Swirl of The Root - Nasuverse

[Theoretical]

You’re upgrading it off something not substantiated by the verse (the absolute infinity stuff). Therefore, it’s a stretch. Nobody’s saying there aren’t Taoist references in the Nasuverse, but upgrading a verse off something never stated in it is absurd to me. It really is

It is? The "only denial of end is" " refers to Tao infinity being ineffable because taoists think infinity is only infinity if ineffable you know" " refers to something ineffable right.

How exactly is it absurd when it's the reference is there?

 

[Theoretical]

Also like i said, Root and 「　」is the same, "Root" is just a name that peoples given to 「　」, trying to describe it, nothing even implied Root and 「　」is separate entity/being/place in which 「　」is superior to Root. Also even if i go with your interpretation

Okay the root doesn't have negative theology because a reference using a name can be used reference it? Got it that contradicts negative theology.

Considering how many people misinterpret how negative theology works and say a description cannot be separated from something ineffable I'm up for its removal in all honesty

What’s the logic behind the Tao shit being absolute infinity in the mathematical sense? Cause I do have to stress that something being called a “true infinity” does not make it the mathematical absolute infinity.

here are obvious connections with central themes in theology, especially
with the medieval doctrine that only negative knowlege is possible of God
(apophatic theology). As it stands, it is indeed a negative statement. However it can be given a positive interpretation as follows. Let us provisionally identify the mathematical Absolutely Infinite with the set theoretic
universe as a whole (V). V is unknowable in the sense that we cannot
single it out or pin it down by means of any of our assertions: no true
assertion about V can be made that excludes unintended interpretations
that make the assertion true. In particular—and this is stronger than the
previous sentence—no assertion that we make about V can ensure that we
are talking about the mathematical universe rather than an object in this
universe. So if we do make a true assertion φ about V, then there exist sets
s such that φ is also true when it is interpreted in s.Cantor did not explicitly articulate this line of argument. Yet he was
probably the first one to make use of reflection as a principle motivating
the existence of sets [Hallett 1984]. He argues that the finite ordinals form
a set because they can be captured by a definite condition: Whereas, hitherto, the infinity of the first number-class (I) alone
has served as such a symbol [of the Absolute], for me, precisely
because I regarded that infinity as a tangible or comprehensible
idea, it appeared as an utterly vanishing nothing in comparison
with the absolutely infinite sequence of numbers. (Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre (1883), endnote
to section 4: [Cantor 1932, p. 205])

What is the Infinite? To define it as other than the finite is to set the infinite apart from the finite, and thereby limit it. To define the infinite, therefore, is to make it definite, and no longer infinite. In fact, to say anything at all of the Infinite, is to actually say nothing about the true Infinite. Like the Tao, the Infinite that can be named is not the true Infinite. The Infinite, then, is ineffable. …Or is it? If we think that the Infinite is ineffable, we have once again defined it by distinguishing it from what is not ineffable. The Infinite is so utterly ineffable that we cannot even say that it is ineffable. Even this, however, is saying too much.

How to define infinity as infinite is to make it definite hence not infinity because infinity is only infinity if infinity is incomprehensible hence [] as they said here, it's literally the same as absolute infinity having ineffability in V because of the reflection principle.

Infinity can't be truly absolute, because using arithmetics we can always construct a bigger infinity from the last hence the only way for infinite to be absolutely infinite is if it's ineffable.

This fact is a direct consequence of Cantor's theorem on the cardinality of the power set of a set.

Assume the contrary, and let C be the largest cardinal number. Then (in the von Neumann formulation of cardinality) C is a set and therefore has a power set 2C which, by Cantor's theorem, has cardinality strictly larger than C. Demonstrating a cardinality (namely that of 2C) larger than C, which was assumed to be the greatest cardinal number, falsifies the definition of C. This contradiction establishes that such a cardinal cannot exist.

The entire reason why cantors paradox exists in the first place.

