 

[Georredannea15]

We're not talking about the RBR here, but about Yggdrasil and similar. That's different stuff.

Actually I think Yggdrasil should be Low 1-C with all 6 arguments it has. Because we have 5 statements that support each other for 5-D as well as statements such as occupying "all directions" of 5-dimensional space.

 

[KLOL506]

Actually I think Yggdrasil should be Low 1-C with all 6 arguments it has. Because we have 5 statements that support each other for 5-D as well as statements such as occupying "all directions" of 5-dimensional space.

Like DT said...

Like, the diameter of a timeline is also infinite in 5D space, but its 5D volume is 0. Basically, you can stretch 3 or 4D corridors infinitely far through 5D space, so that can indeed still be Tier 2. It's a bit like branching timelines, essentially.

 

[Georredannea15]

Like DT said...

I mean, 5 dimensional space basically has "5 axes of motion", only 5 directions of motion. If a structure covers all these directions, it is 5 dimensional without needing to completely cover the area because it needs 5 directions of motion to cover all of these directions.

And not to mention the other 5 arguments... it's not over yet. We look forward to seeing what DT has to say about the other arguments. So far we have the Executor seems fine with Low 1-C. At the end of the day, I'm hope it will be good for us.

 

[Fixxed]

A 2-A multiverse will already by default see a Low 2-C universe as one of the very small/miniature infinite pieces. Because microcosm means a very small piece anyway, and a Low 2-C universe would already be one of an infinite number of very small pieces of the 2-A multiverse.

Since DT already clarified this above, I don't know why we're still arguing.

So why dont we delete 2A and then make it low 1C. Multiverse bassically just it multiple universes, not a space that contain it universe, the space that contain it is 5D space but our standard strict about that

If we refer to the space and that space is infinite to low 2C structure also make it a mirocosm or miniature or small piece in it, it will make the low 2C structure is infinitesimall portion of that space and make the space is low 1C

 

[Executor_N0]

Yes, what is 2-A is the infinite number of universes spread across the 5th-dimensional axis in an unqualifiable distance. The totality of the fabric of all that space-time would be 5D. It's basically the same way that layered multiverses can have the "different layers" being a higher dimension, the universes, if they are infinite and spatially separated, need to be spread across a 5th-dimensional axis to make sense (At least by our standards, you'll always find some strange mentions like a manga that called space-time 3D). If someone affects the layer itself where infinite universes are embedded and it's of meaningfull size, it could be Low 1-C, this is basically brane cosmology, the different universes, branes, need to be embedded in a higher-dimensional bulk.

 

[Georredannea15]

So why dont we delete 2A and then make it low 1C. Multiverse bassically just it multiple universes, not a space that contain it universe, the space that contain it is 5D space but our standard strict about that

If we refer to the space and that space is infinite to low 2C structure also make it a mirocosm or miniature or small piece in it, it will make the low 2C structure is infinitesimall portion of that space and make the space is low 1C

The problem is that what distinguishes the two here is that there will be extra statements, and of course you will need extra statements for this

For example; If these universes exist in the same physical space, are perfectly parallel to each other, and do not intersect each other in any way at 90 degrees and other angles, the space in which these universes are embedded is 5-dimensional, but contain more than one 4-dimensional universe in it may be a larger 4-dimensional space.(According to DT at least)

As I said, the determining factors will be the statements I wrote above.

 

[Executor_N0]

For example; If these universes exist in the same physical space, are perfectly parallel to each other, and do not intersect each other in any way at 90 degrees and other angles, the space in which these universes are embedded is 5-dimensional, but contain more than one 4-dimensional universe in it may be a larger 4-dimensional space.(According to DT at least)

Even this isn't really needed. For example, if I have two 2D planes that are separated across 3D space and are perfectly parallel to each other I could topple one of them just 1 degree in the direction of the other, they would maybe cross in a specific line, but they would still be embedded in the 3D space and mostly separated to each other. So having points of areas that are common to the universes isn't something that really stops them from existing across a higher dimensional space and being four-dimensional space-times themselves.

In the end, it really will depend on the series. We can discuss rules and standards here, but most of the time what really matters should be defined by the work itself. When the work has basically no description for its cosmology we are basically just guessing how that cosmology works and what could be a reasonable tier, but that is where you'll have vagueness, and not everyone will agree on what should be the standard just due to how all over the place various cosmologies over there that you can really question "what is the most valid possibility".

 

[Georredannea15]

Even this isn't really needed. For example, if I have two 2D planes that are separated across 3D space and are perfectly parallel to each other I could topple one of them just 1 degree in the direction of the other, they would maybe cross in a specific line, but they would still be embedded in the 3D space and mostly separated to each other. So having points of areas that are common to the universes isn't something that really stops them from existing across a higher dimensional space and being four-dimensional space-times themselves.

