Tier 0 Question (My Ediition)

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

So, question, I was looking into essentially what a Tier 0 is. One of the implications of being a Tier 0 is that it transcends/is beyond all opposites/distinctions, as well as any/all frameworks that create distinctions/opposites. But, to my understanding, wouldn't such a being inherently not be bound by logic in the way we understand it , and be capable of doing the logically impossible, since dualities/opposites such as 'can/cannot' do not limit the being in question ? I understand logic is the cornerstone of how we understand things, and I'm not undermining it, it just doesn't make sense to me that we're restricting a being to logic that it inherently would utterly transcend. If this is actually the case and I overlooked something critical do let me know. Thank you for your time.

 

[Berga14]

opposites/distinctions, as well as any/all frameworks that create distinctions/opposites.

A Tier 0 is above everything so this as well.

But, to my understanding, wouldn't such a being inherently not be bound by logic in the way we understand it , and be capable of doing the logically impossible, since dualities/opposites such as 'can/cannot' do not limit the being in question ?

Yep

I understand logic is the cornerstone of how we understand things, and I'm not undermining it, it just doesn't make sense to me that we're restricting a being to logic that it inherently would utterly transcend.

Well... tier 0 is still fiction

 

[Ultima_Reality]

In principle the sufficient condition for Tier 0 is transcending all possible contraries, not all contradictories, so it doesn't necessarily involve logical contradiction. It can if the verse wants it to, though, of course.

Granted, you can say the concept of Tier 0 can very easily lead to it transcending logic in a sense either way. If a verse has the laws of thought as three actual really distinct essences subsisting somewhere, as Forms or something of the like, it'd necessarily transcend them, of course.

 

[VeryGoofyToddler2]

In principle the sufficient condition for Tier 0 is transcending all possible contraries, not all contradictories, so it doesn't necessarily involve logical contradiction. It can if the verse wants it to, though, of course.

Granted, you can say the concept of Tier 0 can very easily lead to it transcending logic in a sense either way. If a verse has the laws of thought as three actual really distinct essences subsisting somewhere, as Forms or something of the like, it'd necessarily transcend them, of course.

A simple yes or no would suffice. Kidding, yeah, assuming High 1-A+ embodies those logical mature to which a 0 transcends.

 

[Lordhesperus]

If an omnipotent being truly transcends or is beyond all logic, it raises questions about the nature of omnipotence: Can we meaningfully discuss an omnipotent being if we cannot apply logic to understand its actions or essence?.

Logic, in my opinion, is more an expression of the eternal nature and thought of God.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

In principle the sufficient condition for Tier 0 is transcending all possible contraries, not all contradictories, so it doesn't necessarily involve logical contradiction. It can if the verse wants it to, though, of course.

Granted, you can say the concept of Tier 0 can very easily lead to it transcending logic in a sense either way. If a verse has the laws of thought as three actual really distinct essences subsisting somewhere, as Forms or something of the like, it'd necessarily transcend them, of course.

Hm. So I guess it just depends on the verse to see if they have their Tier 0 transcend logic or not.

If an omnipotent being truly transcends or is beyond all logic, it raises questions about the nature of omnipotence: Can we meaningfully discuss an omnipotent being if we cannot apply logic to understand its actions or essence?.

Logic, in my opinion, is more an expression of the eternal nature and thought of God.

I mean that's definitely a fair assumption to make, and for most traditional depictions of Omnipotence/God you are right, but it just depends on how the Omnipotent being in question is described. If they are truly described as being beyond all possible distinctions, then by nature trying to define them under logic would be utterly impossible.

 

[Lordhesperus]

have another question regarding negative theology, if Tier 0/omnipotent character transcends every category, then how would it be categorized as Tier 0, isn't that paradoxical?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

So, question, I was looking into essentially what a Tier 0 is. One of the implications of being a Tier 0 is that it transcends/is beyond all opposites/distinctions, as well as any/all frameworks that create distinctions/opposites. But, to my understanding, wouldn't such a being inherently not be bound by logic in the way we understand it , and be capable of doing the logically impossible, since dualities/opposites such as 'can/cannot' do not limit the being in question ? I understand logic is the cornerstone of how we understand things, and I'm not undermining it, it just doesn't make sense to me that we're restricting a being to logic that it inherently would utterly transcend. If this is actually the case and I overlooked something critical do let me know. Thank you for your time.

IogicaI omnipotence, or Layman's omnipotence, is more so the abiIity to reaIize any IogicaI possibiIity, which is High 1-A+, but it does not necessitate the existence of a being above Iogic.

A tier 0, however, is indeed transcendent of Iogic insofar as it itseIf dicates what Iogic is; It is the ground of Iogic.

