The remains of the Tiering Revision, part 3

[DontTalkDT]

Frankly I think people are getting too hung up on specific usage of the term "duality" without considering further nuance. Like, if you are a monad that unites everything into a single essence devoid of separation, then we are talking about an entity that is purely simple in the mereological sense, meaning that they entities with no composition (i.e have no smaller, more basic "parts" making them up). More accurately they'd be infinitely simple, not just with respect to spatial or temporal parts but to metaphysical parts as well, such as, say, predicates referring to them.

In the case of such an entity, plurality in any manner is by definition strictly forbbiden, because to introduce a multitude of features is to say that a thing can be broken down into smaller, constituent parts able to be analyzed isolatedly. So if you say that in a thing there are doubles, or triples, or quadruples, or whatever else, then that thing has composition in some level and as such is not perfectly simple anymore, and thus not really something that satisfies the above condition of lacking separation and unifying everything into a single essence.

Mind you, though, this isn't exactly the same as, for example, "Two opposing states, A and B, are true simultaneously." In such a case, you'd still be acknowledging that A and B are distinct attributes that this object somehow just holds at the same time because of some paradoxical nature of theirs (For example in the thought-experiment of Schrodinger's Cat, where the cat in the box is deemed both dead and alive until observed). The above case is more like "There is no plurality or delineation between A and B to begin with," so, for example, a perfectly simple being doesn't have a set of attributes, but is those attributes, and neither are these attributes truly distinct from one another.

So, yes, I'd say that a being like that is, for all intents and purposes, Transdual, and to reject it and similar things just because it doesn't explicitly mention the word "duality" is pretty baffling to me. I'm relatively more "Eh" on the matter of if verses happen to have more specific schemes than that, though. Like, if the cosmology was based on triads instead of dualities, or something like that, and a character then transcends that. And obviously, the above also isn't the same as simply encompassing or being one with the universe, since both can still involve a character whose nature is a plural, composite one.

That's a nice construct and all, but behaving like that is no logical consequence of a basic state of oneness. They need to have explanations to behave like that just like you just gave. It's not a logical consequence of the state alone.

I also see no practical difference between being in both state or being in one state that unifies both. Generally, duality exists in verses, so the dual states as such also exist. The difference between occupying one fused state of two or two states at once is really mostly a matter of notation. Most verses with such a setup still have a duality (not everything in the verse is in the state of oneness), meaning one can still shift them to a state of such behaviour. And even if some verse actually had no duality for anything, the entire debate just switches from the rules by which things switch between 2 or more states, to by which rules one state changes itself.

Ultimately you just don't get around having to specify the rules by which things beyond logic behave when interacted with.

I never claimed that it was. I just used that as an example of how lacking or generally standing outside of certain features would mean you are unable to be interacted with by powers whose function is to interact with said features, much like Soul Manipulation is useless if the character it is being attempted against has no soul at all. You could replace "Existence" and "Nonexistence" with whatever else you find convenient.

Problem is that the argument you supported by that doesn't work unless you assess it's a default state. And as I explained merely standing outside features would not grant immunity to them.

That's not really what I meant with the example. What I was specifying is that a character is in a state where they are neither existent nor nonexistent, or speaking in the language of your argument, one where both propositions ("X exists" and "X doesn't exist") are simultaneously false, not some situation where "X exists" and "X doesn't exist" each have more possible assignable values than "True" and "False." I am very willing to bet the former would be immensely more commonly found in fiction, generally speaking, and it is something we already deem a valid example of a Transdual state if the above exchanges are anything to go by.

Well, you would be wrong about that being deemed a valid example.

You mistake both states being false with a nature of nothingness. There is no logical indication for the behavior of an entity for which both truth values are false without further information.

To give an example of how one multi-valued logic might work: Say we have three truth values, 0, 1 and 2, and an entity is in truth value 2 in regards to its existence. The truth value of "X exists" is 0 (false), as the statement quite simply is false. X doesn't exist as it isn't in truth value 1. The statement "X doesn't exist" also has truth value 0, as the statement is simply false. For it to not exist it would need to be in truth value 0, but it isn't. So both values are simultanously false, but we have said nothing about the nature of 2. There is nothing preventing the logic to have the rule "if the character is killed it shifts from any current existence value to 0".

