Huge Honkai Revisions PART 2

[NARONG_SUVAN]

The leaves of the Imaginary Tree is an Infinite 11-D structure, with every leaf having its own time that diverges infinitely:

The leaves of the Imaginary Tree each have their own time with each being fundamentally different, which could imply that each world has its own history. Welt also has said that there can be Infinite worlds for each universe; the statement heavily implies that each universe has its own time axis that can branch the timeline into infinite possibilities with the MWI serving as the basis. Now, with the aforementioned information deduced, we can conclude that each leaf world acts as its own timeline with infinite worlds a part of it. The Sea of Quanta contains the dead leaf worlds and serves as an overarching timeline residing on a transcendental axis, qualitatively beyond the 11-D leaf worlds.

didn't welt talking about world like planet here?

each world have its own history doesn't seem to mean much because different planet have different history anyway (and intergalatic event seem to be happening to every world)

this doesn't seem like those world use different time axis.

 

[GarrixianXD]

didn't welt talking about world like planet here?

I don’t think so.

each world have its own history doesn't seem to mean much because different planet have different history anyway (and intergalatic event seem to be happening to every world)

Uhm… wdym by this?

this doesn't seem like those world use different time axis.

I wasn’t trying to bring up 2 time axes. Though, it can be viable but I don’t wanna bring it up because I just want this to be a small CRT

I might’ve linked the wrong DB CRT. @TiltedFN @ProfectusInfinity @Ednaxel2 I remember one of you guys created a 5-D neutral space CRT for DB which has the 4 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension argument and it got accepted. Not the hypertimeline CRT with 3+2 dimensions; any of you mind linking it?

 

[GZ2022]

Nice revision + following

But I got a question: can the GGZ scans be proposed soon? Or not?

Because in GGZ, there is at least one entity that exists beyond the Tree...

Spoiler: and...

could scale very high in Ultima's system

 

[Georredannea15]

It does apply for the Sea of Quanta (it mentions everything is infinite, operates from the MWI and quantum fluctuations which is an uncountable amount of universes). Check the previous CRT I linked at the start of the OP.

Uhh... huh? Who told you these personal standards? Who said that an infinite branching of MWI will give an uncountable infinite amount?We don't have such a standart, i'm sorry but it's wrong.

I remember the DB neutral space used the insignificant 5-D argument. Wrong CRT? Unsure.

It was hypertimeline argument. Also, neutral space in DB is not Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is just one higher timeline in the DBH

No. The logic applies for all dimensions.

The revision you quote from the DB was done for a timeline with a 4-D snapshot at every point, a completely different argument from yours.

So yes, if it's any consolation, of course you have a space with a 12th axis, but it's not in a position to qualify the 12th dimension, not 1-B.

As i said, different verses, different contexts

Check the previous accepted CRT I linked. It applies for the of Sea of Quanta.

I know the previous revision, I was there. This still makes the sea a structure with an insignificant 12th axis, the only dimension to qualify is the 11th dimension.

But... You don't have any information about the volume of the 12th dimension.

Alr, then to clear up your confusion, A big guy has already made a statement here about this extra axis, it is valid in any space, but basically no space implies that this extra axis is infinite. The infinite and qualifying dimension of the sea is only its 11th dimensional volume, there is no information about its 12th dimensional volume.


He even states that having infinite space or infinite branching by keeping bubbles and things like that in it does not give +1 or uncountable infinite. Basically the opposite of what you are saying.

The leaves of the Imaginary Tree is an Infinite 11-D structure, with every leaf having its own time that diverges infinitely:

The leaves of the Imaginary Tree each have their own time with each being fundamentally different, which could imply that each world has its own history. Welt also has said that there can be Infinite worlds for each universe; the statement heavily implies that each universe has its own time axis that can branch the timeline into infinite possibilities with the MWI serving as the basis. Now, with the aforementioned information deduced, we can conclude that each leaf world acts as its own timeline with infinite worlds a part of it. The Sea of Quanta contains the dead leaf worlds and serves as an overarching timeline residing on a transcendental axis, qualitatively beyond the 11-D leaf worlds.

