The remains of the Tiering Revision, part 3

[KingPin0422]

Specifying that a character's nonduality has to also be transcendent and that it otherwise has no inherent consequences in a combat situation doesn't feel right, because in that case, any potential applications of transduality aren't from "being nondual" so much as they are from "being transcendent." In fact, the power at present also currently lacks any definite applications, or at least doesn't explicitly list them on its page, even something as simple as "resistance to X ability because character A is transdual relative to what said ability deals with." If that's really how it is, then the power might as well be deleted entirely, I'd say.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. That also seems like a good point.

 

[KingPin0422]

That being said, I thought of a counterexample I can use against DT's argument, one that was conveniently pointed out to me already: Nonexistent Physiology. There, the second and third "nature types" simply require either being neither existent nor nonexistent (a gap) or being both existent and nonexistent (a glut), respectively. Other than type 2 simply noting that its characters often possess some kind of Transduality, they do not seem to require transcendence over anything (or if it does, it's not made clear), just that you be nondual with respect to being/non-being in some way. On that basis, I'd say DT's argument is wrong: nonduality by itself does have tangible consequences in battle, because a character who is nondual over being/non-being qualifies for NEP of either a type 2 or 3 nature, even if they are not transcendent.

Also, I can't be bothered to fact-check this part, but just in case someone brought it up, Existence Erasure is just that: turning an existent entity into a nonexistent one. No part of it implies turning any entity regardless of their existence value into a nonexistent entity, that's an NLF. If no one was arguing this, though, then I apologize.

 

[Fixxed]

That being said, I thought of a counterexample I can use against DT's argument, one that was conveniently pointed out to me already: Nonexistent Physiology. There, the second and third "nature types" simply require either being neither existent nor nonexistent (a gap) or being both existent and nonexistent (a glut), respectively. Other than type 2 simply noting that its characters often possess some kind of Transduality, they do not seem to require transcendence over anything (or if it does, it's not made clear), just that you be nondual with respect to being/non-being in some way. On that basis, I'd say DT's argument is wrong: nonduality by itself does have tangible consequences in battle, because a character who is nondual over being/non-being qualifies for NEP of either a type 2 or 3 nature, even if they are not transcendent.

Also, I can't be bothered to fact-check this part, but just in case someone brought it up, Existence Erasure is just that: turning an existent entity into a nonexistent one. No part of it implies turning any entity regardless of their existence value into a nonexistent entity, that's an NLF. If no one was arguing this, though, then I apologize.

Isn't why it just low degree of transduality??? And NEP 3 i think it just give immunity to character not a "glut"

 

[Antvasima]

Specifying that a character's nonduality has to also be transcendent and that it otherwise has no inherent consequences in a combat situation doesn't feel right, because in that case, any potential applications of transduality aren't from "being nondual" so much as they are from "being transcendent." In fact, the power at present also currently lacks any definite applications, or at least doesn't explicitly list them on its page, even something as simple as "resistance to X ability because character A is transdual relative to what said ability deals with." If that's really how it is, then the power might as well be deleted entirely, I'd say.

That being said, I thought of a counterexample I can use against DT's argument, one that was conveniently pointed out to me already: Nonexistent Physiology. There, the second and third "nature types" simply require either being neither existent nor nonexistent (a gap) or being both existent and nonexistent (a glut), respectively. Other than type 2 simply noting that its characters often possess some kind of Transduality, they do not seem to require transcendence over anything (or if it does, it's not made clear), just that you be nondual with respect to being/non-being in some way. On that basis, I'd say DT's argument is wrong: nonduality by itself does have tangible consequences in battle, because a character who is nondual over being/non-being qualifies for NEP of either a type 2 or 3 nature, even if they are not transcendent.

Also, I can't be bothered to fact-check this part, but just in case someone brought it up, Existence Erasure is just that: turning an existent entity into a nonexistent one. No part of it implies turning any entity regardless of their existence value into a nonexistent entity, that's an NLF. If no one was arguing this, though, then I apologize.

