A Small Note About No-Limits Fallacy

[Sera_EX]

After awhile, I've started to come across too many arguments that abuse claims of NLF. I'm pretty sure the fallacy is well explained enough, but as I've said time and time again, context matters and nearly everything should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

We have people believing that Hadou Gods (Masadaverse) are "NLF incarnated" because of the statement "no matter how big or small the world, Hadou will fill its entirety." Of course without context, this is exactly NLF. But, here's the thing, it's been proven in the visual novels". For example, Ren vs. Reinhard describes their Hadou as paint "covering" the city. This expansion continues until it reaches the domain of Mercurius i.e. the Throne/Outerverse. Considering the nature of Mercurius as a literal walking multiverse, and the fact that they even show Reinhard's Hadou bypass countless universes until reaching the Throne where Mercury is (in first person, mind you), it is not fallacous to confirm that Hadou does indeed fill everything regardless of size, and since the Throne is 1-A/Outerversal the penultimate "size" for any "space", it isn't so much NLF now is it?

Not to mention, the Throne is merely a tool to manage Hadou, because otherwise it would be unmanageable and (theoretically) consume whatever else is beyond the domain of the Throne (or I believe it has to do with the spiritual weight itself).

That is just one example, there are others. My point is while we absolutely must fight against NLF to stay reasonable and stable, as NLF statements are everywhere, in certain cases if there's evidence to suggest something when "all/every" is used - I do believe it can be accepted. After all, evidence is most important, right? Nothing big, but maybe a little note and/or a slight adjustment to the NLF secfion of the Fallacy can (slowly but surely) ease the abuse a little.

 

[Soldier_Blue]

Do you want me to highlight this?

 

[TISSG7Redgrave]

seems legit to me

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

And if the world is infinitely bigger than anything those Gods have ever shown to fill?

Would their Law fill the Cthulhu Mythos, including all the places past the Gates, right up to the Court of Azathoth??

Would their Law fill all higher layers, all Kakera and the Sea of Oblivion in Umineko?

Evidence only goes as far as it is shown to go.

 

[Sera_EX]

Do you want me to highlight this?

Sure. Thank you, SB.

 

[VenomElite]

@Monarch

There's nothing to suggest otherwise. As Sera said in the OP, the Throne exists to stop Hadou from infinitely expanding and manage it. Think about it. The First and Second Heavens only conquered a single universe (only 1-A due to Taikyoku) yet Mercurius conquered infinite universes and Hajun was so powerful he was destroying the Throne itself. Would he have done so his Hadou would consume all theoretically possible domains.

Umineko's cosmology is incompatible here. She isn't speaking from a vs debating standpoint but an in-universe one.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

Honestly, for me the NLF isn't even a fallacy in fact. A fallacy is an argument whose premises don't lead to the conclusion because logical invalidity, or a deceptive or logically inconsistent. What we call "NLF" here seems to me much more like a linguistic expression of emphasis (hyperbole) than a fallacy itself. I think it would make it much easier to say, "This quote that X thing has no limits is hyperbole!" than saying "Your argument is an No-limits fallacy!".

I believe that for any person it is much easier to judge a thing as linguistic expressions of emphasis than as fallacies. To judge hyperbole depends only on the interpretation of the original text on the basis of its context, whereas for fallacies it depends on an analytical capacity about argumentation.

 

[Sera_EX]

Kevyn has a really good point. That always bothered me but I've never questioned it since it basically works either way for our purposes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@Kevyn Souza: The difference is that something can be a NLF while literally meant the way it is said. E.g. the author of Haruhi Suzumia does describe her as omnipotent in the novels and likely means it in his understanding of what omnipotent should entail.

However, with her verse only entailing 1 or 2 universes and a general lack of feats (and the shown flaws) accrediting her with things like 1-A power and conceptual manipulation would not be accepted even if the statement itself is meant literal.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ven is also right. There has yet to be a confirmed limit to the expansion of Hadou Atziluth/Taikyoku. Does that mean they can reach the Realm of the Law of Identity or the Domain of the Creator? Absolutely not. But NLF claims aren't just "you're limitless, therefore your Tier 0". Claiming they are Low 2-C or 3-A because of infinite/limitless statements with no proof is NLF/hyperbole.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

@Venom, technically, destroying the Throne isn't really impressive for Hajun, seeing as even the most basic God can do that. And from what has been explained to me of the Gates, I do not believe the domain of the Hadou Gods should reach beyond them. But YMMV. To steal Fate's term, its a cosmology crash.

