• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Nonduality, and the contradicting standards within it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, Jin, please stop commenting here unless you have something genuinely extremely important to say. 🙏
 
Seeing how my draft appears to have majority approval, is there anything speaking against applying it at this point?
I believe we have waited an appropriate amount of time for further input that may sway the issue, so it might be best to just conclude this as is.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Seeing how my draft appears to have majority approval, is there anything speaking against applying it at this point?
I believe we have waited an appropriate amount of time for further input that may sway the issue, so it might be best to just conclude this as is.
Click to expand...
Considering the size of this change, perhaps it would be wise to ping everyone one last time to either cement their agreement or voice a serious objection.
 
FinePoint said:
Considering the size of this change, perhaps it would be wise to ping everyone one last time to either cement their agreement or voice a serious objection.
Click to expand...
Technically the change isn't that big as it just clarifies what is already practice.
Sure, I guess. Not gonna ping every staff member but just who commented here before. Don't want to be too much of a nuisance. No reason to assume that people who over the last two month had no desire to get involved would have one now.
Here's the draft again.
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.
Click to expand...
If anyone here has any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.

@Agnaa @FinePoint @Theglassman12 @Vietthai96 @Dereck03 @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @KLOL506
 
DontTalkDT said:
Technically the change isn't that big as it just clarifies what is already practice.
Sure, I guess. Not gonna ping every staff member but just who commented here before. Don't want to be too much of a nuisance. No reason to assume that people who over the last two month had no desire to get involved would have one now.
Here's the draft again.

If anyone here has any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.

@Agnaa @FinePoint @Theglassman12 @Vietthai96 @Dereck03 @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @KLOL506
Click to expand...
Mostly fine but it would be better if the Types section look like this
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.
Click to expand...
Remove the Nonduality text to not get any confusion
 
DontTalkDT said:
Technically the change isn't that big as it just clarifies what is already practice.
Sure, I guess. Not gonna ping every staff member but just who commented here before. Don't want to be too much of a nuisance. No reason to assume that people who over the last two month had no desire to get involved would have one now.
Here's the draft again.

If anyone here has any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...
I OBJECT

I really do still think we need to alter the types a bit, but I'm fine with having it like this:

Types​

  1. Paraconsistent Specific: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic regarding one or several of their properties, but not all of them. Examples include being both "here" and not "here", or being neither alive nor dead (not alive).
  2. Paraconsistent General: 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. Many-valued Specific: Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic regarding one or several of their 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 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". 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.
Click to expand...
So that we don't have to edit every profile with the ability. I still prefer my two types, two natures setup a bit more, but FRA, I think this is an acceptable stopgap.
 
Jin2188 said:
I OBJECT

I really do still think we need to alter the types a bit, but I'm fine with having it like this:

So that we don't have to edit every profile with the ability. I still prefer my two types, two natures setup a bit more, but FRA, I think this is an acceptable stopgap.
Click to expand...
While i could see where do you coming from. We could list both types on character profiles, such as character is specific nonduality but existing in 5 and above truth states, we could list them as
Paraconsistent Physiology (Types 1 & 3)
Click to expand...
Though probably we should tweaks plurality description a little since currently Plularity by default is beyond all logical dualities within the verse's reality
 
Vietthai96 said:
While i could see where do you coming from. We could list both types on character profiles, such as character is specific nonduality but existing in 5 and above truth states, we could list them as

Though probably we should tweaks plurality description a little since currently Plularity by default is beyond all logical dualities within the verse's reality
Click to expand...
That's very weird imo, if we're going to do that we might as well just go with the two types two natures setup. I can accept it as a stopgap solution but definitely not as something permanent.
 
Jin2188 said:
That's very weird imo, if we're going to do that we might as well just go with the two types two natures setup. I can accept it as a stopgap solution but definitely not as something permanent.
Click to expand...
The thing is two types two natures, or your suggestion is going to bloat the page, as long as we can help it, we should not bloat the page. Also, power & abilities with multiple types exist so it is not strange for this ability, we could tweaks Plurality description a little to explain to reader better
 
I also think that DontTalk's draft seems acceptable to apply. However, how well does it fit with Buddhist and Hindu concepts of nonduality? 🙏
 
Alright, I have applied the change now.
If I screwed up at carrying anything over from the draft let me know, otherwise this can be closed.
Antvasima said:
However, how well does it fit with Buddhist and Hindu concepts of nonduality? 🙏
Click to expand...
I don't know and imagine that not all believers of these religion would have the same opinion on the matter. Uniformity of interpretation between hundreds of millions of people is generally too much to expect, particularly in lack of a central organisation that dictates a canon.
However, as we renamed the ability specifically to not be related with any religious interpretations of the concept, it probably doesn't matter to the page anymore.
If someone knowledgeable feels the desire to write a blog post on nonduality in various religions I wouldn't mind, of course.
 
