The Infinite Possibilities and Low 1-C (5D) Conundrum

[TheUnshakableOne]

Overall Question/Topic of this thread: Does a Multiverse Cosmology of Infinite Possibilities result in a Low-1C (5D) rating? (assuming someone can manipulate, or destroy it somehow.)


Shouldn't Cosmologies that have a multiverse via "Infinite Possibilities" create an uncountable infinity? If so, wouldn't this make these Multiverse cosmologies Low 1-C (5D)?


1 universe branches off to infinitely many worlds, and then those universes that it created branch off creating more infinite sets of worlds, and then those worlds branch off to another infinity and this process keeps repeating

Maybe this might be a better explanation of my confusion. 1 universe branches to infinite universes and then those universes branch to infinite again then those worlds are branched to infinity again and this process continues to infinity. As they are created via Infinite Possibilities.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well an uncountable infinity is much, much, much bigger than a countable one. To the point where it be can't reach it just by stacking infinities on it's own. So the only way to reach it is if it's outright stated to be uncountable or something that has the equivalent cardinality (e.g. fractals).

 

[DxGenesis]

This description sounds like infinity^infinity. Which I think is still countable. I wouldn't know how to prove it though.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Well an uncountable infinity is much, much, much bigger than a countable one. To the point where it be can't reach it just by stacking infinities on it's own. So the only way to reach it is if it's outright stated to be uncountable or something that has the equivalent cardinality (e.g. fractals).

This description sounds like infinity^infinity. Which I think is still countable. I wouldn't know how to prove it though.

On the 2-A standards thread link is there [1]

Agnaa had this to say

"That's not how powers work. People when talking about the size of multiverses often say shit like "it's infinite^infinite^infinite^infinite!!!!" without powers being substantiated there. These are usually actually just infinite*infinite.

Actual infinite^infinite would be Low 1-C."

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:4509556#120

Greenshifter said this

"You need to make sure that you can’t find a bijection between the amount of universes in your verse and the natural numbers, in other words it needs to contain as much elements as R (pi, sqrt(2), ... are a part of this). For instance an infinitely long time stream which functions via quantum mechanics (where every possibility is a timeline) should be uncountably infinite in size and hence be Low 1-C. My own assumption to why this is the case is because time itself would be uncountably infinite."

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:4509556#113

On another thread he also said this

"Ultima once told me that a timeline that is infinitely long and keeps branching with every possibility (via quantum mechanics) could get to Low 1-C." https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:4593788#2

however i didn't see any staff opinions on it.

Edit: Im just reformatting this to make it look nicer

 

[DxGenesis]

Well something that's multiplied by infinity an infinite amount of times looks like infinity^infinity to me. And the definition of Low 1-C I know is an uncountable amount of 4-D structures, the difference between countable and uncountable being illustrated by Cantor's Diagonal Argument. But that's all the feedback I can give. I don't understand that whole ordinals cardinals memerdinals thing.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Well something that's multiplied by infinity an infinite amount of times looks like infinity^infinity to me. And the definition of Low 1-C I know is an uncountable amount of 4-D structures, the difference between countable and uncountable being illustrated by Cantor's Diagonal Argument. But that's all the feedback I can give. I don't understand that whole ordinals cardinals memerdinals thing.

The whole system is confusing to me besides the obvious stuff lol

 

[Ogbunabali]

I mean, yeah 2^ℵ0 = ℵ1, and so on because we use GCH. But we don't assume every infinite multiverse is like this, otherwise all the 2-As would actually be Low 1-Cs.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I mean, yeah 2^ℵ0 = ℵ1, and so on because we use GCH. But we don't assume every infinite multiverse is like this, otherwise all the 2-As would actually be Low 1-Cs.

I mean no harm or offense by saying this but... That doesn't sound like a good reason/ answer... To me at least..

Although, this would only apply to Multiverse via Infinite possiblities?

What does bijection between the amount of universes mean?

 

[Ogbunabali]

I mean, whether you like it or not that's just the standard, feel free to make a CRT about it if you disagree once those are available. Though keep in mind ε0 is still ℵ0, if you can reliably prove 2^ℵ0, then you'd get Low 1-C.

What does bijection between the amount of universes mean?

I'm assuming you're referring to the quote above? If so, it means that the amount of universes corresponds one-to-one with the amount of numbers in the set of natural numbers (R).