The Contradictions in the Current Tiering System Page.

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Hello. On this Staff Thread I am going to explain the contradictions in the current Tiering System’s High 1-A, and as a result, and how to change it, however how you all change is entirely up to you. Before I start however, Agnaa was the Staff Member who gave me permission to make this Staff Thread. So with that out of the way, let's begin.

On VSBW's Tiering System’s High 1-A in the Tiering System Page, it explicitly states that the highest extent of High 1-A is governed by the Three Laws of Thought “The apex of this tier, represented also by a "+" modifier in their Attack Potency section (High Outerverse level+), corresponds to characters whose power encompasses meta-qualities, meta-meta-qualities, and any and all conceivable extensions of this process, being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought), being characters who either have the ability to actualize arbitrarily large worlds, or embody the framework of such worlds itself”

The issue with this is, since the Three Laws of Thought are governing the High 1-A tier, then anything defying the Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle wouldn’t be allowed within the Tiering System as the page states. The framework of the Logical Space cannot allow Logical Contradictions if the laws governing them are the three laws of Thought.

Paraconsistent Physiology directly defy these Laws. Going off of the Paraconsistent Physiology Page, the General variation is [Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding any of their properties] and the Plurality is [Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false”] , which directly contradicts the Laws of Non-Contradiction and Law of Excluded Middle, and under those Laws , Paraconsistent Entities cannot exist within a Tiering System that is governed by the Three Laws of Thought

Proposal: The conclusion I recommend to minimize as much change as possible is to simply remove mentioning that the Laws of Thought govern Logical Space, and replace it with stating that Logical Space encompasses all logical systems, making High 1-A+ Type 2 include Logical Systems that accepts Logical Contradictions and Paraconsistency. This is the only change I recommend for now, to avoid doing too many changes at once.

If anything else changes as a result of this change, let’s discuss this calmly within this thread.Thank you.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality

Your input is required here.

 

[Agnaa]

Your suggestion is not a minimal change.

The actual minimal change would be to just delete that parenthetical.

Our current status quo, is that we equalise between plausible descriptions of "all logically possible worlds". If one series say they're governed by the three laws of thought, and another says they're governed by a paraconsistent framework, we assert that these are the same.

We do not require them to establish that they cover all possible logical systems, doing so would be a significant change that requires many downgrades.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

That is a fair assessment. By minimalist change, I’m referring to just changing the tiering system page itself, not the domino effect of what would happen after that fact.

Your suggestion is not a minimal change.

The actual minimal change would be to just delete that parenthetical.

Our current status quo, is that we equalise between plausible descriptions of "all logically possible worlds". If one series say they're governed by the three laws of thought, and another says they're governed by a paraconsistent framework, we assert that these are the same.

We do not require them to establish that they cover all possible logical systems, doing so would be a significant change that requires many downgrades.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Our current status quo, is that we equalise between plausible descriptions of "all logically possible worlds". If one series say they're governed by the three laws of thought, and another says they're governed by a paraconsistent framework, we assert that these are the same.

That doesn't really make sense as a stance, as we know those are not the same sets. One could argue they should be the same in terms of power evaluation. However, even that runs into problems once one considers that one can construct a logic in which the set of all logically possible worlds consists of exactly one (regular) universe. For obvious reasons, we should not equate that to High 1-A+. As such, the features of the logic should matter.

I think it would make most sense to say that when we talk about "all logically possible worlds" we mean "logically possible" by the definition of classical logic (which rightfully is the logic to default to).
Fictions that talk about "all logically possible worlds" by a weaker logic would still qualify on grounds of having the set established by classical logic as a subset. Meanwhile, fictions that have a stronger logic would not qualify, on grounds of not containing the whole set.
I believe that would also mostly refelect current state of evaluation, as we don't have anything with stronger logic and never distinguished for weaker logics.

