Adding Nonduality to Omnipotence

[DontTalkDT]

Even if we stick to classical logic, that doesn't tell us that such paradoxical things are weaker, it only tells us that such things are impossible (or in other words, are paradoxical; or in other words, collapse under the principle of explosion).

But if we defer that explosion to the fictional world where such things are asserted as true, I think we can still say from outside of it that being able to perform those things represents more capabilities, and so can reasonably be described as "stronger".

If we stick to classical logic, the principle of explosion proves us that every conclusion starting with such a paradoxical premise is valid. Therefore, we don't get it's stronger or weaker or anything. Of course, I absolutely do not intend to accept a burden of proof on them being not-stronger.

You speak of defering explosion, but that only works if you restrict yourself to reasoning steps which don't have contradictions as their premise. That they even have more capabilities, or that those are relevant, is not given without such premises.
Furthermore, I remind that a monads standing is currently justified by not being many things. If you take the possibility of a monad being partially in paraconsitent states into account, the reasoning for their standing crumbles. A monad without qualities can't be restrained to a lesser reality, but can a monad with qualities in a third truth value?
Consider that our monads are currently actually restricted from doing many things other characters can. They aren't entities defined by their ability to do whatever they like in whichever state they desire. So that adding more possibilities is inherently good isn't a given at all. To return to my initial point, to be able to do more may as well include possibilities detrimental to you. Is a monad that can paradoxically permanently die stronger than a regular logically consistent monad just due to that extra possibility? Not really.


Given, overall we would need a more solid system to even debate this properly in my opinion. I can see how "defering explosion" by just excluding paradoxes from the premise of any argument is not a satisfying standpoint. Simultaneously, just cherry picking any conclusion we wish from the paradoxical pool, while discarding anything paradoxical which doesn't fit our preconceived notions outright, is unjustified.
So I would like to propose that we adopt this as our standard for analyzing paradoxical matters in literature. That's still plenty case-by-case, but having at least some foundation would really help IMO.

 

[Agnaa]

If we stick to classical logic, the principle of explosion proves us that every conclusion starting with such a paradoxical premise is valid. Therefore, we don't get it's stronger or weaker or anything. Of course, I absolutely do not intend to accept a burden of proof on them being not-stronger.

You speak of defering explosion, but that only works if you restrict yourself to reasoning steps which don't have contradictions as their premise. That they even have more capabilities, or that those are relevant, is not given without such premises.

I don't think simply talking about something that is paradoxical results in explosion. I don't think asking the question:

Is "This sentence is false" a sentence?

Would result in an explosion within a system of classical logic. And if it does, that means that our reality and discussions can't operate under that, since we can ask such questions.

We can talk about things without taking their truth as a premise.

Furthermore, I remind that a monads standing is currently justified by not being many things. If you take the possibility of a monad being partially in paraconsitent states into account, the reasoning for their standing crumbles. A monad without qualities can't be restrained to a lesser reality, but can a monad with qualities in a third truth value?
Consider that our monads are currently actually restricted from doing many things other characters can. They aren't entities defined by their ability to do whatever they like in whichever state they desire. So that adding more possibilities is inherently good isn't a given at all. To return to my initial point, to be able to do more may as well include possibilities detrimental to you. Is a monad that can paradoxically permanently die stronger than a regular logically consistent monad just due to that extra possibility? Not really.

I think those sorts of things are technically possible, if they're couched in clear expressions of how they're not simply anti-feats. I don't think we'd say that an invocation of the Christian God has an anti-feat through mentioning the death of Jesus.

And by that reasoning, we would by default assume that other monads could do those things.

Given, overall we would need a more solid system to even debate this properly in my opinion. I can see how "defering explosion" by just excluding paradoxes from the premise of any argument is not a satisfying standpoint. Simultaneously, just cherry picking any conclusion we wish from the paradoxical pool, while discarding anything paradoxical which doesn't fit our preconceived notions outright, is unjustified.
So I would like to propose that we adopt this as our standard for analyzing paradoxical matters in literature. That's still plenty case-by-case, but having at least some foundation would really help IMO.

I really would rather talk to you than read a seventeen-page paper, unless you assert that it's absolutely necessary.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I really would rather talk to you than read a seventeen-page paper, unless you assert that it's absolutely necessary.

Subtract the front page and appendix and it's only 15 pages!
Given, I could try to summarize it, I'm just not really sure how much of a favor I would really be doing you with that. The paper doesn't have anything I would consider meaningless fluff. If anything I would rather add further remarks to it.
I can still try to summarize it in some, if you really want me to. We can omit some of the precision for our purposes (even if the precision is part of what makes the approach nice). However, that will require lots of work, so it will have to wait for a while.

I will get back to your other points, and the summary if it's required, at a later date.

 

[Jin2188]

Permission granted by @Antvasima.

I think the issue here is that we provide contradictory definitions for the nature of Tier 0. We say that it's "being itself", but also that it's beyond any distinctions and dualities, with the dichotomy of "being and non-being" itself being a duality.

We also say this:

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.

But then we say this too:

That being the case, it is possible to say that it is prior to the modal category of possibility. That is not to say that it is necessarily an impossible or illogical object, however, as it is also coherent to think of it as grounding the framework of logic itself as its exemplar. If one were to use the language of the First as the "condition" for existence, this would mean that a given proposition only qualifies as a logical possibility if it meets this condition, and otherwise is an impossibility.

We say that it can't exemplify any universal, but "being itself" is a universal (the supreme universal, perhaps, which all things participate in, but this is irrelevant).

Either Tier 0 is "being itself", or it's beyond all differentiation (necessitating that it possess Nonduality). It cannot be both.

 

[Agnaa]

Permission granted by @Antvasima.

I think the issue here is that we provide contradictory definitions for the nature of Tier 0. We say that it's "being itself", but also that it's beyond any distinctions and dualities, with the dichotomy of "being and non-being" itself being a duality.

We also say this:

But then we say this too:


We say that it can't exemplify any universal, but "being itself" is a universal (the supreme universal, perhaps, which all things participate in, but this is irrelevant).

Either Tier 0 is "being itself", or it's beyond all differentiation (necessitating that it possess Nonduality). It cannot be both.

That has already been addressed on the first page of this thread (it's not beyond differentiation, it's beyond differentiated realist qualities that are merely contraries, and not contradictories; this is explicitly not nondual).

Some of those wordings you point to have been agreed to be changed, with alternative wordings proposed back there.

 

[Jin2188]

That has already been addressed on the first page of this thread.

Those wordings you point to have been agreed to be changed, and I have proposed alternative wordings.

You argued this earlier:

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.

My argument is that it cannot be, at least if we're still going with the idea of it being beyond all differentiation. It cannot exist within any dichotomy, it cannot be 1 or 0, it would have to be something more like the Atzmus from Unsong.

