Adding Nonduality to Omnipotence

[StrymULTRA]

Permission given to me by @Agnaa.

This was something I planned to do for a while, but couldn't due to time restrains, but seeing the CRT regarding the Tier 0 for The Force, and this comment in particular reminded me of it.

I have noticed that Nonduality is missing on the Applications section of the page, which I personally find really weird, given that the entire basis of a Tier 0 is to transcend any kind of distinction, differentiation, description, so Tier 0s would clearly also have Plurality due to them preceding logic and being beyond and kind of difference in states of being in any kind of dictoctomy. Them having Plurality is something that had to be expected, as no logical state can define such a being.

Note, I am well aware that despite the fact that the Omnipotence page says that a Tier 0 would obviously have all the possible forms of the abilities it lists, our Tier 0 pages give only the specific forms they're shown in-verse as a specific application, like Divine Creator having only 2 types of Immortality and 3 aspects of NEP, or TBoM God having only Type 5 for its Acausality, but obviously they're not limited to only such in actuality due to their Omnipotence. However, the point of this Thread is to give to the page the ability that is linked to one of the ways to even get such a rating in the 1st place, aka being beyond all the possible descriptions and differences.

As such, a rough draft of how Nonduality can be added in the page, but if it can be improved, so be it:

Nonduality: Due to its truly incomprehensible nature and the fact that it is above every quality, differentiation and boundary, a Tier 0 cannot be defined by anything besides itself. Because of this, there cannot be any state of being that could appropriately describe it, even dual ones such as "True" and "False", "Real" and "Non-Real", or "Existent" and "Non-Existent", especially given that such a character cannot take part in any dichotomy, but instead would be above every possible system, including duality and logic as a whole.

(Yeah I know that there is a thread trying to re-define Nonduality as a whole, but it doesn't seem to really go anywhere, so why not doing this in the meantime).

 

[Agnaa]

I generally agree, but I'd strongly disagree with the wording provided.

It does not have a "truly incomprehensible nature"; it is not strong apophatic theology.

It can be defined by things besides itself (we do that on the page). There are states of being that appropriately describe it, and these include dual ones such as "existent" (one key, simple, acceptable definition is "A Tier 0 is Existence itself"). These beings can take part in dichotomies, aren't above every possible system, and aren't above duality and logic as a whole.

 

[StrymULTRA]

It does not have a "truly incomprehensible nature"; it is not strong apophatic theology.

I always assumed that it is, given that the entire basis is being beyond adjectives and qualities.

These beings can take part in dichotomies, aren't above every possible system, and aren't above duality and logic as a whole.

I don't think this is really true, as being part of a dual state means still having a quality and being bound by it.

 

[Agnaa]

I always assumed that it is, given that the entire basis is being beyond adjectives and qualities.

Not beyond adjectives, just qualities of objects.

I don't think this is really true, as being part of a dual state means still having a quality and being bound by it.

Tier 0 beings have (and are) the quality of existence. This is considered a special quality, since everything else necessarily has that quality. The Omnipotence page explains that in many places, such as here:

This emphasis on the supreme principle as going above and beyond all determinations, all contracting characterizations, also finds itself being propounded in many schools of Eastern thought. The 8th Century Indian philosopher Adi Śaṅkara posited the concept of Brahman as the nondual, distinctionless ground of existence, which is nothing other than pure existence, qualified by nothing. Perhaps in a way scandalous to more analytic sensibilities, Śaṅkara thus holds Brahman as "nirguṇa," or "without attributes."

An alternative wording for the addition you suggest could be done like:

Due to transcending all divisions that qualify objects, a Tier 0 breaks the conventional dichotomies of virtually all dual systems.

 

[FinePoint]

I essentially agree with Agnaa here. Not to mention that something being 'truly incomprehensible' by any metric would make it impossible to describe and therefore index.