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

Specifying that a character's nonduality has to also be transcendent and that it otherwise has no inherent consequences in a combat situation doesn't feel right, because in that case, any potential applications of transduality aren't from "being nondual" so much as they are from "being transcendent." In fact, the power at present also currently lacks any definite applications, or at least doesn't explicitly list them on its page, even something as simple as "resistance to X ability because character A is transdual relative to what said ability deals with." If that's really how it is, then the power might as well be deleted entirely, I'd say.

I would personally be fine with it being deleted. But if people want it to stay, it should remain as transduality. We can further emphasize on the aspect of characters being immune to the respective dualities to further clarify the primary use case.

That being said, I thought of a counterexample I can use against DT's argument, one that was conveniently pointed out to me already: Nonexistent Physiology. There, the second and third "nature types" simply require either being neither existent nor nonexistent (a gap) or being both existent and nonexistent (a glut), respectively. Other than type 2 simply noting that its characters often possess some kind of Transduality, they do not seem to require transcendence over anything (or if it does, it's not made clear), just that you be nondual with respect to being/non-being in some way. On that basis, I'd say DT's argument is wrong: nonduality by itself does have tangible consequences in battle, because a character who is nondual over being/non-being qualifies for NEP of either a type 2 or 3 nature, even if they are not transcendent.

That just completely fails to address my argument, as characters with NEP don't get those nature types just for being non-dual at all. We demand statements or feats from that with the same scrutiny as for transduality.

Nature Type 3 explicitly states that showings of being completely unaffected by attacks on the specific aspect are required.
Nature Type 2 does not explicitely require such, but that is because not just any non-dual state is required, but specifically a nondual state of nothingness. We are talking about characters that do not exist, not even in the ordinary binary state of nonexistence, but instead in an even deeper sense. As the page notes such characters would of course often have transduality. After all, affecting an aspect of a character that behaves nonexistent will usually be impossible by regular means. However, those aren't random nondual characters. They need specific showings of a nature of nothingness for this, which go beyond basic nonexistence. Not all nondual characters have showings of such nature. (not even all transdual characters would have NEP Nature Type 2)

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk.

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we currently do here then?

 

[Agnaa]

Await further discussion? KingPin/Ultima haven't conceded, and have only had a little over a day to respond so far.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we currently do here then?

Await further discussion? KingPin/Ultima haven't conceded, and have only had a little over a day to respond so far.

@KingPin0422 @Ultima_Reality

 

[Dereck03]

Bump.

 

[Fixxed]

Bump again

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima told me that he will try to come here soon.

 

[Antvasima]

Another revision thread here discussed transduality. We should probably close it though.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/transduality-it-should-be-nuked.141401/

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The biggest thing from the revision thread that I had made is that:

1. Transduality Type 4, is essentially non-existent. Plurality is not qualitatively beyond and superior to dualism. It is simply another category in the substance theory. In fact, monism, dualism, and plurality, are neither superior or inferior to each other. They are just different schools of thought. It is erroneous to present it as some form of hierarchy, and just being used to inflate power levels.

2. There is a problem of users picking and choosing two things in their verse of choice and declaring them to be a dual system, despite those two things not being described as dual systems, or the verse itself has no mention of dualism. For example, claiming a character transcends space and time makes them transdual, when space and time has not been described as a specific dual system in regards to dualism. (space and time are really erroneous because many times space and time are combined into one singular manifold: spacetime).

 

[Orioreeem]

There is a problem of users picking and choosing two things in their verse of choice and declaring them to be a dual system, despite those two things not being described as dual systems, or the verse itself has no mention of dualism

I don't think we even do that. Do you have an example?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I don't think we even do that. Do you have an example?

(now i don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on the verse, because I truly am I fan, and I am currently running CRT thread on it, but this is the easiest example that I can list on the top of my head)

Arceus is given transduality and the reasonings do not cut in my opinion. Its vague mentions of being one, and space and time, without a specific defined system of duality. Especially when Palkia and Dialga (who are space and time) are not part of a dual system but a trio with giratina.

