-
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.
The remains of the Tiering Revision, part 3
- Thread starter KingPin0422
- Start date
- Status
- 165,375
- 72,675
- 19,746
- 16,129
In theory it works but I would suggest writing down in a less abstract and easier to understand fashion. I don't think we should ask every user to understand the nature of a theological concept whenever a power crops up.
- 15,736
- 7,732
In theory, it works. If the wordings can be improved, as Qawsedf234 said, it would be better.
- 14,940
- 12,498
What parts do you think are hard to understand in that sense? To me, while it uses some technical terms, it immediately defines them in simple ways that make it work for me.
(And as an aside, it's not really a theological concept, just philosophy/logic)
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #486
Quick question: does anyone think it might help to divide "is both A and not A" from "is neither A nor not A" for the purposes of Transduality classification? While they are kinda similar in principle, I feel like they'd have different applications in a combat scenario, and we also already distinguish "neither existence nor nonexistence" from "both existence and nonexistence," type-wise, for Nonexistent Physiology, so I think this would be consistent with that.
I can also write up a draft page if anyone wants to see what all I'm thinking of, though it will have to be done tomorrow.
I can also write up a draft page if anyone wants to see what all I'm thinking of, though it will have to be done tomorrow.
- 3,501
- 1,957
Sorry man, can you explain it more clear??? I dont understand what you mean
- 14,940
- 12,498
That feels like getting too much into the minutiae. I think that sort of thing is more relevant for NEP (for nonexistence, lacking truth and falsity seems more relevant than simply having both truth and falsity) than it is for Transduality.
- 19,746
- 16,129
I just believe that back to back fashion of "Is and is not A" can be read as confusing.
Could just be a me thing, but it'd try too find a way to simplify it.
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #490
Basically, for any statement A said about the character, should A being both true and false (a "glut") be classified separately from A being neither true nor false (a "gap")?
Can you explain why you think it's more relevant for NEP than Transduality? Don't they often intersect, anyway?
I'm not sure what's confusing about it. I think it's pretty straightforward:
- Normally, statements are strictly either true or false. This is known as the principle of bivalence, which subsumes two of the standard laws of thought: the LNC (law of non-contradiction: a statement cannot be both true and false) and the LEM (law of excluded middle: a statement must be either true or false).
- A "glut" is a statement that is both true and false, which violates the LNC; while a "gap" is a statement that is neither true nor false, which violates the LEM. Either way, the principle of bivalence fails.
- From there, you might have a state of being which doesn't fit any of these categories, instead belonging to a fifth category, or a sixth one, etc.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
I'll sum it up to make it easy for others to understand what you're saying
The NEP page lists type 3 as Paradoxical Nonexistence , while type 2 is Transdual Nonexistence . But Paradoxical Nonexistence is also a kind of Transduality. Look no further than entities who encompasses both the 1 and 0 of Existence And Nonexistence and all Reality in a state of Pure Wholeness.
- 3,501
- 1,957
I think it should, a statement "both" and "neither" have different meaning
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #493
Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.
- 14,940
- 12,498
Can you explain why you think it's more relevant for NEP than Transduality? Don't they often intersect, anyway?
NEP is about nonexistence, while transduality is about transcendence. So it seems more relevant for NEP if your relation to the binary of existence/nonexistence is a gap. Your state of existence/nonexistence is nonexistent. Since transduality doesn't place a specific preference on truth/falsehood, existence/nonexistence, and just cares about transcending dualities in some way, I think the distinction between gap and glut is less relevant.
NEP is about nonexistence, while transduality is about transcendence. So it seems more relevant for NEP if your relation to the binary of existence/nonexistence is a gap. Your state of existence/nonexistence is nonexistent. Since transduality doesn't place a specific preference on truth/falsehood, existence/nonexistence, and just cares about transcending dualities in some way, I think the distinction between gap and glut is less relevant.
- 165,375
- 72,675
Okay. No problem. Thank you for helping out.Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.
- 165,375
- 72,675
@KingPin0422Update: it's late here, I will be going out with some work buddies tomorrow, and I will most likely just want to relax on my off day after that, so please wait a few more days for my draft page.
Do you have any updates yet?
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #497
Shoot... I forgot about this. I'll see if I can't whip up something real quick.