So my assumption here is that you're ditching the idea of it transcending all differentiation and sticking with the idea of it as "being itself". In that case, I fail to see what separates it from High 1-A+ Type 2. Additionally, although this might be a bit of a stretch, it introduces the potential for there to be multiple Tier 0s per verse, since them being differentiated from each other would no longer be a disqualifier.

 

[Agnaa]

You argued this earlier:

My argument is that it cannot be, at least if we're still going with the idea of it being beyond all differentiation. It cannot exist within any dichotomy, it cannot be 1 or 0, it would have to be something more like the Atzmus from Unsong.

I edited my last post to clarify this, but it seems like you read my post before that, so I'll quote that here:

That has already been addressed on the first page of this thread (it's not beyond differentiation, it's beyond differentiated realist qualities that are merely contraries, and not contradictories; this is explicitly not nondual).

Some of those wordings you point to have been agreed to be changed, with alternative wordings proposed back there.

So my assumption here is that you're ditching the idea of it transcending all differentiation and sticking with the idea of it as "being itself".

Mostly correct, but I'm not ditching that; that was apparently Ultima and DT's intention all along, it just wasn't worded in some pages properly.

In that case, I fail to see what separates it from High 1-A+ Type 2.

I can only see you struggling to see that if you misunderstand what "being existence itself" is.

It's not saying that, for example, the monad and reality are identical.

It's saying that the monad is identical to the quality of existence.

Everything that exists can be described as "It exists, and..." followed by a list of qualities that distinguish that thing in particular. Location in space or lack thereof, colour, etc. The monad is identical to the quality "it exists" which everything else must participate in.

While High 1-A+ Type 2 would be described by "It exists, and..." followed by a description of the qualities held by all possible worlds, separating it from Tier 0.

Additionally, although this might be a bit of a stretch, it introduces the potential for there to be multiple Tier 0s per verse, since them being differentiated from each other would no longer be a disqualifier.

I'd hope you can see why that doesn't work, based on my elaboration.

 

[Jin2188]

I edited my last post to clarify this, but it seems like you read my post before that, so I'll quote that here:

So what is it really transcending then? If it just occupies the value of "false" for all contraries, then it isn't really transcending anything meaningful, and so the tier is frivolous.

Mostly correct, but I'm not ditching that; that was apparently Ultima and DT's intention all along, it just wasn't worded in some pages properly.

See above for why I have issue with this.

I can only see you struggling to see that if you misunderstand what "being existence itself" is.

It's not saying that, for example, the monad and reality are identical.

It's saying that the monad is identical to the quality of existence.

Everything that exists can be described as "It exists, and..." followed by a list of qualities that distinguish that thing in particular. Location in space or lack thereof, colour, etc. The monad is identical to the quality "it exists" which everything else must participate in.

While High 1-A+ Type 2 would be described by "It exists, and..." followed by a description of the qualities held by all possible worlds, separating it from Tier 0.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this explanation seems similar to the one on the Omnipotence page:

If one were to use the language of the First as the "condition" for existence, this would mean that a given proposition only qualifies as a logical possibility if it meets this condition, and otherwise is an impossibility.

High 1-A+ Type 2 is the set of all possible worlds, and thus contains all reality and all "things" within it. Therefore, something can only be a thing if it is within this set.

To use more precise language, in order for something to be a subset of High 1-A+ Type 2 (and therefore, to exist), it must possess the qualities that High 1-A+ Type 2 inherently possesses. These qualities are therefore necessary in order for something to exist.

Therefore, High 1-A+ Type 2 contains the "conditions" for existence. So does Tier 0.

Therefore, High 1-A+ Type 2 and Tier 0 are functionally identical.

You could reword this, I guess, but I don't see how you can in a way that generates an actually meaningful difference between High 1-A+ Type 2 and Tier 0.

 

[Agnaa]

So what is it really transcending then? If it just occupies the value of "false" for all contraries, then it isn't really transcending anything meaningful, and so the tier is frivolous.

It is a necessary precursor for everything that exists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this explanation seems similar to the one on the Omnipotence page:

High 1-A+ Type 2 is the set of all possible worlds, and thus contains all reality and all "things" within it. Therefore, something can only be a thing if it is within this set.

To use more precise language, in order for something to be a subset of High 1-A+ Type 2 (and therefore, to exist), it must possess the qualities that High 1-A+ Type 2 inherently possesses. These qualities are therefore necessary in order for something to exist.

Therefore, High 1-A+ Type 2 contains the "conditions" for existence. So does Tier 0.

Therefore, High 1-A+ Type 2 and Tier 0 are functionally identical.

You could reword this, I guess, but I don't see how you can in a way that generates an actually meaningful difference between High 1-A+ Type 2 and Tier 0.

They're similar, but they're distinct. High 1-A+ Type 2 is the contents, Tier 0 is the container/framework.

High 1-A+ Type 2 does not contain the conditions that things need to exist, it is simply the collection of everything that exists. The set of all natural numbers does not define the natural numbers, the axiomatic construction of them does.

Things do not need there to be a High 1-A+ Type 2 collection in order for them to exist. It is conceivable for only a portion of all possible worlds to have been actualised. The number 9 does not need all other natural numbers in order to exist, there can be number systems which do not contain arbitrarily large numbers.

 

[Jin2188]

It is a necessary precursor for everything that exists.

I guess that makes sense, but that also conflicts with Ultima saying in the past (I don't have a source for this, but I'm like, 99% sure so I guess just trust me bro) that Tier 0 was meant to be a sort of "giga-outerversal", so I don't really know what to say here.

They're similar, but they're distinct. High 1-A+ Type 2 is the contents, Tier 0 is the container/framework.

High 1-A+ Type 2 does not contain the conditions that things need to exist, it is simply the collection of everything that exists. The set of all natural numbers does not define the natural numbers, the axiomatic construction of them does.

Things do not need there to be a High 1-A+ Type 2 collection in order for them to exist. It is conceivable for only a portion of all possible worlds to have been actualised. The number 9 does not need all other natural numbers in order to exist, there can be number systems which do not contain arbitrarily large numbers.

I was under the impression that High 1-A+ Type 1 was the contents, Type 2 was the container, and Tier 0 was the ground/source/creator of the framework. This is what the Tiering System implies:

The apex of this tier, represented also by a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Outerverse level+), corresponds to characters whose power encompasses meta-qualities, meta-meta-qualities, and any and all conceivable extensions of this process, being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought), being characters who either have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds, or embody the framework of such worlds itself.

If this is not the case, then this is yet another reason in my book why High 1-A+ Type 2 should be deleted. There is no place for it between High 1-A+ Type 1 and Tier 0.

Additionally, my point still stands about there potentially being multiple Tier 0s under this definition. The Peano axioms formalize the construction of the natural numbers, and the key word here is "axioms", plural. Eric Perl describes God as embodying the law of non-contradiction:

This is not to say that God can violate that principle; on the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that for the Neoplatonists, God or the One is the principle of non-contradiction. For what is that principle but the very condition of intelligibility and therefore of being? “To be is to be intelligible” means that to be is to conform to the laws of thought, which necessarily apprehends its object as determined by certain attributes and (therefore) as excluding the contradictory ones.

