Logic Manipulation Addition Thread

[Vietthai96]

I mean it's kinda consistent in the verse as Gods have invulnerability to mortal weapons as they trancend the realms of logic.

They also can alter universal laws

I don't think this qualifies; kinda it is just superpower go against common sense

If we're staying consistent, This should qualify(in reference to what created the world)

I think this is Logic

 

[Thermor]

I don't think this qualifies; kinda it is just superpower go against common sense

So how would you describe Susano's ability?

 

[Vietthai96]

So how would you describe Susano's ability?

? can cut people without using sword is common thing in superpower fiction, just because it make no sense to us doesn't mean it's truly something that violate logic

 

[Thermor]

? can cut people without using sword is common thing in superpower fiction, just because it make no sense to us doesn't mean it's truly something that violate logic

Could you show an example?

 

[Vesxpura]

So how would you describe Susano's ability?

Literally just really amazing physical stats. It definitely doesnt qualify for any logic manipulation. Also "transcending" logic isnt any grounds for manipulation as that would likely just be a state of existence or pp

 

[Thermor]

Literally just really amazing physical stats. It definitely doesnt qualify for any logic manipulation. Also "transcending" logic isnt any grounds for manipulation as that would likely just be a state of existence or pp

I was thinking his ability is similar to another character that shoots nothing and is given resistance to logic manipulation

Josuke Higashikata (JoJolion)

This profile contain spoilers from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: JoJolion. It's recommended to read the manga first. Josuke Higashikata is the eighth "JoJo" in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and the main protagonist of Part VIII: JoJolion. He wakes up one day with no memory under the Wall Eyes in Morioh...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Vesxpura]

I was thinking his ability is similar to another character that shoots nothing and is given resistance to logic manipulation

Thats outdated, you can see the logic manipulation links back to law manipulation, not sure if it still qualifies since im not well versed on that series.

 

[SuperNova55555]

I was thinking his ability is similar to another character that shoots nothing and is given resistance to logic manipulation

Josuke Higashikata (JoJolion)

This profile contain spoilers from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: JoJolion. It's recommended to read the manga first. Josuke Higashikata is the eighth "JoJo" in JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and the main protagonist of Part VIII: JoJolion. He wakes up one day with no memory under the Wall Eyes in Morioh...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Thats outdated, you can see the logic manipulation links back to law manipulation, not sure if it still qualifies since im not well versed on that series.

It doesn’t. JJBA holds “Calamity” as the “strongest force of logic”; so it’s inapplicable here.

 

[Vietthai96]

Wait, wasn't there a post about logic in JJBA and was rejected by DontTalk?

 

[sukuna171]

Here’s some stuff from Destiny that might be logic manipulation.

Spoiler

The Vex wield impossibility as their weapon, but they're as vulnerable to it as anything else

Spoiler

Look at you!

Already you are grown, my daughter, already you are a wizard. Have I been away so long? Now you are Ir Anûk, and Savathûn cackles and rages at your brilliance. You have written eleven axioms describing the ascendant places, our throne world. You have announced that you will kill one of these axioms, as Akka would kill the truth, and in mantling Akka you will become a God, as I am.

Spoiler

The Light is, by definition, paracausal and obeys a logic different from physical concepts like charge, heat, or angular momentum. Any analogy to these physical measurements of power' will fail to capture the true efficacy of a Guardian. Instead, we must look to self-understanding, clarity of purpose, and internalized phenomenologies and ontologies.

Spoiler

you talked to me about circles. Circles! Do you know
what the Traveler's reawakening meant for the geometry
of circles? You told me it changed everything about the
semiotic role of circles in some paracausal invocation of
the Light. And I'm going to tell you the truth, which is,
you didn't want to talk to me, so you talked about circles
instead. I know people who can talk in circles, but you're
the only one who can do it by talking about circles. I really
admire your efficiency.

