Transduality Revisions.

[Ultima_Reality]

The first 3 types are easy to understand and if we word them a bit more beginner friendly then i am totally for them, but i dont really grasp the last type. Is it possible to nutshell it a bit easier?

A Type 4 Transdual would basically be a being who operates in different systems of Logic altogether which differ completely from the Classical one (Which abides by the Law of Noncontradiction, and the Principle of Bivalence, which states that all propositions can be categorized as "True" or "False"), they would instead abide by Many-Valued Logic, which rejects the principle of Bivalence and runs on the idea that a proposition can be grouped under a larger group of conclusions than just True / False.

Say, under Many-Valued Logics, the proposition "Apples are Red" could be grouped under a basic "True (1) / False (0)" dichotomy, but also under alternate values like "Both / Neither", or under something else entirely.

 

[First_Witch]

Ohh, i get it now. Thanks for the explanation. That does sound like a really specific type though, is there even a profile that fulfill the condition for it?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I believe some (not all) Tier 0s like Azzy or the Creator would have it, and maybe a few 1-As given the right conditions, but that would be far rarer.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalk -snip-

Being outside of a framework Ôëá being superior to said framework.

This is like existing outside dimensional space, even if by nature, would alone not make you 1-A.

You have to be superior to all dimensional space for that.


Transduality doesn't by default give you any form superiority over dual things. There is nothing that would suggest a transdual entity to, by default, be able to even destroy a universe.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Yeah I am agreein with Ultima here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

The description of Type 3 Transduality already specifies superiority over the concept of Duality, So I honestly don't know why you are saying this.

Besides, this seems to be just how you personally define Nondualism, as opposed to how real world philosophical schools of thought define it. Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism define Nonduality as pure, timeless and indivisible oneness devoid of any illusory distinction or separation, and I particularly would prefer to draw more from their definitions, since they originated the Concept in the first place (As far as I am aware anyways, you are free to correct me)

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

No offense DontTalk but you case off as incredibly pretensious in how you're puting your definition of the concept above those of real world philosophies.

 

[Udlmaster]

Yeah, this was why I asked now, instead of later, so we can get rid of the question of: "What do".

I believe Taoism has many theories of Duality, as much of it is derived from the Concept, however, it maybe more so Mind-Body Duality, rather than Binary systems - Duality.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Taoism definitely has Transduality in it, look no further than the concept of Taiji, which is the primordial limitless and undifferentiated potential, and the Oneness prior to Duality, from which Ying-Yang originate

 

[Udlmaster]

Do you think it would be best if we were to have a Note X: Section to explain (In a more indepth way) what these mean and do?

Since people will be arguing over what all these do and It'll take a while before we get an explaination, like with the Type 5 Acausality fiasco.

 

[Antvasima]

No offense DontTalk but you case off as incredibly pretensious in how you're puting your definition of the concept above those of real world philosophies.

Don't be rude please. DontTalkDT has been of massive help for the development of our wiki.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

DT has surely been helpful and is one of the smartest members here but he isn't completely exempt from all criticism, Matt hasn't really been all that rude, at least not to the extent you need to call him out on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I just don't want this discussion to derail into an unrelated argument.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't think he sounded rude, he even said "No offense." Anyway, I do agree that we should stay on topic. Anyway, I do think Ultima makes sense.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. My apologies then.

 

[Antvasima]

For the record, I also think that Ultima seems to make sense.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Less Scrolling

No offense DontTalk but you case off as incredibly pretensious in how you're puting your definition of the concept above those of real world philosophies.

I will just ignore the counterproductive part of that.
I do not have the habit of debating semantics. What I am concerned about is ambiguity and inferability, or in simpler words whether the text of the definition matches the intended meaning. Something that is of great importance, as it is the text the determines which abilities we infer from which showings.

I will extend on that in the following.


Bear with me while ramble on for a bit.
Did you know that in mathematics there is no organization or similar that determines what a term usually means? It is not unusual for two writers to use the same term to refer to two different things, or to use two different terms to refer to the same thing. I for example know several definitions of the term dimension and my prof. uses "normalizer" for a different thing than the book his lecture is based on.
This isn't something that bothers mathematicians, as the principle is that any term used has to be defined by the author in a unambiguous fashion and that any properties of the thing described by that definition has to be clearly reasoned using nothing but the defined definitions.


What is important to me is that a property you claim the object of your definition to have, is deducible just from the definition you use. That means if you want transduality to mean "pure, timeless and indivisible oneness devoid of any illusory distinction or separation" that is fine. However, either you have to write that explicitly in your definition or you have to proof that these properties are a consequence of only that which your definition entails.


My problem is that, in my opinion, the property "is 1-A" is neither a consequence of your transduality definition nor explicitly part of it.
That one of these two is clear is very important, as if not one of the two is the case we could end up making characters 1-A, without those characters actually having appropriate feats for the ranking.

The description of Type 3 Transduality already specifies superiority over the concept of Duality, So I honestly don't know why you are saying this.

Now here we have one ambiguity issue. As I think my prior comments have made clear I always understood the "transcendence" in "Transduality is defined as "transcendence in relation to duality"." as just meaning outside of a dualistic system. (Which is pretty much what the Transduality page explains it to be in the following sentences)
In other words Transduality was, in my understanding, "not duality". Any being that doesn't obey a logic with 2 truth values was, in my understanding, automatically transdual. I assume this is still the case for type 1&2 (correct me if I'm wrong), but seemingly not for type 3&4.


If you say that there can be a being the obeys multivalued logic yet isn't transdual (type 4), due to not having power over all dual things (being superior to them), then we had different basic definitions. In that case I would suggest clarifying the definitions in that point, as that would mean in order to be transdual, in that sense, a character has to showcase said degree of power, not just the ability to exist outside of dual systems.


To make a suggestions in that regards, while trying to simplify language and trying to avoid some things that sounds like NLF's (as usual just a draft):


Suggestions
Type 3 (True Binary Transduality): Being superior to, and outside of, all dual systems; meaning power over all dual things, including dimensions of any number, and an existence beyond what dual things can affect. Such a Nondual Entity would be not bound to just having or not having a property, regardless of the level of existence at which one examines the distinction. Such characters usually exist as living contradictions within their own setting, and abide to Dialetheic or Trivialistic Systems of Logic, or are alternatively portrayed as residing upon a state of single, indivisible wholeness devoid of any separation.

Type 4: A state of True Binary Transduality wherein even the difference between being within or outside the scope of binary distinctions does not apply to the character. Such characters do not need to obey the laws of any binary logic at any level and will typically obey alternate systems of logic altogether, up to and including those states which are beyond human comprehension. A basic example of this would be characters who operate under Many-Valued logic, where multiple conclusions can be made other than the basic true/false/both/neither dichotomies (True/False/3rd Value, for instance), provided said logic grants the the necessary superiority to all dual things.

I hope I retained the meaning of the definitions, while making the requirement of 1-A nature for the rankings clear and specifying that not every character obeying many-valued logic is automatically type 4.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I don't enjoy thse types, they are far too convoluted and bizarrely written for their own sake. Ultima's and Aeyu's are far more consise, comprehensible, and easy to digest.

I also think it's pretty absurd to claim you don't argue semantics, and immediatelly follow said statements with multiple paragraphs of arguing nothing but the semantics of a description, and changing it to make it far more complicated than it ever needs to be.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Now here we have one ambiguity issue. As I think my prior comments have made clear I always understood the "transcendence" in "Transduality is defined as "transcendence in relation to duality"." as just meaning outside of a dualistic system. (Which is pretty much what the Transduality page explains it to be in the following sentences)

It really isn't, the page itself defines Transdual entities as being metaphysical and abstract cosmic entities which exist in qualitative superiority to Dual Concepts by default (This description is erroneous in my opinion, in the sense it says all Transdual entities have to be above every dual system, but it nevertheless hammers my point home), what you were describing in previous posts (An existence which messes with Truth Values such as "Yes" / "No") doesn't seem to be Transduality going by the logical definition of the ability, but more like a specific ability that functions kind of similarly in principle but completely differently in application, I and Aeyu would rather define it as Logic Manipulation, as opposed to flat-out Nondualism.

In other words Transduality was, in my understanding, "not duality". Any being that doesn't obey a logic with 2 truth values was, in my understanding, automatically transdual. I assume this is still the case for type 1&2 (correct me if I'm wrong), but seemingly not for type 3&4.

I think what you are describing would be more along the lines of Type 1 Transduality, yes, but not necessarily Type 2, as that would be an entity above the binary nature of an entire reality, as opposed to only certain Dual Systems / Concepts (Such as Good / Evil, True / False, etc.). But then again, feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding your point.

Anyways, I propose another, more simplified description of the Types, in the case the previous one is deemed unclear or convoluted for beginning visitors:

Types
Type 1 (Systematic Transduality): Being outside the fundamental application of one or several dual systems.

Type 1 (False Binary Transduality): Being outside the fundamental application of all dual systems and concepts within the scope of an entire level of reality or being, regardless of dimensionality or adimensionality.

Type 3 (True Binary Transduality): A state of being or existence which exists outside the fundamental applications of binary logic or duality at any level, including the conceptual, as well as the dichotomies that arise as a result of possessing a state such as this. Such characters typically exist as contradictions within the context of their setting, and abide to dialetheic systems of logic, or are portrayed as existing within a state of single, indivisible wholeness bereft of any separation. As space and time themselves can be considered a duality, this type is reserved for 1-A characters and up.

Type 4 (Plurality): A state of being wherein even the difference between being within or without the scope of binary distinctions is irrelevant. Such characters do not obey the laws of normal logic at any level and will obey completely different systems of logic altogether, up to and including those states which are beyond human comprehension. A basic example of this is characters who operate under many-valued logic, where many different values can exist that are not true or false, 0/1/2, or any dichotomies in between. However, simply being able to use many-valued logic in a feat context does not qualify a character for this type, such characters must demonstrate true qualitative superiority to all types of dual distinctions. Only 1-A characters and up can have this type.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Again, I support Ultima's types far more.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I'm getting a feeling of deja-vu from the Void/Nonexistence revisions thread.

Both Ultima and DontTalk make good points; I'm still not sure which side has the better answer here.

 

[Udlmaster]

I think it might be good to call upon Sera EX and her Omniscience to see if she can untie this draw.

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies to DontTalkDT, but I also think that Ultima's version seems easier to apply in this case.

 

[Wokistan]

I can look at this tomorrow

Hey I did only say look at not that I'd comment

Anyways, I'm not really sure. I find myself agreeing more with Don'tTalk on the subject of the relation of this term to being 1-A, but Ultima's suggestions are easier to use. Transduality is a rather esoteric concept in itself with regards to stuff like vs debating though, so idk how worthwhile it is to try to simplify something that people aren't really gonna grasp either way while omitting a more thorough description.

 

[DontTalkDT]

It really isn't, the page itself defines Transdual entities as being metaphysical and abstract cosmic entities which exist in qualitative superiority to Dual Concepts by default

I meant the "If we consider reality as a binary code, where the state of being is 1, and the state of non-being is 0, then a trans-dualistic being does not fit into the code itself (it can be either a code that is different from 1 and 0, or simply the lack of 1 and 0), remaining outside the realm of duality."-part. That sounds to me like "outside" not "superior". But no use debating about a page that is going to be revised, either way

Anyways, I propose another, more simplified description of the Types, in the case the previous one is deemed unclear or convoluted for beginning visitors:


Types
Type 1 (Systematic Transduality): Being outside the fundamental application of one or several dual systems.

Type 1 (False Binary Transduality): Being outside the fundamental application of all dual systems and concepts within the scope of an entire level of reality or being, regardless of dimensionality or adimensionality.

Type 3 (True Binary Transduality): A state of being or existence which exists outside the fundamental applications of binary logic or duality at any level, including the conceptual, as well as the dichotomies that arise as a result of possessing a state such as this. Such characters typically exist as contradictions within the context of their setting, and abide to dialetheic systems of logic, or are portrayed as existing within a state of single, indivisible wholeness bereft of any separation. As space and time themselves can be considered a duality, this type is reserved for 1-A characters and up.

Type 4 (Plurality): A state of being wherein even the difference between being within or without the scope of binary distinctions is irrelevant. Such characters do not obey the laws of normal logic at any level and will obey completely different systems of logic altogether, up to and including those states which are beyond human comprehension. A basic example of this is characters who operate under many-valued logic, where many different values can exist that are not true or false, 0/1/2, or any dichotomies in between. However, simply being able to use many-valued logic in a feat context does not qualify a character for this type, such characters must demonstrate true qualitative superiority to all types of dual distinctions. Only 1-A characters and up can have this type.

I think your new description is much better than the prior and pretty much fixes the point I had problems with. However, I think it is unclear what "fundamental application of dual systems" is supposed to mean. Or at least I do not really understand what it is supposed to express.

 

[Udlmaster]

I do want to ask, are there any verses that have Transduality that aren't 1-A? (Besides WoD)

 

[DontTalkDT]

I do want to ask, are there any verses that have Transduality that aren't 1-A? (Besides WoD)

Aleister Crowley has transdualism (even though we only list it as "Multilocation via non-dualism" due to the limited effects)

 

[Sera_EX]

When Ven made the page, he meant "non duality" rather than "transcending all dualities". He meant something like "trandscending yin and yang", which is the archetypal binary in our culture. The page was just outdated, stuff happened in between then and now, and we never got to revise it with a more appropriate definition untied to any theological system.

 

[Kaltias]

I'm not really knowledgeable enough about this stuff to side with someone, so i'll simply say that for types it's better to organize them based on "transduality does this in some works of fiction" rather than "transduality can theoretically do that" (this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just something that I feel should be taken into account)

 

[Udlmaster]

It looks like only High 1-C's have Transduality so far then.

