Maou Gakuin upgrade : Orders as Logical negations !!?

[Dog3352]

But Creation ≠ Existence and Destruction ≠ Nonexistence.

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

I didn't say that creation = existence or that destruction = non-existence, I'm saying that both happen one after the other. You said that both being things that happen one after the other disqualifies them as logical negations, when life and non-life and existence and non-existence are logical negations and are ALSO things that happen one after the other.

Feel free to list them

I've already mentioned two, which are "existence and non-existence" (everything that exists will one day cease to exist) and "life and non-life" (everything that is alive will one day die).

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

I misspoke; I meant that I continue to see this as a logical negation due to what has already been said.

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.

But as long as "something" exists in the world, that "something" is governed by order and is participating in that order; this has already been elaborated on in the blog.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I'm not particularly opposed to creation and destruction not being a logical negation

Since a created being will remain a created being for its entirety until it is destroyed, and if being destroyed is just being unmade and reduced to a state prior to becoming a created being
It satisfies the requirement of being a logical negation.

for the others like Life and death then there is more to discuss

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

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.

As much as I intend to openly understand your stance I've still got a question. You say that processes can't be logical negations as they break law of excluded middle.

By that notion am I to understand that you are saying that a random rock in the world breaks classical logic ? Even tho the general system of the world still incorporates it under its influence and doesn't consider it to be a "contradiction" ? What do you have to say for specifically that part ? Or do you leave it out since it's a grey area that the Wiki didn't encode in its standards ?

Law of excluded middle is relevant on the pair that's acting as binary pairs. If there was a gap between the two processes interchanging and a third existence comes in between them then it's a state LOEM doesn't apply, the equation turns error. A rock simply existing in statis doesn't mean the pair of creation and destruction have a third middle existence attached with them, it just means that once the pair's work is done the rock enters under the influence of other dual orders within its lifecycle in the world.

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

I'm not particularly opposed to creation and destruction not being a logical negation

Since a created being will remain a created being for its entirety until it is destroyed, and if being destroyed is just being unmade and reduced to a state prior to becoming a created being
It satisfies the requirement of being a logical negation.

for the others like Life and death then there is more to discuss

We didn't really include life and death in it, while they might be since death as a concept exists in the verse. It's mainly done with creation-destruction and birth-termination as the basis for arguing other orders to be the same as well, in their functioning logic. As I mentioned in my previous comment in reply to yours.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

We didn't really include life and death in it, while they be since death as a concept exists in the verse. It's mainly done with creation-destruction and birth-termination as the basis for arguing other orders to be the same as well, in their functioning logic. As I mentioned in my previous comment in reply to yours.

I mean, I'm somewhat assuming these terms like termination, birth, created, life, and death, destruction, are just under a single order

As most of it is usually synonymous with each other. saying he gave birth to the word is just a fancy way of saying he created the world

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I'm not particularly opposed to creation and destruction not being a logical negation

Since a created being will remain a created being for its entirety until it is destroyed, and if being destroyed is just being unmade and reduced to a state prior to becoming a created being
It satisfies the requirement of being a logical negation.

for the others like Life and death then there is more to discuss

The category of "creation" does not categorically exhaust the category of "destruction". Hell, would you say matter is nondual because it cant be created or destroyed?

creation and destruction is also a thing that exists in degrees. You can create through destruction. Destroying something ceramic shatters and creates many fragments. Yes there can be ex nihilo in a verse or utter annihilation to nothingness. But it doesnt negate the fact it exists in degrees with each other.

Not being able to exist at the same time isnt really proof of logical negations either.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I didn't say that creation = existence or that destruction = non-existence, I'm saying that both happen one after the other. You said that both being things that happen one after the other disqualifies them as logical negations, when life and non-life and existence and non-existence are logical negations and are ALSO things that happen one after the other.
Furthermore, destruction is the reduction of something to nothing, so it's not a process like deterioration, it just happens when something is reduced to nothing.

My point is that a logical negation must remain applicable at all times. At any given moment, something either exists or does not exist.

There is no third option.

Creation and Destruction don't seem to work that way. A stone can exist for thousands of years without currently being created or destroyed. During that period, neither "Creation" nor "Destruction" applies to it; they are not logical dualities.

