• 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.

Transduality Should be Nonduality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zexer1 said:
We are talking about two of the same dualities being stronger or weaker than each other not just anything, I asked for a practical example of...how is duality of life & death > duality of life & death, in what degree are we measuring this, range & dimensionality? Then that would simply imply that the "qualitative superiority" in TD is meant for being higher dimensional than the duality in question...and
Click to expand...
Bruh why a duality cannot be superior to other duality???
We have a term "higher degree" is for something like this. If the verse is prove if a duality A is stronger than duality B then it is stronger
The question is why if there are proof like that and we still consider them in same level?
Zexer1 said:
I think you did not understand my point
I'll give an example
There's this 5D being (suppose he lacks every duality but isn't shown or stated to be qualitatively superior to them in any ways which would make him not qualify for TD); he is qualitatively superior to any 4D conceptualization (because of being higher dimensional than it) which would make him qualitatively superior to every duality too thus making him qualified for TD.

The point is the use and mention of "qualitative superiority" in the TD section is nonsensical and irrelevant because of the reasons being discussed currently and mentioned in the OP
Click to expand...
I think you the one that not understand my point
Qualitative superior is not just for higher dimensional. There are different for qualitative superiority of existence/size and abstraction

Who teach you 5D is qualitative superior to any conceptualization of 4D???
5D not qualitative superior to duality in 4D by default. 5D by default just transcend the physical structure of 4D, not it abstraction or anything in that

This like say NEP or AE character can be interact by higher dimension without any proof of interaction just because there are higher dimension because transcend over anything in lower dimension
 
Last edited:
Georredannea15 said:
Transduality must already have the properties of "non-duality" because Transduality already contains "non-duality" within itself. But, this does not mean that a simple "non-duality" will suffice for Transduality.

"non-duality" does not provide everything that Transduality provides, Transduality provides every feature that "non-duality" has. There is a difference between them.

And for non-duality to be Transduality, you need a transcendence.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on this ideas of transcendental non-duality? what really is the feature transduality has which non-duality is lacking...qualitative superiority? That's one of the point of this thread, qualitative superiority here is nonsensical & irrelevant and it should be removed; with transduality getting changed into non-duality.
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
which is literally what this is trying to fix
Click to expand...
My point is that some characters are suitable for Transduality simply because they are "non-duality".

The point I agree with is that Transduality is a very ridiculously acceptable hax That's why Like Acausality Type 5, Transduality should be examined very carefully and its standard should be made more difficult.
 
Zexer1 said:
Can you elaborate on this ideas of transcendental non-duality? what really is the feature transduality has which non-duality is lacking...qualitative superiority? That's one of the point of this thread, qualitative superiority here is nonsensical & irrelevant and it should be removed; with transduality getting changed into non-duality.
Click to expand...
Being a "non-duality" within yourself is not enough for Transduality, this is because every duality is essentially a "non-duality". Transduality is being transcendent and independent of the effects of this duality and non-duality. The only confusing thing is that it says "qualitative transcendence". So it causes a misunderstanding.

Actually, it would be nice for me to accept this issue and remove the "transcendence" state. But removing the "transcendent" status would be illogical and I'm sure most of the characters on the wiki will have Transduality.

Obviously, Transduality won't have much meaning and old power, or characters with Transduality won't have anything special.
 
Last edited:
Fixxed said:
Bruh why a duality cannot be superior to other duality???
We have a term "higher degree" is for something like this. If the verse is prove if a duality A is stronger than duality B then it is stronger
The question is why if there are proof like that and we still consider them in same level?
Click to expand...
Yeah for not make you confuse, i talking about same duality in here. The "other duality" is just my word for describe duality of life and death (duality A) and other duality of life and death (duality B). Same duality but different because different in level
 
Georredannea15 said:
The only confusing thing is that it says "qualitative transcendence". So it causes a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
It already in right place in that page, but some people not understand the term of qualitative superior well enough. They thing qualitative superiority just for higher existence and higher tier
 
Fixxed said:
Bruh why a duality cannot be superior to other duality???
Click to expand...
I already asked you to confer substantiation for this claim
Fixxed said:
We have a term "higher degree" is for something like this.
Click to expand...
Higher degree in what...In what degree are we measuring this section?
Fixxed said:
the verse is prove if a duality A is stronger than duality B then it is stronger
The question is why if there are proof like that and we still consider them in same level?
Click to expand...
Can you link some of those "proofs"?
I want to see how a light & darkness is infinitely stronger/larger/qualitative than the other light & darkness

Fixxed said:
Who teach you 5D is qualitative superior to any conceptualization of 4D???
Click to expand...
Science and logic
I'm qualitatively superior in all aspect than a 2D stuff
 
Fixxed said:
It already in right place in that page, but some people not understand the term of qualitative superior well enough. They thing qualitative superiority just for higher existence and higher tier
Click to expand...
Yes, the meaning here is actually to be qualitatively transcendent "according to the concepts", that is, to be more simply transcendent.
 