The concept of infinity in Western and Eastern philosophies is very similar in some
respects yet different in others. In most Western religions, the Absolute Infinite is referred to as
God. In Taoism, the Infinite is called Tao, or The Way. Another way to think of Tao is as the
source of everything: “We know that life and the universe have a source, but the nature and
depth of that source lie beyond our ken.” (Walker, forward) Even though separated by land, the
ideas of the Infinite in both Taoism and Western religions developed similarly, with the same
attributes and metaphors used to describe it, yet Taoism also has some unique concepts of the
Infinite.

Its bad enough when they dumb it down for people snd just refer to it as absolute infinity as well.

Brother in Christ

 

[Makenai]

Nasuverse isn't just using ideas from Taoism. It's directly implementing its concepts and characteristics into its cosmology. It already made reference to it so we know it isn't just coincidental.
Taoism predicting Absolute infinity means absolutely nothing and it's irrelevant. We predicate the study of higher dimensions but does that mean we humans can't describe higher dimensions? Taoism is compared to Absolute infinity because they both have 1-1 identical characteristics. It has nothing to do with one predicting the other.

Then you should just use whatever stated in verse, whether there's an extension or an accurate in depth explanation to the referenced Dao that's not stated in verse shouldn't be used as argument, i mean hey this is Nasuverse and King Arthur is a woman.

 

[KingNanaya]

i mean hey this is Nasuverse and King Arthur is a woman.

and also a man. Fate prototype

 

[Tdjwo]

Then you should just use whatever stated in verse, whether there's an extension or an accurate in depth explanation to the referenced Dao that's not stated in verse shouldn't be used as argument, i mean hey this is Nasuverse and King Arthur is a woman.

Pretty sure I used what's stated in the verse thr entire time to compare either the Dao. The only problem is you guys not understanding that just because the word "absolute infinity" wasn't mentioned in Nasuverse despite the scan implying just thay, doesn't make it dismissable. Even the Tao scan didn't explicitly mention absolute infinity yet scholars and mathematicians totally understood what the context was and compared it directly to Absolute Infinity. Why do we have to be so picky about this when we understand what it's trying to relay?

 

[Deagonx]

Why do we have to be so picky about this when we understand what it's trying to relay?

Because you're attempting to apply a very large upgrade on the basis of a real world religion rather than whats actually in the verse.

 

[Tdjwo]

Because you're attempting to apply a very large upgrade on the basis of a real world religion rather than whats actually in the verse.

The infinity tao and [ ] scan are the same. Also, Tao is a philosophy.

 

[Deagonx]

It's moot. Any information you're attempting to import from Taoism that isn't actually in the verse is a problem. You can't just say "oh this is from Taoism, which has x, therefore this verse has x too."

 

[Tdjwo]

It's moot. Any information you're attempting to import from Taoism that isn't actually in the verse is a problem. You can't just say "oh this is from Taoism, which has x, therefore this verse has x too."

Truthfully, I understand what everyone's trying to say here but everyone seems to be missing the point entirely. We all agree the root is basically a replica of the real depiction of tao. It goes as far as specifically categorizing the aspects of it ([ ] = constant tao | root = tao) and just like in Nasuverse, the constant tao is mostly just called tao for simplification just like how most Nasu characters mix up [ ] and the root as the same. Everything about its depiction is consistently in line with the tao and there are direct references where it states that these philosophy is derived from the actual "Chinese Cosmology" implying it isn't just some in-verse and watered down versions of tao. Jigokuraku/Hell's paradise also has Taoism in it but its depiction is vastly different from the actual philosophy itself. Naruto has chakra and even some hindu references but it's completely different in it's depiction. But Nasuverse has complete identical depictions, references and similar quotes.
This scan;

is identical to this scan

The only difference is the wordings and that Shiki was the main point of focus here. But it was still depicting the same concept regarding the ineffability of infinity. Neither scans had the word "Absolute Infinity" in it but researchers and mathematicians were still able to conclude that it represented or is similar to Cantor's "Absolute Infinity."

Maybe I shouldn't have said both Tao and [ ] had absolute infinity based on their negative theological nature. Rather, I should have said they were similar and held at the same level because that's truly what the case is.

and Cantor's depiction of Absolute infinity is the exact same

So rather than saying both Tao and [ ] were Absolute Infinity, I should say they both share the same nature and are held in the same regards/level.

