Some questions about Acausality, 4d-5d, and Concepts

[Verethragna]

Sup. I wasn't on this wiki for like 2 years so idk if things got changed or not so I have few questions

Type 2 Acausality vs Precognition: If you have Type 2 acausality and you'll fight against someone with Precognition, what do they see when they see? Say you're gonna kill them in this fight in few hours do they see themsselves dying by some invisible thing or do they see a different timeline where they wouldn't be fighting you, since you don't exist in the future?

4D/5D stuff: An 3d object can be contained within another 3d object without latter jumping to 4d. Can a 2-A sized 4d object contained within another 2-A sized 4d object without the latter jumping to 5d/Low 1-C for being larger than a 4d object? I thought the latter would just much higher into 2-A/4d just asking to make sure

Is a Type 1 Concept a concept that is not dependent on the object it governs, like altering or even destroying the object the concept would mean nothing for the concept? For example if a character gets their mind, body, soul destroyed/erased but their concept stays unaffected, would it be considered a type 1 concept?

 

[Verethragna]

bump

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

I think if a 2-A structure is contained inside another structure it still remains 2-A because the same thing is in CoT

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

4D/5D stuff: An 3d object can be contained within another 3d object without latter jumping to 4d. Can a 2-A sized 4d object contained within another 2-A sized 4d object without the latter jumping to 5d/Low 1-C for being larger than a 4d object? I thought the latter would just much higher into 2-A/4d just asking to make sure

Some fiction do make that kind of assumption. But in all honesty 2-A containing another 2-A shouldn't be possible because they are at equal size (both infinite). This is different from bigger 3D containing smaller 3D because we can say with definite proof the other is larger because both has values that aren't infinite. unless it is a case of the 2-A being split into multiple but that would requires some elaborate explanations that they aren't containing it but rather merging or absorbing it to be a single 2-A again.
Normally without much context i'd align with the simplest explanation. The one containing is 5D instead of a mental circus unless the fiction implies it

 

[Verethragna]

Some fiction do make that kind of assumption. But in all honesty 2-A containing another 2-A shouldn't be possible because they are at equal size (both infinite). This is different from bigger 3D containing smaller 3D because we can say with definite proof the other is larger because both has values that aren't infinite. unless it is a case of the 2-A being split into multiple but that would requires some elaborate explanations that they aren't containing it but rather merging or absorbing it to be a single 2-A again.
Normally without much context i'd align with the simplest explanation. The one containing is 5D instead of a mental circus unless the fiction implies it

Can't infinities be larger than one another though, similar to Set Theory? Can't an 2-A sized object be higher into infinity, allowing it to be large enough to contain other infinities, without any fundemental transcendance?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Can't infinities be larger than one another though, similar to Set Theory? Can't an 2-A sized object be higher into infinity, allowing it to be large enough to contain other infinities, without any fundemental transcendance?

Not really sure there so I'll wait for someone to answer who is more familiar

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

By wiki policy from what I seen and know. If you can prove 1 infinity is > tier 2-A infinity then it's 5D.

 

[Verethragna]

Not really sure there so I'll wait for someone to answer who is more familiar

I think I couldn't tell what I meant properly (sorry for my bed england), like for example say Character A is so powerful they can create a 2-A sized realm and Character B is infinitely more powerful than them, the latter wouldn't jump to Low 1-C right? I thought they'd just be much higher into 2-A since no dimensional transcendence. Not necessarily about containing other 2-As but being even larger than it

 

[It_is_i_wyatt]

2 infinite multiverses > 1 infinite multiverse, so a 2-A structure the size of 2 inf multiverses could be able to contain another 2-A structure the size of 1

being infinitely superior to a 2-A being should only be higher into 2-A i think