A question about Transduality

[DMB_1]

5: Deathless Immortality: Characters who exist unbound by conventional life or death, or do not exist at all, and thus cannot be traditionally killed.

Since if you are Transdual, you technically trascend all dual concepts, including Life, Death, Existance and Nonexistance, should't it give you Type 5 Immortality by default?

Speaking of Immortality, doesn't Transduality also kind of qualifies a form of Type 9 Immortality, since you are litterally trascending the plane from which every dual concept can effect you?

9: Transcendental Immortality: Characters whose true selves exist independently from the plane where they can be killed.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that this seems to make sense, but I do not understand transduality very well.

 

[DMB_1]

I think that this seems to make sense, but I do not understand transduality very well.

Are there any members of the wiki who are knowledgeble about the topic?

 

[Antvasima]

DarkLK, and maybe Azathoth, but DarkLK should only be disturbed about very important matters.

 

[DontTalkDT]

In my opinion, no.

Transduality in itself only means that one doesn't necessarily play by the rules of duality.

However by which rules the transdual characters actually play instead has to be specified by the fiction in question and can vary from case to case.


So a transdual character could potentially not be killable by any conventional means and be unbound by life and death, but such a character doesn't necessarily have that property. The alternative rules by which the transdual character plays could entail some that allow conventional killing and life & death.


To that comes that a transdual character has to, in my understanding of what our minimum requirements for transduality are, not necessarily by transdual in all properties, but only in some.

Transcending the duality of good and evil doesn't help you against a knife in yer heart.

 

[Antvasima]

DontTalk makes good points.

 

[DMB_1]

Yes, but in the case of God (Seekers into the Mystery), he created Duality itself, trascending Existance and Nonexistance. Should't he have type 9 for that reason?

 

[DontTalkDT]

For type 9 he would need to be able to be unaffected by the High 2-A realm being destroyed. Since we usually assume concepts are destroyed together with their realms (well, just the concepts version on the respective plane), I think it is very questionable to argue that transdual characters would survive their realms destruction on grounds of being transdual alone.


To that comes that my above argument technically applies to what I see from the character you mentioned as well: We don't really know whether after the creation of duality there isn't an interaction with him that makes him dead and, more importantly, neither do we know which result interactions with him would have had before the creation of duality.

Since pretty much no rules have to apply to such a character we really can't reason that any form of interaction would result in defeat, but neither can we reason that there aren't any that would result in defeat.


Really, if it comes to transduality one can probably only rely on what the author tells you directly.

A step that reasons from transduality to something else can just not work properly, because there aren't any agreed upon rules for what is "valid reasoning" if it comes to transduality.

The duality based standard logic that most people use out of habit can just not give any proper answers regarding something involving a non-dual thing. To answer any questions regarding such things one would need to use some non-dual logic (and systems extending from that).

While there are such things as non-dual logics they aren't really easy to use and... well, which of the many options of non-dual logics is used changes the answer of the question. So without being told which logic the question is asked in we can not answer it, since we can not just assume "standard logic" like with any other question.

That in turn means without word of the author we would be stuck again, due to being unable to decide which logic applies to the character.


To end with an example: Consider that a transdual character could be dead even if "being dead" is a thing that doesn't yet exist, given that there is no rule preventing a transdual character of being in two mutually exclusive states at once.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Would you be interested in talking with DarkLK about how to improve the text in our Transduality page?

 

[DontTalkDT]

If DarkLK doesn't mind spending his time on such a debate, I don't mind either.

However, that is best done at the weekend. Don't have much time today.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. Thank you for the help.

 

[ProspectX]

You only have to accept the metaphor, not understand.

Transduality in itself only means that one doesn't necessarily play by the rules of duality.

However by which rules the transdual characters actually play instead has to be specified by the fiction in question and can vary from case to case.

What Rules apply to them or not to them? You can't accept the metaphor if you think that a transdual is or is-not. You are running in circles.

Yes, but in the case of God (Seekers into the Mystery), he created Duality itself, transcending Existence and Nonexistence.

What does create mean? "Creating" the relationship between existence and non-existence at that level is nothing special. Never, creation is in relation to destruction.

The "creation" of dualism cannot be practically be real. It always has been, or on the contrary the significance here means you are just doing something of nothing. Nothing is in relation Everything.

If i'm not mistaken, some believe that dualism can go from the real world to High 1-B, and the transdual does "not" necessarily have to transcend all possible or impossible values of binary. In metaphysics, dualism includes the meta-plane of reality which is abstract nature of dimensional space.

 

[Antvasima]

Oh no... I thought that I asked you to please stop focusing so much on this subject.

 

[DontTalkDT]

What Rules apply to them or not to them? You can't accept the metaphor if you think that a transdual is or is-not. You are running in circles.

Metaphors are no adequate form of deduction, that much said first.

That aside, rules don't require the principle of bivalence to exist. Every formal system uses and obeys inference rules together with a grammar and this does include those without principle of bivalence.


Well the world "apply" is of course strictly speaking ill defined here (obviously, given that english isn't a language of precise logical deduction). However it gets the meaning across well enough for a casual reader. In a more specific context I guess one could write it instead as "non-bivalent systems of logic, don't necessarily lack all classical rules of inference".


If we wanted to talk about this in actually well defined terms we would have to agree on the formal system in which we are reasoning (in the above case some metalanguage), but that leads us to the already described problem of the choice of logic (and with it consequence) being arbitrary, if we go beyond the standards.

Debating consequences of transduality is like talking about the properties of the set of all sets. One can long debate about intuitive consequences, but ultimately results don't exist until the context is cleared up.

 

[ProspectX]

Debating consequences of transduality is like talking about the properties of the set of all sets. One can long debate about intuitive consequences, but ultimately results don't exist until the context is cleared up.

For you to understand this; Do not attempt to understand a transdual, seeking for a answer but not understanding that your answer is arguing within the confines of the chess laws. The transdual are inaccessible and go beyond the concept that these chess pieces even exist at the board.

Do not use any kind of logic, do not think that not any kind of logic will understand a transdual. Beyond the concept of relationship, dualism. Rules or not rules, rules that exist with or not with the PoB, your pattern is with this or not that. A law can only reflect upon another law, or be independent. I can't explain how they form the concept of laws, or freedom, secondly it's unnecessary for me.

 

[ProspectX]

Basically, the knife-to-the-heart revolves around the chess law's.

 

[Antvasima]

As I have mentioned previously, it would be appreciated if you stop continuously interfering regarding this subject.

 

[Davidgumazon]

Let me ask; I'm confused at Ultimate Madoka's immortality: the profile implied "Embodies the concept of destroying witches, which needs to be destroyed in order to truly kill her" does this mean you have to kill all witches across multiverse in order to kill Madoka indirectly? does this mean you cannot kill Madoka during the "versus" in vsbattle unless destruction of multiverse in order to be killed? does this mean wishes by contracts is "absolute" or it's just space-time multiversal level?

Is this battle result and weakness explanation acceptable?

 

[Antvasima]

Isn't that a question for another type of thread? Anyway, I think that what is stated is simply that the concept itself has to be destroyed to affect Madoka.