Their suggested rewording makes sense to me.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

In the Tiering Revision it was explicitly argued that Monads do not violate classical logic (the law of excluded middle in particular). So even a Tier 0, or any kind of omnipotence it may have, will by default not have nonduality (or logic manipulation for that matter) as an ability.

This is specifically routed in the fact that it was argued that Monads only are beyond "qualities", not beyond having or not having properties. E.g. a monad lacks a quality of dimensionality (and there is no such thing as a quality of being non-dimensional) but it has the dual property of not being dimensional.

 

[Agnaa]

In the Tiering Revision it was explicitly argued that Monads do not violate classical logic (the law of excluded middle in particular).

Can you find where that was agreed on?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Can you find where that was agreed on?

Tiering System Revisions: Tier 0

Effectively, yes. That's why I've exemplified God from DeMatteis' Seekers into the Mystery as a premier case of something that would be Tier 0 under these proposals. "Nondual existence without any differentiation in its substance" is pretty much what Tier 0 is, here. Thank you. This seems good...

vsbattles.com

See the part about law of excluded middle here and the debate that follows.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't think that debate actually grappled with it on a substantive level.

It ultimately seems to have largely been about stuff like "How can you say it's aspatial and beyond qualities, when being aspatial is a quality?"

There wasn't a proper explanation given as to how it would fit into things like "Is a monad fire, not-fire, or in a state in relation to fire that violates the law of excluded middle?"

I guess we could take Ultima's assertions about that to just mean that it's not-fire, but I think stronger indications are provided in the Omnipotence page itself:

Supraessential Existence: As it transcends all divisions and inequalities that qualify any given object as "This, not that" or "That, not this," a Tier 0 has no borders or outlines that delimit its existence, and in being totally unlimited, it thus exists as no particular thing whatsoever.

Omnipresence: As it is not constrained to any particular, qualified, specific mode of existence, it is, in another respect, also everywhere, insofar as its being and presence necessarily can reach into any form of existence.

If it cannot be qualified as "A" or "Not A", simultaneously existing everywhere and in nothing, then it seems to violate the law of excluded middle.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally agree with Agnaa in this particular case.

 

[Vietthai96]

Yeah, pretty much what Agnaa said, if it can be constrained in a state then it is limited in existence, which isn't tier 0

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't think that debate actually grappled with it on a substantive level.

It ultimately seems to have largely been about stuff like "How can you say it's aspatial and beyond qualities, when being aspatial is a quality?"

There wasn't a proper explanation given as to how it would fit into things like "Is a monad fire, not-fire, or in a state in relation to fire that violates the law of excluded middle?"

I guess we could take Ultima's assertions about that to just mean that it's not-fire, but I think stronger indications are provided in the Omnipotence page itself:


If it cannot be qualified as "A" or "Not A", simultaneously existing everywhere and in nothing, then it seems to violate the law of excluded middle.

That seems to go against the very explicity given standpoint that it does not violate the law of excluded middle, though.
Beatlr in mind the differentiation made between property and quality here as well as the assertion of having true properties in the same post.
A reading of Monads as inherently self-contrading beings is not what was passed in my opinion and I have serious doubts that it would have.

 

[Agnaa]

That seems to go against the very explicity given standpoint that it does not violate the law of excluded middle, though.
Beatlr in mind the differentiation made between property and quality here as well as the assertion of having true properties in the same post.

I agree, but as I said, I don't think the talk of excluded middle was done in this context. As I said, the response to you bringing up the law of excluded middle was him just saying "oh don't worry, a monad's only beyond differentiated qualities under a realist framework", to make the point that being aspatial and atemporal isn't contradictory, by giving it a quality.

Like, really, the only substance for that in the thread is Ultima saying "dw about that" while talking about a largely distinct topic. I don't think it helps much for fine-grained issues such as we're discussing here.

And again, I think the text of the Omnipotence page holds priority over something briefly discussed in the thread.

A reading of Monads as inherently self-contrading beings is not what was passed in my opinion and I have serious doubts that it would have.

