Make Arnos Great Again (MAGA) part 2 - Nonduality

[Fixxed]

Nonduality for Veneziara

Veneziara are a ability that can make you exist in a contradiction state of IS (that symbolize positive state) and IS-NOT (that symbolize negative state). Even though there are no scan mention the word "IS and IS-NOT", it just a word that i use for make this case more understandable, the principle behind it are the same basically

I grinned at Ahid's bewilderment. "That is what Veneziara for you. Whether it be sheathed or unsheathed, both possibilities exist at the same time."

I might draw the sword, and I might not draw the sword. It was only natural for both possibilities to exist at the same time.

"And so, I realized both possibilities at once. Contradicting forms of Veneziara can exist concurrently because they are only possibilities."

Ahid looked as though his mind had gone completely blank. "But the moment they were realized, they would have contradicted each other. If you hadn't drawn the sword, my body would be unharmed. If you had, you would have vanished. It doesn't make any sense!"

"Indeed, the logic is absurd. That is because this trial of the almighty one's sword was made by someone who isn't almighty. The logic of those who aren't almighty does not apply to the almighty. And, since the almighty one is almighty, they cannot be governed by logic in the first place."
~ LN volume 5 chp 42, official translation

It seems Veneziara just govern the realm of possibility alone. Like schoradinger's cat theory, two possibility can exist at the same time because it just a possible outcome after all that doesnt have substance yet, it was make sense if two contradict possibility exist at the same time

But the scan say otherwise, after showing veneziara can make it user be in the state of contradiction at the realm of possibility, it also make the user still in that state even after those possibilities being realized or have real substance

全能のパラドックス　ＶＳ　シュレーディンガーの猫　みたいな感じです。
Almighty Paradox VS Schrödinger's cat Feels like it
WN chp 232, translated by Apotheosis

This scan make it even clear, the author make this scenario based on the Omnipotent/Almighty paradox, that we all know it was a logical duality paradox, about a omnipotent being are he CAN (positive) or CANNOT (negative) make a stone soo heavy that he himself can't lift it

Conclusion:

Veneziara should have nonduality type 2, because it can make the user in the state of contradiction that allowed A and not-A to exist simultaneously

 

[Huesito88]

Fixxed I thought you would've waited for Part 1 to get closed?

 

[Fixxed]

Fixxed I thought you would've waited for Part 1 to get closed?

Well... next week i really busy, soo i think it better to post whatever i think before next week

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Fixxed I thought you would've waited for Part 1 to get closed?

That's a failure as far as I see

Anyway as discussed privately I agree with this thread unless something doesn't make this not qualify.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Disagree. This doesn't seem like a state of nonduality but more like probability manipulation (something like schrodingers cat wouldnt be nonduality but would instead have to be 2 contrary categories like simultaneously being possibility and non-possibility rather than being 2 opposing possibilities)

Nonduality really just requires two absolutely contrary propositions so if the thing giving nonduality still shares the same category of being a possibility then it just isn't nonduality as they're demonstratably not mutually exclusive from each other.

 

[Fixxed]

Disagree. This doesn't seem like a state of nonduality but more like probability manipulation (something like schrodingers cat wouldnt be nonduality but would instead have to be 2 contrary categories like simultaneously being possibility and non-possibility rather than being 2 opposing possibilities)

Nonduality really just requires two absolutely contrary propositions so if the thing giving nonduality still shares the same category of being a possibility then it just isn't nonduality as they're demonstratably not mutually exclusive from each other.

it also make the user still in that state even after those possibilities being realized or have real substance

Bruh read the scan and argument... it not only in the realm of possibility, but it also being actualized

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Bruh read the scan and argument... it not only in the realm of possibility, but it also being actualized

I did read the scan and to me it doesn't seem like its enough context for nonduality.

 

[Fixxed]

I did read the scan and to me it doesn't seem like its enough context for nonduality.

What context that needed for "enough context" for nonduality for you?

