Nonduality, and the contradicting standards within it

[Thermor]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Can each side provide a summary for their views and arguments here please?

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality

When you come back, this also needs your attention.

Also, personally I would much prefer if we keep our nonduality page, given that it is an extremely important spiritual concept, that Buddhas/Satgurus have achieved in reality in my view.

 

[Agnaa]

The idea is to split it into two pages, Paraconsistent Physiology (where aspects of one's existence lie in a non-traditional logical state), and Metaphysical Immunity (where characters are immune to certain things by lying outside of their domain).

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. Those terms do not seem commonly known in comparison. Can't we just make them into sub-section types in our existing Nonduality page instead, if necessary?

 

[Agnaa]

The issue, as pointed out in the OP here, is that nonduality is narrow. It requires things to be dualities, which means that it can't apply to any gradients, or the like. Leaving such common things without a page.

The terminology sucks, I'll admit that, but the practical utility is with a split imo.

(And hell, we invented the "Transduality" terminology ourselves, and it worked for ages)

 

[Antvasima]

And you do not think that we can keep our Nonduality explanation page, as an extremely important spiritual, theological, and philosophical concept, and add your suggested pages, possibly with adjusted titles, in addition to that?

 

[Agnaa]

No, I think that would muddle things, since Nonduality would be a part of both of those, due to its varying senses.

I guess we might be able to enshrine one of the types across those pages as "Nonduality", and have such a link redirect there? But that's as far as I think we can get.

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. Much like Omnipotence, I think that Nonduality is a mandatory explanation page to include for our type of wiki, even if we do not end up using direct links to it in our "Powers and Abilities" sections.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah, perhaps we can write an explanation of why we split it as we did.

 

[Antvasima]

I meant that we should maintain a general explanation page for the concept, but a note about why we split it can be included at the bottom if we end up splitting the page, yes.

 

[Vietthai96]

I think we could just make a nonduality terminology page like the Metaphysical Aspect page with explanation, information in-depth about duality in general, different between classic logical duality and metaphysical/spiritual duality and then link to Paraconsistent Physiology and Metaphysical Immunity

 

[Ultima_Reality]

When you come back, this also needs your attention.

"Metaphysical Immunity" seems superfluous. I'm not sure what is accomplished, with his page, that isn't also fulfilled by just typing out "Resistance/Immunity to x (Explanation)" in a page. Seems like needless bloating.

Paraconsistent Existence is more interesting I guess. Though I wonder what point would there be in having a power that's inherently useless in-and-of-itself and whose use is entirely determined by what the verse says it does. e.g. We would rightly give a being beyond space resistance/immunity to Spatial Manipulation, because being aspatial is an actually intelligible concept that we can draw conclusions from. Meanwhile something like "is neither spatial nor aspatial" is not and consequently no properties can be inferred from that. At that point you're better off just listing whatever trait the verse actually concretely assigns to this mode of being, which will be guaranteed to fall into a power we already have listed somewhere.

Granted, I might be overreaching, since having powers that are basically entirely verse-determined doesn't seem to be without precedent. For example Void Manipulation, which has been around for a while even though we have no account of what a "void" is, or even Nonexistent Physiology, which is only with difficulty distinguished from incorporeality in a lot of cases (Because verses like to label a certain cosmological sphere as "existence" and then say that whatever nebulous state is other than that is "nonexistence" without actually defining what those terms mean). So, yeah.

 

[Agnaa]

"Metaphysical Immunity" seems superfluous. I'm not sure what is accomplished, with his page, that isn't also fulfilled by just typing out "Resistance/Immunity to x (Explanation)" in a page. Seems like needless bloating.

Provides concrete standards on how to qualify for such immunity. I'd be fine with wrapping that into a simple "Immunity" page instead, tho.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Ultima_Reality Do you have any thoughts on the nonduality changing back to cover the normal dual concepts used in Taiji rather than the logical negations, or rather it being a separate page compared to what we currently have?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality Do you have any thoughts on the nonduality changing back to cover the normal dual concepts used in Taiji rather than the logical negations, or rather it being a separate page compared to what we currently have?

Don't think that's a good idea. Would basically reduce down to "Transcends contraries rather than contradictories." Contraries being options that can't both be true, but can both be false, e.g. yellow and red, while contradictories are options that can't either be simultaneously true nor simultaneously false and make a perfect dichotomy, e.g. yellow and not-yellow. Issue then is that a lot of stuff qualifies as being in a relationship of contrariety, which would lead to needless bloating (e.g. Incorporeal characters would be classified as nondual because they're neither hot nor cold).

And ofc I don't think we should have a power for "Transcends ying-yang and specifically the ying-yang," if I am to take what you're saying more literally.

 

[Theglassman12]

I never said transcending the Yin and Yang itself. My proposal is to change Nonduality to be transcending dual concepts that are common in fiction rather than the logical negations, especially since we use Yin and Yang as an example, but the more iconic examples from the Yin and Yang ideas for some reason don't count as dual nature stuff to transcend for nonduals.

 

[Agnaa]

I never said transcending the Yin and Yang itself. My proposal is to change Nonduality to be transcending dual concepts that are common in fiction rather than the logical negations, especially since we use Yin and Yang as an example, but the more iconic examples from the Yin and Yang ideas for some reason don't count as dual nature stuff to transcend for nonduals.

I believe that's answered by:

Don't think that's a good idea. Would basically reduce down to "Transcends contraries rather than contradictories." Contraries being options that can't both be true, but can both be false, e.g. yellow and red, while contradictories are options that can't either be simultaneously true nor simultaneously false and make a perfect dichotomy, e.g. yellow and not-yellow. Issue then is that a lot of stuff qualifies as being in a relationship of contrariety, which would lead to needless bloating (e.g. Incorporeal characters would be classified as nondual because they're neither hot nor cold).

 

[Antvasima]

Hmm. Much like Omnipotence, I think that Nonduality is a mandatory explanation page to include for our type of wiki, even if we do not end up using direct links to it in our "Powers and Abilities" sections.

I meant that we should maintain a general explanation page for the concept, but a note about why we split it can be included at the bottom if we end up splitting the page, yes.

So about this...

 

[Theglassman12]

@Agnaa That doesn’t really answer my question on the more common dual natures like good and evil or light and darkness.

 

[Vietthai96]

@Agnaa That doesn’t really answer my question on the more common dual natures like good and evil or light and darkness.

What Ultima meant was he doesn't think making common dual concepts that often found in fiction as duality because they can't make a perfect dichotomy due being being contraries rather than contradictories

Don't think that's a good idea. Would basically reduce down to "Transcends contraries rather than contradictories." Contraries being options that can't both be true, but can both be false, e.g. yellow and red, while contradictories are options that can't either be simultaneously true nor simultaneously false and make a perfect dichotomy, e.g. yellow and not-yellow. Issue then is that a lot of stuff qualifies as being in a relationship of contrariety, which would lead to needless bloating (e.g. Incorporeal characters would be classified as nondual because they're neither hot nor cold).

 

[Theglassman12]

So what about Good and Evil or Light and Darkness makes them not contradictories? Because they’re more commonly used when it comes to dualisms and we still have to use logical negations despite it going against the Taiji stuff we use.

 

[Agnaa]

Because there are actions that neither good nor evil, and regions of brightness that are neither light nor darkness.

I mean, you made this thread exactly about how there are some things which you think should qualify but don't. Why would you now say that actually they've qualified all along?

 

[Theglassman12]

That doesn't mean you transcend the dual concepts of good and evil or light and darkness, those are massive false equivalencies.

If they've always qualified, I wouldn't have made this thread arguing that they should be on the page in the first place. Idk what you're trying to prove here.