Funny; I believe almost the complete opposite. I think that maybe one of the (non-Ultima) qualifying voters for the system has a half-decent understanding of the implications of that (granted that I don't believe I do either), and that zero of them would care or change their votes because of that.

Especially if Ultima were to come in and handwave it away with "Well the monad is just outside of such definitions applying, its only property is existence itself, it cannot have those properties or their negations", which would still give it Nonduality.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Ah, shoot. I completely forgot about this.

In the Tiering Revision it was explicitly argued that Monads do not violate classical logic (the law of excluded middle in particular). So even a Tier 0, or any kind of omnipotence it may have, will by default not have nonduality (or logic manipulation for that matter) as an ability.

This is specifically routed in the fact that it was argued that Monads only are beyond "qualities", not beyond having or not having properties. E.g. a monad lacks a quality of dimensionality (and there is no such thing as a quality of being non-dimensional) but it has the dual property of not being dimensional.

My issue is, as Agnaa has explained, a true omnipotent being cannot be really restrained by anything, not lack an ability, as the basis of Omnipotence is the ability of doing literally anything whatsoever.

You're basically saying that such an existence cannot obtain Nonduality, or that said existence can be bounded by dualities, which really isn't ok as you're essentially saying that there's an ability that the guy who can supposedly do anything that is ever conceivable cannot replicate.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality

We seem to need your help here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I agree, but as I said, I don't think the talk of excluded middle was done in this context. As I said, the response to you bringing up the law of excluded middle was him just saying "oh don't worry, a monad's only beyond differentiated qualities under a realist framework", to make the point that being aspatial and atemporal isn't contradictory, by giving it a quality.

Like, really, the only substance for that in the thread is Ultima saying "dw about that" while talking about a largely distinct topic. I don't think it helps much for fine-grained issues such as we're discussing here.

And again, I think the text of the Omnipotence page holds priority over something briefly discussed in the thread.

Funny; I believe almost the complete opposite. I think that maybe one of the (non-Ultima) qualifying voters for the system has a half-decent understanding of the implications of that (granted that I don't believe I do either), and that zero of them would care or change their votes because of that.

Especially if Ultima were to come in and handwave it away with "Well the monad is just outside of such definitions applying, its only property is existence itself, it cannot have those properties or their negations", which would still give it Nonduality.

My understanding was always that the page avoided the particular term property because the distinction to quality was to be maintained. Hence the formulation regarding qualified.

But, quite frankly, let's solve this simply. Let Ultima specify if his model was supposed to have Monads as inherently illogical beings and, of so, I will just sooner or later make a revision on that.

Ah, shoot. I completely forgot about this.

My issue is, as Agnaa has explained, a true omnipotent being cannot be really restrained by anything, not lack an ability, as the basis of Omnipotence is the ability of doing literally anything whatsoever.

You're basically saying that such an existence cannot obtain Nonduality, or that said existence can be bounded by dualities, which really isn't ok as you're essentially saying that there's an ability that the guy who can supposedly do anything that is ever conceivable cannot replicate.

We are talking about Omnipotence in the context of Monads, though. A true omnipotent being might also be dual and not a monad. The consequence of that is that we wouldn't accept it as Tier 0 and hence not as truly Omnipotent. So it's catch 22: We never accept anything as truly Omnipotent, so if that's the reasoning the change wouldn't be relevant for anything on the wiki. Only if you talk about the limited "omnipotence" of monads is the addition worthwhile, but then your argument does not hold.

 

[Agnaa]

My issue is, as Agnaa has explained, a true omnipotent being cannot be really restrained by anything, not lack an ability, as the basis of Omnipotence is the ability of doing literally anything whatsoever.

You're basically saying that such an existence cannot obtain Nonduality, or that said existence can be bounded by dualities, which really isn't ok as you're essentially saying that there's an ability that the guy who can supposedly do anything that is ever conceivable cannot replicate.

That's not what something being listed there means.

