• 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.

Sonic Nonduality Removal

Messages
7,728
Reaction score
9,200
So the verse has nonduality for this reason

However simply just being two complementary dual concepts isn't enough for nonduality. They only represent dreams in sense of negative and positive emotions/dreams like sadness or happiness.

Really speaking, what this wiki defines as a nonduality qualifying duality is those of a logically negating nature. Such examples relevant to here would be "Dream and non-dream", "Nightmare and non-nightmare", "sadness and not-sadness". Things like that.

While someone might say a qualifying duality is whatever a verse considers a duality due to this text.
For this ability, dualities refer to logical dualities where the duality is between "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. For example, fire and water are not a duality; the duality of fire would be fire and not fire. The duality of existence would be existence and not existence, or, alternately, existence and nonexistence or existence and void. However, not all verses follow this logic, and many may treat things not logically considered dualities - such as water and fire or time and space - as dualities, meaning what is and isn't a duality can change between verses.
It is not the case as it's a bit ambiguous, but what it essentially is saying is that fictional verses have differently defined dualities so they might not necessarily qualify for the ability.

This can be supported by two of staff who are more knowledgeable on nonduality than any other staff. (I think DT is actually the one responsible for this as well so his word takes priority)

Here in a thread Ultima removes nonduality from Castlevania due to this reason, and says that most cosmic duality wont be qualifying if they aren't logically negating each other.

Then we have multiple cases of DT saying that only logical dualities qualify.

So yea remove the ability.
 
Yeah, just being positive and negative (or opposites) of each other isn't enough to be considered a duality with the current standards. Even "Life and Death" was clarified (and accepted) to not be a duality in the thread the OP linked (like this and this and this), so I dont see how this is any different. I agree with the thread.
 
Last edited:
I don't even understand which part of it is supposed to be nondual. Even if we went for a proper duality, like dreams and not-dreams, them existing together in some space/Illumina doesn't mean the space/Illumina is nondual. The explanation sounds like it's just about duality.
 
Yeah, just being positive and negative (or opposites) of each other isn't enough to be considered a duality with the current standards. Even "Life and Death" was clarified (and accepted) to not be a duality in the thread the OP linked (like this and this and this), so I dont see how this is any different. I agree with the thread.
What about life and nothingness, does that count.
 
Could it be argued that chaos energy embodies existence and nonexistence? Since it both empowers Sonic to bring nonexistent elements back into existence, and also empowers entities to erase all of existence to a level they lack space and time or even fundamental information.
 
If this thread passes, a reevaluation and potential re-addition can be discussed, though of course after going over the current evidence and seeing if there's anything not mentioned in the blog which could aid in that
 
Back
Top