• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Most powerful philosophy

Lord_Zeref_Dragneel

Lord_Zeref_Dragneel

Messages
556
Reaction score
47
I know there are things like Modal Realism, Extended Modal Realism, Anti Realism, Trivialism, etc. What is the most powerful philosophy out there?
 
I would say, apophatic theology. But only if it's really fleshed out, not just a passing comment.
 
Allow philosophies of paraconsistent many-valued logic in and see how any notion of strength becomes relative.
 
In principle you can design logic itself however you like. In paraconsistent logic contradiction are allowed to exist. In many valued logic things aren't limited to being true or false.
Once you get to that level debating strength without first clarifying which logic you use becomes super meaningless.
Whichever argument apophatic theology makes to have their god the strongest, you can simply construct a version of logic where that argument is either not a valid deduction or outright false. (I dare say, I imagine in many branches of logic/philosophy that is the case)
You can also design a logic in which one can prove that something else is stronger.

In a debate, if you get to decide which logic to use, you can always win, regardless of what creature your opponent has set up.
So weaponized alethic relativism beats all else.
 
DontTalkDT said:
In principle you can design logic itself however you like. In paraconsistent logic contradiction are allowed to exist. In many valued logic things aren't limited to being true or false.
Once you get to that level debating strength without first clarifying which logic you use becomes super meaningless.
Whichever argument apophatic theology makes to have their god the strongest, you can simply construct a version of logic where that argument is either not a valid deduction or outright false. (I dare say, I imagine in many branches of logic/philosophy that is the case)
You can also design a logic in which one can prove that something else is stronger.

In a debate, if you get to decide which logic to use, you can always win, regardless of what creature your opponent has set up.
So weaponized alethic relativism beats all else.
Click to expand...
Weaponized alethic relativism? That is the first I heard of that. Is it an actual thing? And is it above Apophatic Theology?
 
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
I know there are things like Modal Realism, Extended Modal Realism, Anti Realism, Trivialism, etc. What is the most powerful philosophy out there?
Click to expand...
What are we defying "Powerful" in this case. cause if we follow Modal realism we have the following https://imgur.com/gallery/mr-fJswIej

but if we use say alethic relativism vs apophatic theology it gets super weird on what "Powerful" means in this case.
DontTalkDT said:
Alethic Relativism is a thing. What I mean by weaponized is that you can, by its nature, debate in basically any direction with it. It's only powerful if you want to argue like that.
But if you do then yes, you can argue it's above Apophatic Theology.
Click to expand...
I feel that would be just saying Truth > Divine No? cause Alethic relativism from gathered is about "Truth". Can't possess absolute truth under it. vs if we use MR you at least have a foundation for scaling. Though this begs if EMR contains it because everything is meant to be in EMR but wonder where truth vs no law of contradiction actually has a stopping point before trivialism
 
DontTalkDT said:
In principle you can design logic itself however you like. In paraconsistent logic contradiction are allowed to exist. In many valued logic things aren't limited to being true or false.
Once you get to that level debating strength without first clarifying which logic you use becomes super meaningless.
Whichever argument apophatic theology makes to have their god the strongest, you can simply construct a version of logic where that argument is either not a valid deduction or outright false. (I dare say, I imagine in many branches of logic/philosophy that is the case)
You can also design a logic in which one can prove that something else is stronger.

In a debate, if you get to decide which logic to use, you can always win, regardless of what creature your opponent has set up.
So weaponized alethic relativism beats all else.
Click to expand...
Several beings outright trascend logic
 
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
Hmm maybe in terms of potential tiering based on our system?
Click to expand...
My own Personal answer is most of them don't have "Power" in the traditional sense they are kinda useless without saying "Omnipotence" is a real determine value but then you would have to prove X character is beyond the set of fiction which is impossible. Though I feel like if did Logical omnipotence I feel you just run into a trivialism issue considering EMR would contains most of it like 98% of stuff is within EMR including other philosophies. Poetry is Outside EMR does that make Poetry High 1-A+? thats something the Mods can fill in I forget the standards a lot.

If we are weaponizing the Philosophies VSBs scaling of this custom version of EMR is high 1-A+, but I feel it shouldn't be used for scaling but oh well. The only one thats realistically scale able is Apotheotic theology but even then I didn't see anything impressive when reading the backing of it besides offending people with religion. But like if We remove even that its Tier 0?


IF anything with the Whole Alethic relativism vs Apotheotic theology that whole debate came from Plato in the Theaetetus. So, at that point may as well say we can weaponize platonic concepts though unsure where it would scale. I feel you run into a bunch of issues cause you are trying to weaponize Philosophy into Ap or Tier in this case.