An ability being listed on Omnipotence just means it's a basic conclusion of the definition of a monad. It doesn't include things like Text Manipulation even though Tier 0 characters can get that ability. An ability being absent doesn't mean it's impossible for a monad to get.

My understanding was always that the page avoided the particular term property because the distinction to quality was to be maintained. Hence the formulation regarding qualified.

Sure, but even if we say smth like "differentiated realist qualities cannot apply to it", I think that might still hit Nonduality, since it would neither be in a state of A nor Not A for those qualities.

But, quite frankly, let's solve this simply. Let Ultima specify if his model was supposed to have Monads as inherently illogical beings and, of so, I will just sooner or later make a revision on that.

@Ultima_Reality

We seem to need your help here.

I really would not hold my breath on that. Ultima's not even logged in for close to a week, hasn't made a post in about four weeks, and has only meaningfully participated in two threads since his four-month break.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, turns out I was able to contact him on Discord.

In short, he says that we assume non-paradoxical forms by default. A monad being beyond contraries, but not contradictories, and so often simply lacking differentiated realist qualities. The "everywhere and nowhere" stuff is just two different senses of being located in a place, by default.

Does that convince @FinePoint and @Vietthai96?

 

[FinePoint]

Well, turns out I was able to contact him on Discord.

In short, he says that we assume non-paradoxical forms by default. A monad being beyond contraries, but not contradictories, and so often simply lacking differentiated realist qualities. The "everywhere and nowhere" stuff is just two different senses of being located in a place, by default.

Does that convince @FinePoint and @Vietthai96?

"Supraessential Existence: As it transcends all divisions and inequalities that qualify any given object as "This, not that" or "That, not this," a Tier 0 has no borders or outlines that delimit its existence, and in being totally unlimited, it thus exists as no particular thing whatsoever. Consequently, it has no soul or mind, exemplifies no universal, has no information defining it, nor is subject to any other metaphysical aspect."

To me it seems clear that a Tier 0 has nonduality. We assert that they exist as no particular thing whatsoever, transcending all divisions that qualify objects. Thus they cannot be described using simple combinations of A and not A. Thus they have Nonduality. At the very least Type 2, probably 3.

Omnipotence doesn't have to transcend things which are intrinsically impossible, like a round square, but it does have to transcend things which are even theoretically possible, including an object which exists neither as A nor not A, but a secret third thing. Being nondual is not in itself a contradiction, and so not exempt.

 

[Agnaa]

To me it seems clear that a Tier 0 has nonduality. We assert that they exist as no particular thing whatsoever, transcending all divisions that qualify objects. Thus they cannot be described using simple combinations of A and not A. Thus they have Nonduality. At the very least Type 2, probably 3.

Ultima said that that's meant to be read as talking about contraries, not contradictories. For most qualities, it is simply not. With binaries of 1 and 0, it is simply 0.

This is not radical apophatic theology. It can be described as existence itself.

Omnipotence doesn't have to transcend things which are intrinsically impossible, like a round square, but it does have to transcend things which are even theoretically possible, including an object which exists neither as A nor not A, but a secret third thing. Being nondual is not in itself a contradiction, and so not exempt.

Since that's outside of classical logic, those things are treated as intrinsically impossible by default.

 

[FinePoint]

Ultima said that that's meant to be read as talking about contraries, not contradictories. For most qualities, it is simply not. With binaries of 1 and 0, it is simply 0.

This is not radical apophatic theology. It can be described as existence itself.

"As noted, they also transcend the idea of a progression between different states, and are as such immutable, being beyond the duality of "Before" and "After.""

Explain this one, liberal.

 

[Agnaa]

They're eternal and unconditioned, which is not before and not after

:3

 

[Vietthai96]

Well, turns out I was able to contact him on Discord.

In short, he says that we assume non-paradoxical forms by default. A monad being beyond contraries, but not contradictories, and so often simply lacking differentiated realist qualities. The "everywhere and nowhere" stuff is just two different senses of being located in a place, by default.

