God of Highschool Nonduality Removal

[Phoenks]

Depending on what is decided in the ongoing staff thread, it could. Though, you would be required to show that these dualities make up everything in the universe.

For example, proving that everything is some combination of yin and yang, light and darkness, etc.

But this should wait until that other thread is concluded. Possible that nonduality becomes an entirely different power than before.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Depending on what is decided in the ongoing staff thread, it could. Though, you would be required to show that these dualities make up everything in the universe.

For example, proving that everything is some combination of yin and yang, light and darkness, etc.

But this should wait until that other thread is concluded. Possible that nonduality becomes an entirely different power than before.

Yea I don't think this qualifies regardless. Very poorly explained if at all.

 

[SuperNova55555]

Yea I don't think this qualifies regardless. Very poorly explained if at all.

Transcends Wuji and Taiji so infinite layers into boundless trust

 

[Mizuki67]

Idk about the rest but Day and Night, Light and Darkness definitely need’s to get removed. iirc nonduality is “Day and Not-Day” rather than Day and Night. Same with Light and Darkness, it needs to be “Light and Not-Light”.

What?
Wtf is day and not day lol plus darkness is literally not-light
Like saying the duality of existence is not existence rather than nothingness

 

[ShroobWasTaken]

I don't know about you guys but if it's to this point, all Nondualities should just be removed at this point even those from Tokusatsu and other verses either even if they're the most blatant case that exist (There's no logical negation though) but like isn't it stated in the page that A and not A isn't a requirement? Like, if the verse treated Life & Death as A + Not A, wouldn't it qualify?

I don't mean to derail, but if the standard is like this then what about this? Cause for me it just doesn't make sense, all nondualities are just axed cause I guarantee you none of them applies that logical negation stuff (even Life & Death treated as A + Not A inverse doesn't exist at all, genuinely)

I honestly think we shouldn't push it this hard, even if there exist a duality in the verse that has no logical negation (A and not A example), as long as it makes the user immune to them then it's nonduality yeah

I mean, as someone familiar with Nonduality, it should be known that I don't see any verse having logical negations in their duality. All this just seems like staff opinions, it's like vandalizing cause well: There's just no staff discussion threads dedicated to cover all this, we knew eventually from that sonic Nonduality stuff this will spread to other verses either and this is one of the case in which I spoke up

Heavily agree with this, the logical negation qualifier would make even blatant cases non-qualifiers. Majority of verses don't define dualities via "A + Not-A", they just present two objects or attributes and define them as a dual existence.

Thank god we're reviewing Nonduality

 

[Mizuki67]

Truth of the matter is this was just said in the series and that's it, nothing was even explained or revised afterwards

 

[Vietthai96]

Wtf is day and not day lol plus darkness is literally not-light

I think i already said it, but darkness is the absence of light not really not-light. Currently duality standard is based on valued logic, is and is not, truth and false. Light and Darkness is actually both true in their own state, since darkness is just absence of light, not its logical negation. You could call it not light, but it is just playing with words

 

[Mizuki67]

I think i already said it, but darkness is the absence of light not really not-light. Currently duality standard is based on valued logic, is and is not, truth and false. Light and Darkness is actually both true in their own state, since darkness is just absence of light, not its logical negation. You could call it not light, but it is just playing with words

Basically saying nothingness or nonexistence is a true statement too which it is

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

The wiki does have a small clause on the ND page that allows verse to define a duality but it must involve negation and creates truth/false states

 

[Vietthai96]

Basically saying nothingness or nonexistence is a true statement too which it is

That is completely wrong, existence is true while nonexistence is false, light and darkness isn't because darkness is just the absence of light and be it own true state. Similar to how matter and anti-mattet isn't a duality because anti-matter is just another state

 

[ZillionZeutron]

What?
Wtf is day and not day lol plus darkness is literally not-light
Like saying the duality of existence is not existence rather than nothingness

Vietthai already answered you but I’ll explain further. Light and Not-Light is a Logical Negation, and thats how you qualify for ND ( at least that’s how DT says how ND works). Light and Darkness are simply just two opposing forces, aka an OPPOSITION. Think of it like this:

Light and Darkness- Imagine one entity called light, if light exists -> true. If light doesn’t exist-> thats not-light. But not-light isn’t another entity, it’s just “light is absent.” It’s like flipping a switch. Light on vs. Light not-on. So here, we only ever talk about Light itself and whether it’s there or not.

