Maou Gakuin upgrade : Orders as Logical negations !!?

[Saucy_Jackistan24]

Bumpy

 

[Fyodol_Empyrean]

Alot of yapping for potato potato. Also where's the whataboutism police, I notice a pattern, uhm.

Agree FRA

 

[RaikiKurohane99]

@Vietthai96 @DontTalkDT @Theglassman12 @Agnaa @ActuallySpaceMan42 I have seen you guys participate in Nonduality/Paraconsistent Physiology threads, so your help would be appreciated.

@TheGreatJedi13 @Astral_Trinity439 @FinePoint I pinged you as well, as you all are there in the knowledgeable members list in Paraconsistent Physiology

 

[CongratulatorySnail399]

I just checked to make sure but isn’t astral on the knowledge members list for type 1 and 2 transdualities? I’m sure he should be qualified by the wiki for matters such as this so wouldn’t his input help instead of trying to deny his input?

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I just checked to make sure but isn’t astral on the knowledge members list for type 1 and 2 transdualities? I’m sure he should be qualified by the wiki for matters such as this so wouldn’t his input help instead of trying to deny his input?

Brother you can literally add yourself to that. That doesn't mean you are one knowledgeable member. Like I said he can share his opinion and input but that doesn't mean he knows more than other normal users.

Are the losers talking

I don't mind joking but can we not derail this any further. Don't want this thread to reach more pages.

 

[CongratulatorySnail399]

Brother you can literally add yourself to that. That doesn't mean you are one knowledgeable member. Like I said he can share his opinion and input but that doesn't mean he knows more than other normal users.

I don't mind joking but can we not derail this any further. Don't want this thread to reach more pages.

I never knew that. However wouldn’t more input be better regardless? Even if they’re knowledgeable or not more input would still be better than 0 input as long as it’s constructive and helpful. I don’t see the problem here.

 

[FinePoint]

@EldemadeDityjon @Ciel_Trinity439

Let's please keep this conversation civil and not start attacking people.

 

[FinePoint]

Anyway, what exactly is the proposal here?

Something being a logical duality doesn't grant any abilities on its own. Paraconsistent Physiology implies breaking or transcending a duality.

What characters are we trying to give this ability, and why?

 

[Ddzn]

Anyway, what exactly is the proposal here?

Something being a logical duality doesn't grant any abilities on its own. Paraconsistent Physiology implies breaking or transcending a duality.

What characters are we trying to give this ability, and why?

This is demonstrating orders as logical negations, we are not yet proposing for an ability. There have been a few previous attempts at PCP, but they were rejected for failing to establish logical dualities between orders. Therefore, this blog serves as a stepping stone toward PCP.

 

[Ddzn]

I never knew that. However wouldn’t more input be better regardless? Even if they’re knowledgeable or not more input would still be better than 0 input as long as it’s constructive and helpful. I don’t see the problem here.

The issue is that this subject is very complex, and people often struggle to fully understand what they are reading, leading them to question what has already been established in the blog. Therefore, it is better to wait for knowledgeable members rather than flooding.

 

[Hirotoswnn1x]

Anyway, what exactly is the proposal here?

Something being a logical duality doesn't grant any abilities on its own. Paraconsistent Physiology implies breaking or transcending a duality.

What characters are we trying to give this ability, and why?

Yeah, it’s useless for the Ability. Honestly, I think we should have explained it along with PP, but at least it can reduce the CRT discussions about Paraconsistent Physiology next time (And I think it can be used later on to add 'Greater' in Logic Manipulation.)

 

[Ruler_Star_Kuma]

(And I think it can be used later on to add 'Greater' in Logic Manipulation.)

Heck no..

 

[Hecky2222]

LMAO

 

[Hirotoswnn1x]

Heck no..

Even if I reference Shu's statement that contradiction/paraconsistent logic is just another form of logic, it can still be destroyed by Anos's logic manipulation?

 

[Ruler_Star_Kuma]

Even if I reference Shu's statement that contradiction/paraconsistent logic is just another form of logic, it can still be destroyed by Anos's logic manipulation?

WE'RE GOOD.

 

[Hirotoswnn1x]

WE'RE GOOD.

NOT GOOD ENOUGH

 

[Humanitus_Primevilus888]

Oi, please be civil

 

[FinePoint]

This is demonstrating orders as logical negations, we are not yet proposing for an ability. There have been a few previous attempts at PCP, but they were rejected for failing to establish logical dualities between orders. Therefore, this blog serves as a stepping stone toward PCP.

I see. So we're revising the cosmology, essentially.

Well, let me put it this way: if you're taking a very literal perspective, then there's multiple instances where what's written technically contradicts a logical duality. For example, the language of 'balance' and 'leaning' one way or another implies middle or concurrent values.

However, acknowledging that fictional media is imperfect in its interpretations of certain concepts, it would be unrealistic to expect them to be 100% semantically consistent at all times, especially in WOG.

In that light what's most convincing to me is the portion where they explicitly say that one state cannot manifest at the same time as the other, which I think suggests the intent of a true exclusive duality, and I personally tend to value intent highly.

