Nonduality, and the contradicting standards within it

[Agnaa]

@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.

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.

To give a barebones idea of what I think nonduality should be, it should be an ability that showcases a character existing outside of dualities, through transcendence or simply not participating in them, whether the duality in question is contradictory (logical/binary), or contrary/complementary ("greyscale" ie Activity vs Passivity or Good and Evil (in cases such as Zoroastrianism rather than instances of Privatio boni)).

And the intended meaning behind the word quite literally has no meaning because of the botched standards for Nonduality on the site to where very few if any fictional forms of media talk about dualisms in a "A and not A" type logic.

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.

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

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].

It is, in fact, extremely concrete, and we have been explaining it in the same simple way, with slight variation, while providing examples, this entire time.

If you're confused about a part of these definitions, be specific, and we can address whichever gripe you have. But don't say we've given nothing concrete.

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.

DT, Deonment, Ultima, Vietthai, and I all agree on the clear answer of what [logical negations/proper dualities/contradictories] are (although Deonment wants the page to capture other things as well). If your point truly is that "no-one agrees on this" that is wrong. Some people with preconceived notions about dualities are confused about it; while those with a sufficient grasp of classical logic understand it.

Heck, I thought you understood this too! From your earlier posts in the thread, where you yourself were drawing the distinction between "dualities common in media" (i.e. contraries) and "A and not A" type [logical negations/proper dualities/contradictories]. But now you're saying you don't so idk.

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

Morally neutral actions are both "not good" and "not evil", making it so that "good and evil" is not a [logical negation/proper duality/contradictory]. There are more than two possible states, so it is not a duality.

 

[Theglassman12]

I'm saying that the wiki can't make up their mind on what counts for dualities when it comes to what dual concepts counts for the nonduality or not given those examples I provided that aren't logical negations don't count despite the page literally using Taiji as its main example for nondualisms. If none of the examples from taiji can't count for nonduality then why is Taiji being used on the page, and why are the most common forms of dual concepts considered irrelevant to this when numerous fictional media tells us otherwise? If you want to just stick to the logical negation, which goes against taiji stuff then nonduality needs to change to not have anything hinting at Taiji since it causes confusion amongst the community. I'm not alone and many other people on the site can agree that what does or doesn't count isn't clearly defined on the page itself due to the inconsistencies.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm saying that the wiki can't make up their mind on what counts for dualities when it comes to what dual concepts counts for the nonduality or not given those examples I provided that aren't logical negations don't count despite the page literally using Taiji as its main example for nondualisms. If none of the examples from taiji can't count for nonduality then why is Taiji being used on the page, and why are the most common forms of dual concepts considered irrelevant to this when numerous fictional media tells us otherwise? If you want to just stick to the logical negation, which goes against taiji stuff then nonduality needs to change to not have anything hinting at Taiji since it causes confusion amongst the community.

This point has already been addressed, with solutions provided, in the following posts:

• Post 9 by DontTalkDT
• Post 23 by Agnaa

I'm not alone and many other people on the site can agree that what does or doesn't count isn't clearly defined on the page itself due to the inconsistencies.

At some point, if you're not specific about the points of confusion, we just have to accept that some people won't get it.

Many staff members say they don't understand Tier 1. They simply don't evaluate it. Such users can avoid Nonduality threads, too. If half a dozen users, staff and non-staff alike, can agree on what it means, there must be a kernel of sanity there.

 

[Theglassman12]

At some point, if you're not specific about the points of confusion, we just have to accept that some people won't get it.

Why not make it clear then? Ultima goes out of his way to explain how R>F to 1-A and how the newer Tier 0 standards qualify despite that also being high concept stuff to grasp, and more and more people understand how that works thanks to the QnA sections among other blogs and CRTs he's made. I don't see why we can't go in depth on the dualisms or logical negation when it's an abstract ability.

 

[Agnaa]

Why not make it clear then?

Explain what's not clear. I have already given you six different explanations of [proper dualities/contradictories/logical negations].

I cannot read your mind to figure out what I need to clear up, you need to actually say it.

 

[Theglassman12]

I'm saying make it clear on what does or doesn't count for dualities on the actual page, because it doesn't do a good job of explaining why some things like existence and nothingness would count but things like good and evil don't despite them being common examples of dual concepts. I've literally said this numerous times and I still don't get how you can't figure out my main gripe with the page right now.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm saying make it clear on what does or doesn't count for dualities on the actual page, because it doesn't do a good job of explaining why some things like existence and nothingness would count but things like good and evil don't despite them being common examples of dual concepts. I've literally said this numerous times and I still don't get how you can't figure out my main gripe with the page right now.

