Is My Little Pony Low 1-C? Let's Find Out.

[Phoenks]

I'm a bit bored right now, so let's try this.

On this thread it was brought up that MLP could not only qualify for 2-A (Which is currently accepted), but Low 1-C. I will explain why.

I would like to premise this by saying I want to keep this thread short and to the point. One of my issues with many tier 1 threads is that they often aren't accessible to more casual users because they're super long and intricate, making it difficult to understand and talk about...

With that being said, the argument for this should be simple. I am only going to link stuff that's already been linked before, in fact.

Dreams are accepted as being real, universal structures, as per the threads linked above. This is Low 2-C on its own.

Within dreams, there exists hallways of infinite doors that lead to infinite different possibilities. This is 2-A. And what is currently used for their tiering justification.

Every door in this hallway leads to another hallway of infinite doors, ad infinitum. And the Dreamscape encompasses all of this (Another source). This... This is Low 1-C.

Why? It's simple, really.

Every possibility leads to infinite more possibilities, which themselves lead to infinite more possibilities, again, and again, and again... infinitely.

So, after one recursion, that's infinite x infinite possibilities, another is infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, and another is infinite x infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, and so on. Luna implies that this never ends.

An infinite recursion of that would be equivalent to infinity^infinity (Aleph-0^Aleph-0), which is uncountably infinite possibilities.

This be because of the Continuum Hypothesis. Put simply, this says that 2^Aleph-0 is equal Aleph-1. A theory that is taken as a fact on this wiki.

The current standard is that uncountable infinite universes (uncountably infinite 4-Dness, I suppose), is equivalent to a 5-D structure in scope. Thus, significantly affecting something the encompasses that would be Low 1-C in potency.

I am a bit 50/50 in confidence on whether this will be accepted or rejected. I just really want to see if this qualifies.

Vote Tally
Bold = Staff Opinions (Discussion Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats)
Italic = Knowledgeable Members' Opinions (Verse Supporters, Content Moderators, and others demonstrating great knowledge on this topic)

Apologies if this ends up @ing you at some point. It is just me editing the vote count.

Those in agreement: (18) @KingNanaya, @DivineAura44, @Deidalius, @OverlordDonnelly, @Syncornize, @The_Fastest_Savior, @Robo432343, @Lightbuster30, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Maverick_Zero_X, @ShivaShakti, @FinePoint, @CinnabarManx421, @ThanatosX, @Vietthai96, @Tonygameman, @Georredannea15 (Possibly Low 1-C, I think)
Those in disagreement:
Those yet to form an opinion: @Firestorm808

 

[KingNanaya]

why? I agree, but why?

 

[DivineAura44]

The premise is simple and the evidence behind it seems sound. I agree for what it's worth.

 

[Deidalius]

I like how short and accessible this thread is. More tier 1 threads should be like this rather than make it too verbose.

That being said, I am convinced by the arguments that Fénix presented, I agree.

 

[OverlordDonnelly]

I've talked about this before, and am lowkey shocked it's finally being tackled in full.

For now, I definitely agree.

 

[Syncornize]

An infinite recursion of that would be equivalent to infinity^infinity (Aleph-0^Aleph-0), which is uncountably infinite possibilities.

This be because of the Continuum Hypothesis. Put simply, this says that 2^Aleph-0 is equal Aleph-1. A theory that is taken as a fact on this wiki.

The current standard is that uncountable infinite universes (uncountably infinite 4-Dness, I suppose), is equivalent to a 5-D structure in scope. Thus, significantly affecting something the encompasses that would be Low 1-C in potency.

generalizing you can assign cardinality Alpeh0 to any infinite structure (2-A) . I think you're just making a normal 2-A structure complex by stacking infinitely.
The doors are simply infinite, so no matter how many you open or destroy, they will always remain infinite. infinite - 1 = infinite

I doubt that the motivation for 2-A could be the same as for Low 1-c it seems a bit paradoxical to me

I didn't quite understand the point of infinite possibilities but something like an action that results in infinite possibilities, the same result can be repeated infinite times. I think this may be more enlightening than how I explained it but ultimately it is a paradox, everything is based on: "it is possible".


as reported on the wiki this must have been like something physically existing in cosmology. The statement is based on the metaphor of choices, I see it more as a mathematical concept or a simple concept rather than a plane of reality. I see a common 4D structure as more consistent than Low 1-C. I don't rule out further clarification.

users like ultima reality are highly appreciated for their opinions on dimensional scaling, he is also part of the staff. I recommend you tag him

THIS VERSE IS BROKEN

 

[Phoenks]

I don't even know how to address your comment. It's pretty confusing. I'm unsure whether or not you know exactly what I'm saying in this thread.