Let me explain it in a simple way, having a different and independent extra temporal dimension or timeline does not give you hypertimeline or +1. This is stated in the FAQ

Outside of explanations which state that multiple time dimensions exist it is difficult to show that a fiction has more than one. The key point that has to be established is that there is a kind of time that flows in a different direction than the past or the future or any of the spatial directions.

Things like timelines having time that passes at different rates would not qualify, as even the theory of general relativity already establishes that with just one regular time dimension time can flow at different rates in different places. Time flowing backwards in another universe would also not qualify it to have an additional time dimension, as it would still use the same directions of past and future as regular time, just with events playing out in reverse. For the same reasons, statements about independent time streams or of separate kinds of time, which could flow parallel to the original time, would not qualify.

And the fact that there are infinite worlds in every universe is still the same degree of infinity as I quoted above, like a fundamental MWI. It doesn't give you the uncountable infinite

 

[Georredannea15]

I might’ve linked the wrong DB CRT. @TiltedFN @ProfectusInfinity @Ednaxel2 I remember one of you guys created a 5-D neutral space CRT for DB which has the 4 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension argument and it got accepted. Not the hypertimeline CRT with 3+2 dimensions; any of you mind linking it?

There was a CRT about this, neutral space would have a 5th axis because it is a space that holds more than one 4-D spacetime, but Ultima stated that this type of space would not qualify even if it had a 5th axis, and only the 4th dimension it had would qualify, if I find it, i will quotes.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Nice revision + following

But I got a question: can the GGZ scans be proposed soon? Or not?

Because in GGZ, there is at least one entity that exists beyond the Tree...

Spoiler: and...

could scale very high in Ultima's system

This CRT of mines is rather setting a hierarchy between the bubble worlds, multiverse, SoQ and IT. Other content will be covered once the new system applies.

Uhh... huh? Who told you these personal standards? Who said that an infinite branching of MWI will give an uncountable infinite amount?We don't have such a standart, i'm sorry but it's wrong.

The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are most likely an uncountable number of universes.

Source: MWI page on wikipedia.

It was hypertimeline argument. Also, neutral space in DB is not Low 1-C. What is Low 1-C is just one higher timeline in the DBH

Yeah, ik.

The revision you quote from the DB was done for a timeline with a 4-D snapshot at every point, a completely different argument from yours.

So yes, if it's any consolation, of course you have a space with a 12th axis, but it's not in a position to qualify the 12th dimension, not 1-B.

As i said, different verses, different contexts

I know the previous revision, I was there. This still makes the sea a structure with an insignificant 12th axis, the only dimension to qualify is the 11th dimension.

But... You don't have any information about the volume of the 12th dimension.

Alr, then to clear up your confusion, A big guy has already made a statement here about this extra axis, it is valid in any space, but basically no space implies that this extra axis is infinite. The infinite and qualifying dimension of the sea is only its 11th dimensional volume, there is no information about its 12th dimensional volume.

DT also said: “In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.” As I said before, the bubble worlds of SoQ operates on a MWI which indeed contains uncountable universes, therefore it can be significantly +1 dimensional higher.

He even states that having infinite space or infinite branching by keeping bubbles and things like that in it does not give +1 or uncountable infinite. Basically the opposite of what you are saying.

If there are an infinite number of universes, and there are infinite number of worlds in each universe, each of it infinitely expanding and branching with respect to its own time, should give uncountable infinity. Iirc it’s infinity^infinity, which should be cardinally equal to 2^aleph-null which is aleph-1.

I vaguely heard this statement from @Qawsedf234: if a 2-A structure infinitely expands and branches and there are infinite of those 2-A structures with the same behaviour, then it’s Low 1-C.

Let me explain it in a simple way, having a different and independent extra temporal dimension or timeline does not give you hypertimeline or +1. This is stated in the FAQ

again I’m not trying to argue for 2 temporal dimensions. Perhaps I need to change the link for that CRT or completely remove the “hypertimeline” statement entirely from my OP. My bad on this part.

 

[Woomica]

ngl id suggest to keep soq at 11D or just go 11d possibly 12D whatever.

 

[GarrixianXD]

ngl id suggest to keep soq at 11D or just go 11d possibly 12D whatever.

No.

 

[Georredannea15]

Source: MWI page on wikipedia.

Dude it's wikipedia, wiki only takes as much as is shown in the verse. We do this in many theories, not only in MWI.