Thunderian said:
immunity to attacks bound to the duality in question = Lack of Duality = Non-duality
Click to expand...
Uhhhh... No. The reason for this may be a "conceptual resistance" to effect and attacks from duality concepts. So simply a resistance to conceptual manipulation. You can't get this Transduality, it wouldn't even be non-duality LOL.

So you can't say "immunity to attacks from dualites = being lack of dualities or non-duality". It just could be conceptual manipulation resistance.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Being a "non-duality" within yourself is not enough for Transduality, this is because every duality is essentially a "non-duality". Transduality is being transcendent and independent of the effects of this duality and non-duality. The only confusing thing is that it says "qualitative transcendence". So it causes a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

I'll try to refute this through Indian philosophy; the origin of non-dualism

Philosophically these are what non-duality is defined as :
Advaya, the identity of conventional phenomena and ultimate reality, or the "nonduality of duality and nonduality"
Click to expand...
Advaita, nondual awareness, the nonduality of seer and seen or nondifference of subject and object;
In Advaita Vedanta, nonduality refers to nondual awareness, the nonduality of Atman and Brahman. In a more general sense, it refers to monism, "the interconnectedness of everything which is dependent upon the nondual One, Transcendent Reality"
Click to expand...

This is quite self-explanatory and if you understand then non-duality (actual philosophy) have all the qualities which transduality (made-up stuff) has and also showing that there is literally no need for the qualitative superiority shit

Therefore the qualitative superiority stuff should be removed and transduality get changed into non-duality
 
Georredannea15 said:
Uhhhh... No. The reason for this may be a "conceptual resistance" to effect and attacks from duality concepts. So simply a resistance to conceptual manipulation. You can't get this Transduality, it wouldn't even be non-duality LOL.

So you can't say "immunity to attacks from dualites = being lack of dualities or non-duality". It just could be conceptual manipulation resistance.
Click to expand...
How come when you're 'Lack of something' but only get resistance? Even though the resistance page states that it is immunity.
 
what the **** happened while i left to go get lunch

Anyways, the transduality page does explicitly confirm you need QS to qualify. Requiring proof of being unaffected by something seems odd, since it's a natural consequence of the power itself; Like requiring resistance to death hax being a requirement for type 5 immortality, when logically type 5 immortality is what grants that resistance. Also, I'd be fine with moving this to a staff thread, so long as the main people for or against the revision are allowed to continue commenting. I'll leave that up to general consensus, though.
 
Zexer1 said:
I already asked you to confer substantiation for this claim

Higher degree in what...In what degree are we measuring this section?

Can you link some of those "proofs"?
I want to see how a light & darkness is infinitely stronger/larger/qualitative than the other light & darkness
Click to expand...
Bruh i ask you if there are verse that consider duality A is being stronger than B. Can you put them in same level??
Higher degree in power. We measuring them in what they can do, if one character is resist a duality of light and dark A but then he not resist the duality of light and dark B then B is more powerfull tham A

Is i have to link that when it can be explain by logic?
Zexer1 said:
Science and logic
I'm qualitatively superior in all aspect than a 2D stuff
Click to expand...
Show me where science and logic say you superior to all aspect of 2D, when science it self just talking about the physical structure

Show me where science talking about the abstraction

And if we follow science entirely, then we must make soul, law, concept is tier 1A or even tier 0 by default
 
Transduality shouldn't have been a power to begin with, but if you can make it something that extends only to the feats of that without being a NLF-fest then ok ig.
 
Zexer1 said:
I'll try to refute this through Indian philosophy; the origin of non-dualism

Philosophically these are what non-duality is defined as :



This is quite self-explanatory and if you understand then non-duality (actual philosophy) have all the qualities which transduality (made-up stuff) has and also showing that there is literally no need for the qualitative superiority shit

Therefore the qualitative superiority stuff should be removed and transduality get changed into non-duality
Click to expand...
What I mean is that its duality is also a non-duality, and what you've thrown supports what I've said. Every being that contains duality also has a non-duality, but this does not mean that it is transcendent and independent from its duality and non-duality. If this standard changes, it will be a very misunderstood and wanking hax (worse than it is now).

In this case, Transduality revisions would be unlocked even in a simple Type 5 immortality state.

Instead of eliminating this transcendence, it would be better and healthier to make the standards of Transduality more difficult and eliminate the Transduality of characters who now only gain Transduality through non-duality and independence.

Just like Acausality Type 5...
 
Georredannea15 said:
What I mean is that its duality is also a non-duality, and what you've thrown supports what I've said. Every being that contains duality also has a non-duality, but this does not mean that it is transcendent and independent from its duality and non-duality. If this standard changes, it will be a very misunderstood and wanking hax (worse than it is now).

In this case, Transduality revisions would be unlocked even in a simple Type 5 immortality state.

Instead of eliminating this transcendence, it would be better and healthier to make the standards of Transduality more difficult and eliminate the Transduality of characters who now only gain Transduality through non-duality and independence.