When veneziara can make a paradoxial state of existence where A and not-A can exist simultaneously

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I'm in the same boat as @BestMGQScalerEver

 

[Vietthai96]

No, this isn't related to duality, possibility is events, events that contradicted each others is paradox, paradox isn't duality, duality is opposite and negation, this isn't even A and non-A, but different possibilities that have contradicted results and consequences

 

[Fixxed]

I mean it still falls under the category of "possibility" and it doesn't matter if they get brought into existence because they get actualized from that category of being a possibility. Nonduality requires two things to be categorically exhaustive not just simply opposing actualized possibilities which share categories with each other.

Bro when it get actualized it are not possibility anymore. Even if it was possibility, that are two category of possibility, possibility of sheated and possibility of unsheated, so it not the same thing even when they share the same essence of possibility. Like bruh this like say basically all duality cannot be duality because they have the same category or property of being exist, because they all are exist therefore they all are the same, but their existence are different even when they share the same essence of existence

Actualized of sheated and actualized of unsheated are not possibility. Thats why arnos say it was NATURAL for if those was just possibility to exist simultaneously

It was only natural for both possibilities to exist at the same time.

But he need veneziara to make those realized simultaneously. This clearly explain the different between a possibility and actuality in the verse

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Bro when it get actualized it are not possibility anymore. Even if it was possibility, that are two category of possibility, possibility of sheated and possibility of unsheated, so it not the same thing even when they share the same essence of possibility. Like bruh this like say basically all duality cannot be duality because they have the same category or property of being exist, because they all are exist therefore they all are the same, but their existence are different even when they share the same essence of existence

I mean a true duality by this wikis standards would be something like "fork and non-fork". The latter by definition cannot exist because it's a utter negation of what it means to be a fork. A lot of verses get their nonduality through more classical dualism (yin and yang) too, which they should all be downgraded if said dualities don't encompass something like A and not-A.

 

[Dog3352]

Can't duality be anything as long as cosmology treats in such a way? May I remember, even "water and fire" can be duality if cosmology treats it in such a way (instead of "fire and non-fire").

 

[Fixxed]

No, this isn't related to duality, possibility is events, events that contradicted each others is paradox, paradox isn't duality, duality is opposite and negation, this isn't even A and non-A, but different possibilities that have contradicted results and consequences

Bruh i think what guys think as duality is cosmological dualism not logical dualism. No, logical dualism only need something as it negation to exist, it doesnt need to be two fundamental principle to begin with

 

[Furina003]

Can't duality be anything as long as cosmology treats in such a way? May I remember, even "water and fire" can be duality if cosmology treats it in such a way (instead of "fire and non-fire").

duality is an abstract thing, fire and water are not included in duality

 

[Dog3352]

duality is an abstract thing, fire and water are not included in duality

I am talking about abstract existences, an example would be if there were two abstract beings that are fire and water conceptually, and both are considered opposite in a cosmology, that would be a duality.

 

[Fixxed]

I mean a true duality by this wikis standards would be something like "fork and non-fork". The latter by definition cannot exist because it's a utter negation of what it means to be a fork. A lot of verses get their nonduality through more classical dualism (yin and yang) too, which they should all be downgraded if said dualities don't encompass something like A and not-A.

This wiki standard of duality is logical duality, A and not-A doesnt must always a cosmological dualism, it was a thing and a thing negation/not a thing, whatever the thing is

Logical duality is all about logic, like sheated and unsheated are duality in logic because it have two proposition and use bivalent logic

 

[Dog3352]

For this ability, dualities refer to logical dualities where the duality is between "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. For example, fire and water are not a duality; the duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, or, alternately, existence and nonexistence or existence and void. However, not all verses follow this logic, and many may treat things not logically considered dualities - such as water and fire or time and space - as dualities, meaning what is and isn't a duality can change between verses.

Duality does not necessarily have to be something like "fire and non-fire" or "existence and non-existence" as long as cosmology treats two things (such as "water and fire") in such a way, it can be a duality.

I agree with CRT, as cosmology treats Venetian as basically "something that makes two opposite/contradictory things simultaneously exist in reality."

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Duality does not necessarily have to be something like "fire and non-fire" or "existence and non-existence" as long as cosmology treats two things (such as "water and fire") in such a way, it can be a duality.

I agree with CRT, as cosmology treats Venetian as basically "something that makes two opposite/contradictory things simultaneously exist in reality."