So, for those reasons, I'm okay with considering them dualities, but stricter staff may disagree.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Yeah, looking over the blog.
While there is evidence that does point to it being dualities. There is also an accepted notion of CM type 1 for Orders
But that goes against how logical orders work, as Logic is before metaphysics, etc. At the very least, if we are going with the route that this is a logical order via the Water is water point. (Law of Identity). Then that basically assumes that you cannot use that same argument to say it is a Concept. At the very least tho due to how the 2 sources (Destruction and Birth) are in one order. You could potentially argue that they are Concepts, as for Orders. You can say it is Prior and supersedes concept, but it wouldn't be a concept.

The distinction is made with those examples and doesn't seem to contradict other evidence in explaining how orders work.

So my conclusions are either
1. Orders are concepts and not logical dualities
2. Orders are logical dualities prior to concept, and concepts exist below it (It wouldn't say whether they would still be Type 1 or they are Type 2)

Though I have to ask since this is MGK. Why do we have Goddess of Destruction and Birth, and at the same time, the Order of Destruction, etc
The Goddess is 2 sources, while the Order of Destruction seems to be a different entity altogether. Which might be why there are contradictory explanations

Can you elaborate more on that?

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

Though I have to ask since this is MGK. Why do we have Goddess of Destruction and Birth, and at the same time, the Order of Destruction, etc
The Goddess is 2 sources, while the Order of Destruction seems to be a different entity altogether. Which might be why there are contradictory explanations

Can you elaborate more on that?

Destruction and birth aren't two parts of the same source/order.
Destruction : Creation and,
Birth : Abortion are two parts of a single Order.

Order of Destruction = Goddess of Destruction. Order of destruction can also be called to be her ability or authority, the order that holds her destructive powers.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Destruction and birth aren't two parts of the same source/order.
Destruction : Creation and,
Birth : Abortion are two parts of a single Order.

Order of Destruction = Goddess of Destruction. Order of destruction can also be called to be her ability or authority, the order that holds her destructive powers.

The problem I'm asking for is if. Goddess of Destruction is referred to as Order, and at the same time, a source

Then the distinction between Order and Source is pretty much lost in intelligibility.

The order of the gods complemented and supported each other. Like the Goddess of Destruction and the God of Demise, and the Goddess of Creation, the Goddess of Birth, and the Heavenly Father. Just like how taking down the Goddess of Destruction didn’t completely erase destruction from the world, one god’s ruin wasn’t enough for the whole order to collapse. However, everything was now definitely further from destruction

They sometimes refer to them as source and at other times as Order.

If we assume they are concepts. Then it's fine in this case, where a Single Order can have many subcategories, which in the scans above, shows such as
Destruction, Demise, Creation, Birth, Heavenly Father.
They seem to imply this is an entirely Single Order, which is supported here

Your forgotten memories—that the Goddesses of Creation and Destruction are sister gods, two sides of the same order. Our sources are two in one, and one in two. An order of two gods, one body.

“From the moment we were born, we have been two halves of a whole. I have always felt your presence right behind me. Even though I have known you, and your voice, and your order—even though you’ve always been so close to me—the two of us have never spoken to each other.”

but later on they refer to it as Order such as these

So what you mean to say is this: If the order of destruction is lost, the order of creation doesn’t have long to live either.

Order was closely entangled with other order. Just like how creation couldn't exist without destruction, birth couldn't exist without death. All order served the purpose of completing the logical cycle of the world, and Ennessone disrupted that cycle. But thinking about it that way made it sound strange. Did gods, with their own individual order and will, also act as a collective order?

So the situation in this case concludes from either

1.) We assume Order is a concept, and the entirety of all the Order is a Duality, as they all ultimately form a whole. Which means the manipulation of a single Order does not necessarily imply manipulation of logical dualities. The existence of a single Order does not necessarily mean logical negation. Each specific Order embodies a single Truth. (Order of Destruction -A while Order of Creation is A)

2.)We assume Order is a duality on its own, and every reference separating Order into its counterpart Order of Destruction or Order of Creation is only referring to that part of a single Order. But this would mean more scrutiny on each reference to Order being mentioned in the Novel to determine whether it is only referring to a single part or the whole to grant abilities depending on feat

 

[Tatsumi504]

The problem I'm asking for is if. Goddess of Destruction is referred to as Order, and at the same time, a source

Then the distinction between Order and Source is pretty much lost in intelligibility.

I think you're confusion stems from a misunderstanding. Order is order, universals that ground the existence of things. Gods are order yes but they aren't its entirety, just manifestations of it more akin to avatars. There a 3 ranks of Gods for every order namely Divine Beasts (messengers of order) < Keepers (guardians of order)< Gods. The highest rank are those responsible for maintaining order (ensuring it functions the way it should) and there's only one of them for every order unlike the lower ranks where there can be legions of them hence why I say they are avatars.

You'd have to take care not to conflate every mention of "source" to concept of being. The Goddess of Destruction is a lifeform manifested from order. All living beings have a source (concept of being) without exception. When its said that the goddess of destruction is the source of all death and destruction, "source" there isn't referring to the concept of being but the origin where the particulars "death" and "destruction" are derived from.
Gods are order, they are formed from and embody their order which is why they have AE 1. The existence of the highest ranking Gods maintains their order and they hold the greatest authority over it.

They sometimes refer to them as source and at other times as Order.