Light and Darkness- Now picture two separate entities, One is light and the other is Darkness. Let’s say both are in a story. For Light and Not-Light we have this: If Light isn’t in a scene, the narrator just says: “Light is not here.” There’s no new character, just an absence. But for Light and Darkness however, you have this: In a story, Light has a rival character named Darkness. When Light leaves, Darkness shows up, he steps in, acts, and influences the story. He’s treated as a presence, an enemy. So two distinct entities that are opposites of each other.

In conclusion: In logic: Light is present (P), And Light is not present (¬P). In opposition: Darkness is a constructed counterpart to Light, given its own conceptual “body.” Unless that staff thread for ND passes, then for now, ND is based on Paraconsistent Logic which Light and Darkness, Life and Death, Hot and Cold just don’t qualify to.

 

[Vietthai96]

The wiki does have a small clause on the ND page that allows verse to define a duality but it must involve negation and creates truth/false states

Also yeah, this is right, ND still allows for verse specific duality system, as long as they establish they are logical duality. For example, Light and Darkness can be qualified as duality if the verse go out of it way to show that they are logical negation, like Darkness is not/non-Light rather than just absence of Light. But if the verse just generically mention Light and Darkness oppose each others then well, not qualified. We are actually still doing this, even before the whole logical negation standard issue currently ongoing, where verse still need to establish something to be duality rather than simply they sound like an opposing force, like mention fire and water without establish anything isn't going to make them a duality simply because they sound opposite

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Also yeah, this is right, ND still allows for verse specific duality system, as long as they establish they are logical duality. For example, Light and Darkness can be qualified as duality if the verse go out of it way to show that they are logical negation, like Darkness is not/non-Light rather than just absence of Light. But if the verse just generically mention Light and Darkness oppose each others then well, not qualified. We are actually still doing this, even before the whole logical negation standard issue currently ongoing, where verse still need to establish something to be duality rather than simply they sound like an opposing force, like mention fire and water without establish anything isn't going to make them a duality simply because they sound opposite

From the way things are going, it seems that even light and not-light will not qualify as a duality, since they don’t include absolutely everything in a jointly exhaustive way.

 

[Mizuki67]

From the way things are going, it seems that even light and not-light will not qualify as a duality, since they don’t include absolutely everything in a jointly exhaustive way.

Atp just remove the stupid ability, things are becoming grammatically complex in this site

 

[ShroobWasTaken]

I think it's better to wait, ND in general might be undergoing a change, best not to jump the gun until we're sure. This whole thing started cause of Sonic's ND Removal so lets see how things go and whether or not we're gonna stick with the current definition of ND or if they're gonna change it.

 

[Deonment]

From the way things are going, it seems that even light and not-light will not qualify as a duality, since they don’t include absolutely everything in a jointly exhaustive way.

That's a misreading of agnaa's response
Agnaa was saying that he was specifically not using light and darkness rather than light and not light because light and darkness isn't explicitly fine under our standards while the latter is
Agnaa also said that requiring light and darkness, or any other non-logical duality, to exhaust all of the other's nature is too harsh a requirement to prove, not that it doesn't actually qualify
And you were the one who brought up X and not-X not qualifying without "them being the negation of the other", Agnaa disagreed with you on that, bringing up how "it is raining" and "it is not raining" quite literally covers everything

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

That's a misreading of agnaa's response
Agnaa was saying that he was specifically not using light and darkness rather than light and not light because light and darkness isn't explicitly fine under our standards while the latter is
Agnaa also said that requiring light and darkness, or any other non-logical duality, to exhaust all of the other's nature is too harsh a requirement to prove, not that it doesn't actually qualify
And you were the one who brought up X and not-X not qualifying without "them being the negation of the other", Agnaa disagreed with you on that, bringing up how "it is raining" and "it is not raining" quite literally covers everything

I was talking about Donttalk’s comment and I didn’t misunderstand anything. I was going to comment back to agnna saying “ok” and give another example, but after seeing Donttalk’s comment and truly understood what they meant by “everything,” and that light and darkness, or light and not light, are only limited to all things that are light or darkness, rather than including truly absolutely everything. There are things outside their scope that don’t fall into the category of light and not light, so they’re not a true dichotomy.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

There are things outside their scope that don’t fall into the category of light and not light, so they’re not a true dichotomy.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This is categorically false.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This is categorically false.