Spoiler

and the Traveler's reawakening DID change what circles mean, you Hunter barbarian! Perfectly squaring the circle cannot be accomplished with classical construction so long as pi is a transcendental number, because root pi is not constructable (that is, constructable by compass and a straight edge in finite steps). But paracausal invocation allows us to set root pi to an arbitrary value even in a flat manifold, and because the sphere of the awakened Traveler defines a toroid in n dimensions—oh, but this is all evading your point, isn't it?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Might as well throw this into the bin since I know this is a common enough trope (as it's based on a real world myth) and honestly it's a very weird thing to classify with the current systems.

A blade is capable of cutting through an object without touching it or moving, no other factors or power systems in place. Would that not be a contradiction in logic by concept as the blade is both attacking and not attacking at the same time?

No, not even remotely. You don't explain how something supposedly can't be explained by a supernatural effect, by invoking an even higher class supernatural effect.
Ultimately, it will just be some kind of supernatural effect that the verse does not consider part of its usual system. That that would be logic manipulation in particular is just a non-sequitur.

Yeah, that's what i mean, the reason for the paradox which is logic, not the consequence, which is the paradox


Wait, logic must predate metaphysics? It can't be metaphysics?

It's not a necessary requirement in fiction, I'm of the opinion that fiction can make any statement true, but that's how it tends to work in real life philosophy (as long as you don't bring theology into it). Usually, the fundamentals of philosophy are built up by thinking about how logic works first and then getting to other metaphysical matters, which are then constrained by your choice of logic. It's a little pointless to try to make a valid argument about the nature of existence prior to deciding what a valid argument is, after all.
Hence, I usually wouldn't consider logic violations of laws and concepts as impacting logic.

I have a few; my initial thoughts is that they probably don't quailify. but ill throw a hat in to try. If context is needed ill bring scans later

All 3 are separate instances/scenes/plot lines

1.) Using the power if Ice to physically freeze flames the character yells something like "doing the impossible!" While doing it.

2.) Dropping temperature colder than Absolute Zero but making it so cold it loops back to being hot, but infinitely hot but yet still describes as being both cold and hot. But still infinite heat/hot but uts getting hotter by dropping temperatures further beyond (colder) than Absolute Zero

3.) A character is stated to outside the "Worlds logic" to avoid the passive affects the universe had at correcting anomalies. These effect range from Earsure, corruption, forcing 2 people to fight to the death, altering history, etc. But this character is stated to be outside the world's logic so he can not be subjected to that.

Nope, not specific enough.

Doesn't this usually comes by default for majority of verses as it is a very fundamental reasoning. because after all no inference would be possible if it does to not exist in the first place. it's like asking for a proof for something when that something has already been shown as violated and happening by in reality. How would you assume something does not exist when there are showing of said things being violated and followed.

That it exists isn't the question. The question is if it's part of that set. I don't assume logical laws are a part of a set of laws unless very specifically stated, nor do I default to the assumption that they are part of "all laws" if stated in a general way.

How would this then work if say there are Axioms. would we assume that logic somehow prior to it as well?
To use an example from the same verse.
It is always assumed that nothing good would would result from reading chaos

That axiom now becomes becomes the foundation for a new deductive reasoning. does this qualify for logic creation or not?
because after all Axiom assumes that it is always True regardless.

As for other examples of people reading chaos we have Kenji attempting to decipher Wardant who is made up of Chaos

Axioms aren't necessarily related to logical laws. Take the ZFC Axioms for instance, that is just pure mathematics. Generally, not sure that axiom is even meant to talk about a metaphysical object here than being used in the literal way synonymous with "assumption".

@DontTalkDT

That's not what it says on the page, unless that whole paragraph on what defining logic is, isn't being clear on this not counting as the basis for what Logic is.

Read the whole page.

Alterations to logic should only be listed as Logic Manipulation if truly of a fundamentally logical nature. Changes such as making 1 + 1 = 3 should for instance be listed as Mathematics Manipulation instead, as that is only a logical contradiction if one assumes the axioms of mathematics to be valid. For similar reasons, time paradoxes get listed as Acausality or Causality Manipulation and are not fundamentally considered logical contradictions.

