Weaker vs Stronger Logic regarding High 1-A+

[Red-Lore-Master]

From what I gather based on the VS Battle Wiki FAQ is that something is considered High 1-A+ if it applies either the classic three laws of thought or a "weaker" form of logic, i.e. a form of logic that has less rules or restrictions, whereas a "stronger" form of logic within a verse would disqualify said verse from ever having High 1-A+. My question is then, what are examples of "weaker" and "stronger" forms of logic compared to Classical Logic?

How would that jive with, say, German Idealism or Hegelianism specifically? Because the Law of Identity, Law of Non-Contradiction, and Law of Excluded Middle amount to A = A, ~(A & ~A), and A v ~A respectively, yet Hegelianism is an example of a set of logic that stresses contradiction, identity in difference, and synthesis. I am not sure if that would necessarily render a "stronger" (i.e. more restrictive) or "weaker" (i.e. less restrictive) system of logic. Some might say that this is not a big issue since essentially all verses are either rooted in bivalent classical logic or they can be assumed to be that case automatically, but there are arguably works of fiction that do draw philosophical themes and logic from individuals such as Hegel and Lacan (e.g. a thing can be both itself and not be itself), which is the case in works such as The Star Maker and Xenogears.

We've come a long way since classical logic, having developed such non-classical logics as Dialectical Logic, Paraconsistent logic, Many-valued logic, and Quantum Logic, so where do all of these belong? Because even if we assume the average work of fiction defers to classical logic, that still does not tell us what to do with works that reject Aristotelianism as either static or incomplete.

 

[360flashlight]

I'm also interested I'll await for someone experience with this

 

[Apotheosis69]

"Weaker" and "stronger" Logic, in this case is just how many truth values it governs but most importantly. Enforces.

The "stronger" the logic, the more restrictive its rules can be. Bivalent/2-Valued Logic is the "Strongest" Comprehensible logic that is theoretically possible, as that is what establishes distinction, or more accurately Differentiation to everything.

"Weaker" Logic is a much less restrictive system on what things can('t) be. Thus allowing more Truth Values to occur, and thus more possibilities.

 

[360flashlight]

"Weaker" and "stronger" Logic, in this case is just how many truth values it governs but most importantly. Enforces.

The "stronger" the logic, the more restrictive its rules can be. Bivalent/2-Valued Logic is the "Strongest" Comprehensible logic that is theoretically possible, as that is what establishes distinction, or more accurately Differentiation to everything.

"Weaker" Logic is a much less restrictive system on what things can('t) be. Thus allowing more Truth Values to occur, and thus more possibilities.

If 'Strong' logic is required for differentiation, how would you categorize a system like Dialetheism, where something can be both True and False at the same time? Is that just 'Maximum Weakness,' or is it a higher form of logic entirely?

And another thing I want to say just my opinion

You can have Higher-Order Logics like Second-Order Logic mind you that are even more restrictive and stronger than basic bivalence because they allow for quantification over predicates, not just objects itself

 

[Voidnether]

I still do think these doesn't really matter/impact that like to the point this High 1-A+ (Type 1) character is stronger than the other High 1-A+ (Type 2) character just because the former is stronger and the latter is weaker. Cause I believe myself that I think the only way where the former (Type 1) > the latter (Type 2) is if the former operates on an impossible world whilst the latter operates on a possible one. Like we know by default the Type 2 character tends to be stronger than Type 1, and I'm sure it could be the case where the Type 1 is stronger if it operates on an impossible world basis instead of a stronger logic but still constrained by possible world

 

[360flashlight]

I still do think these doesn't really matter/impact that like to the point this High 1-A+ (Type 1) character is stronger than the other High 1-A+ (Type 2) character just because the former is stronger and the latter is weaker. Cause I believe myself that I think the only way where the former (Type 1) > the latter (Type 2) is if the former operates on an impossible world whilst the latter operates on a possible one. Like we know by default the Type 2 character tends to be stronger than Type 1, and I'm sure it could be the case where the Type 1 is stronger if it operates on an impossible world basis instead of a stronger logic but still constrained by possible world

? I think your mixing up logical streang with a character power. A stronger logic just means more rules and restrictions Which actually limits what a character can do.

But I kinda agree with the impossible world . The logic is just the explanation for how they transcend a normal world.

 

[Apotheosis69]

What form of "stronger" are you referring to when comparing Type 2 and Type 1 inherently? As in the logical system they operate, or just their overall power.

 

[Apotheosis69]

If 'Strong' logic is required for differentiation, how would you categorize a system like Dialetheism, where something can be both True and False at the same time? Is that just 'Maximum Weakness,' or is it a higher form of logic entirely?