I've already mentioned two, which are "existence and non-existence" (everything that exists will one day cease to exist) and "life and non-life" (everything that is alive will one day die). If we are more specific, we can cite logical negations where at one moment a person is in one state and at another moment in various points of their life, such as "going up and not going up", "seeing and not seeing", etc.

But none of these are like Creation and Destruction, where you can be neither.

But as long as "something" exists in the world, that "something" is governed by order and is participating in that order; this has already been elaborated on in the blog.

Then that means it's being governed by Creation & Destruction simultaneously, which means it's not a logical duality.

I'm not particularly opposed to creation and destruction not being a logical negation

Since a created being will remain a created being for its entirety until it is destroyed, and if being destroyed is just being unmade and reduced to a state prior to becoming a created being. It satisfies the requirement of being a logical negation.

for the others like Life and death then there is more to discuss

Take a chair as an example:

• A woodcarver creates a chair.
• The chair is later destroyed.

At that point, both statements are true:

• "The chair was created."
• "The chair was destroyed."

If both predicates can apply to the same object without contradiction, then they are not logical negations of one another.

"The chair was created" remains true even after the chair is destroyed.

As much as I intent to openly understand your stance I've still got a question. You say that processes can't be logical negations as they break law of excluded middle.

By that notion am I to understand that you are saying that a random rock in the world breaks classical logic ? Even tho the general system of the world still incorporates it under its influence and doesn't consider it to be a "contradiction" ? What do you have to say for specifically that part ? Or do you leave it out since it's a grey area that the Wiki didn't encode in its standards ?

A rock doesn't break any classical logic; I never said that.

Law of excluded middle is relevant on the pair that's acting as binary pairs. If there was a gap between the two processes interchanging and a third existence comes in between them then it's a state LOEM doesn't apply, the equation turns error. A rock simply existing in statis doesn't mean the pair of creation and destruction have a third middle existence attached with them, it just means that once the pair's work is done the rock enters under the influence of other dual orders within its lifecycle in the world.

If Creation and Destruction only form a binary pair while the processes themselves are actively occurring, then they aren't analogous to something like Existence and Nonexistence.

Existence and Nonexistence remain exhaustive categories at every moment. An object is always either existent or nonexistent, always life or nonlife, always conscious or non-conscious.

By contrast, you're saying that once Creation has occurred and before Destruction occurs, the object simply falls under different principles entirely. But if that's the case, then Creation and Destruction are not exhaustive states of being.

They're merely events that happen during an object's history.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

The category of "creation" does not categorically exhaust the category of "destruction". Hell, would you say matter is nondual because it cant be created or destroyed?

creation and destruction is also a thing that exists in degrees. You can create through destruction. Destroying something ceramic shatters creates many fragments.

Matter is created. it wouldn't exist if it wasn't created.

Its true that they exist in degrees. But everything starts from creation and eventually ends with destruction.

When I'm referring to creation and destruction, I'm referring to their absolute meaning for physical existence
A chair being destroyed and reduced to lumber doesn't make it destroyed; it still is created and remains created now as a piece
It wasn't destroyed, simply reduced to something else.

That's why you look into the verse context when they explain creation and destruction not outside of it

We are not here to argue every nitty gritty in actual realities when the verse being discussed already explains their creation and destruction in a sense not what you and spaceman are giving examples for

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

I mean, I'm somewhat assuming these terms like termination, birth, created, life, and death, destruction, are just under a single order

As most of it is usually synonymous with each other. saying he gave birth to the word is just a fancy way of saying he created the world

That is an interesting point, which I would have agreed to if the series hadn't fortify each of those concepts to be their own individual Orders, that acts on the world.

Tho there is the fact creation complements birth, same way destruction complements death and termination, but that is for an entirely different function as explained in the blog. The world has a redundant back up in case of the binary pairs (let's say creation and destruction are outed from the equation, like how Anos removed order of destruction and creation from the world cycle), the other binary pairs which complements those two concepts tries to maintain the world as it was before. If they were all one same order, then moving one pair will really collapse other pairs as well.