With the LNC being just one of the laws of thought; again, laws, plural.

Of course this doesn't have to be the case, but the mere fact that it can be undermines the whole foundation of the idea of Tier 0 as a Monad, which is a problem because then we have no tier for entities (sous rature) that are truly beyond differentiation.

I think the best solution here is to nuke the current High 1-A+ Type 2 and replace it with this idea of "being itself", opening up Tier 0 as the radical apophaticism tier.

 

[Agnaa]

I guess that makes sense, but that also conflicts with Ultima saying in the past (I don't have a source for this, but I'm like, 99% sure so I guess just trust me bro) that Tier 0 was meant to be a sort of "giga-outerversal", so I don't really know what to say here.

That's what it was in the past (so that may be why you saw him say that), but absolutely is not what it is now.

I was under the impression that High 1-A+ Type 1 was the contents, Type 2 was the container, and Tier 0 was the ground/source/creator of the framework. This is what the Tiering System implies:

Sure, change the word framework, but High 1-A+ Type 1 is definitely not the contents.

If this is not the case, then this is yet another reason in my book why High 1-A+ Type 2 should be deleted. There is no place for it between High 1-A+ Type 1 and Tier 0.

High 1-A+ Type 1 is the ability to affect arbitrarily many worlds. High 1-A+ Type 2 physically embodies all worlds.

These are quite different; High 1-A+ Type 1 is not the contents.

For an imperfect analogy; High 1-A+ Type 1 is "the largest finite number that can be described in less than forty words", High 1-A+ Type 2 is "the set of all finite numbers", and Tier 0 is the axioms that produce them.

Additionally, my point still stands about there potentially being multiple Tier 0s under this definition. The Peano axioms formalize the construction of the natural numbers, and the key word here is "axioms", plural. Eric Perl describes God as embodying the law of non-contradiction:

With the LNC being just one of the laws of thought; again, laws, plural.

You can only make an actual link to Tier 0, in that case, if you say that the monad is all of the laws underlying the system, not just one of them. And if you do that, then you can't potentially have multiple Tier 0s.

 

[Jin2188]

That's what it was in the past (so that may be why you saw him say that), but absolutely is not what it is now.

Shame. My point about there being no tier for radical apophaticism still stands then. Unless you want to suggest that such a thing is stupid/impossible, in which case I strongly disagree.

Sure, change the word framework, but High 1-A+ Type 1 is definitely not the contents.

High 1-A+ Type 1 is the ability to affect arbitrarily many worlds. High 1-A+ Type 2 physically embodies all worlds.

These are quite different; High 1-A+ Type 1 is not the contents.

For an imperfect analogy; High 1-A+ Type 1 is "the largest finite number that can be described in less than forty words", High 1-A+ Type 2 is "the set of all finite numbers", and Tier 0 is the axioms that produce them.

This is a pretty frivolous distinction imo. If not frivolous, then quite problematic.

You've argued elsewhere that the set of all possible worlds (High 1-A+ Type 2) should be immutable, but that presents a problem since that means that all subsets of that set would also be immutable, since manipulating a subset means manipulating the set itself, which we're asserting can't be manipulated. This means that High 1-A+ Type 1 characters, as well as everyone below them, aren't actually capable of creating/destroying/manipulating anything, merely flinging themselves through possibility space. Unless you want to completely invalidate all of powerscaling (and therefore the entire purpose of this wiki), then this is obviously not a desirable conclusion.

On the other hand, if we allow manipulation of subsets, then High 1-A+ Type 1 essentially boils down to manipulating the contents, instead of just "arbitrarily many of them", since by manipulating the subsets, you manipulate the set, and so the distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 falls apart.

Either Type 2 gets nuked, or the entire wiki gets nuked, its entire purpose completely invalidated.

 

[Agnaa]

Shame. My point about there being no tier for radical apophaticism still stands then. Unless you want to suggest that such a thing is stupid/impossible, in which case I strongly disagree.

I dislike that we don't have a way to account for that, and that was one of my issues with this current tiering system when it was first suggested.

This is a pretty frivolous distinction imo. If not frivolous, then quite problematic.

You've argued elsewhere that the set of all possible worlds (High 1-A+ Type 2) should be immutable, but that presents a problem since that means that all subsets of that set would also be immutable, since manipulating a subset means manipulating the set itself, which we're asserting can't be manipulated. This means that High 1-A+ Type 1 characters, as well as everyone below them, aren't actually capable of creating/destroying/manipulating anything, merely flinging themselves through possibility space. Unless you want to completely invalidate all of powerscaling (and therefore the entire purpose of this wiki), then this is obviously not a desirable conclusion.

Yes, that is exactly what happens. But I don't think that completely invalidates all of powerscaling.

It's equivalent to saying that "everything is predetermined; what is fated to happen cannot be changed"; those sorts of simple statements, that can come up at far lower ratings, does not make a series unable to be scaled. It doesn't mean we should ignore someone punching a wall down. They still did that, and expended effort to do that, but the fact that they would and its results were already assured as a part of the way reality works.

 

[Jin2188]

I dislike that we don't have a way to account for that, and that was one of my issues with this current tiering system when it was first suggested.

I proposed a solution to this in a previous post, but it would involve nuking High 1-A+ Type 2, which you also seem to have issue with. So we're in a bit of a bind.

Yes, that is exactly what happens. But I don't think that completely invalidates all of powerscaling.

It's equivalent to saying that "everything is predetermined; what is fated to happen cannot be changed"; those sorts of simple statements, that can come up at far lower ratings, does not make a series unable to be scaled. It doesn't mean we should ignore someone punching a wall down. They still did that, and expended effort to do that, but the fact that they would and its results were already assured as a part of the way reality works.

I guess that makes sense, even if I don't really like it. Powerscaling essentially shifts from a question of "how much stuff can this character affect?" to "how big is the region of possibility space that this character has access to?" High 1-A+ Type 1 has access to all of possibility space, i.e. they can go anywhere.

I don't really need to debate this further honestly, I have other reasons for wanting to nuke Type 2 anyways.

Also since I forgot to respond to this:

You can only make an actual link to Tier 0, in that case, if you say that the monad is all of the laws underlying the system, not just one of them. And if you do that, then you can't potentially have multiple Tier 0s.

Why? Like, structurally, why must this be the case? This seems arbitrary to me.

Also, how do we tier characters who only embody one of the laws, and not all of them? Such characters are distinct from High 1-A+ Type 2, so we can't put them there. Is this another case of "we can't, and that sucks, but it is what it is"? Because if so, then we should be looking for a solution.

 

[Antvasima]

Please explain High 1-A+ Type 2, and your problems with this definition.