That's very specific, I would say.
Generally, the assumption you make and that isn't at all stated or implied is that A being basis to B means that B manipulation is A manipulation.
Logic rules everything, but that doesn't mean that changing a part of everything is a change in logic.
Or to give a specific example: Modern mathematics is logic + ZFC Axioms. Any violation of logic is a violation of mathematics as well. The reverse isn't true. Violating the axiom of infinity would not result in the violation of any logical law.
So yeah, what the page says is that logic governs the other kinds of rules, not that it is the other kinds of rules.

If I understood things correctly, I think Haruhi Suzumiya counts, but to preface I am not a supporter so I might be wrong
Taking from the profile

Data includes laws, laws support reality. Haruhi can manipulate data, aka what builds up laws
I believe that this should fall under Logic Creation, as she creates and manipulates logic

Nah, as someone that knows the verse a little, I can say that's pretty standard case of Information Manipulation (Type 2). No logic alteration in that.

I mean it's kinda consistent in the verse as Gods have invulnerability to mortal weapons as they trancend the realms of logic.

They also can alter universal laws

Nah, just saying that a power doesn't make sense isn't enough to qualify it for logic manipulation.

If we're staying consistent, This should qualify(in reference to what created the world)

Well, maybe, but not really explicit enough. Like, you can have contradictory laws like "things with mass attract each other" and "things with mass repel each other". Those are certainly contradictory, but just try to have both laws would, for the start, not be logic manipulation worthy. Only if you actually have both simultanously something happens, but then you will see corresponding effects that should make that much easier to tell. Like, because you then start having objects which distance to each other simultaneously decreases and increases and stuff like that.

Here’s some stuff from Destiny that might be logic manipulation.

Spoiler

The Vex wield impossibility as their weapon, but they're as vulnerable to it as anything else

Spoiler

Look at you!

Already you are grown, my daughter, already you are a wizard. Have I been away so long? Now you are Ir Anûk, and Savathûn cackles and rages at your brilliance. You have written eleven axioms describing the ascendant places, our throne world. You have announced that you will kill one of these axioms, as Akka would kill the truth, and in mantling Akka you will become a God, as I am.

Spoiler

The Light is, by definition, paracausal and obeys a logic different from physical concepts like charge, heat, or angular momentum. Any analogy to these physical measurements of power' will fail to capture the true efficacy of a Guardian. Instead, we must look to self-understanding, clarity of purpose, and internalized phenomenologies and ontologies.

Spoiler

you talked to me about circles. Circles! Do you know
what the Traveler's reawakening meant for the geometry
of circles? You told me it changed everything about the
semiotic role of circles in some paracausal invocation of
the Light. And I'm going to tell you the truth, which is,
you didn't want to talk to me, so you talked about circles
instead. I know people who can talk in circles, but you're
the only one who can do it by talking about circles. I really
admire your efficiency.

Spoiler

and the Traveler's reawakening DID change what circles mean, you Hunter barbarian! Perfectly squaring the circle cannot be accomplished with classical construction so long as pi is a transcendental number, because root pi is not constructable (that is, constructable by compass and a straight edge in finite steps). But paracausal invocation allows us to set root pi to an arbitrary value even in a flat manifold, and because the sphere of the awakened Traveler defines a toroid in n dimensions—oh, but this is all evading your point, isn't it?

Mathematics manipulation maybe, but I don't see anything that would point to logic here.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

No, not even remotely. You don't explain how something supposedly can't be explained by a supernatural effect, by invoking an even higher class supernatural effect. Ultimately, it will just be some kind of supernatural effect that the verse does not consider part of its usual system. That that would be logic manipulation in particular is just a non-sequitur.

