A little change or fix for the Nonduality page??

[Georredannea15]

The current Nonduality page says the following about nature type 2, that is Transduality.

1. Transduality: Characters with this type of nonduality exist outside and independently of the logical systems they're nondual regarding while also possessing qualitative superiority to them. Besides immunizing them against the dualities in question, this power also immunizes them against attempts to apply those dualities to them, as they would transcend the scope of the haxes that could do so.

The description of "qualitative superiority" required on the page is confusing... Yeah that's true because some users and mods on the wiki may interpret the requirement for "qualitative superiority" to mean "uncountable infinite superiority" over dualities such as here and here (and more), but mathematical terms such as "uncountable infinite superiority" used in dimensional layering and physical scales cannot be used to describe superiority over dualities, which are abstract concepts, nor can such a thing be proven.

That's why, I propose an edit to the Transduality page to make the explanation of "qualitative superiority" clearer in context and not to be confused with a term like "uncountable infinite difference" just used in dimensional layering.

If you say that "qualitative superiority" in every context corresponds to an "uncountable infinite difference" (which it does not), then it should be removed from Transduality page, Because the uncountable infinite difference will only give you directly transcend the dimensional plane you are in and cannot be proven for Td in any way.

It is not that the definition of QS is wrong, but that it does not fit in the Transduality standards if we equate it to its use in this one, since they are 2 completely different things and therefore incompatible.


But my first proposal is to explain the qualitative superiority here in context and make it clearer.

For example ;

Transduality: Characters with this kind of non-duality exist outside and independent of the logical systems in which they are non-dual, they also have superiority againts the all natures of the dualities in that system and completely transcends them, that is a qualitative superiority for Transduality. Besides immunizing them against the dualities in question, this power also immunizes them against attempts to apply those dualities to them, as they would transcend the scope of the haxes that could do so.

Or a draft in which qualitative superiority is removed and there is only transcendence by nature againts dual system/systems

Transduality: Characters with this kind of non-duality exist outside and independent of the logical systems in which they are non-dual, they also have superiority againts the all natures of the dualities in that system and transcends them. Besides immunizing them against the dualities in question, this power also immunizes them against attempts to apply those dualities to them, as they would transcend the scope of the haxes that could do so.

TL;DR

- Yes, to reiterate for the last time, the phrase "qualitative superiority" that I put in the draft will mean being inherently superior and transcendent to the nature of dual system/systems rather than meaning a dimensional superiority and mathemathical term such as "uncountable infinite difference" for Transduality.

- And yes, if this "qualitative superiority" always means uncountable infinite difference (only used in dimensional layering) then qualitative superiority should be removed from the Transduality page.

 

[KLOL506]

@Dereck03 @Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @Executor_N0 Good luck.

 

[KLOL506]

@Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara Your assistance here would be appreciated as well.

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah, Fuji also touched upon this issue of qualitative superiority in her previous thread.

 

[Qawsedf234]

For your proposal just remove QS entirely from the justification. As the page QS links to is about it being about uncountable infinite superiority.

dualities, which are abstract concepts, nor can such a thing be proven.

If it can't be proven then get rid of the term. Your rewrite doesn't change the core issue that it hinges on QS.

 

[Georredannea15]

For your proposal just remove QS entirely from the justification. As the page QS links to is about it being about uncountable infinite superiority.

If it can't be proven then get rid of the term. Your rewrite doesn't change the core issue that it hinges on QS.

So instead of this term being explained differently for TD in context, do you think it should be removed and just be a transcendence in nature?

I think this is what you find more correct.

 

[Qawsedf234]

So instead of this term being explained differently for TD in context, do you think it should be removed and just be a transcendence in nature?

Your proposal at the moment is changing what would count as QS for the sake of making TD more achievable, since QS explicitly means only one thing at the moment.

The better option would be removed it and rewrite the definition to be about transcendence pcer the duality rather than just being outside of dualities.