In the end, it really will depend on the series. We can discuss rules and standards here, but most of the time what really matters should be defined by the work itself. When the work has basically no description for its cosmology we are basically just guessing how that cosmology works and what could be a reasonable tier, but that is where you'll have vagueness, and not everyone will agree on what should be the standard just due to how all over the place various cosmologies over there that you can really question "what is the most valid possibility".

What I actually meant was that the universes are perfectly parallel in the same physical space and without touching each other (based on Ultima's earlier comments).

Because you can draw smaller, 1-dimensional linear lines inside a 1-dimensional line with void between them, but when it comes to drawing these lines on top of each other in parallel without touching each other, the plane in which the lines are in must be at least 2-dimensional, otherwise they intersect with each other. Or something like that.

I guess you know what I mean. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[Fixxed]

The problem is that what distinguishes the two here is that there will be extra statements, and of course you will need extra statements for this

For example; If these universes exist in the same physical space, are perfectly parallel to each other, and do not intersect each other in any way at 90 degrees and other angles, the space in which these universes are embedded is 5-dimensional, but contain more than one 4-dimensional universe in it may be a larger 4-dimensional space.(According to DT at least)

As I said, the determining factors will be the statements I wrote above.

Basically the universes in that space will not be "intersect" each other by default, yeah i imagine the universes as a bubble in vast space not a line of timeline or space time, bassicaly it parallel because it have it own space and time, not because it not "intersect"

A space that contain it universes are 5D, but like i say our standard strict about that, the standard can put it to just a larger 4D space without further proof or to 5D. But if it have some proof like infinity bigger and the universe is microcosm or small piece in that space or yeah a comparison proof then it 5D

 

[Georredannea15]

Basically the universes in that space will not be "intersect" each other by default, yeah i imagine the universes as a bubble in vast space not a line of timeline or space time, bassicaly it parallel because it have it own space and time, not because it not "intersect"

A space that contain it universes are 5D, but like i say our standard strict about that, the standard can put it to just a larger 4D space without further proof or to 5D. But if it have some proof like infinity bigger and the universe is microcosm or small piece in that space or yeah a comparison proof then it 5D

1- As you say, we cannot assume every cosmology as parallel universes not in contact with each other.

2- This has just been denied by DT, and already Ultima, Qawsedf and Agnaa have stated that this is not sufficient for Low 1-C, but said that for such a statement to be Low 1-C there must be a 2-A structure (Ultima and Agnaa)

In short, it requires extra statement or 2-A structure in what you say. Otherwise, it's still tier 2/2-A at best

 

[Reiner04]

Low 2-C being infinitesimal is Low 1-C.
Disagree = CRT to change the standards.
Until then, it is what it is. A CRT won't take 5 min if it is straight up wrong to create.

 

[Georredannea15]

Low 2-C being infinitesimal is Low 1-C.
Disagree = CRT to change the standards.
Until then, it is what it is. A CRT won't take 5 min if it is straight up wrong to create.

A Low 2-C being infinitesimal piece doesn't mean seeing Low 2-C as a microcosm or point. However, you need a statement to indicate that there is an ontological difference.

This issue was completely rejected by those who set the standards, what are you still pushing? Then you make the standards without the of DT, Agnaa, and Ultima.

I can't put what they say on this subject behind your back, because the people who say this are the ones who make the standards.

 

[Reiner04]

infinitesimal piece doesn't mean seeing Low 2-C as a microcosm or point

Dictionary and maths says it does.

 

[Georredannea15]

Dictionary and maths says it does.

Which dictionary and which math statement says so?

Our cells and even our atoms, which are millions of times smaller than a single point, are still 3-dimensional.

 

[Fixxed]

1- As you say, we cannot assume every cosmology as parallel universes not in contact with each other.

2- This has just been denied by DT, and already Ultima, Qawsedf and Agnaa have stated that this is not sufficient for Low 1-C, but said that for such a statement to be Low 1-C there must be a 2-A structure (Ultima and Agnaa)

In short, it requires extra statement or 2-A structure in what you say. Otherwise, it's still tier 2/2-A at best

yeah but in here we talking about universes that already parallel to each other that contained by a space
Ahh no, even ultima in GoW crt just denied it because there are no size comparison statement

If you have infinity bigger space than low 2C and that space is only a small piece of that space then it is low 1C

Bruh... i just will left the standard here

Low 1-C: Low Complex Multiverse level
Characters or objects that can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.)