 

[Vietthai96]

According to Ultima, transcend dual metaphysical aspects/concept can be fulfilled by typing out Resistance/Immunity to X (Explanation)

"Metaphysical Immunity" seems superfluous. I'm not sure what is accomplished, with his page, that isn't also fulfilled by just typing out "Resistance/Immunity to x (Explanation)" in a page. Seems like needless bloating.

Since as Ultima had said, dual concepts or whatever similar aren't dichotomies

 

[Theglassman12]

That's literally what a dichotomy is, especially in relation to dual concepts as that's the entire point of the Yin and Yang philosophy. Besides my original proposal is to change the current page of Nonduality to cover dual concepts rather than just ignoring them altogether.

 

[Vietthai96]

Welp, i just explain what Ultima meant

Besides my original proposal is to change the current page of Nonduality to cover dual concepts rather than just ignoring them altogether.

From his comment, he meant that if you are.....eh......above dual concepts, then it could simply be written as Resistance/Immunity to X concepts (Explanation).

For example you transcends concept of life and death, you simply write it as Resistance/Immunity to Life hax and Death hax (Explanation), of course if the trasencendence grant you resistance/immunity

So with Ultima, no more a dedicated page for dual concepts and existing outside and/or transcend them. Resistance/Immunity with explanation already cover it

That's literally what a dichotomy is, especially in relation to dual concepts as that's the entire point of the Yin and Yang philosophy.

Well, dichotomy is broad, but according to Ultima simply being contraries isn't perfecr for duality, contradictories is however

Nonduality is a state of contradiction which violate normal logic

In the case contraries, you can be both false without violate logic, for example, an action can be not good nor evil but didn't contradict anything, a rock is neither alive nor living but still exist within logic. So even if you transcend dual concepts, your existece isn't violate anything, just outside, or transcend those concepts

However contradictory such as true and false, logically you can only be one of two, either true or false, being both at the same time or not one of them is a contradiction, thus nonduality

This is what DontTalkDT, Ultima, Agnaa meant

 

[Agnaa]

That doesn't mean you transcend the dual concepts of good and evil or light and darkness, those are massive false equivalencies.

1. Nonduality isn't only transcendence.
2. "Transcendence" is a rather vague term, as to whether it would apply to such things or not. What is the functional difference between a character whose vision "transcends the dual concepts of red and green", and a character who can see the colour blue; what are you certain that the former can do beyond the latter?
3. I wasn't drawing an equivalence between such states and transcendence over those concepts, I was using them to demonstrate how "good and evil" and "light and darkness" aren't proper dualities; the exact thing DT and I have been saying all along. They aren't contradictories, they're contraries, to use Ultima's terminology.

If they've always qualified, I wouldn't have made this thread arguing that they should be on the page in the first place. Idk what you're trying to prove here.

Me: Your recent posts contradict the idea of the OP.

You: But if that's true, then my recent posts would contradict the OP? idk what you're trying to prove here.

What I'm trying to prove is that your recent insistence that "good and evil" and "light and darkness" are contradictories goes against the entire point of this thread.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So about this...

Don't really mind writing up something like that eventually. Especially since what you have in mind by nonduality is different from the power currently being renamed "Paraconsistent Existence" here.

Provides concrete standards on how to qualify for such immunity. I'd be fine with wrapping that into a simple "Immunity" page instead, tho.

Could also just expand the Resistance page to include it.

Paraconsistent Existence is more interesting I guess. Though I wonder what point would there be in having a power that's inherently useless in-and-of-itself and whose use is entirely determined by what the verse says it does. e.g. We would rightly give a being beyond space resistance/immunity to Spatial Manipulation, because being aspatial is an actually intelligible concept that we can draw conclusions from. Meanwhile something like "is neither spatial nor aspatial" is not and consequently no properties can be inferred from that. At that point you're better off just listing whatever trait the verse actually concretely assigns to this mode of being, which will be guaranteed to fall into a power we already have listed somewhere.