What? I'm sorry but this level of hax confuse me so I'm just trying to understand to the best of my ability. To my knowledge in order to qualify for logic manipulation

"Logic is defined in the real world as the study of correct reasoning. Translating this to fiction, manipulation of logic would essentially involve manipulating the rules governing deductive reasoning. Such rules provide the grounding for any deductive inference about the world, and thus for any and all intelligibility whatsoever. As such, they are not, and cannot be, rooted in any laws more fundamental than themselves. Rather, they are the basis for any and all laws, calculation, and relations between phenomena."

With the literal example of the ability being an attack which hits it's target even when they dodge. Is this not effectively the same thing since in the example the leaf avoided the motionless blade but was still hit anyway? Or does it need something else in order to qualify beyond just breaking a fundamental rule of logic?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Question, would manipulating laws (also called Logic of the world) that are themselves logically contradictory (violating law of excluded middle) be considered logic manipulation?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Question, would manipulating laws (also called Logic of the world) that are themselves logically contradictory (violating law of excluded middle) be considered logic manipulation?

You probably need to provide scans and context since you could portray something in a certain way while if DT were to actually look at the scans his opinions might differ than if he were to evaluate the question alone.

 

[Le'garde273]

Might be ask questions as well (the character currently lack an appearance on the series and lack of important key, so it doesn't have profiles currently) and have description overall like this.

Heavenly principles is the "Reason/logic/logos/理" Itself. "Reason" is the foundation of the world and forces that created and destroy the universe, with the very fabric of Life, Death, Space, and Time is only emanation of "reason" Itself, this four emanations function as universal laws that rule over everything, laws and rules of itself that cannot be defied. "Reason" Are refer as ultimate truth of cosmos and what govern the existence and operations of all things, it was a shackle and definitive everything from the true essence of all things, encompasses both the primordial order and fundamental principles, depicted as a power capable of shattering all things and even severing the universal will, for will itself is a power that transcends and reshapes reality, serving as the keystone of all phenomena, and "Reason" is a power that can deny the very "rationale" that sustains existence itself.

Does this fit? Since "reason" Here are the basis for any and all laws, and able to cut relations between phenomena.

If it's not, what it might be fall under?

---

The other case of logic violation might be beside reason could remove the very rationale of existence

It also can make nature of thing where nonexistence and existence exist simultaneously into one.

The ruler of death ronova which one of Heavenly principles emanations are allow capitano to trigger paradox where he exist in both death and alive state after ronova curse him with curse that negate death itself.

 

[Vietthai96]

It's not a necessary requirement in fiction, I'm of the opinion that fiction can make any statement true, but that's how it tends to work in real life philosophy (as long as you don't bring theology into it). Usually, the fundamentals of philosophy are built up by thinking about how logic works first and then getting to other metaphysical matters, which are then constrained by your choice of logic. It's a little pointless to try to make a valid argument about the nature of existence prior to deciding what a valid argument is, after all.
Hence, I usually wouldn't consider logic violations of laws and concepts as impacting logic.

Oke, though would you mind looking at this?

@DontTalkDT

What about this?

Pretty much Reason/Logic is prior and underlying causality and fate, which, of course, thing that manipulate it can cause time/causal paradox too

Sorry for bothering though

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

You probably need to provide scans and context since you could portray something in a certain way while if DT were to actually look at the scans his opinions might differ than if he were to evaluate the question alone.

I need to get it TLed in the eval thread, so I need to know if it even grants something before I send it in the tl thread (since otherwise I'll be wasting my chance to get something else TLed instead)

 

[Vietthai96]

Does this fit? Since "reason" Here are the basis for any and all laws, and able to cut relations between phenomena.

If it's not, what it might be fall under?

It seems solid Logic hax too me, since it prior to even laws and rules, and the most important part is it govern laws and rationale which pretty much mean logical principle that underlying action, decision, and belief. Pretty much something similar to deductive reasoning

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

It seems solid Logic hax too me, since it prior to even laws and rules, and the most important part is it govern laws and rationale which pretty much mean logical principle that underlying action, decision, and belief. Pretty much something similar to deductive reasoning

I'm pretty sure there being an underlying and fundamental force a verse calls logic isn't itself logic manip and that you need more specific logic-defying stuff included.

