Negative Theology Revisions (again)

[Theoretical]

I'll jump straight in since the last one was a shit show, I'd like this to be strictly a staff thread. I propose changes to the standards of negative theology.

Correcting misconceptions #1

No negative theology is not God is indescribable, for the people who say it is and say oh why is that tierable and negative theology is not simply God being beyond conception for those who say it is and scales 1 layer above the cosmology.

Summary of negative theology

Negative theology is an theological view about how God transcends "being" or ontology. A being of apophasis is regarded as inaccessible not only sensibly/to the sensible world or in simpler terms physically or anything within the confines of the material world and its extensions but intelligibly/comprehensively.

Negativa, via remotionis or apophatike, is seen in
the fact that it is the destruction of the last illusion
of reason and objectivity. The process of neantisation
cuts across all categories pretending objectivity, none
of which permits raising the primal question. Intellect,
the specialized aspect of the self as a form of conscious-
ness properly directed towards objectivity, must be com-
pletely discarded as ineffectual. The neo-Platonist is
acutely aware that the function of intellect is existen-
tially direct to objects and can evoke only the dimension
of objectivity; 'at home' in this relation, it ceases to
be when subjectivity emerges as primal instress and logic
becomes defunct. The way of negation is essentially a
purgation, an asceticism, indispensable for attaining
subjectivity. Due to the spatio-temporal imagery insepar-
able from human thinking, no direct approach to interiority
is accessible to intellect; the only accessibility is given by the purgation of all modes of limitation, objectivity
and reasoning. Since all intellectual knowledge bears on
being, and every being is limited, then, by consequence, that which stands beyond being stands also beyond knowledge
-
it is beyond knowable (ü, repäyvwaTov) because it is beyond
limit. One is confronted with the intellectually inacces-
sible and unimaginable.

It's also not just simply being described in negative terms as people suggest; it is described in negative terms primarily because the being exists beyond intelligibility. That means for beings like us who can only understand everything that's a subset of intelligibility we can never hope to grasp something beyond intelligibility, even being beyond intelligibility is a subset of intelligibility hence every description is only describing what is not the being but what is interior to the being that being the subset of intelligibility entirely.

Correcting a few misconceptions #2

Being indescribable or being said to be completely beyond all descriptions is not nearly enough to attest for the existence of a being following apophasis, as such descriptions themselves are a subset of intelligibility. The only beings that qualify for apophasis are beings that are exempt from the ineffability paradox.

Mystics and mystically minded philosophers have often claimed that God, the Godhead,
nirvana, the Dao or some other object of mystical experience is ineffable, that it cannot be
described or put into words. This claim is so deeply connected to virtually all kinds of
mysticism that William James declared ineffability to be the first of four essential properties
of mystical experience.1
But there is a severe problem about the statement that God or any
other object of mystical experience is ineffable: how can I meaningfully say about some-
thing that it is ineffable? For if it were ineffable, I could not say anything about it, not even
that it is ineffable. And vice versa, if I can say about it that it is ineffable, there is at least one
thing I can say about it – namely, that it is ineffable – and then it cannot be ineffable. It
seems as if any proposition of the form ‘X is ineffable’ (I shall call this the ineffability thesis)
is paradoxical or self-defeating. But if nothing can meaningfully be said to be ineffable, then
the ineffable would not be very interesting – because nothing can be said about it. And even
worse: All mystical claims about God’s ineffability, all theories of God’s nature and of
mystical experience based on this claim will become pointless, since anything follows from
a contradictory statement. So, if mysticism is supposed to have any philosophical meaning,
we ought to find a way to resolve this paradox. Is it possible to say that something is
ineffable without contradicting oneself? Or is any such utterance self-defeating and analy-
tically false, simply because of the meaning of the term ineffable?

In simple terms
If P is ineffable P can be described as ineffable which is a description hence P is not ineffable as descriptions and predicates that positively apply P are a subset of intelligibility which apophasis transcends hence P is not apophatic as there's atleast one positive description that applies to it.

Likewise a being Inverse that is said to be beyond another being regarded as apophatic the being that's transcended shouldn't be regarded as part of apophasis. The positive description for such a being, being that the being in itself exists inferior to another being applies to it which is a positive description that applies to this set being thought of as part of apophatic. Hence I urge that the term "apophatic" shouldn't be loosely thrown to verse claiming that some being is indescribable, totally inconceivable and beyond concepts but don't follow all the strict requirements of what it means to be apophatic.

How this is resolved in negative theology is through the ineffability thesis
Ineffability thesis:

Ineffability Thesis: For any proposition P ∈ P, not(F(P))
and not(F(not-P))
Every true proposition about how God is intrinsically is non-fundamental.
There are no true, fundamental propositions about how God is intrinsically.6
How does that relate to the claim that God is ineffable? It will be helpful,
in this regard, to introduce the idea of the metaphysics room from Sider. We
enter the metaphysics room by stipulating that we intend the things we say
to express only fundamental propositions. If there is a fundamental truth
near enough to what we mean, then we intend to express that proposition.
If there is a fundamental proposition near enough, but its negation is funda-
mentally true, then we asserted something, but what we asserted is false. If,
on the other hand, no fundamental proposition, no perfectly joint carving
proposition, is near enough to what we mean, then we have not asserted
anything. By entering the metaphysics room, we agree to limit ourselves
in what we can say. We shall assert fundamental propositions, and nothing
else.
If the Ineffability Thesis is true, and we enter the theology room, we
can do nothing but remain silent. We could say nothing whatsoever. If
we wished to describe God in any way, as loving, merciful, long-suffering,
we would have to leave the theology room. We would have to give up on
our goal of expressing only fundamental truths. We could not even assert
the central doctrines of the Christian faith. God is one in ousia, three in
hypostasis. If the Ineffability Thesis were true, even these would fail to be
fundamental truths about God.

In simpler terms being P would exist beyond not only conceivability but even ineffability which is a predicate which is a subset of intelligibility as being P transcends intelligibility hence because P is beyond predicates we can only remain silent if we wish to strive closer to P.

I hope I don't get the already annoying comments of "nasuverse wanker" but this is just the easiest example I could find using the swirl of the Root.

「　」is the true essence of the root, it represents what the ineffability thesis stands for. 「　」is something that can't be described or named so even the predicates of it being inconceivable cannot apply to it hence even descriptions of it being 「indescribable」doesn't apply to it and it is inferior to it hence why it's true essence is 「　」the true nothingness that can't have predicates even predicates implying ineffability.

If you really wished to pronounce this term, call it “Kara.”
Its meaning varied depending on each individual’s understanding. To put it in simple terms, it was the Spiral of Origin.
However, since the Spiral of Origin was called the Spiral of Origin, it was no longer “ ”.
To properly express this term was a source of headache during the production of the drama CDs.

This is why I suggested the term Spiral of Origin being seperated from「　」 because it goes against negative theology. However I faced quite alot of "ignorant comments" with people saying it's fixed as Spiral of Origin refers to the indescribable thing.

However the apophasis thing cannot have references to it by virtue of subsets of intelligibility, it goes against apophasis hence either it gets seperated or the idea of it having negative theology gets removed and it gets sent to the 1-C and verse shall cap there

Keypoint: Every verse thought to have apophasis but doesn't meet the requirements named above should have apophasis removed from them, elder scrolls meets the requirements; although it wouldn't significantly affect it cause it's already tier 0 anyways and possibly smt.