 

[Georredannea15]

Your proposal at the moment is changing what would count as QS for the sake of making TD more achievable, since QS explicitly means only one thing at the moment.

Actually, that's not the only meaning, but since you don't agree with this thing, I'm passing it.

The better option would be removed it and rewrite the definition to be about transcendence pcer the duality rather than just being outside of dualities.

Then I'll add one more draft to the OP, without the qualitative superiority. This way, you and other staffs can decide which one is more suitable.

Btw we already did that, we never gave Transduality to being outside of dualities, we always called it "non-duality", transcending it was called transduality. And generally being transcendent from the nature of dualities was enough for this.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Actually, that's not the only meaning

I'll PM you about this, but official yes it is. That's the only given definition for QS on the site. In fact the version before the nonduality revision even said the following

Transduality is not simply nonduality, but additionally requires something like qualitative superiority or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.

Btw we already did that, we never gave Transduality to being outside of dualities

I think you misunderstood me. Transduality always required being outside of and superior to duality. It's why nonduality was eventually added, because virtually no one qualified for Transduality.

Just as an example the page 2 years ago says this:

Transduality is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, but also defined as being a “2”, or as standing outside of the code completely at the higher levels.

It's always been about qualitative superiority rather than just being outside of a dual system.

 

[Deagonx]

It is actually insane to me that we could have multiple members of staff telling someone that QS only has one accepted official meaning for the site and have him say "Hmm, no. It means other things too."

Aside from that I don't think this change is necessary much. For those that don't have QS over dualities just give them nonduality. I don't see a point in watering down the term.

 

[Georredannea15]

I'll PM you about this, but official yes it is. That's the only given definition for QS on the site. In fact the version before the nonduality revision even said the following

I said that it is wrong to call QS spesificly "uncountable infinite difference" contrary to popular belief, this is a bit off topic, but the fact that we cannot close the qualitative difference between the large cardinals even with "uncountable infinite transcendence" is the simplest example of this.

QS is basically being completely beyond the quantities you encompass and transcend, the uncountable infinite difference that we look at dimensional layers is that the higher dimension encompasses and transcends all the quantities of the lower dimension.

So for dimensional difference, the uncountable infinite difference provides the condition of "being completely beyond the quantities you cover and transcend", whereas for large and inaccessible cardinals or different subjects, the uncountable infinite does not provide this. So it would be wrong to say QS = always mean uncountable infinite difference

That's what I meant, but I think it would be better to remove it to avoid further confusion and apply the draft below.

I think you misunderstood me. Transduality always required being outside of and superior to duality. It's why nonduality was eventually added, because virtually no one qualified for Transduality.

Just as an example the page 2 years ago says this:

It's always been about qualitative superiority rather than just being outside of a dual system.

I see.

The reason I said this is that you said that Td should not be given "just for being outside dualities", and I said that we don't and will not give it that way, only if you have an inherent superiority over dualities.

I have already added this in the draft

 

[Georredannea15]

Aside from that I don't think this change is necessary much. For those that don't have QS over dualities just give them nonduality. I don't see a point in watering down the term.

You cannot prove the "uncountable infinite difference" used in the mathematical domain and on the physical scale in the nature of concepts and dualities.

That's the purpose of it anyway, being transcendent against the nature of dualities by your nature and not being affected by them, that will give you Transduality, just being outside of it and not being affected by it as a result of that or being lacking that, it's a Nonduality.

That's what the OP will do anyway

 

[Deagonx]

I said that it is wrong to call QS spesificly "uncountable infinite difference" contrary to popular belief,

Georre, this is what you don't understand. This is not a matter of "popular belief." QS is an official term with a specific meaning on our site. If you want to use it differently then you are proposing a change to the QS standards. If you want to use a different notion of superiority to qualify for TD then you need to change our TD standards.

It's become very tiresome for you to constantly frame this as though you want to change neither the QS standards or the TD standards but merely "clarify" something when you, in fact, very explicitly want to change the standards.

