Adding Nonduality to Omnipotence

[Agnaa]

I thought there wasn't anything else to discuss here ngl.

DT still has to create the followup thread.

And our discussion didn't end, the latest beat was just you asking whether the prong I mentioned (that either many nonexistent objects have to be absent from things the Tier 0 can actualise, or statements only have determinate truth values when they're about the collection of possible worlds as a whole) is truly inherent to Tier 0, since it depends on the set of all spaces a Tier 0 can create being actualised (as without that, you can make definite statements about the individual worlds which were selected to exist).

I said it is kind of inherent to High 1-A+ Type 2, but I still think it has relevance to Tier 0 characters, given how it ties to their power.

What are the staff conclusions here?

That Tier 0s aren't inherently nondual, even over things like "existence and nonexistence", because verses won't necessarily have the weaker conceptions of "nonexistence" that a Tier 0 would be nondual in regards to.

 

[Antvasima]

That Tier 0s aren't inherently nondual, even over things like "existence and nonexistence", because verses won't necessarily have the weaker conceptions of "nonexistence" that a Tier 0 would be nondual in regards to.

Hmm. I personally think that we should use real world spiritual standards in that regard in order to not give the wrong idea to many of our visitors, rather than adapt to fictions wherein no characters should likely reach Tier 0, due to being much more limited in their definitions.

 

[Agnaa]

That Tier 0s aren't inherently nondual, even over things like "existence and nonexistence", because verses won't necessarily have the weaker conceptions of "nonexistence" that a Tier 0 would be nondual in regards to.

Hmm. I personally think that we should use real world spiritual standards in that regard in order to not give the wrong idea to many of our visitors, rather than adapt to fictions wherein no characters should likely reach Tier 0, due to being much more limited in their definitions.

Actually, double-checking things, I think I presented a malformed idea there.

While it could encompass both things that "exist" and "don't exist" (in that lesser way), it wouldn't necessarily paradoxically hold both of those qualities in order to do that. A monad doesn't have to be both "red" and "not-red" in order to provide substance to things which are individually "red" and "not-red".

Maybe? I'm not sure which explanation we really settled on.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, as far as I understand, it is more about encompassing all "red" and "not red" etc. concepts within Themself per definition, but thank you for your clarification.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah I guess the idea is that encompassing them doesn't mean holding all of those constituent qualities simultaneously, which is what would be required for Paraconsistent Existence. The Form of Chair doesn't exist in a paraconsistent state, just because it encompasses both four-legged and non-four-legged chairs; something similar may apply here, where it is a shared property, not every bit of differentiation among things with that property.

I'm not sure how controversial that idea is.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I said it is kind of inherent to High 1-A+ Type 2, but I still think it has relevant to Tier 0 characters, given how it ties to their power.

I think you just stumbled upon the answer I'd give yourself. i.e. Just because things in contrary and contradictory states lie under the Tier 0's productive power, doesn't mean it itself holds those qualities simultaneously.

In the case of "existence and nonexistence" in a cosmology where there's both existing objects and non-existing objects subsisting in some weird state, then either: a) Nonexistence is an actual positive quality of nonexistent things, in which case the Tier 0 can transcend that just fine, just like it transcends all other states. b) It's not actually a property in-and-of-itself. It's just "bare being" (i.e. A thing is nonexistent when it just is, but doesn't exist). In which case the Tier 0 transcends that too, inasmuch as it transcends the things in this state.

 

[Agnaa]

I think you just stumbled upon the answer I'd give yourself. i.e. Just because things in contrary and contradictory states lie under the Tier 0's productive power, doesn't mean it itself holds those qualities simultaneously.

In the case of "existence and nonexistence" in a cosmology where there's both existing objects and non-existing objects subsisting in some weird state, then either: a) Nonexistence is an actual positive quality of nonexistent things, in which case the Tier 0 can transcend that just fine, just like it transcends all other states. b) It's not actually a property in-and-of-itself. It's just "bare being" (i.e. A thing is nonexistent when it just is, but doesn't exist). In which case the Tier 0 transcends that too, inasmuch as it transcends the things in this state.

My approach earlier really had nothing to do with what you mention in that bolded part.

It was about the meaningful statements we can make about the maximum extent of its creation. If that reasoning's right, then your assertions that a Tier 0 can simply provide the basis for such objects just fine doesn't work.

Although this is feeling like a bit of a stretch to connect it to this thread, might best be saved for somewhere else.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

It was about the meaningful statements we can make about the maximum extent of its creation. If that reasoning's right, then your assertions that a Tier 0 can simply provide the basis for such objects just fine doesn't work.

Not sure what the point is. Your previous contention was "If the same type of existence is distributed to everything, then you have goofy consequences (which you argued are basically trivialism)." I said that this isn't the case, and said why. Now I don't know where you're going with this.

Depending on your clarification I might agree that it's best to save whatever this is for elsewhere.

 

[Agnaa]

The point is here:

By

1. Not having any coherent objects be considered non-actual.
2. Not having the possible world that an object is in, as an identifiable piece of information about the object.

You can only declare propositions as true or false in reference to all possible worlds as a collection.

So, in cases where a proposition and its negation are both logically consistent, we can not determine which is true in any given possible world. All we can say is that in some worlds it is true, and in some it is false.

Which causes problems for indexing.

Everything which is not a logical necessity, or a logical contradiction, is of indeterminate truth. And we cannot build profiles off of that.

To which your response was that maybe not all those possible worlds are actualised.

Which narrows the relevance of the issue, but doesn't get rid of it entirely.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Which narrows the relevance of the issue, but doesn't get rid of it entirely.

It gets rid of it for the purposes of this thread insofar as it makes it an issue irrelevant to Tier 0, mostly. If there's a broader framework transcending both possibility and actuality (or existence and nonexistence) so as to encompass objects in both realms without making one actually be a member of the other, then the argument that everything is now actual doesn't follow. At best it's an issue for the concept of High 1-A+ (Though one whose premises are pretty questionable by my lights), but I don't think it's problematic for 0.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are your current conclusions here, Ultima, including about my previously voiced concerns in this thread?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

So what are your current conclusions here, Ultima, including about my previously voiced concerns in this thread?

Your concerns were largely about whether Tier 0 is nondual, yes? Like I mentioned before the power we currently call nonduality ("Paraconsistent Physiology") is something way different from the philosophical accounts of nonduality you're likely familiar with, and those really range from "Pretty much just what current Tier 0 is" to "Questionable if it's even profileable or properly tierable." I don't think there's any reason to worry about Tier 0 not being sufficiently all-encompassing as it stands, in short (And me maintaining that it in fact is, is what's driven the recent discussion with Agnaa).

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That is good then. Thank you for helping out.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I finally did the thing I said I wanted to do.

 

[Antvasima]

What, if anything, is currently left to do here?