I digress moving on.

Proposal for a change in apophasis tiering

Now that I've went over how strict it would be to get apophasis, it's strict because atleast 70% of the verses regarded as having apophasis don't meet the requirements to have it and either contradict it or don't implement the ineffability thesis at all.

Let's get into the logic of how apophasis should be scaled, why logic? hey it forms the underlying basis for every tier in this mathematically based tiering system of course.

It also deals with the "nlf" spammers who lack argumentative creativity or whatnot.

A=A or T(A)⇔A, basic tautology in logic, how this relates to the apophasis scaling is that a description is a description and every description is a part of intelligibility or a subset of it that which negative theology transcends. What this means is even when we have cosmology X that scales to P and Theoretical only has X amount of descriptions God wouldn't just transcend the descriptions in the verse and it being limited only to the verse.

The reason for that is even descriptions that are not in the verse are still descriptions which apophasis exists beyond saying its limited to the ones Inverse for a couple of reasons.

If for all x ∈ P, X being descriptions of course P being intelligibility and negative theology transcending P; logically speaking it would transcend every x in P.

X ⇔X translate X if and only if X, X is X of and only if it's X and saying X is not X implies X is not X. That is to say every description is a description whether it exists in the verse or not, those that don't exist in the verse are still descriptions hence fall under X regardless saying otherwise is paradoxical because it implies a description is not a description which a description being a description should be tautology and should be true by necessity.

Hence apophasis existing beyond P which contains all X even X that doesn't exist in a set verse, would imply it's transcendence to not be limited to a set cosmos but even beyond that.

Obviously there's an easier route I just wanted to make the first route clear for those who'd question the second route.

The second route is

Well P being indescribable is just die to its intrinsic nature and not the limitations of human conception or intelligibility no. P is indescribable by virtue of being indescribable there's no other alternative. Hence there's no need to spam "NLF" and say it only suffices P being beyond descriptions Inverse and justifying it by saying it's due to the limitations of beings in the cosmology of P.

It's already paradoxical as demonstrated in the first route.

Moving on to the actual proposal, I'd like to borrow an argument that I made beforehand to make this easier to demonstrate.

Suppose we have an Euclidean vector space specifically a space which is still an infinite space but with limits because for any dimension X, it would be infinite, but the limit comes from the next dimension, which is a directly higher infinity.

So for 2 dimensions, it would be infinity^infinity/R×R and the idea is carried on to any dimension up to 1-A+ the arithmetic and principle stays the same all the way up to 1-A+, the limit of the infinity relative to the first dimension would be infinity|^infinity, it can't reach the second dimension which is a higher infinity

As you know, power setting one infinity to reach another is an arithmetic operation that carries on all the way up to 1-A+ as well, and power setting a set of natural numbers is 2^n or infinity^infinity, which is still similar arithmetic to the Euclidean Vector spaces Geometry stacking of any dimension X takes 2 dimensions for now being infinity^infinity.

Now suppose have a description for the first dimension, the description of the second dimension is still a description to which P is inaccessible to.

If you pile on descriptions for P, that continues on infinitely you still can't reach P, the operator this time won't be powersetting or S . This time the operators are the descriptions themselves if for any description of God serves only to be inaccessibly inferior to P and the operators still carry on attempting to reach P up to 1-A+ because the operators in question can extend up there at the very least and P still can't be reached.

Similar to the argument of infinity above, P's property of "unreachability" which is consistently reiterated would theoretically suffice as being an existence that's high 1-A at the very least.

So the proposal obviously would be to buff apophasis to high 1-A at the very least possibly higher.

Side comment

Apophasis is just ontologically superior to absolute infinity.

Tdjwo would be of great help if he was to participate in this thread considering that he has some decent amount of knowledge on negative theology and I won't be able to address every counter argument in time as I am very sick and on meds which require me to sleep more.

 

[Deagonx]

Given that this was reposted specifically in the staff discussion forum after originally being posted in the Content Revision forum, I am deleting non-staff comments for the time being.

With that said, before I get into any of the details of the argument, I have questions:

1) Where are each of these quotes from

2) What verses would this revision affect?

3) Do we have an official page on Negative Theology at the moment?

 

[Theoretical]

1) Where are each of these quotes from

The paradox of ineffability
Sebastian Gäb

The Ineffable, Inconceivable, and Incomprehensible
God: Fundamentality and Apophatic Theology
Jonathan D. Jacobs

Dionysian theology of neoplatonist philosophy by Tomasic

2) What verses would this revision affect?

Smt and nasuverse

Elder scrolls qualifies for the requirements and twin peaks but they are already tier 0 anyways.

3) Do we have an official page on Negative Theology at the moment?

Not to my knowledge.

 

[Deagonx]

Smt and nasuverse

Elder scrolls qualifies for the requirements and twin peaks but they are already tier 0 anyways.

It's occurred to me I didn't ask the right question. Rather: Which profiles would be affected by this revision?

 

[Theoretical]

It's occurred to me I didn't ask the right question. Rather: Which profiles would be affected by this revision?

If we exclude the verses that are already tier 0 or high 1-A and up its only gonna be.

The axiom from smt and the swirl of the root, I'll have to check which one qualifies without contradicting negative theology and respond with more later.

 

[Deagonx]

Correcting misconceptions #1

No negative theology is not God is indescribable, for the people who say it is and say oh why is that tierable and negative theology is not simply God being beyond conception for those who say it is and scales 1 layer above the cosmology.

Summary of negative theology

Negative theology is an theological view about how God transcends "being" or ontology. A being of apophasis is regarded as inaccessible not only sensibly/to the sensible world or in simpler terms physically or anything within the confines of the material world and its extensions but intelligibly/comprehensively.

It's also not just simply being described in negative terms as people suggest; it is described in negative terms primarily because the being exists beyond intelligibility. That means for beings like us who can only understand everything that's a subset of intelligibility we can never hope to grasp something beyond intelligibility, even being beyond intelligibility is a subset of intelligibility hence every description is only describing what is not the being but what is interior to the being that being the subset of intelligibility entirely.

Correcting a few misconceptions #2

Being indescribable or being said to be completely beyond all descriptions is not nearly enough to attest for the existence of a being following apophasis, as such descriptions themselves are a subset of intelligibility. The only beings that qualify for apophasis are beings that are exempt from the ineffability paradox.

In simple terms
If P is ineffable P can be described as ineffable which is a description hence P is not ineffable as descriptions and predicates that positively apply P are a subset of intelligibility which apophasis transcends hence P is not apophatic as there's atleast one positive description that applies to it.

Likewise a being Inverse that is said to be beyond another being regarded as apophatic the being that's transcended shouldn't be regarded as part of apophasis. The positive description for such a being, being that the being in itself exists inferior to another being applies to it which is a positive description that applies to this set being thought of as part of apophatic. Hence I urge that the term "apophatic" shouldn't be loosely thrown to verse claiming that some being is indescribable, totally inconceivable and beyond concepts but don't follow all the strict requirements of what it means to be apophatic.

How this is resolved in negative theology is through the ineffability thesis
Ineffability thesis:

In simpler terms being P would exist beyond not only conceivability but even ineffability which is a predicate which is a subset of intelligibility as being P transcends intelligibility hence because P is beyond predicates we can only remain silent if we wish to strive closer to P.