 

[Dereck03]

I recall that the proposal in mind was to reword the TD requirements to either add more qualification methods that are not simply stonewalled by QS stuffs not to mess with the QS definition.

 

[Deagonx]

I recall that the proposal in mind was to reword the TD requirements to either add more qualification methods that are not simply stonewalled by QS stuffs not to mess with the QS definition.

His stance seems to be that the definition of QS encompasses more than what the tiering FAQ says, and we are all just wrong about it.

 

[Georredannea15]

Georre, this is what you don't understand. This is not a matter of "popular belief." QS is an official term with a specific meaning on our site. If you want to use it differently then you are proposing a change to the QS standards. If you want to use a different notion of superiority to qualify for TD then you need to change our TD standards.

That's what I'm doing right now. There are two drafts there, read them both.

I recall that the proposal in mind was to reword the TD requirements to either add more qualification methods that are not simply stonewalled by QS stuffs not to mess with the QS definition.

I also suggest removing this QS requirement for TD because they still argue that QS means uncountable infinite difference, I already explained why uncountable infinite wouldn't for TD in the OP.

If you want to add anything extra to the OP or edit anything in the drafts, feel free to say.

The second draft was also prepared upon Qawsedf's suggestion, and he thought it would be good to remove this QS and replace it with the phrase "being transcends dualities by nature.

 

[Deagonx]

because they still argue that QS means uncountable infinite difference

@Dereck03 see? He literally thinks this is a subject of debate, and not an official definition that we literally have a page for explaining.

 

[Dereck03]

I think the problem that Geor has lies mainly in the use of QS in TD, since in itself they do not go hand in hand because our definition of QS is focused in relation to AP and mathematics, which would not apply to a physiology and if it did it would be too blatant the level of powerscaling behavior or else a level of extrapolarization and descriptions that you wouldn't find very often.

 

[Georredannea15]

I think the problem that Geor has lies mainly in the use of QS in TD, since in itself they do not go hand in hand because our definition of QS is focused in relation to AP and mathematics, which would not apply to a physiology and if it did it would be too blatant the level of powerscaling behavior or else a level of extrapolarization and descriptions that you wouldn't find very often.

That's right, we cannot use the difference, which is a mathematical statement used in physical and dimensional scaling such as "uncountable infinite difference" for TD because TD is not any Ap scale, power scale or pyhsical scaling, and it is impossible to prove such a thing for dualities.

TD is just a state of existence, if Deagon reads the OP more carefully I'm sure he'll understand

 

[Dereck03]

Okay, but all this fuss would have been avoided if you simply clarified that what you wanted to change was the requirements themselves and specified that.

• It is not that the definition of QS is wrong, but that it does not fit in the Transduality standards if we equate it to its use in this one, since they are 2 completely different things and therefore incompatible.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think the problem that Geor has lies mainly in the use of QS in TD, since in itself they do not go hand in hand because our definition of QS is focused in relation to AP and mathematics, which would not apply to a physiology and if it did it would be too blatant the level of powerscaling behavior or else a level of extrapolarization and descriptions that you wouldn't find very often.

QS can apply to both a quantity (which is power scaling since it's an amount) and a quality (which ars a thing's traits). For concepts quality is the factor than quantity, since you can't have 5 of a particular concept, its about the quality/scope of the concept and how it relates to the person.

QS for TD is that no degree or level of that quality can reach or effect that person. If you have QS over life for example, it means the conceptual idea of life really can't reach you since you're above it.

Basically more transcendence rather than infinite power sets. Which is why changing the wording would be helpful since it would still convey the proper idea. But QS on its own isn't incorrect (I think).

 

[Georredannea15]

Alr then, I can add this as another reason to OP

 

[Dereck03]

QS for TD is that no amount or level of that quality can reach or effect that person. If you have QS over life for example, it means the conceptual idea of life really can't reach you since you're above it.

It is the same as saying, if you transcend or exist beyond life it cannot affect you, but this line of thinking is rejected for saying that there is no QS.

