What does this grant?

[Furudo_Erika]

Title says it all:

""Creation" is the origin of everything and nothing; everything came from nothing, but for nothingness to "exist", then the notion of "nothingness" would have needed to exist. Creation is paradoxical in this way: "Nothing existed at the beginning, yet for "nothing" to "exist", both notions of "nothingness" and "existence" would need to have been created." Regardless of how one looks at it, Creation is incapable of being "described" with language or conventional logic statements as they will always run into a paradoxical argument. To put it into a comprehensive way: "Creation is both true and false, neither true nor false, only true, and only false...yet it is not any of these four truth arguments but is also all of them simultaneously". This is the closest form of description of Creation one can logically understand; but regardless of how hard one tries to accurately describe it, they will inevitably fail.

All physical and abstract concepts are all part of "Creation" as it is what gave way to them; from space and time, body and mind, life and death, law and chaos, good and evil, existence and nonexistence, truth and falsity, etc."

 

[ExSENNA]

Transduality/Nonduality (it it becomes a thing) and maybe Acausality (Type 4 at least)

 

[Furudo_Erika]

What about NEP 3?
As it exists and doesn't exist, neither exists nor doesn't exist, only exists, and only doesn't exist; but all of them at once.

Its form is paradoxical to existence and nonexistence by nature, as "existence and nonexistence" are infinitesimal concepts of Creation, yet existence also needed to exist beforehand for Creation to be created (there is an actual explanation for this, but I can get to that later if needed). It's also nonexistent compared to things with NEP already as well.

Also what type of Transduality, Type 3?

 

[ExSENNA]

I don't think NEP3, it is when something exists but behaves like it does not paradoxically. Creation mentioned here seems to lack the bound of the duality of existting and not existing. It simultaneously exists, not exist, and neither seems like

Transduality is under revision at the moment and Nonduality might be a thing. Nonduality meaning not bounded to certain dualities without transcending them outright. Creation seems to be at least not bound by one set of duality, existence and nonexistence, but not clear it is transcendent over it

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Creation seems to be at least not bound by one set of duality, existence and nonexistence

It's unbound by all dualities. Existence/Nonexistence is just one of the dualities.

There's also space/time, law/chaos, good/evil, life/death, truth/falsity, among others that Creation isn't bound by.

(Adding to that acausality thing, it would also be unbound by cause and effect since Creation is where cause and effect stemmed from; it was active before the concept of casuality came to be)

 

[ExSENNA]

Alright. It would be Td3 then. What exactly is "Creation" here? Is it some sort of entity? Structure that later beings will scale to?

For Aca type5 it needs to be unchanged and unaffected and nature of this status needs to be its transcendence over causality as a whole specifically

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Alright. It would be Td3 then. What exactly is "Creation" here? Is it some sort of entity? Structure that later beings will scale to?

"Structure" would be the correct description, though there is also an "embodiment of creation" as well.

For Aca type5 it needs to be unchanged and unaffected and nature of this status needs to be its transcendence over causality as a whole specifically

I mean, it is unbound by causality since that's where the very concept of causality came from. So naturally, it cannot be altered by causality in general; which would make it unchanging and unaffected by casuality as a whole.

 

[ExSENNA]

I mean, it is unbound by causality since that's where the very concept of causality came from. So naturally, it cannot be altered by causality in general; which would make it unchanging and unaffected by casuality as a whole.

Unbound and transcendent are different things. One means you wholly transcend it while other is you simply not bound by it. Like difference between a soulless being (thus not bounded by soul) and a being who transcends the very notion of souls all together.

Being originator of something does not mean you cannot be affected by that very thing, it needs more supporting evidence for that. It needs to be unchanging and unaffected and the reason for that state is its transcendence over the whole causality all together

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Unbound and transcendent are different things.

I use them interchangeably a lot of the time, also it depends on context.
Just because something is said to "transcend" something, doesn't mean it qualifies for "transcendence" here.
Same for being "unbound" by something. In some contexts, it qualifies for "transcendence".

But in this cause, it is unbound as it is above the very concept of causality.
It isn't unbound by lacking causality or not participating in causality (which is how you are using "unbound"), but unbound in the sense of it is above the very notion of causality on a conceptual level (which is being transcendent to the concept of causality), and that is the reason why it is unable to be unaltered or changed; by being superior to the notion of causality on a conceptual level as causality (aka cause/effect) is one of the many dualities Creation encompasses.

 

[ExSENNA]

I use them interchangeably a lot of the time, also it depends on context.
Just because something is said to "transcend" something, doesn't mean it qualifies for "transcendence" here.
Same for being "unbound" by something. In some contexts, it qualifies for "transcendence".

But in this cause, it is unbound as it is above the very concept of causality.
It isn't unbound by lacking causality or not participating in causality (which is how you are using "unbound"), but unbound in the sense of it is above the very notion of causality on a conceptual level (which is being transcendent to the concept of causality), and that is the reason why it is unable to be unaltered or changed; by being superior to the notion of causality on a conceptual level as causality (aka cause/effect) is one of the many dualities Creation encompasses.

Got it, TD3 ACA5 it is (after TD gets revised probably). You can write more clearly so transcendenc would be clearly established. Are you writing something?

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Are you writing something?

Eh, kinda. More on and off (I don't have the time to constantly write, oof).
It's probably gonna be a while before I actually make a post.

 

[GarrixianXD]

NEP 3 is quite simple and could be easily described, as it could be quickly asserted as a paradox. Thus, "existence" also encompasses "creation", therefore it's most likely Type 2 Transduality. I don't know where Type 4 Ascasuality came from.