Logic Manipulation Ability Page Creation

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Agnaa]

Again, we think this should wait until the Nonduality thread is resolved.

 

[Jin2188]

Okay so it looks like the Nonduality thread has been resolved for now, shall we continue?

 

[Agnaa]

That one still needs (imo) the most important part resolved; creating the ability page for metaphysical immunity or whatever.

 

[Jin2188]

That one still needs (imo) the most important part resolved; creating the ability page for metaphysical immunity or whatever.

I see. I personally support just making an Immunity page and including that in it.

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Jin2188]

bump

 

[Antvasima]

@Agnaa @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Ultima_Reality

Should we currently refocus on this thread again?

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

 

[Jin2188]

Here's a draft I made based of of DT's. Feedback is welcome.

 

[Agnaa]

It should be noted that true, pure Logic Manipulation is something exclusive to Tier 0 entities. However, lesser forms of the ability, such as the power to actualize logical contradictions, can be and are wielded by other characters in fiction.

I think this should be reworked completely to:

It should be noted that true Logic Manipulation, changing the logical basis of all possible worlds, is something exclusive to Tier 0 entities. A weaker character successfully doing such would be treated as a complete contradiction of that space being Tier High 1-A+.

I think the Defining Logic section should be written to be more in line with the latest FAQ answer.

I think the use of "Logic Deflection" does not fit well under this page.

Otherwise, it seems fine enough.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Why would changing the underlying logic of a fiction as a whole be Tier 0 exclusive? What would prevent a character from doing so while not being a monad when a monad can? Or said differently, why does changing logic implymonad properties?


Aside from that, I think including something in the direction of section 2.1 here as part of the definition of what is logic might be good.

 

[Agnaa]

Why would changing the underlying logic of a fiction as a whole be Tier 0 exclusive? What would prevent a character from doing so while not being a monad when a monad can? Or said differently, why does changing logic implymonad properties?

Because actions made within possible worlds cannot change the true state of all possible worlds.

For an entity to do that, they would have to be external to all possible worlds, which is something we only allow for monads.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Because actions made within possible worlds cannot change the true state of all possible worlds.

For an entity to do that, they would have to be external to all possible worlds, which is something we only allow for monads.

Well, as established in the last revision, "all possible worlds" is a set dependent on the choice of logic. A character can certainly be outside of a logic's set of all possible worlds, by simply not abiding that logic.

Now, I believe to recall that your argument on that was that the logic is not "true" logic in such a case.
However, we desperately need a definition of what "true" logic is supposed to be in that case and delineate it strictly to other logics. Currently, "true" Logic (Manipulation) is defined via possible worlds (as their basis), but possible worlds are defined via a logic (by default a classical one). That's too circular.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Why would changing the underlying logic of a fiction as a whole be Tier 0 exclusive? What would prevent a character from doing so while not being a monad when a monad can? Or said differently, why does changing logic implymonad properties?


Aside from that, I think including something in the direction of section 2.1 here as part of the definition of what is logic might be good.

That actually ties exactly into what I said here

TL;DR is that Tier 0 is the foundation of everything (An example being cosmologies where it's the idea or form of "Being" where that term applies to any object of thought or judgement whatsoever). High 1-A+ is the "everything" properly spoken as the differentiated multiplicity of all available objects. The issue is basically that we equated this latter "everything" with the sum of all possible worlds as understood in modal logic, and this resulted in some tensions because of things that could plausibly be seen as broader than this (In the case of this thread, that's collections of worlds extending further than just the possible worlds, like illogical/impossible worlds and such), yet not at Tier 0 level.

I think the conflict of this thread basically boils down to "Do we want to keep holding up the "physical" (so to speak) possible worlds as the highest you can get before 0?"

 

[Agnaa]

Ultima gets pretty much to the heart of it, but if I were to add anything.

The real prong is whether we live in that contradiction, or we make Tier 0 require the hardest apophaticism, and for High 1-A+ to be the space of everything that is not unity under a view of the hardest apophaticism.

Either there are plausible views that are espoused by fiction which we have to "equalise down", or we require the most extreme view conceivable.

Or we switch the tiering system to a completely different basis :3

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not really sure how either of your two replies tie into my question of what a proper definition of "true logic" should be.

