Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
AFAIK, brane worlds are baseline Low 2-C, so would one being one level of infinity 'above' a baseline brane world make it Low 1-C? Or just infinitely higher into Low 2-C?
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
What Tier is a Brane World That's Infinitely Larger Than Another Brane World?
- Thread starter Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
- Start date
- Status
- 5,879
- 1,072
Infinitely higher in 4D space? 2-A
It can never be Low 1-C, even if you stack infinite infinities of 4D space
It can never be Low 1-C, even if you stack infinite infinities of 4D space
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #3
...2-A would be an infinite number of 4D brane worlds, not whatever you're thinking of.
It's not stacking 4D spaces on top of each other. Brane worlds can be any dimensionality AFAIK, so would an infinite difference between two also mean a difference in dimensions?
It's not stacking 4D spaces on top of each other. Brane worlds can be any dimensionality AFAIK, so would an infinite difference between two also mean a difference in dimensions?
- 1,204
- 1,052
Infinite 4D apparently is just infinite baseline Low 2-C, and you can be Low 1-C by stacking universes as much as all real numbers there (R, or infinite^infinite) though, which is 1-dimensional equivalent in cardinality.
Elaborate what is "one level of infinity above".
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #5
As in, if a brane world is infinitesimal compared to another, would the latter brane world qualify for "one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model" as per our tiering system? Or is additional context required?
- 4,630
- 1,615
“1-C: Complex Multiverse level
Low 1-C | Low Complex Multiverse level: Characters who can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)”From the Tiering System and I think you have to provide proof of it too.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #7
Yes, I'm aware of what the tiering system page says, I'm just curious if this specific example qualifies given how strict this site is when it comes to tier 1 requirements.
- 1,204
- 1,052
As you know, the degree of infinity is varied if we're talking about Set Theory. I myself is not a brane cosmology expertist, but what I can say is that if it's just infinitely larger than it's not qualify, if it's uncountably infinitely larger then yeah that's another story.
- 4,630
- 1,615
Maybe if you can prove it being 5D or 6D over 4D as it being infinitely superior to 4D or something.
Brane cosmology is a bit complicated from what I remember.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #10
Huh, okay then. The tiering page doesn't really explain what the difference between countable/uncountable is so I'm a little confused.
Though, from what I remember, don't brane worlds qualify for uncountably infinite by default due to the bulk containing uncountably infinite 'snapshots' of 3D space, or am I misremembering?
Though, from what I remember, don't brane worlds qualify for uncountably infinite by default due to the bulk containing uncountably infinite 'snapshots' of 3D space, or am I misremembering?
- 4,630
- 1,615
Not sure, but I check and according to the Wikipedia page for brane
: “
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace"). If the additional dimensions are compact, then the observed universe contains the extra dimension, and then no reference to the bulk is appropriate. In the bulk model, at least some of the extra dimensions are extensive (possibly infinite), and other branes may be moving through this bulk. Interactions with the bulk, and possibly with other branes, can influence our brane and thus introduce effects not seen in more standard cosmological models.”
But there is also 5 dimensional being mentioned there so it can been Low 1C as well, but can been 4D instead of 5D.
- 1,204
- 1,052
There's FAQ that explained what uncountable cardinal is, but it might be confusing if you aren't familiar with math terms. To put it simply, countably infinite is your type of infinity (this space is infinitely large, these apples are infinitely many, etc etc), the smallest infinity. Uncountably infinite is on the next level, it is so large that you cannot biject (one to one correspondence) it to countably infinite. Confused? For example, you can do tricks to make infinite + infinite or even infinite x infinite equals to just infinite, thus they are all equal in cardinality, you can't do that with uncountably infinite.
Countably infinite is aleph-0
The first uncountably infinite is aleph-1
Aleph-1 is often associated with 1-dimensional equivalent (I want to explain further but I'm afraid it might confused you), hence why uncountably infinite universes is Low 1-C in this site.