However, different phiIosophicaI perspectives have different views on IogicaI impossibiIities, with one of the common thought being that they are but a mere bundIe of nonsensicaI words that are nothing at aII in actuaIity or potentiaIity. Thus, a tier 0 not being abIe to reaIize IogicaI impossibiIties is not considered an anti-feat.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

have another question regarding negative theology, if Tier 0/omnipotent character transcends every category, then how would it be categorized as Tier 0, isn't that paradoxical?

Negative theoIogy is not necessariIy tier 0 unIess you take it to the extreme-most form, however, even in negative theoIogy, the Divine is described, just, in terms of what it is not.

We can stiII, however, describe a tier 0 based on terms that we know are the intrinsic nature of a tier 0 without understanding or comprehending them, simiIar to how we do not and cannot comprehend the 4th or the 5th dimension with our minds but we can describe what they are Iike, except in this case, the incomprehensibility is on a massiveIy higher scaIe.

Take it as this, many phiIosophies take the Divine as the indescribabIe, but note, indescribabIe, even that is, in a sense, a term, a category, but it is a category that whiIe we know what it is, we cannot comprehend it or perceive it

 

[Lordhesperus]

Negative theoIogy is not necessariIy tier 0 unIess you take it to the extreme-most form, however, even in negative theoIogy, the Divine is described, just, in terms of what it is not.

We can stiII, however, describe a tier 0 based on terms that we know are the intrinsic nature of a tier 0 without understanding or comprehending them, simiIar to how we do not and cannot comprehend the 4th or the 5th dimension with our minds but we can describe what they are Iike, except in this case, the incomprehensibility is on a massiveIy higher scaIe.

Take it as this, many phiIosophies take the Divine as the indescribabIe, but note, indescribabIe, even that is, in a sense, a term, a category, but it is a category that whiIe we know what it is, we cannot comprehend it or perceive it

In the context of negative theology, how can we reconcile the idea that the Divine is described in terms of what it is not, with the notion that we can still conceptualize a tier 0' based on its intrinsic nature, even if we cannot fully comprehend it?

Furthermore, how does the concept of the indescribable fit into this framework, given that it is itself a term that implies a category we recognize but cannot fully perceive?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

have another question regarding negative theology, if Tier 0/omnipotent character transcends every category, then how would it be categorized as Tier 0, isn't that paradoxical?

Depends on how radical the apophaticism in question is. It ranges from "We can form a concept of God through negations and removal of attributes, but this falls infinitely short of God as he is in-and-of-himself" to "We can form no concept of God whatsoever, even through negations." Tier 0 in principle has its basis in the former and cosmologies affirming the latter are included as just functionally equivalent.

 

[Lordhesperus]

Depends on how radical the apophaticism in question is. It ranges from "We can form a concept of God through negations and removal of attributes, but this falls infinitely short of God as he is in-and-of-himself" to "We can form no concept of God whatsoever, even through negations." Tier 0 in principle has its basis in the former and cosmologies affirming the latter are included as just functionally equivalent.

I wonder if there is a God who is apophatic, but also can be an absolutely omnipotent being? that is, that God can do anything that is logically possible... but even anything that is illogical or paradoxical?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

In the context of negative theology, how can we reconcile the idea that the Divine is described in terms of what it is not, with the notion that we can still conceptualize a tier 0' based on its intrinsic nature, even if we cannot fully comprehend it? Furthermore, how does the concept of the indescribable fit into this framework, given that it is itself a term that implies a category we recognize but cannot fully perceive?

Its the same as how a truIy omnipotent being shouId, by the very definition of omnipotence, be beyond our Iogic and definition, quite contradictory; yes, but do we not use the term omnipotent to describe it?

Its basicaIIy Iike an intrinsic nature of humanity, imo, to describe the unknown and unknowabIe in terms of things that humans themseIves define but cannot comprehend. As far as I understand, when it comes to a tier 0, each one of its quaIities is identical to one another, and each one is thus incomprehensibIe to us. Its Iike how one does not need to be abIe to perceive something to be abIe to theorize its existence. We do not need to be abIe to perceive the 4th dimension to know what it is.

I wonder if there is a God who is apophatic, but also can be an absolutely omnipotent being? that is, that God can do anything that is logically possible... but even anything that is illogical or paradoxical?

That wouId simpIy be tier 0 as weII, assuming by absoIuteIy omnipotent you mean the tier 0 sense of it, and not the Iayman omnipotence type.

Since a tier 0 is the ground of Iogic, it dictates what is IogicaI, whether potentiaI or actuaI, and what is iIIogicaI. So things that may be iIIogicaI from our perspective may not be so for a tier 0 since it decides what IogicaI is.