If we assume they are concepts. Then it's fine in this case, where a Single Order can have many subcategories, which in the scans above, shows such as
Destruction, Demise, Creation, Birth, Heavenly Father.
They seem to imply this is an entirely Single Order, which is supported here

Uh no. What this is saying is that the loss of one order isn't enough to remove the existence of things participating in it. This means the particulars and aspects they govern overlap.
Just as the Order of Destruction governs Death, Destruction, the End etc. It's loss isn't enough to remove those things from reality because the Order of Demise also governs Death and the End. There is also the Order of Death but since it isn't explored, the only thing we know it defines is death. However, the Order of Destruction is the greatest order overseeing these particulars which is why when it was removed, the Orders that overlap with it could not completely restore things to the way they were.
In the same manner, the Order of Creation governs Life and Creation however, its loss is not enough to eliminate Life from reality because the Order of Birth and the Order of the Heavenly Father also governs Life, so there are no subcategories to order, just an overlap in what they define.

but later on they refer to it as Order such as these

Every order is singular or standalone however, each order that exists is just a single cog in a greater system (I believe the OP will cover this later if it isn't covered here already) which is why contradicting and opposing orders do not clash as they are all unified. The likes of Birth : Termination and Creation : Destruction are just special in that they are two sides of one order, one order in two. The same applies for the gods presiding over them, their sources (concept of being) are one in two, two in one. Either can be hidden in or revealed from the other.

So the situation in this case concludes from either

1.) We assume Order is a concept, and the entirety of all the Order is a Duality, as they all ultimately form a whole. Which means the manipulation of a single Order does not necessarily imply manipulation of logical dualities. The existence of a single Order does not necessarily mean logical negation. Each specific Order embodies a single Truth. (Order of Destruction -A while Order of Creation is A)

2.)We assume Order is a duality on its own, and every reference separating Order into its counterpart Order of Destruction or Order of Creation is only referring to that part of a single Order. But this would mean more scrutiny on each reference to Order being mentioned in the Novel to determine whether it is only referring to a single part or the whole to grant abilities depending on feat

I honestly see no reason why it has to be that way. But I'll leave this to the OP or mi amor to handle. Also, let me understand something, are you saying order can't be both a concept and dualities at the same time? If yes, why is that? It's already Laws, Universals as well as Fate and it's also said they ground logic and not just in the subjective sense but fundamental truth

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

Tatsumi already provided some lore to savor on stuffs regarding source and order. So I'll just run with a simple summary.

The problem I'm asking for is if. Goddess of Destruction is referred to as Order, and at the same time, a source
Then the distinction between Order and Source is pretty much lost in intelligibility.

They sometimes refer to them as source and at other times as Order.

As mentioned, "source" can refer to two different things based on the context:
1. The fundamental concept of existence of someone.
2. The origin point for any event, or the source point from where the event generates from.

If you are referring to the scan where they talk about "our sources are two in one, one in two", then the two goddess/orders are talking about their own source (number 1 - the concept of existence) being fundamentally one, which manifests as two opposing sides of goddesses. The point for adding that scan was to put emphasis that - if the fundamental concept of two orders are considered to be "two in one", then that necessitates two orders being the absolute exhaustive partner for a particular phenomenon.

Next, if you are talking about some other scan where order is being referred to as the "source" of something in the world, then it falls under the definition of number 2.

If we assume they are concepts. Then it's fine in this case, where a Single Order can have many subcategories, which in the scans above, shows such as
Destruction, Demise, Creation, Birth, Heavenly Father.
They seem to imply this is an entirely Single Order, which is supported here

A single Order is mainly about one specific Order being broken into two sides. That's one of the context.
And when they talk about all orders being one Order then it's part of a different argument aside from duality, and falls under non duality, that's when multiple other orders overlap together under one order - as demise order comes under destruction to act a single order and so on.

It's the difference of highlighting Order on a specific scale where you look at each Order branched into two parts or in the general scale where all Orders together form a single entity (but that's stuff for another part of CRT the OP and me decided to not indulge into that much here).

So the situation in this case concludes from either

1.) We assume Order is a concept, and the entirety of all the Order is a Duality, as they all ultimately form a whole. Which means the manipulation of a single Order does not necessarily imply manipulation of logical dualities. The existence of a single Order does not necessarily mean logical negation. Each specific Order embodies a single Truth. (Order of Destruction -A while Order of Creation is A)

2.)We assume Order is a duality on its own, and every reference separating Order into its counterpart Order of Destruction or Order of Creation is only referring to that part of a single Order. But this would mean more scrutiny on each reference to Order being mentioned in the Novel to determine whether it is only referring to a single part or the whole to grant abilities depending on feat

I would say that the second part is the correct understanding of the context here. And I think that kinda scrutiny is fine, since either way you would need to show which particular duality a character surpass to achieve a physiology or an ability.

Tho contextually, i think it should be obvious that if anybody says "something is beyond order" then it means they are talking about in the general sense due to the lack of mentioning any particular part of it.

 

[Fixxed]

So my conclusions are either
1. Orders are concepts and not logical dualities
2. Orders are logical dualities prior to concept, and concepts exist below it (It wouldn't say whether they would still be Type 1 or they are Type 2)

I dont think it must be that way. Logical duality is about two contradicting things, whatever this thing is, as long as they contradict each other, it was logical duality

But, the way i see maou's case is, a order and it negation doesnt make up duality system it self, but their nature/relation between them make them like that

Like it say

Order was closely entangled with other order. Just like how creation couldn't exist without destruction, birth couldn't exist without death. All order served the purpose of completing the logical cycle of the world

Basically they are subject to even a bigger system

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

The only issue I really see is the lack of Order having any actual logical negations.