Yep, for example if there's 8D brane universes then they are 1-C, automatically.
- 5,879
- 1,072
How is infinite 4D just Low 2-C? You can't be Low 1-C for that, we don't know how many degrees of infinity it takes to get to higher dimensional
Trust me alephs aren't as impressive as you think, we don't know how many are needed to be Low 1-C and higher
- 13,816
- 3,795
You should read the tiering system page.
- 5,879
- 1,072
- 1,204
- 1,052
Because 2-A size requires the unquantifiable distances in-between them universes, this is why you can't be 2-A with infinite multiplier even if you're already Low 2-C. And yes, you can. The cardinality of 1 dimension is R, R is uncountable and is the first uncountably infinite equivalent as per continuum hypothesis.
- 13,816
- 3,795
Then you must know that Low 1-C is one/two degrees of higher infinity above Low 2-C stuff. So, we do know how many degrees are necessary
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #18
Okay. So something simply being stated to be infinitely above a 4D brane isn't enough for Low 1-C. In that case, what is sufficient evidence? Is the added context of an R>F difference good enough?
- 1,204
- 1,052
Reality-fiction is more than enough, IIRC if the lower brane world is just an infinitesimal subset of the higher brane world then it is 1D transcendence. You can just ask Ultima in his wall as he rarely come here (QnA section).
- 5,879
- 1,072
Thats incorrect then, for the reasons I gave
- 1,204
- 1,052
Elaborate your reasonings here, I still have quiet much time to respond.
- 13,816
- 3,795
Well, too bad thats not how the site works.
- 5,879
- 1,072
You can keep stacking an infinite number of lower dimensional constructs, it won't make it jump to the next dimension. You can multiply an infinite 2D line by infinite, and repeat it again, it would still not have depth or height or volume
I know, probably gonna make a CRT soon
- 13,816
- 3,795
Tier 1 stopped being spatial dimension-based since a while ago. Also, it's an uncountable infinite jump we are talking about here
- 5,879
- 1,072
I'm not talking about what this site says, since its psuedo-mathematics. I'm talking about real world math
- 5,879
- 1,072
And since when did it stop being spatial dimension based? Literally says 5 or 6 dimensional there
- 5,879
- 1,072
Oh yeah, Ultima likes psuedo mathematics
- 1,204
- 1,052
That's correct, but only if you're talking about countable sets.
But like I said, we can measure the cardinality of 1 dimension itself since it's already there, it is R. R is the cardinality of all real numbers exists which contains all kinds of rational and irrational numbers, including all types of infinite decimals you can imagine, it is the line of numbers which represented the length itself which is 1-dimensional (that's why R^1 is 1D, R^2 is 2D, and so on). Now let's return to that stacking infinities won't reach the higher dimension stuff, it does work like that because R is uncountable, you cannot biject uncountable set to countable set, and is proven to be impossible (you can biject integers to naturals by lining them all after 0, or rationals to naturals with cantor's diagonal argument).
Now that we know R = 1D, it should be a common knowledge that aleph-1 might equals to it under continuum hypothesis which asserted that there's no strict cardinality exist between rationals and irrationals.
So the answer is yes, we can determine higher dimensional sizes with higher infinities.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
She/Her- 9,828
- 12,447
- Thread starter
- #30
Thanks, this helps a lot.
- 1,204
- 1,052
And yes, this is real world math. Now please stop saying pseudo-mathematic stuffs since it seems like you have some misunderstanding regarding how aleph works.
No problem.
- 5,879
- 1,072
R isn't 1D, 1D is a line, no depth or area. How many uncountable infinities does it take to get to 5D? And prove it
Just saying he's not talking about how math works, he's talking about how higher dimensions are like according to Ultima
- 1,204
- 1,052
And R is a line so therefore R is the dimension one. There are reasons why R^1 is 1D and R^3 is 3D as per real coordinate plane, and seriously where did you learnt all of these?