There isn't any subtracting doors or anything like that.

When you go through a door, you enter an entirely new dream world/possibility. That dream world then has its own hallway (a collective of infinite possibilities).

It continues again and again and again.

It's like, if each universe in a 2-A structure branches into its own 2-A structure that continues that branching again and again.

The overarching encompassment of all of those branches would hold an uncountable collective of those universes. Which is Low 1-C on the wiki.

 

[HenshinIntervention]

I agree

 

[Syncornize]

I don't even know how to address your comment. It's pretty confusing. I'm unsure whether or not you know exactly what I'm saying in this thread.

There isn't any subtracting doors or anything like that.

When you go through a door, you enter an entirely new dream world/possibility. That dream world then has its own hallway (a collective of infinite possibilities).

It continues again and again and again.

It's like, if each universe in a 2-A structure branches into its own 2-A structure that continues that branching again and again.

The overarching encompassment of all of those branches would hold an uncountable collective of those universes. Which is Low 1-C on the wiki.

The first points was just to give a little context to the infinity concert.

From what I understand this a door to be based on a probable action/choice. What is needed is explained in the link I left. Mine is a general summary of the paradox.
Infinite possibilities ≠ infinite realities.

 

[Phoenks]

The first points was just to give a little context to the infinity concert.

From what I understand this a door to be based on a probable action/choice. What is needed is explained in the link I left. Mine is a general summary of the paradox.
Infinite possibilities ≠ infinite realities.

The possibilities being realities is already addressed and accepted in the cosmology blog and threads linked in my post. In fact, it is the very basis used for the 2-A rating in the first place.

I used the term possibilities deliberately to make this easier to understand. Dreams are accepted as real universes.

The correct term world really be "dreams" since all of this is related to the dreams people have in the dreamscape.

 

[Syncornize]

The possibilities being realities is already addressed and accepted in the cosmology blog and threads linked in my post.

I used the term possibilities deliberately to make this easier to understand. Dreams are accepted as real universes.

The correct term world really be "dreams" since all of this is related to the dreams people have in the dreamscape.

Oh okay, then yes, I guess it can work.

 

[Robo432343]

since this was talked abt in the 2-A thread i agree

 

[Lightbuster30]

I saw you mention making this thread on discord, but I didn't think it'd happen this fast. I'm in agreement. If this goes anywhere, I don't know if we should keep it as a outright upgrade or just add a likely rating.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks alright from a glance.

 

[Georredannea15]

Is there proof that each of the infinite different possibilities represents a different timelines?( So each one is not only a possibility, but physically each possibility must represent a timeline)

If these are there, yes, it's 2-A.

But even if we assume it to be 2-A and say that there are infinitely many more doors inside each door, it will not be different from baseline 2-A.

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

And the fact that Dreamspace covers(encompasses) this 2-A area does not make it Low 1-C.

As DT says here and here, even if you cover 2-A or Low 2-C structures and are infinitely larger/greater than them, it is not enough for Tier 1. You need qualitative superiority or you need to prove that universes have volume 0 within that space. If you don't have evidence of qualitative superiority(or ontological superiority), no. You still stay at 4-D.

Also Ultima touched on this topic here

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.

A few more new extracts from what's going to be added to the page.

 

[Phoenks]

But even if we assume it to be 2-A and say that there are infinitely many more doors inside each door, it will not be different from baseline 2-A.

I will quote 2 segments from the Tiering QnA, which say the opposite.

For 1, here is proof that uncountably infinite lower-D space is equivalent to a higher dimensional space on the wiki.

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. One may think of it as a multiplication between sets: For instance, the unit square [0,1]² may be expressed as the product of two unit intervals [0,1] x [0,1], which itself can be visualized as taking "copies" of the first interval and lining them up along each point of the second interval, of which there are uncountably infinitely-many, thus forming a square out of infinite line segments.

For 2, here is the exact standard for larger 2-A multiverses.

The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

Unless you can prove to me that the number of universes here is not uncountably infinitely many, as I've explained in the OP, then you would be incorrect in saying this is only baseline 2-A. That is my entire argument.

I will also say the links you provided to DT and Ultima's statements are also saying the same thing I am saying here.

As DT says here and here, even if you cover 2-A or Low 2-C structures and are infinitely larger/greater than them, it is not enough for Tier 1. You need qualitative superiority or you need to prove that universes have volume 0 within that space. If you don't have evidence of qualitative superiority(or ontological superiority), no. You still stay at 4-D.

In the first link, he says as follows.

infinity^3 = infinity. The difference between one level of infinity and the next is bigger than that. In non-rigorous terms, you would need an infinite exponent for that, like 2^infinite.

In the second link, he says that qualitive superiority is needed. However, based on his comments and the Tiering FAQ, it seems clear that uncountably infinite many lower-dimensional objects is enough to pertain to the overall space there being qualitively superior to its individual parts.

Also Ultima touched on this topic here

He confirms my belief at the end here.

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.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

This seems fine.

 

[CinnabarManx421]

Damn didn’t think this was actually gonna happen. All seems good to me.

 

[Hypertornado099]

The current standard is that uncountable infinite universes (uncountably infinite 4-Dness, I suppose), is equivalent to a 5-D structure in scope

Which page states this?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Which page states this?

Tiering System Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

watch both videos

 

[ShivaShakti]

This is extremely cursed, but I agree. Unfortunately.

 

[ThanatosX]

Is there proof that each of the infinite different possibilities represents a different timelines?( So each one is not only a possibility, but physically each possibility must represent a timeline)

If these are there, yes, it's 2-A.

But even if we assume it to be 2-A and say that there are infinitely many more doors inside each door, it will not be different from baseline 2-A.


And the fact that Dreamspace covers(encompasses) this 2-A area does not make it Low 1-C.

As DT says here and here, even if you cover 2-A or Low 2-C structures and are infinitely larger/greater than them, it is not enough for Tier 1. You need qualitative superiority or you need to prove that universes have volume 0 within that space. If you don't have evidence of qualitative superiority(or ontological superiority), no. You still stay at 4-D.

Also Ultima touched on this topic here

A few more new extracts from what's going to be added to the page.

I think you are approcing this argument in a wrong way. This isn't about a space being infinitely bigger than a 4-D dimension, but about the sheer quantify of 4-D spaces that makes it Low 1-C.
While I am not too familiar with the comics from which all of the scans are taken, from what I understand there is a space with infinite doors/possibilities, and inside each of them there is an infinite amount of doors/possibilities, so on so forth. What you are saying (an infinite amount of 2-A structures), is "only" infinite*infinite. What is potrayed in here is an infinite^infinite amount of 2-A structures, aka an uncountably infinite amount, and destroying such amount of realities would indeed be Low 1-C. That's the same reasoning used for the MCU, so this isn't something new.
As explained above, the revision makes sense, and while it is strange to see Tier 1 My Little Pony, I agree.

 

[Syncornize]

I think you are approcing this argument in a wrong way. This isn't about a space being infinitely bigger than a 4-D dimension, but about the sheer quantify of 4-D spaces that makes it Low 1-C.
While I am not too familiar with the comics from which all of the scans are taken, from what I understand there is a space with infinite doors/possibilities, and inside each of them there is an infinite amount of doors/possibilities, so on so forth. What you are saying (an infinite amount of 2-A structures), is "only" infinite*infinite. What is potrayed in here is an infinite^infinite amount of 2-A structures, aka an uncountably infinite amount, and destroying such amount of realities would indeed be Low 1-C. That's the same reasoning used for the MCU, so this isn't something new.
As explained above, the revision makes sense, and while it is strange to see Tier 1 My Little Pony, I agree.

yes that's right, at first even I struggled a little bit to understand what he meant. Fortunately he expressed himself better, to understand just read the thread

 

[DimeUhDozen]

Holy crap.