It also seems obvious that a monad being a foundation for possible worlds only works in constraints of a logic that considers a monad (and its fundational property) a necessary existence, which puts a limit on the scope of logics (and sets of worlds) which accommodate monad tiering.

 

[Agnaa]

Because of the scope we'd have to encompass, a precise axiomatic definition fundamentally could not be written.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Because of the scope we'd have to encompass, a precise axiomatic definition fundamentally could not be written.

If we can't define true logic, then the term seems meaningless and the note on the page irrelevant.

 

[Agnaa]

It's merely clearing up a (imo fairly likely) mistaken view people could have. While it could theoretically go somewhere else - in the Tiering System page, the FAQ, the Omnipotence page - I think this place also makes sense for it.

 

[Vietthai96]

I think this should be reworked completely to:

Wait, so we are going to make Logic Manipulation an exclusive power for High 1-A+ and 0?

 

[DontTalkDT]

It's merely clearing up a (imo fairly likely) mistaken view people could have.

And which view is that?

 

[Agnaa]

Wait, so we are going to make Logic Manipulation an exclusive power for High 1-A+ and 0?

No.

And which view is that?

That Logic Manipulation is not a way of bypassing the immutability of the collection of things a Tier 0 instantiates.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That Logic Manipulation is not a way of bypassing the immutability of the collection of things a Tier 0 instantiates.

But it can. There is no statement that stays true independent of the choice of logic.

 

[Agnaa]

But it can. There is no statement that stays true independent of the choice of logic.

This is asserting something that goes into stark conflict with our Tiering System.

Either you relinquish that position, in relation to this site's systems, or those systems will have to change, so that Tier 0 is not all-encompassing, unsurpassable, immutable, etc.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I'm not really sure how either of your two replies tie into my question of what a proper definition of "true logic" should be.

It also seems obvious that a monad being a foundation for possible worlds only works in constraints of a logic that considers a monad (and its fundational property) a necessary existence, which puts a limit on the scope of logics (and sets of worlds) which accommodate monad tiering.

But it can. There is no statement that stays true independent of the choice of logic.

Very interesting, since from what I can gather, the standpoint which your argument needs to succeed is basically a relativism according to which any logical statement (And any statement, for that matter) can be relativized in light of another logical system, so that there are in fact no universally applicable statements at all (Or equivalently that there isn't really a "true logic" at all. Just a bunch of disparate logical systems contradicting each other)

In that regard a radical relativism of the sort you're hinting at faces exactly the same conceptual difficulties as the radical apophaticism that Agnaa mentioned up there (Leaving aside nuances for the sake of the point's illustration. I don't want to just dismiss it whole cloth, so I'm intentionally watering it down). For the latter, it's: "The thing is completely unspeakable, unsayable, unmentionable, unknowable." Yet in saying all that, you already spoke it, said it, mentioned it, and knew it (however inadequately). Similarly if you say something like "Any statement whatsoever can be overturned," then this very statement, that any statement whatsoever can be overturned, is also overturned. It's a similar deal to saying "the principle of non-contradiction is false." To even make that statement, you need to distinguish between that proposition ("The principle of non-contradiction is false") and its negation, which is already an application of the PNC itself, hence being similarly self-defeating.

Meanwhile, the other position seems to very much enjoy a greater coherence to it at face value, since it's just saying "There's these conditions for discourse that you just can't really trepass without contradicting yourself." Since the Tier 0 of a verse would just be an embodiment of those conditions, granting the existence of one in a verse makes it inescapable. So the question of whether you can manipulate logic to bypass a Tier 0's properties is one and the same question as whether bypassing logic in general is a coherent power one can be said to have.

(And btw, appealing to a metalanguage is obviously no good, since: a) A metalanguage won't actually exist as a cosmological structure in a verse, which is what would be needed for the point to hold up. b) Even if it did, all that'd mean is that there now is a toy-model (the "object language") in which replicas of certain universals (e.g. the laws of logic) fail in some way, while the laws of logic hold good at the meta-language level, so it's not really a true overturning of logic in an all-embracing scale. c) This is not a "It's like how characters in Lord of the Rings all speak English to us even though in-universe they predate the language" thing, because it isn't a matter of just how information is conveyed by the medium to us, the IRL audience, but of the functioning of the actual things in the verse, as remarked months back)

And this in fact actually beautifully rounds back up to the core of this dispute, without even needing to touch upon how the power interacts with Tier 0, or whatever: That being: Is Logic Manipulation even a conceptually sensible power? By all accounts, it would seem not, because as I said a few months past, any pertinent usage or application of it as a power will have to assume logic works, which makes the premise of "We should take authors seriously when they claim such-and-such" self-defeating, since to begin taking them seriously, we have to employ logic, and yet what they say is that logic is failing to obtain. The question is whether we would like to permit such conceptually incoherent things into the system.