 

[Jin2188]

Please explain High 1-A+ Type 2, and your problems with this definition.

With the set of all possible worlds being immutable, High 1-A+ Type 2 is basically just Type 1 but with Omnipresence and Invulnerability. Therefore it should be treated as such.

That's my general stance, although I don't want to infect this thread with a discussion that belongs elsewhere. The main point of this thread is Tier 0.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. And where in our wiki do we officially mention this definition?

 

[Agnaa]

With the set of all possible worlds being immutable, High 1-A+ Type 2 is basically just Type 1 but with Omnipresence and Invulnerability. Therefore it should be treated as such.

That's my general stance, although I don't want to infect this thread with a discussion that belongs elsewhere. The main point of this thread is Tier 0.

That's being discussed in this thread.

Where it seems like the likely conclusion is allowing tiers Low 1-A and above to be reached via size/state, not just through output.

 

[Jin2188]

That's being discussed in this thread.

Where it seems like the likely conclusion is allowing tiers Low 1-A and above to be reached via size/state, not just through output.

That's because 1-A and High 1-A have their AP inherently tied to their state of existence. Not the case for High 1-A+ Type 2.

 

[Agnaa]

That's because 1-A and High 1-A have their AP inherently tied to their state of existence. Not the case for High 1-A+ Type 2.

That's not why. The reasoning you're discussing was mentioned since the very start of the thread.

Please stop bringing it up in this unrelated thread.

 

[Jin2188]

That's not why. The reasoning you're discussing was mentioned since the very start of the thread.

Please stop bringing it up in this unrelated thread.

That's what I've been arguing should be why, and I see no reason to alter my stance.

But you're right, we should save this discussion for that thread, not this one.

 

[Agnaa]

I proposed a solution to this in a previous post, but it would involve nuking High 1-A+ Type 2, which you also seem to have issue with. So we're in a bit of a bind.

I'm not even sure if that would be sufficient; are you certain that radical apophaticism is the only other plausible level of power beyond our current baseline monads? I'm not, I know some people who previously worked on our tiering system were able to come up with multiple higher ones.

Why? Like, structurally, why must this be the case? This seems arbitrary to me.

I don't understand why you think they could.

How could you possibly draw an equivalence between a single law of logic (such as that of non-contradiction) and "the property of existence itself"? Especially given how multiple distinct laws like that would have their own limited functions on the operations of reality, with their addition/removal/alteration being quite theoretically plausible.

Also, how do we tier characters who only embody one of the laws, and not all of them? Such characters are distinct from High 1-A+ Type 2, so we can't put them there. Is this another case of "we can't, and that sucks, but it is what it is"? Because if so, then we should be looking for a solution.

Abstract Existence, and AP over however much of a structure they influence. Presumably capped at High 1-A+ Type 1.

 

[Jin2188]

I'm not even sure if that would be sufficient; are you certain that radical apophaticism is the only other plausible level of power beyond our current baseline monads? I'm not, I know some people who previously worked on our tiering system were able to come up with multiple higher ones.

Is it possible for you to provide some examples? I see the current Tier 0 as sort of a limit to rational/conceptual thought, with anything beyond being something that we can ultimately say nothing rational about (i.e. radical apophaticism), but I'd certainly be interested in seeing other perspectives regarding this.

I don't understand why you think they could.

How could you possibly draw an equivalence between a single law of logic (such as that of non-contradiction) and "the property of existence itself"? Especially given how multiple distinct laws like that would have their own limited functions on the operations of reality, with their addition/removal/alteration being quite theoretically plausible.

The way I see it is that there is no single, discrete "property of existence", rather, certain laws (laws of thought, laws of physics, whatever) put "constraints" on reality, such that anything that is within the bounds of those laws can be said to exist, and anything that does not cannot. The "property of existence", therefore, is a product of the laws of thought, not the other way around.

Abstract Existence, and AP over however much of a structure they influence. Presumably capped at High 1-A+ Type 1.

Could we not do the same to an entity which embodies all the laws? 1 law, it's High 1-A+ Type 1, 2 laws, still Type 1, but if it's all the laws (let's say 3), then it's suddenly Tier 0? What's the basis for this, and why are we still trying to pretend that Tier 0 is undifferentiated when you yourself admitted that that's no longer a part of the definition?

 

[Agnaa]

Is it possible for you to provide some examples? I see the current Tier 0 as sort of a limit to rational/conceptual thought, with anything beyond being something that we can ultimately say nothing rational about (i.e. radical apophaticism), but I'd certainly be interested in seeing other perspectives regarding this.

I probably could if it becomes relevant, but I'd need to ask a friend to dig them up. And I'd rather not make them go to that effort.

The way I see it is that there is no single, discrete "property of existence", rather, certain laws (laws of thought, laws of physics, whatever) put "constraints" on reality, such that anything that is within the bounds of those laws can be said to exist, and anything that does not cannot. The "property of existence", therefore, is a product of the laws of thought, not the other way around.

I think that view is quite strange.

Beyond requiring all possible worlds to be instantiated, it requires even things which cannot arise in any possible world, but are still logically consistent, to exist.

All of that to assume away something which I think is much more reasonable to accept.

Could we not do the same to an entity which embodies all the laws? 1 law, it's High 1-A+ Type 1, 2 laws, still Type 1, but if it's all the laws (let's say 3), then it's suddenly Tier 0? What's the basis for this

I didn't say that embodying all laws of logic makes one a monad, I said you wouldn't even be able to make an argument unless you did that.

I do find it not particularly difficult to imagine a series which says that the laws of logic are embodied by an entity, with a first mover still being the cause for those laws of logic to exist.

So yeah, that wouldn't be sufficient, you'd need more.

and why are we still trying to pretend that Tier 0 is undifferentiated when you yourself admitted that that's no longer a part of the definition?

What do you mean when you say "undifferentiated"?

---

Is it even worth continuing this conversation?

It's starting to feel a fair bit off-topic. The topic at hand is "should Tier 0 be granted Nonduality by default", and here we are arguing about whether logic qualifies as Tier 0, or whether radical apophaticism should be incorporated. I think the connection's being stretched real thin.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So my assumption here is that you're ditching the idea of it transcending all differentiation and sticking with the idea of it as "being itself". In that case, I fail to see what separates it from High 1-A+ Type 2. Additionally, although this might be a bit of a stretch, it introduces the potential for there to be multiple Tier 0s per verse, since them being differentiated from each other would no longer be a disqualifier.

I don't think "transcending differentiation" in the sense meant by the tier and "being Being itself" are mutually exclusive or even distinct, really. The idea is that 1-A and up is structured through hierarchies of qualitative differences, while a Tier 0 is beyond qualitative distinctions outright by not being particularized as either, a) One member of the hierarchy, b) The hierarchy itself. Hence the prime exemplar of the tier being the idea of a "entity" that doesn't exist in this way or that way but is just existing ("isness") itself, i.e. it transcends the distinction between particular beings in the same way the idea of spatiality would transcend the distinctions between particular spatial objects, in being the, under VSBW's terrible terminology, "concept" that they all trace back to.