 

[Everything12]

(now i don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on the verse, because I truly am I fan, and I am currently running CRT thread on it, but this is the easiest example that I can list on the top of my head)

Arceus is given transduality and the reasonings do not cut in my opinion. Its vague mentions of being one, and space and time, without a specific defined system of duality. Especially when Palkia and Dialga (who are space and time) are not part of a dual system but a trio with giratina.

Pretty sure the duality is the whole Palkia-Dialga space-time existence and Giratina no-space-time nonexistent thing. Otherwise Giratina would have Transduality itself for being outside this supposed duality of space-time, which it doesn't.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

like i get that this might be a legitimate mistake but you just HAD to go to a staff discussion, provide incorrect information about a revision (that you must've just not read) made specifically for Arceus and say that his TD is wrong now didn't you?

It was the one fresh on my head, because ive been debating Arceus for like half a week. And I'm not attacking Arceus specifically because this is something I see across the sight. So it wouldn't make sense to fault the verse that others are doing.


Another example would be the Scarlet King. The page that is linked to justify Transduality does in no way describe a system of duality where things are described or given meaning by two distinct substances. It seems like, who ever put that on the profile is conflating, opposites, and paradoxes, as being a system of duality.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Pretty sure the duality is the whole Palkia-Dialga space-time existence and Giratina no-space-time nonexistent thing. Otherwise Giratina would have Transduality itself for being outside this supposed duality of space-time, which it doesn't.

Well the main problem is this idea that space-time is a system of duality by itself. A system of duality is something where two substances define all of reality. Dialga and Palkia don't define all of reality because Giratina defines part of it too. (as well as the lake trio etc.)

A good example of a system of duality is ying and yang, or chaos and order. For it to be a dual system, it is not just an aspect of nature. But what defines nature and gives it its property.

 

[Antvasima]

This is still intended to be a thread for staff members and invited especially knowledgeable regular members, so it seem best to let them handle things here on their own.

 

[DontTalkDT]

For the sake of Transduality, the duality in question should be a logical one i.e. a "A" and "not A" kind of thing. Everything else shouldn't qualify and that even by the current page. The page is clear about the fact that the system should be binary, i.e. allow for only two states.
If verses currently do it different they might need to be revised, but let's not get caught up in examples.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk. What do you currently think that we should do here?

 

[Everything12]

Well the main problem is this idea that space-time is a system of duality by itself. A system of duality is something where two substances define all of reality. Arceus and Palkia don't define all of reality because Giratina defines part of it too. (as well as the lake trio etc.)

A good example of a system of duality is ying and yang, or chaos and order. For it to be a dual system, it is not just an aspect of nature. But what defines nature and gives it its property.

Easily solved problem, it isn't. And we don't treat it as such.

Also, knock it off with the Pokémon complaints, this question about space-time being a duality isn't even a thing relevant to Pokémon, and the reason Arceus has Transduality is something else. Has to do with the Pokémon World and Distortion World being two opposing aspects that rely on each other, as well as what space-time and the Distortion World represents in the Pokéverse and stuff. Nothing at all to do with space and time being part of a duality your complaining about.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

except that was never mentioned in that CRT in the first place and the system of duality was a completely different thing entirely

Easily solved problem, it isn't. And we don't treat it as such.

Also, knock it off with the Pokémon complaints, this question about space-time being a duality isn't even a thing relevant to Pokémon, and the reason Arceus has Transduality is something else. Has to do with the Pokémon World and Distortion World being two opposing aspects that rely on each other, as well as what space-time and the Distortion World represents in the Pokéverse and stuff. Nothing at all to do with space and time being part of a duality your complaining about.

I'm not trying to argue this. It's just an example and I'm only have the profiles to go over and to reference. You can be mad about it but I honestly don't care. It's not my point.