Just like Acausality Type 5...
Click to expand...
??? How is "Duality a Non-Duality"? It's literally dualistic existence itself.
 
Man can you all stop bringing aca 5 in it? Transduality and non duality provides the samething despite transduality being ridiculous and demands unnecessary stuff for little to no reason while barely any Fiction describing such things. I don't know why ppl are describing what transduality is, when the OP is saying that transduality and non duality provides the samething. And yeah transduality and non duality are different, former is bs, later makes sense.
 
Fixxed said:
Bruh i ask you if there are verse that consider duality A is being stronger than B. Can you put them in same level??
Higher degree in power. We measuring them in what they can do, if one character is resist a duality of light and dark A but then he not resist the duality of light and dark B then B is more powerfull tham A

Is i have to link that when it can be explain by logic?
Click to expand...
1. My brother in christ no verse like that even exists unless you show proof for their existence; it's like saying "it is true and the source is mere, believe it"

"We measure them by power and what they can do" is literally totally nonsensical bruh they are dualities not Goku

2. The character doesn't even have light and darkness resistance if he can't resist light and darkness

You can even quote a part of the tiering system which mentions an exceptional case like this; but wait there exists none.

3. Yes, you do need to substantiate your argument by legitimate evidence or it won't be considered as a sound argument and thus also not logically correct.

Fixxed said:
Show me where science and logic say you superior to all aspect of 2D, when science it self just talking about the physical structure

Show me where science talking about the abstraction
Click to expand...
Suppose there exists a 2D world and the duality of life & death in there (take an animated film for eg), you or me or any 3D being is completely behind, independent and transcendental to whatever shit the duality of life & death of the 2D world governs...same with any other duality.
 
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
And type 5 acausality was overwhelmingly hated for what it was and changed accordingly. This is actively hurting your argument lol
Click to expand...
It was made even more difficult. This was because Acausality Type 5 was very misunderstood. It was in the same situation as the current Transduality.

Once again, one thing I agree with is that there is a change, but I don't agree removing that phrase "transcendence" and making the name "non-duality".

The point I agree with and recommend; Let's not remove transcendental expressions and the name Transduality, but instead remove or rigorously revise the Transduality of characters who only have "non-dualy" and "independence" statements, no transcendental statements.

When I said " just like Acausality Type 5", that's what I meant.
 
ShivaShakti said:
Transduality isn't a real word.

And saying "No duality isn't enough" isn't really valid in my opinion. The standards need to change. That is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
Neither qualitative supriority and any other words.

The word being real or not is not even a problem as long as you defined the word which in matter of fact, this word is defined that simply being non-dual is not enough without showing some supriority.

Also, the OP did not even suggest any alternative? I don't see any sandbox or any "alternative solution" except as always calling it nonsensical.
 
Georredannea15 said:
It was made even more difficult.
Click to expand...
I'm not even reading the rest of your reply because this is just straight up lying lol

ZERO characters would've had type 5 acausality when it was revised (except for maybe WH40K Chaos Gods but c'mon now), but the current standards allow for multiple characters to have it. That is objectively less difficult to qualify for.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Neither qualitative supriority and any other words.

The word being real or not is not even a problem as long as you defined the word which in matter of fact, this word is defined that simply being non-dual is not enough without showing some supriority.

Also, the OP did not even suggest any alternative? I don't see any sandbox or any "alternative solution" except as always calling it nonsensical.
Click to expand...
It being called Nonduality, which is the accurate term to begin with, is the alternative, no?
 
Georredannea15 said:
It was made even more difficult. This was because Acausality Type 5 was very misunderstood. It was in the same situation as the current Transduality.

Once again, one thing I agree with is that there is a change, but I don't agree removing that phrase "transcendence" and making the name "non-duality".

The point I agree with and recommend; Let's not remove transcendental expressions and the name Transduality, but instead remove or rigorously revise the Transduality of characters who only have "non-dualy" and "independence" statements, no transcendental statements.

When I said " just like Acausality Type 5", that's what I meant.
Click to expand...
Acausality Type 5 isn't pertinent.

No one said anything about removing "transcendence" statements.
 
ShivaShakti said:
??? How is "Duality a Non-Duality"? It's literally dualistic existence itself.
Click to expand...
Existence also involves a state of non-existence, "if you exist, you have no complete non-exist" or "if there is total light in a reality, there is no darkness", but these are also dualities of "existence- nonexistence" and "light-darkness" and are also these dualities have a "non-duality" relationship within themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Georredannea15
A little change or fix for the Nonduality page??
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Georredannea15
Georredannea15
Deagonx
  • Locked
"Nonduality Nature 1 Aspect 2"
Replies
35
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Mertullah
Nonduality and transdualite
Replies
2
Views
759
Mertullah
Mertullah
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara
  • Locked
Transduality --> Nonduality Application [STAFF ONLY]
Replies
8
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Robo432343
W101 Transduality type 2
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ben_CleverName
Ben_CleverName
Back
Top