Nasuverse Upgrade: High 1-A for Swirl of The Root

[Maxeez]

It is finite because it is ephemeral and subject to dissolution into the root.

It’s spatially infinite but this concept of infinity is nothing compared to « true infinity » hence why someone like Ryougi can regard it as « finite » and cut it as she pleases.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

You all realize that "negative theology" in the current system isn't a tier of its own? In fact, we already acknowledge its tiering by apophasis. That's the reason why it is 1-A.

Nobody is using negative theology

If that's your argument, what you are claiming isn't exactly new.

Nobody said this

It is finite because it is ephemeral and subject to dissolution into the root.

It was never implied as well they just posited the fact that infinity has limits which means it's in regards to each nature and backed it up using non Euclidean geometry your interpretation is far off from the context

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

concept of infinity

Mind due I already explained that concept of infinity the one that works all the way up to 1-A+ through the idea of recursion and still uses the same arithmetic operations to construct meaning the root can't be any infinity between R^1 all the way up to 1-A+ just like the inaccessible cardinal cannot be reached using arithmetic operations of things lower such as that hence the root should be high 1-A its not hard to grasp

 

[Strife304]

I agree just like with the last one.

I just need to know where were all these based Nasuverse scales were like 3 years ago

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

So far everyone agrees, then we have one neutral and one person who disagrees and has misinterpreted the argument atleast 5 times I don't know if he's willingy doin that or if truly he just doesn't understand I doubt it's latter tho

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I just need to know where were all these based Nasuverse scales were like 3 years ago

Don't know ask the others

 

[ShivaShakti]

Nobody is using negative theology

Nobody said this

It was never implied as well they just posited the fact that infinity has limits which means it's in regards to each nature and backed it up using non Euclidean geometry your interpretation is far off from the context

1. Why even mention it, then?

2. Then your argument solely depends upon your description Non-Euclidean geometry, which isn't supported at all, and heavily over extrapolated.

3. I think your interpretation of non-euclidean geometry and how our tiering system functions is what is completely far off. You're assuming it should scale beyond 1-A+ power sets with essentially no evidence. We don't give High 1-A to objects which are described as "beyond all extension of infinity" or "true infinity" without any actual elaboration or other cosmological foundation.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I just need to know where were all these based Nasuverse scales were like 3 years ago

Neco-Arc the great uniter and type lumina has brought new people into the nasuverse
i got into TM from carnival phantasm

 

[Maxeez]

I mean, we shouldn’t forget about the last thread either

The sub-concepts that are being attributed to 「　」　, but are not truly「　」 are already accepted as 1-A, so automatically, 「　」 should be scaled above this, since it is above all possible human logic and definition that could be used to describe it.
Any mention of 「　」 cannot be the exact same concept, because「　」is meant to be emptiness, and therefore lacks a proper name and description. Any concept in the nasuverse is automatically a part of 「　」

It would also support it being High 1-A if I’m not mistaken.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I mean, we shouldn’t forget about the last thread either

It would also support it being High 1-A if I’m not mistaken.

if we're using my argument, then if this gets accepted to be H1-A, the greater structure can be tiered to 0, but a few people wanted to wait before we use that

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Why even mention it, then?

It was an analogy as to how your argument sounded like

Then your argument solely depends upon your description Non-Euclidean geometry

Like I said r>f still exists but you still haven't refuted the scan yet so non Euclidean geometry still works

which isn't supported at all, and heavily over extrapolated.

I already explained why it's supported but why do you think it's not supported I'm very curious

I think your interpretation of non-euclidean geometry and how our tiering system functions is what is completely far off

Are you actually being serious you can't be real

You're assuming it should scale beyond 1-A+ power sets with essentially no evidence.

Evidence is that arithmetic operations such as power sets are not enough to construct a infinity that will reach the root that's how an inaccessible cardinal works too I've been saying this and with the evidence that's already provided above you've been saying no evidence no evidence without justifying why the evidence presented isn't evidence to suffice the proposal

We don't give High 1-A to objects which are described as "beyond all extension of infinity"

Nobody said this

"true infinity" without any actual elaboration

What true infinity means in this case has already been elaborated on you choosing to willingy ignore that doesn't entail that it hasn't been elaborated on

other cosmological foundation.