The example of "Being itself" in particular is felicitous because it gets across well the reason why you can't have a multiplicity of those things. It's not because the number of them is stuck at 1 but more like because number in general (Including 1) is a category error as applied to it. If the Tier 0 just signifies the most all-encompassing and exceptionlessly universal term of all (In the example at hand, "being") as condition of possibility for the instantiations of it, then there's nothing really outside of or additional to it, and neither is there some abstract term even broader than it that you can use as a reference to count it.

Now, from there, the path forks into two. To keep using the "Being itself" example: Either Being is strangely an entity in a way, after all, however analogically qualified, such that there is an 'it' we can point to and make statements about, or it "vanishes" altogether so that there is not even subject of discourse to which we can refer and make propositions about, and that's where you get the more radically apophatic versions of the idea (And what "beyond any and all distinction whatsoever, even contradiction," actually entails. Not non-classical logic, not additional truth values, just utter silence). It would be funny to make a tier for the latter variant but I have severe doubts as to whether it's really feasible (What would it even mean to consider this [which strictly speaking you can't refer to as a "this"] a character or make a page for it, really?). For the moment we really just default Tier 0 to the former and when a verse claims to have the latter we equalize it down.

As for the topic of a character that embodies a law of thought but not another: Ehhhhhhhh. Like I commented a bit ago, technically the law of non-contradiction just underpins any discourse whatsoever inasmuch as it just amounts to the fact that a proposition is distinct from its negation. It's the A ≠ not-A to the law of identity's A = A. I think if you embody that (Like in the passage from Eric Perl's book you quoted that I put as an example in the Omnipotence page), you're just automatically absolutely universal to where I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be one entity amongst others.

 

[Jin2188]

I think that view is quite strange.

Beyond requiring all possible worlds to be instantiated, it requires even things which cannot arise in any possible world, but are still logically consistent, to exist.

All of that to assume away something which I think is much more reasonable to accept.

I didn't say "laws of thought" specifically, they can be any set of general conditions (like the laws of physics, for example), and there is of course a distinction between things that are actual (things we can experience) and things that are possible (things we can conceptualize). Tier 0 represents bounds on the latter category, while some kind of Low 1-A (or 1-A/High 1-A, depending on the possible world) structure could represent bounds on the former category.

Also, what kind of thing would be logically consistent, yet not exist in any possible world? If all possible worlds are instantiated, shouldn't that exhaust all logical possibilities?

I didn't say that embodying all laws of logic makes one a monad, I said you wouldn't even be able to make an argument unless you did that.

I do find it not particularly difficult to imagine a series which says that the laws of logic are embodied by an entity, with a first mover still being the cause for those laws of logic to exist.

So yeah, that wouldn't be sufficient, you'd need more.

See above. If the laws of logic construct the "property of existence" and not the other way around, this reasoning falls flat.

What do you mean when you say "undifferentiated"?

As in there can only be one of it by definition. In hindsight, I probably should've used a better word.

Is it even worth continuing this conversation?

It's starting to feel a fair bit off-topic. The topic at hand is "should Tier 0 be granted Nonduality by default", and here we are arguing about whether logic qualifies as Tier 0, or whether radical apophaticism should be incorporated. I think the connection's being stretched real thin.

The current Tier 0 should not, but I'm arguing that the current conception of Tier 0 is flawed, so I think this discussion still holds some relevance. If you or Ultima would be willing to give me permission to make a different thread though, I'd be willing to move things over there.

I don't think "transcending differentiation" in the sense meant by the tier and "being Being itself" are mutually exclusive or even distinct, really. The idea is that 1-A and up is structured through hierarchies of qualitative differences, while a Tier 0 is beyond qualitative distinctions outright by not being particularized as either, a) One member of the hierarchy, b) The hierarchy itself. Hence the prime exemplar of the tier being the idea of a "entity" that doesn't exist in this way or that way but is just existing ("isness") itself, i.e. it transcends the distinction between particular beings in the same way the idea of spatiality would transcend the distinctions between particular spatial objects, in being the, under VSBW's terrible terminology, "concept" that they all trace back to.

It's still not really "transcending" differentiation though, it's just undifferentiated, a difference that you yourself make in the Omnipotence page:

To add to the above: Keep in mind that "oneness" in the context of a Tier 0 has a fairly specific meaning, which is transcendence over all differentiation and all particularity. A Tier 0 is not a blob of some mysterious energy, nor a pool of cosmic "stuff" in which all things are gathered and melted together. As such, statements of being "All-in-One," "Undifferentiated," "Indistinct," etcetera, are not automatic qualifiers without further context.

The example of "Being itself" in particular is felicitous because it gets across well the reason why you can't have a multiplicity of those things. It's not because the number of them is stuck at 1 but more like because number in general (Including 1) is a category error as applied to it. If the Tier 0 just signifies the most all-encompassing and exceptionlessly universal term of all (In the example at hand, "being") as condition of possibility for the instantiations of it, then there's nothing really outside of or additional to it, and neither is there some abstract term even broader than it that you can use as a reference to count it.

See above. This conception of Tier 0 is more a limit to differentiation than it is "transcendent" of it.

Now, from there, the path forks into two. To keep using the "Being itself" example: Either Being is strangely an entity in a way, after all, however analogically qualified, such that there is an 'it' we can point to and make statements about, or it "vanishes" altogether so that there is not even subject of discourse to which we can refer and make propositions about, and that's where you get the more radically apophatic versions of the idea (And what "beyond any and all distinction whatsoever, even contradiction," actually entails. Not non-classical logic, not additional truth values, just utter silence). It would be funny to make a tier for the latter variant but I have severe doubts as to whether it's really feasible (What would it even mean to consider this [which strictly speaking you can't refer to as a "this"] a character or make a page for it, really?). For the moment we really just default Tier 0 to the former and when a verse claims to have the latter we equalize it down.

I don't think this is an issue, really. We can't really conceptualize 1-A or above entities either, but that doesn't stop us from having it as a tier and making profiles for them.

As for the topic of a character that embodies a law of thought but not another: Ehhhhhhhh. Like I commented a bit ago, technically the law of non-contradiction just underpins any discourse whatsoever inasmuch as it just amounts to the fact that a proposition is distinct from its negation. It's the A ≠ not-A to the law of identity's A = A. I think if you embody that (Like in the passage from Eric Perl's book you quoted that I put as an example in the Omnipotence page), you're just automatically absolutely universal to where I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be one entity amongst others.

Those are still two discrete statements, though. You could make the argument that the other laws depend on the LNC, but I'm not sure how sensible that would be; there are three laws of thought, not one, for a reason.

 

[Jin2188]

Anyways, I'm going to bed.