- 5,488
- 12,591
Bumping this to bring up something important: What is our consensus on Type 1 Transduality, exactly? If I recall correctly, we mostly agreed to remove it by virtue of no characters currently qualifying for it, but I was informed afterwards that, apparently, we have a few with the ability indexed at the moment (From BlazBlue, apparently) so that might be something to take into consideration.
For the matter, I'm planning to add the ability to a few characters in a future revision, as well (7 of them, to be exact), so, that's another thing.
For the matter, I'm planning to add the ability to a few characters in a future revision, as well (7 of them, to be exact), so, that's another thing.
- 165,375
- 72,675
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #501
I actually agree, and I was going to account for that in my draft.
- 19,746
- 16,129
If like, four people scale to it, it may be better to just make it some other set of powers.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 9,253
- 12,314
I agree with Agnaa about keeping Transdual type 1
- 165,375
- 72,675
- 10,512
- 11,605
This one?
Yeah, I'm fine with it. If any character has it, it should stay. The only reason people wanted to delete it was because it apparently was unused.
- 165,375
- 72,675
Thank you for helping out. That seems like the solution that we should go with then.
So does the Transduality page need to be (partially?) changed back to a previous state, or have these changes not been applied yet?
So does the Transduality page need to be (partially?) changed back to a previous state, or have these changes not been applied yet?
- 10,512
- 11,605
No changes were applied yet.
- 10,910
- 18,986
I think the only thing left to do is to apply the changes to the Transduality page in case of no further discussion is necessary
- 10,910
- 18,986
Until recently I came to follow this thread, but if I am not wrong, it was only to merge type 2 and 3, a new draft for type 4. Here's the draft which is accepted, although KingPing had been asked if he could make it simpler but has not yet responded. 1-A requeriments would be removed as well for Transduality. The only thing that changes taking into account the recent reconsideration is that Type 1 will not be deleted. I think that's all, although it would be better to call those who have been arguing for a long time to see if this change can be applied.
- 1,280
- 1,122
- Thread starter
- #516
Well, since I lost interest in doing my draft (although I can try to pick it back up again later), I can only suggest that Transduality should be renamed to Nonduality. Even setting aside the age-old argument of "nondual" being the proper term in philosophy and theology, it seems that we are basing the power on dialethic and many-valued logic, in which case we should no longer need to specify transcendence - as long as they partake in both sides at once, neither side, or a completely different side altogether, then they should just be nondual regarding some or all dual distinctions. No need to require a higher level of ontology.
Also, while I appreciate the effort to give more rigorous examples of Transduality/Nonduality, I think we're better off sticking with the classic 0/1 example, for simplicity's sake. Just a minor thing, I won't protest if it gets rejected, but even truth values are generalized as falsehood being 0 and truth being 1 (Boolean stuff is a good example of this), so I'd say it has a sound logical basis at least.
Also, while I appreciate the effort to give more rigorous examples of Transduality/Nonduality, I think we're better off sticking with the classic 0/1 example, for simplicity's sake. Just a minor thing, I won't protest if it gets rejected, but even truth values are generalized as falsehood being 0 and truth being 1 (Boolean stuff is a good example of this), so I'd say it has a sound logical basis at least.
- 165,375
- 72,675
I am personally fine with if we rename the page in question.
Keeping the descriptions relatively straightforward/easy to comprehend seems like a good idea to me at least.
What do the rest of you think?
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
Yeah, I don't know what happened and the wiki decided to use "Trans-"
I was left scratching my head when I Google it and only info I could find on "Transduality" were from battleboarding sites
Nonduality, is what it should've been.
Using "Trans" give the impression it's a tiering system sort of transcendence.
I was left scratching my head when I Google it and only info I could find on "Transduality" were from battleboarding sites
Nonduality, is what it should've been.
Using "Trans" give the impression it's a tiering system sort of transcendence.
- 165,375
- 72,675
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12
Are you fine with if we rename the "Transduality" page to "Nonduality" instead?
Are you fine with if we rename the "Transduality" page to "Nonduality" instead?
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 8,930
- 5,851
I caanot say I agree with the renaming of the page, simply because the word "Trans" in this context means to exist beyond or above, while "Nondual" = "Not-two" means you don't participate in it but you are not above it.
All the current types of Transduality has them say "Characters that are beyond xoxoxoxo" Type 1 - type 5, while they are different but all of them really mean trans"a certain dual system or multiple", while "Non" does not mean beyond just "Not"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked