Logic Manipulation Ability Page Creation

[DontTalkDT]

I wanted to separate Logic Manipulation from Law Manipulation for quite a while, as throwing logic and laws of nature in one bucket always seemed strange to me. Sadly, there were never enough users to justify taking such a step.
However, as of late, the Tiering System Revision has changed the relevance of logic manipulation. It makes sense to have a page to document the standards and their reasoning now, so making a separate page for the ability appears like the best way to have that.

Without further ado, here is my proposal for the page and the standards for it.

This has in no small part been inspired by a discussion between me and Ultima which you can find starting here (ignore the prior parts of that thread, they are from before the Tiering Revision). For a change, we kinda agree, except for the reason to add limitations to the ability. (We both agree that there should be limitations, just for different reasons)
Opinions on that part would be appreciated.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Neutral on the ability itself existing. There is the whole "It's just Law Manipulation!" angle, but I think this blending just happens with a lot of those powers (Information Manipulation and Conceptual Manipulation come to mind), so it boils down to indifference for me.

As for the scope of it: I'm fine with logical truths being High 1-A+ potentially, but I'd only grant that if they're like, Forms subsisting independently of particulars and defining reality, and such. If they "exist" but don't subsist apart from individuals, I wouldn't grant that. Similar to how messing with the Type 2 concept of space would be [whatever tier the spatial cosmology of the verse is] but messing with the Type 1 concept of the same would be 1-A (By virtue of it encompassing arbitrarily large stretches of Low 1-A).

There's also how 1-A's strict cut-off point from Low 1-A and lower made us instate the standard of "Processes from lesser realities can't affect the higher realities using their own lower existences in-and-of-themselves," which I think would practically kneecap a lot of potential prospects of High 1-A+ hax for Logic Manipulation users. Have to make note of this, too.

It probably also varies between cosmologies, for the most part? For example, there are verses out there where logical and mathematical truths are just laws that vaguely "exist" and can be interfered with, but whose exact nature isn't very well-elaborated. There might also be verses where these truths exist and are Platonic Forms. And there might also be a verse that's basically totally nominalistic and has all these truths be grounded directly on a Tier 0 thread. A character who can use Logic Manipulation in Verse #1 wouldn't necessarily be able to use it in Verse #2, but vice-versa could occur, whereas a character who can use Logic Manipulation in #1 and #2 wouldn't be able to do anything in #3. Probably worth noting down when talking about the default potency of the ability.

 

[DontTalkDT]

As for the scope of it: I'm fine with logical truths being High 1-A+ potentially, but I'd only grant that if they're like, Forms subsisting independently of particulars and defining reality, and such. If they "exist" but don't subsist apart from individuals, I wouldn't grant that. Similar to how messing with the Type 2 concept of space would be [whatever tier the spatial cosmology of the verse is] but messing with the Type 1 concept of the same would be 1-A (By virtue of it encompassing arbitrarily large stretches of Low 1-A).

I'm fine with that being a consideration to take, although I wouldn't take that as the default assumption. Contrary to concepts I don't think logic would typically be thought to instantiate particulars. Like, being subject to logic is not an attribute of things but a tautology. It lies in the nature of logic to be universal, else it isn't logic. I dare say logic would have dominion over the world of forms in most any philosophy.
Given, contradictions definitely exist in fiction and those should get a lower tier. I just don't think it makes sense to preassume them.

There's also how 1-A's strict cut-off point from Low 1-A and lower made us instate the standardof "Processes from lesser realities can't affect the higher realities using their own lower existences in-and-of-themselves," which I think would practically kneecap a lot of potential prospects of High 1-A+ hax for Logic Manipulation users. Have to make note of this, too.

If you do it via energy, then yes. As I wrote in my draft, being part of an energy system is pretty much a disqualification, as at that point you introduced something like scope to it.
However, I don't think the same would apply to logic manipulation born from hax alone. It's not like there is a reasonable process to do logic manipulation to begin with and that such a process would in any way see relevance in levels of qualities or meta-qualities. I don't think there is more of a contradiction to a 10-B having it than a Tier 1-A having it, as it's a power that can potentially be independent of all other qualities.

If we defaulted to the assumption that logic is restricted by R>F layers, then we may as well allow Tier 0s to be, too, which the Tiering Revision voted against. Whether or not it makes sense would be irrelevant at that point, as logic in its standard form is already surpassed and ignored by the layers. Really, you can't really have meaningful steps beyond "surpasses logic" as reasoning just stops beyond that.
Our Tiering System relies on the assumption that standard logic applies up to the highest levels. So it only makes sense to keep exceptions to those that show them.

It probably also varies between cosmologies, for the most part? For example, there are verses out there where logical and mathematical truths are just laws that vaguely "exist" and can be interfered with, but whose exact nature isn't very well-elaborated.