Would also like input on this, by the by. As mentioned we have powers that are in a similar situation of being largely purely cosmetic and only granting whatever the verse says they do, for instance Adaptation or Reactive Evolution, but those powers at least have a baseline concept that has predictable results (e.g. RE and Adaptation consist in developing new abilities in response to some received input). For Nonduality as DontTalk's draft treats it, it's effectively an "anything goes" power. Ignoring fire-based attacks and being a potato generator are both equally valid properties of it as long as the verse says so, and since the "mechanism" behind those properties isn't really anything you can infer properties from to begin with, there's little use in even noting it down beyond bookkeeping, since then nothing is different between "Can ignore fire-based attacks due to being nondual" and "Can ignore fire-based attacks" alone. It's literally totally cosmetic, and I reckon it's better to not have this sort of thing when possible.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Vietthai96 by that logic Nonduality shouldn’t even be a thing since it talks about being resistant or immune to certain abilities due to the nature of the ability.

That doesn’t explain how dualities aren’t contradictories when the whole point of the more iconic examples is that they’re complete polar opposites of each other.

@Agnaa In what world is Light and Darkness not a duality? Seriously now people are claiming it’s not while other experts are saying they still count so you’re making less and less sense here.

How does it go against the point of the OP? Can you elaborate because you’re not doing a good job explaining your stance.

 

[Vietthai96]

Would also like input on this, by the by. As mentioned we have powers that are in a similar situation of being largely purely cosmetic and only granting whatever the verse says they do, for instance Adaptation or Reactive Evolution, but those powers at least have a baseline concept that has predictable results (e.g. RE and Adaptation consist in developing new abilities in response to some received input). For Nonduality as DontTalk's draft treats it, it's effectively an "anything goes" power. Ignoring fire-based attacks and being a potato generator are both equally valid properties of it as long as the verse says so, and since the "mechanism" behind those properties isn't really anything you can infer properties from to begin with, there's little use in even noting it down beyond bookkeeping, since then nothing is different between "Can ignore fire-based attacks due to being nondual" and "Can ignore fire-based attacks" alone. It's literally totally cosmetic, and I reckon it's better to not have this sort of thing when possible.

We literally having Acausality Type 4 being a decorative ability currently, granting absolutely nothing unless the verse specific what it grant in verse

We also have instances like X can manipulate Y and then stop there without going in-depth about what the ability can do, its effects, we still index it on the profile though

Edit: Also DontTalk revised Nonduality that if the verse didn't specific what nonduality grants, then it is a decorative ability that grant nothing, so current Nonduality is already a decorative ability

by that logic Nonduality shouldn’t even be a thing since it talks about being resistant or immune to certain abilities due to the nature of the ability.

Well, Nonduality is gonna cover only state that violate classical logic based on how this thread is going

That doesn’t explain how dualities aren’t contradictories when the whole point of the more iconic examples is that they’re complete polar opposites of each other.

Though i don't understand this part

 

[Theglassman12]

What does classical logic even mean? That sounds like just word salad without much elaboration.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Paraconsistent Existence is more interesting I guess. Though I wonder what point would there be in having a power that's inherently useless in-and-of-itself and whose use is entirely determined by what the verse says it does. e.g. We would rightly give a being beyond space resistance/immunity to Spatial Manipulation, because being aspatial is an actually intelligible concept that we can draw conclusions from. Meanwhile something like "is neither spatial nor aspatial" is not and consequently no properties can be inferred from that. At that point you're better off just listing whatever trait the verse actually concretely assigns to this mode of being, which will be guaranteed to fall into a power we already have listed somewhere.

Granted, I might be overreaching, since having powers that are basically entirely verse-determined doesn't seem to be without precedent. For example Void Manipulation, which has been around for a while even though we have no account of what a "void" is, or even Nonexistent Physiology, which is only with difficulty distinguished from incorporeality in a lot of cases (Because verses like to label a certain cosmological sphere as "existence" and then say that whatever nebulous state is other than that is "nonexistence" without actually defining what those terms mean). So, yeah.