I mean according to Ultima it's required for it to be to logical negations rather than something like that.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Duality does not necessarily have to be something like "fire and non-fire" or "existence and non-existence" as long as cosmology treats two things (such as "water and fire") in such a way, it can be a duality.

I agree with CRT, as cosmology treats Venetian as basically "something that makes two opposite/contradictory things simultaneously exist in reality."

It doesn't seem to be saying that any duality in a verse can qualify for nonduality but that there are verses that deviate from what we define as a duality to where it wouldn't be a duality for nonduality purposes. Like this excerpt before makes it more clear.

For example, fire and water are not a duality; the duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, or, alternately, existence and nonexistence or existence and void.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I mean according to Ultima it's required for it to be to logical negations rather than something like that.

I think he meant in a way that, the verse explicitly treats Water a logical negation of Fire, instead of Not-Fire. Not just a duality, but shows explicitly that it functions similar to Logical Negation.

Which... I'm still not sure if it qualifies.

 

[Dog3352]

I mean according to Ultima it's required for it to be to logical negations rather than something like that.

Yeah, so, Nonduality strictly speaking isn't just not fitting in some pair of opposites. The opposites have to be logical negations of each other: Not "X and Y" but "X and not-X." In this case, it would not be "Life and Death" but "Life and not-Life" (In English: "Neither alive, nor not alive). It's a rather specific thing that, likewise, requires rather specific statements, and the scans provided aren't really enough, as it were, since nothing in them suggests that "Life and Death" are being treated as two exhaustive categories here, so, yeah.

Castelvania simply treats life and death as "x and y" (life and death), not "x and non-x" (life and non-life), they are not "logical dual opposites" (x and non-x), but only A and B (x and y).

It doesn't seem to be saying that any duality in a verse can qualify for nonduality but that there are verses that deviate from what we define as a duality to where it wouldn't be a duality for nonduality purposes. Like this excerpt before makes it more clear.

As it is written in the text (which is literally a continuation of what you put here), if the verse portrays in the right way, even "water and fire" can be dualities.

For this ability, dualities refer to logical dualities where the duality is between "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. For example, fire and water are not a duality; the duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, or, alternately, existence and nonexistence or existence and void. However, not all verses follow this logic, and many may treat things not logically considered dualities - such as water and fire or time and space - as dualities, meaning what is and isn't a duality can change between verses.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Castelvania simply treats life and death as "x and y" (life and death), not "x and non-x" (life and non-life), they are not "logical dual opposites", but only "opposites".

Wasn't life and death rejected as a duality repeatedly? So yes, Castlevania would be in the wrong here, unless we are missing something.

But yeah, please do not bring up other verses as an argument/justification for anything.

 

[Dog3352]

Wasn't life and death rejected as a duality repeatedly? So yes, Castlevania would be in the wrong here, unless we are missing something.

But yeah, please do not bring up other verses as an argument/justification for anything.

Well, as far as I know, life and death are really not opposite logical dualities in the Wiki, I believe the verse would need to accurately portray that both are logical dual opposites to be accepted.

And I'm just talking about Castelvania to quote the reason why Castelvania is not accepted, since I was neither the one who mentioned Castelvania (nor as an argument nor as a counterargument).

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Castelvania simply treats life and death as "x and y" (life and death), not "x and non-x" (life and non-life), they are not "logical dual opposites" (x and non-x), but only A and B (x and y).

As it is written in the text (which is literally a continuation of what you put here), if the verse portrays in the right way, even "water and fire" can be dualities.

Well then it doesn’t quite qualify here in this thread because an actual duality here is required to be categorically exhaustive (with no overlap in category) which yknow it’s not the case here partly for reasons I’ve already said.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

And I'm just talking about Castelvania to quote the reason why Castelvania is not accepted, since I was neither the one who mentioned Castelvania (nor as an argument nor as a counterargument).

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood it then.

Well, as far as I know, life and death are really not opposite logical dualities in the Wiki, I believe the verse would need to accurately portray that both are logical dual opposites to be accepted.

From what I know, it is unacceptable due to there being states that are neither dead nor alive, with a prime example being rocks, or other "things".