So, yeah, difficulties all around.

 

[Agnaa]

Meanwhile, the other position seems to very much enjoy a greater coherence to it at face value, since it's just saying "There's these conditions for discourse that you just can't really trepass without contradicting yourself." Since the Tier 0 of a verse would just be an embodiment of those conditions, granting the existence of one in a verse makes it inescapable.

This may ultimately be a topic for a different thread, but this does remind me of a point @Jin2188 mentioned previously.

If a Tier 0 is, to fend off that talk of alternate logical systems, simply "The conditions of discourse that can't be trespassed without contradiction", why does that have to be embodied (or why is it more powerfully embodied) as a unity? If we truly broke that down to a set of axioms and/or necessary truths, why could those not be distributed across multiple embodiers, to the same effect, as embodying them in one entity? Ultimately, if any of them were altered, that would render discourse impossible, which is the same theoretical issue causing immutability for monads.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

This may ultimately be a topic for a different thread, but this does remind me of a point @Jin2188 mentioned previously.

If a Tier 0 is, to fend off that talk of alternate logical systems, simply "The conditions of discourse that can't be trespassed without contradiction", why does that have to be embodied (or why is it more powerfully embodied) as a unity? If we truly broke that down to a set of axioms and/or necessary truths, why could those not be distributed across multiple embodiers, to the same effect, as embodying them in one entity? Ultimately, if any of them were altered, that would render discourse impossible, which is the same theoretical issue causing immutability for monads.

That's an excellent question! The answer my tired-ass brain can think of right now is something along the lines of "Once you have things so universally all-embracing that they include not only everything but also everything about everything, it doesn't seem to make sense to have them as any sort of positive multiplicity of things standing side-by-side." That probably becomes more pointed when you switch from thinking about laws of logic (i.e. ways things behave) to thinking about the usual philosophical absolutes, e.g., Being, and the like.

You're probably correct that the topic is better off discussed somewhere else though. I might shoot you up a message later about it, since I don't want a thread to be made before both of us are at least on the same page about what has to be discussed.

 

[Jin2188]

I think this should be reworked completely to:

I've edited the page slightly.

I think the Defining Logic section should be written to be more in line with the latest FAQ answer.

Can I ask for clarification on what you mean here?

Very interesting, since from what I can gather, the standpoint which your argument needs to succeed is basically a relativism according to which any logical statement (And any statement, for that matter) can be relativized in light of another logical system, so that there are in fact no universally applicable statements at all (Or equivalently that there isn't really a "true logic" at all. Just a bunch of disparate logical systems contradicting each other)

In that regard a radical relativism of the sort you're hinting at faces exactly the same conceptual difficulties as the radical apophaticism that Agnaa mentioned up there (Leaving aside nuances for the sake of the point's illustration. I don't want to just dismiss it whole cloth, so I'm intentionally watering it down). For the latter, it's: "The thing is completely unspeakable, unsayable, unmentionable, unknowable." Yet in saying all that, you already spoke it, said it, mentioned it, and knew it (however inadequately). Similarly if you say something like "Any statement whatsoever can be overturned," then this very statement, that any statement whatsoever can be overturned, is also overturned. It's a similar deal to saying "the principle of non-contradiction is false." To even make that statement, you need to distinguish between that proposition ("The principle of non-contradiction is false") and its negation, which is already an application of the PNC itself, hence being similarly self-defeating.

Meanwhile, the other position seems to very much enjoy a greater coherence to it at face value, since it's just saying "There's these conditions for discourse that you just can't really trepass without contradicting yourself." Since the Tier 0 of a verse would just be an embodiment of those conditions, granting the existence of one in a verse makes it inescapable. So the question of whether you can manipulate logic to bypass a Tier 0's properties is one and the same question as whether bypassing logic in general is a coherent power one can be said to have.