To start with this, I feel there is something of a disconnection between what your quotes are saying and what you are saying. You speak about an exemption to the Ineffability Paradox, but none of your sources/quotes seem to validate the very concept of an exemption. Your third quote says "If the Ineffability Thesis is true, we can't say anything in the theology room about God" essentially saying "If we are to think of something as ineffable, it is indeed indescribable."

So, my question would be, what reason do you have to think that there is an exemption to this paradox, and what evidence is sufficient to prove that?

If for all x ∈ P, X being descriptions of course P being intelligibility and negative theology transcending P; logically speaking it would transcend every x in P.

X ⇔X translate X if and only if X, X is X of and only if it's X and saying X is not X implies X is not X. That is to say every description is a description whether it exists in the verse or not, those that don't exist in the verse are still descriptions hence fall under X regardless saying otherwise is paradoxical because it implies a description is not a description which a description being a description should be tautology and should be true by necessity.

Hence apophasis existing beyond P which contains all X even X that doesn't exist in a set verse, would imply it's transcendence to not be limited to a set cosmos but even beyond that.

Similar to the argument of infinity above, P's property of "unreachability" which is consistently reiterated would theoretically suffice as being an existence that's high 1-A at the very least.

So the proposal obviously would be to buff apophasis to high 1-A at the very least possibly higher.

Side comment

Apophasis is just ontologically superior to absolute infinity.

Personally, I am not persuaded as of yet that such a concept is compatible with our tiering system, or that a description of "ineffability" should be rationalized as a form of qualitative superiority beyond descriptions. Particularly, the notion that vis-à-vis a transcendence of description, we can logically assign a description of power to it seems nonsensical to me.

I am generally against extreme short cuts to the highest tiers, and "transcends intelligibility" as a route to Tier 0 doesn't sit well with me, personally. Even your suggest of High 1-A seems to contradict the points being made. How could it stop at H1-A if the descriptions of a Tier 0 being are also transcended by it, per your claim?

 

[Theoretical]

You speak about an exemption to the Ineffability Paradox

The clarify the ineffability paradox point just demonstrate how saying something is ineffable is a description which means it's not Ineffable or whatnot.

When I speak of something being exempt from that it's primarily by utilizing the ineffability thesis which in turn says you can't speak about God.

So, my question would be, what reason do you have to think that there is an exemption to this paradox, and what evidence is sufficient to prove that?

Well you have to assert a predicate for the paradox to apply, the predicate is "Ineffable", if you assert something being "Ineffable" that assertion is a description of that set thing which is ineffable.

The Ineffability thesis on the other hand denies assertions to demonstrate the ineffability, because assert something about something ineffable would be self defeating.

As for the proof it's sorta there in the quotes.

Personally, I am not persuaded as of yet that such a concept is compatible with our tiering system, or that a description of "ineffability" should be rationalized as a form of qualitative superiority beyond descriptions.

I do agree the notion of being Ineffable isn't a way to rationalize something being qualitatively superior to descriptions. However the thing is that is exactly how it's posited to be in contemporary negative theology.

It's not about humans having limited knowledge or some limits of description to actually capture God, it's just due to beings intrinsic nature rather than us not having that one adequate description that we search for that can grasp the being in question.

It's like the being in itself is just ineffability as a result of its Ineffable nature, I guess if that makes sense not some limits to our understanding or knowledge.

Particularly, the notion that vis-à-vis a transcendence of description, we can logically assign a description of power to it seems nonsensical to me.

I can see your point actually, this would work if the wiki hadn't already been doing this beforehand, it would be pretty weird to say it's a problem now.

I am generally against extreme short cuts to the highest tiers

Depends on what you define as a short cut considering how difficult it is to get negative theology I really don't see how this would be a short cut.

"transcends intelligibility" as a route to Tier 0 doesn't sit well with me, personally.

Ehhhh really didn't say tier 0 tho, I proposed high 1-A by using how this "being" is unreachable and demonstrate how being like that would suffice high 1-a at the very least

Even your suggest of High 1-A seems to contradict the points being made.

That being?

How could it stop at H1-A if the descriptions of a Tier 0 being are also transcended by it, per your claim?

The descriptions I spoke of where for Inverse context.

Inverse a being, being posited to be ineffable yet the positive description of it being inferior to another being Inverse applying to it.

As for how it stops at high 1-A, it was used as supporting evidence for 1-A before as I said.

And those descriptions of higher tiers still Applied to it there was no issue, so again it is pretty weird that issues like that would arise now.

 

[Deagonx]

The clarify the ineffability paradox point just demonstrate how saying something is ineffable is a description which means it's not Ineffable or whatnot.

When I speak of something being exempt from that it's primarily by utilizing the ineffability thesis which in turn says you can't speak about God.

Then I suppose I would alter my question to: On what basis do you believe this concept is not logically bunk in spite of this very clear and problematic logical paradox?

I do agree the notion of being Ineffable isn't a way to rationalize something being qualitatively superior to descriptions. However the thing is that is exactly how it's posited to be in contemporary negative theology.

It's not about humans having limited knowledge or some limits of description to actually capture God, it's just due to beings intrinsic nature rather than us not having that one adequate description that we search for that can grasp the being in question.

It's like the being in itself is just ineffability as a result of its Ineffable nature, I guess if that makes sense not some limits to our understanding or knowledge.

Well, personally, I am not inclined to regard it as a logical concept.

I can see your point actually, this would work if the wiki hadn't already been doing this beforehand, it would be pretty weird to say it's a problem now.

I don't think that's an issue so much. This is a very niche subject that hasn't had a high degree of exposure till now. So we do need to work that out, we can't just rely on historical precedent if it never should have been used in the first place.

Ehhhh really didn't say tier 0 tho, I proposed high 1-A by using how this "being" is unreachable and demonstrate how being like that would suffice high 1-a at the very least

I'm aware, I'm referring to the logical implications of this notion.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, this is just extrapolation beyond actual feats based on vague logic games using reasoning that would be questionable in real philosophy, not to even start with fiction. It's just "let's use omnipotence for tiering" 2.0.

Hard no from me.

 

[Theoretical]

Then I suppose I would alter my question to: On what basis do you believe this concept is not logically bunk in spite of this very clear and problematic logical paradox?

What do you mean "logically bunk", it's not problematic it doesn't apply if nothing is asserted I thought I made that clear already.

Well, personally, I am not inclined to regard it as a logical concept.

The ineffability thesis is demonstrated logically in formal languages, infact the ineffability of negative theology has been demonstrated many times using formal languages and logic.

Unless we're using a different definition for what counts as a "logical concept"

This is a very niche subject that hasn't had a high degree of exposure till now.

Good point, but even then it was still defined in a similar that like I just did, although I could be open to another alternative just not using the concept at all it'll still be somewhat odd tho, as many other notions are utilized but not to their full extent because people tend to regard them as "nlf".

Level IV multiverse
Modal realism
Extended modal realism
Absolute infinity

Which is self defeating to the notions in question but nonetheless the wiki still continues to utilize them and arbitrarily limit them and hide behind "nlf" or whatnot.

But then again I'm still completely open to not using negative theology ever at all as a notion in this wiki primarily because how self defeating it would be to apply set limits to it.

I'm aware, I'm referring to the logical implications of this notion.