Tell me either:

• Which part of these explanations you want incorporated into the page.
• Which things these explanations are failing to cover that you would want them to cover.
• Which parts of these explanations are bad at explaining something you want them to cover.

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.

To give a barebones idea of what I think nonduality should be, it should be an ability that showcases a character existing outside of dualities, through transcendence or simply not participating in them, whether the duality in question is contradictory (logical/binary), or contrary/complementary ("greyscale" ie Activity vs Passivity or Good and Evil (in cases such as Zoroastrianism rather than instances of Privatio boni)).

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.

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

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].

 

[Theglassman12]

Deonment’s explanation is more or less what I want incorporated into the page, while your explanation doesn’t really help in explaining what a logical negation is supposed to be.

 

[Agnaa]

Deonment’s explanation is more or less what I want incorporated into the page, while your explanation doesn’t really help in explaining what a logical negation is supposed to be.

I didn't ask what explanation you wanted incorporated in its entirety, as I am aware that Deonment was not just explaining the difference but advocating for a change:

(although Deonment wants the page to capture other things as well)

I asked about which part you want incorporated.

Are you saying that Deonment's explanation about the difference between contradictories and contraries is one you understand?

So, for example, the page could be reworded to say:

For this ability, dualities refer to ones which are contradictory (logical/binary), rather than ones which are contrary/complementary (ie Activity vs Passivity or Good and Evil).

Replacing the entire fourth paragraph, and you would be fine with that?

 

[Theglassman12]

If the contradictory stuff is more expanded upon with examples then yeah I would be fine with that if we’re just talking about elaboration in of itself, but this thread is also advocating for classic dualities to be used on the page as well.

 

[Agnaa]

If the contradictory stuff is more expanded upon with examples then yeah I would be fine with that if we’re just talking about elaboration in of itself, but this thread is also advocating for classic dualities to be used on the page as well.

I am surprised that that explanation is the one that does it for you, but cool.

Now can we get back to discussing the drafts of the page rewrites/reworks along with the idea of putting such reworks on the Resistance page, and Ant's request for an explanation page about Nonduality?

I believe I've already made my views on those clear (mostly fine with Deon's draft, neutral on where to place it, and not really wanting the explanation page).

 

[Theglassman12]

Sure, I’ll get to a full response on that once I’m free later this week.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If we want to be really thorough, we could also reference to chapter 8.4 of this or a similar freely available book on logic to explain logical negation.

I am surprised that that explanation is the one that does it for you, but cool.

Now can we get back to discussing the drafts of the page rewrites/reworks along with the idea of putting such reworks on the Resistance page

I think a separate page works better than the resistance one.
One could consider to expand to page into an "Immunity" page, though. Then we could also move our standards like "absence of a soul gives soul manipulation immunity" there. It's a relatively similar principle even.

and Ant's request for an explanation page about Nonduality?

I think such a thing would only be viable when focusing on a specific source. A meta-review of all ideas connected to the term is beyond our ability and likely also beyond our relevance.
Of course, when singling in on one particular source/interpretation, one would need to justify why that one is particularly relevant for us.

---

But while we discuss new pages, does anyone have specific suggestions on how to reword my draft for the nonduality page or is everyone who agrees with the content gucci on the formulation front? As a reminder:

Paraconsistent Physiology, sometimes also referred to as Nonduality or Transduality, is ability granted by existing in a state of being that violates the rules of classical logic. Entities with this ability would hence instead operate under the rules of a non-classical logic, frequently a paraconsistent logic. As such they are entities that would usually be viewed as paradoxical.
Typically, entities of such a nature have some property that is not true for them and, at the same time, not false for them. Instead, it might be both true and false, neither true nor false, or in a third logical state that isn't true and false. For example: A rose with Paraconsistent Physiology could be both red and not red, neither red nor not red or the statement "the rose is red" could have the truth value "between" which the fiction has established to be a logical truth value that is neither true nor false.

This can be linked to the idea of dualities and hence also Nonduality. True and false are dualities, as is having and not having a property. In that way, being beyond such dualities would qualify as having Paraconsistent Physiology. More generally, existing outside of any duality where it's logically necessary to participate in one or the other would qualify.