Each events is influenced by an order itself.
Tho it is true that they come under "one order" but that's from the notion of nonduality, not in the sense that all fragmented pairs of orders together make one single duality, even tho the entire system acts unified with all dual systems to keep the cycle of world moving in harmony.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

That is an interesting point, which I would have agreed to if the series hadn't fortify each of those concepts to be their own individual Orders, that acts on the world.

Tho there is the fact creation complements birth, same way destruction complements death and termination, but that is for an entirely different function as explained in the blog. The world has a redundant back up in case of the binary pairs (let's say creation and destruction are outed from the equation, like how Anos removed order of destruction and creation from the world cycle), the other binary pairs which complements those two concepts tries to maintain the world as it was before. If they were all one same order, then moving one pair will really collapse other pairs as well.

Each events is influenced by an order itself.
Tho it is true that they come under "one order" but that's from the notion of nonduality, not in the sense that all fragmented pairs of orders together make one single duality, even tho the entire system acts unified with all dual systems to keep the cycle of world moving in harmony.

If the series explains these Orders are separate then I'll have to disgree with them being dualities and logical negation
they would just be concepts

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Matter is created. it wouldn't exist if it wasn't created.

Its true that they exist in degrees. But everything starts from creation and eventually ends with destruction.

When I'm referring to creation and destruction, I'm referring to their absolute meaning for physical existence
A chair being destroyed and reduced to lumber doesn't make it destroyed; it still is created and remains created now as a piece
It was destroyed, simply reduced to something else.

But it still does not categorically exhaust each other. What does categorically exhaust creation is "non-created". The pure category of having not been created. What does exhaust destruction is "non-destruction". The pure category of not having been destroyed. What creation and destruction refer to are transitory phases or processes. They aren't trying to exhaust the other.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

To qualify as a logical duality, these are the rules.

• The Law of Identity (A = A)
  • Life must equal Life, Nonlife must equal Nonlife.
• The Law of Non-Contradiction ∉(A & Not A)
  • You cannot be both Life and Nonlife.
• The Law of Excluded Middle (A or Not A)
  • You must be Life or Nonlife, there is no middle ground.

If you believe something to be a logical duality, these three laws must all be applicable simutaneously, to something as simple as a rock, or a chair. If it breaks them at any point, then they are not logical negations.

 

[Dog3352]

My point is that a logical negation must remain applicable at all times. At any given moment, something either exists or does not exist.

There is no third option.

Creation and Destruction don't seem to work that way. A stone can exist for thousands of years without currently being created or destroyed. During that period, neither "Creation" nor "Destruction" applies to it; they are not logical dualities.

This is simply going against cosmology itself; the things that exist in the world and that are happening in the world happen according to orders at all times, even birds are only birds because of orders.
Moreover, this "something" that is not being constantly created or destroyed may be participating in other dual orders, because EVERYTHING that happens in the world happens according to some order, which is connected to its opposite—this is stated at the beginning of the blog.

But none of these are like Creation and Destruction, where you can be neither.

In fact, there are at least two options:

1. After "something" is created, its useful life occurs according to some other dual system(s);
2. The order of destruction is what causes something to gradually decay, like the deterioration of a stone.

Remember that everything that exists in the world is bound to order and follows it, so both are entirely possible.

Then that means it's being governed by Creation & Destruction simultaneously, which means it's not a logical duality.

What I'm saying is that everything in the world participates in orders, not that all things participate in all orders.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

But it still does not categorically exhaust each other. What does categorically exhaust creation is "non-created". The pure category of having not been created. What does exhaust destruction is "non-destruction". The pure category of not having been destroyed. What creation and destruction refer to are transitory phases or processes. They aren't trying to exhaust the other.

And what happens to something that is no longer created or non-created? They are destroyed. erased, terminated, cease to exist. which can be synonymous with unmade, uncreated. As long as the verse satisfies that when referring to destroyed, they also refer to the negation, such as unmade, uncreated, then I still believe they should qualify. At the very least that's What DT seems to suggest and the blog also somehow mentioned it as their reasoning

Take a chair as an example:

• A woodcarver creates a chair.
• The chair is later destroyed.