1. Tell me at least one rule of logic that was broken in your case. It's very unlikely that I will accept a case in this thread in which logic manipulation is done without some feat violating regular logic. Also, mind the defining logic section.

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm pretty sure there being an underlying and fundamental force a verse calls logic isn't itself logic manip and that you need more specific logic-defying stuff included.

I mean, it seem like it pretty much governs and affect rationale that define existence of something, that is the important stuff, the rest aren't important and just adding drop of water to the ocean. Rationale is deductive reasoning stuff. The scan literally said due to the rationale is lost, the Moon Goddess existence isn't recognizable anymore

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

I mean, it seem like it pretty much governs and affect rationale that define existence of something, that is the important stuff, the rest aren't important and just adding drop of water to the ocean. Rationale is deductive reasoning stuff. The scan literally said due to the rationale is lost, the Moon Goddess existence isn't recognizable anymore

Doesn't seem like it quite fits the case. Especially when logic manip here is inherently entrenched in the "specific" logic breaking stuff rather than just some generic encompassing force a verse correlates to logic. At best it's law/concept hax.

 

[sukuna171]

Sword logic could be considered a form of logic manipulation, as its logic dictates that only the strong have the right to exist, to the extent that it makes stronger beings invincible to weaker ones.

akka can deny a truth to it becomes a lie also here deep refers to darkness while sky refers to light.

Spoiler

In the cold abyss of the sword world, King Aurash walked under a cloak of green fire. He walked through the sky and the sky shuddered and froze beneath his feet. He walked until he found Akka, the Worm of Secrets, who was denying a truth until it became a lie.

“Akka my God, Worm of Secrets. I am Auryx, sole king of the Hive. I have come to receive a secret. I want the secret power of the Deep, which you hold.”

“I give no secrets,” said Akka, whose voice was code.

“No,” said Auryx, “you give nothing. Giving is for the Sky. You worship the Deep, which asks that we take what we need.”

Akka said nothing, because if it denied this truth, the truth might become false.

sword logic being a form of darkness is not bound by any system of reason or causality.

Spoiler

Some orders assert that Light and Darkness are not bound by any system of reason or causality.

also, with the power of sword logic a causal being can become unbound by causal closure

Spoiler

You are no longer bound by causal closure. Your will defeats law. Kill a hundred of your children with a long blade, Auryx, and observe the change in the blade. Observe how the universe shrinks from you in terror.

Your existence begins to define itself.

Of course, high Auryx, we know it was not curiosity alone that brought you back to the war. You felt your own death growing inside you.

Sword logic can define the laws of the throne worlds

Spoiler

he Vex clattered around, constructing large problems. At first their constructions were deranged, because they didn’t understand the sword logic, which defined all rules in Oryx’s throne world. The geometry perplexed them

Sword Logic is a universal logic in nature because it the Winnower’s principle, The ultimate goal of sword logic is to achieve the final shape, where only the mighty remain.

Spoiler

Ah, Oryx, how do we explain it to them? The world is not built on the laws they love. Not on friendship, but on mutual interest. Not on peace, but on victory by any means. The universe is run by extinction, by extermination, by gamma-ray bursts burning up a thousand garden worlds, by howling singularities eating up infant suns. And if life is to live, if anything is to survive through the end of all things, it will live not by the smile but by the sword, not in a soft place but in a hard hell, not in the rotting bog of artificial paradise but in the cold hard self-verifying truth of that one ultimate arbiter, the only judge, the power that is its own metric and its own source—existence, at any cost. Strip away the lies and truces and delaying tactics they call ‘civilization’ and this is what remains, this beautiful shape.