I think a better view is something similar to István Aranyosi's Logical Space. Every proposition and statement that can be said about anything whatsoever, including their negations, exists in a space of absolute potentiality. Contradictions exist here, at least in this initial state. "Possible worlds" are essentially just collections of propositions, sort of like the procedure outlined here.

Tier 0 is essentially the structure of this space. It's the rules that define how propositions can be arranged. We can call these rules the "laws of logic", but it could be equally valid to consider them as the conditions of existence itself, as they define which "worlds" are possible, and which are not. And of course, as I've argued previously, there's no reason why this can't be embodied by a plurality instead of a unity.

It is conceivable, however, that not all possible worlds are actually instantiated; in fact we should generally assume that the default state of possible worlds is non-actualization. Actualization of possible worlds can happen through various ways. It could be the work of the mind, the will of a creator deity or High 1-A+ character, or simply a consequence of how Logical Space is structured.

(And btw, appealing to a metalanguage is obviously no good, since: a) A metalanguage won't actually exist as a cosmological structure in a verse, which is what would be needed for the point to hold up.

Tier 0 would be the metalanguage, specifically a maximally ordered/nested metalanguage.

b) Even if it did, all that'd mean is that there now is a toy-model (the "object language") in which replicas of certain universals (e.g. the laws of logic) fail in some way, while the laws of logic hold good at the meta-language level, so it's not really a true overturning of logic in an all-embracing scale. c) This is not a "It's like how characters in Lord of the Rings all speak English to us even though in-universe they predate the language" thing, because it isn't a matter of just how information is conveyed by the medium to us, the IRL audience, but of the functioning of the actual things in the verse, as remarked months back)

And this in fact actually beautifully rounds back up to the core of this dispute, without even needing to touch upon how the power interacts with Tier 0, or whatever: That being: Is Logic Manipulation even a conceptually sensible power? By all accounts, it would seem not, because as I said a few months past, any pertinent usage or application of it as a power will have to assume logic works, which makes the premise of "We should take authors seriously when they claim such-and-such" self-defeating, since to begin taking them seriously, we have to employ logic, and yet what they say is that logic is failing to obtain. The question is whether we would like to permit such conceptually incoherent things into the system.

This is fine, it doesn't have to be an absolute overturning of logic to be an ability we should catalog. Even if it ends up as a sort of "playtime" ability like NEP, it's still a power that appears in fiction, and so we should index it.

That's an excellent question! The answer my tired-ass brain can think of right now is something along the lines of "Once you have things so universally all-embracing that they include not only everything but also everything about everything, it doesn't seem to make sense to have them as any sort of positive multiplicity of things standing side-by-side." That probably becomes more pointed when you switch from thinking about laws of logic (i.e. ways things behave) to thinking about the usual philosophical absolutes, e.g., Being, and the like.

Why do we need to switch when the laws of logic work just fine for describing the archetype of "being"? The mere fact that they exist as a plurality undermines this point, and is not something I believe has been properly addressed.

 

[Agnaa]

I had an idea this morning; there seems to be a lot of striving for consistency, i.e.

For the latter, it's: "The thing is completely unspeakable, unsayable, unmentionable, unknowable." Yet in saying all that, you already spoke it, said it, mentioned it, and knew it (however inadequately). Similarly if you say something like "Any statement whatsoever can be overturned," then this very statement, that any statement whatsoever can be overturned, is also overturned. It's a similar deal to saying "the principle of non-contradiction is false." To even make that statement, you need to distinguish between that proposition ("The principle of non-contradiction is false") and its negation, which is already an application of the PNC itself, hence being similarly self-defeating.

(I'm sure DT has made comments similarly dismissing things for inconsistencies, just not recently in this thread)

And I'd like to ask; is this a goal that can actually be met? I know that Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarski's undefinability theorem are intended to apply to arithmetic, but are there any corresponding problems with logic in general, that may stop us from finding a single total system that assigns "true" or "false" to all propositions (a non-trivial one; including all that are relevant in typical fictions) without any contradictions?

(And, again, apologies if this is a topic better left for another thread)

Can I ask for clarification on what you mean here?

The most recent section in the Tiering System FAQ defines the logical space we seek to cover on our site, and the definition you provided doesn't seem to line up with that.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

This is fine, it doesn't have to be an absolute overturning of logic to be an ability we should catalog. Even if it ends up as a sort of "playtime" ability like NEP, it's still a power that appears in fiction, and so we should index it.