DT also said: “In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.” As I said before, the bubble worlds of SoQ operates on a MWI which indeed contains uncountable universes, therefore it can be significantly +1 dimensional higher.

As I said, the MWI wiki only deals with it as far as it is shown in the verse

If there are an infinite number of universes, and there are infinite number of worlds in each universe, each of it operating on its own time should give uncountably infinity. Since its considered Aleph-null^aleph-null which iirc, gives an higher level of infinity.

This is horribly wrong, I quoted DT above and I can even quote you the FAQ. No matter how many times you multiply a countable infinity by a countable infinity, the result is still a countable infinity, aleph 1 is not that aleph 0 repeats itself infinitely and it goes into an infinite loop, it is still a countable infinity and aleph 0.

Btw, what you're saying is simply "infinite number of 2-A's branches that they branching to infinity are not the same with what you say here", what you have just "infinite x infinite continuing to infinity"

Aleph 0^aleph 0 gives you aleph 1 but what you are saying does not fit. You may not realize it, but these were revised.

I vaguely heard this statement from @Qawsedf234: if a 2-A structure infinitely expands and branches and there are infinite of those 2-A structures with the same behaviour, then it’s Low 1-C.

I remember(I guess), Qaw was just saying that aleph 0^aleph 0 would be basically a superset of aleph 0 (aleph 1), but if he is saying exactly what you say there, he is wrong because the standards on this are clear.

What you are talking about is an infinite number of 2-A structures which are basically extends infinitely and each of them is 2-A and in this FAQ it is still valid to be 2-A, the comment I quoted from DT explains why it is still 2-A. (If you don't trust me)

again I’m not trying to argue for 2 temporal dimensions. Perhaps I need to change the link for that CRT or completely remove the “hypertimeline” statement entirely from my OP. My bad on this part.

 

[Vietthai96]

.........i'm lost, what is happening??

 

[GarrixianXD]

.........i'm lost, what is happening??

Me getting into apeshit luck is what’s happening

Dude it's wikipedia, wiki only takes as much as is shown in the verse. We do this in many theories, not only in MWI.

As I said, the MWI wiki only deals with it as far as it is shown in the verse

Other sources also states that the MWI incorporates uncountable amount of universes. You’d want to link the guidelines or FAQ stuff that states VSBW treats MWI differently than what’s applied in scientific theories.

This is horribly wrong, I quoted DT above and I can even quote you the FAQ. No matter how many times you multiply a countable infinity by a countable infinity, the result is still a countable infinity, aleph 1 is not that aleph 0 repeats itself infinitely and it goes into an infinite loop, it is still a countable infinity and aleph 0.

Firstly, I edited my comment. Infinities within each digit does count for uncountability. There are infinite decimals in 0 and 1; set of all real numbers is aleph-1. Of course, infinity times itself isn’t much, but it’s infinity^infinity for this case.

Btw, what you're saying is simply "infinite number of 2-A's branches that they branching to infinity are not the same with what you say here", what you have just "infinite x infinite continuing to infinity"

Each universe is infinitely expanding and contains infinite worlds.

Sea of Quanta has an uncountable amount of those universes. This isn’t just infinity x infinity.

Aleph 0^aleph 0 gives you aleph 1 but what you are saying does not fit. You may not realize it, but these were revised.

I remember(I guess), Qaw was just saying that aleph 0^aleph 0 would be basically a superset of aleph 0 (aleph 1), but if he is saying exactly what you say there, he is wrong because the standards on this are clear.

What you are talking about is an infinite number of 2-A structures which are basically extends infinitely and each of them is 2-A and in this FAQ it is still valid to be 2-A, the comment I quoted from DT explains why it is still 2-A. (If you don't trust me)

2^aleph-0 is aleph-1. The fact that you’re denying one of the staff that are considerably knowledgeable in tier 1 and using DT’s statements to repeat myself should mark the point that the debates for standards should end here.

Anyways, as again, won’t respond anymore unless there are in-verse evidence that goes against this revision.

 

[Georredannea15]

Other sources also states that the MWI incorporates uncountable amount of universes. You’d want to link the guidelines or FAQ stuff that states VSBW treats MWI differently than what’s applied in scientific theories.

