requirements for higher dimensions

[Average140]

while reading the FaQ I came across this it seems kinda of contradictory

Are higher-dimensional beings infinitely larger than lower-dimensional equivalents?​

In a way, yes, though not how most would think when using this word. Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on.

But it also states here that

structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for dimensional superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes

So my question is if a higher dimension by default is already composed of uncountable amount of lower dimensional objects

then how does a higher dimension containing an uncountable amount of lower d make it significant?

 

[Average140]

Bump

 

[Frey_Starlight]

higher dimensions would mathematicaly contain uncountably many lower-D slices. But in scaling for higher dimension and that 'significance part', it's about how many full 4D space-time universes a structure contains. Saying it holds an uncountable number of universes isn’t just saying it’s higher-dimensional, it’s saying it includes an uncountable number of complete 4D Universes/realities/space-times. That’s why it qualifies for being beyond 2-A.

 

[Average140]

higher dimensions would mathematicaly contain uncountably many lower-D slices. But in scaling for higher dimension and that 'significance part', it's about how many full 4D space-time universes a structure contains. Saying it holds an uncountable number of universes isn’t just saying it’s higher-dimensional, it’s saying it includes an uncountable number of complete 4D Universes/realities/space-times. That’s why it qualifies for being beyond 2-A.

Thanks for the info but can I ask one more question?

how does infinitesimal showings prove a higher dimension is significant? since a higher d is already composed of an uncountable amount of lower d wouldn’t that mean a lower d structure is already kinda infinitesimal?

 

[Frey_Starlight]

Thanks for the info but can I ask one more question?

how does infinitesimal showings prove a higher dimension is significant? since a higher d is already composed of an uncountable amount of lower d wouldn’t that mean a lower d structure is already kinda infinitesimal?

This is actually easier to visualize between 2-A and Low 1-C. The main difference is a +1 dimension, but that alone isn’t enough. A 2-A multiverse is already infinite, and while it might have some tiny extension into a fifth axis, that doesn't automatically make it Low 1-C. For true Low 1-C scaling, the entire 2-A structure must be infinitesimal in comparison to the 5th-dimensional structure. That shows the 5th dimension is a significant axis, not just an extra direction/dimension