 

[Deagonx]

We all agree the root is basically a replica of the real depiction of tao.

I didn't agree to any such thing.

Regardless, I'll summarize my point once more: If it is in the verse, show it to us in the verse, not in Taoism. If it isn't in the verse, don't show us that it's in Taoism because it doesn't matter.

 

[Tdjwo]

I didn't agree to any such thing.

Uhh?

Regardless, I'll summarize my point once more: If it is in the verse, show it to us in the verse, not in Taoism. If it isn't in the verse, don't show us that it's in Taoism because it doesn't matter.

I've already showed you that its in the verse so Idk what else you want me to do.

 

[Deagonx]

Then why are we discussing Taoism exactly?

 

[Tdjwo]

Then why are we discussing Taoism exactly?

Because a lot of people thought [ ] and swirl of the root were the exact same so I referenced Tao and how it worked exactly the same way to prove how both [ ] and root weren't the same despite the similarities. And the verse explicitly mentions it getting referenced from Tao cosmology. And the depictions of [ ] and tao/Dao are the exact same including the infinity and ineffability depictions.

 

[KingNanaya]

Then why are we discussing Taoism exactly?

because Nasu wrote it into the story

 

[Deagonx]

because Nasu wrote it into the story

It seems more like he was inspired by it, which is a different story.

 

[KingNanaya]

It seems more like he was inspired by it, which is a different story.

from what I could tell, it was a mix of both. I'm not exactly familiar with Taoism, but if there is a repetition of many key concepts, and they're accurate, then Tdjwo may have a case. Although, right now, I agree more with Qawsedf. 1-A and above isn't really my thing.

 

[Theoretical]

Then you should just use whatever stated in verse

He did tho... Everything he used was stated in the verse...

It seems more like he was inspired by it, which is a different story.

That's just the equivalent of writing it into the story in this case and just calling it "the swirl of the root".

Regardless, I'll summarize my point once more: If it is in the verse, show it to us in the verse, not in Taoism. If it isn't in the verse, don't show us that it's in Taoism because it doesn't matter

Truthfully, I understand what everyone's trying to say here but everyone seems to be missing the point entirely. We all agree the root is basically a replica of the real depiction of tao. It goes as far as specifically categorizing the aspects of it ([ ] = constant tao | root = tao) and just like in Nasuverse, the constant tao is mostly just called tao for simplification just like how most Nasu characters mix up [ ] and the root as the same. Everything about its depiction is consistently in line with the tao and there are direct references where it states that these philosophy is derived from the actual "Chinese Cosmology" implying it isn't just some in-verse and watered down versions of tao. Jigokuraku/Hell's paradise also has Taoism in it but its depiction is vastly different from the actual philosophy itself. Naruto has chakra and even some hindu references but it's completely different in it's depiction. But Nasuverse has complete identical depictions, references and similar quotes.
This scan;

is identical to this scan

The only difference is the wordings and that Shiki was the main point of focus here. But it was still depicting the same concept regarding the ineffability of infinity. Neither scans had the word "Absolute Infinity" in it but researchers and mathematicians were still able to conclude that it represented or is similar to Cantor's "Absolute Infinity."

Maybe I shouldn't have said both Tao and [ ] had absolute infinity based on their negative theological nature. Rather, I should have said they were similar and held at the same level because that's truly what the case is.

and Cantor's depiction of Absolute infinity is the exact same

So rather than saying both Tao and [ ] were Absolute Infinity, I should say they both share the same nature and are held in the same regards/level.

Uhm what is... Wait is this not showing it being in the verse, literally its an identical context to what the verse says itself.

Thehhe I'm dead

 

[Theoretical]

It's moot. Any information you're attempting to import from Taoism that isn't actually in the verse is a problem. You can't just say "oh this is from Taoism, which has x, therefore this verse has x too."

The specific infinity scan is quite literally in the verse, in knk

 

[Ionliosite]

Eh, no, the term absolute infinity, or hell, ANY term related to cardinality, isn't used at any point in any Nasuverse work.