 

[Agnaa]

That doesn't really make sense as a stance, as we know those are not the same sets. One could argue they should be the same in terms of power evaluation. However, even that runs into problems once one considers that one can construct a logic in which the set of all logically possible worlds consists of exactly one (regular) universe. For obvious reasons, we should not equate that to High 1-A+. As such, the features of the logic should matter.

I think it would make most sense to say that when we talk about "all logically possible worlds" we mean "logically possible" by the definition of classical logic (which rightfully is the logic to default to).
Fictions that talk about "all logically possible worlds" by a weaker logic would still qualify on grounds of having the set established by classical logic as a subset. Meanwhile, fictions that have a stronger logic would not qualify, on grounds of not containing the whole set.
I believe that would also mostly refelect current state of evaluation, as we don't have anything with stronger logic and never distinguished for weaker logics.

The justification given is that verses which only cover the three laws of thought could actually have their characters cover other logical systems, but those just happen to be non-objects in this setting.

I argued against this, and said that there should be multiple levels of power for High 1-A+ Type 2 and above, but this was rejected by the staff who voted at the time.

And, I think we do have High 1-A+/0 characters which reflect logic outside of the three laws of thought. Take, for instance, the Self-Reference ENGINE:

Type 3; Resides in a state of complete nonexistence relative to the collection of all possible stories and strings of characters that it comprises, which encompasses both "everything" and "nothing," as well as the assertion and negation of any given proposition, and states in which both are true simultaneously

Comprises all possible character strings, containing all sentences formed by a combination of symbols both in formal and natural languages

Although, this page currently breaks our standards for Tier 0 regardless, as its second key is stronger than its first key (while both are Tier 0), and it hasn't been revised since the Tiering System change. I'd advocate for its deletion until it can be revised.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The justification given is that verses which only cover the three laws of thought could actually have their characters cover other logical systems, but those just happen to be non-objects in this setting.

I argued against this, and said that there should be multiple levels of power for High 1-A+ Type 2 and above, but this was rejected by the staff who voted at the time.

If a verse covers nothing but classical logic, everything is beholden to classical logic. No other assumption is reasonable in my eyes, given that it tends to be default to nearly any discussion about anything ever.
And a verse establishing the three laws of thought as logical basis should obviously not be assumed to feature worlds conflicting with these as possible worlds.

If that is for whichever reason not what we do, due to whichever thread that may have been decided in, then I would just argue that we should change that now. This thread is about that, after all.

And, I think we do have High 1-A+/0 characters which reflect logic outside of the three laws of thought. Take, for instance, the Self-Reference ENGINE:


Although, this page currently breaks our standards for Tier 0 regardless, as its second key is stronger than its first key (while both are Tier 0), and it hasn't been revised since the Tiering System change. I'd advocate for its deletion until it can be revised.

I mean, yes, but it's a weaker logic, which fits my point. We don't have anything that has a stronger logic, i.e. something that is classical logic + extra rules.

 

[Agnaa]

If a verse covers nothing but classical logic, everything is beholden to classical logic. No other assumption is reasonable in my eyes, given that it tends to be default to nearly any discussion about anything ever.
And a verse establishing the three laws of thought as logical basis should obviously not be assumed to feature worlds conflicting with these as possible worlds.

If that is for whichever reason not what we do, due to whichever thread that may have been decided in, then I would just argue that we should change that now. This thread is about that, after all.

Doing so removes core pillars of those tiers; it lets power vary within them. And it kind of strikes to the fundamental core of those tiers. If you can get stronger than a monad, why would doing so be treated as a contradiction that inherently makes one weaker?

This could theoretically be resolved here, but shouldn't be done lightly with 3 staff members going "sure".

I mean, yes, but it's a weaker logic, which fits my point. We don't have anything that has a stronger logic, i.e. something that is classical logic + extra rules.

Ah, my bad, I misunderstood (I was interpreting "stronger" to be in the terms of our Tiering System, rather than in terms of increased axiomatic restrictions).