Does that convince @FinePoint and @Vietthai96?

Well, this confirmed my suspicion, since we only starting to have a serious talk about logical duality until recently

Though the texts do favor toward logical duality, semantically speaking

 

[FinePoint]

They're eternal and unconditioned, which is not before and not after

:3

›"Beyond the duality of"
›Not nondual

Someone should reword that. (Also I think there's a typo near the top of the page: ""X is Omnipotent iff")

Alright, last obstacle for you:
"Due to the very nature of their existence, Tier 0 characters technically have access to all powers and abilities displayed on this site."

 

[Vietthai96]

›"Beyond the duality of"
›Not nondual

Someone should reword that. (Also I think there's a typo near the top of the page: ""X is Omnipotent iff")

Alright, last obstacle for you:
"Due to the very nature of their existence, Tier 0 characters technically have access to all powers and abilities displayed on this site."

To be fair, the term duality in general is an all-catching term that not limited to logical duality but yeah, i agree, rewording is in order

 

[Agnaa]

›"Beyond the duality of"
›Not nondual

Someone should reword that.

Yeah.

EDIT: Ultima suggested saying "distinction of", I'm fine with that.

(Also I think there's a typo near the top of the page: ""X is Omnipotent iff")

"iff" is not a typo, it's shorthand for the logical statement "if and only if".

Alright, last obstacle for you:
"Due to the very nature of their existence, Tier 0 characters technically have access to all powers and abilities displayed on this site."

Yeah ig that is weird. I'll send it to Ultima.

EDIT: I suggest the following:

Due to the very nature of their existence, being the grounding of all logically possible structures, Tier 0 characters technically have access to virtually all powers and abilities displayed on the site.

 

[FinePoint]

Yeah.

EDIT: Ultima suggested saying "distinction of", I'm fine with that.

Sure.

"iff" is not a typo, it's shorthand for the logical statement "if and only if".

I see. I'm more of a XNOR kinda guy.
Maybe it's better to just write it out instead of using shorthand for the sake of clarity.

Yeah ig that is weird. I'll send it to Ultima.

EDIT: I suggest the following:

A simple fix but it works.

With those tweaks I suppose I'm convinced then.

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe it's better to just write it out instead of using shorthand for the sake of clarity.

Yeah that's probably for the best.

 

[Vietthai96]

Due to the very nature of their existence, being the grounding of all logically possible structures, Tier 0 characters technically have access to virtually all powers and abilities displayed on the site.

Look fine i guess, but the bolded part could still mean all, include nonduality

 

[Agnaa]

Look fine i guess, but the bolded part could still mean all, include nonduality

"virtually all" cannot mean "all".

 

[Antvasima]

So have we reached a sufficient consensus here then? I also agree with Agnaa and Ultima in this particular case for the record.

 

[Vietthai96]

So have we reached a sufficient consensus here then? I also agree with Agnaa and Ultima in this particular case for the record.

Kinda, DontTalkDT already pointed out there is no default nonduality for Tier 0, Ultima clarified this with Agnaa off-site which Agnaa seemed fine with, and updated the wording. Idk if Thread Mod vote counts in this situation or not but both me and FinePoint are fine with it, though idk if Agnaa has applies his new updated wording already or not

 

[FinePoint]

So have we reached a sufficient consensus here then? I also agree with Agnaa and Ultima in this particular case for the record.

Yeah, it seems like we have a consensus that Tier 0 doesn't have nonduality by default but there's multiple parts of the Omnipotence page which need to be tweaked to make that clearer.

 

[Antvasima]

Oh. Then I misunderstood. My apologies.

I thought that you agreed that nonduality is an inherent quality of omnipotence, as established by real world eastern spirituality, so I would much prefer that approach instead.

 

[FinePoint]

Oh. Then I misunderstood. My apologies.

I thought that you agreed that nonduality is an inherent quality of omnipotence, as established by real world eastern spirituality, so I would much prefer that approach instead.