I want to draw a strict difference to mathematical truths here, as they require extra assumptions and describe stuctures. They shouldn't be equated to pure logic. Worlds with different mathematics could be considered in the scope of "possible worlds". (of course it's up to the author whether they do it... yeah, different levels of High 1-A+!)

There might also be verses where these truths exist and are Platonic Forms. And there might also be a verse that's basically totally nominalistic and has all these truths be grounded directly on a Tier 0 thread. A character who can use Logic Manipulation in Verse #1 wouldn't necessarily be able to use it in Verse #2, but vice-versa could occur, whereas a character who can use Logic Manipulation in #1 and #2 wouldn't be able to do anything in #3. Probably worth noting down when talking about the default potency of the ability.

I haven't really seen those taken before. Usually, I would expect Platonic Forms to behave logically, meaning logic should govern them.
And... isn't that something that one could say about any metaphysical aspect? Like, philosophical opinion on all of them varies. Doesn't necessarily mean they don't interact, given that we do verse equalization. Would depend on if the difference is portrayed in a significant manner... which is actually pretty much what the metaphysical aspect page says, so I guess we got this covered.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I want to add that any conditions we put on Logic will be inherited as conditions on Tier High 1-A+, i.e. the tier of all logically possible worlds. If logic is lesser then so is the set of all logical worlds.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Tbh I'm very iffy on this because of the limited number of possible users in addition to the fact that the way we currently treat Law Manipulation would naturally lend itself to including logical principles as well. The very same page legit even lists "logical truths" as being encompassed by it

Idk, I'm kinda neutral, leaning toward disagreeing I think. I just... don't really see the point

 

[Agnaa]

Thoughts™​

The ability to exist in a logically contradictory state yourself should be listed as Nonduality and not Logic Manipulation. Logic Manipulation only covers the ability to directly alter the logic exterior of oneself.

I kinda disagree, or at least, I'd want this reworded. Existing in a logically contradictory state is Nonduality. Altering whether you exist in a logically contradictory state or not is Logic Manipulation that can grant/remove Nonduality. Creating a different being that exists in a logically contradictory state is Creation and Logic Manipulation, with the created entity having Nonduality (in the same way that creating a fire elemental is Creation and Fire Manipulation, with the elemental having Elemental Intangibility).

Tiering

I kinda fundamentally disagree. If it's a High 1-A+ structure being manipulated, it's the fundamental structure for all possible worlds. If it's possible to mutate that, then it cannot be the fundamental structure for all possible worlds, since both the pre-manipulation set of logic, and the post-manipulation set of logic are possible worlds within that series; there's something more fundamental that allows both to exist. It's more like altering mathematics at that point.

Essentially, I could only see a High 1-A+ rating for logic-based hax being justified if those abilities rely on the state of logic, without relying on it being altered. Such as a character for which them dying is a logical impossibility. But as you mentioned with the invocation of "my opponent existing implies I'm stronger than them", that sort of ability would still be limited by its in-verse showings. And even then, it seems plausible that a truly general precept of logic like that would be able to be bypassed and exploited by other characters (i.e. by changing such an immortal/transcending character to fundamentally be someone else, causing that law of logic to no longer apply to them).

Which leaves me with the usecase being such a niche of a niche that I think it would be misleading for it to be included on a page in any way similar to this. And in fact, it may be better to not include such tiering information at all.

Nitpicks/Grammar​

Note that alterations to logic should only be listed as Logic Manipulation of truly of a fundamental logical nature.

Should be "if truly of", and should either have a comma between "fundamental" and "logical", or should replace "fundamental" with "fundamentally".

Conclusion​

So should this page be included if I believe that all logic manipulation involves manipulating things that aren't inherent to the fundamental structure of reality, and so, are more akin to laws governing specific realities?

Probably not.

EDIT: Also, btw, the only example provided for Logic Manip actually had that ability removed from it back in March.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Tbh I'm very iffy on this because of the limited number of possible users in addition to the fact that the way we currently treat Law Manipulation would naturally lend itself to including logical principles as well. The very same page legit even lists "logical truths" as being encompassed by it

Idk, I'm kinda neutral, leaning toward disagreeing I think. I just... don't really see the point

With the Tiering System Revision Law Manipulation (of laws of nature and the like) would have very different standards applied to it than logic manipulation. For something High 1-A+ (or potentially so under the right conditions) having guidelines written down seems worthwhile IMO and since those don't apply to laws I think a separate page is better for that.

I kinda disagree, or at least, I'd want this reworded. Existing in a logically contradictory state is Nonduality. Altering whether you exist in a logically contradictory state or not is Logic Manipulation that can grant/remove Nonduality. Creating a different being that exists in a logically contradictory state is Creation and Logic Manipulation, with the created entity having Nonduality (in the same way that creating a fire elemental is Creation and Fire Manipulation, with the elemental having Elemental Intangibility).