I'd say that we technically do have things with stronger logics, they're verses where the underlying axioms for all possible worlds are those of ZFC. Verses landing somewhere in-between may belong somewhere in 1-A or High 1-A.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Doing so removes core pillars of those tiers; it lets power vary within them. And it kind of strikes to the fundamental core of those tiers. If you can get stronger than a monad, why would doing so be treated as a contradiction that inherently makes one weaker?

This could theoretically be resolved here, but shouldn't be done lightly with 3 staff members going "sure".

I think whether extended sets of all logically possible worlds are considered "stronger" is an independent question, contingent on how one even wishes to define strength at these tiers.
For this thread, I would just suggest we establish that different sets of "logically possible worlds" exist (which just seems like a fact IMO) and establish the one resulting from classical logic as the thing one needs to demonstrate to qualify for the tier.

I don't think continuing to use an approach by which a singular 3D physical universe can qualify for High 1-A+ is a good state of things. So solving that problem first seems best.

I'd say that we technically do have things with stronger logics, they're verses where the underlying axioms for all possible worlds are those of ZFC. Verses landing somewhere in-between may belong somewhere in 1-A or High 1-A.

It's a bit strange to consider ZFC as a system of logic and then there is the question of how ZFC maps unto reality and if the result is different, but... I suppose in principle those may land in some lesser tier. Which one probably depends on implementation.

 

[Agnaa]

I think whether extended sets of all logically possible worlds are considered "stronger" is an independent question, contingent on how one even wishes to define strength at these tiers.
For this thread, I would just suggest we establish that different sets of "logically possible worlds" exist (which just seems like a fact IMO) and establish the one resulting from classical logic as the thing one needs to demonstrate to qualify for the tier.

I don't think continuing to use an approach by which a singular 3D physical universe can qualify for High 1-A+ is a good state of things. So solving that problem first seems best.

Ah, I see your contention.

It's a bit hard to contain your nuance, without implying that such weaker axioms would be, in some sense, "above baseline". The best idea I have right now for that is to change:

being on a which in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds ("Logical space," where the laws governing it are the three laws of thought)

To

being on a level in which their power influences the space of all logically possible worlds (equivalent to "logical space" governed by the three laws of thought)

We're not defining it as any set of "logically possible worlds", just those equivalent to ones constructed with those three laws.

And, as an aside from that (perhaps outlined in the FAQ, which could be linked by "equivalent to", if necessary), we'd assert that weaker axioms, if they can create any particular space, would create an equivalent one.

(Also, I'm gonna fix the grammar error I spotted at the start of that sentence immediately)

It's a bit strange to consider ZFC as a system of logic and then there is the question of how ZFC maps unto reality and if the result is different, but... I suppose in principle those may land in some lesser tier. Which one probably depends on implementation.

We currently put "All worlds possible within ZFC exist" at Low 1-A, fwiw.

 

[Antvasima]

What are your respective conclusions here so far in summary?

 

[Agnaa]

We're still in the middle of discussion, I believe.

I've just proposed a compromise, but I'd need to know whether DT agrees to it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ah, I see your contention.

It's a bit hard to contain your nuance, without implying that such weaker axioms would be, in some sense, "above baseline". The best idea I have right now for that is to change:

To

We're not defining it as any set of "logically possible worlds", just those equivalent to ones constructed with those three laws.

And, as an aside from that (perhaps outlined in the FAQ, which could be linked by "equivalent to", if necessary), we'd assert that weaker axioms, if they can create any particular space, would create an equivalent one.

(Also, I'm gonna fix the grammar error I spotted at the start of that sentence immediately)

Sounds like an ok approach in my book.

For the Tiering FAQ how about something like this:

When Does a Set of All Possible Worlds Qualify for High 1-A+?​

Tier High 1-A+ is defined as a character being able to affect all logically possible worlds or embodying the same. However, strictly speaking the set of all logically possible worlds depends on which system of logic a work of fiction uses.
By default we assume that, if a piece of fiction establishes nothing else, it is using a bivalent classical logic which abides the three laws of thought. This is justified by the fact that it is by a large margin the most used system of logic, to the point that it is implicitely assumed to be what is used in virtually all science and literature.
Correspondingly, when we talk about all logically possible worlds, what is meant is the set corresponding to such a system of logic.

