Ripheus23

So, I have, however, zeroed in on the logic that would identify c with aleph-aleph-1. Without going into too much detail, I will present the easiest analogy [there's one based on the distinction between potential and actual infinity, that works incredibly well, too, but that's indicated below].

Allow that 2^aleph-zero = aleph-zero^aleph-zero. Now, as far as the continuum is concerned, this = c on the grounds that you can put a non-repeating two-glyph sequence into a one-to-one correspondence with a non-repeating sequence consisting in an infinite number of successor glyphs [i.e. you can convert base-10 decimal notation into binary]. Now, aleph-aleph-zero is the first infinite set of infinite cardinalities. That is, each aleph-number on the list from aleph-zero through aleph-n is an infinite cardinality, but is only a finite set of these. By contrast, aleph-aleph-zero is the successor of an infinite number of infinite cardinalities. If you conceive of the aleph-glyph with index zero to be a sort of transoperator in itself, then aleph-aleph-zero represents two uses of the glyph's operational value as such. But 2^aleph-zero, and by intuitive extension (as well as deductively) aleph-zero^aleph-zero, maps onto the nonrepeating iteration of these two glyphs [that is, at aleph-aleph-zero, we imagine each aleph-glyph as indexed by a number for which iteration of the glyph-form it is, and the cardinality of their nonrepeating iterations is the successor aleph]. Think of it like "2 to the power of the first infinite set of infinite sets," an initially recursive(?) output in the pure set-theoretic domain. Therefore, the value of c = the successor of aleph-aleph-zero, i.e. aleph-aleph-1. QED

Now, to keep the idea of dimensionalizing going, we have to map all the first transquadrant from the first list, which means 2^-aleph-n = (d+1)-aleph (number of aleph-glyphs in a staircase)-(n+1), e.g.

1. 2^aleph-zero = aleph-aleph-1.
2. 2^aleph-1 = aleph-aleph-aleph-2.
3. 2^aleph-2 = aleph-aleph-aleph-aleph-3.
4. 2^aleph-3 = aleph-aleph-aleph-aleph-aleph-4.

This might be OK but I have work to do before I can even imagine that this kind of talk is intelligible ultimately

["ultimate ouroboros of causality"]

Oh yeah, hypothesis: using the notion of an erotetic powerset, define aleph-1+ as closer and closer approximations to full Dedekind cuts [infinitesimally increasing approximations] into the set of reals. That is, they are "epistemically" better and better sets, relative to the continuum [their outputs give values closer and closer to the correct ones for actual continuous numbers]. Refer to this process as a Dedekind fractal knife, and say "the fractal knife in itself is forged, if you will, from diamonds made out of Cantor's ashes, smelted in the aleph-crucible unto eternity..."

[Also map Fitch's paradox of unknowability to Godel's incompleteness theorems. Figure out how to apply the erotetic solution to the liar paradox to this issue...]

Then let aleph-aleph-zero itself be the diamond knife...