Hello, Ultima, I have a rather simple question.
We know that 2-C or 2-B > Low 2-C[timeline/universe], inasmuch as that 2-C or 2-B are basically multiple amount of Low 2-C constructs.
However, the same doesn't apply to 2-A, insofar as that "multiple sets of infinite universes" are still 2-A [according to the FAQ] because countable infinity x countable infinity still results in, well, countable infinity.
However, which one of this methods apply to Low 1-C?
If we take Low 1-C as a Hyper-timeline, then multiple of said Hypertimelines should still be bigger in size then a single Hyper-timeline, the same way a normal set of more than one 4D timelines is bigger in size then a single 4D timeline, right?
Or are we gonna assume the 2-A mechanic here and say that multiple Low 1-C constructs [where each construct is X-size] are still equivalent to a single Low 1-C construct [of X-size], even if each of the Low 1-C constructs is causally[as a space-time] isolated from each other?
We know that 2-C or 2-B > Low 2-C[timeline/universe], inasmuch as that 2-C or 2-B are basically multiple amount of Low 2-C constructs.
However, the same doesn't apply to 2-A, insofar as that "multiple sets of infinite universes" are still 2-A [according to the FAQ] because countable infinity x countable infinity still results in, well, countable infinity.
However, which one of this methods apply to Low 1-C?
If we take Low 1-C as a Hyper-timeline, then multiple of said Hypertimelines should still be bigger in size then a single Hyper-timeline, the same way a normal set of more than one 4D timelines is bigger in size then a single 4D timeline, right?
Or are we gonna assume the 2-A mechanic here and say that multiple Low 1-C constructs [where each construct is X-size] are still equivalent to a single Low 1-C construct [of X-size], even if each of the Low 1-C constructs is causally[as a space-time] isolated from each other?
check this out