Anyway, I am still of the opinion that an NLF should only go as far as it logically would, based on whatever mechanics or feats have been shown/explained.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

@DontTalk That's not the point. What I mean is that for a thing to be considered fallacy, it doesn't depend on "the way the analyzed universe is presented." A fallacy is a false argumentative logic. It depends on the argument used by the person in debate. At most we can say "The citation you're basing on is hyperbole," which in no way means "Your argument is a fallacy".

 

[Sera_EX]

@Monarch

Hajun was doing that with just his spiritual weight alone, which outclasses all the other gods. Even they can't just destroy the Throne from their weight (well they wouldn't because they kinda need it for management purposes). Anyway I digress.

Also, that's the reason for case-by-case. I don't view fiction with hardcore facts, I only apply logic and reason when necessary. In terms of Vs Battles Wiki arguments, people claiming everything is an NLF in blatant disregard of actual feats and evidence is what I'm talking about here. It gets irritating when something we need to use to fight against hyperboles is being used incorrectly/or is abused.

 

[Aeyu]

@Monarch

Well, seeing as Hajun just lost to Nyarlathotep, I don't think that's the case. The same applies to other verses than just Masada's.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

@Sera, well I can understand the irritation. I remember when people started screaming NLF at BB's Authority and I kept having to explain it until Reppu did a post about it.

So what are you proposing here? A note on what consitutes a proper NLF and what is just hyperbole? Or just a message not to use the term so often or something?

@Aeyu, I'm moving away from that specific example now.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Aeyu

1-A fights are objectively ridiculous here. I wouldn't use those as leverage.

 

[Aeyu]

@Sera

Well, it was a pretty unanimous decision, but...

I don't think the semantics on whether or not 1-A matches are valid or not was what you wanted to address.

That being said, I think that sometimes people do make unreasonable high-end assumptions, and supporting those ultra-high end claims when there's no evidence can sometimes be contradictory. For example, are we supposed to accept when people state their omnipotence, or that they have unending power, yet they're defeated via finite means?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with Sera to a certain extent.

Also Kevin. The non-limit-fallacy is indeed a Fallacy. It is an extension of the Proof-by-Example Fallacy.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Monarch

Yes, a clarification note on what consitutes a proper NLF and what is just hyperbole.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

@Matt It's only an extension of it in some cases, not at all. It's only a hyperbole in most cases, including in the example cited the page of fallacy itself.

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree with Sera to a certain extent.

Also Kevin. The non-limit-fallacy is indeed a Fallacy. It is an extension of the Proof-by-Example Fallacy.

>Proof by Example

>Tier 0s cannot be proven by example

>Tier 0s are NLF @_@

D o w n g r a d e s ovo

 

[Antvasima]

Can somebody summarise what exactly is being proposed here? I haven't slept very well.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

@Ant Sera proposed a note in the NLF section of the fallacies page regarding the misuse of NLF claims. She proposed it because of the fact that people end up taking any "boundless" citation as fallacy, even in cases where they aren't.

 

[Sera_EX]

Sure thing Ant.

Basically, we have some people abusing claims of No Limits Fallacies (examples being Masadaverse 1-A gods and BB's authority to name a few), when in actuality they have proper explanations and can be proven. Context is important here. So I proposed we make a note on the Fallacy page as to what exactly constitutes as an NLF rather than just a power, ability, or even a statement that just includes a ridiculously large range. Hence why "all/every" might be used in said statements.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I suppose that seems reasonable, but you have to come to an agreement with Monarch Laciel, DontTalk, and Matthew, who all seem to have some objections.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

@Ant The objections of DontTalk and Matt were about what I said, not about what Sera said.

 

[Sera_EX]

Monarch's disagreements were about Masadaverse but we both left that for another time. If I'm not mistaken, he agrees with the actual note itself.

Matt agrees with me, he doesn't agree with what Kevyn said about NLF not being a fallacy. I haven't heard from DontTalk yet.

 

[DontTalkDT]

To also make a comment on the subject of the thread:

Propositions relying on unrestricted All/Every statements are always NLF in regards to the transfictional extent that is viewed in our vs context (The easiest argument here is that a sufficiently capable logic manipulator can create an exception to every rule).

Of course within the realms of a verse a all/every statement can be taken to be true, if proven to be reliable, but is in that case limited to the extent indicated by the verses setting.

I think that much is what is well noted and explained on our statements page.

 

[Antvasima]

So do the rest of you think that the statements page is sufficient for our purposes?

 

[Aeyu]

I agree with DontTalk.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that DonTalk seems to make sense.

 

[Sera_EX]

I completely forgot that existed...

In that case, that suffices splendidly.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thanks. Should we close this thread then?

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes, please.

 

[Antvasima]

Alright then.