Should a fiction employ a different system of logic, then their set of all logically possible worlds still qualifies for High 1-A+, if the logic in question is "weaker" than the above named classical logic. "Weaker" in this sense typically means that breaking one of the rules of classical logic is possible or, more strictly speaking, that their set of all logically possible worlds contains any world which would also be countained in our default set of all logically possible worlds.

Fictions which employ a "stronger" system of logic, i.e. ones which's set of all logically possible worlds don't contain all worlds of the default set of all logically possible worlds, would not qualify for High 1-A+. They would instead receive a lesser Tier. Which one depends on how restrictive the logic system in question is.

We currently put "All worlds possible within ZFC exist" at Low 1-A, fwiw.

A decent approach, aside from certain special cases.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that's pretty good, but I would reword this sentence

Should a fiction employ a different system of logic, then their set of all logically possible worlds still qualifies for High 1-A+, if the logic in question is "weaker" than the above named classical logic.

To this

Should a fiction employ a different system of logic, then their set of all logically possible worlds only qualifies for High 1-A+ if the logic in question is "weaker" than the above named classical logic.

To reduce the chance of misunderstandings (by missing the last sentence clause)

---

This might be something for a different thread, but I just learned that my understanding of "possible worlds" had been tainted by fictional representations. Our Omnipotence page clarifies:

In technical language, a "world" is defined as nothing but "A maximal, consistent set of propositions." To understand what this means: Picture the collection of all possible propositions. All conceivable sentences expressing a state-of-affairs. Then assign values of "True" and "False" to each of them, to your leisure and taking care to remain consistent. The result obtained after all of them have been assigned truth-values is a possible world. A possible world where only a single electron exists is simply a collection of propositions where only the proposition "There exists an electron" has been assigned as true, while all others (Save, perhaps, the ones revolving around this electron) have been deemed false.

But some fictional series, such as Unsong, instead describe them like:

“I AM BEYOND SPACE. TO ME THERE IS NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT NOR MIRRORED REFLECTION. IF TWO THINGS ARE THE SAME, THEY ARE ONE THING. IF I CREATED TWO PERFECT UNIVERSES, I WOULD ONLY HAVE CREATED ONE UNIVERSE. IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE A UNIVERSE FROM THE PERFECT UNIVERSE, IT MUST BE DIFFERENT IN ITS SEED, ITS SECRET UNDERLYING STRUCTURE.”

“Then create one perfect universe, and some universes whose structures have tiny flaws that no one will ever notice.”

“I DID. I CREATED MYRIADS OF SUCH UNIVERSES. WHEN I HAD EXHAUSTED ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSES WITH ONE FLAW, I MOVED ON TO UNIVERSES WITH TWO FLAWS, THEN UNIVERSES WITH THREE FLAWS, THEN SO ON, AN ENTIRE GARDEN OF FLAWED UNIVERSES GROWING ALONGSIDE ONE ANOTHER.”

“Including mine.”