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

The only issue I really see is the lack of Order having any actual logical negations.

We have got Orders being logical negations from the underlying relation they have with accordance to each other, I'll lay out a simple summary so if you could go through it again:

Mainly these points were used :-

1. Proof of Bivalence - For every "single" Order that shapes the world based on the function it serves, it splits into only two parts that the function can express itself and range over to. Thus for any particular domain of event only two specific pair exists, that serves as it's truth values. (Ex - scans that says that "We are two sides of the same order", "we two halves of one whole". "Our sources are two in one, one in two".)

2. Proof of negation - The actions of one order within a pair, when it gets deactivated, gets removed and replaced by the events influenced by its opposite pair, therefore an inverse relationship. (Ex - The scan where they talk about how the number of lives perished will also lead to the number of lives born and vice versa). Furthermore, the existence one side of the pair gives the logical meaning to the other, as they say without creation, there's no destruction and vice versa.

3. Following LONC and LOEM - The opposing Orders can't manifest at the same time, when one part is active, the other side simply remains absent proving a strict mutually exclusive dichotomy. And at the same time, only either one of them can be present for their given domain of event following the cycle of their activeness, excluding any third existence between the pairs. (Ex - "When the sun of destruction rises, the moon of creation disappears", "when order of termination is present the order of birth cannot, at a time only one godess can be seen".)

Since these aspects are essentially what defines a "logical negation" therefore the Order system logic, exactly being equated with the same, should make them have the same thing going on between them.

 

[Dereck03]

We have got Orders being logical negations from the underlying relation they have with accordance to each other, I'll lay out a simple summary so if you could go through it again:

Mainly these points were used :-

1. Proof of Bivalence - For every "single" Order that shapes the world based on the function it serves, it splits into only two parts that the function can express itself and range over to. Thus for any particular domain of event only two specific pair exists, that serves as it's truth values. (Ex - scans that says that "We are two sides of the same order", "we two halves of one whole". "Our sources are two in one, one in two".)

2. Proof of negation - The actions of one order within a pair, when it gets deactivated, gets removed and replaced by the events influenced by its opposite pair, therefore an inverse relationship. (Ex - The scan where they talk about how the number of lives perished will also lead to the number of lives born and vice versa). Furthermore, the existence one side of the pair gives the logical meaning to the other, as they say without creation, there's no destruction and vice versa.

3. Following LONC and LOEM - The opposing Orders can't manifest at the same time, when one part is active, the other side simply remains absent proving a strict mutually exclusive dichotomy. And at the same time, only either one of them can be present for their given domain of event following the cycle of their activeness, excluding any third existence between the pairs. (Ex - "When the sun of destruction rises, the moon of creation disappears", "when order of termination is present the order of birth cannot, at a time only one godess can be seen".)

Since these aspects are essentially what defines a "logical negation" therefore the Order system logic, exactly being equated with the same, should make them have the same thing going on between them.

I don't really see any issues.

 

[Orioreeem]

The only issue I really see is the lack of Order having any actual logical negations.

Can you look at this again?

 

[Ddzn]

I would like to further touch on the fact that everything, (not just living) has a source. Which we can deduce from these scans alone.

1.) Anos resurrected Zepes as an undead zombie with the <Igurm> spell.

“I stopped and drew a magic circle over Zepes’s carbonized form. Then, I reached down and dragged the demon’s body from the center. But this time, unlike with Ingall, his flesh was rotten.
“This power... What’s with this sinister magic?!”

“Oh, is this your first time seeing it? This is Igrum. Simply put, a spell that resurrects the dead as zombies.”

“That’s absurd... The corpse is moving as though it’s alive! How could you use such a spell...? You’re a monster!”

“What? It’s not that big of a deal. The spell is simple.”

The newly revived Zepes, resurrected as a moving corpse, began his sluggish walk towards Leorg. Darkness swirled in his eyes, drool dripping from his gaping jaw.

“Graaaaaah! It hurts... It hurts, it hurts, it hurts! Brother...why did you kill me? Why did you kill me...? Why?!”

“G-Go away... Begone, you dead bastard! ”

Volume 1 § 6. Forbidden Magic: Origin Magic```

2.) Another instance would be when Zaburo upgraded the <Ingrum> spell to <Goa Grum> which is a spell which resurrects the undead to ghouls.

”There were six of them. Like the butler, they had rotting skin, red eyes, and two horns atop their heads.
“They’re like zombies, but not...” Eleonore muttered.

Zaburo laughed, watching with a childish smirk. “I doubt you’ve seen these before. They’re ghouls. I’ve upgraded that lame-ass spell Igrum that Anos concocted. This spell produces subservient soldiers even more powerful than those the original spell could manage to create. However, it also corrupts their source.”

Eleonore gave the undead soldiers a pitying look. “This magic is terrible.”

“Oh, I still have a long way to go in source research when I compare this magic to the spell Eleonore,” Zaburo said, as though discussing the results of his research. “I wonder what kind of spell formula is required to clone a source? The answer may allow me to peer even deeper into the abyss of magic.”

“Lives shouldn’t be sacrificed for the sake of research.”

“Foolish girl. I haven’t sacrificed anything. Their sources still exist—if anything, they should be grateful for their newfound power.”