- 5,879
- 1,072
Ok now tell me how many uncountable infinities of a 3D object to get to 4D
- 1,204
- 1,052
Just one uncountably infinite if we follows how continuum hypothesis works, making aleph-1 as R equivalent. (R^3)R is R^4 which is 4D.
- 5,879
- 1,072
Proof?
- 4,630
- 1,615
Since the set theory is mentioned, I will quote something from a particular entry I read on:
“
From the time of ancient civilizations until today, the development of mathematics seems to be strongly connected to the advancements in the physical sciences. Mathematical concepts were introduced on the demand to explain natural phenomena. Conversely, physical theories were created with whatever mathematical formalism was available. This observation might suggest a rather obvious explanation for ``the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences'' (cf. Wigner [67] and Einstein [1], among others). Yet, there remains an amazement that the mathematical belief system can be implemented at all! There seems no a priori reason for this remarkable coincidence.
One of the most radical metaphysical speculations concerning the interrelation between mathematics and physics is that they are the same, that they are equivalent. In other words: the only ``reasonable'' mathematical universe is the physical universe we are living in! As a consequence, every mathematical statement would translate into physics andvice versa.
As is suggested by their allegedly esoteric, almost
It has to be admitted that, from a contemporary point of view, such an equivalence between mathematics and physics appears implausible and excessively speculative. Even in the framework of axiomatic set theory, there seem to be many (possibly an infinite number of) conceivable mathematical universes but only one physical universe.18 For example, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory can be developed with or without the axiom of choice, with or without the continuum hypothesis. Axioms for Euclidean as well as for non-Euclidean geometries have been given.”
Here is the link for it:
“
From the time of ancient civilizations until today, the development of mathematics seems to be strongly connected to the advancements in the physical sciences. Mathematical concepts were introduced on the demand to explain natural phenomena. Conversely, physical theories were created with whatever mathematical formalism was available. This observation might suggest a rather obvious explanation for ``the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences'' (cf. Wigner [67] and Einstein [1], among others). Yet, there remains an amazement that the mathematical belief system can be implemented at all! There seems no a priori reason for this remarkable coincidence.
One of the most radical metaphysical speculations concerning the interrelation between mathematics and physics is that they are the same, that they are equivalent. In other words: the only ``reasonable'' mathematical universe is the physical universe we are living in! As a consequence, every mathematical statement would translate into physics andvice versa.
As is suggested by their allegedly esoteric, almost
occult,'' practice of mathematical knowledge, the Pythagoreans might have been the first to believe in this equivalence (cf. Aristotle's [I]Metaphysics[/I], Book I, 5; Book XIII, 6; translated into English [[URL='http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/set.htm#aristotle-met']68[/URL]]): [I] ¼-since, then, all other things seemed in their whole nature to be modeled on numbers, and numbers seemed to be the first things in the whole of nature, they [[the Pythagoreans]] supposed the elements of numbers to be the elements of all things, and the whole heaven to be a musical scale and a number.'' ``And the Pythagoreans, also, believe in one kind of number-the mathematical; only they say it is not separate but sensible substances are formed out of it. For they construct the whole universe out of numbers ¼''[/I]17It has to be admitted that, from a contemporary point of view, such an equivalence between mathematics and physics appears implausible and excessively speculative. Even in the framework of axiomatic set theory, there seem to be many (possibly an infinite number of) conceivable mathematical universes but only one physical universe.18 For example, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory can be developed with or without the axiom of choice, with or without the continuum hypothesis. Axioms for Euclidean as well as for non-Euclidean geometries have been given.”
Here is the link for it:
- 5,879
- 1,072
I ain't reading all that
- 13,816
- 3,795
I think yall are derailing this. The OP already got their answer.
- 1,204
- 1,052
Prove what? I already gave you sources that said R is 1D, and R^n is n dimension(s). Regarding aleph-1 equals to R you should read continuum hypothesis link above.
- Status
Similar threads