I don't mind that. The question is whether Logic Manipulation is a "real" power ("Real" in that it seeks to embrace all the consequences and entailments of the concept) or just, as you say, a "playtime" one. It seems that DT's proposal is for us to treat it as the former, and I think that's just incoherent in principle.

Which also gets into your mention of Aranyosi's Logical Space, yeah. Something like it would also be a good sum-up of what Tier 0 is. The "arena" where any affirmation or proposition whatever is placed. Any object of thought will be embraced in it. I think what DontTalk is proposing really only works if we say that such an all-embracing framework is ultimately not possible, that whatever you got can always be relativized no matter what (And not as resolved into some broader framework, like Logical Space, but truly relativized).

Why do we need to switch when the laws of logic work just fine for describing the archetype of "being"? The mere fact that they exist as a plurality undermines this point, and is not something I believe has been properly addressed.

Don't think we should derail this thread with that. Would you be up to discussing this elsewhere? In PMs or somesuch.

 

[Jin2188]

I don't mind that. The question is whether Logic Manipulation is a "real" power ("Real" in that it seeks to embrace all the consequences and entailments of the concept) or just, as you say, a "playtime" one. It seems that DT's proposal is for us to treat it as the former, and I think that's just incoherent in principle.

I honestly kinda disagree with that conclusion, I was just saying that even if it is incoherent, it's still an ability we should index. I think logic could still be manipulated, just not capital L "Logic", as in the logic that Tier 0 embodies and the logic that governs the space of all conceivable propositions (and even then, perhaps it still could be, since I've argued elsewhere for the current Tier 0 being demoted to a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one). Fictional verses may have their own "logic" that characters could manipulate, and even if it's not the "true" Logic, I don't see how that prevents logic manipulation from being a "real" ability.

Which also gets into your mention of Aranyosi's Logical Space, yeah. Something like it would also be a good sum-up of what Tier 0 is. The "arena" where any affirmation or proposition whatever is placed. Any object of thought will be embraced in it. I think what DontTalk is proposing really only works if we say that such an all-embracing framework is ultimately not possible, that whatever you got can always be relativized no matter what (And not as resolved into some broader framework, like Logical Space, but truly relativized).

I think what DT is proposing is essentially what happens when you remove the Tier 0 from Logical Space. No more rules, just absolute trivialism. I honestly don't really see an issue with this idea, but I also don't see how it helps the case for Logic Manipulation either, since such a thing would be impossible to manipulate without somehow introducing a Tier 0 into it, which is impossible with how we currently define Tier 0 (changeless).

Don't think we should derail this thread with that. Would you be up to discussing this elsewhere? In PMs or somesuch.

You'd have to message me since I don't have enough karma lmao. But yeah I'd be fine with that.

Alternatively one of us could make a new thread. I have one about Tier 0 prepped in my sandbox.

 

[Jin2188]

I had an idea this morning; there seems to be a lot of striving for consistency, i.e.

(I'm sure DT has made comments similarly dismissing things for inconsistencies, just not recently in this thread)

And I'd like to ask; is this a goal that can actually be met? I know that Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarski's undefinability theorem are intended to apply to arithmetic, but are there any corresponding problems with logic in general, that may stop us from finding a single total system that assigns "true" or "false" to all propositions (a non-trivial one; including all that are relevant in typical fictions) without any contradictions?

(And, again, apologies if this is a topic better left for another thread)

Hilbert's program all over again lmao.

In all seriousness, I'm pretty sure that Gödel's and Tarski's theorems apply to formal systems in general, rather than just arithmetic, which could pose a problem if we consider logic to be a formal system (which honestly I don't see why it wouldn't be).

If this is the case, then this is another reason why Tier 0 should be demoted to a penultimate tier imo.

The most recent section in the Tiering System FAQ defines the logical space we seek to cover on our site, and the definition you provided doesn't seem to line up with that.

I'm not trying to define logical space, I'm trying to define logic itself. Creating a manipulation page feels pointless if people don't have a solid understanding of the thing that's being manipulated. I'm just trying to create criteria for a metaphysical aspect to be considered "logic", and thus for manipulation of it to qualify as Logic Manipulation.