So a system in which both are false and yet the character can be killed like normal is imaginable. I mean, really, we are talking about things beyond logic. Everything is imaginable if we don't set further constraints. Of course, system in which both states are false and the character is immune to attacks is imaginable as well. But it's not necessarily the case and needs strict evidence.

So, as said, both being false can't be equated to behaving like the "nonexistent" value, meaning that the assumption that it would be unaffected is just supported by nothing. You either need evidence that they behave like nothing (and hence are unaffected by attacks as nonexistent things would be. That's what we do with NEP nature type 2) or statements regarding immunity/transcendence. Just a combination or absence of logical states alone just doesn't cut it.

Are you saying that Nature Type 2 requires no statements or showings of uninteractability because the nature of the power, on its own, already implies as much? If so, I fail to see how that actually addresses KingPin's point. Their argument, from what I gather, is that Nature Type 2 does not for instance require that a character be transcendent over both existence and nonexistence, just that they lie in some state that is not the former, but not the latter, either, "absent" with respect to both.

KingPin's argument was in favor of Nondual characters per default being immune to stuff, with the reasoning that we assume as much for NEP. Which isn't true since NEP requires very specific evidence.

It doesn't simply require absence from existence and nonexistence as logical states. You could be absent from both due to being in any alien nondual state. It requires specifically an alien state which is like nonexistence. We are talking about things like beings that were nonexistence already and then got erased even from that. They aren't just absent from both states, they have a nonexistence beyond both states. That's a difference from just not being in either state.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that DontTalk seems to make good sense above, and that we should preferably apply what he thinks is the best solution here.

 

[Sniper670]

Ultima makes much sense, and I'll wait for his reply.

I don't roll with what DT says. NonDuality is what it means, whether he likes it or not. Typing Transduality on Google will bring you to battleboarding sites. Non-duality is what it is.

You can't just pick an already established thing and do whatever you want with it

I suggest we ignore @Iamunanimousinthat

He's been unnecessarily on Pokémon for some unknown reason

 

[Sniper670]

Yeah i agree with this, we should clarify about duality in TD's page. I mean simply stated "like duality" (hot-cold, big-small, right-left, man-woman) i think is too vague for consider it being duality

The duality must contradiction and interwined to each other (contradiction and interwined states), one cant exist without other, if not A then B and if not B then A

We should clarify this because i see some verse that dont even proof about duality can have transduality 2, just by being contradict to everything

Being mentioned to be outside duality is also too vague and will need an actual statement of transcendence

Being mentioned "im outside a system" ≠ Transduality unless its explicitly clear he's immune to the duality as a result

 

[Sniper670]

(now i don't want to make it seem like I'm picking on the verse, because I truly am I fan, and I am currently running CRT thread on it, but this is the easiest example that I can list on the top of my head)

Arceus is given transduality and the reasonings do not cut in my opinion. Its vague mentions of being one, and space and time, without a specific defined system of duality. Especially when Palkia and Dialga (who are space and time) are not part of a dual system but a trio with giratina.

No no.

Primordial Chaos here is WUJI. Which is type 4 by default. It's superior to Taiji by a mile

In fact I'll say Arceus needs type 4 Transduality. As that Undifferentiated state of the multiverse was inside the Heart, which is the Primordial Mind in which everything resided and still resides. It's called Tao/Dao, I'm not sure which, but it preceeds Wuji

Then he manifested an egg, which was his Physical Form, Arceus. And the multiverse was differentiated accordingly.

 

[Antvasima]

This is still a staff only thread. Please cease with responding here unless I have invited you previously. Thank you.

 

[Fixxed]

Being mentioned to be outside duality is also too vague and will need an actual statement of transcendence

Being mentioned "im outside a system" ≠ Transduality unless its explicitly clear he's immune to the duality as a result

Ee.... i dont even propose the argument that you replied of

 

[Fixxed]

This is still a staff only thread. Please cease with responding here unless I have invited you previously. Thank you.

Ohh sorry

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ultima makes much sense, and I'll wait for his reply.