From Gathered of my own research Alethic relativism > Apotheotic theology (under the assumption its talking about God > Form of Good includes Neoplatonism to like the heart and One) > (random one shot philosophies) > Platonic Form of Good > Philosophy of Space and time > EMR > MR (this is my interpertation of the work not to standards)
probably something like that. Can't go around the fact MR is verbatim always talking about everything bounded by space and time. Though then ig we have to put Taoism somewhere and like the Multiple different Yin and Yangs, Wuji and Chinese philosophies. But lets not dive into Chinese philosophy those guys where on something. (I forgot Nonduality is its own philosophy) but again conversation for another day.

So Tier 0 to anything of like Low 1-A cause absolute infinity and true infinity exist is also a philosophy and a mathematical thing.
 
Livinmeme said:
Several beings outright trascend logic
Click to expand...
That's only a relevant argument in a logic system that cares about that argument.
In my personal new logic system, transending logic implies one to be the weakest entity in existence instead. What are you gonna argue against that, that it is paradoxical? Well, my logic system allows for paradoxes of that kind. Given, it isn't really paradoxical to begin with, as my logic doesn't contain any inference rule to construct a paradox from that setting to begin with.
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
Any verses which Alethic Relavitism applies to?
Click to expand...
If it ever becomes part of the tiering system there will suddenly be plenty
Not that I know of.
LifeRiderthe1 said:
I feel that would be just saying Truth > Divine No? cause Alethic relativism from gathered is about "Truth". Can't possess absolute truth under it. vs if we use MR you at least have a foundation for scaling. Though this begs if EMR contains it because everything is meant to be in EMR but wonder where truth vs no law of contradiction actually has a stopping point before trivialism
Click to expand...
One could see it along the lines of "if you can freely change logic however you like then you can beat anything that's based on a logical argument".
 
DontTalkDT said:
In my personal new logic system, transending logic implies one to be the weakest entity in existence instead. What are you gonna argue against that, that it is paradoxical? Well, my logic system allows for paradoxes of that kind. Given, it isn't really paradoxical to begin with, as my logic doesn't contain any inference rule to construct a paradox from that setting to begin with.
Click to expand...
How are things progressing with that?
 
Huesito88 said:
How are things progressing with that?
Click to expand...
Gradually adding inference rules as axioms for each particular separately, because patterns are way too abusable ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
 
DontTalkDT said:
In my personal new logic system, transending logic implies one to be the weakest entity in existence instead. What are you gonna argue against that, that it is paradoxical? Well, my logic system allows for paradoxes of that kind. Given, it isn't really paradoxical to begin with, as my logic doesn't contain any inference rule to construct a paradox from that setting to begin with.
Click to expand...
At that point it just derails into childrens spouting about all powerfull guns, and shields that block that gun, I can say that my system aschually trascends logic, and not even paradoxes can grasp it, as much as it is just mentioning it.
 
Me with a lot of concepts that would legitimately transcend the Tiering System. One of my favorites are my own equal and crazier variants to 'The answer to Can God do X ? is always Yes' which would 100% make Tiering it impossible.

But wow, first time hearing of Alethic Relativism . Not the first time hearing of Paraconsistent Many-valued logic though. Time to experiment with it to create my own concepts mwahahaha
 
Also wouldn't the existence of all logical possibility also include alethic relativism, and many valued logics?
 
DontTalkDT said:
One could see it along the lines of "if you can freely change logic however you like then you can beat anything that's based on a logical argument".
Click to expand...
I feel you would have to change fallacies at that point while fallacies are not protected sets After all. logic manipulation should only be allowed to do so much or NLF just shouldn't exist but we know NLF is basically a subset of another fallacy thats well supported. Though I feel this goes back into Subjectivism vs. Objectivity arguments more then "My logic is better and contains stuff that makes it so its not a paradox so thust its >>> over your own logic". Then again if the logic we are defying is arbitrary then the statement becomes meaningless. Idk feels like you run into a wall with trivialism ngl.
Lord_Zeref_Dragneel said:
What about the collective unconscious of humanity? Does Alethic Relativism fall under that?
Click to expand...
Yes and No. Depends on who you ask as its a heavily debated topic. one of the questions you ask is "If archetypes influence our understanding of the world, could they also shape our perception of truth?" the Collective unconscious is just a Path to enlightenment anyways I don't think its strong at all its all mental and none of it actually exist.