The cosmological foundation is already there the analogy of non Euclidean geometry and how it works alternatively you can still use r>f to suffice the same proposal

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I mean, we shouldn’t forget about the last thread either

It would also support it being High 1-A if I’m not mistaken.

It would support it yes but it'll scale [] to its description I mean I don't think it's a bad idea that was done beforehand to support 1-A so

 

[AKUTO123]

I'm not very knowledgeable about non-Euclidean geometry. But from what I understand from the op, he claims that infinity is not simply a fundamental infinity like Aleph null, but that uncountable infinity exists, and that no matter how high we raise these uncountable infinities, it cannot reach the root. If I'm not mistaken, this obviously seems fine for high 1A. If I misunderstood, I'd appreciate it if you could explain in more detail.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

If I misunderstood, I'd appreciate it if you could explain in more detail.

See he gets it no you're fine

 

[Tdjwo]

I'm not very knowledgeable about non-Euclidean geometry. But from what I understand from the op, he claims that infinity is not simply a fundamental infinity like Aleph null, but that uncountable infinity exists, and that no matter how high we raise these uncountable infinities, it cannot reach the root. If I'm not mistaken, this obviously seems fine for high 1A. If I misunderstood, I'd appreciate it if you could explain in more detail.

Yes. That's pretty much it.

 

[Tdjwo]

What makes you guys so long to find True Infinity scan?

Hell, that is the one reason why I want to upgrade Nasu to High 1-A before the new year lol.

I agree.

I'm surprised you of all people agree with a Nasuverse upgrade considering the agenda you had against the verse a few days ago

I guess the crt was too solid for you to disprove

 

[Tarang123]

I'm not going to lie, but I'm okay with the Root being High 1A, but this...this isn't it man. You need actual solid evidence to grant a High 1A tier and not just a bunch of assumptions and extrapolations, like what's shown here. So count me in for disagreeing

 

[NaruRiasUzumaki]

I agree with OP's stated.

But they can reach SCP, Marvel and DC's level?

 

[RaveeCPN]

I'm neutral for now

 

[Tarang123]

I agree with OP's stated.

But they can reach SCP, Marvel and DC's level?

Definitely not SCP even if this thread is accepted

 

[Iiliminal]

I agree with OP's stated.

But they can reach SCP, Marvel and DC's level?

SCP>>

 

[Paul_Frank]

THE TRUE INFINITY

The justification for the Root being High 1-A goes as follows, starting with this scan which I will elaborate on from there. The root is directly implied to be unreachable through the recursive measures of stacking infinities. I know people have a problem interpreting stuff properly, so I'll explain better how this is implied.



This explains how conventional infinity has limits.

Actual infinity is completed as a collection; the idea is further extrapolated by using the analogy of a non-Euclidean space which is still an infinite space but with limits because for any dimension X, it would be infinite, but the limit comes from the next dimension, which is a directly higher infinity.

So for 2 dimensions, it would be infinity^infinity in hyperbolic Geometry/non-Euclidean geometry and the idea is carried on to any dimension up to 1-A+ the arithmetic and principle stays the same all the way up to 1-A+, the limit of the infinity relative to the first dimension would be infinity|^infinity, it can't reach the second dimension which is a higher infinity

As you know, power setting one infinity to reach another is an arithmetic operation that carries on all the way up to 1-A+ as well, and power setting a set of natural numbers is 2^n or infinity^infinity, which is still similar arithmetic to the hyperbolic Geometry stacking of any dimension X takes 2 dimensions for now being infinity^infinity

Getting into the root in comparison, it is said that;



Essentially, this means that the Root is distinct from such infinities, and the arithmetic operations used in those infinities cannot be used on the Root. This is why infinities that use arithmetic operations of infinity^infinity can be cut by Shiki Ryougi, who can perceive the end of such infinities due to her eyes being connected to the Root, which is an infinity of a fundamentally greater scale to such infinities and why for her such infinities are only small rooms as said;


This makes it clear cut that the Root would be ontologically equivalent to the inaccessible cardinal in magnitude and should be High 1-A

Furthermore, the origin is accepted to exist within the Root and should be 1-A; as such, we've already had people like Roa, who is accepted as having a 1-A soul that exists within the Root from which he can reincarnate from.