I don't roll with what DT says. NonDuality is what it means, whether he likes it or not. Typing Transduality on Google will bring you to battleboarding sites. Non-duality is what it is.

You can't just pick an already established thing and do whatever you want with it

I suggest we ignore @Iamunanimousinthat

He's been unnecessarily on Pokémon for some unknown reason

It's not simply nonduality, though. It's nonduality + transcendence. Nonduality alone doesn't have the transcendence / immunity aspect, so calling the ability nonduality is actually wrong. It a special form of nonduality.

And we very much can define ourselves new terms for specific concepts if we want to.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

This is still a staff only thread. Please cease with responding here unless I have invited you previously. Thank you.

To reiterate, to those who missed it.

 

[Antvasima]

It's not simply nonduality, though. It's nonduality + transcendence. Nonduality alone doesn't have the transcendence / immunity aspect, so calling the ability nonduality is actually wrong. It a special form of nonduality.

And we very much can define ourselves new terms for specific concepts if we want to.

I agree with this.

 

[Antvasima]

To reiterate, to those who missed it.

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

And i think i agree with this, if it the best solution for not making this going too long

and that we should preferably apply what he thinks is the best solution here.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @KingPin0422 @Pain_to12 @Qawsedf234

Your further help would be appreciated here.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @KingPin0422 @Pain_to12 @Qawsedf234

Your further help would be appreciated here.

I still agree with DT and so far, I have not seen any argument that thoroughly refutes his claims although there are gaps but they are negligible

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the reply. I also think that DontTalk makes sense here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Tbh, the debate might be drifting into irrelevant areas. Well, not irrelevant in general, but into areas irrelevant for what we try to do in this thread.

Much of what was said in the last posts was about how special cases might grant immunity to the duality, but that's not the main concern.
As long as we agree that not all non-dual states grant immunity/transcendence to dual things and that having this immunity/transcendence should stay a requirement we can continue with the page edit. We can just say that evidence for immunity/transcendence is required on the page.
Whether or not statements of being in a particular nondual state of oneness, nothingness or whatever qualify for that evidence can be debated sometime else.

 

[Antvasima]

That seems fine to me at least.

 

[Dereck03]

Bump.

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

Just want says, i think this important to add in transduality's page

For the sake of Transduality, the duality in question should be a logical one i.e. a "A" and "not A" kind of thing. Everything else shouldn't qualify and that even by the current page. The page is clear about the fact that the system should be binary, i.e. allow for only two states.
If verses currently do it different they might need to be revised, but let's not get caught up in examples.

Yeah i agree with this, we should clarify about duality in TD's page. I mean simply stated "like duality" (hot-cold, big-small, right-left, man-woman) i think is too vague for consider it being duality

The duality must contradiction and interwined to each other (contradiction and interwined states), one cant exist without other, if not A then B and if not B then A

We should clarify this because i see some verse that dont even proof about duality can have transduality 2, just by being contradict to everything

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, we can clarify that as well.

 

[Sniper670]

Arceus will still keep Transduality, if that's your concern

 

[Vietthai96]

Arceus will still keep Transduality, if that's your concern

Nah bro, this thread is not about Arceus's transduality or anything so this comment is really unnecessary

I'm fine with either Transdual or Nondual. But since it is pretty much a big fact that Transduality is just our creation not official term, i think a note to clarify why it is Transduality is a must

 

[Antvasima]

Can you provide an explanation for exactly what you think that we should do here based on the above discussion, @DontTalkDT ?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, a draft for the revised page could look something like this:

[[File:Taiji.png|thumb|400px|The "Taiji" is the limitless potential and oneness before duality.]]

{{Quote|Is the god the source, or is the god a human manner of conceiving of the force and energy that supports the world? In our tradition God is a male. This male and female differentiation is made, however, within the field of time and space, the field of duality. If God is beyond duality, you cannot say that God is a "He." You cannot say God is a "She." You cannot say God is an "It."|[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell Joseph Campbell], Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor}}

==Summary==
'''Transduality''' is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, or also defined as being a “2”, or as standing outside of the code completely at the higher levels.