That's a weird coincidence

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I do want to ask, are there any verses that have Transduality that aren't 1-A? (Besides WoD)

Aleister Crowley has transdualism (even though we only list it as "Multilocation via non-dualism" due to the limited effects)

Then that's not transdualism.

 

[Wokistan]

I'm not really knowledgeable enough about this stuff to side with someone, so i'll simply say that for types it's better to organize them based on "transduality does this in some works of fiction" rather than "transduality can theoretically do that" (this isn't directed at anyone in particular, just something that I feel should be taken into account)

Yeah, I agree with this. Similar to stuff like types 4 and 5 of acausality, what it's actually shown to mean should be more important than the definition. We do take what's presented as above stuff like WoG and author intent, so we should do the same here.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Then that's not transdualism.

"The woman named Anna Sprengel was said to have carried out the role of the Secret Chief and of a point of contact and to have helped in the foundation of the Golden cabal, but in the end, it was said to be dubious whether she even truly existed. ...I too functioned as the point of contact for Aiwass who is one of the theories of the Secret Chief. To be honest, I do not think that is the exaggerated and much too serious role in charge of things like giving permission for the foundation of all the magic cabals in the world. In fact, I do not think there is any need to get permission for such a thing. But, well, I am the same type of existence as Anna was said to be. As such, it should not be too surprising to think that I have surpassed the realm of only being expressible as 0 or 1."

It is just some type 1 of very limited scale, but it is pretty directly said, that he is not purely expressible via binary values. Due to Aleister being in that kind of strange superposition, he is also described as "adult, yet also a child; like a man, yet also a woman; like a saint, yet also a criminal" and similar paradoxical things. I am not saying this ability is useful for him, but it is this ability.

 

[Antvasima]

So has it been agreed to mostly use Ultima's new descriptions?

 

[Antvasima]

Again, have we agreed that Ultima's new suggestion should be applied?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I think so, yes.

 

[Udlmaster]

Like I've explained in the Type of Transduality in WoD thread (Before it got derailed so hard it went off a cliff), type 3 shouldn't have to be locked to 1-A, as there are instances of characters transcendent over the concept of Duality (And transduality).

Otherwise, it was total agreement.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Type 3 Transduality is reserved to 1-A and above by nature, since it is conceptual superiority over all Dual Concepts in all possible levels, including Time and Space.

 

[Udlmaster]

T╠Âh╠Âe╠ ╠ÂC╠Âo╠Ân╠Âc╠Âe╠Âp╠Ât╠ ╠Âo╠Âf╠ ╠Âe╠Âx╠Âi╠Âs╠Ât╠Âe╠Ân╠Âc╠Âe╠ ╠Âm╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Âo╠Âr╠ ╠Âm╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Ân╠Âo╠Ât╠ ╠Âs╠Ât╠Âa╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠Âa╠Âb╠Âo╠Âv╠Âe╠ ╠Ât╠Âh╠Âe╠ ╠Âc╠Âo╠Ân╠Âc╠Âe╠Âp╠Ât╠ ╠Âo╠Âf╠ ╠ÂT╠Âi╠Âm╠Âe╠Â,╠ ╠ÂS╠Âp╠Âa╠Âc╠Âe╠Â,╠ ╠ÂS╠Âp╠Âa╠Âc╠Âe╠Â-╠ÂT╠Âi╠Âm╠Âe╠ ╠Âa╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠ÂD╠Âi╠Âm╠Âe╠Ân╠Âs╠Âi╠Âo╠Ân╠Âs╠Â,╠ ╠Âa╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Âo╠Âf╠ ╠Âw╠Âh╠Âi╠Âc╠Âh╠ ╠Âa╠Âr╠Âe╠ ╠ÂP╠Âl╠Âa╠Ât╠Âo╠Ân╠Âi╠Âc╠Â,╠ ╠Ât╠Âo╠ ╠Âw╠Âh╠Âi╠Âc╠Âh╠ ╠ÂU╠Ân╠Âi╠Ât╠Ây╠ ╠Âi╠Âs╠ ╠Âu╠Ân╠Âb╠Âo╠Âu╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠Âb╠Ây╠ ╠ÂE╠Âx╠Âi╠Âs╠Ât╠Âe╠Ân╠Âc╠Âe╠ ╠Âa╠Ân╠Âd╠ ╠ÂN╠Âo╠Ân╠Â-╠ÂE╠Âx╠Âi╠Âs╠Ât╠Âe╠Ân╠Âc╠Âe╠Â

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima Reality

Are you willing to apply the new definitions?

@DontTalkDT

Is there something that you wish to adjust?