Just to make something clear in case it becomes an issue: I don't have a problem with Tier 0 being formulated as the ground/source of being. I take issue with it's current formulation as being itself, as opposed to non-being, because that messes with the idea of it being beyond differentiation, and therefore doesn't sit right with me as an ultimate tier (as stated previously, it's a limit to understanding, not transcendent of it). I think it makes a good penultimate tier, but having it as an ultimate tier leaves no tier for anything beyond this, which is quite bizarre.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It's still not really "transcending" differentiation though, it's just undifferentiated, a difference that you yourself make in the Omnipotence page:

A Tier 0 isn't a blob or pool of mysterious stuff even under what I'm describing, so I in fact don't make this difference, no.

See above. This conception of Tier 0 is more a limit to differentiation than it is "transcendent" of it.

"A limit to differentiation" is a way of putting I wouldn't be opposed to, but what I said in that bit you're replying to holds true regardless of how you put it.

I don't think this is an issue, really. We can't really conceptualize 1-A or above entities either, but that doesn't stop us from having it as a tier and making profiles for them.

We can conceptualize them just fine, precisely in that we have a concept of what being 1-A consists of. Absolute ineffability is just the suspension of any conceptuality, which is very different. (Though I think that conversation is probably not too well-suited for this thread. Fear it might be needless derailing)

Those are still two discrete statements, though. You could make the argument that the other laws depend on the LNC, but I'm not sure how sensible that would be; there are three laws of thought, not one, for a reason.

They're three laws of thought inasmuch as we think slightly different thoughts when reflecting on them. Whether they signify different realities or not is more arguable (A = A and A ≠ ~A in particular seem to be transparently referring to only logically distinct things), but if they do then clearly the verse for some reason just doesn't consider those "patterns" absolutely universal.

I take issue with it's current formulation as being itself, as opposed to non-being, because that messes with the idea of it being beyond differentiation

I think the exact term used is probably immaterial so long as what said term signifies is "the basic unit of 'thing that can be referred to'". This reminds me of some people I've seen off-site criticizing Tier 0 for being "Being itself" as opposed to "Transcending being and non-being," when really if Tier 0 is "Being" then it's by definition a notion of it so universal that no other term escapes it (Such that ofc there is no such thing as "non-being" in opposition to it by then).

 

[Antvasima]

What are your thoughts regarding what I wrote here earlier, Ultima?

 

[Jin2188]

A Tier 0 isn't a blob or pool of mysterious stuff even under what I'm describing, so I in fact don't make this difference, no.

This specific bit is what I was referring to:

As such, statements of being "All-in-One," "Undifferentiated," "Indistinct," etcetera, are not automatic qualifiers without further context.

This current definition of Tier 0 is undifferentiated, but not transcendent of differentiation. This is why I prefer it as a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one; an ultimate tier should essentially be a sort of "powerscaling singularity" where all our methods break down and you can't go any further. Radical apophaticism fits this mold quite nicely imo.

We can conceptualize them just fine, precisely in that we have a concept of what being 1-A consists of. Absolute ineffability is just the suspension of any conceptuality, which is very different. (Though I think that conversation is probably not too well-suited for this thread. Fear it might be needless derailing)

We can't really depict them in fiction, that's what I meant, sorry for the miswording. 1-A and above is supposed to be completely transcendent of everything below it, including the framework of space and time itself, but we can't really portray that accurately in fiction, so we just put them in a higher "meta-space", which is more 1-C/1-B territory. Low 1-A is really the limit as far as fiction is concerned, but that obviously doesn't stop us from having tiers above that, which is precisely my point.

They're three laws of thought inasmuch as we think slightly different thoughts when reflecting on them. Whether they signify different realities or not is more arguable (A = A and A ≠ ~A in particular seem to be transparently referring to only logically distinct things), but if they do then clearly the verse for some reason just doesn't consider those "patterns" absolutely universal.

The Law of Identity and the LNC are clearly separate statements which state different things, so I would say that yes, they do signify different realities. And if so, then "being itself" is actually just a construct of the discrete laws of thought. This would be a pluralistic view of Tier 0, while yours is more of a monistic one. I think both should be considered valid.

I think the exact term used is probably immaterial so long as what said term signifies is "the basic unit of 'thing that can be referred to'". This reminds me of some people I've seen off-site criticizing Tier 0 for being "Being itself" as opposed to "Transcending being and non-being," when really if Tier 0 is "Being" then it's by definition a notion of it so universal that no other term escapes it (Such that ofc there is no such thing as "non-being" in opposition to it by then).

There is a view in Eastern philosophy that things only have meaning in relation to their counterparts. A is only defined in terms of not-A, good is only defined in terms of not-good, and being is only defined in terms of non-being. If we're essentially saying that there is no such thing as non-being, that creates a whole host of problems.

[The rest of this was typed on my phone, so I apologize for any bad grammar]

How are we supposed to describe things that aren't within the space of all possible worlds then? According to the currently enshrined view, contradictions are one such thing. They are considered to be completely non-existent, and not in a fake NEP kind of way, but literally nothing at all. Now I've voiced my disagreement regarding this elsewhere, but my issue is not with this view itself, merely that it is being assumed as the default. I still believe that a fictional setting should be allowed to function this way, but this idea puts a wrench in that. We have no way of accounting for things that don't exist within the bounds of a Tier 0 (or, if it's like a creator deity, things that it chose not to create), which leaves our only option as asserting that everything, all possible and impossible worlds, are instantiated in every verse, at least every verse with a Tier 0. I really don't like this solution, for reasons that I hope are obvious. And even then, this isn't really a solution, since we still have to deal with things that do not have a definition at all (and thus, do not exist) by their very nature, such as thgth#-4hehei@-#+(. We need a category of non-being, because there are things that genuinely do not exist, either due to being unable to be conceptualized, or due to lacking a definition, or simply due to being outside a Tier 0's creation.

 

[Agnaa]

I didn't say "laws of thought" specifically, they can be any set of general conditions (like the laws of physics, for example), and there is of course a distinction between things that are actual (things we can experience) and things that are possible (things we can conceptualize). Tier 0 represents bounds on the latter category, while some kind of Low 1-A (or 1-A/High 1-A, depending on the possible world) structure could represent bounds on the former category.

That's not what you said earlier; you said that the property of existence is dependent on these conditions.

Which is asserting that the things that are actual are defined by those. Which means that all possible worlds have to exist. They are given the property of existence by the fact that they're possible.

Also, what kind of thing would be logically consistent, yet not exist in any possible world? If all possible worlds are instantiated, shouldn't that exhaust all logical possibilities?

I could be misunderstanding the common usage of "possible worlds", but I think that this can plausibly refer to "all distinct worlds that can be created", which is not necessarily equivalent to "all logically valid objects". There can be logical objects that are consistent, but would never happen to arise in those worlds.

There is no logical inconsistency involved with me going to the moon as a baby, but perhaps there would be no universe where an object equivalent to "me" would end up in that situation (such a similar person would need to be sufficiently different that it would no longer count for that). There may be no world that is exactly the same as this one, up until the point where I am two years old, which diverges with the unaltered me being sent on a rocket to the moon.

See above. If the laws of logic construct the "property of existence" and not the other way around, this reasoning falls flat.

The laws of logic would have to exist to have any relevance. Surely you would agree that there are other potential laws of logic that simply don't exist as real rules governing possibility space.

As in there can only be one of it by definition. In hindsight, I probably should've used a better word.

There being only one Tier 0 is a consequence of the definition, not a part of it. I don't know what it would mean for there to be two different properties of existence, that are distinct, and lack a hierarchical relationship between the two.

 

[Jin2188]

That's not what you said earlier; you said that the property of existence is dependent on these conditions.

Which is asserting that the things that are actual are defined by those. Which means that all possible worlds have to exist. They are given the property of existence by the fact that they're possible.

It's entirely possible for something to not exist while still having a definition/concept. Logical contradictions are such in the currently enshrined view.

Tier 0 is the condition(s) that something has to meet in order to exist. These do not have to be the laws of logic, they can be something like the laws of physics instead, which greatly narrows the scope of possibility. Anything outside of this domain therefore does not exist, but that does not stop people from thinking about worlds with alternative laws of physics. They just aren't real, because they don't meet the conditions embodied by Tier 0.

I could be misunderstanding the common usage of "possible worlds", but I think that this can plausibly refer to "all distinct worlds that can be created", which is not necessarily equivalent to "all logically valid objects". There can be logical objects that are consistent, but would never happen to arise in those worlds.

There is no logical inconsistency involved with me going to the moon as a baby, but perhaps there would be no universe where an object equivalent to "me" would end up in that situation (such a similar person would need to be sufficiently different that it would no longer count for that). There may be no world that is exactly the same as this one, up until the point where I am two years old, which diverges with the unaltered me being sent on a rocket to the moon.

I don't think this is a good example, honestly. There are plenty of logically consistent scenarios I can think of that would involve you going to the moon as a baby. Maybe your mom was an astronaut, and gave birth to you on the way to the moon (Obviously, no responsible space agency would allow for this, but that's not the point), or maybe humanity progresses way faster than in our world, and by the time you're born, space travel is essentially no different from a civilian flight. You could even just straight up be teleported out of your mother's womb into a rocket headed for the moon.

The outlandishness of that last one doesn't change the fact that it's logically possible, and so would exist as a possible world.

If all logically possible scenarios are instantiated, then I can't really think of anything that would be "left over" afterwards, not existing in at least one of those worlds while nevertheless being logically possible. Seems bizarre to me.

The laws of logic would have to exist to have any relevance. Surely you would agree that there are other potential laws of logic that simply don't exist as real rules governing possibility space.

So does the singular property of existence, leading us into a death spiral. I don't think this argument is a good approach.

There being only one Tier 0 is a consequence of the definition, not a part of it. I don't know what it would mean for there to be two different properties of existence, that are distinct, and lack a hierarchical relationship between the two.

It's not that there's multiple discrete "properties of existence", it's that what we call "existence" is just the state of being compliant with the condition(s) of Tier 0, and nonexistence, conversely, is a consequence of something violating those conditions.

 

[Agnaa]

It's entirely possible for something to not exist while still having a definition/concept. Logical contradictions are such in the currently enshrined view.

Tier 0 is the condition(s) that something has to meet in order to exist. These do not have to be the laws of logic, they can be something like the laws of physics instead, which greatly narrows the scope of possibility. Anything outside of this domain therefore does not exist, but that does not stop people from thinking about worlds with alternative laws of physics. They just aren't real, because they don't meet the conditions embodied by Tier 0.

That seems like a far lesser description. There's no immutability in that.

I don't think this is a good example, honestly. There are plenty of logically consistent scenarios I can think of that would involve you going to the moon as a baby. Maybe your mom was an astronaut, and gave birth to you on the way to the moon (Obviously, no responsible space agency would allow for this, but that's not the point), or maybe humanity progresses way faster than in our world, and by the time you're born, space travel is essentially no different from a civilian flight.

I think my parent(s) taking such a different route before my birth would change me, if I am identified as just a particular pattern of matter.

If all logically possible scenarios are instantiated, then I can't really think of anything that would be "left over" afterwards, not existing in at least one of those worlds while nevertheless being logically possible. Seems bizarre to me.

Well yeah, that's why I didn't say "all logically possible scenarios", I said "all distinct worlds".

So does the property of existence, leading us into a death spiral. I don't think this argument is a good approach.

The property of existence only needs itself. Those laws of logic would need something else; the property of existence.

It's not that there's multiple discrete "properties of existence", it's that what we call "existence" is just the state of being compliant with the condition(s) of Tier 0, and nonexistence, conversely, is a consequence of something violating those conditions.

That chain of conversation wasn't about the laws of logic stuff.

It came from you saying that being "undifferentiated" isn't part of the current definition for Tier 0, so we shouldn't act as if it is.

I responded seeking clarification on what you meant by that.

You replied that you meant that only one of them can exist.

And so I explained how I see that as a conclusion of the current definition.

 

[Jin2188]

That seems like a far lesser description. There's no immutability in that.

It's a definition the Omnipotence page throws out a few times:

If one were to use the language of the First as the "condition" for existence, this would mean that a given proposition only qualifies as a logical possibility if it meets this condition, and otherwise is an impossibility.

“To be is to be intelligible” means that to be is to conform to the laws of thought, which necessarily apprehends its object as determined by certain attributes and (therefore) as excluding the contradictory ones. The unity, the identity, and therefore the being of any thing consists in its conformity to this law.

It is immutable in the sense that it stands at the limit of understanding and is the container of all that exists. Nothing from within it's domain can reach, damage, or manipulate it, since that would mean that the contents of existence are greater than their container, which is contradictory. Immutability is still mostly preserved, since nothing outside of the Tier 0(s) themselves (and the radical apophaticism tier) can will changes to their own nature.

I think my parent(s) taking such a different route before my birth would change me, if I am identified as just a particular pattern of matter.

This is certainly disputable, but then we'd be going off on the nature of identity which is a fair bit greater of a derailment from the topic than I'm comfortable with.

Well yeah, that's why I didn't say "all logically possible scenarios", I said "all distinct worlds".

Same thing in my book. Again, this can be debated but that would derail us from the topic.

The property of existence only needs itself. Those laws of logic would need something else; the property of existence.

Those laws would be the property of existence. No external property is necessary.

Both the monistic property of existence and the pluralistic conditions of existence act as the container(s) of existence. Existence is therefore a definition rather than an abstract quality, a definition which is constructed by Tier 0. The condition(s) of existence don't need anything external to define their own existence, because they are the definition of existence. Therefore, anything for which this definition is accurate exists, and nothing can exist for which this definition is inapplicable.