And another thing I want to say just my opinion

You can have Higher-Order Logics like Second-Order Logic mind you that are even more restrictive and stronger than basic bivalence because they allow for quantification over predicates, not just objects itself

Dialetheism is muuuch less restrictive. Its def not the "maximum" weakness as there's Infinite-Valued Logic or even Trivialism.

Am not knowledgable about Second-Order Logic, so unf I can't really say anything about that.

 

[360flashlight]

What form of "stronger" are you referring to when comparing Type 2 and Type 1 inherently? As in the logical system they operate, or just their overall power.

Idk if your asking me that or the fella above?

But
I’m referring to the logical system they operate within, which inherently dictates their overall power >

At this level the 'size' of the logical space a character can occupy. A Type 2 character is 'stronger' because they operate in a framework that transcends the restrictions of Type 1.

Like if type 1 is bound by a system where A cannot be not A, then a type 2 character who operates under a weaker logic is inherently more powerful because of their range of existence including the states that are logically important for the type 1 character so the weakness of the logic system is what creates the strength of the characters power

 

[360flashlight]

Dialetheism is muuuch less restrictive. Its def not the "maximum" weakness as there's Infinite-Valued Logic or even Trivialism.

Am not knowledgable about Second-Order Logic, so unf I can't really say anything about that.

Sorry my response was late cus of my internet anyway the dialethesim was just my opinion never said it was true

That's fair and the second order logic To put it simply without the jargon Second-Order Logic is just a 'stronger' system because it adds more rules about how properties work, not just objects.

My main point is that if High 1-A+ requires encompassing 'all possible logic,' it must include both the 'Strong' restrictive and the 'Weak' permissive systems.

I would break it down even more but I'm sleepy sorry gotta sleep unless I'll miss my game tomorrow (delta force) also work lol

 

[Apotheosis69]

Idk if your asking me that or the fella above?

I was responding to VoidNether, apologies about that.

 

[Voidnether]

What form of "stronger" are you referring to when comparing Type 2 and Type 1 inherently? As in the logical system they operate, or just their overall power.

Well, the tiering system stated that a Type 2 may be considered stronger since they're the embodiment themselves of said all possible worlds, than Type 1 who can only manipulate all possible worlds

That is what I'm trying to figure out why this is possible, but I feel like their logical system = their overall power as I'm sure a Type 1 character who could manipulate all impossible worlds may also be considered stronger than a Type 2 who's the embodiment of all possible worlds

Regarding the stronger/weaker, if the logical system is still a possible world, I don't know why that could make the Type 1 stronger (as in because they operate in a stronger logic system) and the Type 2 operates on a weaker logic system despite their Modal Realism being the same (i.e possible worlds)

 

[Apotheosis69]

My main point is that if High 1-A+ requires encompassing 'all possible logic,' it must include both the 'Strong' restrictive and the 'Weak' permissive systems.

I don't think so, it just has to be A system. Hence the usual being the Three Laws of Thought.

Its referring to "all possible logic" within the Setting itself.

Well, the tiering system stated that a Type 2 may be considered stronger since they're the embodiment themselves of said all possible worlds, than Type 1 who can only manipulate all possible worlds

That is what I'm trying to figure out why this is possible, but I feel like their logical system = their overall power as I'm sure a Type 1 character who could manipulate all impossible worlds may also be considered stronger than a Type 2 who's the embodiment of all possible worlds

Regarding the stronger/weaker, if the logical system is still a possible world, I don't know why that could make the Type 1 stronger (as in because they operate in a stronger logic system) and the Type 2 operates on a weaker logic system despite their Modal Realism being the same (i.e possible worlds)

Hmm that is actually interesting. If each setting's logical system and framework, is different in the truth values and amount of it they encompass.

 

[Red-Lore-Master]

"Weaker" and "stronger" Logic, in this case is just how many truth values it governs but most importantly. Enforces.

The "stronger" the logic, the more restrictive its rules can be. Bivalent/2-Valued Logic is the "Strongest" Comprehensible logic that is theoretically possible, as that is what establishes distinction, or more accurately Differentiation to everything.

"Weaker" Logic is a much less restrictive system on what things can('t) be. Thus allowing more Truth Values to occur, and thus more possibilities.

I am not 100% what that entails for a series that uses Hegalian philosophy / logic, but if contradiction being part of being itself is "less" restrictive than "more" restrictive then I assume that counts as a "weaker logic", even if it is not in complete agreement with the classical three laws of thought.

Also regarding the above discussion, perhaps I fail to see why Type 1 and Type 2 are being brought up in the first place, but the way I understand it:
Type 1 = Particularity (individual entity that controls, affects, or creates all possible worlds)
Type 2 = Universality (framework that embodies all possible worlds)

I cannot think of an instance where a Type 1 would operate under a different logic compared to a Type 2 because both are concerned with the question of totality and 'all possibilities'. It would be strange if a verse ontologically flip-flops between what constitutes as 'all possibilities / possible worlds' or not.