That's mostly fine. Manipulating your own logic can be listed as such, assuming that it's not a result of being nondual to begin with (as in, going from nondual state A to nondual state B because that's how those nondual states works by nature shouldn't count).

I kinda fundamentally disagree. If it's a High 1-A+ structure being manipulated, it's the fundamental structure for all possible worlds. If it's possible to mutate that, then it cannot be the fundamental structure for all possible worlds, since both the pre-manipulation set of logic, and the post-manipulation set of logic are possible worlds within that series; there's something more fundamental that allows both to exist. It's more like altering mathematics at that point.

That basically goes in the direction of "if it can be manipulated it can't be logic" and I disagree with that on grounds of that altering the nature of the ability by our preconceptions. An author should be able to write logic manipulation and be taken seriously.
Possible worlds only include logically possible worlds, so until the logic was altered they were in fact impossible. They contradicted logic. If your definition of possible worlds includes changes in logic then it's simply all worlds, as "possible" ceases to be a limit.

One can also see it like this: When we say that two verses' collections of "all logically possible worlds" are both High 1-A+ that's under a default assumption that these sets will be the same in both verses. We assume (by default) that logic is the same and hence all the same worlds are in that set. For example, both verses will have the law of excluded middle.
Now, let's say a logic manipulator deletes the law of excluded middle. You argue, the worlds that don't have that law should hence always have been included in their set of all possible worlds. Let's accept that for a minute. That would mean that their set of all possible worlds is bigger than the set of all possible worlds in a verse where the law of excluded middle is inviolable. (in the sense that it contains all worlds from the latter fiction. It contains the ones that abide the law of excluded middle, and additionally some that are not part of that set. I.e. bigger by a simple subset relationship)
Hence, while maybe not all possible worlds by their verse's standard, the logic manipulation would still have affected something on the scale of "baseline" High 1-A+: Namely the set of all possible worlds that abide the law of excluded middle, which is just the set of all possible worlds in fictions without logic manipulation.
It would make no sense for us to rank the same structure differently based on whether or not a verse features more things outside of it or not, so High 1-A+ "all possible worlds" must be judged by a baseline definition of "possible" not by a definition that varies between fictions. IMO that baseline definition would be regular first-order logic with the laws of thought and stuff.
If you affect "all possible worlds" by that definition of what is "logically possible" then you have affected a construct large enough to qualify for that Tier.

In the reverse, we wouldn't give out High 1-A+ for verses whose definition of "possible" is vastly more restrictive than that either.

But as you mentioned with the invocation of "my opponent existing implies I'm stronger than them", that sort of ability would still be limited by its in-verse showings. And even then, it seems plausible that a truly general precept of logic like that would be able to be bypassed and exploited by other characters (i.e. by changing such an immortal/transcending character to fundamentally be someone else, causing that law of logic to no longer apply to them).

I wouldn't take that as a flaw in the ability or its ranking as such, though.
But yeah, due to how feat bound Logic Manipulation is by necessity, it's far from impossible for there to be ways to cheat around the altered rules of reasoning.

Which leaves me with the usecase being such a niche of a niche that I think it would be misleading for it to be included on a page in any way similar to this. And in fact, it may be better to not include such tiering information at all.

Eh, better more information than less in my book.

Nitpicks/Grammar​

Should be "if truly of", and should either have a comma between "fundamental" and "logical", or should replace "fundamental" with "fundamentally".

done

Conclusion​

So should this page be included if I believe that all logic manipulation involves manipulating things that aren't inherent to the fundamental structure of reality, and so, are more akin to laws governing specific realities?

Probably not.

I think restricting these kinds of qualities to limited areas of space goes against the spirit of what was decided in the Tiering Revision, given tiering by nature and whatever.
Well, that or it says "all authors that claim their characters manipulate logic are wrong about their own stories, because if it's manipulated it's not true logic" which I personally think is actually worse. Paradox ability should be allowed to be actually paradoxical.

EDIT: Also, btw, the only example provided for Logic Manip actually had that ability removed from it back in March.

Yeah, but if I see it right the argument basically was "by our current definition that's just law manipulation not a special power", which is correct as by our current definition logic manipulation is indeed just law manipulation. So I don't think that's a problem.

 

[Agnaa]

That basically goes in the direction of "if it can be manipulated it can't be logic" and I disagree with that on grounds of that altering the nature of the ability by our preconceptions. An author should be able to write logic manipulation and be taken seriously.
Possible worlds only include logically possible worlds, so until the logic was altered they were in fact impossible. They contradicted logic. If your definition of possible worlds includes changes in logic in the assumed scope then it's simply all worlds, as "possible" ceases to be a limit.