At that point, both statements are true:

• "The chair was created."
• "The chair was destroyed."

If both predicates can apply to the same object without contradiction, then they are not logical negations of one another.

But it stops being a Chair. When it was destroyed, can you call a piece of wood a chair?
Your mistake here is going with Was not Is
The Chair is Created. The Chair is Destroyed
The moment the state is destroyed, it becomes what was created and thus no longer created as a chair. But still a created thing because its pieces are still a creation, as Friendoftearparty says, or a creation because it still exists as something that was created when it was destroyed to piece until you reduce it to absolutely nothing


I will settle with it being a process because you are indeed correct. But like I said earlier. Verse context (at least from what they are arguing in the blog) seems to consider them not as processes but as states, which might be wrong

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

This is simply going against cosmology itself; the things that exist in the world and that are happening in the world happen according to orders at all times, even birds are only birds because of orders. Moreover, this "something" that is not being constantly created or destroyed may be participating in other dual orders, because EVERYTHING that happens in the world happens according to some order, which is connected to its opposite—this is stated at the beginning of the blog.

They're concepts, of course, birds are only birds because of orders.

But that's not what's being debated here.

In fact, there are at least two options:

1. After "something" is created, its useful life occurs according to some other dual system(s);

Logical states must always be applicable.

2. The order of destruction is what causes something to gradually decay, like the deterioration of a stone.

That's just causality, not a logical state.

I will settle with it being a process because you are indeed correct. But like I said earlier. Verse context (at least from what they are arguing in the blog) seems to consider them not as processes but as states, which might be wrong

It is a process, though.

Under the order of this world, destruction is the reduction of something to nothing.

Anyway, I'll leave this here. I'm still in disagreement, as I've explained how logical states work, and that Orders don't qualify, I'll let other staff come to their own conclusions (@Vietthai96 @DarkDragonMedeus @FinePoint @Dereck03)

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

always conscious or non-conscious.

A person who's under a semi conscious stupor, a daze, day dreaming then he's not strictly either under conscious or non conscious state.

So by that sense even textbook logical negations aren't negating exhausting a person's state of consciousness 24/7, so using your own logic conscious and non conscious fails to be a logical negation when you say that they are.

There is a reason why domain of discourse is used alongside logical dualities to make the whole logic remain consistent for every single moment. Each logical dualities varies over their own specific domain, where they are allowed to range over. You can't put correct and incorrect to a question like "Is a rock correct or incorrect?", and that doesn't make correct and incorrect not strict logical dualities, because the domain of correct and incorrect are only allowed to range over the domain of a "propositions", like "is the rock sitting on top of a table or not".

The entire thread is a hotchpotch, there's friendofparty arguing for degrees and allat, so even in his sense correct and incorrect aren't strict logical negations as there can be moment where an answer can be semi incorrect and semi correct.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

A person who's under a semi conscious stupor, a daze, day dreaming then he's not strictly either under conscious or non conscious state.

So by that sense even textbook logical negations aren't negating exhausting a person's state of consciousness 24/7, so using your own logic conscious and non conscious fails to be a logical negation when you say that they are.

There is a reason why domain of discourse is used alongside logical dualities to make the whole logic remain consistent for every single moment. Each logical dualities varies over their own specific domain, where they are allowed to range over. You can't put correct and incorrect to a question like "Is a rock correct or incorrect?", and that doesn't make correct and incorrect not strict logical dualities, because the domain of correct and incorrect are only allowed to range over the domain of a "propositions", like "is the rock sitting on top of a table or not".

The entire thread is a hotchpotch, there's friendofparty arguing for degrees and allat, so even in his sense correct and incorrect aren't strict logical negations as there can be moment where an answer can be semi incorrect and semi correct.

Someone who is daydreaming, dazed, or half-asleep is not a counterexample to conscious/non-conscious. The disagreement there is over which category the person belongs to, not whether the categories themselves stop being exhaustive. Unless you're explicitly rejecting classical logic and adopting something like fuzzy logic, the person is still either conscious or not conscious, even if determining which is true may be difficult.

The same applies to your example of correct and incorrect. A rock isn't a proposition, so "correct" and "incorrect" simply don't apply to it. That's not a failure of the duality; it's just a category error.

The Law of the Excluded Middle only applies within the relevant domain of discourse in the first place.

Anyway, like I said, I'm done commenting on this CRT.

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

Someone who is daydreaming, dazed, or half-asleep is not a counterexample to conscious/non-conscious. The disagreement there is over which category the person belongs to, not whether the categories themselves stop being exhaustive. Unless you're explicitly rejecting classical logic and adopting something like fuzzy logic, the person is still either conscious or not conscious, even if determining which is true may be difficult.

A duality's exhaustive qualification is judged by the things that can be categorised within the duality. It's not matter of precise categorisation, but whether a state can be subjected to categorisation within the respective domain - which in turns leads to category error.

The same applies to your example of correct and incorrect. A rock isn't a proposition, so "correct" and "incorrect" simply don't apply to it. That's not a failure of the duality; it's just a category error.

The Law of the Excluded Middle only applies within the relevant domain of discourse in the first place.

Anyway, like I said, I'm done commenting on this CRT.

Aight

You correctly noted that a rock isn't a proposition, so trying to apply "correct/incorrect" to it is a category error, because the Law of the Excluded Middle only applies within the relevant domain of discourse. Then there's exactly nothing that differentiates your entire argument against the blog from being a massive category error either.

The Orders of Creation and Destruction are cosmic boundary laws, their domain of discourse is the absolute mechanics of bringing into being and removing from being. A random rock sitting quietly in stasis is completely outside the active execution of those two structural boundary events.

Pointing to a stable rock on a timeline and claiming it proves Creation and Destruction aren't true logical opposites is the exact same category error as pointing to a rock and saying it disproves "correct - incorrect".
And it's something I have previously said in the blog as well when someone was arguing the same thing as you and ultimately admitted the same as what you did rn.

And yet very interestingly, in that same comment of DDT that you used, he goes onto say at the last that Life and Death can indeed qualify as logical dualities, based on how the verse defines them (basically whether they define the two concepts in the logic of logical negations). Care to explain why would he say that ?

In formal logic binary pairs don't float around containing every single things in existence as a part of their domain. They all strictly follow the principle of domain of discourse, something I can tell you aren't aware about. It's as simple as any, logical negation is about one basic proposition or event branching into only two possible scenarios (A and NEG A) - and these two possible operators specifically cover 100% of all possibilities to the particular "statement or event" at hand, not everything else in the world. That is the very reason I gave you two examples, one of which you intentionally ignored that you've got nothing to answer for that ( I have arrived and I not arrive one). Just because other randoms on the road doesn't adhere to it doesn't mean that the binary system are in the wrong, it's that you have commited a massive category error. Substituting "non-birth" doesn't prove a truer negation, it just means you are expanding the phrasing to encompass inanimate objects that were never part of the system's architecture. A logical negation does not mean a concept has to encompass the entire universe; it means it must exhaust 100% of its specific Domain of Discourse. If you question "why isn't my calculator playing music, then it must not be a calculator", then it's as brain dead as it can get, as music playing was never a part of the domain of activities a calculator is supposed to execute (which would be addition, substraction, multiplication and division).

Your "not Born" alternative doesn't prove a truer negation either it just proves you are using a vague linguistic bucket that doesn't distinguish between an unborn entity waiting for a state change and an inanimate object that was never part of the domain to begin with. The moment you restrict the logic to its actual Domain of Discourse, which is conception, the gap vanishes entirely, and the duality is absolute.

Also another thing.
If i were to use your logic, then A rock not participating in Birth and Abortion would mean that the rock is now being considered a "paradoxical para consistent" existence that the world Orders can't recognise, because the rock breaks their logic. But that is entirely false as everything in the world is made of Order and follows it strictly. That's the very reason you see only few characters (main cast at that) that are considered to be "outside" of world Order and can resist it and not some random rock on the ground. So your category error of an argument doesn't work. A rock not participating between Birth and Abortion isn't an issue for the exact same reason a river not turning off or on doesn't make ON and OFF not a duality.

