What if Infinite become Finite in Another Infinite

[Fixxed]

Basically this is one of many question in my mind that not yet find the answer, what if infinite become finite???

Soo lets begin with finite number, we all know that no matter how many finite number are added it will not reach infinite if we not directly added infinite element to those number

For example, countless multiply by countless still not reach infinite even countless to the power of countless still not reach infinite, even if you still power up the countless number until countless it still not infinite. You need directly add infinite for make it infinite, i mean you need statement of infinite to make any number a infinite number by default, you cannot have infinite number just by stacked up finite number

The other argument are, all finite number are same whatever the cardinality or ordinality (well in ordinal, all number are same) in face of infinite. I mean there are no "size" different between 1 10 and 100 if we talk about infinite, because it not matter in what number you begin, it is still same "length" to infinite

For example, what more big or long 1 to infinite or 1 trillion to infinite. If we have planet that it size are 1000km and other one are 10.000 km (we have 9000km gap of size here), if we expand their size to infinite, what will become infinite first? Or more correct, are whose gap will be bigger and are those two still have 9000km gap of size?

• No matter how many you added finite number it will not reach infinite if we not added infinite element to it
• All finite number basically same in cardinality or size in the face of infinite

The real problem are, what if some verse banish the infinite it self to finite number in other infinite?

If we use the same logic as finite number (because basically we banish infinite to finite), no matter how many infinite number being added or expand in size it still will not reach the other infinite (higher infinite), and all infinite will have same size in the face of the higher infinite

• Are we will make verse that literally prove the infinite are only finite number in other infinite a higher infinity by default?
• If not, isnt we must have some explanation for that, because by logic it is definitely a higher infinity

 

[Sdjlakjh]

Is this a reference to Anos's scaling regarding the Silver Sea layers? If so, then it's likely not a higher infinity but rather, a pseudo version of it. You could say the Walmart version of higher infinity which is still above normal infinity but below the Higher normal infinity

 

[Fixxed]

Is this a reference to Anos's scaling regarding the Silver Sea layers? If so, then it's likely not a higher infinity but rather, a pseudo version of it. You could say the Walmart version of higher infinity which is still above normal infinity but below the Higher normal infinity

I dont even thinking about maou gakuin when write this

And i dont understand what you talking about infinite that higher than normal infinity but below higher infinite
Also i dont think that are the topic about this thread

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Everything12 @Planck69

What do you think about this?

 

[Planck69]

To my understanding, assuming this is in regards to dimensional structures, the highest interpretation is that the larger infinity is equivalent to a significant sized higher-dimensional object (an infinite space-time continuum being finite in a space that's infinite relative to it could make that space Low 1-C for example). Of course, this is in the absolute highest end and usually isn’t something that's a sure thing, since what OP talks about usually has accompanying information and in-verse context to judge.

 

[Agnaa]

@Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Everything12 @Planck69

What do you think about this?

The OP is worded in a way that I cannot understand.

But answering the question in the title, "what if an infinity quantity is presented as only being finite in relation to another infinity", it's weird because infinity is weird.

The set of all whole numbers, and the set of all fractions, are the same size, despite the latter having infinitely many elements for each element of the former. Writers might write things loosely, and have something like that in mind, despite it not actually being bigger. We run into similar issues with statements of being "infinitely more powerful".

I don't know what our standards are on that sort of thing. If we stick literally to mathematics, infinite quantities either have the same size, or a difference that we'd equivocate to a tier jump. But fictional examples could easily not intend that.

 

[Fixxed]

To my understanding, assuming this is in regards to dimensional structures, the highest interpretation is that the larger infinity is equivalent to a significant sized higher-dimensional object (an infinite space-time continuum being finite in a space that's infinite relative to it could make that space Low 1-C for example). Of course, this is in the absolute highest end and usually isn’t something that's a sure thing, since what OP talks about usually has accompanying information and in-verse context to judge.

Well, if we see generally, i mean not seing the context of each verses, If this are only the proof and argument, are this case can be higher D?

And what the example of in-verse context that can be used for make it higher D?

The OP is worded in a way that I cannot understand.

But answering the question in the title, "what if an infinity quantity is presented as only being finite in relation to another infinity", it's weird because infinity is weird.

The set of all whole numbers, and the set of all fractions, are the same size, despite the latter having infinitely many elements for each element of the former. Writers might write things loosely, and have something like that in mind, despite it not actually being bigger. We run into similar issues with statements of being "infinitely more powerful".

I don't know what our standards are on that sort of thing. If we stick literally to mathematics, infinite quantities either have the same size, or a difference that we'd equivocate to a tier jump. But fictional examples could easily not intend that.

Well, i think we evaluate the verse by what the verse showing us and not assuming what the author thinking about?

I mean if the author literally write like that and actually think like what he write about, actually think that the infinite are finite in other infinite. What we will rate that?