 

[Everything12]

You are complaining about the Wiki doing a certain thing, when asked for evidence of the Wiki doing that thing you presented inaccurate evidence that does not back up your complaint. At which point you shouldn't continue and propose a hypothetical based off your evidence not being inaccurate but go search for actual evidence that proves what you said happens does in fact happen.

I don't think we even do that. Do you have an example?

(now i don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on the verse, because I truly am I fan, and I am currently running CRT thread on it, but this is the easiest example that I can list on the top of my head)

Arceus is given transduality and the reasonings do not cut in my opinion. Its vague mentions of being one, and space and time, without a specific defined system of duality. Especially when Palkia and Dialga (who are space and time) are not part of a dual system but a trio with giratina.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

reason Arceus has Transduality is something else. Has to do with the Pokémon World and Distortion World being two opposing aspects that rely on each other, as well as what space-time and the Distortion World represents in the Pokéverse and stuff.

Like, this is funny to me because Arceus's profile says none of this. It says:

Transduality (Type 2. It's true nature exists as the heart of chaos where all attributes are unified as The Heart. He exists in unity with the multiverse , encompassing all of it and it's attributes),

And links to two image of the words space and time.

By all means check yourself before you come at me with this nonsense. Its not my fault the profile is made of nonsensical reasonings.

 

[Everything12]

Stop derailing, bring actual evidence of the problem that is relevant to this thread you are proposing actually exists. This issue with profiles isn't relevant here.

Also, please be less rude. I know the automatic assumption on the Internet is that anyone who opposes your opinion is angry, but I'm just doing my job and presenting the facts and preventing derailment based off misunderstanding.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Stop derailing, bring actual evidence of the problem that is relevant to this thread you are proposing actually exists. This issue with profiles isn't relevant here.

Also, please be less rude. I know the automatic assumption on the Internet is that anyone who opposes your opinion is angry, but I'm just doing my job and presenting the facts and preventing derailment based off misunderstanding.

How am I derailing? They asked for example, I gave an example. You said my example was wrong. I showed you that the profile literally gives Arceus Transduality and links to four images of which two images that just say "space and time".

You're accusing me of complaining when I'm just trying to have a discussion. You're the one derailing by nitpicking over my correct example. And now you're claiming profiles isn't relevant here, when I correctly defended my position.

 

[Arceus0x]

How am I derailing? They asked for example, I gave an example. You said my example was wrong. I showed you that the profile literally gives Arceus Transduality and links to four images of which two images that just say "space and time".

You're accusing me of complaining when I'm just trying to have a discussion. You're the one derailing by nitpicking over my correct example. And now you're claiming profiles isn't relevant here, when I correctly defended my position.

it's irrelevant because that just means the explanation isn't as good as it can be. This is a thread discussing things across the entire wiki and yet you just went from making an attempt to delete TD and then go on to attack Arceus for no reason in the middle of a staff discussion. If you want a better explanation of TD then go to Yemma and if he says no then tell me and ill tell him to make a proper blog and ill add it to Arceus so everyone can just stop assuming we're scaling him to TD because of space-time which is complete BS.

 

[Dereck03]

Please if you are going to continue discussing this, do it in the respective verse thread or in private, stop derailing this, Arceus has nothing to do with this thread, this has been ongoing for soooooo long for you to come now to derail it even more.

 

[CosmicWreck]

As Antvasima already pointed out, this is a staff discussion thread. Normal users shouldn't intervene without permission (thus limiting derailment as intended in the first place). I don't really get why the staff haven't started deleting posts yet. They've been warned before.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

As Antvasima already pointed out, this is a staff discussion thread. Normal users shouldn't intervene without permission (thus limiting derailment as intended in the first place). I don't really get why the staff haven't started deleting posts yet. They've been warned before.

Many staff would rather avoid resentment if it can be helped, so we try to hear people even if they haven't bothered reading the rule of the thread. However, given the amount of derailment going on, I think certain users here have overstayed their welcome. As can be seen, the staff are willing to listen to you even if you did not get explicit permission, if you have something to add beyond stirring the pot. If you don't, then read the sign.