 

[Dog3352]

Well then it doesn’t quite qualify here in this thread because an actual duality here is required to be categorically exhaustive (with no overlap in category) which yknow it’s not the case here partly for reasons I’ve already said.

"Draw and Not Draw" is definitely something that fits duality, and fitting into what Wiki says (x and non-x), they are treated as contradictory ideas that neg each other, as it is not possible that both happen at the same time.

I might draw the sword, and I might not draw the sword. It was only natural for both possibilities to exist at the same time.

"And so, I realized both possibilities at once. Contradicting forms of Veneziara can exist concurrently because they are only possibilities."

This is literally what Venezia has done, it causes logical dual opposites to coexist in reality.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I’m too tired to argue in this thread anymore and entire time I’ve been in this thread my brain was entirely out of it playing too much oblivion remaster all night. Might as well take this as a concession since I can see the points given. Although if you’re arguing veneziara governs realm of logical possibility then that’d be high 1-A+ if there were no contradictions

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I’m too tired to argue in this thread anymore and entire time I’ve been in this thread my brain was entirely out of it playing too much oblivion remaster all night. Might as well take this as a concession since I can see the points given. Although if you’re arguing veneziara governs realm of logical possibility then that’d be high 1-A+ if there were no contradictions

noooooooooooo

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

agree with @BestMGQScalerEver
I will share my opinion on this, without using words like 'is' and 'is not.' For this to qualify as a duality, it requires something that embodies the very essence of possibility and something else that represents the very essence of impossibility. With a statement such as 'the very negation of the essence of possibility' or 'the negation of all forms of possibilities ,' similar to the example I gave in this thread about life and death.

 

[Fixxed]

agree with @BestMGQScalerEver
I will share my opinion on this, without using words like 'is' and 'is not.' For this to qualify as a duality, it requires something that embodies the very essence of possibility and something else that represents the very essence of impossibility. With a statement such as 'the very negation of the essence of possibility' or 'the negation of all forms of possibilities ,' similar to the example I gave in this thread about life and death.

like i say above

Bro when it get actualized it are not possibility anymore. Even if it was possibility, that are two category of possibility, possibility of sheated and possibility of unsheated, so it not the same thing even when they share the same essence of possibility. Like bruh this like say basically all duality cannot be duality because they have the same category or property of being exist, because they all are exist therefore they all are the same, but their existence are different even when they share the same essence of existence

Where i must begin this...... first of all, the possibility are "what type of existence something are", that was exist as possibility but it not make this possibility cannot have some category that differentiantie them, you absolutely can make a different between possibility of being sheated and possibility of being unsheated. Like death and not death are abstraction, you doesnt need duality of abstraction and not-abstraction for making it duality because abstraction in here are just the type of existence/being

Second the possibility already being actualized, that mean it was not a possibility anymore. So even if your argument is right, well it not a possibility anymore

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

 

[Glis]

Disagree atm. The author noted that Veneziara goes against particularly the concept of "choosing one future", hence, in the broader, contextual, and conceptual point of view, if we consider the concept of "choosing one future" as "A", then Veneziara being the magic of "not choosing one future" would embody the "non A". So it's still a part of the system if you ask me.

ヴェネジアラは、色々極悪な魔法がある本作の中でもかなり強いですよね。

可能性を実現させる魔法なので。

これを得意としたのが、アノスの実の父、セリス・ヴォルディゴードなので、アノスの血族特有の魔法のように思います。少なくとも、未来は一つしか選べないという秩序を壊しているので、不適合者と呼ばれるぐらいでなければ使えないと思っていただければ。

Veneziara is quite strong, isn't it, even in this work, which has many evil magics.

It's a magic that makes possibilities come true.

Anos's real father, Ceris Voldigord, was good at this, so I think it's a magic unique to Anos' bloodline. At the very least, it breaks the order that only one future can be chosen, so I hope you'll think that it can only be used by those who are called unfit.

I also think that the variables used such as "sheath" and "not sheath" have no conceptual basis to be even called as duality on their own, if you have noticed they have always been variables mentioned under the context of breaking existing rules within Order of future, so is the other materialized possibilities of Veneziara. That is to say, no matter how you twist it this things are still taken directly from a singular established idea. Unless there is some duality within duality I'm missing, idrk.