One can also see it like this: When we say that two verses collections of "all logically possible worlds" are both High 1-A+ that's under a default assumption that these sets will be the same in both verses. We assume (by default) that logic is the same and hence all the same worlds are in that set. For example, both verses will have the law of excluded middle.
Now, let's say a logic manipulator deletes the law of excluded middle. You argue, the worlds that don't have that law should hence always have been included in their set of all possible worlds. Let's accept that for a minute. That would mean that their set of all possible worlds is bigger than the set of all possible worlds in a verse where the law of excluded middle is inviolable. (in the sense that it contains all worlds from the latter fiction, the ones that abide the law of excluded middle, and additionally some that are not part of that set. I.e. by simple subset relationship)
Hence the logic manipulation would still have affected something on the scale of "baseline" High 1-A+: Namely the set of all possible worlds that abide the law of excluded middle, which is just the set of all possible worlds in fictions without logic manipulation.
It would make no sense for us to rank the same structure differently based on whether or not a verse features more than it or not, so High 1-A+ "all possible worlds" must be judged by a baseline definition of "possible" not by a definition that varies between fictions. (IMO that baseline definition would be regular first-order logic with the laws of thought and stuff)
Like, in the reverse, we wouldn't give out High 1-A+ for verses whichs definition of "possible" is vastly more restrictive than that either.

I think restricting these kinds of qualities to limited areas of space goes against the spirit of what was decided in the Tiering Revision, given tiering by nature and whatever.
Well, that or it says "all authors that claim their characters manipulate logic are wrong about their own stories, because if it's manipulated it's not true logic" which I personally think is actually worse. Paradox ability should be allowed to be actually paradoxical.

I brought this up during the tiering system revisions, and that wasn't the conclusion that Ultima (and by extension, those who agreed with him) went with.

There's one type of High 1-A+, which is "can create arbitrarily large/many worlds". Eventually, this was agreed to have multiple degrees to it.

But there's another type of High 1-A+, which is "embodies all possible worlds". This was not agreed to have multiple degrees to it. When I argued that there could be different fundamental laws of logic in different verses, leading to those worlds having different sizes, Ultima responded that both cases are equally powerful, it's just that in some, certain worlds don't have real equivalents for which it makes sense to talk about actualizing.

That fact is actually fundamentally important to the tiering system revisions as a whole. Tier 0 is only slightly above the second type of High 1-A+, so if the size of High 1-A+ could vastly change between different verses, then some High 1-A+ characters could be stronger than some 0 characters. Plus, this sort of malleability would make being stronger than a High 1-A+/0 character no longer an anti-feat, along with a lot of other things probably.

I brought those arguments up because I fundamentally agree with them, but they're also incompatible with the tiering system as it is now. So as long as we're within this framework, I don't think we could have High 1-A+ logic be malleable.

I wouldn't take that as a flaw in the ability or its ranking as such, though.
But yeah, due to how feat bound Logic Manipulation is by necessity, it's far from impossible for there to be ways to cheat around the altered rules of reasoning.

It may be a flaw. Within a match, what practical effects would rating it at High 1-A+ lead to? Would it stop abilities that interact with the power itself, would it bypass resistances, etc etc. If it's a weird niche it might need something similar to our Resistance page to properly explain its relevance.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That fact is actually fundamentally important to the tiering system revisions as a whole. Tier 0 is only slightly above the second type of High 1-A+, so if the size of High 1-A+ could vastly change between different verses, then some High 1-A+ characters could be stronger than some 0 characters. Plus, this sort of malleability would make being stronger than a High 1-A+/0 character no longer an anti-feat.

I don't particularly agree with this description of the state-of-affairs (Especially not the "Tier 0 is only slightly above the second kind of High 1-A+", or that a High 1-A+ space being changed up would make it unproblematic for there to be things above Tier 0), but that might be partly because my opinions have significantly developed between then and now (For instance I don't really like the equation between "The space of absolutely everything a Tier 0 can produce" and "All possible worlds," at this point). I'll review up the situation (And the arguments you're referring to) and get back with a response in a bit.

Might also talk this out with you in PMs, maybe? I'll see. @DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

I brought this up during the tiering system revisions, and that wasn't the conclusion that Ultima (and by extension, those who agreed with him) went with.

There's one type of High 1-A+, which is "can create arbitrarily large/many worlds". Eventually, this was agreed to have multiple degrees to it.

But there's another type of High 1-A+, which is "embodies all possible worlds". This was not agreed to have multiple degrees to it. When I argued that there could be different fundamental laws of logic in different verses, leading to those worlds having different sizes, Ultima responded that both cases are equally powerful, it's just that in some, certain worlds don't have real equivalents for which it makes sense to talk about actualizing.

One could argue that the subset relationship doesn't make it more powerful or something. But that doesn't equate to affecting the same thing being possibly ranked lesser. It just makes no sense to give two identical things different tiers.

That fact is actually fundamentally important to the tiering system revisions as a whole. Tier 0 is only slightly above the second type of High 1-A+, so if the size of High 1-A+ could vastly change between different verses, then some High 1-A+ characters could be stronger than some 0 characters. Plus, this sort of malleability would make being stronger than a High 1-A+/0 character no longer an anti-feat.