The term Transduality is typically reserved for those characters, who don't just exist outside of a such a logical duality, but who also possess qualitative superiority regarding it.

We furthermore distinguish between characters who display Paraconsistent Physiology regarding one particular property and regarding all of their properties. For example, a box that is simultaneously empty and contains a doll would be considered to be of the former type, as it only breaks classical logic in regard to one of its properties, namely its emptiness. Meanwhile, a character for which none of their properties is limited to the rules of classical logic would be considered of the latter type.

Paraconsistent Physiology can grant any number of abilities and effects for the users. As they are freed from the confines of classical logic, their interaction with the world can be fundamentally different from those of regular entities and the result of interactions may be unpredictable without knowledge of the rules by which the alternate logical system they obey works.
A frequently seen, but not necessarily present, effect is that users of this ability are immune to having the property which for them is in a state beyond classical logic changed to being just true or just false instead. E.g. a character who is neither "alive" nor "not alive" might have no interaction in their logic which would allow for that state to be changed to just "not alive", meaning that they can't be killed by conventional means. Another example could be that a character who is simultaneously "here" and "not here" (in a logically paradox sense) might not be possible to be constraint to just being "here", making them immune to bindings. Overcoming such restrictions would require the use of advanced metaphysical powers, such as Causality Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, Information Manipulation, Law Manipulation, or Mathematics Manipulation, and the powers would need to have appropriate feats of being able to accomplish such things.
As the way things with Paraconsistent Physiology interact is dictated by their own logic, none of these effects is set in stone, though. As a result, a fiction needs to explain how the interactions function for us to assume a particular outcome.

Types

1. Specific Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic regarding one or several of their properties, but not all of them. This includes character nondual regarding one or more specific logical dual systems.
2. General Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding any of their properties. This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them occupy both or neither state of the dualities in question.
3. Plurality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them exist beyond the truth values of classical logic, instead operating on a many-valued logic system with at least five truth values. Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.

 

[Agnaa]

The term Transduality is typically reserved for those characters, who don't just exist outside of a such a logical duality, but who also possess qualitative superiority regarding it.

Feels unnecessary, given our changes to qualitative superiority, and how long it's been since we used that term (relevant, due to it being a term we invented iirc).

Other than that, I like it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sure, I suppose we can ditch that part. Minorly altered version then:

Paraconsistent Physiology, sometimes also referred to as Nonduality or Transduality, is ability granted by existing in a state of being that violates the rules of classical logic. Entities with this ability would hence instead operate under the rules of a non-classical logic, frequently a paraconsistent logic. As such they are entities that would usually be viewed as paradoxical.
Typically, entities of such a nature have some property that is not true for them and, at the same time, not false for them. Instead, it might be both true and false, neither true nor false, or in a third logical state that isn't true and false. For example: A rose with Paraconsistent Physiology could be both red and not red, neither red nor not red or the statement "the rose is red" could have the truth value "between" which the fiction has established to be a logical truth value that is neither true nor false.

This can be linked to the idea of dualities and hence also Nonduality. True and false are dualities, as is having and not having a property. In that way, being beyond such dualities would qualify as having Paraconsistent Physiology. More generally, existing outside of any duality where it's logically necessary to participate in one or the other would qualify.

We furthermore distinguish between characters who display Paraconsistent Physiology regarding one particular property and regarding all of their properties. For example, a box that is simultaneously empty and contains a doll would be considered to be of the former type, as it only breaks classical logic in regard to one of its properties, namely its emptiness. Meanwhile, a character for which none of their properties is limited to the rules of classical logic would be considered of the latter type.

Paraconsistent Physiology can grant any number of abilities and effects for the users. As they are freed from the confines of classical logic, their interaction with the world can be fundamentally different from those of regular entities and the result of interactions may be unpredictable without knowledge of the rules by which the alternate logical system they obey works.
A frequently seen, but not necessarily present, effect is that users of this ability are immune to having the property which for them is in a state beyond classical logic changed to being just true or just false instead. E.g. a character who is neither "alive" nor "not alive" might have no interaction in their logic which would allow for that state to be changed to just "not alive", meaning that they can't be killed by conventional means. Another example could be that a character who is simultaneously "here" and "not here" (in a logically paradox sense) might not be possible to be constraint to just being "here", making them immune to bindings. Overcoming such restrictions would require the use of advanced metaphysical powers, such as Causality Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, Information Manipulation, Law Manipulation, or Mathematics Manipulation, and the powers would need to have appropriate feats of being able to accomplish such things.
As the way things with Paraconsistent Physiology interact is dictated by their own logic, none of these effects is set in stone, though. As a result, a fiction needs to explain how the interactions function for us to assume a particular outcome.

