Since this CRT brings math (or Set Theory to be precise) here as justifications, you should call people who are really knowledgeable about said subject to evaluate it (like DT, Ultima, or Agnaa for examples).
Since you've already described the very nature of a microcosm is like it shouldn't be a difficult thing to explain, it is microscopic, small, and is a part of something bigger; a subset.
Which means this is a kind of misinterpretation of Set Theory. Because in Set Theory, an infinite cardinals which is a subset of an even greater infinite (such as N being a subset of Z, Z to Q, and more) can still have the same magnitude of size because they all can still be listed as a conventional infinite, which in mathematical terms such method is called as
bijection, which I think it has been mentioned here for a few times in the comments above so I'm going to assume that none of you don't understand it (the easiest analogy to understand it is that 2 hands with 10 fingers in total (5 each) will only become 5 once these two hands are put together, closed). For example, the set of natural numbers (N) which is an extension of positive numbers as a whole is not entirely smaller than the set of integers (Z, both positive and negative). In Layman's terms, infinite is not smaller than infinite*2 even though the former would be only a subset of the latter. That's because they both can still be bijected.
N: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...
Z: ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...
To: 0, -1, 1, -2, 2, -3, 3, -4, 4...
Means although Z is twice larger than N, two of them are in fact have the same size because they both are still countable sets. Similar case occurs if you remove all the odd numbers of an infinity, it won't reduce its numerical size at all since infinite is infinite anyway, numbers are totally irrrelevant in conventional sense. Same method can still be used to the set of rational numbers, or Q, which consists all kinds of infinite fractions that could still be expressed with by a/b (or for the simplicity sake let's say infinite*infinite) with Cantor's Diagonal Argument. What I'm trying to rephrase here is that an infinite thing(s) that exist as a subset of even a bigger infinite, can still have the same size even though the ontological difference is like baseline infinite to infinite*infinite. It doesn't matter.
This is also the basic reason why multiple infinite multiverses aren't qualified as above baseline of 2-A, literally for the same ways as above; all types of countable sets can still be bijected. Which means, even if there are an infinite amount of multiverses which each of them is infinite-sized, they all will remain as baseline 2-A unless if:
-uncountable sets
-feats of affecting multiple multiverses is proven to be more difficult than a single one
-indication(s) regarding they are strictly bigger than one
-et cetera
Problem is, none of the scans above you are presenting are qualified to one of those. All they say only imply that the Sanctuary is a subset of a larger infinite object which doesn't translate as an significant difference with multiple infinite multiverses argument, or baseline. You also said that all Sanctuaries have the same and similar structures, which is a bad news by the way. Because the reason why the set of irrational numbers cannot be bijected to countable cardinals is simply because they are too much complex to be listed, and has been proven to do so, means the Sanctuaries can still be bijected or baseline it is.
This as well is wrong but it's understandable at least as this site tends to works on that way. The thing between there is strict cardinals between countable set and R (not aleph-1 because R is what relevant in Tiering System, 1 dimension equivalent) depends on whether the Continuum Hypothesis being false or truth, something that cannot be proven or disaproven. Just an addition to avoid misinterpretation.
So let alone 5D, they aren't even larger than baseline 2-A with those scans above unless if you can prove that the Bubble Worlds have solid evidence(s) for them being strictly bigger (in the sense of size), harder to destroy, and not just being infinitely bigger than infinite.
Apologize. But at this point you're making a very reaching argument by assuming that the Silver Sea has a complex time structure like multiple temporal dimensions, which I see no indication here at all. I'll repeat, nothing at all. Because what the scans and what the context clearly implies that the dissimilarity of flow of time merely occurs because the depth difference between shallow worlds and deeper worlds. People in Silver Sea is much tougher, concepts/orders in Silver Sea are much more stronger, so it wouldn't be unnatural for the flow of time in Silver Sea also runs slower, being more condensed and solid (knowing the cosmology of this verse is literally a sea, where the deeper it is the stronger the pressure would be). Literally no context regarding the time dimension being higher dimensional, no context about the time in Silver Sea is a complex 2-dimensional time consisting 1 dimension of real time and 1 dimension as per physic, no context about the time is an infinitely denser time with 1-dimensional linear time exist as its infinitesimal subset as per cardinality, et cetera. it's a damn extreme extrapolation. That's not how Occam's Razor works. You can still have different speed of flow of time in 1 time dimension, especially when the context literally is about sea where the deeper it goes the more ****** it is.
So 6D arguments are no no to me too, the evidences are just too lacking.
Tl;dr I disagree with everything. Not to mention the previous 2-A thread was rushed like
@Pain_to12 said, and I have to rant about how this verse is beyond ****** now especially when it too relies on raw with literally no proper translation.