DontTalkDT said:
If someone knowledgeable feels the desire to write a blog post on nonduality in various religions I wouldn't mind, of course.
Click to expand...
@Ultima_Reality

Would you be interested in creating that type of explanation page for our wiki? Perhaps it could be called "Nonduality in real world religious and spiritual contexts", be turned into a regular wiki page, and linked to at the bottom of our "Paraconsistent Physiology" page? 🙏
 
I'm still seeing some confusion about Paraconsistent Physiology, so I think it's worthwhile adding a brief mention that something like "being above good and evil" does not count, because "good" and "evil" do not cover all possible states, something would have to be outside of "good and not good" or "evil and not evil" in order to qualify.
 
Also, a member asked about the new page didn't differentiate between Nondual and Transdual like the old page. So about this, should we differentiate them or not?, since iirc DontTalk said being Nondual doesn't necessary give resistance/immunity toward thing bound by duality, while Transdual automatically give those resistances/immunities. And transdual require you to actually transcend duality. Idk if these thing still applies
 
I suggested to remove that wording, for this reason:
Agnaa said:
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).
Click to expand...
It's not really a coherent idea any more. "transduality" is either impossible, or something that every single 1-A and above character has.

It was already a pretty nonsensical idea that we invented, without prior basis in philosophy.
 
Agnaa said:
I suggested to remove that wording, for this reason:

It's not really a coherent idea any more. "transduality" is either impossible, or something that every single 1-A and above character has.

It was already a pretty nonsensical idea that we invented, without prior basis in philosophy.
Click to expand...
Oke boss, somehow i missed that post entirely,

Wait, we have Low 1-A characters with transdual
 
We need to create a page/section for conceptual immunity.

We've already made a good deal of headway on that discussion, but I'm not sure whether we should keep that here, or spin up a new thread.
 
Agnaa said:
We need to create a page/section for conceptual immunity.

We've already made a good deal of headway on that discussion, but I'm not sure whether we should keep that here, or spin up a new thread.
Click to expand...
I could make one if I can have staff permission to do so. I can write up a draft tomorrow if you need that.
 
Ehh yeah I'd wanna see a draft, to tell how you'd incorporate earlier stuff from this thread on the topic.
 
I think making a new thread on the conceptual immunity stuff would be best.

I see five options:
  1. Make it a separate page.
  2. Add it to resistance, like other immunity is.
  3. Add it to invulnerability, as it's a similar idea.
  4. Make a page for immunity and conceptual immunity together, as they are closer related than immunity is to resistance. Remove immunity from the resistance page.
  5. Make a page for immunity, invulnerability and conceptual immunity together, as they are all the "unaffected" powers. Remove those from other pages.
 
DontTalkDT said:
I think making a new thread on the conceptual immunity stuff would be best.

I see five options:
  1. Make it a separate page.
  2. Add it to resistance, like other immunity is.
  3. Add it to invulnerability, as it's a similar idea.
  4. Make a page for immunity and conceptual immunity together, as they are closer related than immunity is to resistance. Remove immunity from the resistance page.
  5. Make a page for immunity, invulnerability and conceptual immunity together, as they are all the "unaffected" powers. Remove those from other pages.
Click to expand...
Who should make it?
 
Draft 1:

Title: Dedicated Immunity Page Creation

Description:

This thread is in response to the recent discussion on this thread, in order to resolve the debate surrounding a potential metaphysical/conceptual immunity page. A lot of progress has already been made regarding that discussion, so I will not go into too much detail here; this thread exists simply to wrap things up and reach a conclusion on what should be done.

@DontTalkDT presented five options:
DontTalkDT said:
  1. Make it a separate page.
  2. Add it to resistance, like other immunity is.
  3. Add it to invulnerability, as it's a similar idea.
  4. Make a page for immunity and conceptual immunity together, as they are closer related than immunity is to resistance. Remove immunity from the resistance page.
  5. Make a page for immunity, invulnerability and conceptual immunity together, as they are all the "unaffected" powers. Remove those from other pages.
Click to expand...

