- 10,861
- 12,228
The nonduality page says that being nondual regarding something makes you immune to attacks using that thing.
My simple proposal: Remove that, because in general that is simply not true. Instead make it something a verse can have the ability do if it clarifies the ability does that.
I first thought about just writing an introduction on formal logic to explain why this reasoning just doesn't work, but I will spare all of us the time by just getting straight to the point of the argument:
If you make any kind of argument like "If character x is nondual, that implies ... which implies that the character has immunity" in classical logic this instantly triggers the principle of explosion, since your premise included that something has a logically contradictory state. The principle of explosion tells us that arguments of this sort have no legitimacy and should be discarded. I.e. it's inherently impossible to make a logical argument that something nondual must have any particular property.
Explanations on why categorically arguments in favor of immunity can never work aside, it also simply is a super weird thing to postulate. Nondual characters are characters who don't even obey the rules of logic. They are characters who may as well break every rule and pattern there is. So why would all logic-breaking characters have to follow the rule of being immune to something? Why would they all have to break the rules in the same way?
In general, we have no framework by which we predict how something that may break all rules will respond to something. Even if they, for example, would not enter a dual state like "dead" after an attack (although that's an option, as no rule stays that a nondual thing can't become dual by interaction with something mundane), they could still end up in a non-dual state that effectively incapacitates them. No reason all nondual characters need to at all times be able to fight.
Heck, being immune to something is a dual matter, as it means that upon being attacked you are in the dual state of "not affected by the attack". This is basically postulating that all nondual characters have to be dual in a certain aspect.
So yeah, my proposal is to change things from nondual characters being immune to all things they are nondual to, to nondual characters being immune to things their verse clarifies they are immune to due to their nonduality.
My simple proposal: Remove that, because in general that is simply not true. Instead make it something a verse can have the ability do if it clarifies the ability does that.
I first thought about just writing an introduction on formal logic to explain why this reasoning just doesn't work, but I will spare all of us the time by just getting straight to the point of the argument:
If you make any kind of argument like "If character x is nondual, that implies ... which implies that the character has immunity" in classical logic this instantly triggers the principle of explosion, since your premise included that something has a logically contradictory state. The principle of explosion tells us that arguments of this sort have no legitimacy and should be discarded. I.e. it's inherently impossible to make a logical argument that something nondual must have any particular property.
Explanations on why categorically arguments in favor of immunity can never work aside, it also simply is a super weird thing to postulate. Nondual characters are characters who don't even obey the rules of logic. They are characters who may as well break every rule and pattern there is. So why would all logic-breaking characters have to follow the rule of being immune to something? Why would they all have to break the rules in the same way?
In general, we have no framework by which we predict how something that may break all rules will respond to something. Even if they, for example, would not enter a dual state like "dead" after an attack (although that's an option, as no rule stays that a nondual thing can't become dual by interaction with something mundane), they could still end up in a non-dual state that effectively incapacitates them. No reason all nondual characters need to at all times be able to fight.
Heck, being immune to something is a dual matter, as it means that upon being attacked you are in the dual state of "not affected by the attack". This is basically postulating that all nondual characters have to be dual in a certain aspect.
So yeah, my proposal is to change things from nondual characters being immune to all things they are nondual to, to nondual characters being immune to things their verse clarifies they are immune to due to their nonduality.