We apply it this way not only to MWI, also to others, for example, hyperspace, M theory, string theory, etc., we only take what the verse shows us, not more.

Firstly, I edited my comment. Infinities within each digit does count for uncountability. There are infinite decimals in 0 and 1; set of all real numbers is aleph-1. Of course, infinity times itself isn’t much, but it’s infinity^infinity for this case.

You don't need to explain this to me. I've quoted you many times from the staffs and the FAQ about this, even quotes revisions about it. If you still claim the opposite, I won't try to convince you.

Each universe is infinitely expanding and contains infinite worlds.

Sea of Quanta has infinite of those universes. This isn’t just infinity x infinity.

Thanks for explaining, this is basically infinite x infinite going on infinitely and it's still the same infinity

2^aleph-0 is aleph-1. The fact that you’re denying one of the staff that are considerably knowledgeable in tier 1 and using DT’s statements to repeat myself should mark the point that the debates for standards should end here.

I didn't deny anyone, I just said that if Qaw seriously said something like that, it wasn't true based on what DT and others said. Because who is deal with last revision was basically DT.

Because as I recall Qawsedf just said "aleph 0^aleph 0 will give you aleph 1, which is a superset of aleph 0."

Anyways, as again, won’t respond anymore unless there are in-verse evidence that goes against this revision.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I didn't deny anyone, I just said that if Qaw seriously said something like that, it wasn't true based on what DT and others said. Because who is deal with last revision was basically DT.

Because as I recall Qawsedf just said "aleph 0^aleph 0 will give you aleph 1, which is a superset of aleph 0.

What I said before was that an uncountable infinite will get you the next tier, but it's hard to get that number.

2-A structure infinitely expands and branches and there are infinite of those 2-A structures with the same behaviour, then it’s Low 1-C.

Yeah. Since to get an uncountable infinite you need to fit the following:

Recall that two sets are equivalent if they can be placed in one-to-one correspondence (so that each element of the first set corresponds to exactly one of the second). For finite sets this means they have the same number of elements.

An infinite set is a set which is equivalent to a proper subset of itself. For example, the set of integers is equivalent to the set of even integers--a proper subset.

This definition has some amusing consequences. For example, suppose we had a hotel with an infinite number of rooms numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., and no vacancy (every room is filled). We still have room for another person! All we need to do is to have each person move over one room (1 goes to 2, 2 to 3, ..., n to n+1...). In fact, even if it is full, it has room for as many folks as are already in it (just send 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6, ... , n to 2n, ..., this leaves 1, 3, 5, ... empty). The moral is that "the number of" elements in an infinite set (its cardinality) does not behave like it does for a finite set.

Infinite sets are divided into two types: those which are equivalent to a subset of the integers (called countable) and those which are not (called uncountable). The primes, composites, and positive integers are clearly countable. But so are the rational numbers, the set of polynomials with integer coefficients, and hence the algebraic numbers. Uncountable sets include the real and complex numbers, the irrational numbers, the transcendental numbers, and the power set of any countably infinite set.

For the multiverse example, it would be more like a power set than a Real Number set, though both would result in the same thing.

For a branching multiverse you could express it as

• Whole -> Intergers -> Rational -> Real

And get a Low 1-C structure or prove the equivalent of a power set of universes by showing that a container of infinkte universes would not be able to contain all the universes proposed by the cosmology. Which is why a recursive infinity is brought up as an example of achieving it.

 

[GarrixianXD]

What I said before was that an uncountable infinite will get you the next tier, but it's hard to get that number.

Yeah. Since to get an uncountable infinite you need to fit the following:

For the multiverse example, it would be more like a power set than a Real Number set, though both would result in the same thing.

For a branching multiverse you could express it as

• Whole -> Intergers -> Rational -> Real

And get a Low 1-C structure or prove the equivalent of a power set of universes by showing that a container of infinkte universes would not be able to contain all the universes proposed by the cosmology. Which is why a recursive infinity is brought up as an example of achieving it.

Thanks for the input. By this statement, I suppose you agree with 12-D Sea of Quanta since it manifests the recursive infinity properties, right?

 

[Georredannea15]

Thanks for the input. By this statement, I suppose you agree with 12-D Sea of Quanta since it manifests the recursive infinity properties, right?