So, please, knock off the side discussions and save verse-specific discussions for later. Further offending posts will be removed. Additionally: if you do not have permission from a staff member to post, don't post. Cheers.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Thank you for helping out, DontTalk. What do you currently think that we should do here?

Clarify that transdual characters have to proof transcendence/immunity to the duality regarding which they are transdual, since the page to this point seemed to be too ambiguous about that.

Aside from that revise the types in accordance to what has already been discussed. I think we still have to agree on which type 4 draft to use or refine the drafts further, but in spirit I believe we all already agree what it should say.

 

[Fixxed]

For the sake of Transduality, the duality in question should be a logical one i.e. a "A" and "not A" kind of thing. Everything else shouldn't qualify and that even by the current page. The page is clear about the fact that the system should be binary, i.e. allow for only two states.
If verses currently do it different they might need to be revised, but let's not get caught up in examples.

Yeah i agree with this, we should clarify about duality in TD's page. I mean simply stated "like duality" (hot-cold, big-small, right-left, man-woman) i think is too vague for consider it being duality

The duality must contradiction and interwined to each other (contradiction and interwined states), one cant exist without other, if not A then B and if not B then A

We should clarify this because i see some verse that dont even proof about duality can have transduality 2, just by being contradict to everything

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Frankly I think people are getting too hung up on specific usage of the term "duality" without considering further nuance. Like, if you are a monad that unites everything into a single essence devoid of separation, then we are talking about an entity that is purely simple in the mereological sense, meaning that they entities with no composition (i.e have no smaller, more basic "parts" making them up). More accurately they'd be infinitely simple, not just with respect to spatial or temporal parts but to metaphysical parts as well, such as, say, predicates referring to them.

In the case of such an entity, plurality in any manner is by definition strictly forbbiden, because to introduce a multitude of features is to say that a thing can be broken down into smaller, constituent parts able to be analyzed isolatedly. So if you say that in a thing there are doubles, or triples, or quadruples, or whatever else, then that thing has composition in some level and as such is not perfectly simple anymore, and thus not really something that satisfies the above condition of lacking separation and unifying everything into a single essence.

Mind you, though, this isn't exactly the same as, for example, "Two opposing states, A and B, are true simultaneously." In such a case, you'd still be acknowledging that A and B are distinct attributes that this object somehow just holds at the same time because of some paradoxical nature of theirs (For example in the thought-experiment of Schrodinger's Cat, where the cat in the box is deemed both dead and alive until observed). The above case is more like "There is no plurality or delineation between A and B to begin with," so, for example, a perfectly simple being doesn't have a set of attributes, but is those attributes, and neither are these attributes truly distinct from one another.

So, yes, I'd say that a being like that is, for all intents and purposes, Transdual, and to reject it and similar things just because it doesn't explicitly mention the word "duality" is pretty baffling to me. I'm relatively more "Eh" on the matter of if verses happen to have more specific schemes than that, though. Like, if the cosmology was based on triads instead of dualities, or something like that, and a character then transcends that. And obviously, the above also isn't the same as simply encompassing or being one with the universe, since both can still involve a character whose nature is a plural, composite one.

As for the rest:

In fact, I don't think on this wiki or outside of this, that would be the general assumption. Nonduality isn't a state that is typically is uniquely characterized by nothingness / lacking things.

I never claimed that it was. I just used that as an example of how lacking or generally standing outside of certain features would mean you are unable to be interacted with by powers whose function is to interact with said features, much like Soul Manipulation is useless if the character it is being attempted against has no soul at all. You could replace "Existence" and "Nonexistence" with whatever else you find convenient.

As for the other part of the response...

Transduality doesn't lack existence or nonexistence, though. Lacking it would mean "is it existent" has a truth value of 0 (false). However, a transdual character definitely wouldn't have a truth value of 0. It would have a different truth value altogether (neither 0 nor 1). The conclusion that this other truth value would behave as if the character had a truth value of 0 is unjustified.

