Timeline question

[Sus]

I need to stop asking questions, but this is the last hopefully
Let's say we have a space-time, it contains an countless numbers of now 1-C structure , it also contains a space time that also contains countless low 1-C structure and prenstes them as mere 3-D objects
How we would rate this space time?

still low 1C

 

[Orange]

still low 1C

But plank just siad it's 1C
... I think?

 

[Sus]

But plank just siad it's 1C
... I think?

quote the message

 

[Orange]

If you mean repeating the process with a higher timeline then the overarching structure would be 6-D and the one overarching those would be 1-C.

^ this
The mega timeline would Be 5D, the structure that holds the countless 5D structure would be 6D
A structure that represents 5D structures as merly 3-D objects would be 6D
And a structure that holds Two 6D structures would be just higher 6D
I think?

 

[Sus]

^ this
The mega timeline would Be 5D, the structure that holds the countless 5D structure would be 6D
A structure that represents 5D structures as merly 3-D objects would be 6D
And a structure that holds Two 6D structures would be just higher 6D
I think?

yes, but you said low 1C so i assumed 5D, anyways yes each repetition increases a layer as planck explained

 

[Orange]

yes, but you said low 1C so i assumed 5D, anyways yes each repetition increases a layer as planck explained

I thought for a second low 1-C meant 6D, my bad
Tho I kinda wished a space time that holds countless 5D structures [thus 6D] and a space time that holds infinite 5D and represents them as 3D would grant 7D

 

[Sus]

I thought for a second low 1-C meant 6D, my bad
Tho I kinda wished a space time that holds countless 5D structures [thus 6D] and a space time that holds infinite 5D and represents them as 3D would grant 7D

dimensions is not an easy something to progress in, 6D is too high still

 

[Sus]

there needs to be an infinite collection of larger and larger collections of infinite timelines, then multiverses, then multiverses of multiverses, and so on infinitely, to be infinite^infinite and reach Low 1-C in that way.

^ i found this explanation

 

[Orange]

Tho seeing infinite 5D structures as 3D is enough to have 6D, but seeing a 6D structure as 3D could warrant 7D

 

[Sus]

Tho seeing infinite 5D structures as 3D is enough to have 6D, but seeing a 6D structure as 3D could warrant 7D

yes, this too, but if there's no context about higher dimensions, that explanation is enough

 

[Orange]

I see, but countless 5D means 6D, thus seeing 5D as 3D, would also translate to Seeing 6D as 3D, thus 7D no?

 

[Sus]

I see, but countless 5D means 6D, thus seeing 5D as 3D, would also translate to Seeing 6D as 3D, thus 7D no?

i don't think so? countless is no where near uncountable infinity, it needs to be uncountable infinite

 

[Orange]

i don't think so? countless is no where near uncountable infinity, it needs to be uncountable infinite

I use countless for everything that's infinity above
Uncountable infinity sounds stupid

 

[Sus]

I use countless for everything that's infinity above
Uncountable infinity sounds stupid

but they're not the same thing

anyways, yes, if a structure has uncountably infinite snapshots of 6D universes, then it's warranted as 7D

 

[Orange]

but they're not the same thing

anyways, yes, if a structure has uncountably infinite snapshots of 6D universes, then it's warranted as 7D

They are, since you can't count uncountable infinity, thus...countless tadaaaaa!
Jk but yes

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

Infinite^Infinite doesn't equate to uncountably infinite last I checked.

It actually does equate to ℵ1 especially when we're using continuum hypothesis, the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0) or 2^ℵ0 will be always bigger than ℵ0 since its power set will always prevent a 1 to 1 correspondence (check 8:39) aka bijection. Here, here and here in this wikia.

 

[Hasty12345]

continuum hypothesis

I could be wrong, but I think the tiering system presupposes the GCH as an axiom for scaling within the system.

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

I could be wrong, but I think the tiering system presupposes the GCH as an axiom for scaling within the system.

I'm not that knowledgable regarding higher infinities either, but I remember Agnaa put this as citation when he was talking about this stuffs.

 

[Hasty12345]

I'm not that knowledgable regarding higher infinities either, but I remember Agnaa put this as citation when he was talking about this stuffs.

Yeah, I also remember reading stuff here: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Tiering_System_Explanation_Page

Which is where I got this from

the tiering system presupposes the GCH as an axiom for scaling within the system.

 

[Planck69]

It actually does equate to ℵ1 especially when we're using continuum hypothesis, the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0) or 2^ℵ0 will be always bigger than ℵ0 since its power set will always prevent a 1 to 1 correspondence (check 8:39) aka bijection. Here, here and here in this wikia.

Huh, my mistake then. Thanks for the info.

 

[Teezar]

So infinite^infinite = uncountable infinite?

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

So infinite^infinite = uncountable infinite?

Simply yeah according to our standards.