 

[Tonygameman]

Going to agree with this.

 

[Georredannea15]

I think you are approcing this argument in a wrong way. This isn't about a space being infinitely bigger than a 4-D dimension, but about the sheer quantify of 4-D spaces that makes it Low 1-C.
While I am not too familiar with the comics from which all of the scans are taken, from what I understand there is a space with infinite doors/possibilities, and inside each of them there is an infinite amount of doors/possibilities, so on so forth. What you are saying (an infinite amount of 2-A structures), is "only" infinite*infinite. What is potrayed in here is an infinite^infinite amount of 2-A structures, aka an uncountably infinite amount, and destroying such amount of realities would indeed be Low 1-C. That's the same reasoning used for the MCU, so this isn't something new.
As explained above, the revision makes sense, and while it is strange to see Tier 1 My Little Pony, I agree.

This is literally something that fits into an infinite number of infinite multiverses. Having 2-A inside each door... it will still be 2-A as DT explains, infinity^3 or whatever=same infinity.

And in the MCU, every 4-D(2-A) moment was a singular moment, like a "point" in the holy timeline. This was the biggest reason why it was Low 1-C, because there were things here that could become uncountable infinite.

I will quote 2 segments from the Tiering QnA, which say the opposite.

For 1, here is proof that uncountably infinite lower-D space is equivalent to a higher dimensional space on the wiki.

No one reject to this anyway, but there is no uncountable infinity here. All you have is a 2-A structure, and within that an infinite number of 2-A structures. This is not uncountably infinite. These arguments you present contradict the continuity hypothesis.

Because the main point of this hypothesis is that no matter how big you get or how much infinity you add, you still can't reach uncountable infinity.

As this page explains, it's still a baseline 2-A structure that fits into an infinite number of 2-A structures.

For 2, here is the exact standard for larger 2-A multiverses.

I have 4 quotes saying this is not enough for Low 1-C. Insisting on this still is not healthy at all.

, as I've explained in the OP, then you would be incorrect in saying this is only baseline 2-A. That is my entire argument.

You have to prove to me that this is uncountable infinite. Because all you have is a 2-A structure, and each structure has a different 2-A multiverses in it... This literally shows that there are infinite number of 2-A multiverse in that structure, and this is same with the baseline 2-A.

I will also say the links you provided to DT and Ultima's statements are also saying the same thing I am saying here.

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.

What Ultima is saying here is that adding another axis to a line will make it 2 or 3 dimensional. Just like the coordinate system.

The line has a single linear direction of movement, left and right only, and is 1-dimensional.

If you add a different analog or axis to this line, only then will you get a higher dimensional structure.

This line will still remain 1-dimensional unless you add a different axis. (No matter how big or infinitely larger)

Because no matter how much you extend this line to infinity or to a greater infinity than infinity, unless you add a different axis, this line will still extend on a single linear axis and this will still remain 1 dimensional, it will not give you an extra axis.


What you're saying here is like saying that an infinite 1D line that contains an infinite number of parts and is infinitely large is 2D... But as I quote from Ultima, they are still 1D.

In the second link, he says that qualitive superiority is needed. However, based on his comments and the Tiering FAQ, it seems clear that uncountably infinite many lower-dimensional objects is enough to pertain to the overall space there being qualitively superior to its individual parts.

There are no uncountable infinite cases here.

He confirms my belief at the end here.

Lmao he doesn't actually say anything supporting you here.

 

[Phoenks]

I don't really know why you are saying it's not uncountable.

It isn't just infinite^3. It's endless. When every branch branches off infinitely forever throughout all of time, you end up with infinite^infinite.

It's the exact same argument that was used for MCU.

But if you disagree, I'll just list you there.

 

[Georredannea15]

I don't really know why you are saying it's not uncountable.

Because the continuity hypothesis and what's written on the page makes me say it's not uncountably infinite, something that fits perfectly with the infinite number of 2-A structures written on the page.