Transduality is not simply nonduality, but additionally requires something like [[Tiering_System_FAQ#Q:_What_is_qualitative_superiority?|qualitative superiority]] or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.

A duality refers to a logical duality for the purpose of this ability. That is to say, that the duality in question can be decribed as "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. So, 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, which could equivalently be formulated as existence and nonexistence or existence and void.

As it stands, Type 1 corresponds to being beyond certain kinds of dual systems, but not all duality. Type 2 refers to characters whose existence is described as either being in both states of a duality at once or in neither state. Type 3 refers to characters whose existence belongs to alternate logical states which can't be described just by saying that they exist in both or neither state of a duality, but instead in a unique third state.

==Types==
*'''Type 1 (Specific Transduality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding one specific dual system and qualitatively superior or immune to effects caused within it.

*'''Type 2 (General Transduality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding all dual systems within the scope of an entire level of reality and qualitatively superior or immune to the effects caused within it. Furthermore, characters with this type can be accurately described as being in either both or neither state of the dualities.

*'''Type 3 (Plurality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding all dual systems within the scope of an entire level of reality and qualitatively superior or immune to the effects caused within it. Furthermore, these characters exist beyond the classical states of contradiction-allowing logic on some level of existence. That is to say, for any statement A about them they are in a state that can't be described as A is true, A is false, A is simultanously true and false or A is neither true nor false. And so they must obey a many-valued logic with at least 5 truth states, and not be in any of the 4 combinations of true and false mentioned earlier.

==Notable Users==
*[[God (Seekers into the Mystery)|God]] from Seekers into the Mystery

*[[Yog-Sothoth (Cthulhu Mythos)|Yog-Sothoth]] from the [[Cthulhu Mythos]]

*[[The Presence]] and [[Elaine Belloc]] from [[DC Comics|DC Comics/Vertigo]]

*[[Gan]] from [[The Dark Tower]]

*The Unbound [[Aka|Et’]][[Lorkhan|Ada]] and the Amaranth from [[The Elder Scrolls]]

Possibly with more specific examples for each type.

 

[GustiTalk12]

Nah, draf untuk halaman yang direvisi bisa terlihat seperti ini:

Mungkin dengan contoh yang lebih spesifik untuk setiap jenis.

Will transduality be subject to revision?

 

[DontTalkDT]

That was the point of this thread.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that your draft looks good at least. Thank you for helping out.

 

[Orioreeem]

As it stands, Type 1 corresponds to being beyond certain kinds of dual systems, but not all duality. Type 2 refers to characters whose existence is described as either being in both states of a duality at once or in neither state. Type 3 refers to characters whose existence belongs to alternate logical states which can't be described just by saying that they exist in both or neither state of a duality, but instead in a unique third state.

Is this needed if types are explained just below?

 

[Sniper670]

Look, I'm not liking this qualitative superiority.

So NonDuality + Transcendent over your verse in a tiering system way= Transduality?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As it stands, Type 1 corresponds to being beyond certain kinds of dual systems, but not all duality. Type 2 refers to characters whose existence is described as either being in both states of a duality at once or in neither state. Type 3 refers to characters whose existence belongs to alternate logical states which can't be described just by saying that they exist in both or neither state of a duality, but instead in a unique third state.

Is this needed if types are explained just below?

Well, I suppose it can be left out. Kinda just left it in because the current page has this short summary of the type.

 

[Fixxed]

I personally think that your draft looks good at least. Thank you for helping out.

So can this get applied, or.....

 

[Sniper670]

So I'm asking..... Again. NonDuality + Superior to you verse tiering system-wise is Transduality?

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's uncouth to use a quote from a non-fiction book about a real religion's God as the quote for a power page. Here's a potential replacement quote from Unsong:

“If God is just the binary digit 1, and nothingness is the binary digit 0, and they both contain one bit of information – then isn’t neither one the simplest thing? Wouldn’t the simplest thing be zero bits, neither God nor nothingness?”

“That’s Atzmus and you’re not supposed to talk about it!”

I'd also change "standing outside of the code entirely" to something along the lines of "not being describable through any numbers at all." I don't want the metaphor to get too stuck in programming.