It's primarily legacy maintenance. Tons of characters have nonduality, which currently is defined as being Paraconsistent Existence, just that the explanations aren't as good as they could be. Since a bunch of characters have the power, may as well keep it.
Otherwise, the more obvious step would be to wrap it into logic manipulation, as that is the general overarching ability here. Paraconsistent Existence is essentially just the passive self-application of that.
Of course, one way or another, they fulfill the role of a mechanism-type clarifier. Like, it clarifies that something is done in a certain special way. As you can erase a stone via magic or via causality manipulation, you can also erase it via logic manipulation. And as you can be immune to things via time stop, magic or causality transcendence, you can also be immune to it via logic "transcendence".

What does classical logic even mean? That sounds like just word salad without much elaboration.

Classical logic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Agnaa]

Could also just expand the Resistance page to include it.

Eh, that's already a fairly big page.

Would also like input on this, by the by. As mentioned we have powers that are in a similar situation of being largely purely cosmetic and only granting whatever the verse says they do, for instance Adaptation or Reactive Evolution, but those powers at least have a baseline concept that has predictable results (e.g. RE and Adaptation consist in developing new abilities in response to some received input). For Nonduality as DontTalk's draft treats it, it's effectively an "anything goes" power. Ignoring fire-based attacks and being a potato generator are both equally valid properties of it as long as the verse says so, and since the "mechanism" behind those properties isn't really anything you can infer properties from to begin with, there's little use in even noting it down beyond bookkeeping, since then nothing is different between "Can ignore fire-based attacks due to being nondual" and "Can ignore fire-based attacks" alone. It's literally totally cosmetic, and I reckon it's better to not have this sort of thing when possible.

idc too much either way. As was mentioned earlier, I could gesture to abilities like Void Manipulation, which I think is a lot closer to something like Paraconsistent Existence. But that does also have a more intuitive root.

@Agnaa In what world is Light and Darkness not a duality?

I was using them to demonstrate how "good and evil" and "light and darkness" aren't proper dualities; the exact thing DT and I have been saying all along. They aren't contradictories, they're contraries, to use Ultima's terminology.

Firstly, I said that they're not proper dualities.

Secondly, I immediately gestured towards what I was talking about. If you take issue with the reasoning, say what your issue is.

Seriously now people are claiming it’s not while other experts are saying they still count so you’re making less and less sense here.

Where is this happening?

How does it go against the point of the OP? Can you elaborate because you’re not doing a good job explaining your stance.

If you believe that things like "good and evil" and "light and darkness" are already [proper dualities/contradictories], then they would already qualify, because the current Nonduality page allows contradictories to qualify.

So when the OP says stuff like:

This in of itself doesn't sound confusing, but when you look into what even counts as a duality in the first place it becomes more nonsensical. One example people would think of as a duality like Life and Death doesn't count on the site standards due to the fact that it's not a logical negation, and instead has to be "Life and not Life". It gets even more ridiculous when a major franchise like star wars gets a very blatant statement on dualities existing in the Force and uses Life and Death, or Light and Darkness itself, and either due to miscommunication or just people not understanding how the standards for dual natures work, it still counts. What makes the whole Logical negation of it needing to be "A and not A" even more nonsensical is the main quote in the page using Unsong, they use God and Nothingness as an example of Nonduality, which under this logic wouldn't make sense because it doesn't specify as "God and Not God" or "Nothingness and Existence". Another major example in fiction that uses very on the nose duality concepts is in Avatar the Last Airbender when Koh describes Tui and La as polar opposites of one another and balance each other, with the examples being Push and Pull, Life and Death, Good and Evil, Yin and Yang, all the while showing both Koi fishes merging into a Yin and Yang symbol, the most iconic imagery used when it comes to dual natures, but due to the Logical Negation requirements, most of these wouldn't count just from the fact it's not a logical negation of "A and not A".