 

[Executor_N0]

It depends on the type of infinite. There are mathematical constructs that are infinite in certain elements, but not all, like Koch snowflake. There are also infinities from metaphysics that represent transcendence or some higher power that can be understood as infinite to lower infinities, but not infinite to higher infinities. Take for example Proclus' Metaphysical elements, which is a complete explanation of Neoplatonic Proclus's cosmology, Take "PROPOSITION XCIII: Every infinite which is in true beings is neither infinite to superior natures, nor is it infinite to itself" as the clearest example.

For that by which each thing is infinite, by this likewise it exists uncircumscribed. But every thing which is in true beings is bounded by itself, and by all the things prior to it. It follows, therefore, that the infinite which is in true beings is infinite to subordinate natures alone, above which it is so expanded in power that it is incomprehensible by all of them. For in whatever manner they may extend themselves towards this infinite, yet it has something entirely exempt from them. And though all things enter into it, yet it has something occult and incomprehensible by secondary natures. Though likewise it evolves the powers which it contains, yet it possesses something on account of its union insurmountable, contracted, and surpassing the evolution of beings. Since, however, it contains and bounds itself, it will not be infinite to itself, nor much less to the natures above it, since it has a portion of the infinity which is in them. For the powers of more total or universal natures are more infinite because they are more universal, and rank nearer to the first infinity.

So if someone uses infinities similar to Proclus it's possible to have infinities that are not infinite to similar powers or higher powers, and are only infinite by the point of view of smaller existences (Be it finite beings or smaller infinite beings).

 

[Fixxed]

It depends on the type of infinite. There are mathematical constructs that are infinite in certain elements, but not all, like Koch snowflake. There are also infinities from metaphysics that represent transcendence or some higher power that can be understood as infinite to lower infinities, but not infinite to higher infinities. Take for example Proclus' Metaphysical elements, which is a complete explanation of Neoplatonic Proclus's cosmology, Take "PROPOSITION XCIII: Every infinite which is in true beings is neither infinite to superior natures, nor is it infinite to itself" as the clearest example.



So if someone uses infinities similar to Proclus it's possible to have infinities that are not infinite to similar powers or higher powers, and are only infinite by the point of view of smaller existences (Be it finite beings or smaller infinite beings).

Honestly i dont entirely understand, but what you mean are just infinite compare to lower structure but not infinite by it own structure, something like that?

Yeah but what i mean in here are, something that already consider as infinite by lower structure or yeah you can say infinite size of lower universe/structure (not just finite thing that can divided to infinity, like koch snowflake in my understanding) but only finite in literally other infinite structure

Soo the two infinities in here are literally infinite by its own and by it "lower beings" perspective

Literally the verse consider them as a literal infinite

 

[Executor_N0]

Honestly i dont entirely understand, but what you mean are just infinite compare to lower structure but not infinite by it own structure, something like that?

Yeah but what i mean in here are, something that already consider as infinite by lower structure or yeah you can say infinite size of lower universe/structure (not just finite thing that can divided to infinity, like koch snowflake in my understanding) but only finite in literally other infinite structure

Soo the two infinities in here are literally infinite by its own and by it "lower beings" perspective

Literally the verse consider them as a literal infinite

I said "depends on the type of infinite". There isn't just one definition of infinite, there are various mathematical or philosophical definitions of infinite, some that allow for more than a single infinite, and others that don't even accept that infinite exists. If a universe can have enough information about its type of infinite, it might be possible to find where it fits with the current system, if not, it might be defined by how much it goes against the system.

So it all depends on the context of the universe itself, which is why I think it should be presented with its own context.

 

[Fixxed]

I said "depends on the type of infinite". There isn't just one definition of infinite, there are various mathematical or philosophical definitions of infinite, some that allow for more than a single infinite, and others that don't even accept that infinite exists. If a universe can have enough information about its type of infinite, it might be possible to find where it fits with the current system, if not, it might be defined by how much it goes against the system.

So it all depends on the context of the universe itself, which is why I think it should be presented with its own context.

Ok, but what type of infinite and context in verse that required for have higher tier?

And when author write infinite, i think it likely mean a normal definition of infinite, isnt it?

 

[DontTalkDT]

We generally don't accept "infinitely more powerful than an infinite power" (e.g. infinite times High 3-A or infinite times 2-A) as a reason for tier jumps. This would fall through for the same reason. It's too vague what it is trying to do.
You would need to tag on something that actually translates to proper mathematical details for it to have relevance.

 

[Fixxed]

We generally don't accept "infinitely more powerful than an infinite power" (e.g. infinite times High 3-A or infinite times 2-A) as a reason for tier jumps. This would fall through for the same reason. It's too vague what it is trying to do.
You would need to tag on something that actually translates to proper mathematical details for it to have relevance.