Nonduality, and the contradicting standards within it

I support the idea, but we should probably have a replacement ready before 'nuking' the page. Of course. I will get to a more detailed response to everything later, but I will say that my current stance is that it seems most reasonable to have Breaking logic by being in paradoxical states...

vsbattles.com

More of a problem I have with the greyscale idea. If we take "hot" and "cold" and the greyscale as "temperature" then things like mind, soul, time and space would all qualify as nondual, since there is no such thing as "temperature" for those things. Similar problem regarding black, white and colours. The immediate cause of the problem is that not truly everything participates in those. They technically shouldn't qualify by the definition. Now, a fiction could introduce light and darkness in a more metaphysical moral sense and say that truly everything qualifies, but that brings us to the next problem: This requirement is self-contradicting the moment nonduality comes into play. If we require for a greyscale case that the fiction demonstrates that everything is either of the two, then the existence of something nondual proves that was never the case. So where does that leave us? I also agree with the problem you pointed out regarding several states. If we have greyscales we are essentially not dealing with actual dualities, as there are more than two states. That's another strong point to separate those out.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Nonduality, and the contradicting standards within it

I support the idea, but we should probably have a replacement ready before 'nuking' the page. Of course. I will get to a more detailed response to everything later, but I will say that my current stance is that it seems most reasonable to have Breaking logic by being in paradoxical states...

vsbattles.com

More of a problem I have with the greyscale idea. If we take "hot" and "cold" and the greyscale as "temperature" then things like mind, soul, time and space would all qualify as nondual, since there is no such thing as "temperature" for those things. Similar problem regarding black, white and colours. The immediate cause of the problem is that not truly everything participates in those. They technically shouldn't qualify by the definition. Now, a fiction could introduce light and darkness in a more metaphysical moral sense and say that truly everything qualifies, but that brings us to the next problem: This requirement is self-contradicting the moment nonduality comes into play. If we require for a greyscale case that the fiction demonstrates that everything is either of the two, then the existence of something nondual proves that was never the case. So where does that leave us? I also agree with the problem you pointed out regarding several states. If we have greyscales we are essentially not dealing with actual dualities, as there are more than two states. That's another strong point to separate those out.

This is irrelevant? Light and not-light mutually exclude each other. Now please name something that's not light or not-light. Or I'm just confused on what you're trying to say here because it seemed like you're including light and not-light as a non qualifying duality on par with light and darkness.

 

[CodeCCLL]

There are things outside their scope that don’t fall into the category of light and not light, so they’re not a true dichotomy

Then can you give an example defined in the way you are talking about? And if you can already give an example defined in question, what prevents you from doing same thing for all the other so-called dualities?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

This is irrelevant? Light and not-light mutually exclude each other. Now please name something that's not light or not-light. Or I'm just confused on what you're trying to say here because it seemed like you're including light and not-light as a non qualifying duality on par with light and darkness.

So light = everything that is light, and not light = everything that isn’t light. The problem is that not truly everything participates in them. There are things that are neither dark nor light, like souls, space, time, non-physical things, etc., meaning there are other options, which creates more than two states. Therefore, they are not jointly exhaustive. Jointly exhaustive in this context is basically literally everything, not just everything of specific things(things that happen to be light and dark)

Then can you give an example defined in the way you are talking about?

Now, a fiction could introduce light and darkness in a more metaphysical moral sense and say that truly everything qualifies, but that brings us to the next problem: This requirement is self-contradicting the moment nonduality comes into play. If we require for a greyscale case that the fiction demonstrates that >"everything is either of the two", <then the existence of something nondual proves that was never the case. So where does that leave us

And if you can already give an example defined in question, what prevents you from doing same thing for all the other so-called dualities?

That only applies to categories that do not truly include everything, unlike existence and nonexistence.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

So light = everything that is light, and not light = everything that isn’t light. The problem is that not truly everything participates in them. There are things that are neither dark nor light, like souls, space, time, non-physical things, etc., meaning there are other options, which creates more than two states. Therefore, they are not jointly exhaustive. Jointly exhaustive in this context is basically literally everything, not just everything of specific things(things that happen to be light and dark)

Now, a fiction could introduce light and darkness in a more metaphysical moral sense and say that truly everything qualifies, but that brings us to the next problem: This requirement is self-contradicting the moment nonduality comes into play. If we require for a greyscale case that the fiction demonstrates that >"everything is either of the two", <then the existence of something nondual proves that was never the case. So where does that leave us

That only applies to categories that do not truly include everything, unlike existence and nonexistence.