 

[Theglassman12]

I don’t see how there being Schrödinger’s cat mentioned in the series means there’s dualities in the series. None of this remotely supports nonduality so count me for disagreeing

 

[Dog3352]

Disagree atm. The author noted that Veneziara goes against particularly the concept of "choosing one future", hence, in the broader, contextual, and conceptual point of view, if we consider the concept of "choosing one future" as "A", then Veneziara being the magic of "not choosing one future" would embody the "non A". So it's still a part of the system if you ask me.

This... It doesn't make sense, honestly.

What is being argued here is that the possibilities that Veneziara embodies/encompasses are dual systems, since they are contradictory ideas that negate each other. "Choosing a future" is not part of this dual system, since it is not a possibility that Veneziara encompasses, since Veneziara will ALWAYS embody two contradictory possibilities, since that is Veneziara's idea.

 

[Glis]

This... It doesn't make sense, honestly.

What is being argued here is that the possibilities that Veneziara embodies/encompasses are dual systems,

It COULD be. Though, It doesnt really matter if it can't be something related to the natural dualism we have on the verse or have it act as the true opposite of some concept, but the fact that it mainly displays power contrary to specifically one idea already undermines proposition of having effect over other exclusive dual system.

since they are contradictory ideas that negate each other. "Choosing a future" is not part of this dual system, since it is not a possibility that Veneziara encompasses, since Veneziara will ALWAYS embody two contradictory possibilities, since that is Veneziara's idea

Exactly, Veneziara's nature was said to work directly against the Order of "Choosing ONE future", so it totally makes sense that the spell would embody more than one possibilities.

 

[Dog3352]

It COULD be. Though, It doesnt really matter if it can't be something related to the natural dualism we have on the verse or have it act as the true opposite of some concept, but the fact that it mainly displays power contrary to specifically one idea already undermines proposition of having effect over other exclusive dual system.

You are simply creating a new pattern here.

Nothing on the wiki says that just because something has a central idea of going against something specific, such a thing can not have transduality.

If, for example, the concept of destruction exists beyond a system of duality, but had the central idea of going against creation, it would not matter, as it would still exist beyond a duality system, and therefore would still have transduality.

In fact, ND1 is literally "something that exists beyond a specific duality system" (although this would not yet be ND1, as "a future" you mention is not part of any dual system).

 

[Dog3352]

In any case, the point of duality that Veneziara embodies is not only the "draw and not draw", but also the "existence and nonexistence", with Graham managing to make real the possibilities where he was and was not destroyed, thus maintaining a nonexistent form of Veneziara.

 

[Glis]

You are simply creating a new pattern here.

Nothing on the wiki says that just because something has a central idea of going against something specific, such a thing can not have transduality.

Wait, I dont think we're on the same page here. My entire point was exactly that Veneziara could be exhibiting some form of transduality, just not on a scope of dual systems that is proposed here.

If, for example, the concept of destruction exists beyond a system of duality, but had the central idea of going against creation, it would not matter, as it would still exist beyond a duality system, and therefore would still have transduality.

The problem lies in the fact that the spell haven't shown anything going beyond exclusive dual system besides the one actual Order(central idea) it opposes. "Sheath" and "Not Sheath" for example still falls largely falls under the idea of "choosing one future".

In fact, ND1 is literally "something that exists beyond a specific duality system" (although this would not yet be ND1, as "a future" you mention is not part of any dual system).

What makes you say it's not though? The author reffered to it as an "Order of", a part of the conceptual framework the verse operates. It at least sounds more contextually valid than going on variables that may or may not be conceptual in nature.

 

[Glis]

In any case, the point of duality that Veneziara embodies is not only the "draw and not draw", but also the "existence and nonexistence", with Graham managing to make real the possibilities where he was and was not destroyed, thus maintaining a nonexistent form of Veneziara.

It's not really existence and nonexistence, what Graham embodied was the possibility of "not getting destroyed", so he may or may not have been destroyed in another future, which both simultaneously came true. In the larger scope of things, these are still part of "choosing one future" and "not choosing one future".