I don't care about the "weakness" or "strength" of a logic system in this context. Logic is logic. Just because a logic is more restrictive than classical logic shouldn't suddenly make manipulation of it not Logic Manipulation.

Additionally, there may be cases where a metaphysical aspect is not explicitly stated to be "logic" yet nevertheless functions like it, which is why I wanted to be open and inclusive with my definition. I don't see why I should have to hold myself to such a specific definition for logic when I already admitted that this wouldn't be manipulation of the capital L Logic.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

You'd have to message me since I don't have enough karma lmao. But yeah I'd be fine with that.

Alternatively one of us could make a new thread. I have one about Tier 0 prepped in my sandbox.

(I had no clue the forum had a karma system I'm ngl) Yeah I'll hit you up later. I think it'd be good to exchange thoughts before either of us go through with that (if at all).

I honestly kinda disagree with that conclusion, I was just saying that even if it is incoherent, it's still an ability we should index. I think logic could still be manipulated, just not capital L "Logic", as in the logic that Tier 0 embodies and the logic that governs the space of all conceivable propositions (and even then, perhaps it still could be, since I've argued elsewhere for the current Tier 0 being demoted to a penultimate tier rather than an ultimate one). Fictional verses may have their own "logic" that characters could manipulate, and even if it's not the "true" Logic, I don't see how that prevents logic manipulation from being a "real" ability.

It would be a "real" ability in the sense that it produces effects in the verse, but a verse will always fail in some way when it tries to claim logic's gone out of the window. Precisely because the very idea of suspending all logic in an all-encompassing sense is self-defeating, I don't think it's very feasible to go ahead and try to tier that. Boils down to whether we want to enshrine things that patently (and intentionally) make no sense. Try to take seriously what, by definition, can't be taken seriously, pretty much.

I think what DT is proposing is essentially what happens when you remove the Tier 0 from Logical Space. No more rules, just absolute trivialism. I honestly don't really see an issue with this idea, but I also don't see how it helps the case for Logic Manipulation either, since such a thing would be impossible to manipulate without somehow introducing a Tier 0 into it, which is impossible with how we currently define Tier 0 (changeless).

Less trivialism and moreso a general relativism, but you could argue it bottoms up into the same thing, yeah. All rules are malleable and there is no absolute rule ("Is that an absolute rule?", being what I'm retorting with, pretty much).

And I'd like to ask; is this a goal that can actually be met? I know that Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Tarski's undefinability theorem are intended to apply to arithmetic, but are there any corresponding problems with logic in general, that may stop us from finding a single total system that assigns "true" or "false" to all propositions (a non-trivial one; including all that are relevant in typical fictions) without any contradictions?

Honestly I also think a big thing being missed here is that formal systems are not reality, really. An unspoken (and unexamined) presupposition underlying some of the discussions here, methinks, and definitely not an innocuous one.

 

[Agnaa]

I've edited the page slightly.

I still find that misleading, and would prefer my entire rewrite be included.

I'm not trying to define logical space, I'm trying to define logic itself. Creating a manipulation page feels pointless if people don't have a solid understanding of the thing that's being manipulated. I'm just trying to create criteria for a metaphysical aspect to be considered "logic", and thus for manipulation of it to qualify as Logic Manipulation.

I don't care about the "weakness" or "strength" of a logic system in this context. Logic is logic. Just because a logic is more restrictive than classical logic shouldn't suddenly make manipulation of it not Logic Manipulation.

Additionally, there may be cases where a metaphysical aspect is not explicitly stated to be "logic" yet nevertheless functions like it, which is why I wanted to be open and inclusive with my definition. I don't see why I should have to hold myself to such a specific definition for logic when I already admitted that this wouldn't be manipulation of the capital L Logic.

As the Wikipedia page you link to in that description says, the three laws of thought are not the foundation of a logical system:

There is no system of logic which uses the three "laws" as axioms, and the interpretations of even just the three "laws" varies widely.

Yet that section of your page says they are:

it is necessary to provide a rigorous definition of what qualifies as "logic", because a verse may function off of alternative systems that are not based on the three laws of thought

And in general, I think I'm just not a fan of the approach in that section. I think "Logic Manipulation" should just be manipulating a thing which is termed "logic".