Souls, space, time, and non physical things are "not-light".

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Souls, space, time, and non physical things are "not-light".

How exactly can things that are invisible be dark? Things need to be visible in order to be light or dark.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

How exactly can things that are invisible be dark? Things need to be visible in order to be light or dark.

...

 

[Wesker018]

How exactly can things that are invisible be dark? Things need to be visible in order to be light or dark.

bro what

 

[Shar122]

I think it's better to wait, ND in general might be undergoing a change, best not to jump the gun until we're sure. This whole thing started cause of Sonic's ND Removal so lets see how things go and whether or not we're gonna stick with the current definition of ND or if they're gonna change it.

There are some verses before in which their nonduality is removed, iirc

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

bro what

I needed to phrase it that way since it was assumptions at that point. It was like saying a being that is both human and not human is everything that exists and doesn’t exist without proof.

There are some verses before in which their nonduality is removed, iirc

Based on what’s happening , there will be 2 types of duality pages.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Souls, space, time, and non physical things are "not-light

Never mind, after a bit of thinking, you’re right the "not" part of logical negation is what truly includes anything that is not under the category it is the opposite of.

 

[BeTheWay1rst]

This is what a total duality of Light and Darkness look like

Tower of God: Urek Mazino - Ep. 1 - The Floor of Tests

You know him as the legendary Ranker, Urek Mazino—but once, he was just another Regular, climbing the Tower alongside both teammates and enemies. What awaits him after charging into the Tower, chasing after Phantaminum? Whatever it is he desires... will he find it there?

www.webtoons.com

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

This is what a total duality of Light and Darkness look like

Tower of God: Urek Mazino - Ep. 1 - The Floor of Tests

You know him as the legendary Ranker, Urek Mazino—but once, he was just another Regular, climbing the Tower alongside both teammates and enemies. What awaits him after charging into the Tower, chasing after Phantaminum? Whatever it is he desires... will he find it there?

www.webtoons.com

One scan from a "harem manga" created by the author of Saint Seiya to get a bunch of logical negations,
like not creation, not life, not souls, not preservation and prosperity, and not existence. ‘Vanitas’ is meant in Latin in the verse.

 

[Shar122]

One scan from a "harem manga" created by the author of Saint Seiya to get a bunch of logical negations,
like not creation, not life, not souls, not preservation and prosperity, and not existence. ‘Vanitas’ is meant in Latin in the verse.

let me guess, trinity seven?

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

let me guess, trinity seven?

yes ,you got it

 

[Shar122]

yes you got it

Peak

 

[CodeCCLL]

logical negations

Do you really think that a "negation" without any details proves logical negation? I bet the context just refers to killing/erasing.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Do you really think that a "negation" without any details proves logical negation? I bet the context just refers to killing/erasing.

Yeah, that’s what the word ‘negation’ means if you look at the wiki, and ‘vanitas’ is everything that is nonexistence that is its very essence. But bruh, how could the negation of all life (everything alive) not be not alive/not life?

Peak

fax.

 

[Huesito88]

One scan from a "harem manga" created by the author of Saint Seiya

Saint Seiya?

 

[BeTheWay1rst]

One scan from a "harem manga" created by the author of Saint Seiya to get a bunch of logical negations,
like not creation, not life, not souls, not preservation and prosperity, and not existence. ‘Vanitas’ is meant in Latin in the verse.

You just made creation and existence up, and you just have to read to know that it is not related to the verse duality, it's just a magic that is the negation of is other magic ''Luxuria''

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Saint Seiya?

https://x.com/saitoro193/highlights#:~:text=Seven Series," "-,Saint Seiya:,-Dark Wing,

You just made creation and existence up, and you just have to read to know that it is not related to the verse duality, it's just a magic that is the negation of is other magic ''Luxuria''

I’ll ignore the first part since it’s unrelated to this thread. And if it were power null, it would have been called something like ‘it negates magic’ rather than something that is the logical negation of whole categories like "All life" and that would make the magic not life, since it is not just the concept of death-ness but the logical negation of all life and the creation part , Vanitas is the negation of the birth of life, and the birth of something is the creation of something (so lazy)

 

[Huesito88]

https://x.com/saitoro193/highlights#:~:text=Seven%20Series%2C%22%20%22-,Saint%20Seiya%3A,-Dark%20Wing%2C%22

Ahh that