Types

1. Specific Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic regarding one or several of their properties, but not all of them. This includes character nondual regarding one or more specific logical dual systems.
2. General Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding any of their properties. This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them occupy both or neither state of the dualities in question.
3. Plurality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them exist beyond the truth values of classical logic, instead operating on a many-valued logic system with at least five truth values. Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Bump

 

[Agnaa]

As that was the one issue I had, I'm now fine with that.

 

[Vietthai96]

Look fine i guess, though personally i just want to list Types as Specific and General, remove the Nonduality part because we also have Transduality too and mention Nonduality could create confusion, though it is just me

 

[Dereck03]

Pretty much I'm fine with the draft provided by DT.

 

[Jin2188]

Got permission from @Antvasima to comment.

I still prefer this format for the types, and would like for it to be called Alogical Physiology instead of Paraconsistent Physiology, since that seems to preclude the possibility of characters operating under a many-valued logic system:

Types​

Types of Alogical Existence​

1. Specific: Characters whose independence from classical logic extends to certain properties of their being, but not all of them. Examples include being both "here" and not "here", or being neither alive nor dead (not alive).
2. General: Characters who are alogical in every aspect of their being. As their very existence is paradoxical, this usually gives them some degree of resistance to Logic Manipulation.

Nature of Alogical Existence​

1. Paraconsistent: Beings which exist independently of the confines of classical logic, in a fashion that allows them to occupy the values "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding one, several, or all of their properties.
2. Many-valued: Beings which exist independently of the confines of classical logic, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.

I don't like the way the type structure is set up, because Plurality can have both specific and general types, so it makes no sense to have it as a separate category.

I would also change this:

Entities with this ability would hence instead operate under the rules of a non-classical logic, frequently a paraconsistent logic.

To this:

Entities with this ability would hence instead operate under the rules of a non-classical logic, usually a paraconsistent or many-valued logic.

So that many-valued logic is more notably accounted for.

Other than those issues, I think this is fine.

 

[Agnaa]

With there only being four possible combinations, I'd rather just list a specific plurality type, to reduce clutter on profiles themselves.

I don't care either way about the other changes Jin suggested.

 

[Jin2188]

With there only being four possible combinations, I'd rather just list a specific plurality type, to reduce clutter on profiles themselves.

I feel like that's kinda giving Plurality preferential treatment, as something uniquely special, when it really should just be listed as a second way the ability can function.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, it is kinda special.

There are ordinarily two logical states.

Paraconsistent occupies one of another two.

Plurality occupies states outside of those four.

It's an extension beyond the paraconsistent, encompassing it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As said, if we change the typing we would need to revise every profile with the ability. So I would prefer to keep it as is.

Don't think alogical is a good name, because we are still talking about logics, not things lacking logic.

Paraconsistent Physiology, sometimes also referred to as Nonduality or Transduality, is ability granted by existing in a state of being that violates the rules of classical logic. Entities with this ability would hence instead operate under the rules of a non-classical logic, frequently a paraconsistent logic and/or many-valued logic. As such they are entities that would usually be viewed as paradoxical.
Typically, entities of such a nature have some property that is not true for them and, at the same time, not false for them. Instead, it might be both true and false, neither true nor false, or in a third logical state that isn't true and false. For example: A rose with Paraconsistent Physiology could be both red and not red, neither red nor not red or the statement "the rose is red" could have the truth value "between" which the fiction has established to be a logical truth value that is neither true nor false.

This can be linked to the idea of dualities and hence also Nonduality. True and false are dualities, as is having and not having a property. In that way, being beyond such dualities would qualify as having Paraconsistent Physiology. More generally, existing outside of any duality where it's logically necessary to participate in one or the other would qualify.

We furthermore distinguish between characters who display Paraconsistent Physiology regarding one particular property and regarding all of their properties. For example, a box that is simultaneously empty and contains a doll would be considered to be of the former type, as it only breaks classical logic in regard to one of its properties, namely its emptiness. Meanwhile, a character for which none of their properties is limited to the rules of classical logic would be considered of the latter type.