Where you explicitly say that "light and darkness" and "good and evil" don't count by the current standards, as they aren't [logical negations/proper dualities/contradictories]. That runs against your current point, where you're insisting that such things are [logical negations/proper dualities/contradictories].

That doesn’t explain how dualities aren’t contradictories when the whole point of the more iconic examples is that they’re complete polar opposites of each other.

Because [logical negations/proper dualities/contradictories] aren't "when things are the polar opposites of each other", they're "when two things exhaust all possibilities". Good is not [not evil], [not evil] also includes things such as morally neutral actions. And so, "good and evil" is not a [logical negation/proper duality/contradictory].

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Got permission from @Theglassman12 here.

I think requiring Nonduality to actually be completely outside of literal logical contradictories is very impractical. It would make it nigh-impossible to achieve this ability, and it would also require mental gymnastics when evaluating pretty common things in fiction (e. g. like Ultima said, incorporeal beings are technically non-dual for being neither cold nor hot). And too extreme requirements are also not something we do with NEP and Acausality Type 5; using true NEP or Acausality Type 5 in philosophical sense in philosophical sense is very impractical, but lesser forms of these abilities exist in fiction.

I think a good solution would be granting Nonduality for being outside of what is recognized as a fundamental, universal dual system within the verse. This trope is fairly common in fiction, where there exists some kind of "Balance" or "Cycle" (Good and Evil, Life and Death). This is both practical and fits non-duality, and solves the issue with things that technically qualify for nonduality although isn't really treated that way (like being outside of life and death would be just Immortality Type 5, unless verse specifies that Life & Death are fundamental universal dual system). After all, the way verse treats things is what matters in the end of the day.

 

[Agnaa]

I think requiring Nonduality to actually be completely outside of literal logical contradictories is very impractical. It would make it nigh-impossible to achieve this ability

That's already the status quo, how could you believe that makes the ability nigh-impossible to achieve when it's the current requirement and 202 pages qualify?

and it would also require mental gymnastics when evaluating pretty common things in fiction (e. g. like Ultima said, incorporeal beings are technically non-dual for being neither cold nor hot).

This sort of problem has already been brought up and a solution provided.

And too extreme requirements are also not something we do with NEP and Acausality Type 5; using true NEP or Acausality Type 5 in philosophical sense in philosophical sense is very impractical, but lesser forms of these abilities exist in fiction.

I can't tell what you mean by this. Unless it's to say that characters can't Truly hold these abilities due to conflicts with our tiering system (with Tier 0s being equivalent to Existence itself, and with nothing being able to be beyond them), which is something that has already been brought up and a solution provided.

I think a good solution would be granting Nonduality for being outside of what is recognized as a fundamental, universal dual system within the verse. This trope is fairly common in fiction, where there exists some kind of "Balance" or "Cycle" (Good and Evil, Life and Death). This is both practical and fits non-duality, and solves the issue with things that technically qualify for nonduality although isn't really treated that way (like being outside of life and death would be just Immortality Type 5, unless verse specifies that Life & Death are fundamental universal dual system). After all, the way verse treats things is what matters in the end of the day.

This sort of idea was already suggested and refined, starting from this post with discussion continuing through to this post.

I think your unrefined suggestion falls short, while I am fine with the one Deonment and DT worked on, and am neutral on whether it should get its own page (as Immunity, Conceptual Transcendence, etc.), a section on the Resistance page, or be a section in a reworked Nonduality page.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I was given permission to make 1 post by @Theglassman12

Id like to ask some questions to hopefully create clarity and hope it helps people see what does qualify or does not.

There is 3 overall issues i see on crts

Some staff find this ability hard to understand thus avoid it.

People don't understand what is an acceptable form of "Negation"

Identifing what are themes, motifs, and symbols of a dichotomy vs somethinfg like co-existing dualities due to complexity and thus just not understand it well.

---

The Nonduality ability page anchors Nonduality in logical dichotomies (A vs ¬A) but also says verses can define their own dualities. many CRTs bring pairs like Yin/Yang, Light/Dark, Life/Death, (a few examples of common ones). The problem here is that these can co‑exist in fiction without being a logical dichotomy, which clashes with the idea of a strict A vs ¬A.