I see

 

[Theoretical]

Yeah, this is just extrapolation beyond actual feats

"What do you mean extrapolation beyond actual feats"

based on vague logic games

Trust me it's neither a game nor is it vague.

using reasoning that would be questionable in real philosophy

Trust me again, there's no reasoning that I made that's questionable in real philosophy, if you think so it would be of great help to actually show me where I did and how it's questionable in actual contemporary negative theology.

It's just "let's use omnipotence for tiering" 2.0.

That's the problem tho it has been used beforehand for tiering, even if you regard it as just 1 layer beyond the cosmology, by your definition of negative theology it would still just follow the same idea of "let's use omnipotence for. Tiering 2.0".

How is a well defined term like negative theology even equivalent to something like omnipotence which has its own fair share of paradoxes.

 

[Theoretical]

Well I took my meds ima head to sleep, if there's any counter arguments. I'll respond tomorrow

 

[Agnaa]

I agree with DT.

How is a well defined term like negative theology even equivalent to something like omnipotence which has its own fair share of paradoxes.

It seems like your only reason for this is "They're immune to the ineffability paradox" (which isn't actually concretely substantiated in the verse you use as an example), but even if we were to take that as true, that would still be paradoxical, since they could be positively described as "immune to this paradox".

It's as good as the arguments against omnipotence being paradoxical. Hell, I'd say it's worse, since at least that has the possible resolution of "logical omnipotence", while negative theology doesn't.

 

[Deagonx]

What do you mean "logically bunk", it's not problematic it doesn't apply if nothing is asserted I thought I made that clear already.

We are asserting something, no? We're asserting that these beings are a specific tier within our system, a description they are -- using this logic -- beyond.

The ineffability thesis is demonstrated logically in formal languages, infact the ineffability of negative theology has been demonstrated many times using formal languages and logic.

Unless we're using a different definition for what counts as a "logical concept"

But is that logical language not, itself, a description of this ineffable being? I don't know of the background of this re: your claim it has been validated in formal languages, but I feel it is very easy to demonstrate that this concept makes no sense on a fundamental level. Every single statement we could make about this being, about ineffability, is itself contradicted by the premise. He can't be 1-A, or H1-A, or 0. Those are all descriptions that cannot apply to it.

The fact that descriptions cannot apply to it, itself, becomes an untrue thing. Perhaps I'm spitting in the face of centuries of well-established philosophy, but I kind of stand firm on this, ineffability as a concept is bunk. You can only explain it (and thus, the beings it applies to) in terms which themselves can't even be true within the framework provided. Any assertion you make about ineffability or the being itself essentially turns into "this statement is false."

I don't see how we can ever justifiably correlate that to a power rating.

But then again I'm still completely open to not using negative theology ever at all as a notion in this wiki primarily because how self defeating it would be to apply set limits to it.

Thats my stance, at the moment. I agree with DT and Agnaa.

 

[Firestorm808]

I would hesitate to apply a Tier based on what amounts to a very complex/philosophical form of "indescribable."

 

[Deagonx]

Which staff members would be best to ping for this? Ultima is planning to comment, but who else?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Eh. I don't think this proposal works. Similarly all-encompassing statements are not treated as qualifying for what they by all logic should right now, so trying to impose a certain tier (High 1-A or higher, if the OP is anything to go by) on negative theology alone while leaving them unchanged is a no-go. We don't rate reality-fiction interactions at Tier 0 even though, logically, a being existing in a higher fictional plane is above whatever can be put into writing (Including Tier 0 descriptions), and nor do we rate existing above the concept of dimensions as Tier 0 even though high enough amounts of dimensions reach that high (The compromise that ended up being accepted for the moment on a past thread had just 1-A as a baseline, even, for good enough cases).

So to me this thread is pretty short-sighted. It's trying to talk about a thing that's ultimately just one manifestation of a much larger trend.

That said, I don't share of the "We shouldn't tier this at all!" sentiment that some people on this thread have displayed. This kind of stuff is something that occurs in fiction, and our job is, largely, attempting to faithfully represent (Or at least approximate) the things in it, even if they break the logic of our world at times. Goes double here, since the logic-breaking shenanigans in question are something that'll always be intentional on the part of the author of whatever verse.

Personally, the baseline tier where I place such things is 1-A, since it's not exactly hard to see how, if properly described, negative theology would lead to an infinite regress. This scene from a dumb book I read one time is a pretty good exemplification of what in my view would have it qualify for such a rating.

Now, I'd want the verse to be sufficiently specific about it, of course. I don't think a character being indescribable or ineffable inherently qualifies for anything, since, even if taken literally, you can lack any characteristics while not being superior to said characteristics.

There's one scene in Umineko that I like a lot which acts as a pretty good example of this. Here, Featherine kills Lambdadelta by using Plot Manipulation to make it so she is killed after a fight with herself, literally writing the event into being. However, since Featherine didn't specify or describe what the thing that killed Lambdadelta was, all that Lambda perceived was that she was killed by "something" that she couldn't describe. That is to say, the object that killed her had no qualities at all because Featherine didn't bother to describe it beyond saying it existed.

Here, the object in question is clearly featureless in nature, and yet it by no means is infinitely transcendent of Lambda (Cosmologically they would be in the same layer of reality). That kind of stuff to me is just indicative of an odd physiology (Or... lack thereof? I guess?) and nothing more.

 

[Deagonx]

I'm fine with waiting for more input, but since Ultima was quite literally described as an ace in the hole by the supporters of this CRT, I think it is safe to say that the proposal in question to upgrade NT is very likely to be rejected.

With that said, there seems to be a decent vein of support against tiering it at all, so I think it would be prudent to reorient the discussion in that direction while this has the attention of a decent amount of staff.

That said, I don't share of the "We shouldn't tier this at all!" sentiment that some people on this thread have displayed. This kind of stuff is something that occurs in fiction, and our job is, largely, attempting to faithfully represent (Or at least approximate) the things in it, even if they break the logic of our world at times. Goes double here, since the logic-breaking shenanigans in question are something that'll always be intentional on the part of the author of whatever verse.

Personally, the baseline tier I place such things is would be 1-A, since it's not exactly hard to see how, if properly described, negative theology would lead to an infinite regress.

Personally, I am not so convinced. I recognize there are cases where we rein in a full logical extrapolation of a certain concept to something more grounded, and while I recognize that theoretically this would fit into the same category, on a more practical level I find the premise considerably more incompatible with our system, given that we aren't simply taking a more grounded verse-specific application of an idea (such as an author just being above the cosmology of a verse, or beyond dimensions being limited to the dimensionality of a vers), rather, we are placing a square peg in a round hole by placing NT into a framework that it definitionally and foundationally rejects.

So for my part, I am advocating for not tiering characters at all on the basis of NT. The most lenient compromise I'd be willing to make is that it can generally be assumed that it's meant to be greater than anything else in the verse and thus a degree of infinity above the rest of the cosmology. But my first choice would be not tiering it.

 

[Theoretical]

It seems like your only reason for this is "They're immune to the ineffability paradox" (which isn't actually concretely substantiated in the verse you use as an example), but even if we were to take that as true, that would still be paradoxical, since they could be positively described as "immune to this paradox".

That would be true if the ineffability paradox actually said "immune to the paradox", but I don't recall that being used in the op. I did explain how it worked, it doesn't say "immune to the paradox"; you just don't assert anything you can't have a paradox if nothing is asserted.

Also it is substantiated in the verse but the verse is not the issue it was just an example, whether it's in the verse or not will come later.

It's as good as the arguments against omnipotence being paradoxical. Hell, I'd say it's worse, since at least that has the possible resolution of "logical omnipotence", while negative theology doesn't.

Whats logical omnipotence? And how is it still paradoxical with what I just explained you seem to have misconstrued the Ineffability thesis.

We are asserting something, no? We're asserting that these beings are a specific tier within our system, a description they are -- using this logic -- beyond.

This has been done before like I said, even if you say it's only 1 level beyond the cosmology you still come across the same issue.

But is that logical language not, itself, a description of this ineffable being?

Using logical language to show something being ineffable doesn't describe it, logic can describe something that's illogical/logically impossible does that mean it's logical because it's described as logically impossible?

your claim it has been validated in formal languages, but I feel it is very easy to demonstrate that this concept makes no sense on a fundamental level.

Sure do that, I only brought up it being validated in formal languages simply because you said it's not a logical thing, if you want to take a different route now at attacking it be my guest.

Every single statement we could make about this being, about ineffability, is itself contradicted by the premise. He can't be 1-A, or H1-A, or 0. Those are all descriptions that cannot apply to it.

This has been addressed beforehand.

I don't see how we can ever justifiably correlate that to a power rating.

This has been addressed tho?

Good point, but even then it was still defined in a similar that like I just did, although I could be open to another alternative just not using the concept at all it'll still be somewhat odd tho, as many other notions are utilized but not to their full extent because people tend to regard them as "nlf".

Level IV multiverse
Modal realism
Extended modal realism
Absolute infinity

Which is self defeating to the notions in question but nonetheless the wiki still continues to utilize them and arbitrarily limit them and hide behind "nlf" or whatnot.

But then again I'm still completely open to not using negative theology ever at all as a notion in this wiki primarily because how self defeating it would be to apply set limits to it.

Like I said.

Eh. I don't think this proposal works. Similarly all-encompassing statements are not treated as qualifying for what they by all logic should right now, so trying to impose a certain tier (High 1-A or higher, if the OP is anything to go by) on negative theology alone while leaving them unchanged is a no-go.

Is extended modal realism and modal realism not inherently tier 1 "alone" I don't see the problem.

We don't rate reality-fiction interactions at Tier 0 even though, logically, a being existing in a higher fictional plane is above whatever can be put into writing (Including Tier 0 descriptions), and nor do we rate existing above the concept of dimensions as Tier 0 even though high enough amounts of dimensions reach that high (The compromise that ended up being accepted for the moment on a past thread had just 1-A as a baseline, even, for good enough cases).

I really don't think the analogy relates to what I said at all.

Personally, the baseline tier where I place such things is 1-A,

I mean sure I see your reasoning for putting it at 1-A sure that's fine, but I don't see anything denouncing my reason for putting it at high 1-A from you.

Now, I'd want the verse to be sufficiently specific about it, of course. I don't think a character being indescribable or ineffable inherently qualifies for anything

That's what I already said in the op

 

[Agnaa]

That would be true if the ineffability paradox actually said "immune to the paradox", but I don't recall that being used in the op. I did explain how it worked, it doesn't say "immune to the paradox"; you just don't assert anything you can't have a paradox if nothing is asserted.

You're asserting that it is ineffable. If you don't assert anything, then you have literally zero information, and hence can't create a profile for it.

If that's not ineffable, re-explain it, because that's what the explanation in the OP seems to be doing.

Whats logical omnipotence? And how is it still paradoxical with what I just explained you seem to have misconstrued the Ineffability thesis.

The idea that omnipotent beings can only do things which are logically consistent. Inherently making there be no paradoxes.

 

[Theoretical]

You're asserting that it is ineffable. If you don't assert anything, then you have literally zero information, and hence can't create a profile for it.

(1) it's beyond intelligibility
(2) it's ineffable as a result
(C) since it's ineffable you can't assert anything about it.

We already know something even with zero information can logical be powerfully, divinity in neoplatonism is divinely simple and lacks parts but it still the material world and its confines.

In first order logic, 0 has no information but S(0)=1, likewise S(1)=2, first order logic.

If that's not ineffable, re-explain it, because that's what the explanation in the OP seems to be doing.

Explain what again

The idea that omnipotent beings can only do things which are logically consistent.

Isn't modal realism tiered as low 1-A, that's practically logical omnipotence because the characters that can affect every possible world would be logically omnipotent.

I know you didn't bring up omnipotence 2.0 stuff only dt saw I'm just pointing out how odd that is to use as a refutation, then again you did say you agree with dt.

 

[Agnaa]

(1) it's beyond intelligibility
(2) it's ineffable as a result
(C) since it's ineffable you can't assert anything about it.

1 and 2 are both assertions. Thus, a contradiction; you say nothing can be asserted about it, while asserting things about it.

We already know something even with zero information can logical be powerfully, divinity in neoplatonism is divinely simple and lacks parts but it still the material world and its confines.

That comes from additional information.

I'd ask how you know such things are powerful, and would tell me things, things which would be information important to it.

In first order logic, 0 has no information but S(0)=1, likewise S(1)=2, first order logic.

In first order logic, which has information as part of its axioms.

Explain what again

Don't worry, you just did.

Isn't modal realism tiered as low 1-A

No. There's verses where modal realism is explicitly just 2-B. So we shouldn't give arbitrary ratings like that without how broad the rules govern which realities are possible are.

that's practically logical omnipotence because the characters that can affect every possible world would be logically omnipotent.

Not necessarily.

 

[Theoretical]

1 and 2 are both assertions. Thus, a contradiction; you say nothing can be asserted about it, while asserting things about it.

No, 1 and 2 are what leads to the explanation of the real of hypothetically being P, C is the conclusion of the real nature of being P.

Even if that was the case you can still use paraconsistent logic to argue even when this set thing is self defeating even tho it's not its still ineffable.

Considering how logic requires finite antecedents for the consequences be affirmed, logic in itself is confined to its own laws, laws of thought, law of non contradiction and law of excluded middle shouldn't be self sufficient; the limits of logic are illogical hence both logic and illogicality are not self sufficient and require a being outside the confines of both to have created them.

An example as to how you can make an inference using logic for some God being outside of it and how you can use logic to infer something not being logical/logically impossible, so you can't use descriptions again as 1 and 2 to infer something being unspeakable as something Ineffable is ineffable and something outside of intelligibility is outside of intelligibility because being outside of intelligibility is being outside of intelligibility and it can't be not outside of intelligibility because when it's regarded as outside of intelligibility because that means it was never outside of intelligibility.

That comes from additional information.

What would you use to suffice that?

I'd ask how you know such things are powerful, and would tell me things

I'd respond with look at what it created.

Creating something is not describing the the nature of the being itself just the nature of what the being affected that's external of the being itself.

things which would be information important to it.

Not to it tho lol

In first order logic, which has information as part of its axioms.

That's not the point 0 is 0 but 0 serves a number that leads to 1 and more successors of natural numbers doesn't change the fact that it's still 0.

The information you speak of is external of 0 but forms the existence of 0.

No. There's verses where modal realism is explicitly just 2-B.

A change of rating still wouldn't matter because such things are still logical omnipotence.

Why is it even 2-B we don't know how many possible worlds exist as well. Either way it's still tiering logical omnipotence.

Not necessarily.

I don't see how a character can affect every possible world or manipulate it which everything we know of is a subset of such things wouldn't count as "logical omnipotence" that's doing everything logically possible.

 

[Agnaa]

Any part I didn't respond to seemed pointless.

No, 1 and 2 are what leads to the explanation of the real of hypothetically being P, C is the conclusion of the real nature of being P.

How does the conclusion C relate to the being P if 1 and 2 aren't assertions relating to it?

Even if that was the case you can still use paraconsistent logic to argue even when this set thing is self defeating even tho it's not its still ineffable.

Considering how logic requires finite antecedents for the consequences be affirmed, logic in itself is confined to its own laws, laws of thought, law of non contradiction and law of excluded middle shouldn't be self sufficient; the limits of logic are illogical hence both logic and illogicality are not self sufficient and require a being outside the confines of both to have created them.

An example as to how you can make an inference using logic for some God being outside of it and how you can use logic to infer something not being logical/logically impossible, so you can't use descriptions again as 1 and 2 to infer something being unspeakable as something Ineffable is ineffable and something outside of intelligibility is outside of intelligibility because being outside of intelligibility is being outside of intelligibility and it can't be not outside of intelligibility because when it's regarded as outside of intelligibility because that means it was never outside of intelligibility.

Yeah, so just "ignore that there's a paradox". As I said.

I'd respond with look at what it created.

Creating something is not describing the the nature of the being itself just the nature of what the being affected that's external of the being itself.

"It created X" is a description of it, you are describing an action that the thing can perform, and has performed.

Why is it even 2-B we don't know how many possible worlds exist as well. Either way it's still tiering logical omnipotence.

Because the series explicitly said that all possible universes is 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^984)))) universes.

I don't see how a character can affect every possible world or manipulate it which everything we know of is a subset of such things wouldn't count as "logical omnipotence" that's doing everything logically possible.

Because being able to freeze every possible universe does not mean that you can burn every possible universe.

Even if we steelman your argument, and say it's just about creating every possible world, that doesn't actually imply that such a character can destroy every possible world (or vice versa), or that they can modify themselves. All of which are logically consistent actions.

Ergo, affecting all logically possible worlds is not the same as logical omnipotence.

 

[Theoretical]

How does the conclusion C relate to the being P if 1 and 2 aren't assertions relating to it?

Inferences can be logical to infer something being illogical? That was the point, I didn't say it relates to it I said it doesn't demonstrate the true nature of set thing its just a logical inference that affirms a consequence which demonstrates the true nature of set thing.

Yeah, so just "ignore that there's a paradox". As I said.

The inference explanation was to show how it's not a paradox, unless you think every affirmation of something being logically impossible is a paradox hence we can't ascribed logical impossibility to anything?

What came after were just alternatives.

"It created X" is a description of it, you are describing an action that the thing can perform, and has performed.

It's not a description of that things nature, it being indescribable is its ontological nature, the actions it performs don't defeat its ontological nature.

So no its not a description of "it" its a description of what it "did" which what it did is not a description of the being in itself.

Because the series explicitly said that all possible universes is 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^984)))) universes.

Then how is that modal realism? I'm confused with the way how it's described how it's supposed to be modal realism to begin with seems self defeating to call it that.

Because being able to freeze every possible universe does not mean that you can burn every possible universe.

There's no being that can "freeze" all possible worlds when they are confined to possible worlds because ultimately they'll just be deemed as non-existent because they are confined by possible worlds which won't endorse a possibility for a being that's confined by possible worlds to affect possible worlds like that.

To that being it won't be possible to freeze all possible worlds, the action is nonexistent for them because they are confined by possible worlds.

If you are whatever that is logically impossible cannot be thought to exist for you.

Even if we steelman your argument, and say it's just about creating every possible world, that doesn't actually imply that such a character can destroy every possible world

A being once again confined by possible worlds can't create all possible worlds its an action that's necessarily impossible to them. It being possible means they aren't confined by possible worlds.

So the distinction between creating ads destroying them is irrelevant

or that they can modify themselves. All of which are logically consistent actions.

No they are not logically consistent actions for beings confined by them unfortunately.

Ergo, affecting all logically possible worlds is not the same as logical omnipotence.

You think you can't do anything logically possible if you can manipulate possible worlds? Interesting.
why?

Any part I didn't respond to seemed pointless.

Is that so, Ighty then.

 

[Agnaa]

Inferences can be logical to infer something being illogical? That was the point, I didn't say it relates to it I said it doesn't demonstrate the true nature of set thing its just a logical inference that affirms a consequence which demonstrates the true nature of set thing.

This conversation chain started from you saying that negative theology is well-defined and relatively lacking in paradoxes, unlike omnipotence, so it should be used when omnipotence isn't.

But now you're saying that you can't logically define it, and don't care about there being paradoxes.

With that in mind, I have no clue what broader point you're trying to make.

The inference explanation was to show how it's not a paradox, unless you think every affirmation of something being logically impossible is a paradox hence we can't ascribed logical impossibility to anything?

If the existence of something is logically impossible, then the existence of that thing is a paradox. That's how we know certain things, like busy beaver numbers being uncomputable.

It's not a description of that things nature, it being indescribable is its ontological nature, the actions it performs don't defeat its ontological nature.

So no its not a description of "it" its a description of what it "did" which what it did is not a description of the being in itself.

Lets say that there is an entity P.

And that there is another entity Q, that has all of the same qualities.

However, P has done A, while Q hasn't done A.

I believe that we should say these two things are different, since there is some information distinguishing them.

But even if you reject that, something taking actions still implies certain properties about itself which lie in conflict with it being ineffable. Such as, it implies the property that its actions aren't necessarily ineffable, which is a description of "it" rather than what it "did".

Then how is that modal realism? I'm confused with the way how it's described how it's supposed to be modal realism to begin with seems self defeating to call it that.

Because that many universes is all the distinct universes that can possibly exist within that piece of fiction.

There's no being that can "freeze" all possible worlds when they are confined to possible worlds because ultimately they'll just be deemed as non-existent because they are confined by possible worlds which won't endorse a possibility for a being that's confined by possible worlds to affect possible worlds like that.

To that being it won't be possible to freeze all possible worlds, the action is nonexistent for them because they are confined by possible worlds.

If you are whatever that is logically impossible cannot be thought to exist for you.

I didn't say that being was "confined" to the possible worlds. I suppose they could exist outside of it, if you believe that such a restriction among possible worlds and beings exists.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like the suggestions in this thread have been thoroughly rejected. Should we close this discussion?

 

[Theoretical]

This conversation chain started from you saying that negative theology is well-defined and relatively lacking in paradoxes

Yes its not, as I've demonstrated

But now you're saying that you can't logically define it, and don't care about there being paradoxes.

You can logically define it as not being defined and make a well formed formula for that.

I don't know maybe like how I did in the OP which that specific point has yet to be addressed.

Aside from dt calling "vague logic games", didn't know the law of thought and tautology were "vague logic games.

With that in mind, I have no clue what broader point you're trying to make.

There are no paradoxes, point 1 and 2 are just chains of antecedents to affirm the real nature of being P in the consequence.

If the existence of something is logically impossible, then the existence of that thing is a paradox.

