Literally bigger than 2A and infinite

[Fixxed]

Well as we know, a structure that bigger than 2A is still 2A, but it only remain the same tier if the "bigger" are for more 2A structures, like a structure that contain many 2A structures in it self

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinitely many, won't be above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually having the same size as a baseline 2-A structure.

But it would be different if the "bigger" in context are for a literal size different

However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure dimensionally superior to a 2-A structure, the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

The thing is, bigger in size must be either clearly showing a uncountable infinite size different or has portrayals/statements being larger than 2A structure to the point even infinity multipliers of it are meaningless

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for dimensional superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being larger than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it.

The problem is from the second requirement. What feats that meet that requirement? Are we must have a literal prove that stated about infinite multipliers is still nothing to the structure? Arent that literally what the first requirement mean, so why we still have the second requirement if it still the same as the first. And how can we portray a structure that even infinite multipliers of 2A is meaningless to it?

Honestly i have some solution

1. For just a statements
The 2A structure being limited in nature of it size compare to the bigger structure, something like being a small subspace of the full macrocosm. This making the 2A structure very dependent to the higher structure, even if it expanding to be more in number or even in size, that structure still limited and will never exceed the higher structure's size, because the very nature of that structure is just a sub- or a small part of something, so it will ever be a small part no matter how

For this the requirement must:

• The 2A structure must prove to be just a small part of the whole
• The 2A structure must dependent in nature
• The 2A structure must strictly connected to the whole structure (the 2A structure cannot be a independent structure from the whole structure, like the whole structure just contain that not making that a part of it)
• The 2A structure cannot exceed the size of the whole structure
• The 2A structure must always be in a fixed size if compare to the whole structure
• Like above, even if this 2A stucture are expanding or being more in number, it size is still fixed or still have a same size like before it expanding if it from the whole structure's perspective. For make it simple the size before and after are same compare to the whole structure

2. For portrays
Like above the 2A structure must be limited in nature compare to the macrocosm, but in here the 2A are being portray as limited. Like the structure are just a literal sand in some river, or just a bubble in a literal ocean, just a fruit in a tree. It must be a literal thing, not just a metaphor for describe a "bigger" structure that contain 2A's structures

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Everything12 @Ovy7 @Rakih_Elyan @IdiosyncraticLawyer @RatherClueless @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

What do you think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

Well as we know, a structure that bigger than 2A is still 2A, but it only remain the same tier if the "bigger" are for more 2A structures, like a structure that contain many 2A structures in it self

Sure.

The thing is, bigger in size must be either clearly showing a uncountable infinite size different or has portrayals/statements being larger than 2A structure to the point even infinity multipliers of it are meaningless

Yeah.

The problem is from the second requirement. What feats that meet that requirement? Are we must have a literal prove that stated about infinite multipliers is still nothing to the structure? Arent that literally what the first requirement mean, so why we still have the second requirement if it still the same as the first. And how can we portray a structure that even infinite multipliers of 2A is meaningless to it?

By constructing it in a way that logically leads to that, like a multiverse whose timelines split for every single instant of multiversal-time. This would logically be uncountably infinitely many timelines, and thus be Low 1-C.

Honestly i have some solution

1. For just a statements
The 2A structure being limited in nature of it size compare to the bigger structure, something like being a small subspace of the full macrocosm. This making the 2A structure very dependent to the higher structure, even if it expanding to be more in number or even in size, that structure still limited and will never exceed the higher structure's size, because the very nature of that structure is just a sub- or a small part of something, so it will ever be a small part no matter how

For this the requirement must:

• The 2A structure must prove to be just a small part of the whole
• The 2A structure must dependent in nature
• The 2A structure must strictly connected to the whole structure (the 2A structure cannot be a independent structure from the whole structure, like the whole structure just contain that not making that a part of it)
• The 2A structure cannot exceed the size of the whole structure
• The 2A structure must always be in a fixed size if compare to the whole structure
• Like above, even if this 2A stucture are expanding or being more in number, it size is still fixed or still have a same size like before it expanding if it from the whole structure's perspective. For make it simple the size before and after are same compare to the whole structure

2. For portrays
Like above the 2A structure must be limited in nature compare to the macrocosm, but in here the 2A are being portray as limited. Like the structure are just a literal sand in some river, or just a bubble in a literal ocean, just a fruit in a tree. It must be a literal thing, not just a metaphor for describe a "bigger" structure that contain 2A's structures

I don't see any problem, so I see no need for a solution like this.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm with Agnaa.

Additionally, the proposed requirements sound like they would really only amount to a subset relationship, which is insufficient.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out to you as well.

Should we close this thread then?

 

[Agnaa]

Might as well wait for the OP to come back and clarify.

 

[Antvasima]

Might as well wait for the OP to come back and clarify.

Okay.

@Fixxed

Your input would be appreciated here.

 

[Fixxed]

Okay.

@Fixxed

Your input would be appreciated here.

I'm very busy right now. But i will respond later

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.