The ability itself is complex, and confusing for most people as well. Basic high school geometry only lightly touched upon the idea, but its generally upper academics that talk about this in greater detail. So people are conflating dualities such as the idea of the Taiji (Yin/Yang) and logical dichotomies together. When in reality like 80% of dualities in major philosophical concepts can be things that co-exist in the same setting without any form of clashing or negation thus not creating a logical dichotomy.

The Taiji is a Very commonly referenced philosophical concepts in many works. And in of itself is not a logical dichotomy. People just jump on it because its got the stigma of duality attached too it. (This is just from a quick surficial read on it.)

Anyways

The Nonduality page has a clause allowing Fictional verses to establish their own rules for creating logical dichotomies when there does not exist overly specific statements of A vs ¬A

Read this section here of the 4th chunk of text

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. Due to nonduality's nature as an abstract power, qualifying for it requires a verse to directly explain the way they treat a power in a way that aligns with the standards outlined below;

Spoiler: are these acceptable qualifiers?

What are some acceptable forms of negations? Negation can come in a variety of forms.

and

What are some examples of qualifying context or statements that do not have any overly specific statements like A and non-A.

The reason i ask this is because any fictional verse can create its own unique mechanism to enforce a logical state or system. And some fictional works may not be so creative and use simple destruction statements.


Example 1.) A time traveling series.

A character time travels to the future. They are dead in the future, but due to time travel they are not dead. There is 2 versions of them in the history of the universe. This created a logical contradiction, and the universe is attempts to fix this by erasing the contradiction.

To me;
the logical dichotomy looks to be dead, and not dead. The negation appears to me as the form of Earsure.

This is an example of a unique in verse mechanism to enforce the world on a singular state.

Example 2; Universe of Lights

A universe is designated Light‑only. When Darkness appears anywhere in its fabric, the background field absorbs it and the designation remains Light. No neutral band is defined. If Dark intrusions leak in from adjacent universes, the boundary consumes them and normalizes the host back to Light.

To me;
this looks like Light/not-light (Darkness), and the negation looks like Absorption. Absorption is being used as a unique in verse mechanism to enforce a single truth where

Example 3; simple destruction statements

Let us go back to Darkness vs Light again. Light destroys darkness. Darkness destroys light. Neither can co exist with the other. They physically cannot share the same setting.

The questions with these examples i have;

Are these examples qualifiers for unique in verse mechanics that create logical dichotomies? Are these acceptable forms of negations? Are these legit logical dichotomies based upon context and statements?

Also for Light novels that actually say things like "being" and "non being." What are anti feats that would disqualify them being being a dichotomy?

I am sorry for any poor wording. I tried my best
I feel like im embarrassing myself asking these

Edit: like is there any way to make the ability easier to understand for us normal people? It appears most fictional series use an A vs B type of dichotomy instead of an A vs non A. Which is what most people look for and grasp at ( A vs B dichotomies)*

 

[Agnaa]

I was given permission to make 1 post by @Theglassman12

Id like to ask some questions to hopefully create clarity and hope it helps people see what does qualify or does not.

There is 3 overall issues i see on crts

Some staff find this ability hard to understand thus avoid it.

People don't understand what is an acceptable form of "Negation"

Identifing what are themes, motifs, and symbols of a dichotomy vs somethinfg like co-existing dualities due to complexity and thus just not understand it well.

---

The Nonduality ability page anchors Nonduality in logical dichotomies (A vs ¬A) but also says verses can define their own dualities. many CRTs bring pairs like Yin/Yang, Light/Dark, Life/Death, (a few examples of common ones). The problem here is that these can co‑exist in fiction without being a logical dichotomy, which clashes with the idea of a strict A vs ¬A.