That is the case for the most part but it's not necessarily the case all the time.

I believe that we should say these two things are different, since there is some information distinguishing them.

And this leads to what, is it an appeal to the law of identity to say this will lead to the being in question being confined as such?

But even if you reject that, something taking actions still implies certain properties

No it doesn't not, but I'm curious as to why you think that.

Such as, it implies the property that its actions aren't necessarily ineffable

It's actions not being Ineffable doesn't correspond to it in itself being Ineffable nonetheless, unless you think of a higher dimensional being created lower dimensional beings it's self defeating because the lower dimensional beings are not higher dimensional.

Leap in logic.

which is a description of "it" rather than what it "did".

That's a decent point but the actions are not Ineffable is still not a description of it, as I said the actions it performs don't speak of it in itself just actions of the being.

Me walking outside isn't a description of me it's a description of what I am doing already said this beforehand

Because that many universes is all the distinct universes that can possibly exist within that piece of fiction.

So it's not modal realism, as the possible worlds are distinct from that of logic? I think that's enough to dismiss that analogy for modal realism then.

I didn't say that being was "confined" to the possible worlds. I suppose they could exist outside of it, if you believe that such a restriction among possible worlds and beings exists.

If they are not confined by them then distinction for freezing and burning is irrelevant.

Not alot of being addressed here so there are a couple of alternatives that can be tried or waste more time on irrelevant points.

• Just don't tier negative theology as deagon said, Ultima's point didn't really correlate to whether or not it should be tiered because ultimately whatever featherine did is not Ineffable.
• Tier it, if so then the main points that should be addressed are the wff's presented that suggest it being high 1-A instead of whether or not it's a logical paradox. What ultima said about it implying an infinite regress yes it can imply more of than that if that's accepted, then what I said about it implying more than that should be addressed.

 

[Theoretical]

It seems like the suggestions in this thread have been thoroughly rejected. Should we close this discussion?

Yeah and like half of the justifications for rejecting it either didn't correspond to what I said or were just inadequate with the wff's also being skipped and ignored whilst the others made justifications that makes the way how standards work in the wiki self defeating

Butttt sure you can close if you want

 

[Agnaa]

Yes its not, as I've demonstrated

I just pushed you on that and your only reason why it wasn't a paradox was that we could ignore that it's a paradox.

Plus, you just said that it's outside of logical definitions.

You can logically define it as not being defined and make a well formed formula for that.

That's a definition, making the definition false.

That is the case for the most part but it's not necessarily the case all the time.

What's a time where it isn't the case?

And this leads to what, is it an appeal to the law of identity to say this will lead to the being in question being confined as such?

Not really, it just shows that the entity isn't entirely indescribable, since parts of it (its actions) are describable, and it is inextricably linked to those actions.

It's actions not being Ineffable doesn't correspond to it in itself being Ineffable nonetheless, unless you think of a higher dimensional being created lower dimensional beings it's self defeating because the lower dimensional beings are not higher dimensional.

Leap in logic.

That's not what I said.

That's a decent point but the actions are not Ineffable is still not a description of it, as I said the actions it performs don't speak of it in itself just actions of the being.

Yes, there's an extra item in that chain.

Its actions aren't ineffable.
Therefore, its actions aren't necessarily ineffable.
"Its actions aren't necessarily ineffable" is a description of it, not its actions. It is not describing any singular action, it is describing the being which performs those actions.
There is now a description of a supposedly ineffable being.

Me walking outside isn't a description of me it's a description of what I am doing already said this beforehand

It's a partial description of you. You are the person who walked outside that time.

So it's not modal realism, as the possible worlds are distinct from that of logic? I think that's enough to dismiss that analogy for modal realism then.

I don't know if you can get a concrete list of which worlds are possible from logic alone.

I also think that logic not being objective throws a wrench in the idea of treating one single formulation of logic as the almighty arbiter of what true modal realism is.

If they are not confined by them then distinction for freezing and burning is irrelevant

Why do you say that?

Just don't tier negative theology as deagon said, Ultima's point didn't really correlate to whether or not it should be tiered because ultimately whatever featherine did is not Ineffable.

I think that's what we already do; it's just considered a new hierarchy jump.

It seems like the suggestions in this thread have been thoroughly rejected. Should we close this discussion?

Sure. If Theoretical wants to continue this, they can on my profile.

 

[Theoretical]

I just pushed you on that and your only reason why it wasn't a paradox was that we could ignore that it's a paradox.

Ignoring it being a paradox implies it's not a paradox because it being confined by the paradox as said in the OP means it's not negative theology.

Plus, you just said that it's outside of logical definitions.

I said you can logically demonstrate it being indefinable never said this.

That's not what I said.

That's what you implied.

Its actions aren't ineffable.
Therefore, its actions aren't necessarily ineffable.

It's actions are not it as I said beforehand.

"Its actions aren't necessarily ineffable" is a description of it, not its actions.

"it's actions aren't necessarily Ineffable" stems from the action it created which is not Ineffable to which I said an action is not it, which dismiss the point of its actions not being Ineffable implying some positive description for it, because for you to infer that you need to posit it's actions being it to which I already addressed that hence it won't logically follow through/deductively invalid.

There is now a description of a supposedly ineffable being.

Yes, and that stems from a deductively invalid argument.

It's a partial description of you. You are the person who walked outside that time.

You are the person who walked outside that time, what is walking outside? An action is an action you? No.

What is you are the composite parts that form you legs, arms, being black; not external parts like the actions you perform.

I don't know if you can get a concrete list of which worlds are possible from logic alone.

Primary reason why I think the verse calling out a concrete number is a self defeating thing.

I also think that logic not being objective

OH logic is definitely objective atleast within the confines of the material world, anything outside of that we can't say.

a wrench in the idea of treating one single formulation of logic as the almighty arbiter of what true modal realism is.

True modal realism doesn't exist, there's only one.

Modal realism stems from modality a system of logic, there's no modality outside of logic unless it's described as impossible. There's no modal realism that doesn't function under logic that's an odd point to make.

Why do you say that?

I thought I explained beforehand that there's no being that can freeze all possible worlds while still being confined to them hence the comparison of freezing and burning is irrelevant.

Sure. If Theoretical wants to continue this, they can on my profile.

Maybe, maybe not but I don't see the point in continuing on your profile what will that change?

 

[Theoretical]

This thread can be closed I don't think any progression will be made, although I enjoyed the discussion.

 

[Agnaa]

Ignoring it being a paradox implies it's not a paradox because it being confined by the paradox as said in the OP means it's not negative theology.

So why bring up omnipotence being paradoxical as a mark against it that doesn't apply to negative theology? Many have argued that omnipotent beings should be beyond the confines of paradoxes.

I said you can logically demonstrate it being indefinable never said this.

I don't think those statements are meaningfully different.

That's what you implied.

No I was working off of pure text, not subtext, and I elaborated on what I meant immediately afterwards.

"it's actions aren't necessarily Ineffable" stems from the action it created which is not Ineffable to which I said an action is not it, which dismiss the point of its actions not being Ineffable implying some positive description for it, because for you to infer that you need to posit it's actions being it to which I already addressed that hence it won't logically follow through/deductively invalid.

Whether a being's actions are necessarily ineffable or not is a statement about the quality of being.