The ontological nature of the Root would exist inaccessibly greater than such baseline 1-A things and should be more supporting evidence for it being High 1-A

So normally I'd respond to individual parts but there isn't much to actually do that with because of the main issue of the thread

The arguments being made aren't actually based off the series, they're just the maximum possible tier you can stretch anything to. There is a single mention of non Euclidean space and then saying that since infinity is limited, it's by a higher dimension and this continues up until 1-A+ so the root is high 1-A

The issue is none of this is supported by anything, you can't just make that extrapolation without a lot of evidence, it's just simply not valid for tiering.

The idea that the single mention of infinity and finiteness being twinned and everything means that there's true infinity or its above arithmetic is asinine and not supported by anything, there's nothing to argue against here because it's simply not in the text

The idea that non Euclidean and arithmetic can encompass 1-A+ sets is also not supported by anything its a per verse thing, similarly, nothing to argue against here, it's just not in the text

Hell, to take it further, the scene you're quoting

"The concept of infinity is twinned with the concept of finite existence. It is this finite existence, this is end of all things that Shiki Ryougi observes with her arcane eyes, and the same end that she cuts to make entropy act quickly almost immediately. The prison she was contained in was made to be infinite, an inconceivable non-Euclidean space" -

The literal entire basis of this thread hinges on the specific interpretation of this, that it's because in a non Euclidean space each dimension X is infinite but limited by X+1, and then there's a true infinity but that's not what this is implying. They quickly mention Shiki's eyes weaving entropy, that being the end she sees, that means the limit isn't X+1, the end they're referring to, the limit, is the existential limit her eyes interact with, because the root has the end of all things, there is no mention or hint of some "true infinity" no mention of 1-A+ for the Root to be above etc, none of it actually exists in the series

 

[AKUTO123]

Yes. That's pretty much it.

If I understand correctly, the beautiful High 1A looks good to me. The narration looks like a structure going from aleph 1 to aleph omega.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

actual solid evidence to grant a High 1A tier and not just a bunch of assumptions and extrapolations, like what's shown here

So I guess there's no solid refutation to what I said just 2 people saying it's not solid evidence without actually justifying anything great

 

[Tarang123]

So I guess there's no solid refutation to what I said just 2 people saying it's not solid evidence without actually justifying anything great

There's nothing to refute. It's not adequate evidence. Your entire argument hinges off a single scan that barely says anything, to which you created an entire paragraph's worth of assumption off assumption and landed on High 1A.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

The issue is none of this is supported by anything, you can't just make that extrapolation without a lot of evidence, it's just simply not valid for tiering.

Seems self verified to be infinity being limited is entailed from a higher one existing I don't think we need alot of evidence if the evidence is right there

The idea that the single mention of infinity and finiteness being twinned and everything means that there's true infinity

The existence of true infinity is already asserted when they say but there's no true infinity the only denial of ends is the root there's that

its above arithmetic is asinine and not supported by anything

If infinity 1 is limited because there's one higher that notion existing because it requires certain arithmetic to construct then the root being distinct from that entails that it'll be above that its supported by the implication themselves and I inferred that from those implications

there's nothing to argue against here because it's simply not in the text

It doesn't have to be in the text if it's implied already direct statements are not always a necessity to scale things

The literal entire basis of this thread hinges on the specific interpretation of this, that it's because in a non Euclidean space

No like I said r>f existing suffices that

They quickly mention Shiki's eyes weaving entropy, that being the end she sees, that means the limit isn't X+1, the end they're referring to, the limit, is the existential limit her eyes interact with, because the root has the end of all things

And I'm saying in this case it having the end of all things is attributed to it being true infinity relative to the recursively stacked infinities

there is no mention or hint of some "true infinity"

I feel like I already extrapolated on this but I'll do it again there's no true infinity because it has limits then they go on to say the only denial of ends is true nothingness that's where the implications of true infinity comes from

none of it actually exists in the series

If you read what I said you'll understand it doesn't have to exist

 

[Tdjwo]

Why do the people who disagree only conclude that the entire CRT is based off assumptions?

