Again the only way to get QS is not uncountable infinite difference, it is one of the ways in which other ways can be equated to it. The most straightforward way is R>F. Which is masada. Or Apophatic like Fate.
Other qualitative superiority requirements, such as R>F or the uncountable infinity, do not give you a transcendence above concepts, but rather allow you to be directly transcendent of that plane itself dimensionally(in terms of power).
As I said, if we were to transcend these dualities in the ways you mentioned, such as uncountable infinite transcendence or R>F, this would necessarily provide higher-D power to every TD for each dimensional layers. Even such things are far from TD
The meaning and definition of QS is important here as the OP does not seem to get it is not just uncountable infinite difference that gives QS.
Again I sent fate scans, is that TD? Yes or No
And root is said not any of them, in fact it cant be described because it is that thing and it is not while transcending it all. That is TD based on QS.
Actually we do that, and for those that do not qualify for that, that is where non-duality comes in.
Most of the things you posted only prove what you are talking about with transcendence and unaffected state, the other things are their multiple logic states not QS
Pein, these are not things that prove QS in TD, these are cases of multiple logics of dualities (type 3) that the root transcends, they have nothing to do with QS and are still not examples of QS
No, even before of nonduality, verses that qualified for TD without any higher -D AP or "uncountable infinite" difference.
What's the current tally vote?
Not many staffs came, but Qawsedf gave the green light against removing QS(uncountable infinite difference) as long as there is a transcendence requirement rather than being outside of dualities.
By current equalization standards (given composite hierarchies) using qualitative superiority in this context is fine, but that may change with Ultima's revision, so there is no point to debating this right now IMO.
So is the qualitative superiority used in the TD context basically same the "uncountable infinite difference" and "higher level of infinity" that we use in dimensional layering now? Or is the qualitative superiority used in TD to be superior to all quantities of dualities? (Or something like that)
Like this?
But if that's the case, wouldn't transcending dualities "at this level you describe" also give us higher -D power and AP? Because what you're saying is not only a superiority over nature of dualities, but also transcending the reality system in which dualities are propagated, and that's basically higher -D AP in this level.
I was interpreting it more as "not being affected by all the quantities of the dual systems spread on the plane of reality due to your existence and being superior to them" in this reality.
Okay then, that seems fair.
It's done now.
Does Ultima have plans for TD 1-A or something like that? Because I heard that he will do that. But if not, I have a few more arguments to support what is proposed in the OP and I would like to post it when I have time
Actually, after "True Transduality" goes to 1-A or even 0 with the new system, what I am going to say will not be very valid here, but I wanted to say it anyway.
@Ultima_RealityActually, after "True Transduality" goes to 1-A or even 0 with the new system, what I am going to say will not be very valid here, but I wanted to say it anyway.
You say that qualitative superiority (I'm making this comment assuming it's now quantitative superiority) will work in Transduality, but we have a problem, which is that we give more than immunity to concepts that the character with TD is fundamentally transcendent to.
For example, let's think of a character who qualitatively (quantitatively in the new system) transcends all dualities in a 4-D reality and reality itself and has 5-D power, that's transduality according to you, but the problem is that the dualities that this character "transcends are shown in the verse as 4-D" but we use it in 5-D, that's the problem. It's going beyond what the verse shows, and if we say "then this Transduality works on 4-D", because the character already has a 5-D power, he can be immune to this reality and 4-D dualities without Transduality because of his 5-D power, in short, if I don't include the new system, I think that qualitative superiority is an unnecessary need in Transduality.
But yes, the system has changed and now that you can jump to 1-A or 0 with Transduality. So, I don't think this will matter much in the new system but i wanted to say this anyway...
Apart from that, how be combine Transduality and Monad is up to you and Ultima.
Transduality and the new definition of Tier 0 are relatively similar in that they both involve transcending "duality" (Distinction) in some fashion. It's just that Transduality extends the principle to contradictories whereas Tier 0 doesn't inherently involve that and centers more around transcending all contraries (While not excluding the possibility of a character doing the same thing to contradictories too, if a verse chooses to reify those). So, the latter is "Transcends all As and Bs" whereas the former is "Transcends A and ~A and also transcends B and ~B."
Pretty interesting question, too. I'd sub-distinguish a little there: As regards essences/concepts/universals, there are definitely those that "reset" when crossing between the levels of the Tiering System. For example, a higher R>F layer perceives a lower level as non-dimensional and below even potential 0-D structures native to itself, whereas the lower layer perceives the higher one as above all dimensions, such that being 3-D in the higher layer doesn't mean you are 3-D in the lower one and vice-versa. In that vein, the two layers don't really share a notion of dimensionality at all (Unless the verse establishes some platonic domain that equally pervades all layers, I guess), and the same would apply to whatever supervenes on this.
As long as the transduality is sufficiently directly established to function that way it makes sense.
Hmmm... that's pretty interesting. I think one could see it that way, although I think logic and the like could just as well reset between R>F. Although that basically goes back into the arguments on why I think R>F may as well add a layer to anything, including Monads, so I guess it isn't worth to get into that debate.