I do agree, but Ultima does not and they designed the whole concept for this wiki so it's difficult.

That is to say, I think it should have nonduality, but it's not currently set up that way, and we'd probably need to fundamentally change our definition of what a 'logical omnipotence' is to make that happen or so it seems.

 

[FinePoint]

To elaborate, I think the notion of a 'logical omnipotence' is inherently flawed since omnipotence should entail being able to do anything you want, and being constrained by logic (which you should've created?) is categorically against that.

I've read Ultima's reasoning for that, but to me it boils down to an arbitrary assumption that something being a contradiction somehow exempts it from consideration for omnipotence just because we say it's not real.

I wasn't active whenever this was first established, but had I been I would've fought against it.

The only limit an omnipotent character should have is the fact that they're not actually real, I would reason.

 

[FinePoint]

Idk if Thread Mod vote counts in this situation or not but both me and FinePoint are fine with i

And sorry to rant a little here, but this has truly never mattered.

I've argued for and initiated institutional change before I was even a mod.

Granted, I did sort of abuse the fact that we had far less restrictions on making staff threads back then, but the point is that you can argue your position regardless of your status and if you make sense you'll sway the people who do have a vote. The vote thing is more just for organizational security, not a reason to discredit people's opinions outright.

Don't let anyone's status scare you away from making an earnest attempt to sway things towards a better future.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The fundamental problem with defining the highest tier to be of beings inherently paradoxical in nature is that you will have no way at all to justify that the tier in question is stronger than the prior tier, which would be the (closest to the) same but without the paradoxical components.
To make an argument is to use logic. You need some logic to be able to argue that your beings should have a property, such as being higher on the tiering pole than those of the next highest tier.
Problem is, you can only use a logic if your being actually abides that logic. So if your being doesn't abide classical logic, then you can't justify its stance in classical logic.
You could justify it in a different logic, which allows for paraconsistency (nonduality). Problem is, which one? There are countless such logics, so how do you decide which to use?
Classical logic has a right to be defaulted to because it is the agreed upon default in literally all of science and in everyday conversation. But once you deviate from that? There is no logic in particular to go for. You would only end up with various opinions on which logic to use and whether your argument that your being is more powerful or not holds depends on which logic you choose. There are some logics in which the being will inevitably not be as powerful.

Which means that, in the end, you won't reach anything factual. It will only ever be a belief or an opinion, not something you can objectively proof by any adequate standard.

So there is importance in Monads not being inherently paradoxical. The way we currently deal with paradoxes is that we just ignore those parts entirely for arguments, whether positive or negative. (Given, a treatment like this would IMO be better) As much as I disagree with the reasoning for Monads to be our top tier, at least it's imaginable that a reasoning exists that applies once you leave out the paradoxical parts. But if the difference between you and the next best tier is inherently grounded in being paradoxical? Well, then you couldn't have that argument.

 

[FinePoint]

The fundamental problem with defining the highest tier to be of beings inherently paradoxical in nature is that you will have no way at all to justify that the tier in question is stronger than the prior tier, which would be the (closest to the) same but without the paradoxical components.

The current definition has the exact same problem.

To be beyond differentiation is to be unable to be compared to something else.

If it can't be compared to something else then it can't really be said it's 'stronger' than it.

Which means that, in the end, you won't reach anything factual. It will only ever be a belief or an opinion, not something you can objectively proof by any adequate standard.

Consequently, we already have an opinion here. We say that because it's unbound by all the things lower tiers are, it's 'superior'- but superior in what sense? If it just is, then it can't be stronger or weaker than anything else, and it can't be superior or inferior to anything either.

We've essentially stated that lacking something means you're superior to it, which is subjective.

You've described something which is supposedly beyond comparison yet you want to compare it to everything else, which creates an inherent contradiction.

Which, for the record, I think is fine- we ignore a lot of logic for this site. I'm just not sure then why we're being precious with it for the most abstract tier we have.