 

[Lordhesperus]

Its the same as how a truIy omnipotent being shouId, by the very definition of omnipotence, be beyond our Iogic and definition, quite contradictory; yes, but do we not use the term omnipotent to describe it?

Its basicaIIy Iike an intrinsic nature of humanity, imo, to describe the unknown and unknowabIe in terms of things that humans themseIves define but cannot comprehend. As far as I understand, when it comes to a tier 0, each one of its quaIities is identical to one another, and each one is thus incomprehensibIe to us. Its Iike how one does not need to be abIe to perceive something to be abIe to theorize its existence. We do not need to be abIe to perceive the 4th dimension to know what it is.

That wouId simpIy be tier 0 as weII, assuming by absoIuteIy omnipotent you mean the tier 0 sense of it, and not the Iayman omnipotence type.

Since a tier 0 is the ground of Iogic, it dictates what is IogicaI, whether potentiaI or actuaI, and what is iIIogicaI. So things that may be iIIogicaI from our perspective may not be so for a tier 0 since it decides what IogicaI is.

will you explain to me what it means that tier 0 is the ground of logic?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

will you explain to me what it means that tier 0 is the ground of logic?

Basically, for the sake of pure example, take the set of all logical possibilities as an enclosed circle in an infinite plane, said plane is the ground of logic.
I think a graphical example like that using a diagram was given in the tier 0 thread, if recall correctly.

Since logical impossibilities are not something at all, insomuch as that they are just nothing, nothingness in the truest sense, they hold no potential or actual mass. Note that I'm using the term mass to make the example easy to understand, but its more so just a metaphor.
So if you add nothing to that circle, it does not change or add up anything in truth. Its the same as adding an empty set to, say, any other non-empty set. The empty-set adds up nothing at all to the non-empty set and the non-empty set before addition is equal to the non-empty set after addition in all aspects.

So, under that notion, we equate the set of all logical possibilities to the set of all logical possibilities and impossibilities. Its basically how 1 + 0 is still equal to 1, and 1 is the equal to 1+0+0+0+0+0....+0.

Now, logical impossibilities are just nothing, so its not something that can just be done or realized. They do not exist in potentiality/unrealized form, nor do they do so in actuality/realized form. So if the tier 0 is being able to realize logical impossibilities into something, that contradicts the whole point of it being nothing. Which leads us to the conclusion that they are not impossibilities in the literal sense, as the tier 0 has given them arbitrary values instead. Its basically how the number 0 in the old era was not used to indicate nothing but rather tens of something. But in the later centuries, someone gave it another meaning, after which it was used to indicate nothing when preceded by nothing in a set of digits.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Depends on how radical the apophaticism in question is. It ranges from "We can form a concept of God through negations and removal of attributes, but this falls infinitely short of God as he is in-and-of-himself" to "We can form no concept of God whatsoever, even through negations." Tier 0 in principle has its basis in the former and cosmologies affirming the latter are included as just functionally equivalent.

Pretty horrendous Bump.

But isn't the latter half at that point not normal Apophatic Theology but something much more nuts as the whole point of Apophatic Theology that you can only conceptualize God through negations as doing it through positive attributes doesn't provide the full understanding ?

 

[Lordhesperus]

Pretty horrendous Bump.

But isn't the latter half at that point not normal Apophatic Theology but something much more nuts as the whole point of Apophatic Theology that you can only conceptualize God through negations as doing it through positive attributes doesn't provide the full understanding ?

If we start to attribute positive attributes to God, do we risk anthropomorphizing the nature of God?

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

If we start to attribute positive attributes to God, do we risk anthropomorphizing the nature of God?

That.... depends on the conceptualization of God you're looking at. Negative Theology and what the heck Ultima just said ? Yes, most definitely, since the whole point is that no concept of God comes close to the real God, basically the Unnameable Tao (e.g: An Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao) on a much broader scale. Any other interpretation ? Depends on the concept of God.

 

[Lordhesperus]

That.... depends on the conceptualization of God you're looking at. Negative Theology and what the heck Ultima just said ? Yes, most definitely, since the whole point is that no concept of God comes close to the real God, basically the Unnameable Tao (e.g: An Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao) on a much broader scale. Any other interpretation ? Depends on the concept of God.

Do you think, any concept of God, whether bound by the law of logic or not, can be considered as unknown to human reason.?

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Do you think, any concept of God, whether bound by the law of logic or not, can be considered as unknown to human reason.?

That actually is a really good question. My own concept of The Divine and Omnipotence is something really similar to that "Any attempt to form any concept [The Divine/Omnipotence] only refers to an unfathomably diluted version of it"

Personally I'd say yes, but ignoring the fact it's my personal viewpoint, It'd depend on your own personal interpretation/concept of God.