 

[Reiner04]

Which dictionary and which math statement says so?

Our cells and even our atoms, which are millions of times smaller than a single point, are still 3-dimensional.

Go to any dictionary smh.

infinitesimal

1. extremely small: 2. extremely small: 3. extremely small:

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Georredannea15]

yeah but in here we talking about universes that already parallel to each other that contained by a space
Ahh no, even ultima in GoW crt just denied it because there are no size comparison statement

If you have infinity bigger space than low 2C and that space is only a small piece of that space then it is low 1C

Bruh... i just will left the standard here

I guess you don't to understand here that "being infinitely greater" must be qualitative. Being infinitely larger than the Low 2-C structure is not sufficient for Low 1-C unless there is the necessary context and sufficient statement.

Those who reject it completely are DT, Agnaa and Ultima who make these standards. I still don't understand what you are pushing or trying to prove. They set the standards, so talk to them, not me, I'm just saying what they say.

 

[Reiner04]

Being infinitely larger than the Low 2-C structure is not sufficient for Low 1-C unless there is the necessary context and sufficient statement.

Our standards says it is. And it'll be unless standard changed.
They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

 

[Georredannea15]

Go to any dictionary smh.

infinitesimal

1. extremely small: 2. extremely small: 3. extremely small:

dictionary.cambridge.org

You should know that it really depends on the context. An atom, or a cell, is a microscopic, extra small part of the human body, but the cell and the atom are 3-dimensional, just like the human being.

As I said "infinitely large" and "small piece" are Low 1-C as long as an ontological difference is noted. At least that's what DT, Agnaa, Qawsedf said.

Above, DT has already made the necessary explanations and KLOL has quoted the comments of all but this one, but I still don't understand what you are pushing as if you know a lot. Then you make these damn standards.

 

[Reiner04]

As I said "infinitely large" and "small piece" are Low 1-C as long as an ontological difference is noted. At least that's what DT, Agnaa, Qawsedf said.

Then get that ontological statement noted in our standards with "Infinitesimal", I had and will keep making CRTs based on infinitesimal standard and keep getting it accepted as Low 1-C solely on that, so either standard changes/elaborated upon or:

No.

It's simple.

 

[Georredannea15]

Our standards says it is. And it'll be unless standard changed.
They can qualify, however, if said "higher plane" is defined as having a relationship of qualitative superiority over lower realms in one way or another, such as by perceiving them as literal fiction/unreality (or being comparatively more "real" in nature), encompassing them in an infinitesimal portion of itself, residing in a higher state of being altogether, and etc.

Uhhhh... Read the page completely because it says in other parts of the page there must be things that require an R>F transcendence and ontological difference as well, and DT mentions this above. Don't focus on a single phrase.

In addition, the explanations in the standards don't go into details and make a generalization explanation. It gets much more detailed when it comes to layering, and that's where DT and Ultima's statements come into play. If they deny it, you still shouldn't defend it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Then get that ontological statement noted in our standards with "Infinitesimal", I had and will keep making CRTs based on infinitesimal standard and keep getting it accepted as Low 1-C solely on that, so either standard changes/elaborated upon or:

But since we know this has been rejected by DT and Ultima, this statement will only be a supporting argument, unless there is a 2-A structure or R>F transcendence as in previous revisions. Yes, you can see in your dreams Low 1-C if there is no 2-A structure or no reference to R>F transcendence.

 

[Ren1999]

you always carry DT, ultima and agna, can you prove where the arguments of the three of them match yours

 

[Reiner04]

^Literally, just change or expand the standard in case u think or follow otherwise.

 

[Reiner04]

Yes, you can see in your dreams Low 1-C if there is no 2-A structure or no reference to R>F transcendence.

There is difference... My dream is reality despite yours only Disagreement.

No.

So yeah, change standard.

 

[Georredannea15]

you always carry DT, ultima and agna, can you prove where the arguments of the three of them match yours

Because they are the ones who make these standards, we are arguing on the threshold of the standards they make. If they say that, they must know something. It's like teaching someone who knows their business.

 

[Ren1999]

do i need help mod called all three of them here to see, that argument you said before, (Being much bigger than low 2-C or infinitesimal structure is not enough for low 1-C) if yes then i will downgrade all tier 1 verses without R>f as you claimed earlier

 

[Reiner04]

do i need help mod called all three of them here to see, that argument you said before, (Being much bigger than low 2-C structure is not enough for low 1-C) if yes then i will downgrade all tier 1 verses without R>f as you claimed earlier

Ultima literally in one of my crt told pain that ontological difference is not needed. It can be mathematical or whatever as long as it follows standards.