“YOUR WORLD IS AT THE FARTHEST EDGES OF MY GARDEN,” God admitted, “FAR FROM THE BRIGHT CENTER WHERE EVERYTHING IS PERFECT AND SIMPLE. THERE IS A WORLD MADE OF NOTHING BUT BLISS, WITH A GIANT ALEPH IN THE CENTER. THERE IS ANOTHER WORLD MADE OF NOTHING BUT BLISS WITH A GIANT BET IN THE CENTER. AND SO ON, BUT MAKE A MILLION MILLION WORLDS LIKE THOSE, AND YOU START NEEDING TO BECOME MORE CREATIVE. YOU NEED MORE AND MORE STRATAGEMS TO SEPARATE WORLDS FROM ONE ANOTHER. WORLDS WHERE INCREDIBLY BIZARRE THINGS HAPPEN AS A MATTER OF COURSE. WORLDS WHERE RANDOM COMBINATIONS OF SYLLABLES INVOKE DIVINE POWERS. AND THE MORE SUCH THINGS I ADD, THE MORE CHANCE THAT THEY TEND TOWARD EVIL. YOUR WORLD IS VERY FAR FROM THE CENTER INDEED. IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A VAST WASTE, WHERE NOTHING ELSE GROWS. ALL OF THE WORLDS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PLANTED THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOMINATIONS OF WICKEDNESS. BUT BY COINCIDENCE PILED UPON COINCIDENCE, YOURS WAS NOT. YOURS WILL GROW INTO A THING OF BEAUTY THAT WILL GLORIFY MY HOLY NAME.”

“It will?”

“GENESIS 1:31. I LOOKED AT THE WORLD, AND I SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD. I BEHELD ADAM KADMON, THE SEED OF YOUR WORLD, AND SAW THAT IT WAS A GOOD SEED. THAT IT WOULD GROW INTO MORE GOOD THAN EVIL. THAT IT DESERVED A PLACE IN MY GARDEN, BESIDE THE MILLION MILLION OTHER SEEDS THAT WOULD GROW INTO OTHER WORDS, SO THAT AS MUCH GOODNESS AS POSSIBLE COULD BE INSTANTIATED IN THE COSMOS.”

As God only being able to instantiate and differentiate between whole universes with unique underlying conditions.

Essentially, I'm concerned about the idea of how many pieces of fiction legitimately use "possible world" to mean "consistent set of propositions", and how many simply use it to mean "an amount of distinct spaces that cover all possibilities for such spaces". Do we need to worry about that?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah that's pretty good, but I would reword this sentence

To this

To reduce the chance of misunderstandings (by missing the last sentence clause)

That is ok with me.

This might be something for a different thread, but I just learned that my understanding of "possible worlds" had been tainted by fictional representations. Our Omnipotence page clarifies:

But some fictional series, such as Unsong, instead describe them like:

As God only being able to instantiate and differentiate between whole universes with unique underlying conditions.

Essentially, I'm concerned about the idea of how many pieces of fiction legitimately use "possible world" to mean "consistent set of propositions", and how many simply use it to mean "an amount of distinct spaces that cover all possibilities for such spaces". Do we need to worry about that?

Potentially yes.
I mean, the definition the Omnipotence page gives, while accurate, is likely a bit too academic to be referenced directly in many fictions. However, it has an important key point: The idea behind the tier only works if "world" isn't meant to be a space or universe, but rather a state of affairs which can cover any kind of construction.

Something like that might also be worth documenting somewhere.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality

We need your evaluation of DontTalk's and Agnaa's conclusions here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@Ultima_Reality

We need your evaluation of DontTalk's and Agnaa's conclusions here.

Will check in a moment.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The issue with this is, since the Three Laws of Thought are governing the High 1-A tier, then anything defying the Law of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle wouldn’t be allowed within the Tiering System as the page states. The framework of the Logical Space cannot allow Logical Contradictions if the laws governing them are the three laws of Thought.

Paraconsistent Physiology directly defy these Laws. Going off of the Paraconsistent Physiology Page, the General variation is [Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy both the value "true and false" or "neither true nor false" regarding any of their properties] and the Plurality is [Beings which exist beyond the confines of classical logic in general, in a fashion that they may occupy truth values other than "true", "false", "true and false" and "neither true nor false”] , which directly contradicts the Laws of Non-Contradiction and Law of Excluded Middle, and under those Laws , Paraconsistent Entities cannot exist within a Tiering System that is governed by the Three Laws of Thought

Honestly it's questionable what sense of "allowed in the Tiering System" paradoxical powers even enjoy at the moment? Do we index those as legitimate abilities? Yes, but they're also specifically noted to not really have any properties of their own (Because, since they're logically contradictory, we can't make any inferences about what they do or don't do). They do whatever it is that the verse says they do. Hence I don't think that bit of the Tiering System page is any more restrictive than our current treatment of this stuff already is.

