Paraconsistent Physiology 1 or 2 or whatever

[Berga14]

A = Existence
not A = nep1
B = nondual to A and not A .

1) C lacks the fundamental stuff that maks up both A and not A, basically it is outside the duality of these 2 concepts. It also lacks what makes up B. This should be some form of PP i guess. Which one?

2) ignoring B, pp2 page has this: may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false". Now, what does this mean? Something that isn't partecipating in a duality shouldn't already be "neither true nor false" ?

3) Is the difference between PP1 and PP2 just the number of dualities, like in the example below?
Example:
ABC is nondual to A and Not A (only 1 duality of this reality) => PP1
ABC is nondual to A and Not A, B and not B, C and not C (all duality in this reality) => PP2

 

[I'm_here_to_teach]

A = Existence
not A = nep1
B = nondual to A and B.

1) C lacks the fundamental stuff that maks up both A and not A, basically it is outside the duality of these 2 concepts. It also lacks what makes up B. This should be some form of PP i guess. Which one?

2) ignoring B, pp2 page has this: may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false". Now, what does this mean? Something that isn't partecipating in a duality shouldn't already be "neither true nor false" ?

3) Is the difference between PP1 and PP2 just the number of dualities, like in the example below?
Example:
ABC is nondual to A and Not A (only 1 duality of this reality) => PP1
ABC is nondual to A and Not A, B and not B, C and not C (all duality in this reality) => PP2

How i see it.

Pp2 is modeled after ½ of these 2

1.transduality(something akin to a unity like taiji) while being fundamentally superior to them.

pp 1 is duality(yin and yang)

2.lacks the propeties of both. Doesnt really grant anything inherently.

Now this isnt neccesarily a duality between these 2 their just opposite sides of the spectrum(i know this sounds very counter intuitive).

One lacking, the other being fundamentally superior that being said nonduality can also be fundamentally superior if the verse has it set up that way.

Which is what im trying to argue on one of my sandbox.

 

[Berga14]

2.lacks the propeties of both. Doesnt really grant anything inherently.

Now this isnt neccesarily a duality between these 2 their just opposite sides of the spectrum(i know this sounds very counter intuitive).

One lacking, the other being fundamentally superior that being said nonduality can also be fundamentally superior if the verse has it set up that way.

Think of it like a nep2 being outside the duality of existence and nep1, lacking both concepts. Those concept are made up of info type 2. That nep2 lack sayd info type 2 and so it also lack another concept that was already nondual to existence and nep1. Is this still some "better" kind of pp1 or something different?

 

[I'm_here_to_teach]

Think of it like a nep2 being outside the duality of existence and nep1, lacking both concepts.
Those concept are made up of info type 2.

If this is something similar to the foundational forces of darkness and light in solo which has the distinction between existence and nothingness and the higher foundational fundamental forces of light(existence)and darkness(nothingness).

I would say its just higher pp1 if its something like this.

But if the info type 2 is its own thing which houses both/is both and has nothing else its probably type 2(transdual) and to lack this would be its opposite side its probably be non dual (type 2) and not type 1.

My two cents anyways.

 

[Berga14]

But if the info type 2 is its own thing which houses both/is both and has nothing else

This kind of type 2 is actually the most fundamental thing at the base of everything, not just this few concepts. So i guess just a better pp1

 

[Apotheosis69]

A = Existence
not A = nep1
B = nondual to A and not A .

1) C lacks the fundamental stuff that maks up both A and not A, basically it is outside the duality of these 2 concepts. It also lacks what makes up B. This should be some form of PP i guess. Which one?

C would be Paraconsistent Physiology (Type 1: A & B). Since it is only for those specific examples.

2) ignoring B, pp2 page has this: may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false". Now, what does this mean? Something that isn't partecipating in a duality shouldn't already be "neither true nor false" ?

3) Is the difference between PP1 and PP2 just the number of dualities, like in the example below?
Example:
ABC is nondual to A and Not A (only 1 duality of this reality) => PP1
ABC is nondual to A and Not A, B and not B, C and not C (all duality in this reality) => PP2

And it can be either be Both Or Neither.
It can be either A (1), Not A (2) or BOTH (3). OR A (1), Not A (2) or NEITHER (3). It basically is within 3 Logical States/Truth Values. Whichever of the two is specificied.

Yes, Paraconsistency Type 2, is for ALL logical dualities in the setting.
A and Not-A, B and Not-B, C and Not-C, D and Not-D, E and Not-E, F and Not-F, G and Not-G... 1 and Not-1, 2 and Not-2, etc.

---

And in case you're wondering about Paraconsistency Type 3, is for something that has 5 Logical States/Truth Values or More.

A and Not-A, Both, Neither and finally whatever is specified: could be Likely, Possibly, Unlikely, Maybe, etc. And this can go on forever and ever.

If Crazy enough, it could go into Higher-Order Logic: an entirely superior hierarchical System of it.