Paraconsistent Physiology can grant any number of abilities and effects for the users. As they are freed from the confines of classical logic, their interaction with the world can be fundamentally different from those of regular entities and the result of interactions may be unpredictable without knowledge of the rules by which the alternate logical system they obey works.
A frequently seen, but not necessarily present, effect is that users of this ability are immune to having the property which for them is in a state beyond classical logic changed to being just true or just false instead. E.g. a character who is neither "alive" nor "not alive" might have no interaction in their logic which would allow for that state to be changed to just "not alive", meaning that they can't be killed by conventional means. Another example could be that a character who is simultaneously "here" and "not here" (in a logically paradox sense) might not be possible to be constraint to just being "here", making them immune to bindings. Overcoming such restrictions would require the use of advanced metaphysical powers, such as Causality Manipulation, Conceptual Manipulation, Information Manipulation, Law Manipulation, or Mathematics Manipulation, and the powers would need to have appropriate feats of being able to accomplish such things.
As the way things with Paraconsistent Physiology interact is dictated by their own logic, none of these effects is set in stone, though. As a result, a fiction needs to explain how the interactions function for us to assume a particular outcome.

Types

1. Specific Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic regarding one or several of their properties, but not all of them. This includes character nondual regarding one or more specific logical dual systems.
2. General Nonduality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding any of their properties. This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them occupy both or neither state of the dualities in question.
3. Plurality: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". This includes characters existing in a nondual state regarding all logical dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them exist beyond the truth values of classical logic, instead operating on a many-valued logic system with at least five truth values. Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.

Added in the many-valued things more explicitly as requested.

 

[Jin2188]

I mean, it is kinda special.

There are ordinarily two logical states.

Paraconsistent occupies one of another two.

Plurality occupies states outside of those four.

It's an extension beyond the paraconsistent, encompassing it.

It's not though. It doesn't have anything to do with being paraconsistent, it's just a separate way the ability can function. There's also the possibility of Specific Plurality, which the current type structure seems to ignore.

I guess you could just put down Specific Plurality on profiles where it's necessary, but this feels a bit "flex-tapey" to me.

As said, if we change the typing we would need to revise every profile with the ability. So I would prefer to keep it as is.

I'd rather we nip this in the bud now rather than end up having to change it anyways when someone inevitably brings this up as an issue in the future.

Don't think alogical is a good name, because we are still talking about logics, not things lacking logic.

It's independent of classical logic at least, and it was the best name I could think of that would encompass both paraconsistent and many-valued logic. I'd be fine with a different name, as long as it encompasses both of those.

 

[Theglassman12]

DT's revamp looks good for the Paraconsistent Physiology, though if we can get a consensus on how we're treating the normal dual concepts for taiji that would be fine.

Also major heads up, school's getting way too hectic for me to comment here every day so I'm not going to be as active. If the thread's reached a consensus by the staff and I'm not here, don't wait for me since I don't know when I'll be free to be able to comment on CRTs in depth.

 

[Agnaa]

It's not though. It doesn't have anything to do with being paraconsistent, it's just a separate way the ability can function.

The way it's currently framed is of an expansion.

If a logic system had the truth values of true, false, and banana, it would not qualify for plurality, since it only has three states, and our standards for plurality require five or more states.

There's also the possibility of Specific Plurality, which the current type structure seems to ignore.

I already responded to that here.

 

[Jin2188]

The way it's currently framed is of an expansion.

If a logic system had the truth values of true, false, and banana, it would not qualify for plurality, since it only has three states, and our standards for plurality require five or more states.

That would count actually, since "banana" would not be a part of the true/false logical duality, not "both true and false" or "neither true nor false".

I tried to argue previously that since it's "outside" of the duality, it should be considered superior to it, but I was shut down by DT, so unless you want to argue with him about that, it's probably better to consider many-valued and paraconsistent nonduality to be separate in nature but equivalent in power.

I already responded to that here.

That was what I was responding to. It feels like a "flex-tape" solution, patching the hole instead of addressing the root flaw, and would also make the type structure incongruent. I don't like it. Overhauling the type structure would require editing of more profiles, but would be better in the long run imo.

 

[Agnaa]

That would count actually, since "banana" would not be a part of the true/false logical duality, not "both true and false" or "neither true nor false".

I tried to argue previously that since it's "outside" of the duality, it should be considered superior to it, but I was shut down by DT, so unless you want to argue with him about that, it's probably better to consider many-valued and paraconsistent nonduality to be separate in nature but equivalent in power.