The first criteria is self-contradictory, and doesn't allow verses to establish different spaces that follow different laws of logic. The other two seem quite onerous to actually establish. And the collection of them seems like it could easily be confused for other things (concepts, laws, information).

 

[Vietthai96]

Anyway, while the logical space debate is a big stuff. I want ask a more general question regarding the power

The ability to exist in a logic-violating state yourself should be listed as Paraconsistent Physiology and not Logic Manipulation. Logic Manipulation only covers the ability to directly alter the logic exterior of oneself. Note that alterations to logic should only be listed as Logic Manipulation if truly of a fundamentally logical nature. Changes such as making 1 + 1 = 3 should for instance be listed as Mathematics Manipulation instead, as that is only a logical contradiction if one assumes the axioms of mathematics to be valid. For similar reasons, time paradoxes get listed as Acausality or Causality Manipulation and are not fundamentally considered logical contradictions.

From the Ruling section of the page. While it make sense, i have question

1. Paraconsistent Physiology is indeed a state of being thus should not have Logic hax, but what about an ability that can negate this state, return this state from being paraconsistent back to normal? Or the ability to "shift" oneself or something else from normal logic state into paraconsistent logic state?

2. I know that manipulate math is math hax or time paradox is causality. But what if these "abilities" was achieved by manipulating an underlying logic system? is it qualify for Logic hax

3. What about the ability to manipulate the logic of how thing operate? Is it also can be qualified as Logic hax? Or it gonna be threw under the bus call Law hax?

Not a question, but i think Toon Force can also be listed under Ruling section since it is a power that can cause logical nonsense but obviously not logic hax by default.

 

[Agnaa]

From the Ruling section of the page. While it make sense, i have question

1. Paraconsistent Physiology is indeed a state of being thus should not have Logic hax, but what about an ability that can negate this state, return this state from being paraconsistent back to normal? Or the ability to "shift" oneself or something else from normal logic state into paraconsistent logic state?

Logic Manipulation, as you point out, is defined as manipulating it, not just existing in that state.

So if, as you say, a character manipulates it, rather than simply existing in that state, they would get that ability.

2. I know that manipulate math is math hax or time paradox is causality. But what if these "abilities" was achieved by manipulating an underlying logic system? is it qualify for Logic hax

Logic Manipulation, as you point out, is for manipulating logic, not for manipulating other things.

So if, as you say, a character manipulates it, they would get that ability, even if it ends up having other consequences.

3. What about the ability to manipulate the logic of how thing operate? Is it also can be qualified as Logic hax? Or it gonna be threw under the bus call Law hax?

As the page says, through this example in the Limitations section:

For example, it might be tempting to say that a logic manipulator who is explained to be able to manipulate logic to change reasoning such that being burned does not alter his state of being, would be able to do a similar thing to defend against water-based attacks. However, for a logic-breaking power, there is no true guarantee that it would abide by such a seemingly sensible pattern and the principle of explosion would indeed prevent such reasoning.

Logic Manipulation can be applied to only specific things.

Not a question, but i think Toon Force can also be listed under Ruling section since it is a power that can cause logical nonsense but obviously not logic hax by default.

Sure, idc.

 

[Jin2188]

It would be a "real" ability in the sense that it produces effects in the verse, but a verse will always fail in some way when it tries to claim logic's gone out of the window. Precisely because the very idea of suspending all logic in an all-encompassing sense is self-defeating, I don't think it's very feasible to go ahead and try to tier that. Boils down to whether we want to enshrine things that patently (and intentionally) make no sense. Try to take seriously what, by definition, can't be taken seriously, pretty much.

From what I've seen previously (correct me if I'm wrong), your argument against the "realness" of Logic Manipulation is essentially this:

1. A character "removes" the LNC from reality.
2. The distinction between the LNC existing and it not existing is itself an instance of the LNC applying.
3. Therefore, the LNC was never actually removed.

The two premises are true, but I don't see how they lead to the conclusion that the LNC was never actually removed. The absence of the LNC only means that the law can be violated, not that it has to be. It's perfectly reasonable for a world to exist where some things are compliant with the LNC despite the law being absent. It's just that the law is no longer an absolute principle that must be followed.

Honestly I also think a big thing being missed here is that formal systems are not reality, really. An unspoken (and unexamined) presupposition underlying some of the discussions here, methinks, and definitely not an innocuous one.