You have an infinite number of 2-A's...I mean, 2-A's go on forever and there are infinitely many of them. It's very different from what Qawsedf said there. That's basically the reason why I told you that it's only countable and not uncountable infinite because what you're arguing is different from what Qawsedf is saying.

 

[GarrixianXD]

You have an infinite number of 2-A's...I mean, 2-A's go on forever and there are infinitely many of them. It's very different from what Qawsedf said there. That's basically the reason why I told you that it's only countable and not uncountable infinite because what you're arguing is different from what Qawsedf is saying.

Infinite 2-A structures that are infinitely expanding, I said this many times. Please don’t misinterpret and twist the context of what I’m bringing up here.

 

[Georredannea15]

Infinite 2-A structures that are infinitely expanding, I said this many times. Please don’t misinterpret and twist the context of what I’m bringing up here.

You have an infinite number of 2-A's...I mean, 2-A's go on forever and there are infinitely many of them

Do you see a difference with what I'm saying here? I don't. The FAQ says it's basically still 2-A, just above baseline.

It's like; 2-A, 2-A, 2-A, 2-A, 2-A... (going on infinity) still 2-A. This is how it works in 2-A

 

[Weaver261]

I agree most part of this revision but there's one thing that caught my eyes. According to your explanation, Imaginary tree has infinite leaf worlds with each having their own infinite timelines but each leaf doesn't share any continuity at all. And each leaf represent a game. You also implied leaf = 11D Universe. So it must be HSR, Hi3 and Genshin are supposed to be leaves with no continutiy at all.

The leaves of the Imaginary Tree each have their own time with each being fundamentally different, which could imply that each world has its own history. Welt also has said that there can be Infinite worlds for each universe; the statement heavily implies that each universe has its own time axis that can branch the timeline into infinite possibilities with the MWI serving as the basis. Now, with the aforementioned information deduced, we can conclude that each leaf world acts as its own timeline with infinite worlds a part of it.

I have discussed a lot about the model of Imaginary Tree with people from Hoyostan. According to them, each star system in HSR are considered to be a leaf of Imaginary tree (eg. Jarlio System, Penacony System). Both hi3 solar system and hsr star systems are the same universe.

Actually, my view of imaginary tree multiverse aligned with yours. This is the visualization of it
But according to them, it looks like this . You can see the differences.

This might not affect the current scaling but it'd be better to clear confusion. I would like to know what's your thoughts on this.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I agree most part of this revision but there's one thing that caught my eyes. According to your explanation, Imaginary tree has infinite leaf worlds with each having their own infinite timelines but each leaf doesn't share any continuity at all. And each leaf represent a game. You also implied leaf = 11D Universe. So it must be HSR, Hi3 and Genshin are supposed to be leaves with no continutiy at all.

Each universe/timeline = leaf world

Each universe has infinite worlds.

Each leaf world does not share any continuity because they aren’t connected space-time continuums; it’s been explicitly stated each world has its own fundamentally different time.

Hope this clears things up.

I have discussed a lot about the model of Imaginary Tree with people from Hoyostan. According to them, each star system in HSR are considered to be a leaf of Imaginary tree (eg. Jarlio System, Penacony System). Both hi3 solar system and hsr star systems are the same universe.

Actually, my view of imaginary tree multiverse aligned with yours. This is the visualization of it
But according to them, it looks like this . You can see the differences.

This might not affect the current scaling but it'd be better to clear confusion. I would like to know what's your thoughts on this.

You do realise Hoyostan is not an official site nor has it been recognised, let alone approved by any officials of miHoYo. As for my opinion on that site’s arguments which I’d rather not discuss on this CRT, but I’ll do it anyways, I wouldn’t even consider their existence. The fact that the users there not only shamelessly accuses the official translations of being wrong, but also disrespecting the miHoYo translators, makes it enough for me to disdain them to not take any of their claims seriously.

 

[Georredannea15]

That's actually how I look at it. I will try to explain a little simpler

If we model it in 4-D to understand it better, each leaf world is a timeline/universe which make it Low 2-C and each universe contains infinite worlds, which makes it 2-A.