Volume 4 Volume 14```

Linka then sensed a murderous presence and turned around. Order had inverted, and a woman clad in red fabric appeared at the spot Wenzel had stared at. It was a woman with dark red hair, tied back and swaying like an ocean. In other words, Wenzel had turned into Andeluc, the Goddess of Termination.

Red thread appeared and at once drew a magic circle, where a giant pair of fabric scissors in the shape of a two-headed snake emerged in the center.

"Zaburo!"

"I know!"

The divine soldiers that had been turned into ghouls all charged at Andeluc.

"Unwanted babes shall be consumed by the fangs of the snake," Andeluc snarled coldly. A metallic snipping sound rang through the air. "Egliahonne."

"What?!" Zaburo's Magic Eyes widened. The bodies of the ghouls were crumbling apart, making them all perish at once. "How is this possible?! My ghouls!"

"As the torn fetus drowns, the water of the mother stains red."

Red blood flowed from the crumbling ghouls, staining the Mother Sea crimson red.

Volume 10 Chapter 37, Act 2

Seeing that we know all Sources follow the cycle of Life and Death, the undead taking part in Death would make It equivalent to "Non-Life", which is the textbook logical opposition of Life. As established here, "as long as a verse has sufficient proof that Death is Non-life (i.e., by making even Undead be encompassed as "dead"-side) we can classify them as valid logical dualities". Additionally it’s even shown in the other scan that even undead ghouls are directly affected by Andulec (Order of Termination), so it can’t be more blatant as that.

Neverless, undeads can also come under the cycle of Destruction as Anos mentions that <ingall> and <agronemt> like spells are influenced by the Order of Destruction.

The reason Ingall, the resurrection spell, and Agronemt, the source regeneration spell, could be cast with such high success rates was because the Goddess of Destruction had been contained in a new form—as the Demon King Castle Delsgade. In order to prevent the devastating power of the god from leaking into the world, I had converted that power into my own spell :Venuzdonoa. By removing the order of destruction, demons and humans were much less likely to die for good. The balance of life and death, which had previously been decided by that order, had from then on leaned faintly in favor of life, giving birth to hope in this world.

3.) . Magic power exists naturally in nature and we know magic power is life itself, Therefore would be under world order. Neverless these things such as swords would possess a source as stated.

Under the light of the Moon of Creation, all life gained magic at the core of its being. This created the origin and foundation of all life—the source. Illuminated by that silver moonlight was a battlefield where many had lost their lives. The dead bodies, broken trees, and wilted plants on that wasteland froze like time had stopped then ceased to exist. Once the old was gone, the new could be born. It was said that after thousands of nights of destruction, the Moon of Creation would shine in the sky and create new life. Through Altiertonoa’s miracle, the order of the world was maintained by cycling the lives that had been lost.

“Sources reincarnate, life cycles renew. But this doesn’t happen in perpetuity. Sources should glow brighter the closer they approach ruin. Even if their current life was full of sadness, as long as the next life glows with more joy, the balance between fortune and misfortune will be maintained,” Misha said, staring into my eyes. “If it didn’t end in sadness... If there was hope for the next life even after so many repeated misfortunes, there would still be salvation in this world.” She paused and looked down in silence for a moment. Then, she said coldly, “The total latent magic power of this world is in constant decline.” Hmm. Total latent power? “Demons and humans, magic artifacts, demon swords, holy swords—everything that possesses magic, added together?” I asked. Misha quietly nodded. “Magic doesn’t cycle through perfectly. As life reincarnates, magic spills here and there, eventually vanishing completely.” If the total magic of the world was gradually decreasing, then that would mean there was life that couldn’t cycle through and reincarnate. Some lives might lose their magic power like my father, Ceris Voldigoad. And once they ran out of magic, their source itself would vanish.
Vol 9, Ch 44

Lay’s magic vanished. This was why he had allowed his sources to be destroyed. His seven sources made it extremely difficult to erase his own magic, which was why he had reduced them to one. “Misa,” Lay called, hoping to separate her mind from Avos Dilhevia’s as much as possible, “I believe this is something your father granted me to save you with. Even if he did so unintentionally, his fate was to try and save you. So come back to me! ”Lay’s source seized the source of Evansmana. “The first hidden art of the Sword of Three Races...”

Lay and I crossed swords once more. The shock wave of sword meeting sword uprooted the surrounding vegetation, turning the area into a wasteland. However, the soil of the enchanted forest was teeming with magic power. No matter to what extent we rampaged through it, everything would be restored overnight. In other words, we could unleash our attacks to the fullest of our capabilities.
Chapter 9, Vol 2

And its already established on Anos Voldigoad's profile that the 7 demon elders were born to life by Anos using his own blood.

4.) Andulec (Order of Termination) also can terminate even magic.

Using Egliahonne to behead herself had probably been the most effective way to use the order of termination. For a god, dying was nothing.
“Ingall.”
I dripped blood onto Andeluc’s source and drew a magic circle. The light of resurrection glowed, but immediately became distorted. Ingall had been terminated before it could fully activate.
“You may be able to terminate magic even with a dead womb, but there’s no need to be so stubborn,” I said, staring at her source with mauve-stained Magic Eyes. I slowly lifted my right hand. “With you dead, it’s far easier to destroy your source than revive it.”

