Qualification issues.

[Boy.Line]

Well, I've been discussing a lot with friends on Discord, and I came to a conclusion that there might be some potential inconsistencies or a general lack of information about the new update.

Q: Is the Addition of axes truly qualitative?

Although this topic implies the application of an infinitesimal amount, according to the formula, it wouldn’t be possible to apply it like that, since Z contains elements that even with X and Y would not reach it, like (Infinity X infinity).

Depending on how the answer goes, I’d also like to highlight other questions, such as:

Where would Type 4 Multiverse be applied in the system? (I’ve seen discussions with people labeling it as Low 1-A and others as High 1-A).

Is Trivialism really applicable? If so, to what extent exactly?

Things coming from realism, or any modal or Platonic reference (that are applied coherently).

And extended modal realism: there are many people who still discuss the necessary implications, and what is the best definition that could be used in the level system.

Lastly, I’d like to ask about mythological issues. Although there are already some topics about this, I found some comments regarding Buddhism, and I wanted to understand if the system considers uses like Nirvana, and how it would be applied

within the update.

 

[Accelerated_Evolution]

Q: Is the Addition of axes truly qualitative?

Spatial and temporal axes are part of a set of quantitative superiority, due to them being based on quantity

Where would Type 4 Multiverse be applied in the system? (I’ve seen discussions with people labeling it as Low 1-A and others as High 1-A).

The highest Tier that something based purely on math can reach is Low 1-A

Is Trivialism really applicable? If so, to what extent exactly?

Not Sure

Things coming from realism, or any modal or Platonic reference (that are applied coherently) and extended modal realism: there are many people who still discuss the necessary implications, and what is the best definition that could be used in the level system.

Could you elaborate on that question?

 

[Boy.Line]

Spatial and temporal axes are part of a set of quantitative superiority, due to them being based on quantity

This is the point I addressed, a 2D plane has no volume.

Even if you have an infinite number of 2D planes by quantity, they still wouldn't have volume because they have no thickness.

Even stacking an infinite number of 2D planes without adding a third dimension, the resulting set would still have no volume, since each plane individually has zero thickness. It's like calculating infinity by itself: (infinity X infinity).

Could you elaborate on that question?

For example, David Lewis. In the view of modal realism, the relationship between possible worlds does not physically interact with ours. They are isolated and separate. However, it involves modal logic, such as the nature of possibility and necessity.

Additionally, we do not have access to these other possible worlds, but it is not clear whether this refers to ontological terms or dimensionality. In other words, there is still no mention of something like 1-A, unless one postulates modal logic with its laws, but I have no idea at what level that would fit into the system.

 

[Accelerated_Evolution]

This is the point I addressed, a 2D plane has no volume.

Even if you have an infinite number of 2D planes by quantity, they still wouldn't have volume because they have no thickness.

Even stacking an infinite number of 2D planes without adding a third dimension, the resulting set would still have no volume, since each plane individually has zero thickness. It's like calculating infinity by itself: (infinity X infinity).

Yes, which part of the Tiering System contradicts this?

For example, David Lewis. In the view of modal realism, the relationship between possible worlds does not physically interact with ours. They are isolated and separate. However, it involves modal logic, such as the nature of possibility and necessity.

Additionally, we do not have access to these other possible worlds, but it is not clear whether this refers to ontological terms or dimensionality. In other words, there is still no mention of something like 1-A, unless one postulates modal logic with its laws, but I have no idea at what level that would fit into the system.

The nature of Modal Realism automatically grant transcendent levels of existence, i think

Otherwise i don't think i can answer your question

 

[Boy.Line]

Yes, which part of the Tiering System contradicts this?

Where the difference by quantity applies, since the difference by axis addition is really qualitative, it is not limited to a quantity of points, lines or planes as was said, since:

Even stacking an infinite number of 2D planes without adding a third dimension, the resulting set would still have no volume, since each plane individually has zero thickness. It's like calculating infinity by itself: (infinity X infinity).

 

[Accelerated_Evolution]

Where the difference by quantity applies, since the difference by axis addition is really qualitative, it is not limited to a quantity of points, lines or planes as was said, since:

By "quantity" it means math, AKA 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on

Basically stuff that can be counted by numbers and measured by our math

Not necessary a quantity of an infinite number of lower-dimensional worlds, but rather the quantity of axes a dimension have