And infinite number of leaf worlds would make it an infinite 2-A structure. That's basically why I said it cannot be uncountable infinite, but I guess I didn't explain it very well in my previous comments @GarrixianXD

 

[Weaver261]

Each universe/timeline = leaf world

Each universe has infinite worlds.

Each leaf world does not share any continuity because they aren’t connected space-time continuums; it’s been explicitly stated each world has its own fundamentally different time.

You do realise Hoyostan is not an official site nor has it been recognised, let alone approved by any officials of miHoYo.

Their videos about this cosmology structure is viewed by a lot of new players. So, I am afraid people would misunderstood honkai since we already had enough problems to clear up terminologies.
But there's one statement of acheron in 2.2 story. She said she traveled to similar worlds compare to hers while traveling the universe. Welt also said there are infinite worlds in the universe where someone would look similar to March. Welt's explanation can be easily brush off by saying "In this infinite universe, we can have people with similar faces. That's not rare". But Acheron's statement is not like that. This statement aligned with Hoyostan's view which I find hard to disagree.

 

[Qawsedf234]

suppose you agree with 12-D Sea of Quanta since it manifests the recursive infinity properties, right?

Looking over it I don't think I agree, since your baseline isn't starting at 2-A. A universe containing infinite worlds is talking about how there's just alternate timelines in the leaf, which is already addressed by the splitting futures thing.

You're not going starting at 2-A and then going up, you're starting with Low 2-C and going up. Which means your baseline doesn't start with Whole Numbers but with a number.

 

[Woomica]

Each universe/timeline = leaf world

Each universe has infinite worlds.

Each leaf world does not share any continuity because they aren’t connected space-time continuums; it’s been explicitly stated each world has its own fundamentally different time.

About this,when welt was talking abt infinite worlds in the universe,and the explanation how each parallel world may have different version of you,he was talking the same way how su explained that he can see infinite other parralel universes and in each of those you still have a different version of yourself.
Leaf worlds should be at least universe sized,since 99% percent of context in honkaivsrse talking abt leaf worlds alwahs uses word universe

 

[GarrixianXD]

Looking over it I don't think I agree, since your baseline isn't starting at 2-A. A universe containing infinite worlds is talking about how there's just alternate timelines in the leaf, which is already addressed by the splitting futures thing.

You're not going starting at 2-A and then going up, you're starting with Low 2-C and going up. Which means your baseline doesn't start with Whole Numbers but with a number.

So I suppose each world inside a leaf world/universe serves as the base, which would just be a single space-time in this case. @Georredannea15 I suppose I see what you mean.

From the previous CRT, it has been said that the Many-Worlds Interpretation directly serves as the basis for the Infinite bubble universes stored in the Sea of Quanta. Einstein even mentioned that universes collapses through quantum activity. Wouldn’t that mean the Sea of Quanta contains an uncountable amount of bubble universes? Considering the MWI interprets an uncountable amount of universes.

 

[Georredannea15]

Looking over it I don't think I agree, since your baseline isn't starting at 2-A. A universe containing infinite worlds is talking about how there's just alternate timelines in the leaf, which is already addressed by the splitting futures thing.

If we model it in 4-D to understand it better, each leaf world is a timeline/universe which make it Low 2-C and each universe contains infinite worlds, which makes it 2-A.

And infinite number of leaf worlds would make it an infinite 2-A structure. That's basically why I said it cannot be uncountable infinite, but I guess I didn't explain it very well in my previous comments

Yes, that's actually what I meant here, so basically what is being done is that there are infinite number of 2-A, not that there are infinite branches of 2-A's in a certain continuum and there are infinitely many of them.

 

[Unqver]

The virtual tree in hks is not to be discussed. It's a shame.

 

[Phoenks]

Garri is right that MWI in quantum mechanics (As in, the theory itself, separate from fiction) qualifies for uncountable infinite universes. Though what I am uncertain about is if Honkai actually aligns with the theory exactly.

For it to qualify as truly uncountable it requires some things:

• Each state of the universe must branch into infinite parallel universes. (Infinite universes)
• Each parallel universe generated by this process must similarly generate infinite more parallel universes. (Infinite x Infinite universes)
• This process must be repeated an infinite number of times (Likely from the beginning to the end of time, for example). (Infinite ^ Infinite [Uncountable infinite] universes)
• The "Sea of Quanta" must encompass the entirety of this branching structure, from the original states of the universe, to the very end of time. That way, it would actually be representative of all those universes.