Ch 37, Vol 9

“What’s wrong, child? Backed into a corner, are we?” the two-headed snake said mockingly. “You cannot interfere. I may not be able to terminate the destruction magic you so excel at, but I will be able to perish regardless.”```

Ch 39, Vol 9

“Lend me your strength, God of Binding. Andeluc can terminate magic, but as a god, she cannot interfere with other orders. She cannot terminate, for example, your chains.”

Ch 37, Vol 9

Thus, as long as a source exists, even in an undead state, it will adhere to the cycle of death, since orders directly influence the source's level. It is also established that Life and Non-Life, as well as Existence and Non-Existence, may operate under different properties. This suggests that not all dual pairs need to encompass everything, provided they address the relevant properties. In this context, creation and destruction can be viewed as fulfilling their roles concerning non-living properties (such as rocks) rather than focusing solely on Birth and Death, which primarily pertain to orders and living beings. Consequently, orders ultimately exhaust all the possibilities of the world.

 

[Saucy_Jackistan24]

Bumpy

The only issue I really see is the lack of Order having any actual logical negations.

ya still interested in viewing this, spaceman?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

2. Proof of negation - The actions of one order within a pair, when it gets deactivated, gets removed and replaced by the events influenced by its opposite pair, therefore an inverse relationship. (Ex - The scan where they talk about how the number of lives perished will also lead to the number of lives born and vice versa). Furthermore, the existence one side of the pair gives the logical meaning to the other, as they say without creation, there's no destruction and vice versa.

The issue is that the negation of destruction isn't creation and vice versa.

3. Following LONC and LOEM - The opposing Orders can't manifest at the same time, when one part is active, the other side simply remains absent proving a strict mutually exclusive dichotomy. And at the same time, only either one of them can be present for their given domain of event following the cycle of their activeness, excluding any third existence between the pairs. (Ex - "When the sun of destruction rises, the moon of creation disappears", "when order of termination is present the order of birth cannot, at a time only one godess can be seen".)

Same issue as above, these are not negations.

Everything listed are dualities, but not logical negations.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

To flesh it out a little more, consider how classical logic treats opposites.

Many verses present Life and Death as opposites or dualities, but they are not strict logical negations of one another. A rock is neither alive nor dead, yet we would not consider it to have PP.

The opposite of "alive" is not necessarily "dead" but rather "not alive".

Death is simply one possible state of something that was previously alive.

The same applies to Creation and Destruction. Taken literally, these are actions or processes, not ontological states. Something is created, then it's no longer being created, and later it may be destroyed.

They describe transitions between states rather than mutually exclusive absolutes. An object can exist without currently being created or destroyed. Therefore, "destruction" is not the logical negation of "creation".

Even if one interprets Creation more broadly, the opposite of a created thing would not be destruction, but rather lacking the property of having been created.

Likewise, destruction is not "nothingness" itself. Destruction is merely the process by which something is reduced, removed, or transformed. As the page itself notes, destruction is the reduction of something to nothing, not nothingness itself. Two concepts being treated as rivals, counterparts, or dualities within a setting do not automatically make them logical negations of one another.

For some more examples:

• Alive / Dead are opposing states, but both presuppose the existence of an entity.
• Creation / Destruction are opposing processes, not contradictory ontological categories.
• Order / Chaos are often presented as dualities, yet something can exhibit aspects of both simultaneously.

By contrast, logical negations are things like:

• Existence / Non-Existence
• True / False
• Being / Not-Being
• A / Not-A

 

[Fixxed]

Many verses present Life and Death as opposites or dualities, but they are not strict logical negations of one another. A rock is neither alive nor dead, yet we would not consider it to have PP.

The opposite of "alive" is not necessarily "dead" but rather "not alive".

Death is simply one possible state of something that was previously alive.

This rock argument is literally incorrect. Even DT say life and death can be a logical duality. All you must do is prove those two thing have logical duality's nature

Bruh i think you dont understand what we consider as logical duality here. Just read the page

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.

If you say it cannot be a logical duality because "there exist everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion", you literally contradict what the explanation page say because there are also rose that are yellow, so red and not red should't be logical duality?

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 doesnt see the nature of duality from its object that participated in it, we see it from the nature of the property it self

As it say "logically necessary to participate", a stone does not necessarily have to participate in the properties of being born and not being born (or termination in here), it doesnt make birth and not-birth arent logical duality anymore

Like it doesnt participate in the category of life and not-life or growth and not-growth, but it not make those two arent logical duality

In their own intrinsic nature, birth and termination exhaust all possible things outside those two, but it doesnt mean it must exhaust all possible things outside itself

For some more examples:

• Alive / Dead are opposing states, but both presuppose the existence of an entity.
• Creation / Destruction are opposing processes, not contradictory ontological categories.
• Order / Chaos are often presented as dualities, yet something can exhibit aspects of both simultaneously.

Bruh all things you say here can be logical duality as long as their relation to each other is a logical duality

DT literally say this:

Whether Life & Death or Light & Darkness are durality would depend on the exact definition. Very often when these things are brought up, particularly in the context that something is neither, it's exactly about how they are not logical negations. Like, things being neither alive nor dead are often undead or artificial beings, rather than outright in a logically paradox state of being.

So these things can be logical dualities, but it depends on how exactly the verse defines the terms.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Bruh i think you dont understand what we consider as logical duality here. Just read the page=

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.

But roses don't have Paraconsistent Physiology, because you can look at a rose and see what color it is.