I'm talking about the way it's currently framed. See Nonduality:

Characters existing in a nondual state regarding all dual systems within an entire level of reality in a way that makes them exist beyond the classical states of contradiction-allowing logic, instead operating on a many-valued logic system with at least five truth values. Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A. This type of nonduality immunizes the user against all attacks and haxes that scale to fewer logical states than the user.

That was what I was responding to. It feels like a "flex-tape" solution, patching the hole instead of addressing the root flaw, and would also make the type structure incongruent. I don't like it. Overhauling the type structure would require editing of more profiles, but would be better in the long run imo.

I think it's quite congruent.

I think having two types just doesn't work very well when there's only two of each.

 

[Jin2188]

I'm talking about the way it's currently framed. See Nonduality:

"Both true and false" and "neither true nor false" are not truth values, they're combinations of truth values. Therefore, this current formulation is factually incorrect.

I think it's quite congruent.

I think having two types just doesn't work very well when there's only two of each.

Plurality should be a nature, not a type. It follows the same basic concept of the ability, but operates in a different manner. It should not be roped in with the Specific and General types, as if it's somehow it's own type that isn't (necessarily) Specific or General.

Like, I guess you could have it like this?

Types​

1. Paraconsistent Specific: Characters whose independence from classical logic extends to certain properties of their being, but not all of them. Examples include being both "here" and not "here", or being neither alive nor dead (not alive).
2. Paraconsistent General: Characters who are alogical in every aspect of their being. As their very existence is paradoxical, this usually gives them some degree of resistance to Logic Manipulation.
3. Many-valued Specific: Beings which possess certain alogical properties in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.
4. Many-valued General: Beings whose entire being exists independently of the confines of classical logic, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false". Such characters occupy a state where they are neither A, nor not A, nor both A and not A, nor neither A nor not A, instead existing in a state one can't describe using simple combinations of A and not A.

But this seems bizarre and needless to me. You're basically duplicating the types, just with different functionality underlying them. The two types, two natures system I proposed earlier works far better in addressing this imo. I don't know why you think that's problematic. I think the way we have it set up now is problematic, because it doesn't make sense to have Plurality as a separate type independent from Specific and General. It also seems to unfairly assume the Paraconsistent paradigm as the default, and Plurality as an unusual edge case, when both are equally valid ways the ability can function, and so they should be listed equally.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think it's a problem, it just doesn't add much in terms of efficiency.

Yeah, there's some duplicated descriptions in having four types, but with having two types and two aspects there's additional wording needed on pages, despite there ultimately still only being four options enumerated.

I think this is a pretty minor thing to quibble over, I don't intend to obstinately block such a change, I just like the four types setup a little bit more.

 

[Vietthai96]

I personally agree because many people mistakenly believe that life and death, light and dark, are logical dualities, when they are not at all.

This is staff thread, since you are new, normal members need to ask staff members for permission to comment, please remember and be careful next time, Thank you.

 

[Suimei_The_Phantom]

This is staff thread, since you are new, normal members need to ask staff members for permission to comment, please remember and be careful next time, Thank you.

Okay, forgive me, I didn't know because I'm new here.

 

[Jin2188]

I don't think it's a problem, it just doesn't add much in terms of efficiency.

Yeah, there's some duplicated descriptions in having four types, but with having two types and two aspects there's additional wording needed on pages, despite there ultimately still only being four options enumerated.

Maybe instead of numerical types, we can just list the names of the type and nature for the ability on profiles.

For example, an apple which is both red and green would have the ability listed as Alogical Physiology (Specific, Paraconsistent), and you could have (Specific, Many-valued), (General, Paraconsistent), and (General, Many-valued) as well.

Additional wording? Maybe, but I think it's far less confusing then duplicating the types.

I think this is a pretty minor thing to quibble over, I don't intend to obstinately block such a change, I just like the four types setup a little bit more.

Fair. As long as the issue is addressed in some form, I'm not too fussed about the specifics.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Jin2188]

So are we just waiting for DT to come back for a conclusion to this? It's been a while since this thread has been active.

 

[Agnaa]

Might want some more staff approval for such a big change.

 

[Jin2188]

Might want some more staff approval for such a big change.

Should we hold a vote then?

 

[Agnaa]

Got 5 votes agreeing, including 3 admins, so far, with DT's draft.

 

[Antvasima]

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.

Thank you. That would be greatly appreciated.