In which case, a dimensional difference for the Sea of Quanta would be fine I believe.

I'll see if Garri can provide scans for these specific points ig.

 

[Ednaxel2]

I might’ve linked the wrong DB CRT. @TiltedFN @ProfectusInfinity @Ednaxel2 I remember one of you guys created a 5-D neutral space CRT for DB which has the 4 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension argument and it got accepted. Not the hypertimeline CRT with 3+2 dimensions; any of you mind linking it?

I think it was in a Hit CRT, one of the ones this year

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

I might’ve linked the wrong DB CRT. @TiltedFN @ProfectusInfinity @Ednaxel2 I remember one of you guys created a 5-D neutral space CRT for DB which has the 4 spatial dimensions + 1 time dimension argument and it got accepted. Not the hypertimeline CRT with 3+2 dimensions; any of you mind linking it?

Haven't been following this conversation. What would you like clarification with?

 

[GarrixianXD]

Garri is right that MWI in quantum mechanics (As in, the theory itself, separate from fiction) qualifies for uncountable infinite universes. Though what I am uncertain about is if Honkai actually aligns with the theory exactly.

For it to qualify as truly uncountable it requires some things:

• Each state of the universe must branch into infinite parallel universes. (Infinite universes)
• Each parallel universe generated by this process must similarly generate infinite more parallel universes. (Infinite x Infinite universes)
• This process must be repeated an infinite number of times (Likely from the beginning to the end of time, for example). (Infinite ^ Infinite [Uncountable infinite] universes)

It has been said that each universe expands with Quantum fluctuations. Akin to Einstein's statement about the universes of the Sea of Quanta. By that, each universe infinitely expands and branches out.

There are infinite parallel bubble worlds with the same behaviour, according to Einstein's statement on the bubble universes stored in the Sea of Quanta. Just so you know each bubble universe is 2-A, not Low 2-C (technically infinitely High 1-C and not finitely High 1-C, to be direct, but let's make this simple).

The leaf worlds of the Imaginary Tree (which is also 2-A, as the bubble worlds of the SoQ are dead leaves of the Imaginary Tree), branch out from the branches of the Tree. The Imaginary Tree is undoubtedly infinite, no need to debate that.

@Qawsedf234 I think you misinterpreted what the base of this system is. Each leaf world (which is already 2-A) expands infinitely via quantum fluctuations, not the parallel timelines in the bubble universes. There are infinite of those leaf worlds in the Sea of Quanta.

A single world inside a leaf world (one integer) --> single leaf world (contains infinite worlds and timelines; aleph-0, set of all integers — a leaf world is the base of the system) --> infinite leaf worlds in the Sea of Quanta (higher degree of aleph-0, set of all rationals) --> each of the leaf world inside the Sea of Quanta infinitely expands and branches via every quantum activity which plies MWI as the basis; there are infinite of those leaf worlds with the corresponding behaviour (aleph-1; set of all real numbers)

Does this make sense for you to qualify for Low 1-C? Like, a single leaf world that is already 2-A acts as the base.

Also, parallel leaf worlds are accessed through the Sea of Quanta. Leaf worlds have fundamentally their own time and history; I’m pretty sure that qualifies for an extradimensional bulk/hyperspace which has an extensive higher-dimension.

Also, quoting GZ2022 for this text to provide further context that the Sea of Quanta has properties of a bulk hyperspace:

Space and comprised a membrane notion that assignedthe "layered" and "conflicted" between smaller and largerdimensional membranes, which in turn have been confirmed to be a large plane of existence beyond even 4-dimensional space-time and is infinitely expandingacross all axes.

• The "Sea of Quanta" must encompass the entirety of this branching structure, from the original states of the universe, to the very end of time. That way, it would actually be representative of all those universes.

It's been accepted that the Sea of Quanta stores infinite universes, each representing every quantum possibility. So yeah, the Sea of Quanta houses the entire process.