Well if Tier 0 embodies logic, and logic is a formal system, then you could say that all of reality is based on a formal system.

We're essentially trying to say three things about Tier 0:

1. Tier 0 is absolute and all-encompassing.
2. Tier 0 is consistent.
3. Tier 0 is formal.

And if Agnaa is right about this, then these three statements cannot all be true; at least one of them has to go. I'd personally go with removing the first statement, for reasons I've stated in other threads. You seem to be in favor of nixing the third statement.

I still find that misleading, and would prefer my entire rewrite be included.

As the Wikipedia page you link to in that description says, the three laws of thought are not the foundation of a logical system:

Yet that section of your page says they are:

All right, I'll reword it then.

And in general, I think I'm just not a fan of the approach in that section. I think "Logic Manipulation" should just be manipulating a thing which is termed "logic".

You would be horrified at the equivocation fallacies people would try to pull if we just went with that. A rigorous definition is necessary, unless we want this ability to be the next Quantum Manipulation.

The first criteria is self-contradictory, and doesn't allow verses to establish different spaces that follow different laws of logic. The other two seem quite onerous to actually establish. And the collection of them seems like it could easily be confused for other things (concepts, laws, information).

I guess I can rework that section then, but I stand by my belief that we need a rigorous definition of what counts as logic.

 

[Agnaa]

I guess I can rework that section then, but I stand by my belief that we need a rigorous definition of what counts as logic.

If I were to really try, the best idea I have is:

"Logic" are the laws governing a reality which are not rooted in laws more fundamental than themselves. Laws of physics do not count, since they are ultimately rooted in mathematics and logic.

Although, this still does have a myriad of issues:

• It may end up excluding local laws of logic, due to an argument that there may be a broader system guiding what laws of logic can be included in those worlds.
• It becomes ambiguous about whether many cases of Law Manipulation should qualify for this. And even if it does separate them, there doesn't seem much point to that; why distinguish between "I created a law that only I could wield this sword", "I created a law that it's logically impossible for anyone besides me to wield this sword", and "I created a law of logic that only I could wield this sword".
• It can be unclear about whether things more fundamental than these laws of logic are, themselves, "laws" or not.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

From what I've seen previously (correct me if I'm wrong), your argument against the "realness" of Logic Manipulation is essentially this:

1. A character "removes" the LNC from reality.
2. The distinction between the LNC existing and it not existing is itself an instance of the LNC applying.
3. Therefore, the LNC was never actually removed.

The two premises are true, but I don't see how they lead to the conclusion that the LNC was never actually removed. The absence of the LNC only means that the law can be violated, not that it has to be. It's perfectly reasonable for a world to exist where some things are compliant with the LNC despite the law being absent. It's just that the law is no longer an absolute principle that must be followed.

That's actually a good point prima facie. The distinction between "suspending" logic outright and suspending the necessity of logic, so to speak. Under these lenses the former would be a fall, so to speak, into ineffability (Because discourse depends on such-and-such conditions). The latter would be just "Things can violate otherwise necessary truths sometimes now." Very very interesting. I'll mull over this.

Well if Tier 0 embodies logic, and logic is a formal system, then you could say that all of reality is based on a formal system.

We're essentially trying to say three things about Tier 0:

1. Tier 0 is absolute and all-encompassing.
2. Tier 0 is consistent.
3. Tier 0 is formal.

And if Agnaa is right about this, then these three statements cannot all be true; at least one of them has to go. I'd personally go with removing the first statement, for reasons I've stated in other threads. You seem to be in favor of nixing the third statement.

Now's the time to make some careful distinctions. When this thread first started earlier this year I made it a point to say that the laws of identity and non-contradiction ultimately reduce (or map) down to ontological principles in the form of "A thing is what it is" and "A thing is not what it is not" respectively. A Tier 0 "is logic" in the sense that it'd be the final ground of such truths (For instance by being identity itself or thinghood itself, or truth itself, or really any number of equivalent ways) upon which formal logic is based, but we are not therefore equating it to formal logic itself, and by extension not as a default transposing formal systems and their limitations into reality (Hence I mentioned I think twice by now that logical things like, say, a "meta-language" as distinguished from an object language, wouldn't be a thing in verses unless a verse actually mentions it). That'd be sort of ridiculous because "logic" itself in that sense is just a discipline or a method, in the end.