 

[Georredannea15]

QS can apply to both a quantity (which is power scaling) and a quality. For concepts for quality rather than quantity, since you can't have 5 of a concept, its about the quality/scope of the concept and how it relates to the person.

QS for TD is that no amount or level of that quality can reach or effect that person. If you have QS over life for example, it means the conceptual idea of life really can't reach you since you're above it.

Basically more transcende rather than infinite power sets.

I'm removing this since the uncountable infinite difference cannot be proven forTD and is not very relevant.

However, there will still be requirements such as "being transcendent and unaffected by your existence againts dualities."

Anyway, I have to go now. I'll be back soon.

 

[Qawsedf234]

It is the same as saying, if you transcend or exist beyond life it cannot affect you, but this line of thinking is rejected for saying that there is no QS.

Existing beyond life wouldn't count on it'd own, but transcending life would probably be enough for QS for ND imo.

 

[Dereck03]

Existing beyond life wouldn't count on it'd own,

Here's the problem, Beyond many times refers to the same thing as Transcend and they are practically the same, to exceed the limits of something or to exist beyond/to go beyond something also, something I did not mention, the context given by your settingss in the verse is important, since with the proper context you can prove, for example beyond+superiority+immunity to the dualities would clearly qualify for TD.

but transcending life would probably be enough for QS for ND imo.

This was being rejected by saying that transcending something even with proper context would not guarantee TD due to not having shown QS.

 

[Deagonx]

This was being rejected by saying that transcending something even with proper context would not guarantee TD due to not having QS.

Yes, the transcendence would need to qualify for QS, not just a vague unspecified notion of superiority.

 

[Dereck03]

And that is what this thread is trying to change as you don't need to have QS in existence to qualify for TD. And furthermore you see? Any possible evidence and context that indicates it's not a vague notion of superiority is ignored bec "There's not QS"

 

[Deagonx]

Any possible evidence and context that indicates it's not a vague notion of superiority is ignored.

What are you referring to?

 

[Dereck03]

What are you referring to?

What I am referring to is statements of beyond and/or transcendence over the dualities being shown + context of the respective verse that show an immunity or are unaffected by the same. That's what I mean by a good context that supports the claim and not just a vague statement that doesn't give the proper context. But as far as I can see it is useless if what you say is "QS where?" or that "Those still vague notions of superiority"

 

[Deagonx]

context of the respective verse that show an immunity or are unaffected by the same. That's what I mean by a good context that supports the claim and not just a vague statement that doesn't give the proper context. But as far as I can see it is useless if what you say is "QS where?" or that "Those still vague notions of superiority"

Well even a Nondual character would be immune or unaffected. In the case of Athena all we had was the phrase "higher existence" and that she was more powerful. That isn't enough for QS.

 

[Dereck03]

Well even a Nondual character would be immune or unaffected.

But in this case without any significant superiority like Transcendence, Beyond or even minor case like Outside/Lacking but complementing with complete superiority over the same with physiological existence, but I don't want to mess with the last 2 cases for the moment so let's stay with the first 2.

In the case of Athena all we had was the phrase "higher existence" and that she was more powerful. That isn't enough for QS.

Let it be clear that I was not arguing for Athena in that thread, as my goal was to focus on the TD and reword requirement for QS stuffs.

 

[Deagonx]

I think Georre is likely not the best person to spearhead that effort, and I think the issue is unserious enough that it's probably fine to just wait for Ultima to revise it in the coming months.

 

[Dereck03]

I disgrees, anyone can make a change to something if they propose it in a good way. In this case it would just need a better organization and proposal, although I think the main reason is already highlighted in the OP.

And I don't want to wait years for a revision.

 

[Georredannea15]

Well even a Nondual character would be immune or unaffected. In the case of Athena all we had was the phrase "higher existence" and that she was more powerful. That isn't enough for QS.