 

[Catzlaflame]

I've been eyeing this thread for a while; for now, I'll give a quick opinon. I can tenatively agree to the tree stuff established in part 1, but I'm still iffy on the other sections. It would help astronomically if I was knowelgable on the verse, and could interpret it in greater context, but as far as I see the tree's trancendence over the sea does seem to be relatively clear-cut. Although, I do still believe the tiering system revisions will still affect that portion, that can be handled at a later date I suppose.

 

[Georredannea15]

@Qawsedf234 I think you misinterpreted what the base of this system is. Each leaf world (which is already 2-A) expands infinitely via quantum fluctuations, not the parallel timelines in the bubble universes. There are infinite of those leaf worlds in the Sea of Quanta.

Each universe/timeline = leaf world

Each universe has infinite worlds.

Each leaf world does not share any continuity because they aren’t connected space-time continuums; it’s been explicitly stated each world has its own fundamentally different time.

Given this statement and another conclusion I quoted above, no. It's classic 2-A (if we imagine that these are 4-D)

Also Agnaa's comment about the kinds of situations in which timelines will and will not give +1 makes this even more muddy

MWI only upgrades to Low 1-C if we know that a branching timeline is created for every instant. Things like "for every being, of which an infinite number exist" or "for every event" don't qualify, since they'd only create a countably infinite amount.

So... I don't know why you're still trying to upgrade this

 

[Qawsedf234]

Does this make sense for you to qualify for Low 1-C? Like, a single leaf world that is already 2-A acts as the base.

Leaf Worlds and Bubble Worlds are just 2-A, but the Sea being Low 1-C can be argued I guess. Though if the tree comes from the Sea then you can already argue it as an even higher dimensional construct so I'm not sure of the point there.

 

[NARONG_SUVAN]

Each universe/timeline = leaf world

Can I ask Where does it’s call leaf world as universe? Starrail say leaf world is world not universes.

 

[Georredannea15]

Leaf Worlds and Bubble Worlds are just 2-A, but the Sea being Low 1-C can be argued I guess. Though if the tree comes from the Sea then you can already argue it as an even higher dimensional construct so I'm not sure of the point there.

MWI only upgrades to Low 1-C if we know that a branching timeline is created for every instant. Things like "for every being, of which an infinite number exist" or "for every event" don't qualify, since they'd only create a countably infinite amount.

Agnaa commented on this issue as follows.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Leaf Worlds and Bubble Worlds are just 2-A, but the Sea being Low 1-C can be argued I guess. Though if the tree comes from the Sea then you can already argue it as an even higher dimensional construct so I'm not sure of the point there.

The Tree is above and stores the Sea at the current point of the story, so the Sea is definitely below the tree. Most Hi3 characters scale from the Sea rather than the Tree anyways. So suppose from this comment, you can agree with the Sea being higher-dimensional? (Since the Leaf Worlds and Bubble Worlds are 11-D rather than 4-D in this case, SoQ will be 12-D)

 

[Qawsedf234]

you can agree with the Sea being higher-dimensional? (Since the Leaf Worlds and Bubble Worlds are 11-D rather than 4-D in this case, SoQ will be 12-D)

The Sea is 11-D through Brane cosmology. Which wouldn't give it or the tree a 12D rating.

 

[GarrixianXD]

The Sea is 11-D through Brane cosmology. Which wouldn't give it or the tree a 12D rating.

No. The Sea isn’t 11-D through Brane cosmology, but rather from the scan that says it contains 11-D bubble universes. Vietthai claimed that, but he provided no scan, nor was it the basis for the Sea becoming 11-D from the previous CRT.

 

[Qawsedf234]

11-D bubble universes.

I'm not seeing that. All I see the bathtub, which is the sea in this context, being called 11-D

 

[GarrixianXD]

I'm not seeing that. All I see the bathtub, which is the sea in this context, being called 11-D

It did mention “bubble worlds”, which are the 2-A universes I mentioned before, “inherits all of the 11 dimensions of the bathtub”, which means that the universes inherits the 11-dimensions of the Sea. Does that make sense?

Perhaps it sounds contradictory at first, but the ultimate infinite-sum of all of the 11-D universes there would make it higher-dimensional nonetheless and you did say “Low 1-C is fine” on Stocking.exe’s CRT. Also with this aside, the Sea containing the 11-D bubble worlds would make it 12-D at an submicroscopic scale nonetheless.