It's the exact same argument that was used for MCU.

In the argument used for the MCU, a 2-A moment was like a singular "point" in the holy timeline. Since an infinite line contains an uncountable infinite number of points, and each 2-A moment is just like a singular point, the holy timeline became Low 1-C.

But if you disagree, I'll just list you there.

OK, but I have to say that the things I quoted above are "new standards". So it would be better for now to wait and call DT and Ultima and leave the evaluation to them.

 

[Phoenks]

In the argument used for the MCU, a 2-A moment was like a singular "point" in the holy timeline. Since an infinite line contains an uncountable infinite number of points, and each 2-A moment is just like a singular point, the holy timeline became Low 1-C.

I'm pretty sure that is the same here.

Every single one of those 2-A branching hallways is indeed a single moment in time (and in a single dream). And each of them branches off infinitely into more and more 2-A structures throughout all of time.

Then the Dreamscape explicitly contains all of these branches that occur throughout the past, present, and future.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing your argument here.

 

[Phoenks]

@Ultima_Reality if you have any care for a pony verse, help and clarifications would be cool.

 

[Georredannea15]

I'm pretty sure that is the same here.

Every single one of those 2-A branching hallways is indeed a single moment in time (and in a single dream). And each of them branches off infinitely into more and more 2-A structures throughout all of time.

Then the Dreamscape explicitly contains all of these branches that occur throughout the past, present, and future.

Yeah, I'm just not seeing your argument here.

But here you don't have a direct statement that each moment is a "singular point". The MCU had this, what you're doing here is just a hypothetical interpretation. If you had a direct statement, yes it would be okay, but I don't see a direct statement.

But if it's something you're very close to interpreting that way, without such direct statements, and you insist on it, then i guess "possibly Low 1-C" seems good here

But I still prefer not to interpret it this way, with its own assumption. It would not be healthy to compensate for the lack of statement with such assumptions and interpretations.

 

[Phoenks]

But here you don't have a direct statement that each moment is a "singular point". The MCU had this, what you're doing here is just a hypothetical interpretation. If you had a direct statement, yes it would be okay, but I don't see a direct statement.

But if it's something you're very close to interpreting that way, without such direct statements, and you insist on it, then i guess "possibly Low 1-C" seems good here

But I still prefer not to interpret it this way, with its own assumption. It would not be healthy to compensate for the lack of statement with such assumptions and interpretations.

Well the whole idea of the hallway is to be a metaphor for the infinite choices that one could make at any particular point in time.

It says as much in the first scan but doesn't explicitly say anything about the time.

I will check through the comics again for clarification but I thought that much would be self-explanatory enough for a rating.

 

[Spilxson2]

Aw, man. I was going to put Xeno Goku up against a random 2-A MLP character but I guess this is going to make it too unfair. I agree anyway

 

[Da3ggman]

Aw, man. I was going to put Xeno Goku up against a random 2-A MLP character but I guess this is going to make it too unfair. I agree anyway

Goku was about to make some pony paste.

 

[Spilxson2]

Goku was about to make some pony paste.

I don't have enough patience to read through both his and Twilight's profiles so I'm just going to assume you're right. Too bad the ponies are going to make monkey paste now

 

[Georredannea15]

Well the whole idea of the hallway is to be a metaphor for the infinite choices that one could make at any particular point in time.

It says as much in the first scan but doesn't explicitly say anything about the time.

I will check through the comics again for clarification but I thought that much would be self-explanatory enough for a rating.

If that's all you have and there are no statements for timeline, then I'd say "possibly Low 1-C" at best but I think the healthiest would be 2-A. Anyway, you've already tagged Ultima.

 

[Spilxson2]

I definitely agree with at least having a possibly Low 1-C rating

 

[Firestorm808]

Without more context to superiority, I would say: At least 2-A, possibly Low 1-C.

 

[Memonto_Mori]

I'm a bit bored right now, so let's try this.

On this thread it was brought up that MLP could not only qualify for 2-A (Which is currently accepted), but Low 1-C. I will explain why.