Sounds like an ok approach in my book.

For the Tiering FAQ how about something like this:

Looks fine, Agnaa's addition included.

I think whether extended sets of all logically possible worlds are considered "stronger" is an independent question, contingent on how one even wishes to define strength at these tiers.
For this thread, I would just suggest we establish that different sets of "logically possible worlds" exist (which just seems like a fact IMO) and establish the one resulting from classical logic as the thing one needs to demonstrate to qualify for the tier.

While I agree the meat of that topic is better left for somewhere else, I'd reckon the thing with the system at the moment is that it's a bit cramped.

If we want to go with canonical examples of how this usually plays out for convenience's sake (I say "canonical examples" because you can also take the approach of just viewing a Tier 0 as transcendence over qualitative/essential/conceptual distinctions, which is equivalent anyway, but it's easier to lay out the issue like this), you have Tier 0 as basically the "Idea," as it were, of whatever exceptionlessly applies to everything whatsoever such that we can refer to it, think about it, mention it, etc (A common philosophical absolute is 'Being,' in that regard), while High 1-A+ at its peak is supposed to be the full space of all instantiations of that (i.e. If the Tier 0 is Being then High 1-A+ is the full spectrum of all beings as manifestations/realizations/participants/whatever of it). The problematic bit thus being the equation of that with specifically the "physical" collection of all possible worlds, which leaves out things that could plausibly be seen as above that collection yet still undoubtedly in the scope of what Tier 0 exceeds (e.g. universals that regulate the entire collection but are not located at any specific point in it, "broader" sets of worlds than just the ones permitted in classical logic, and so on).

So there's the groundwork for what we'll have to wrestle with in the future.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you greatly again for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

So with us three agreeing, and no-one disagreeing, should we just apply it?

 

[Antvasima]

Can you summarise the changes accepted by your consensus first please?

 

[Agnaa]

The High 1-A+ definition will be slightly tweaked to say that their power should influence a space equivalent to all possible worlds governed by the three laws of thought.

This will link to a new section in the Tiering System FAQ explaining why we chose that as a basis, that fictions with more permissive axioms would also qualify, but that fictions with less permissive axioms would receive a lower rating.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that should hopefully be fine. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

Huh, in implementing these, I noticed the introduction to the Wikipedia page on laws of thought:

The laws of thought are an obsolete way to refer to three logical principles: the law of identity (LOI), the law of non-contradiction (LNC), and the law of excluded middle (LEM).

In modern logic these are simply some of the class of tautologies, and are not inference rules. There is no system of logic which uses the three "laws" as axioms, and the interpretations of even just the three "laws" varies widely.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but do we really want to ultimately base our tiering on this? We shouldn't say "the governing system of logic has to be the three laws of thought" if that is not a system of logic.

 

[Antvasima]

Huh, in implementing these, I noticed the introduction to the Wikipedia page on laws of thought:

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but do we really want to ultimately base our tiering on this? We shouldn't say "the governing system of logic has to be the three laws of thought" if that is not a system of logic.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

This seems very important to consider before we apply any changes.

 

[Agnaa]

Never mind, the specific wording in DT's FAQ answer is more precise than that, saying we'd use a bivalent classical logic that abides by those laws of thought. The imprecise wording in our Tiering System page should be fine, due to linking that.