Livinmeme said:
Also wouldn't the existence of all logical possibility also include alethic relativism, and many valued logics?
Click to expand...
yes it would. but also don't forget the following https://imgur.com/gallery/logic-KvAeoz5 .


its the Issue with EMR has a hold being trivialism after a while.
 
Question, I am pretty sure that multiple valued logics is just transduality type 3, and the MVL we are arguing is taken to it logical (heh) extreme, right?
 
LifeRiderthe1 said:
I feel you would have to change fallacies at that point while fallacies are not protected sets After all. logic manipulation should only be allowed to do so much or NLF just shouldn't exist but we know NLF is basically a subset of another fallacy thats well supported. Though I feel this goes back into Subjectivism vs. Objectivity arguments more then "My logic is better and contains stuff that makes it so its not a paradox so thust its >>> over your own logic". Then again if the logic we are defying is arbitrary then the statement becomes meaningless. Idk feels like you run into a wall with trivialism ngl.
Click to expand...
The question was what the strongest philosophy was, not how you prove that a fiction uses it in a certain way. As it stands, our tiering only really accounts for some limited number of philosophies anyway. So if you want to include evidence standards, like avoiding vsdebate fallacies, then you can just look at what is Tier 0. Anything that reaches that is equal if such things are considered.
I.e. it's the boring way to do the topic.

Don't really see the trivialism argument here btw. No reason all statements need to be true in these logics.

Livinmeme said:
At that point it just derails into childrens spouting about all powerfull guns, and shields that block that gun, I can say that my system aschually trascends logic, and not even paradoxes can grasp it, as much as it is just mentioning it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's the game we are playing, isn't it? This isn't a contest of beauty. It's just a matter of things that can be (to some extent) coherently talked about.
 
DontTalkDT said:
In my personal new logic system, transending logic implies one to be the weakest entity in existence instead. What are you gonna argue against that, that it is paradoxical? Well, my logic system allows for paradoxes of that kind. Given, it isn't really paradoxical to begin with, as my logic doesn't contain any inference rule to construct a paradox from that setting to begin with.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's true but in practice I find that the "true" logic is reserved only for Tier 0.
 
DontTalkDT said:
The question was what the strongest philosophy was, not how you prove that a fiction uses it in a certain way. As it stands, our tiering only really accounts for some limited number of philosophies anyway. So if you want to include evidence standards, like avoiding vsdebate fallacies, then you can just look at what is Tier 0. Anything that reaches that is equal if such things are considered.
I.e. it's the boring way to do the topic.
Click to expand...
Yea ik the question was about the "Strongest Philosophy" but I feel you just run into a even ancient Philosophy of Intention vs Action. if we defying are own Logic you go back to Intention vs Action and then end up with well if there is no "absolute truth" then most words as we know it wouldn't work but its still you know "Your intention to make a new logic" To make a new standard so you always win.

Ig in this case Occam's razor wouldn't uphold anymore if we going all the way. The point of fallacies is flaws in logic not just vsdebates though, thats the problem I am having with like just saying "My own custom philosophy I made up > all philosophy", feels a bit dumb ngl.
DontTalkDT said:
Don't really see the trivialism argument here btw. No reason all statements need to be true in these logics.
Click to expand...
If its not "True" then we can dismiss it as simple if its you know "Your intention for it not to be True" then that just be mutually morally wrong. So you end up back to square one of "We are defying the new laws of thought for a custom philosophy and in said Philosophy nothing matters but my own" esstionally in this "I am God and no one else is". Though yea Tier 0 probably the best example for tiering. Though Absolute infinity the philosophy one is probably another easily scalable one though ig it depends how you define "Omnipotence" of absolute infinity ngl. I feel you run into a funny Truth grey area. Cause if we following Alethic relativism then "Absolute truth" doesn't exist", so what I am saying is subjective to interpertation of other people....
 
Bernkastelll said:
Aka catholic-like theology and philosophy
Click to expand...
Eh, more or less. Just anything the pivots a conception so pure it seems more of a myth than an actual philosophy. Like absolute negation, absolutely simple, or so conceptualized that even nothingness is not so nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Why would an entity that transcends all possible worlds but still not the highest be downgraded from High 1-A+?
Replies
3
Views
2K
VictoriaGenesisBOA
KYL9494
Question about High1-A+
Replies
4
Views
1K
Reiner04
Reiner04
Modal realism
Replies
0
Views
1K
DeathxMoonZ
Outerversal Tiering Contradiction?
Replies
1
Views
1K
VictoriaGenesisBOA
Jin2188
Questions about High 1-A+
Replies
36
Views
6K
Freistxevs
Freistxevs
Back
Top