 

[Tdjwo]

Eh, no, the term absolute infinity, or hell, ANY term related to cardinality, isn't used at any point in any Nasuverse work.

This scan;

is identical to this scan

The only difference is the wordings and that Shiki was the main point of focus here. But it was still depicting the same concept regarding the ineffability of infinity. Neither scans had the word "Absolute Infinity" in it but researchers and mathematicians were still able to conclude that it represented or is similar to Cantor's "Absolute Infinity."

Maybe I shouldn't have said both Tao and [ ] had absolute infinity based on their negative theological nature. Rather, I should have said they were similar and held at the same level because that's truly what the case is.

and Cantor's depiction of Absolute infinity is the exact same

So rather than saying both Tao and [ ] were Absolute Infinity, I should say they both share the same nature and are held in the same regards/level.

 

[Ionliosite]

Thanks for quoting a post that directly points that the verse never uses the term absolute infinity.

 

[Tdjwo]

Thanks for quoting a post that directly points that the verse never uses the term absolute infinity.

Comprehension issues?
I said they worked the same way. That is, they are similar in how they work.

 

[Ionliosite]

So, again, the term itself and those related are never used, just being similar doesn't mean you can scale it to the real life concept without direct specifications it's also the same in-verse.

 

[Tdjwo]

So, again, the term itself and those related are never used, just being similar doesn't mean you can scale it to the real life concept without direct specifications it's also the same in-verse.

Except the descriptions in-verse perfectly align with Cantor's description of Absolute Infinity, hence, I say they are alike and identical because they mean the same context. For example, there are different theories used to get characters to universal or above on this site without the theories necessarily being the same but implying the same.

 

[Ionliosite]

They aren't the same if the verse doesn't say they are, and as the verse has never mentioned absolute infinity, equating it to such thing is fallacious.

 

[Tdjwo]

They aren't the same if the verse doesn't say they are, and as the verse has never mentioned absolute infinity, equating it to such thing is fallacious.

Jesus christ. Did you even read my comment? I literally just told you how they don't have to say the exact same concept before implying the same thing. Amongst the scans I showed, you could see experts recognizing that they are the sane thing.

 

[Ionliosite]

They do have to say the exact thing or else it's not being compared to it, as in that case that's called extrapolation.

 

[Tdjwo]

They do have to say the exact thing or else it's not being compared to it, as in that case that's called extrapolation.

It can only be called an extrapolation if I'm making a conclusion through assumptions based on a similar case. But what I'm doing isn't extrapolation because it's already directly expressed to be identical. It's not an assumption. It's a fact.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Proof by example.

 

[Tdjwo]

Proof by example.

Not at all. It can only be a proof of example if what's said about Absolute Infinity can be interpreted differently in another context and used as an example to mean something else which isn't the case here. The comparison isn't a statistical anomaly nor is it a coincidence. It's deliberate.

 

[Tarang123]

I’ll go through how I understand this step by step. Your argument is that Tao and the Root are the same based on identical statements. Then you’re saying that the descriptions of infinity or whatever are basically identical. Then you say that in Taoism, that infinity is talking about absolute infinity and are claiming it applies to the Nasuverse. That’s correct?

Prove that a statement like that is in Nasuverse. That this infinity is the absolute infinity. That’s where the issue lies. That’s why it’s a stretch

 

[Tdjwo]

I’ll go through how I understand this step by step. Your argument is that Tao and the Root are the same based on identical statements. Then you’re saying that the descriptions of infinity or whatever are basically identical. Then you say that in Taoism, that infinity is talking about absolute infinity and are claiming it applies to the Nasuverse. That’s correct?

Prove that a statement like that is in Nasuverse. That this infinity is the absolute infinity. That’s where the issue lies. That’s why it’s a stretch

The Tao wasn't called the Absolute Infinity. Instead, it was likened to it for being identical in nature and characteristics while representing the exact same thing Cantor implied regarding the interpretation of what his Absolute infinity represented.

