Qualitative Superiority question

[Iaakk]

What precisely is qualitative superiority, and how does it differ from average superiority? Why is it that a simple "transcending dimensions" statement doesn't equate 5D or QS?

 

[Experiment12]

Qualitative advantage and average advantage are two different concepts that represent different levels of dominance or superiority. Average advantage refers to a situation where one entity has a numerical or measurable advantage over another entity. This advantage may manifest as greater strength, speed, power, or other measurable characteristics. In this sense, average superiority is directly and quantitatively equivalent to being "better" or "superior". Qualitative excellence, on the other hand, represents a more profound and transformative level of progress. It's more than just being bigger or stronger; It signals a fundamental shift in ability and understanding. Qualitative transcendence often includes concepts such as dimensionality, distortion of reality, or access to a higher level of existence. The concept of transcendence is often associated with qualitative excellence. Transcendence refers to the ability to operate beyond the limits of our three-dimensional reality, indicating access to a wider and more complex range of abilities. However, stating that something exceeds dimensions does not automatically equate it to 5D or QS. To fully understand the difference between dimensional transparency and qualitative transcendence, consider the following analogy: Imagine a 2D world, where organisms exist in a flat form, bound by the boundaries of their 2D plane. If a 3D entity, such as a human, were to enter this 2D world, it would have incredible powers and abilities, capable of manipulating and even destroying the 2D inhabitants. This situation is an example of dimensional transparency, where a higher-dimensional entity has a qualitative advantage over a lower-dimensional entity. However, simply entering a 2D world does not automatically transform a 3D entity into a 5D one. True qualitative excellence will involve a deep understanding and mastery of higher dimensions, enabling achievements that transcend the limits of 3D existence. In summary, although dimensional transparency may be an important indicator of qualitative excellence, it is not the only determinant. True qualitative excellence involves holistic understanding and mastery of higher dimensions, allowing organizations to operate at fundamentally different levels of power and understanding.

 

[Swordsaint456]

oh hey fugel this is le chop. id recomend checking the VSBW faq for a more established definition. but basically qualitative is when something is beyond a countably infinitly stronger then something if that makes sence. an example of this would be seen as a space time continuum. this basiclly takes static "snap shots" of our cosmology. see it takes snaps shots of every moment including the infinitsemal ones. this counts for aleph-1 and due to this it becomes a higher dimensional construct. you can also see the same explanation used in Dragonballs low 1-C upgrade using hypertime lines. and so aleph-1 amount of a 3d object is 4d. aleph-1 of a 4d object is 5d so one and so forth. so to have qualitive superiority means even if you stacked infinite 3d or whatever dimensionality of an object you would still be above. though the person above me did it much more in depth i hope this helped

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

Cardinality=Number of elements in a set.

Aleph-0=The smallest infinite cardinal; denotes a countably infinite number of elements.

Aleph-1=A cardinal that denotes uncountably infinitely many elements.

Keep in mind that according to the continuum hypothesis, there is no cardinality between countably infinite and uncountably infinite.

Qualitative superiority means an uncountably infinite gap: being more than infinitely greater than something. Infinity*Infinity would still be countanbly infinite, while a higher infinity would be Infinity^Infinity.

To visualize, countably infinite would be the set of natural numbers. Listing the elements from 1, 2, 3, 4, onwards will give you countably infinitely many elements.

The cardinality of the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite. Take time, for instance. Time is non-discrete and continuous, which means it consists of not just many seconds/days/years, but every infinitesimal interval in between. So you're not just counting 1, 2, 3, but 1, 1.01, 1.001 onwards. This is why a space-time continuum is qualitatively superior to a universe. Adding a time axis over a given universe is like assigning a cosmos with a state of existence over every time interval. This would make a space-time continuum equivalent to uncountably infinite snapshots of a universal space, and a higher temporal dimension equivalent to uncountably infinite snapshots of a whole space-time.

 

[Iaakk]

The cardinality of the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite. Take time, for instance. Time is non-discrete and continuous, which means it consists of not just many seconds/days/years, but every infinitesimal interval in between. So you're not just counting 1, 2, 3, but 1, 1.01, 1.001 onwards. This is why a space-time continuum is qualitatively superior to a universe. Adding a time axis over a given universe is like assigning a cosmos with a state of existence over every time interval. This would make a space-time continuum equivalent to uncountably infinite snapshots of a universal space, and a higher temporal dimension equivalent to uncountably infinite snapshots of a whole space-time.

Ight, after thinking about it and dming it with kingslayer, I came to this. Plz confirm this if you can. So basiclly, an X axis contains a one-dimensiniaol structure by plotting a line segment on the said graph and creating one coordinate creating the point [0,1] which represents all the points between 0 and 1. Now you can create a square by taking copies of this line segment and lining them up perpendicularly on the Y-axis. If we take copies for every point on another line segment (let's say [0,1] again), we get a 2D square, represented as [0,1]×[0,1]. The reason you use an uncountably infinite set is that every point on the second interval (the y-axis) can host a copy of the first interval (the x-axis). If we only had a countably infinite set (like integers), we would miss points on the line, and we wouldn't be able to cover the entire 2-D square.

I'm still trying to fathom this, but it seems like a "transcending dimensions" statement is enough to qualify for this no? I don't know exactly. But anyway, shouldn't aleph 1 structures therefore (uncountably infinite amounts of elements) be a specific structure if not spatial dimensions be Low 1-C? Why can it be 2-C?

 

[Everything12]

Basically, in terms of dimensions. You have to prove that the dimension is one that is significantly larger than the previous dimension. Significant referring to the likes of uncountable infinity, which is an infinity that is mathematical proven to be larger than standard infinity.

A mere transcending statement doesn't work because it doesn't showcase the significantly larger requirement.

 

[Iaakk]

You can close this thread now.