Out of these options, I support 4>2>1>3>5. I don't think it's a good idea to lump Invulnerability in with Immunity, because while the concept might be similar, Invulnerability deals with AP, while Immunity deals with abilities. They remain distinct, and so should not be put together for the same reason why Durability Negation and Power Nullification should not be put together. On the other hand, however, I think Metaphysical Immunity overlaps too much with regular Immunity to have it as a separate page.

I think making a separate Immunity page and including the conceptual immunity stuff within it is the best option. I'm not a huge fan of Option 2 (appending it to the Resistance page), but I won't try to block that should that be what staff agrees on.


I can edit this draft to add or remove certain things if necessary.
 
I think it should include at least a brief description of what it's intended to cover. Such as this one by DT:
Metaphysical Immunity is the ability to be immune to certain attacks, abilities or more generally effects due to lacking or not being able to participate in certain metaphysical aspects connected to that effect. An example would be the inability to be burned due to not being able to participate in the concept of being burned. As they can't participate in the concept of being burned, no matter how strong of a fire is directed at them, the result of being burned couldn't be realized.
Frequently this is also less formally formulated as "lacking a concept", such as an entity being immortal due to lacking the concept of death.
Note that this ability should only be granted to things that usually would be able to have the respective effect applied to them. E.g. minds and souls usually don't have such a thing as temperature and can hence, in the usual sense of the term, also not participate in things like being heated or burned. However, that wouldn't give them this ability, as that is the expected state of existence for these things.
Click to expand...
 
Agnaa said:
I think it should include at least a brief description of what it's intended to cover. Such as this one by DT:
Click to expand...
Alright.

Draft 2:

Title: Dedicated Immunity Page Creation

Description:

This thread is in response to the recent discussion on this thread, in order to resolve the debate surrounding a potential metaphysical/conceptual immunity page, a potential draft of which was provided by @DontTalkDT:
Metaphysical Immunity is the ability to be immune to certain attacks, abilities or more generally effects due to lacking or not being able to participate in certain metaphysical aspects connected to that effect. An example would be the inability to be burned due to not being able to participate in the concept of being burned. As they can't participate in the concept of being burned, no matter how strong of a fire is directed at them, the result of being burned couldn't be realized.
Frequently this is also less formally formulated as "lacking a concept", such as an entity being immortal due to lacking the concept of death.
Note that this ability should only be granted to things that usually would be able to have the respective effect applied to them. E.g. minds and souls usually don't have such a thing as temperature and can hence, in the usual sense of the term, also not participate in things like being heated or burned. However, that wouldn't give them this ability, as that is the expected state of existence for these things.
Click to expand...
A lot of progress has already been made regarding this discussion, so I will not go into further detail here; this thread exists simply to wrap things up and reach a conclusion on what should be done.

DT presented five options:
DontTalkDT said:
  1. Make it a separate page.
  2. Add it to resistance, like other immunity is.
  3. Add it to invulnerability, as it's a similar idea.
  4. Make a page for immunity and conceptual immunity together, as they are closer related than immunity is to resistance. Remove immunity from the resistance page.
  5. Make a page for immunity, invulnerability and conceptual immunity together, as they are all the "unaffected" powers. Remove those from other pages.
Click to expand...

Out of these options, I support 4>2>1>3>5. I don't think it's a good idea to lump Invulnerability in with Immunity, because while the concept might be similar, Invulnerability deals with AP, while Immunity deals with abilities. They remain distinct, and so should not be put together for the same reason why Durability Negation and Power Nullification should not be put together. On the other hand, however, I think Metaphysical Immunity overlaps too much with regular Immunity to have it as a separate page.

I think making a separate Immunity page and including the conceptual immunity stuff within it is the best option. I'm not a huge fan of Option 2 (appending it to the Resistance page), but I won't try to block that should that be what staff agrees on.
 
Looks good to me!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

StrymULTRA
Adding Nonduality to Omnipotence
3 4 5
Replies
174
Views
17K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Robo432343
Chinamen Nonduality
2 3 4
Replies
136
Views
9K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
FriendOfTheTeaParty
Sonic Nonduality Removal
Replies
16
Views
3K
Omegabronic
Omegabronic
Berga14
Paraconsistent Physiology 1 or 2 or whatever
Replies
5
Views
529
Apotheosis69
Apotheosis69
Grabbing_dragon
  • Locked
Arceus Nep and Nonduality fix
Replies
26
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top