Logic Manipulation and Tier 0 antifeats are... weird considerations. We argued that Tier 0s are logical beings as well, so in principle there are possible Tier 0s that lack the power of logic manipulation and hold no power of the set of not logically possible worlds as a result.
That was deemed irrelevant apparently, sure, but that alone doesn't mean true logic manipulation shouldn't be allowed to exist as an ability IMO. We always had potential scenarios that don't work with the tiering system, even before the revision. The answer was always to work it in by a compromise between what fictions says and our standards of reasoning. I don't think logic manipulation not truly existing is a reasonable compromise.

It may be a flaw. Within a match, what practical effects would rating it at High 1-A+ lead to? Would it stop abilities that interact with the power itself, would it bypass resistances, etc etc. If it's a weird niche it might need something similar to our Resistance page to properly explain its relevance.

None, for the most part. One could argue that it's harder to resist and negate, but without fitting feats that would be the case regardless. One actual relevant change might be when it comes to something like a Tier 1-C or Tier 1-A god trying to override it from above. That would be harder than before.
Another relevance of listing it as such is when logic is incorporated into large cosmologies and metaphysical aspects relate to it. (where that works or downgrades logic is then a debate in itself) That might be the primary relevance.

Might also talk this out with you in PMs, maybe? I'll see. @DontTalkDT

I guess we can talk in PMs if that is better than in the thread.

 

[Agnaa]

One could argue that the subset relationship doesn't make it more powerful or something. But that doesn't equate to affecting the same thing being possibly ranked lesser. It just makes no sense to give two identical things different tiers.

I don't understand the point you're making here.

Logic Manipulation and Tier 0 antifeats are... weird considerations. We argued that Tier 0s are logical beings as well, so in principle there are possible Tier 0s that lack the power of logic manipulation and hold no power of the set of not logically possible worlds as a result.
That was deemed irrelevant apparently, sure, but that alone doesn't mean true logic manipulation shouldn't be allowed to exist as an ability IMO. We always had potential scenarios that don't work with the tiering system, even before the revision. The answer was always to work it in by a compromise between what fictions says and our standards of reasoning. I don't think logic manipulation not truly existing is a reasonable compromise.

It's just that if "true" means "is the most fundamental thing in the series", then that means that the most fundamental thing in the series isn't beyond causality or mutability, which means that it shouldn't be indexed at High 1-A+. It still exists, but doesn't land in a high tier.

It does kinda suck to rule those sorts of things out, but our tiering system already does by declaring certain things as anti-feats for 1-A and above. You cannot have certain things and be considered "above quantity" or "above quality".

None, for the most part. One could argue that it's harder to resist and negate, but without fitting feats that would be the case regardless. One actual relevant change might be when it comes to something like a Tier 1-C or Tier 1-A god trying to override it from above. That would be harder than before.

I'd like us to dig into this before applying it; in what ways would trying to override it become impossible?

Another relevance of listing it as such is when logic is incorporated into large cosmologies and metaphysical aspects relate to it. (where that works or downgrades logic is then a debate in itself) That might be the primary relevance.

Yeah I'd be curious what sort of cases you have in mind where that would actually work for an upgrade.

 

[CloverDragon03]

With the Tiering System Revision Law Manipulation (of laws of nature and the like) would have very different standards applied to it than logic manipulation. For something High 1-A+ (or potentially so under the right conditions) having guidelines written down seems worthwhile IMO and since those don't apply to laws I think a separate page is better for that.

Wouldn't that just fall under characteristics of all such characters, as opposed to requiring a whole new ability page that functionally does nothing besides that? This doesn't really solve the issue that the ability just has next to no notable users

 

[DontTalkDT]

I don't understand the point you're making here.

What I mean is that even if one says that significantly affecting "all possible worlds in a fiction where there is no law of excluded middle" isn't a better feat than significantly affecting "all possible worlds in a fiction with the law of excluded middle", that doesn't mean that one should rank significantly affecting "all possible worlds that also happen to obey the law of excluded middle" from a fiction where the law of excluded middle isn't a binding law of logic as a lesser feat than significantly affecting "all possible worlds" in a fiction where the law of excluded middle is a binding law of logic.

The set of all possible worlds that also happen to obey the law of excluded middle in a fiction where the law of excluded middle isn't a binding law of logic, contains all the exact same worlds as the set of all possible worlds in a fiction where the law of excluded middle is a binding law of logic. They are completely identical sets.
The only thing that changed is that in the former case there exist things outside of that set and in the latter thing not. But what exists outside of the sets shouldn't influence the tiering of affecting the sets, as doing so is just the same feat.

Wether or not the set of all possible worlds, including those not having the law of excluded middle, is larger than the set of only the worlds with the law of excluded middle has no bearing on the standard of equal things getting the same tier.

