H1-A and Zfc set theory

[Ioffersomename12]

In the VSBW tiering system, the fundamental definition of a 'High 1-A' level is that it qualitatively surpasses the Low 1-A level and all the mathematical structures it represents (including the Von Neumann universe, large cardinals, and all possible logical systems).

However, the criterion of 'qualitatively surpasses' is itself a concept that can be defined within ZFC set theory and its extensions. For example, an 'inaccessible cardinal' is qualitatively distinct from the aleph-zero and cardinals above it because it cannot be constructed from them within ZFC.

Wouldn't defining High 1-A level with 'qualitative superiority', which is still a mathematical concept, undermine its claimed 'beyond mathematics' status, making it merely an extension of Low 1-A (perhaps 'Low 1-A+')? In this context, isn't the concept of High 1-A, which exists with the claim of being 'beyond mathematics', actually a tier that contradicts its own criteria and is therefore logically impossible?

 

[SuperNova55555]

In the VSBW tiering system, the fundamental definition of a 'High 1-A' level is that it qualitatively surpasses the Low 1-A level and all the mathematical structures it represents (including the Von Neumann universe, large cardinals, and all possible logical systems).

However, the criterion of 'qualitatively surpasses' is itself a concept that can be defined within ZFC set theory and its extensions. For example, an 'inaccessible cardinal' is qualitatively distinct from the aleph-zero and cardinals above it because it cannot be constructed from them within ZFC.

Wouldn't defining High 1-A level with 'qualitative superiority', which is still a mathematical concept, undermine its claimed 'beyond mathematics' status, making it merely an extension of Low 1-A (perhaps 'Low 1-A+')? In this context, isn't the concept of High 1-A, which exists with the claim of being 'beyond mathematics', actually a tier that contradicts its own criteria and is therefore logically impossible?

The set of all sets that do not contain themselves is a proper class. Whilst you can’t construct it using normal operations, it still contains the lesser sets within itself (it’s in the definition).

But when we speak of 1-A and above, we are talking about ontologies who do not even contain the lesser sets within themselves (reducing their size to non-existence in comparison). As such, if the parts of a proper class are non-existent, then the proper class itself is non-existent (as it has no size).

Also, High 1-A isn’t above mathematics; you can have any sort of mathematical structure in these realms—just that they merely operate in higher qualities of being.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

saying 1-A and above is above mathematics is wrong anyways since math is mostly just an abstract measurement system rather than anything concrete, it's just that 1-A and above are above any quantitative/structural additions of the previous layer, yet you can still have a universal system of math that is regardless of layers because it's literally just a way to measure things.

 

[Ioffersomename12]

So

saying 1-A and above is above mathematics is wrong anyways since math is mostly just an abstract measurement system rather than anything concrete, it's just that 1-A and above are above any quantitative/structural additions of the previous layer, yet you can still have a universal system of math that is regardless of layers because it's literally just a way to measure things.

H1-a is still not above mathematics and only tier above mathematics is tier 0?

And also isnt all set theories stopms at L1-A?

 

[Elyartaker]

So

H1-a is still not above mathematics and only tier above mathematics is tier 0?

And also isnt all set theories stopms at L1-A?

Any form of dimensional quantity and "standard" math caps at Low 1-A.

 

[Ioffersomename12]

So only set

Any form of dimensional quantity and "standard" math caps at Low 1-A.

Theories are above L1-A tiers. How did they represent qualatitave superiority over dimensions tho?

 

[YueNoMoral]

So only set

Theories are above L1-A tiers. How did they represent qualatitave superiority over dimensions tho?

because they are ontological superiority, beyond any physical composition or constructs.