We could suppose a being that is not ineffable, but where all of its actions are ineffable. That is logically consistent and okay (especially if you accept beings being able to be ineffable). Which implies that "Are its actions always ineffable" can be a quality of a being, and since we can discuss how that quality supposedly applies to ineffable beings, that implies that such beings do actually have qualities, making them no longer ineffable.

You are the person who walked outside that time, what is walking outside? An action is an action you? No.

Logic does not care for English's grammar. There are languages where adjectives and verbs are applied to objects in the same way.

Like Japanese!

私は大きい。
私は歩いている。

The first sentence there means "I am big", using a pronoun, particle, and an adjective. The second means "I am walking", using the same pronoun, same particle, and two verbs. Literally structured like "I am walk and exist".

What is you are the composite parts that form you legs, arms, being black; not external parts like the actions you perform.

Maybe there's just a philosophical difference here.

OH logic is definitely objective atleast within the confines of the material world, anything outside of that we can't say.

Yeah, that's why I said "from logic alone"; you also need a material world where that logic is objective, to say how many/which universes are possible.

I thought I explained beforehand that there's no being that can freeze all possible worlds while still being confined to them hence the comparison of freezing and burning is irrelevant.

I more mean, what is your justification for the statement that "beings who aren't confined by possible worlds can necessarily burn all possible worlds".

I don't know why not being "confined" implies there no longer being a distinction between freezing and burning.

Maybe, maybe not but I don't see the point in continuing on your profile what will that change?

I think there's still arguments to be made here that haven't been tilled entirely.

 

[Theoretical]

So why bring up omnipotence being paradoxical as a mark against it that doesn't apply to negative theology?

Let's not act like paradoxes of omnipotence exist like the omnipotence paradox that's why.

Many have argued that omnipotent beings should be beyond the confines of paradoxes.

Arguing it should be above the confines of paradox is just a way to denounce it being paradoxical.

I don't think those statements are meaningfully different.

No? They are, the Ineffable being would be even beyond logically impossible descriptions so yes they are.

No I was working off of pure text, not subtext, and I elaborated on what I meant immediately afterwards.

OH so this ineffable being can create things that are not Ineffable despite the being itself being ineffable? That was the point of the higher dimensional analogy.

Logic does not care for English's grammar. There are languages where adjectives and verbs are applied to objects in the same way.

And how does this attack anything again?

The first sentence there means "I am big", using a pronoun, particle, and an adjective. The second means "I am walking", using the same pronoun, same particle, and two verbs. Literally structured like "I am walk and exist".

Still doesn't denounce what I said again, it's a reiteration of your belief which is in question.

Maybe there's just a philosophical difference here.

There is

Yeah, that's why I said "from logic alone"; you also need a material world where that logic is objective, to say how many/which universes are possible.

Still confused on how this attacks the main points I brought up.

I more mean, what is your justification for the statement that "beings who aren't confined by possible worlds can necessarily burn all possible worlds".

The difference is irrelevant because both beings are equally unrestricted by possible worlds.

I don't know why not being "confined" implies there no longer being a distinction between freezing and burning.

There's no distinction because both are not restricted by possible worlds if they can do that.

I think there's still arguments to be made here that haven't been tilled entirely.

Ight

 

[Agnaa]

Let's not act like paradoxes of omnipotence exist like the omnipotence paradox that's why.

idk what you mean here. I can't tell whether you're saying omnipotence has paradoxes or that it doesn't.

Arguing it should be above the confines of paradox is just a way to denounce it being paradoxical.

Yeah, that's what I think you're doing here, which is inconsistent with the argument you presented earlier.

No? They are, the Ineffable being would be even beyond logically impossible descriptions so yes they are.

If you can logically demonstrate that it can't be defined, then that entails logically assigning some definitions to it, rendering that whole process contradictory.

Which is what I'd consider the minimum bound for something being unable to be defined; if all attempts to do so result in contradictions.

OH so this ineffable being can create things that are not Ineffable despite the being itself being ineffable? That was the point of the higher dimensional analogy.

Yeah I think you're just missing the logic here.

• P1: Lets suppose a higher-dimensional object exists.
• P2: Lets also suppose it can create lower-dimensional objects.
• C1: Therefore, the higher-dimensional object has the property of "can create lower-dimensional objects".

C1 does not contradict P1 or P2. However, if we try to do that with ineffability....

• P3: Lets suppose an ineffable object exists.
• P4: Lets also suppose it can create effable objects.
• C2: Therefore, the ineffable object has the property of "can create effable objects".

C2 contradicts P3, since it having a determined property goes against the assumption of it not having properties.

And how does this attack anything again?

Because your retort seemed based on the way grammar works in English.

Still confused on how this attacks the main points I brought up.

• You said that negative theology has more grounding than omnipotence, so it can be accepted while omnipotence is rejected.
• I responded that omnipotence has more grounding, using logical omnipotence as an example of this.
• You responded that logical omnipotence is equivalent to modal realism, which we accept, and so logical omnipotence must already cross the line of what's acceptable.
• I responded that modal realism isn't accepted in that way, and that modal realism is not equivalent to logical omnipotence.
• One of my justifications for why modal realism isn't accepted in that way, is that different verses can have different extents of what's logically possible, so we shouldn't assign the same tier for doing that for different verses.
• If you need a material world where logic is objective to know how many universes are logically possible, that makes the rating modal realism gets verse-specific.
• Thus, modal realism isn't accepted in the way you claim.
• Thus, logical omnipotence isn't accepted in the way you claim.
• Thus, things with more backing than negative theology aren't accepted.
• Thus, negative theology should not be accepted.

The difference is irrelevant because both beings are equally unrestricted by possible worlds.

Their restriction doesn't lie in the possible worlds, but in their natures.

 

[Antvasima]

I have locked this thread now. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.

 

[Deagonx]

I know we've rejected the OP, but this was arguing for an upgrade to our current profiles that are tiered based on NT.

For myself, DT, Firestorm, and Agnaa, we are arguing that we should not be tiering it at all, which means those profiles would need to be changed. Should we discuss that here or should a new thread be made?

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to summarise the arguments please?

 

[Deagonx]

Yes, I'll do so later today once I'm at a computer (currently on my phone)

 

[Deagonx]

Would you be willing to summarise the arguments please?

In a nutshell, negative theology (also called apophatic theology) is the premise that God's perfect divinity is unintelligible, indescribable, so any human linguistic descriptions would could attempt to apply to it will ultimately fall short. All descriptions are too limited to actually describe it, so we can only describe it in terms of what it is not.

The argument of the OP was to upgrade how we treat this concept from 1-A to High 1-A. OP's argument for High 1-A was (to the extent I understood it) that this can essentially be treated like an inaccessible cardinal. Ultima rejected this, but still feels it can be 1-A due to leading to an infinite regress.

For my part, the logical extrapolation of this concept would be such that even our descriptions of what a Tier 0 being is would "not describe" this being. I think this concept is just incompatible with our tiering system entirely, so I do not feel that it should be tiered. More broadly, I am not persuaded that it's a logical concept on a fundamental level. Firestorm and DT had this to say:

Yeah, this is just extrapolation beyond actual feats based on vague logic games using reasoning that would be questionable in real philosophy, not to even start with fiction. It's just "let's use omnipotence for tiering" 2.0.

Hard no from me.

I would hesitate to apply a Tier based on what amounts to a very complex/philosophical form of "indescribable."