That chain of conversation wasn't about the laws of logic stuff.

It came from you saying that being "undifferentiated" isn't part of the current definition for Tier 0, so we shouldn't act as if it is.

I responded seeking clarification on what you meant by that.

You replied that you meant that only one of them can exist.

And so I explained how I see that as a conclusion of the current definition.

You also added that you don't understand how there can be multiple discrete properties of existence. I responded to clear up that misunderstanding, and also to elaborate on why I don't think Tier 0 necessarily has to be monistic.

 

[Antvasima]

Tier 0 has to be all-encompassing per definition, but It can manifest as aspects of Itself in a polytheistic manner.

Is there a further point to this discussion, or should Jin stop responding here?

 

[Agnaa]

It's a definition the Omnipotence page throws out a few times:

Snipping points of the Omnipotence page without taking it as a whole with a tier within our system is pointless.

It is immutable in the sense that it stands at the limit of understanding and is the container of all that exists. Nothing from within it's domain can reach, damage, or manipulate it, since that would mean that the contents of existence are greater than their container, which is contradictory. Immutability is still mostly preserved, since nothing outside of the Tier 0(s) themselves (and the radical apophaticism tier) can will changes to their own nature.

It's immutable, solely from the assertion that it's beyond everything. Even then you have to admit that it's not beyond everything, and so it is mutable.

That's just not a good definition.

Those laws would be the property of existence. No external property is necessary.

You say they would create it, but they would also need it. They would be distinct from it (as it would be a property which all of them share, which is not any of them individually).

That is still an issue, imo.

Both the monistic property of existence and the pluralistic conditions of existence act as the container(s) of existence. Existence is therefore a definition rather than an abstract quality, a definition which is constructed by Tier 0. The condition(s) of existence don't need anything external to define their own existence, because they are the definition of existence. Therefore, anything for which this definition is accurate exists, and nothing can exist for which this definition is inapplicable.

You can redefine things in that way, I just find it less impressive.

You also added that you don't understand how there can be multiple discrete properties of existence. I responded to clear up that misunderstanding, and also to elaborate on why I don't think Tier 0 necessarily has to be monistic.

Ah, mb.

Is there a further point to this discussion, or should Jin stop responding here?

Really, I don't think there is.

 

[Jin2188]

Snipping points of the Omnipotence page without taking it as a whole with a tier within our system is pointless.

Can I ask for clarification on what you mean by this? You stated that you find this description unimpressive, and I pointed out that it's a definition that the Omnipotence page itself uses.

It's immutable, solely from the assertion that it's beyond everything. Even then you have to admit that it's not beyond everything, and so it is mutable.

That's just not a good definition.

That's kinda the point honestly. This version of Tier 0 works better as a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one. That's what I've been arguing this entire time.

You can redefine things in that way, I just find it less impressive.

See above.

You say they would create it, but they would also need it. They would be distinct from it (as it would be a property which all of them share, which is not any of them individually).

They don't need it because they are it, just like how the property of existence is existence. It's like how the Platonic form of "cat" is the definition of a cat. It doesn't need to refer to a more abstract definition of "catness", because it is that definition. And that definition can be broken down into smaller definitions that add together to form "cat".

Tier 0 is essentially the terminal point of this process, with the definitions of everything being broken down into their base components. Whether at the end you get one all encompassing definition or many that add together should be left for fiction to decide.

Is there a further point to this discussion, or should Jin stop responding here?

Staff are arguing that Tier 0 should not possess Nonduality by default. Their reasoning for this is that Tier 0 is not radical apophaticism. My argument is that it should be, because the current formulation of Tier 0 would work better as a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one.

If you want, I can stop talking here and get staff permission to make another thread, honestly that'd probably be better, I was just misinformed on the currently enshrined formulation of Tier 0, and when that formulation was explained to me, I chose to contest it, but I'd be fine with continuing this conversation in a different thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Can I ask for clarification on what you mean by this? You stated that you find this description unimpressive, and I pointed out that it's a definition that the Omnipotence page itself uses.

It's fine as an aspect of the broader definition of Tier 0, but just taking that one thing as the entirety of a tier, is kinda pointless.

They don't need it because they are it, just like how the property of existence is existence. It's like how the Platonic form of "cat" is the definition of a cat. It doesn't need to refer to a more abstract definition of "catness", because it is that definition. And that definition can be broken down into smaller definitions that add together to form "cat".

That doesn't work, because they have other properties than "existence".

Let's say that there are three distinct laws, A, B, and C.

There could theoretically be other laws, D, E, and F. But they happen to not exist.

Ergo, A, B, and C have the property of "existence", which other theoretical laws, D, E, and F lack.

By your argument A, B, and C are not individually the property of "existence", that property comes about from their culmination together. A has certain properties, as well as the property "conforms with A, B, and C". These are two distinct things, as one is just its own properties, and one involves the properties of it alongside a collection of other things.

This is not the same thing as what is happening when we say that a monad is "existence itself"!!! In that case, it is just "existence". It needs nothing, else, no combination of other things.

Not gonna respond after this, since I can't think of any other way to get this across.

 

[Antvasima]

Staff are arguing that Tier 0 should not possess Nonduality by default. Their reasoning for this is that Tier 0 is not radical apophaticism. My argument is that it should be, because the current formulation of Tier 0 would work better as a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one.

If you want, I can stop talking here and get staff permission to make another thread, honestly that'd probably be better, I was just misinformed on the currently enshrined formulation of Tier 0, and when that formulation was explained to me, I chose to contest it, but I'd be fine with continuing this conversation in a different thread.

Well, if you strictly stick to the topic of that nonduality should be an inherent quality for Tier 0, I appreciate the help, but I had the impression that you veered off track in many other directions as well.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

What are your thoughts regarding what I wrote here earlier, Ultima?

Can you link the post you're referring to? I'll give my exact thoughts later when I'm home. Though to comment a bit on this:

Well, if you strictly stick to the topic of that nonduality should be an inherent quality for Tier 0, I appreciate the help, but I had the impression that you veered off track in many other directions as well.

Keep in mind that Jin's idea for an ultimate tier would entail a form of nonduality really quite different from the power we currently index on the wiki (the one we atm call "Paraconsistent Physiology"), since as I said before it wouldn't entail a subject or a "something" which has paradoxical properties and/or occupies alternate logical states with more than one truth value, or even "something" with the property of being ineffable. Instead it'd entail suspending any and all logical states whatsoever and any predication, just canceling out any reference to entities or "somethings" at all (And therefore all reference). Ofc, my contention is whether it even makes sense to treat it as something profilable, since strictly speaking comparisons and contrasts are meaningless by then, and the whole point is instead to just displace a grammatical object or referent, which you'd think is fundamentally what a profile indexes. But we'll see Ig.

"For our highest tier, we have