But sure
I won't bother ya
And wait for other staffs

 

[Dog3352]

They're concepts, of course, birds are only birds because of orders.

But that's not what's being debated here.

The point is that everything follows an order, so even the lifespan of a stone follows an order.

Logical states must always be applicable.

The order that governs X is always applied to X.

That's just causality, not a logical state.

I still stand by what I said before; nothing suggests that something has to be in constant creation to participate in the order of creation. On the contrary, it is stated several times that order maintains things as they are.

 

[Bahaha]

The point is that everything follows an order, so even the lifespan of a stone follows an order.

can you show this?

 

[Dog3352]

can you show this?

In the first scans of the blog

 

[Bahaha]

In the first scans of the blog

I may be blind, but I can't find the scan that says "stones have a lifespan and it's based on order" in the Defining Order section of the blog. Can you just quote it from the blog because I can't find it using the search filter.

 

[Dog3352]

I may be blind, but I can't find the scan that says "stones have a lifespan and it's based on order" in the Defining Order section of the blog. Can you just quote it from the blog because I can't find it using the search filter.

There isn't such a specific quote; it's simply a fact: everything that happens in the world happens according to order, even natural events like rain or degradation, which also makes the earth what it is (which obviously also includes the natural degradation of things, since even the earth degrades).

 

[Fixxed]

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

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

Bruh it seems you dont get my point. If red and not red is necessarily a logical duality for rose to participated in, it would have paraconsistent physiology if it didnt

NECESSARILY TO PARTICIPATED

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

Yeah because a rock does not necessarily have to participated in a logical duality of born and not-born

Bruh are even read what the page say? Or are you just ignore that?

More generally, existing outside of any duality where it's logically necessary to participate in one or the other would qualify.

Yes.

You say "yes" here, but doesnt read the "logically necessary to participate in" part?

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

The proportion already set to be birthed, you basically in a category of being birth right now

Basically if turn on and off a lamp, if turn on the lamp on 01:00 and turn it off on 02:00, on 01:30 you didnt do anything, but we all know that the lamp is still in the category of on


You basically ignore all my point here, and just reply some argument that you think you can debunk. You even doesnt reply on DT's comment

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Bruh it seems you dont get my point. If red and not red is necessarily a logical duality for rose to participated in, it would have paraconsistent physiology if it didnt

NECESSARILY TO PARTICIPATED

But it is participating, because the rose is "Not Red", therefore participating in Red and Not Red. If it wasn't necessarily participating, then the rock wouldn't be any color at all, because "Red is one color, and "Not Red" is every other color.

Yeah because a rock does not necessarily have to participated in a logical duality of born and not-born

Bruh are even read what the page say? Or are you just ignore that?

A rock does have to participate, because a rock is "Not Born".

You can tell if something participates in a property, depending on whether it makes sense.

A rock cannot participate in Correct & Incorrect; it can't be either of those things.

It can participate in Born & Not Born, because it can be Not Born.

The proportion already set to be birthed, you basically in a category of being birth right now

Birth is a present tense; birthed is a past tense.

Birth is an action, a process of events; it can't be a logical state, because you can't apply true or false to it.

On the other hand, birthed means you were given birth to, and not-birthed means you weren't, which is something even rock can participate in.

If your verse had the Order of Birthed and Not Birthed, it would be a different story, but instead it has Birthed and Abortion/Termination.

Basically if turn on and off a lamp, if turn on the lamp on 01:00 and turn it off on 02:00, on 01:30 you didnt do anything, but we all know that the lamp is still in the category of on

It was in the category of on, then off; it's still in the category of off, even if I don't do anything, and will stay in the category of off until turned back on.

You basically ignore all my point here, and just reply some argument that you think you can debunk. You even doesnt reply on DT's comment

Anyway, like I said, I'm not interested in commenting here again.

Please don't call me.

 

[Noobish2006]

Disagree FRA

 

[Dog3352]

Uhh, I don't see how the Birth Order and the Termination Order aren't logical negations, when something that follows the birth order is born (A), while something that follows the termination order is not born (literally non-A).