It's just that if "true" means "is the most fundamental thing in the series", then that means that the most fundamental thing in the series isn't beyond causality or mutability, which means that it shouldn't be indexed at High 1-A+. It still exists, but doesn't land in a high tier.

It does kinda suck to rule those sorts of things out, but our tiering system already does by declaring certain things as anti-feats for 1-A and above. You cannot have certain things and be considered "above quantity" or "above quality".

I mean, the set of all possible worlds isn't beyond mutability either. You can change the worlds contained within it, as changing worlds are contained in it.

That aside, when you say that logic manipulation is an action of causality, I think you already make the mistake of trying to find a logical process by which it works, which is against the nature of the ability. If you don't run into a paradox in your idea of logic manipulation, then its not logic manipulation, is it? That's why the whole "keep it strictly to what the fiction says" thing is included.

I'd like us to dig into this before applying it; in what ways would trying to override it become impossible?

If a character changed logic, I don't think a Tier 1 character just reality warping the place would restore it, unless they have logic manipulation themselves. Even for, say, a character with R>F transcendence.
At the same time, for a character with true logic manipulation, a character with R>F transcendence that also has true logic manipulation would be default only draw equal on the logic manipulation front. That's because both would be High 1-A+ hax smurfs, equalizing their logic hax in potency.
That's in contrast to something like, for example, Information Manipulation, where information manipulation from a character with R>F transcendence would be assumed to be able to easily overwrite information manipulation from a character in a lesser reality.

Yeah I'd be curious what sort of cases you have in mind where that would actually work for an upgrade.

The whole logic thing came up in relation to a debate about tiering the sum of all universals / qualities, where it was said that that could qualify for High 1-A+. Say you have a fiction where the sum of all universals also governed all logic. That would IMO be neat support for those sum of all universals working for the High 1-A+ definition.

Wouldn't that just fall under characteristics of all such characters, as opposed to requiring a whole new ability page that functionally does nothing besides that? This doesn't really solve the issue that the ability just has next to no notable users

The purpose of ability pages is to document characteristics that the ability gives (or can give) its users, no?
I mean, sure, we could make this exclusively a rule page as well (like the creation feats page), but is that really the better solution?

 

[Agnaa]

What I mean is that even if one says that significantly affecting "all possible worlds in a fiction where there is no law of excluded middle" isn't a better feat than significantly affecting "all possible worlds in a fiction with the law of excluded middle", that doesn't mean that one should rank significantly affecting "all possible worlds that also happen to obey the law of excluded middle" from a fiction where the law of excluded middle isn't a binding law of logic as a lesser feat than significantly affecting "all possible worlds" in a fiction where the law of excluded middle is a binding law of logic.

The set of all possible worlds that also happen to obey the law of excluded middle in a fiction where the law of excluded middle isn't a binding law of logic, contains all the exact same worlds as the set of all possible worlds in a fiction where the law of excluded middle is a binding law of logic. They are completely identical sets.
The only thing that changed is that in the former case there exist things outside of that set and in the latter thing not. But what exists outside of the sets shouldn't influence the tiering of affecting the sets, as doing so is just the same feat.

Wether or not the set of all possible worlds, including those not having the law of excluded middle, is larger than the set of only the worlds with the law of excluded middle has no bearing on the standard of equal things getting the same tier.

Alas, these would receive different tiers.

I think this can be made more potent of an issue if we instead imagine "a monad whose domain is only all possible worlds that also happen to obey the law of excluded middle". Not truly being all-encompassing presents many anti-feats and inexorably leads to a lower tier.

I mean, the set of all possible worlds isn't beyond mutability either. You can change the worlds contained within it, as changing worlds are contained in it.

That's not real mutability. From outside of time, you can have worlds A, B, and world X which changes from world A to world B halfway through its existence. From outside of time these are distinct, as X always has the property of changing. But if one were to change X outside of time to always be world A, then it would no longer be distinct from world A, and there would be a gap left by world X in the set of all possible worlds.

This is a simple example, since many layers of "truer time" could exist, but once you reach the truest, it would not be mutable.

That aside, when you say that logic manipulation is an action of causality, I think you already make the mistake of trying to find a logical process by which it works, which is against the nature of the ability. If you don't run into a paradox in your idea of logic manipulation, then its not logic manipulation, is it? That's why the whole "keep it strictly to what the fiction says" thing is included.

Our tiering system revisions don't allow us to accept those sorts of excuses for anti-feats for these high tiers. You can't handwave a being changing into a monad by saying "that's a paradoxical thing enabled by omnipotence", it's just an anti-feat regardless of what the piece of fiction says.

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

If a character changed logic, I don't think a Tier 1 character just reality warping the place would restore it, unless they have logic manipulation themselves. Even for, say, a character with R>F transcendence.