The fate of everything is made like this, in the collision, the test of one praxis against another. This is how the world changes: one way meets a second way, and they discharge their weapons, they exchange their words and markets, they contest and in doing so they petition each other for the right to go on being something, instead of nothing. This is the universe figuring out what it should be in the end.

And it is majestic. Majestic. It is the only thing that can be true in and of itself.

And it is what I am.

Spoiler

They existed, because they had to exist. They had no antecedent and no constituents, and there is no instrument of causality by which they could be portioned into components and assigned to some schematic of their origin. If you followed the umbilical of history in search of some ultimate atavistic embryo that became them, you would end your journey marooned here in this garden.

In the morning, the gardener pushed seeds down into the wet loam of the garden to see what they would become.

In the evening, the winnower reaped the day's crop and separated what would flourish from what had failed.

 

[Vesxpura]

Well, maybe, but not really explicit enough. Like, you can have contradictory laws like "things with mass attract each other" and "things with mass repel each other". Those are certainly contradictory, but just try to have both laws would, for the start, not be logic manipulation worthy. Only if you actually have both simultanously something happens, but then you will see corresponding effects that should make that much easier to tell. Like, because you then start having objects which distance to each other simultaneously decreases and increases and stuff like that.

Im sorry but when were we this stingy on semantics, this should be plenty specific since theres nothing else it could mean. also what ur describing is just an opposition, oppositions which arent inherently a "contradiction" in the sense of formal logic because apparently theres a distinction between it and everyday language, even though you yourself use the word "contradiction" when referencing formal logic. Since thats way more sensible than saying "opposite". Whenever someone refers to a contradiction its 99-100% of the times when something fulfills both p and not p simultaenously,

and also this scan should further justify the interpretation, since the sensible reading of the text infers that contextually it should be along the lines of "incoherent" or likewise. Also the scan is sequentially after the contradictory laws scan.

 

[Jin2188]

So I'm gonna make a list of all the current proposals on this thread (that haven't been fully addressed yet) and rank them by how much I think they qualify (and I wrote the defining logic section so I think I have a decent amount of authority here).

Should qualify:

• Cosmic Imagination: This one's about as blatant as you can get. It literally says that "two opposite propositions are both proven to be true", and one of the ways of doing this is stated to be "altering physical laws" so you can't argue Mind Manipulation. If this doesn't qualify, I don't know what does.
• Kim Dokja: A square circle is one of the archetypical examples of a logical contradiction. There is the Mathematics Manipulation angle, but we have to consider author intent here too, and the author clearly intended for this to be Logic Manipulation. I say it qualifies.
• @RM97's Proposal: There's no reason why this shouldn't be Logic Manipulation. Context was provided, with the girl being able to control the world, so I think it's disingenuous to argue flowery language here. DT also argued quantum superposition, but that fundamentally misunderstands how superposition works. It's not a particle existing in multiple distinct states, but a single indeterminate state. The particle effectively doesn't exist at all until the wave function collapses, at which point it appears in a single, determinate state. Something existing in multiple distinct, determinate, and opposing states at once is a blatant logical contradiction, and thus blatant Logic Manipulation.
• Sword Logic: A lot of the stuff presented is not good evidence, but I say Sword Logic qualifies primarily because of this. Taking a true statement and making it false seems like blatant Logic Manipulation to me, especially since there isn't additional context that would allow us to attribute this to, say, Law Manipulation for example. There is the Subjective Reality angle, but I don't think that's right considering the way it was described. Additionally, here's some supporting evidence, although I admit it wouldn't be enough to qualify on its own.