When considering the duality of birth and non-birth, it seems difficult to define exactly how it works. If the baby goes through gestation, the moment of childbirth arrives, and it is born, it would definitely be A (birth), but what would non-birth be then? From the moment the baby goes through gestation and childbirth, it will be born, so what exactly would a "non-birth" be, and how would it occur when the baby has already gone through gestation and will naturally be born?

Logically speaking, non-A would have to be something different from simply "something that is there without having been born" when this duality only governs living beings that are born, such as non-A being the baby already "born" dead, where cosmology would consider "being born already dead" a "non-birth" (non-A).

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

Uhh, I don't see how the Birth Order and the Termination Order aren't logical negations, when something that follows the birth order is born (A), while something that follows the termination order is not born (literally non-A).

Yea, termination in the verse includes a lot more than the textbook definition where's it's mainly medical intervention to force stop the growth of a baby. Even something that looks like a natural failure of the mother's body to give birth in the physical world, is effectively under the Order of Termination itself (where the scan says her order doing something to the womb itself to fail and causing the baby to "not born"). Termination also works on undead beings and magic spells from the scans OP sent, but mod ignored it.

There are also core flaws in the way spaceman is showcasing the criteria:

1. In the domain strictly about birth and abortion, these are the only two ways one can transition from being not non being and vice versa. Same way creation and destruction is also fine as logical dualities, since they are only two ways a thing turns 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 (basically comes into existence and returns to nothingness). What a rock does for 100 years after coming into reality doesn't add more ways on how it turns from 0 to 1, same way what a baby does after birth (whether it dies after that, grows into a fully abled human being) doesn't add more ways on how something transitions from being to non being & vice versa, there are only two ways. It was never a matter of statis in between two processes or states (which is a category error), but the only two boundary within which an event can fit itself (following LEM) and whether or not the boundaries also follow LNC.

2. His own argument falls apart when you use reductio ad absurdum and try to fit his formula in a logical negation of Born and Non born - Specifically if a human was born (subjected to "birth"), and is now living in the world then at that current moment he's neither under "born" nor "not born". But that simply doesn't negate these two as the logical negation, as it is a category error. So how come he can say that creation and destruction fails to be the same because a rock, after being created, is no longer under creation or destruction and doesn't see it being a category error ?

Anyways,

* The system follows LoEM (being the only two possibilities for a given domain, completely exhausting the domain).

* They also follow LoNC (simultaneous creation and destruction can't happen on the same thing at the same time).

* LoI ? That's evident enough (a bird is bird, world is world, humans are human).

When considering the duality of birth and non-birth, it seems difficult to define exactly how it works. If the baby goes through gestation, the moment of childbirth arrives, and it is born, it would definitely be A (birth), but what would non-birth be then? From the moment the baby goes through gestation and childbirth, it will be born, so what exactly would a "non-birth" be, and how would it occur when the baby has already gone through gestation and will naturally be born?

Logically speaking, non-A would have to be something different from simply "something that is there without having been born" when this duality only governs living beings that are born, such as non-A being the baby already "born" dead, where cosmology would consider "being born already dead" a "non-birth" (non-A).

Well, non birth is simply the whole process of birth not occuring at all. A live birth or a stillbirth would still come under the domain of birth, while neither of those things happening is non birth.

While most of the examples on this wiki portrays negation as just the not value, like ' baking a cake's negation is simple to not bake a cake ', for two processes tho it goes a step beyond just negation. It is what we call an state transition function and its inverse state transition function, where negation is the interruption of a process and is followed by a reverse process. So two opposing state transition functions are further extensions of two logically negating states themselves and thus are also logical negations of each other. (So a process not being a logical negation is a absurd thing to say).

If we take a domain of "The directional movement of a single value along a 1 dimensional number line, excluding zero movement.", then the only two pathways are moving a value to the right (+x / addition) or moving a value to the left (-x / substraction). One of the scans that OP sent later has explicitly calling "Order inverts" when wenzel and andeluc switches with one another. But mod ignored that as well.

 

[Dog3352]

Yea, termination in the verse includes a lot more than the textbook definition where's it's mainly medical intervention to force stop the growth of a baby. Even something that looks like a natural failure of the mother's body to give birth in the physical world, is effectively under the Order of Termination itself (where the scan says her order doing something to the womb itself to fail and causing the baby to "not born"). Termination also works on undead beings and magic spells from the scans OP sent, but mod ignored it.