If you say it cannot be a logical duality because "there exist everyday objects that can't be applied using the logic of birth and abortion", you literally contradict what the explanation page say because there are also rose that are yellow, so red and not red should't be logical duality?

Yellow is "Not Red", therefore, the Rose would still only exist in one state.

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.

Yes.

We doesnt see the nature of duality from its object that participated in it, we see it from the nature of the property it self

As it say "logically necessary to participate", a stone does not necessarily have to participate in the properties of being born and not being born (or termination in here), it doesnt make birth and not-birth arent logical duality anymore

Born and Not-Born are a logical negation, and rocks are not Born, therefore they both participate in the logical duality, but don't violate it.

Like it doesnt participate in the category of life and not-life or growth and not-growth, but it not make those two arent logical duality

A rock is not life, and a rock is either growth or not-growth depending on whether it gets bigger or is worn down and deteriorates.

In their own intrinsic nature, birth and termination exhaust all possible things outside those two, but it doesnt mean it must exhaust all possible things outside itself

I'm not being birthed right now, and I'm also not being terminated right now.

 

[Dog3352]

Also, I agree with CRT, and I'll put my point here:

I'll use a stone as the main object here.

From the moment a stone is created, it comes into existence and participates in the order of creation. For this stone to participate in the order of destruction, it must go through the process of destruction and become nonexistent.

In the same way that existence and non-existence are logical negations because something cannot exist (A) and at the same time not exist (non-A), in MG something cannot be created/exist (A) and be destroyed/not exist (non-A) at the same time.

Many verses present Life and Death as opposites or dualities, but they are not strict logical negations of one another. A rock is neither alive nor dead, yet we would not consider it to have PP.

The opposite of "alive" is not necessarily "dead" but rather "not alive".

Death is simply one possible state of something that was previously alive.

However, the stone wouldn't participate in the duality of "life and non-life," but rather in creation and destruction. Saying that duality X doesn't work by using something that participates in duality Y as an argument doesn't seem right.

I'm not being birthed right now, and I'm also not being terminated right now

Uhh, that doesn't make sense. Even if we say that birth is A and non-birth is non-A, that's not a continuous state. It only defines whether you were born or not. If someone is born, it's A, even if they aren't being born at the present moment.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I'll use a stone as the main object here.

From the moment a stone is created, it comes into existence and participates in the order of creation. For this stone to participate in the order of destruction, it must go through the process of destruction and become nonexistent.

In the same way that existence and non-existence are logical negations because something cannot exist (A) and at the same time not exist (non-A), in MG something cannot be created/exist (A) and be destroyed/not exist (non-A) at the same time.

The issue here is that you're treating Creation and Destruction as if they're states, when they're really processes.

A stone is created, exists for some period of time, and may eventually be destroyed. But once the stone has been created, the act of creation is already over. Likewise, unless it's currently being destroyed, it isn't participating in destruction either.

So if we're saying the stone is constantly participating in the Order of Creation while it exists, then "Creation" is no longer being treated as the event that brought it into existence. At that point, it starts looking more like Creation is simply another name for Existence itself.

The same problem applies to Destruction. If the Order of Destruction is meant to be the opposite of the Order of Creation, then it shouldn't correspond to the process of becoming nonexistent, but to Nonexistence itself.

Otherwise, there's a middle state where the stone already exists but is neither being created nor being destroyed, which suggests that Creation and Destruction are events that happen to things, rather than fundamental opposites.

So it comes down to whether the verse treats Creation and Destruction as ongoing states, or as the acts of creating and destroying. If it's the latter, then they don't really function as logical opposites in the same way that Existence and Nonexistence do.

However, the stone wouldn't participate in the duality of "life and non-life," but rather in creation and destruction (there isn't even an "order of life" in Maou Gakuin). Saying that duality X doesn't work by using something that participates in duality Y as an argument doesn't seem right.

Refer to the above.

Uhh, that doesn't make sense. Even if we say that birth is A and non-birth is non-A, that's not a continuous state. It only defines whether you were born or not. If someone is born, it's A, even if they aren't being born at the present moment.

Exactly, birth is not a continuous state; therefore, the Order of Birth and Abortion being logical negations makes no sense.

Birth is an event, just like being created or being destroyed.

 

[Dog3352]

The issue here is that you're treating Creation and Destruction as if they're states, when they're really processes.

A stone is created, exists for some period of time, and may eventually be destroyed. But once the stone has been created, the act of creation is already over. Likewise, unless it's currently being destroyed, it isn't participating in destruction either.

So if we're saying the stone is constantly participating in the Order of Creation while it exists, then "Creation" is no longer being treated as the event that brought it into existence. At that point, it starts looking more like Creation is simply another name for Existence itself.

The same problem applies to Destruction. If the Order of Destruction is meant to be the opposite of the Order of Creation, then it shouldn't correspond to the process of becoming nonexistent, but to Nonexistence itself.

Otherwise, there's a middle state where the stone already exists but is neither being created nor being destroyed, which suggests that Creation and Destruction are events that happen to things, rather than fundamental opposites.