The ability itself is complex, and confusing for most people as well. Basic high school geometry only lightly touched upon the idea, but its generally upper academics that talk about this in greater detail. So people are conflating dualities such as the idea of the Taiji (Yin/Yang) and logical dichotomies together. When in reality like 80% of dualities in major philosophical concepts can be things that co-exist in the same setting without any form of clashing or negation thus not creating a logical dichotomy.

The Taiji is a Very commonly referenced philosophical concepts in many works. And in of itself is not a logical dichotomy. People just jump on it because its got the stigma of duality attached too it. (This is just from a quick surficial read on it.)

Anyways

The Nonduality page has a clause allowing Fictional verses to establish their own rules for creating logical dichotomies when there does not exist overly specific statements of A vs ¬A

Read this section here of the 4th chunk of text

Spoiler: are these acceptable qualifiers?

What are some acceptable forms of negations? Negation can come in a variety of forms.

and

What are some examples of qualifying context or statements that do not have any overly specific statements like A and non-A.

The reason i ask this is because any fictional verse can create its own unique mechanism to enforce a logical state or system. And some fictional works may not be so creative and use simple destruction statements.


Example 1.) A time traveling series.

A character time travels to the future. They are dead in the future, but due to time travel they are not dead. There is 2 versions of them in the history of the universe. This created a logical contradiction, and the universe is attempts to fix this by erasing the contradiction.

To me;
the logical dichotomy looks to be dead, and not dead. The negation appears to me as the form of Earsure.

This is an example of a unique in verse mechanism to enforce the world on a singular state.

Example 2; Universe of Lights

A universe is designated Light‑only. When Darkness appears anywhere in its fabric, the background field absorbs it and the designation remains Light. No neutral band is defined. If Dark intrusions leak in from adjacent universes, the boundary consumes them and normalizes the host back to Light.

To me;
this looks like Light/not-light (Darkness), and the negation looks like Absorption. Absorption is being used as a unique in verse mechanism to enforce a single truth where

Example 3; simple destruction statements

Let us go back to Darkness vs Light again. Light destroys darkness. Darkness destroys light. Neither can co exist with the other. They physically cannot share the same setting.

The questions with these examples i have;

Are these examples qualifiers for unique in verse mechanics that create logical dichotomies? Are these acceptable forms of negations? Are these legit logical dichotomies based upon context and statements?

Also for Light novels that actually say things like "being" and "non being." What are anti feats that would disqualify them being being a dichotomy?

I am sorry for any poor wording. I tried my best
I feel like im embarrassing myself asking these

Edit: like is there any way to make the ability easier to understand for us normal people? It appears most fictional series use an A vs B type of dichotomy instead of an A vs non A. Which is what most people look for and grasp at ( A vs B dichotomies)*

This post seems very unrelated to the thread, especially at the current point.

It's largely rambling about and asking questions about the current state of the power, when every staff member involved agrees on changing it.

Glass can you please stop approving posts like this? We require staff approval so we don't have non-staff members bringing up irrelevant things or topics that have already been discussed. This thread's already dragging a fair bit.

 

[Theglassman12]

They wanted to ask a question so I was letting them ask, but if this is deemed unnecessary then fine.

 

[Theglassman12]

Anyways now that I got some free time to do some in depth response, this'll be my last reply before I leave it to staff on what needs to change.

@Agnaa If they're not proper dualities then what does? Again the fact that nothing about this is concrete makes the current page all the more ridiculous.

I bring up the fact that they "don't count" because I literally link a star wars thread where someone pushes for nonduality based on the dual concepts the series has and people could not come to agreement on what does or does not count as a duality, and in other instances people just say light and darkness doesn't count because it's not "light and not light". The whole point of my proposal is to give a clear and easy answer on what does count as a duality on the page when that's what Nonduality is based around of. Idk how you're not understanding this and claiming I'm going against my point the whole point is that no one can agree what does or doesn't count.

How does morally neutral actions not count as being part good either when grey morality is a thing? You're not making any sense here with your example but if you want to wrap this thread up then fine.