I'm talking about size here actually, what about infinite size just literally finite in other infinite size, i mean the infinite literally being limited in other infinite structure

So it not just like infinite multiply by infinite or infinite times infinite

 

[Agnaa]

I'm talking about size here actually, what about infinite size just literally finite in other infinite size, i mean the infinite literally being limited in other infinite structure

So it not just like infinite multiply by infinite or infinite times infinite

There is no rigorous mathematical definition of a case like that, so we can't say what it would be like.

 

[Fixxed]

There is no rigorous mathematical definition of a case like that, so we can't say what it would be like.

So basically the end answer are "DEPENDS" and there are no general standard or definition

 

[Voidnether]

If we use the same logic as finite number (because basically we banish infinite to finite), no matter how many infinite number being added or expand in size it still will not reach the other infinite (higher infinite), and all infinite will have same size in the face of the higher infinite

If I understand this right, yeah it's basically the same reason why infinite multiplied by infinite doesn't equal higher infinite. This was already discussed that 2-A structure who has like 2-A (infinite x infinite universe structures) would just still be 2-A and not Low 1-C by default if it's not the power of a number (infinite^infinite = aleph 1 universe structures = Low 1-C)

 

[Fixxed]

If I understand this right, yeah it's basically the same reason why infinite multiplied by infinite doesn't equal higher infinite. This was already discussed that 2-A structure who has like 2-A (infinite x infinite universe structures) would just still be 2-A and not Low 1-C by default if it's not the power of a number (infinite^infinite = aleph 1 universe structures = Low 1-C)

I know that, but if you use finite logic (because basically infinite become finite here) no matter how many you multiply finite number with other number that have same nature you will never reach infinite

Yeah basically finite×finite×...until finite still not reach infinite, if we apply this logic to infinite it will be infinite×infinite×...until infinite still not reach the higher infinite

Spoiler

And as far as i understand continuum hypothesis, it only a assumption that 2^N0 or infinite^infinite equal aleph 1. But yeah we use that for reach higher tier here, so not a problem after all

 

[Voidnether]

I know that, but if you use finite logic (because basically infinite become finite here) no matter how many you multiply finite number with other number that have same nature you will never reach infinite

Yeah, that has always been like that. We had people misinterpretating that Gojo's Infinity is an infinite space when it's not. The entire process of infinity is literally with the name themselves, it's finite space that's divided by the amount of finite times. And this process would be an "ad-infinitum" to infinite. In a way, that's still infinity as far as I know.

Yeah basically finite×finite×...until finite still not reach infinite, if we apply this logic to infinite it will be infinite×infinite×...until infinite still not reach the higher infinite

Yeah.

Spoiler

And as far as i understand continuum hypothesis, it only a assumption that 2^N0 or infinite^infinite equal aleph 1. But yeah we use that for reach higher tier here, so not a problem after all

I don't think it was an assumption though, this could be interpretation in so many ways possible but if you meant about like the scaling and composite hierarchies. Basically an entity that transcends 2-A or infinite 2-A structure as a whole would be Low 1-C because the superiority here is like the power of a number.
Continuum Hypothesis wouldn't qualify for that if it's not uncountable infinite.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah, that has always been like that. We had people misinterpretating that Gojo's Infinity is an infinite space when it's not. The entire process of infinity is literally with the name themselves, it's finite space that's divided by the amount of finite times. And this process would be an "ad-infinitum" to infinite. In a way, that's still infinity as far as I know.

Yeah.

The question is if infinite becomes finite in other infinite, are this other infinite being higher infinite

 

[Voidnether]

The question is if infinite becomes finite in other infinite, are this other infinite being higher infinite

No, the other infinite would just encompass all the finites there. That's not a higher infinite.
Even if there are two infinites, it really doesn't mean anything if it's not by the power of a number (infinite^infinite) which results as an uncountable number / higher infinite.

 

[Fixxed]

No, the other infinite would just encompass all the finites there. That's not a higher infinite.
Even if there are two infinites, it really doesn't mean anything if it's not by the power of a number (infinite^infinite) which results as an uncountable number / higher infinite.

It is erase the main problem here. No, the literally infinite as a whole "encompassed" as finite in other infinite

Yeah two infinities just mean infinite+infinite, but the problem here are, one infinite just being finite inside the other infinite, literally being limited. It not just like you have two different infinities, but like you have infinite and the other infinite that dwarf the other infinite to finite

 

[Voidnether]

It is erase the main problem here. No, the literally infinite as a whole "encompassed" as finite in other infinite

Yeah two infinities just mean infinite+infinite, but the problem here are, one infinite just being finite inside the other infinite, literally being limited. It not just like you have two different infinities, but like you have infinite and the other infinite that dwarf the other infinite to finite

For an infinite to be reduced to finite in the first place inside the other infinite would imply uncountable infinite, if there are statements about all infinities just being reduced to finite by the other infinite. Yeah, it's higher infinite (Aleph 1 basically).