So, in other words, whatever changes they make through logic manipulation cannot directly be undone without logic manipulation. They'd need to indirectly change the reference, so to speak.

I'm kind of unsure of that. Ultimately, changes to logic flows through to affecting real people in the series by causing an effect in the world, but that world and the change in it will generally still update according to the laws of the world. But maybe this could largely be accounted for by sticking to the verse's portrayal, and saying that whatever remains in effect canonically will remain in effect despite conventional meddling.

At the same time, for a character with true logic manipulation, a character with R>F transcendence that also has true logic manipulation would be default only draw equal on the logic manipulation front. That's because both would be High 1-A+ hax smurfs, equalizing their logic hax in potency.
That's in contrast to something like, for example, Information Manipulation, where information manipulation from a character with R>F transcendence would be assumed to be able to easily overwrite information manipulation from a character in a lesser reality.

Fair enough. But that brings up some important questions; can there be levels to this (resistances, layers bypassing resistances), and can there be other non-physical abilities which scale to that (law manipulation, causality manipulation, information manipulation, soul manipulation) by counteracting it, without that simply being considered an anti-feat?

The whole logic thing came up in relation to a debate about tiering the sum of all universals / qualities, where it was said that that could qualify for High 1-A+. Say you have a fiction where the sum of all universals also governed all logic. That would IMO be neat support for those sum of all universals working for the High 1-A+ definition.

Meh, I don't like that example since, as you say, it'd already qualify. If you instead get to something else, like "the abstract embodiment of logic", putting it at High 1-A+ (in terms of a durability rating for it) seems a lot shakier. The inclusion of logic has to make the difference for something reaching High 1-A+ for this to be a relevant aspect.

 

[CloverDragon03]

The purpose of ability pages is to document characteristics that the ability gives (or can give) its users, no?
I mean, sure, we could make this exclusively a rule page as well (like the creation feats page), but is that really the better solution?

Well from what it sounds like, the reason this is relevant is simply because of how High 1-A characters and such are under our new Tiering System. Doesn't it then sound like something more appropriate as a facet of their state of being, as opposed to an ability?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Blegh. It's late here and I realized I'm too tired to address this whole thing rn, so I'll just leave in my thoughts on one aspect of the proposal right now (Check your PMs later, btw. Leaving stuff there. @DontTalkDT)

That aside, when you say that logic manipulation is an action of causality, I think you already make the mistake of trying to find a logical process by which it works, which is against the nature of the ability. If you don't run into a paradox in your idea of logic manipulation, then its not logic manipulation, is it? That's why the whole "keep it strictly to what the fiction says" thing is included.

In my eyes, the thing with this is that at the end of the day, you won't really find a character that totally, 100%, honest-to-God "breaks logic." Because obviously, if the fiction depicts the ability as useful or as having coherent-seeming effects that follow as a result of any reason whatsoever, then it didn't really break logic entirely. I think we can illustrate this with the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction, actually:

As you know, Identity and Noncontradiction both reduce down to "A = A" and "A ≠ ~A." Which is to say: "A thing is what it is" and "A thing is not what it is not" respectively. So, say a verse has a logic manipulator and who deletes the Law of Excluded Middle, and this results in the world being totally rewritten into one accommodating for the absence of that law. Obviously, since the verse gave us a coherent scenario to work with, we can clearly reason out and apply logic to it: The LEM-less world (A~) is not the same as the LEM world (A), and vice-versa, and so obviously, noncontradiction applies. It also applies with the very inference that the verse made: "He erased the Law of Excluded Middle, therefore the world changed accordingly." That conditional is itself logical, too.

Further: In the new world, the LEM is erased as opposed to not erased, and so you can even say that, ultimately, LEM itself still applies! Of course, you can also say "Well, this is why we follow strictly only what the verse tells us is happening, because we can't draw any conclusions out of a logic-breaking scenario." I don't disagree with that, but I would say it means that you can't then pull back and say "Well, it works because it works. The verse told us." Because, insofar as it works, the verse is following logic in some form. We need to affirm the logic so we can even draw the feat out of the verse and thus "Take the author seriously."

Granted, I obviously don't think this is really a reason to say Logic Manipulation shouldn't exist, or anything like that. Just that to some degree or other, it will never be what it says on the tin exactly. It's the same as, say, Nonexistent Physiology; no verse will ever actually feature a nonexistent character, and so any "nonexistence" that pops up in fiction will always be qualified. In the same way, any logic-bending in fiction will always be qualified. I know plenty of verses that do logic-breaking stuff, so we could potentially swap out practical examples, but I'm sure you know what I'm saying regardless.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do not entirely understand how logic manipulation would really differ from law manipulation or conceptual manipulation aside from it being a subpower of the latter much like the former is. But it seems mostly making more sense out of what Ultima is saying.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well from what it sounds like, the reason this is relevant is simply because of how High 1-A characters and such are under our new Tiering System. Doesn't it then sound like something more appropriate as a facet of their state of being, as opposed to an ability?