Can we... stop with this? You're trying to dismiss a character who clearly has a higher and transcendent existence and is non-interactive to their nature againts dualities by simply saying "no QS" which is absurd and you're using the same counter arguments presented for higher D.

The purpose of this thread is not Athena or anything else, as Dereck said, rejecting the contexts I mentioned above and similar contexts just by saying "there is no QS here" is the irrevelant way to do this, even proving QS for TD is impossible and irrelevant.

This requirement for qualitative superiority, which is used in physical scaling like "uncountable infinity" and is essentially a mathematical statement, is impossible to prove for a hax like TD, and the requirement used for scaling such AP and dimensional layering needs to be removed from TD.

And yes, it is unclear when Ultima will make this revision, maybe next year, maybe 5 months later, while the Tier 1 revision is still going, there is no need to prolong this and wait for a long time by saying "Ultima will revise this anyway"
And yes, as with other standards revisions i opened, I also can lead and contribute to this one too, at least I know TD pretty well

 

[PrinceofPein]

QS is indeed possible to prove for TD.
Concept of fire and not fire or living and not living.
Non duality means, you exists outside such a thing but in reality if fire or living is applied to you, it will still affect you.
Transduality on the other hand means you exist far above it.
A practical example of this is in masada where they view all dualities as a mandala
Which is essentially a painting.
So QS can indeed be applied to dualities since our dualities here are logical dualities to begin with

 

[Dereck03]

I don't know how your example proves anything, mainly when the example you give to prove QS is from a non-existent verse.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Here is another example of how QS applies to duality by a verse on the wiki. There are more examples but here is a very blatant one.

The duality of Yin and Yang can be defined as: A and B, which contain dots of opposite forces in themselves, it attempts to capture the essence of everything on a conceptual level. Ryougi is a Liangyi that divides, being in-between and contains both Yin and Yang, thus it can be defined as: both A and B and neither A nor B simultaneously. There is the Taiji, which is a nondual state of oneness that contains and transcends previous states, thus it cannot be defined as: A, B, simultaneously A and B, neither A nor B. The Primordial Chaos is similar to the Taiji, where the Imaginary Number Space is opposite to its. The Root contains and transcends all previous states, and any possible description or definition one could try giving is immediately separated into its own idea unrelated to 「　」

 

[Georredannea15]

QS is indeed possible to prove for TD.
Concept of fire and not fire or living and not living.
Non duality means, you exists outside such a thing but in reality if fire or living is applied to you, it will still affect you.
Transduality on the other hand means you exist far above it.
A practical example of this is in masada where they view all dualities as a mandala
Which is essentially a painting.
So QS can indeed be applied to dualities since our dualities here are logical dualities to begin with

But what they say about QS here is to prove that "uncountable infinite difference".

No verse can truly prove the "uncountable infinite difference" between dualities, a verse can only state that a character is transcendent and non-interactive from the dualities by nature. That's all. There is no TD like the example you gave, and we cannot use a statement used on physical and mathematical scales, such as uncountable infinity, in a hax like TD.

 

[Georredannea15]

Here is another example of how QS applies to duality by a verse on the wiki. There are more examples but here is a very blatant one.

The duality of Yin and Yang can be defined as: A and B, which contain dots of opposite forces in themselves, it attempts to capture the essence of everything on a conceptual level. Ryougi is a Liangyi that divides, being in-between and contains both Yin and Yang, thus it can be defined as: both A and B and neither A nor B simultaneously. There is the Taiji, which is a nondual state of oneness that contains and transcends previous states, thus it cannot be defined as: A, B, simultaneously A and B, neither A nor B. The Primordial Chaos is similar to the Taiji, where the Imaginary Number Space is opposite to its. The Root contains and transcends all previous states, and any possible description or definition one could try giving is immediately separated into its own idea unrelated to 「　」

Yeah, that's just the way the context in the profile describes it, what are the statements like in verses?

Ahh... let me tell you, it's just inherently transcendent and non-interactive by nature againts the dualities, right? (More or less)

This is the only way to express TD in most verses.