The entire content of the CRT.

• The scan

• A very detailed explanation of Non-Euclidean Geometry
• Difference between 「　」and infinities
• A very detailed explanation of why recursively stacked infinities would never reach the「　」becaue 「　」represents true infinity
• Its relationship with alephs.

Nothing in the CRT is assuming anything It's simply trying to water down the explanation to it's simplest level so that we can understand the scan especially when it comes to the true infinity which people are ignoring while only focusing on the Non-Euclidean part

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

There's nothing to refute. It's not adequate evidence.

Saying it's not adequate evidence is not justifications prima facie justification can be applied here it'll be taken as true unless you actually refute it considering that my position has already been justified

Your entire argument hinges off a single scan

I don't think that attests for it being wrong but we move on

that barely says anything

This is the same situation as shiver Shakti you're denying it with barely any justifications at all this is why I barely engage in vsbw crt's person A can just say "no I disagree because I disagree because this isn't enough justifications but I won't justify it not being enough justifications"

paragraph's worth of assumption off assumption

Non Euclidean geometrical spaces functioning on recursion is not an assumption that's how it actually works

Infinity from the first dimension to 1-A+ having limits as a result of a higher one existing is not an assumption that's how it actually works

Arithmetic operations to construct infinity for non Euclidean geometrical spaces being applicable to 1-A+ spaces is not an assumption that's how it actually works

Lastly something being unreachable from those arithmetics entailing that it's high 1-A is also not an assumption that's how it would work that's why inaccessible cardinals are high 1-A

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

So far still no refutations just a minority of people saying it's assumptions even tho it's not assuming it's assumptions it'll be easier to refute then if it was not assumptions so I wonder why I still haven't seen any refutation yet unless just saying something doesn't have adequate evidence for no reason is suppose to be adequate evidence to go against something else lol

 

[Tarang123]

• A very detailed explanation of Non-Euclidean Geometry
• Difference between 「　」and infinities
• A very detailed explanation of why recursively stacked infinities would never reach the「　」becaue 「　」represents true infinity
• Its relationship with alephs.

-It says the word "non-euclidean geometry" once and basically never brings it up again.
-「　」being different from finite value is a no shit moment.
-It doesn't even remotely imply the existence of "recursively stacked infinities"
-Doesn't imply the existence of alephs in the slightest.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Also I'd like to note again non Euclidean geometry is not an important aspect of it r>f again can be used to suffice the proposal because nonetheless similar arithmetics are used to construct dimensions with r>f differences which nasuverse already has

R>f is just the empirical nature of dimensionality which can be described using the same arithmetics that I explained above I'm only using non Euclidean geometrical spaces because they still have yet to be attacked

 

[Georredannea15]

Uhhhhh... there's so much I didn't know where to start. Anyway...

1)What the OP was talking about is that the base 1-A is an "unreachable" uncountable infinity for the root, this is the arithmetic continuation of 1-A + and it's still an "unreachable point" for the root. But I don't think being at an "inaccessible" point beyond base 1-A is enough for H1-A. The situation here is the end of the concept of finite being and the continuation of the concept of infinity. We can compare this to the "inaccessibility" between infinity and uncountable infinity. Uncountable infinity cannot reach infinity no matter how many infinities are added to infinity... I think the situation is not "hierarchical" like "Ichiban verse"

2)What you're trying to do is that this uncountable infinity keeps repeating and is still "inaccessible" for root. It makes sense, but in the OP I don't see any statements to support these arguments in the verse. It's just seems like difference between of Aleph 1 and Aleph 2.

(The arguments are a bit mixed. Please correct me if I mentioned something wrong.)