Other than that, the draft seems fine.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think it's uncouth to use a quote from a non-fiction book about a real religion's God as the quote for a power page. Here's a potential replacement quote from Unsong:


I'd also change "standing outside of the code entirely" to something along the lines of "not being describable through any numbers at all." I don't want the metaphor to get too stuck in programming.

Other than that, the draft seems fine.

That seems fine. So:

[[File:Taiji.png|thumb|400px|The "Taiji" is the limitless potential and oneness before duality.]]

{{Quote|
“If God is just the binary digit 1, and nothingness is the binary digit 0, and they both contain one bit of information – then isn’t neither one the simplest thing? Wouldn’t the simplest thing be zero bits, neither God nor nothingness?”

“That’s Atzmus and you’re not supposed to talk about it!”
}}

==Summary==
'''Transduality''' is the state of being wherein an entity exists independently of, and qualitatively beyond, various dual systems, ranging from very specific, limited sets of dual distinctions to duality itself on a conceptual level. If the 0 and 1 of binary systems can be considered a duality, a transdual character’s fundamental existence might be definable as being in-between the numbers of 0 and 1, being 0 and 1 at once, or also defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable through any numbers at all at the higher levels.

Transduality is not simply nonduality, but additionally requires something like [[Tiering_System_FAQ#Q:_What_is_qualitative_superiority?|qualitative superiority]] or immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question.

A duality refers to a logical duality for the purpose of this ability. That is to say, that the duality in question can be decribed as "A" and "not A" where A is some object or attribute. So, 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, which could equivalently be formulated as existence and nonexistence or existence and void.

As it stands, Type 1 corresponds to being beyond certain kinds of dual systems, but not all duality. Type 2 refers to characters whose existence is described as either being in both states of a duality at once or in neither state. Type 3 refers to characters whose existence belongs to alternate logical states which can't be described just by saying that they exist in both or neither state of a duality, but instead in a unique third state.

==Types==
*'''Type 1 (Specific Transduality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding one specific dual system and qualitatively superior or immune to effects caused within it.

*'''Type 2 (General Transduality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding all dual systems within the scope of an entire level of reality and qualitatively superior or immune to the effects caused within it. Furthermore, characters with this type can be accurately described as being in either both or neither state of the dualities.

*'''Type 3 (Plurality):''' Characters that exist in a nondual state regarding all dual systems within the scope of an entire level of reality and qualitatively superior or immune to the effects caused within it. Furthermore, these characters exist beyond the classical states of contradiction-allowing logic on some level of existence. That is to say, for any statement A about them they are in a state that can't be described as A is true, A is false, A is simultanously true and false or A is neither true nor false. And so they must obey a many-valued logic with at least 5 truth states, and not be in any of the 4 combinations of true and false mentioned earlier.

==Notable Users==
*[[God (Seekers into the Mystery)|God]] from Seekers into the Mystery

*[[Yog-Sothoth (Cthulhu Mythos)|Yog-Sothoth]] from the [[Cthulhu Mythos]]

*[[The Presence]] and [[Elaine Belloc]] from [[DC Comics|DC Comics/Vertigo]]

*[[Gan]] from [[The Dark Tower]]

*The Unbound [[Aka|Et’]][[Lorkhan|Ada]] and the Amaranth from [[The Elder Scrolls]]

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah.

(Also, when posting quotes that cover multiple lines, you need to type "<poem>" after "{{Quote|" and "</poem>" before "}}" for it to italicize the entire quote properly)

 

[DontTalkDT]

(or you leave a blank line at the start so that it's not italicized, depending on what you prefer)

 

[Dereck03]

Bump. Should we call more staff and knowledgeable members to see what opinions they have about your draft and see if it can be accepted?

 

[Agnaa]

As a minor wording thing, I'd change "...being 0 and 1 at once, or also defined as being a “2”, or as not being describable..." to "...being 0 and 1 at once, being defined as a “2”, or as not being describable..."

With a list, I think it's better to only have "or" before the last item.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much to everybody who are helping out here.

If DontTalk and Agnaa have reached an agreement, is it fine to apply DontTalk's draft now?