I would like to premise this by saying I want to keep this thread short and to the point. One of my issues with many tier 1 threads is that they often aren't accessible to more casual users because they're super long and intricate, making it difficult to understand and talk about...

With that being said, the argument for this should be simple. I am only going to link stuff that's already been linked before, in fact.

Dreams are accepted as being real, universal structures, as per the threads linked above. This is Low 2-C on its own.

Within dreams, there exists hallways of infinite doors that lead to infinite different possibilities. This is 2-A. And what is currently used for their tiering justification.

Every door in this hallway leads to another hallway of infinite doors, ad infinitum. And the Dreamscape encompasses all of this (Another source). This... This is Low 1-C.

Why? It's simple, really.

Every possibility leads to infinite more possibilities, which themselves lead to infinite more possibilities, again, and again, and again... infinitely.

So, after one recursion, that's infinite x infinite possibilities, another is infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, and another is infinite x infinite x infinite x infinite possibilities, and so on. Luna implies that this never ends.

An infinite recursion of that would be equivalent to infinity^infinity (Aleph-0^Aleph-0), which is uncountably infinite possibilities.

This be because of the Continuum Hypothesis. Put simply, this says that 2^Aleph-0 is equal Aleph-1. A theory that is taken as a fact on this wiki.

The current standard is that uncountable infinite universes (uncountably infinite 4-Dness, I suppose), is equivalent to a 5-D structure in scope. Thus, significantly affecting something the encompasses that would be Low 1-C in potency.

I am a bit 50/50 in confidence on whether this will be accepted or rejected. I just really want to see if this qualifies.

Vote Tally
Bold = Staff Opinions (Discussion Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats)
Italic = Knowledgeable Members' Opinions (Verse Supporters, Content Moderators, and others demonstrating great knowledge on this topic)

Apologies if this ends up @ing you at some point. It is just me editing the vote count.

Those in agreement: (10) @KingNanaya, @DivineAura44, @Deidalius, @OverlordDonnelly, @Syncornize, @The_Fastest_Savior, @Robo432343, @Lightbuster30, @DarkDragonMedeus, @Maverick_Zero_X
Those in disagreement:
Those yet to form an opinion:

This is literally something that fits into an infinite number of infinite multiverses. Having 2-A inside each door... it will still be 2-A as DT explains, infinity^3 or whatever=same infinity.

And in the MCU, every 4-D(2-A) moment was a singular moment, like a "point" in the holy timeline. This was the biggest reason why it was Low 1-C, because there were things here that could become uncountable infinite.

No one reject to this anyway, but there is no uncountable infinity here. All you have is a 2-A structure, and within that an infinite number of 2-A structures. This is not uncountably infinite. These arguments you present contradict the continuity hypothesis.

Because the main point of this hypothesis is that no matter how big you get or how much infinity you add, you still can't reach uncountable infinity.

As this page explains, it's still a baseline 2-A structure that fits into an infinite number of 2-A structures.


I have 4 quotes saying this is not enough for Low 1-C. Insisting on this still is not healthy at all.

You have to prove to me that this is uncountable infinite. Because all you have is a 2-A structure, and each structure has a different 2-A multiverses in it... This literally shows that there are infinite number of 2-A multiverse in that structure, and this is same with the baseline 2-A.


What Ultima is saying here is that adding another axis to a line will make it 2 or 3 dimensional. Just like the coordinate system.

The line has a single linear direction of movement, left and right only, and is 1-dimensional.

If you add a different analog or axis to this line, only then will you get a higher dimensional structure.

This line will still remain 1-dimensional unless you add a different axis. (No matter how big or infinitely larger)

Because no matter how much you extend this line to infinity or to a greater infinity than infinity, unless you add a different axis, this line will still extend on a single linear axis and this will still remain 1 dimensional, it will not give you an extra axis.


What you're saying here is like saying that an infinite 1D line that contains an infinite number of parts and is infinitely large is 2D... But as I quote from Ultima, they are still 1D.

There are no uncountable infinite cases here.

Lmao he doesn't actually say anything supporting you here.

I agree with georredannea

 

[Georredannea15]

I agree with georredannea

Bro why did you use your first comment like this?