There are also core flaws in the way spaceman is showcasing the criteria:

1. In the domain strictly about birth and abortion, these are the only two ways one can transition from being not non being and vice versa. Same way creation and destruction is also fine as logical dualities, since they are only two ways a thing turns 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 (basically comes into existence and returns to nothingness). What a rock does for 100 years after coming into reality doesn't add more ways on how it turns from 0 to 1, same way what a baby does after birth (whether it dies after that, grows into a fully abled human being) doesn't add more ways on how something transitions from being to non being & vice versa, there are only two ways. It was never a matter of statis in between two processes or states (which is a category error), but the only two boundary within which an event can fit itself (following LEM) and whether or not the boundaries also follow LNC.

2. His own argument falls apart when you use reductio ad absurdum and try to fit his formula in a logical negation of Born and Non born - Specifically if a human was born (subjected to "birth"), and is now living in the world then at that current moment he's neither under "born" nor "not born". But that simply doesn't negate these two as the logical negation, as it is a category error. So how come he can say that creation and destruction fails to be the same because a rock, after being created, is no longer under creation or destruction and doesn't see it being a category error ?

Anyways,

* The system follows LoEM (being the only two possibilities for a given domain, completely exhausting the domain).

* They also follow LoNC (simultaneous creation and destruction can't happen on the same thing at the same time).

* LoI ? That's evident enough (a bird is bird, world is world, humans are human).


Well, non birth is simply the whole process of birth not occuring at all. A live birth or a stillbirth would still come under the domain of birth, while neither of those things happening is non birth.

While most of the examples on this wiki portrays negation as just the not value, like ' baking a cake's negation is simple to not bake a cake ', for two processes tho it goes a step beyond just negation. It is what we call an state transition function and its inverse state transition function, where negation is the interruption of a process and is followed by a reverse process. So two opposing state transition functions are further extensions of two logically negating states themselves and thus are also logical negations of each other. (So a process not being a logical negation is a absurd thing to say).

If we take a domain of "The directional movement of a single value along a 1 dimensional number line, excluding zero movement.", then the only two pathways are moving a value to the right (+x / addition) or moving a value to the left (-x / substraction). One of the scans that OP sent later has explicitly calling "Order inverts" when wenzel and andeluc switches with one another. But mod ignored that as well.

I mean, I decided to read the entire discussion regarding the PP, and basically the final consensus, the change that was applied, is simply that "A and B being opposites wouldn't be enough to be dualities; they also need to be contradictory."

This doesn't eliminate things like creation and destruction, birth and termination, and others as dualities; it only requires that the cosmology show them as contradictory, and not simply opposites.

If Maou Gakuin, for example, only treated these concepts as opposites, and didn't have things like "one cannot manifest while the opposite is there," and also if it didn't have the fact that the things/objects that such dualities govern can only follow one of the two dualities due to the contradiction/opposition between them, it wouldn't qualify.

The point is, the logical negation of "birth" doesn't have to be exclusively "non-birth," and the logical negation of "creation" doesn't have to be exclusively "non-creation." It only requires that cosmology add the opposite and contextualize that opposite as a contradiction, rather than just the opposite.

 

[Embers_of_Twilight]

The point is, the logical negation of "birth" doesn't have to be exclusively "non-birth," and the logical negation of "creation" doesn't have to be exclusively "non-creation." It only requires that cosmology add the opposite and contextualize that opposite as a contradiction, rather than just the opposite.

That's what I have been saying in this thread as well. Logic doesn't care what ' name ' you put on two concepts, as long as you have the property you will be classified under logical negations. Just judging from name alone would be committing nominal fallacy. As such, you may even have space and light as two contradictory opposites and be logical negation if they are the only concepts a universe can express itself, and if these concepts follows the laws of logic.

I mean, there's just this absurd "absolute exhaustive" criteria which seems to go around, even tho textbook logical negations doesn't fully adhere to it, because domain of discourse is a thing.