Unsure/Maybe:

• @Vesxpura's Proposal: I need more context to reach a clear verdict here. Like, I see statements about a world "not allowing contradictory laws" and "forces that try to make things make sense" which sounds like Logic Manipulation on paper, but I'd need a feat of someone actually manipulating these "forces" in order to come to a decision.
• Beelzebub: It's... really difficult to tell with this one. The two main feats are creating entities that are both biological and inorganic and making night and day exist simultaneously. The first thing could just be a cyborg, but the way it's talked about really doesn't feel like that's the case (Again, we have to consider author intent). The second thing specifically says that "the sun and the moon share the sky simultaneously", which obviously isn't a logical contradiction as that happens all the time in real life, but it goes on to say that it "blurs the line between night and day" which again, considering author intent, implies a logical contradiction. I can't really make a clear verdict here one way or the other. @TheGreatJedi13 if you can provide additional context please do so.
• @Le'garde273's Proposal: You can argue for or against Logic Manipulation based on the context given here. A lot of the statements present "Reason" as the ground for laws, which, while a necessary condition for Logic Manipulation, is not a sufficient one. Are there any examples of characters actually interfering with deductive reasoning, such as manifesting logical contradictions or making true statements false or vice versa? If not, I'd probably just list it as high level Law Manipulation.

Probably not:

• Xeno A: The scan presented seems to provide a single instance of Mathematics Manipulation, and two instances of Probability Manipulation. No Logic Manipulation to be found.

 

[Jin2188]

Also @DontTalkDT I think you're being a bit too strict here. The whole reason I wrote the defining logic section in the first place was to accommodate alternative logical systems that may not be based on real-world logical principles. It just needs to be some kind of system for deductive reasoning in order to qualify. It also kind of feels like you're grasping for any alternative explanation for a lot of these cases rather than the most obvious or likely one. I understand the need to block generic hyperbole, but I think this goes too far in the opposite direction.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

(and I wrote the defining logic section so I think I have a decent amount of authority here).

Sorry for asking but I do try to understand abilities to the best of my capabilities (since I do try to act as a knowledgeable source for what can and can't qualify for weird scenarios), is there a reason why my sword example of a blade being able to cut through something without doing anything wouldn't qualify? I figured it would qualify since it's both in a state of attacking and not attacking, something which contradicts basic logic. Is it simply a lack of additional evidence (there is more stuff but I just wanted to keep it simple since I'm using this information to help with a upcoming CRT) or is there something I'm missing here

 

[Jin2188]

Sorry for asking but I do try to understand abilities to the best of my capabilities (since I do try to act as a knowledgeable source for what can and can't qualify for weird scenarios), is there a reason why my sword example of a blade being able to cut through something without doing anything wouldn't qualify? I figured it would qualify since it's both in a state of attacking and not attacking, something which contradicts basic logic. Is it simply a lack of additional evidence (there is more stuff but I just wanted to keep it simple since I'm using this information to help with a upcoming CRT) or is there something I'm missing here

Without further context, it could be literally anything. It could just be moving really, really fast, making it seem like it's cutting without touching. Or it could be some kind of hyper-specific Reality Warping, or NPI, or Telekinesis. There just isn't enough context there to determine which of those things is most likely.

 

[Detective_Blizzard]

Without further context, it could be literally anything. It could just be moving really, really fast, making it seem like it's cutting without touching. Or it could be some kind of hyper-specific Reality Warping, or NPI, or Telekinesis. There just isn't enough context there to determine which of those things is most likely.

Ok, fair, I can at least confirm that none of those traits fit any of those traits. Other examples of the blade include being able to just..... cause a large multitude of attacks to occur from nothing (explicitly not a speed blitz, as this happens to characters who'd be comparable), being able to selectively slice objects regardless on what's in it's way (such as cutting an object behind something completely covering it, without interacting with the cover) nor the distance between them (has been shown to interact with clouds and the moon from ground level), and was just straight up scanned by a quantum supercomputer which deemed the actual materials of the blade being incapable of accomplishing it's feats. I know that last one doesn't prove anything on it's own since it's falls under the 'characters saying something is impossible doesn't count', however it does convey the point I'm trying to make in which this thing does a lot of things with this specific trait but none of it is explained beyond "It can cut things without needing to interact with them". It's explicitly not magic, it never shows any signs of reality warping, telekinesis just doesn't seem right, and NPI doesn't cover this type of interaction. The reason I landed on logic manipulation is because the main example of being able to hit targets even when they dodge is the closest I could find for it.