Well, for one we list states of beings as abilities, if they are related to powers. Abstract Existence and Nonexistent Physiology for example.
But no, it's not a state of being. Nonduality (which we also list) would be the state of being that breaks logic.
Logic Manipulation meanwhile doesn't change your nature. It is just something you can do i.e. your ability.

As an aside, another reason to separate Logic Manipulation from Law Manipulation is to make the difference in what resistance feats are needed clearer. Even today a feat of resisting manipulation of laws like gravity or the laws governing magic would not be enough to resist law manipulation that manipulates logic. Mechanically they are too different, with logic being more fundamental.
The reverse would also be the case. Resisting logic manipulation is too different to generalize it to a resistance to a law of gravity.
I suspect that distinction is something people may not be generally aware of.

I do not entirely understand how logic manipulation would really differ from law manipulation or conceptual manipulation aside from it being a subpower of the latter much like the former is.

Actually, Logic Manipulation typically is no subpower of conceptual manipulation. In real life theories concepts (universals) are subject to logic (i.e. governed by it). Now, in fiction there can of course be exceptions to that, but by default logic is not below concepts.

(Check your PMs later, btw. Leaving stuff there. @DontTalkDT)

Sure. I will wait for that a while before I get to all the rest that was said here. Easier than having the same debate on multiple channels.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Well, for one we list states of beings as abilities, if they are related to powers. Abstract Existence and Nonexistent Physiology for example.
But no, it's not a state of being. Nonduality (which we also list) would be the state of being that breaks logic.
Logic Manipulation meanwhile doesn't change your nature. It is just something you can do i.e. your ability.

Fair enough, but even if it's an ability it still tends to just come from High 1-A+ characters or the like as a natural result of them being in that tier. Beyond that, there's only like... a couple of fringe cases. I still maintain there's not enough to work with here to justify this ability's existence and have it not be redundant

As an aside, another reason to separate Logic Manipulation from Law Manipulation is to make the difference in what resistance feats are needed clearer. Even today a feat of resisting manipulation of laws like gravity or the laws governing magic would not be enough to resist law manipulation that manipulates logic. Mechanically they are too different, with logic being more fundamental.
The reverse would also be the case. Resisting logic manipulation is too different to generalize it to a resistance to a law of gravity.
I suspect that distinction is something people may not be generally aware of.

I wouldn't consider this a reason, no. I think people tend to overestimate how powerful some resistances are, and that's not something we need to accommodate. If X character only resists Law Manipulation that impacts the law of gravity, they wouldn't suddenly resist all forms of Law Manipulation, I don't think

 

[Agnaa]

I wouldn't consider this a reason, no. I think people tend to overestimate how powerful some resistances are, and that's not something we need to accommodate. If X character only resists Law Manipulation that impacts the law of gravity, they wouldn't suddenly resist all forms of Law Manipulation, I don't think

The metric I always go by, is that it depends on the explanation for the resistance. And if it's unexplained, then the character only resists the same type of ability causing the same type of effect.

For explanations that hit the type of ability, I'd go with "This character can selectively choose whether and when to abide by laws of physics", or "This character's body operates on its own laws, which usually aligns with the laws of the universe, but not if they're changed". While the former case is canonically bound to physics, I can imagine a more vague case where it applying to logic doesn't sound too weird.

With us comparing Law and Logic, I'd also point out that Law Manip ends up catching things which are a lot more vague than just being laws of physics. Medaka Box has Ajimu create a sword which has the "rule" that only the chosen one can unsheath it, which Misogi can remove with his ability to render anything as if it never existed. I don't think it's clear which level these weird cases should be considered to apply at.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Actually, Logic Manipulation typically is no subpower of conceptual manipulation. In real life theories concepts (universals) are subject to logic (i.e. governed by it). Now, in fiction there can of course be exceptions to that, but by default logic is not below concepts.

Ah, I see. These are rhetorical topics. But then I would argue the opposite that Conceptual is a subpower of Logic Manipulation.

 

[Flashlight237]

The thing about logic vs law is logic is this thing that explains how certain things work whereas law is how things MUST work. In other words, you are essentially manipulating guidelines or shifting explanations with Logic Manipulation unlike with Law Manipulation where you're manipulating the very order of this. As such, I personally support the idea of separating Logic Manipulation from Law Manipulation as you're essentially separating the How from the What.

Should it come to be, though, I think like we already do with Law Manipulation, Causality Manipulation, and Acausality (mostly), we should necessitate CRTs for cases of Logic Manipulation because... Well, that's the kicks.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Agnaa @Ultima_Reality

Have you reached any agreements here?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure. Ultima correctly identified the issue I pointed out, but hasn't responded to it publicly (or privately, to me), instead taking it to DMs with DT.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Understood.