Although, in looking through his answer I noticed some wording oddities (including some that contradict the definitions as-is). I corrected them here, but DT and Ultima may want to double-check that I didn't actually destroy anything that was intentionally put there.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Before we close this thread, I have an inquiry:
From what I'm seeing here, a verse has to explicitly mention the Laws of Thought to qualify for High 1-A+ through the 'possible worlds' logic, okay. Two inquiries

• Are you saying the verse has to include them explicitly by name, or can a verse mention the concept of contradictions that satisfies it, or just proves it by their definition of how they use logic ? We do need to know what qualifies as explicitly mentioned the Laws of Thought, because if you're saying they can only mention them by name, that feels very strict and genuinely most verses wouldn't ever try to incorporate possible worlds in such a directly philosophical manner.
• if a verse doesn't state the Classical Laws of Logic, but has Logical Contradiction as a stable and mandatory part of their Cosmology, in other words Paraconsistency / Dialetheism / Logical Contradiction is one of the laws that governs their "possible worlds/realities" (I.E: The Cosmology itself is a Logical Contradiction and they state that it encompasses all possible realities / worlds ) , then would they they qualify for High 1-A+, or by the logic presented in this thread, they would be less than High 1-A+ , since due to the verse accepting logical contradictions, their possible worlds by definition would include logically contradictory worlds/realities ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Never mind, the specific wording in DT's FAQ answer is more precise than that, saying we'd use a bivalent classical logic that abides by those laws of thought. The imprecise wording in our Tiering System page should be fine, due to linking that.

Although, in looking through his answer I noticed some wording oddities (including some that contradict the definitions as-is). I corrected them here, but DT and Ultima may want to double-check that I didn't actually destroy anything that was intentionally put there.

Looks ok to me.

From what I'm seeing here, a verse has to explicitly mention the Laws of Thought to qualify for High 1-A+ through the 'possible worlds' logic, okay.

No, any verse that doesn't specify which logic is used is assumed to use classical logic.

if a verse doesn't state the Classical Laws of Logic, but has Logical Contradiction as a stable and mandatory part of their Cosmology, in other words Paraconsistency / Dialetheism / Logical Contradiction is one of the laws that governs their "possible worlds/realities" (I.E: The Cosmology itself is a Logical Contradiction and they state that it encompasses all possible realities / worlds ) , then would they they qualify for High 1-A+, or by the logic presented in this thread, they would be less than High 1-A+ , since due to the verse accepting logical contradictions, their possible worlds by definition would include logically contradictory worlds/realities ?

Allowing logical contradictions would be a sign of it being a weaker logic than classical, not a stronger one. Unless you mean with mandatory that every possible world has to be contradictory. Then it would be stronger.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Looks ok to me.

No, any verse that doesn't specify which logic is used is assumed to use classical logic.


Allowing logical contradictions would be a sign of it being a weaker logic than classical, not a stronger one. Unless you mean with mandatory that every possible world has to be contradictory. Then it would be stronger.

Okay, by weaker you mean a logical system that has fewer logical rules binding it. I was referring to a story where contradiction is the foundation of the cosmology, not a requirement for every possible world, because by definition that limits the cosmologies scope of possible worlds.

Okay.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Bump. One further inquiry, before this thread is closed (since I don't know when it will be concluded completely):
- How will this affect being able to being beyond/not limited by Reason (as in, the process/act of using information to reach conclusions) . Logic and Reason aren't the same (You can have Reasoning without Logic, but Logic makes Reasoning better), but being not limited by Reason itself would be way more tricky from what I'm understand due to how broad and "all-encompassing" the process of using information to reach conclusions is, and the only reason I'm asking is because fictional universes have discussed this concept before and It is technically related to this thread, given that if someone is beyond that process, then contradictions, consistency, etc do not matter to that entity.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Logic is by several sources defined as the science of (correct) reasoning. So I question the validity of your premise.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Logic is by several sources defined as the science of (correct) reasoning. So I question the validity of your premise.

What I am trying to say is:
- If a character is defined as beyond reason (as in the definition I gave for it, which encompasses both correct and incorrect reasoning) , then what do we do for it. Yes, correct reasoning is obviously dependent on following Logic, but incorrect reasoning isn't, which most people tend to have until they become aware of how to make correct reasoning.

 

[Agnaa]

We do nothing because that's flowery wording.