That's not really what I meant with the example. What I was specifying is that a character is in a state where they are neither existent nor nonexistent, or speaking in the language of your argument, one where both propositions ("X exists" and "X doesn't exist") are simultaneously false, not some situation where "X exists" and "X doesn't exist" each have more possible assignable values than "True" and "False." I am very willing to bet the former would be immensely more commonly found in fiction, generally speaking, and it is something we already deem a valid example of a Transdual state if the above exchanges are anything to go by.

That just completely fails to address my argument, as characters with NEP don't get those nature types just for being non-dual at all. We demand statements or feats from that with the same scrutiny as for transduality.

Nature Type 3 explicitly states that showings of being completely unaffected by attacks on the specific aspect are required.
Nature Type 2 does not explicitely require such, but that is because not just any non-dual state is required, but specifically a nondual state of nothingness. We are talking about characters that do not exist, not even in the ordinary binary state of nonexistence, but instead in an even deeper sense. As the page notes such characters would of course often have transduality. After all, affecting an aspect of a character that behaves nonexistent will usually be impossible by regular means. However, those aren't random nondual characters. They need specific showings of a nature of nothingness for this, which go beyond basic nonexistence. Not all nondual characters have showings of such nature. (not even all transdual characters would have NEP Nature Type 2)

Are you saying that Nature Type 2 requires no statements or showings of uninteractability because the nature of the power, on its own, already implies as much? If so, I fail to see how that actually addresses KingPin's point. Their argument, from what I gather, is that Nature Type 2 does not for instance require that a character be transcendent over both existence and nonexistence, just that they lie in some state that is not the former, but not the latter, either, "absent" with respect to both.

 

[Fixxed]

Frankly I think people are getting too hung up on specific usage of the term "duality" without considering further nuance. Like, if you are a monad that unites everything into a single essence devoid of separation, then we are talking about an entity that is purely simple in the mereological sense, meaning that they entities with no composition (i.e have no smaller, more basic "parts" making them up). More accurately they'd be infinitely simple, not just with respect to spatial or temporal parts but to metaphysical parts as well, such as, say, predicates referring to them.

In the case of such an entity, plurality in any manner is by definition strictly forbbiden, because to introduce a multitude of features is to say that a thing can be broken down into smaller, constituent parts able to be analyzed isolatedly. So if you say that in a thing there are doubles, or triples, or quadruples, or whatever else, then that thing has composition in some level and as such is not perfectly simple anymore, and thus not really something that satisfies the above condition of lacking separation and unifying everything into a single essence.

Mind you, though, this isn't exactly the same as, for example, "Two opposing states, A and B, are true simultaneously." In such a case, you'd still be acknowledging that A and B are distinct attributes that this object somehow just holds at the same time because of some paradoxical nature of theirs (For example in the thought-experiment of Schrodinger's Cat, where the cat in the box is deemed both dead and alive until observed). The above case is more like "There is no plurality or delineation between A and B to begin with," so, for example, a perfectly simple being doesn't have a set of attributes, but is those attributes, and neither are these attributes truly distinct from one another.

So, yes, I'd say that a being like that is, for all intents and purposes, Transdual, and to reject it and similar things just because it doesn't explicitly mention the word "duality" is pretty baffling to me. I'm relatively more "Eh" on the matter of if verses happen to have more specific schemes than that, though. Like, if the cosmology was based on triads instead of dualities, or something like that, and a character then transcends that. And obviously, the above also isn't the same as simply encompassing or being one with the universe, since both can still involve a character whose nature is a plural, composite one.

Isn't that will NLF. I mean we arbitary give TD to anyone that not even mention about duality, just because he is single essence. I mean why dont we give immunity of every ability to anyone that transcend everything without exception

I think being a single essence must have further context to have Transduality

Because even unity and seperation is duality i think