So it comes down to whether the verse treats Creation and Destruction as ongoing states, or as the acts of creating and destroying. If it's the latter, then they don't really function as logical opposites in the same way that Existence and Nonexistence do

I am certain that one happening after another does not mean that it cannot be a logical negation, something that exists at some point will cease to exist, and therefore will go from A (exist) to non-A (non-exist), in the same way that something that lives (A) will one day no longer live (non-A), etc. Both these and MANY other logical dualities can and do happen in sequence.
I'm sure that one happening after another (being a process) doesn't mean it can't be a logical negation, something that exists at some point will cease to exist, and therefore will go from A (exist) to non-A (non-exist), in the same way that something that lives (A) will one day no longer live (A), etc. Both these and VARIOUS other logical dualities can happen and do happen in sequence.
So honestly, I maintain that there's no way something can be created (come into existence) and be destroyed (reduced to nothing/cease to exist) simultaneously.

Exactly, birth is not a continuous state; therefore, the Order of Birth and Abortion being logical negations makes no sense.

Could you show me exactly where it says that something not being a continuous state makes it impossible for it to be a logical negation? A huge portion of what can be given as an example of logical negation is not a continuous state or only lasts for a period of time.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I'm sure that one happening after another (being a process) doesn't mean it can't be a logical negation, something that exists at some point will cease to exist, and therefore will go from A (exist) to non-A (non-exist), in the same way that something that lives (A) will one day no longer live (A), etc.

But Creation ≠ Existence and Destruction ≠ Nonexistence.

Being the process between two states, and being two states are separate things.

Both these and VARIOUS other logical dualities can happen and do happen in sequence.

Feel free to list them.

So honestly, I maintain that there's no way something can be created (come into existence) and be destroyed (reduced to nothing/cease to exist) simultaneously.

I didn't say you could be both simultaneously, I said you could be neither.

Could you show me exactly where it says that something not being a continuous state makes it impossible for it to be a logical negation? A huge portion of what can be given as an example of logical negation is not a continuous state or only lasts for a period of time.

The issue isn't that Creation and Destruction are processes. The issue is that they don't satisfy the Law of the Excluded Middle in the way genuine logical negations do.

For a contradiction, there should only be A and not-A. Something either exists or does not exist. Something is either true or not true. There is no third option.

However, with Creation and Destruction, there is a third state: something can simply exist without currently being created or destroyed.

A stone is created, then exists for a period of time, and is eventually destroyed. During that period of existence, it is neither undergoing creation nor destruction.

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

I am certain that one happening after another does not mean that it cannot be a logical negation, something that exists at some point will cease to exist, and therefore will go from A (exist) to non-A (non-exist), in the same way that something that lives (A) will one day no longer live (non-A), etc. Both these and MANY other logical dualities can and do happen in sequence.
I'm sure that one happening after another (being a process) doesn't mean it can't be a logical negation, something that exists at some point will cease to exist, and therefore will go from A (exist) to non-A (non-exist), in the same way that something that lives (A) will one day no longer live (A), etc. Both these and VARIOUS other logical dualities can happen and do happen in sequence.
So honestly, I maintain that there's no way something can be created (come into existence) and be destroyed (reduced to nothing/cease to exist) simultaneously.

Could you show me exactly where it says that something not being a continuous state makes it impossible for it to be a logical negation? A huge portion of what can be given as an example of logical negation is not a continuous state or only lasts for a period of time.

While that is exactly correct dog, my understanding of Spaceman's argument is that he has straight up said "unless it's specifically about two states, it's not a logical negation". He's using two logical dualities like "life" and "non life" as the basic underline for his argument. Since even if something is undead, it's still participates in "non life", as such the duality of life and non life still remains viable on the specific object. So if creation and destruction are to be argued like life and non life, then the objects in the world will atleast have to be either under the act of being created or destroyed.

But since these properties won't make sense in a cosmological setting, it just gives spaceman to throw in his rule into the mix once again, which is "that is why i don't see it as meeting the standards as these are not textbook logical negations". A textbook logical negation won't really include processes as binary negating pairs as there will always be a middle ground between the transition happens, by his definition. A light switch being turned OFF and ON won't be a duality as between the transition of the one position to another, the switch enters a middle point where it's neither at that moment.

If that's how it is then it's an incredibly odd and rigid of a standard. By that sense the wiki does not incorporate the principle of domain of discourse at all. He wants every object to participate in every pairs of duality (one side or the other). It's not necessarily that the logic is broken for the verse, but the wiki is just that much of a madness in this (gives me the deja vu from that acausality type 5 standard revision, which was wholly ridiculous as well).

Ig we'll just have to wait for other staffs or maybe some middle point someone from our side is willing to give.

 

[Scholar_of_Mystery]

However, with Creation and Destruction, there is a third state: something can simply exist without currently being created or destroyed.

A stone is created, then exists for a period of time, and is eventually destroyed. During that period of existence, it is neither undergoing creation nor destruction.

This is true in general, but I remember that in MG, something can't maintain its existence if it's not subject to order. And I think the blog already addressed that issue by demonstrating how creation is equivalent to existence.

“If the world was born first, it would break apart without order to maintain it. I can’t imagine it lasting for very long without the gods.”
Without order, worlds would perish. A world without gods was too unstable to exist on its own

And a rock is a part of the world, and the world was created/exists because of the Order of Creation. If that order isn't active, even for a moment, the world is fated to be destroyed.

So yes, the order of creation is permanently active to maintain the existence of the world and everything in it. So until the moment of its destruction, it always falls under the effet of the order of creation, wich maintains its existence (correct me if I'm wrong).