I'm not saying Tao and [ ] are literally "Absolute Infinity" word-for-word. Instead, they are described the same way and represent the same thing when compared. You get what I mean?

 

[Vietthai96]

Also, I think Root is 1A while [ ] is high 1A.

It isn't, because with a single statement of existing at the summit of all dimensional theories only gonna get you High 1-B or Low 1-A at the highest level of interpretation

 

[Tdjwo]

It isn't, because with a single statement of existing at the summit of all dimensional theories only gonna get you High 1-B or Low 1-A at the highest level of interpretation

Hope you realize the root isn't the only thing that surpasses all dimensions. The Outer gods, specifically Yog-Sothoth also exists beyond every possible dimension/Space and the root transcends it.

 

[Tarang123]

I'm not saying Tao and [ ] are literally "Absolute Infinity" word-for-word. Instead, they are described the same way and represent the same thing when compared. You get what I mean?

I think I get it

 

[Vietthai96]

Hope you realize the root isn't the only thing that surpasses all dimensions. The Outer gods, specifically Yog-Sothoth also exists beyond every possible dimension/Space and the root transcends it.

Ayo whataboutism, that verse have its own contexts so please don't bring them in

 

[Tdjwo]

Ayo whataboutism, that verse have its own contexts so please don't bring them in

Bro just proved to me he doesn't know anything about Nasuverse lol. Yog-Sothoth exists in Nasuverse too. Just like it does in SMT. If you don't even know something as basic as this, can you really give a rational opinion regarding the verse and it's metaphysics?

This is the problem I'm having with most of you here. Most of you understand absolutely nothing about Nasuverse nor its mechanics which is why you keep jumping into conclusions while making rubbish points. Only Qawsedf and Tarang actually know something regarding the verse and make some decent points. Get your facts checked out before jumping into conclusions.

 

[Vietthai96]

Bro just proved to me he doesn't know anything about Nasuverse lol. Yog-Sothoth exists in Nasuverse too. Just like it does in SMT.

I know they exist in Nasuverse, but they exist in Nasuverse isn't relevant here as they are the Outer Gods of Nasuverse, not the Outer Gods of Cthulhu Mythos. Same with SMT

This is the problem I'm having with most of you here. Most of you understand absolutely nothing about Nasuverse nor its mechanics which is why you keep making rubbish points. Only Qawsedf and Tarang actually know something regarding the verse and make some decent points. Get your facts checked out before jumping into conclusions.

Oh...sorry but there is no fact here, ony interpretation

 

[Tdjwo]

I know they exist in Nasuverse,

No, you don't. Stop lying because its very obvious.

but they exist in Nasuverse isn't relevant here as they are the Outer Gods of Nasuverse, not the Outer Gods of Cthulhu Mythos. Same with SMT.

Show me where I mentioned Cthulhu Mythos. If I said Outer gods, and I also mentioned the root/Nasuverse, then common sense denotes that I'm referring to the Outer Gods in Nasuverse not the ones from Cthulhu Mythos or SMT. Also, them being Nasuverse outer gods doesn't disprove the fact that they are superior to every possible dimension in the verse which is clear you aren't even aware of.

Oh...sorry but there is no fact here, ony interpretation

If you don't even know Outer Gods exist in Nasuverse, how can your opinion regarding the power structure or how the verse works be taken seriously?

 

[Vietthai96]

No, you don't. Stop lying because its very obvious.

So me the evidences that i'm lying

Show me where I mentioned Cthulhu Mythos. If I said Outer gods, and I also mentioned the root/Nasuverse, then common sense denotes that I'm referring to the Outer Gods in Nasuverse not the ones from Cthulhu Mythos or SMT

Oke, i re-read your comment again so this time i misunderstand your comment then, i apologize, i thought you used Outer Gods from Cthulhu Mythos to defend your argument

Also, them being Nasuverse outer gods doesn't disprove the fact that they are superior to every possible dimension in the verse

What??, now treat me as don't know anything about the verse, because from what iirc, nothing prove Nasuverse Outer Gods superior to every possible dimension in the verse, and if they are, they not even high up to the point make thats single statement for Root become 1-A either