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

It says the word "non-euclidean geometry" once and basically never brings it up again

I don't see why it would have to bring it up again this is literally stupid

-「　」being different from finite value is a no shit moment

It's not a finite value are you actually following I'm seriously starting to lose patience it's finite to it because those infinities have limits what?

It doesn't even remotely imply the existence of "recursively stacked infinities

Non Euclidean geometry implies recursively stacked infinities is it hard track conversations of comprehend that even when I simplified it that much

Doesn't imply the existence of alephs in the slightest.

Alephs use the same arithmetic so it'll still be above that

 

[Tarang123]

I don't see why it would have to bring it up again this is literally stupid

He said it was an "in-depth" explanation, which it isn't.

It's not a finite value are you actually following I'm seriously starting to lose patience it's finite to it because those infinities have limits what?

Sorry, that's my bad.

Non Euclidean geometry implies recursively stacked infinities is it hard track conversations of comprehend that even when I simplified it that much

Is there any evidence of this, and is there any evidence that this automatically ties into this thing.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

I'm surprised you of all people agree with a Nasuverse upgrade considering the agenda you had against the verse a few days ago

I guess the crt was too solid for you to disprove

I want to downgrade it because of the lack of scan and the reasoning only qualify for low 1-A.

I already know that the root can be upgraded to high 1-A since then.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

1)What the OP was talking about is that the base 1-A is an "unreachable" uncountable infinity for the root, this is the arithmetic continuation of 1-A + and it's still an "unreachable point" for the root.

Literally that's just it holy

But I don't think being at an "inaccessible" point beyond base 1-A is enough for H1-A.

No I'm saying everything in 1-A is not exempt from that idea of infinity hence the root existing beyond that by definition would put it at high 1-A because any level or layer in 1-A participates under that idea of infinity

It makes sense, but in the OP I don't see any statements to support these arguments in the verse.

I'm saying the mention of infinity having limits and using the analogy of non Euclidean geometry implies that

Because If you take it to be a difference between aleph 1 and 2 it would be saying the root is a similar infinity to the same infinity that has limits which would contradict the statement
If we use proof by contradiction

The root can't be above just aleph 1 and 2 because that's still not exempt from the idea of limits in infinity because using those same arithmetic operations that come all the way from non Euclidean geometry you would be capable of reaching the root but you can't with arithmetic operations like that

So it can't be aleph 1 to 2 difference if it's not aleph 1 to 2 difference it can't be 3 because the contradiction would exist again it can't be aleph 4 because the contradiction would exist again hence by proof by contradiction it would be a logical conclusion that it's high 1-A

There's no need for more scans they're already there

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

He said it was an "in-depth" explanation, which it isn't.

He said my explanation was not the scan I don't see how it bringing up the word once entails that it's not an in depth explanation either way

Is there any evidence of this, and is there any evidence that this automatically ties into this thing

Wdym elaborate and I can answer your question

 

[Tarang123]

He said my explanation was not the scan I don't see how it bringing up the word once entails that it's not an in depth explanation either way

He was talking about the scan specifically, not your interpretation from it.

Wdym elaborate and I can answer your question

Is there a source that states that non-euclidean geometry relates to recursively stacking infinities? And is there any evidence from the series that this is a property actually part of whatever cosmological structure is being talked about in that scan

 

[Tdjwo]

He was talking about the scan specifically, not your interpretation from it.

Bruh stop lying against me when I'm right here I specifically stated that HE gave a "well detailed explanation."

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

(The arguments are a bit mixed. Please correct me if I mentioned something wrong.)

No you're fine I still disagree with the idea that it would be aleph 1 to 2 because that leads to a contradiction whilst high 1-A doesn't which is why I implemented proof by contradiction

He was talking about the scan specifically, not your interpretation from it

Alright

Is there a source that states that non-euclidean geometry relates to recursively stacking infinities?

Bro this can't be real

Anyways I did already explain that it is in the thread to shiver Shakti just scroll up and read again

And is there any evidence from the series that this is a property

What property

actually part of whatever cosmological structure is being talked about in that scan

Both the non Euclidean space and the root exists in the verse relating to cosmological structure I don't understand which property you referred to when you asked so I just answered in relation to both of them