I do thank you for your time, this is just one of those things where I've been trying to figure out how to classify something for far too long given it's vague nature and complete disregard for basic logic. Always a case of 'close, but somehow not close enough'

 

[Jin2188]

Ok, fair, I can at least confirm that none of those traits fit any of those traits. Other examples of the blade include being able to just..... cause a large multitude of attacks to occur from nothing (explicitly not a speed blitz, as this happens to characters who'd be comparable), being able to selectively slice objects regardless on what's in it's way (such as cutting an object behind something completely covering it, without interacting with the cover) nor the distance between them (has been shown to interact with clouds and the moon from ground level), and was just straight up scanned by a quantum supercomputer which deemed the actual materials of the blade being incapable of accomplishing it's feats. I know that last one doesn't prove anything on it's own since it's falls under the 'characters saying something is impossible doesn't count', however it does convey the point I'm trying to make in which this thing does a lot of things with this specific trait but none of it is explained beyond "It can cut things without needing to interact with them". It's explicitly not magic, it never shows any signs of reality warping, telekinesis just doesn't seem right, and NPI doesn't cover this type of interaction. The reason I landed on logic manipulation is because the main example of being able to hit targets even when they dodge is the closest I could find for it.

I'd say Spatial Manipulation is probably the best candidate for this, although I am by no means an expert regarding that.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

• Beelzebub: It's... really difficult to tell with this one. The two main feats are creating entities that are both biological and inorganic and making night and day exist simultaneously. The first thing could just be a cyborg, but the way it's talked about really doesn't feel like that's the case (Again, we have to consider author intent). The second thing specifically says that "the sun and the moon share the sky simultaneously", which obviously isn't a logical contradiction as that happens all the time in real life, but it goes on to say that it "blurs the line between night and day" which again, considering author intent, implies a logical contradiction. I can't really make a clear verdict here one way or the other. @TheGreatJedi13 if you can provide additional context please do so.

Well, the location or place is within the Tower of Babyl which is a location in reality that becomes insulated and defies the laws of natural order.
DT seems convinced that causing death to an immortal is related to causality hax since it was mentioned, but it was just Astral's Theory on chaos matter. But the final explanation in the archives involved many other things other than causality

The Biological and Inorganic enemy is just a black figure. and sun and sky existing simultaneously is while inside Tower of Babyl

Furthermore, the act of killing a primal beast or causing rebirth is already a paradox, and this is stated by someone who basically defines causality. So he alludes to something more than it being causality-related.

eitherway Beelzebub's story will conclude in March this year, so I'll probably just wait if I can get more context out of him.

 

[Vesxpura]

I need more context to reach a clear verdict here. Like, I see statements about a world "not allowing contradictory laws" and "forces that try to make things make sense" which sounds like Logic Manipulation on paper, but I'd need a feat of someone actually manipulating these "forces" in order to come to a decision.

This should be sufficient, context is given below the scans.

 

[sukuna171]

So I'm gonna make a list of all the current proposals on this thread (that haven't been fully addressed yet) and rank them by how much I think they qualify (and I wrote the defining logic section so I think I have a decent amount of authority here).

Should qualify:

• Cosmic Imagination: This one's about as blatant as you can get. It literally says that "two opposite propositions are both proven to be true", and one of the ways of doing this is stated to be "altering physical laws" so you can't argue Mind Manipulation. If this doesn't qualify, I don't know what does.
• Kim Dokja: A square circle is one of the archetypical examples of a logical contradiction. There is the Mathematics Manipulation angle, but we have to consider author intent here too, and the author clearly intended for this to be Logic Manipulation. I say it qualifies.
• @RM97's Proposal: There's no reason why this shouldn't be Logic Manipulation. Context was provided, with the girl being able to control the world, so I think it's disingenuous to argue flowery language here. DT also argued quantum superposition, but that fundamentally misunderstands how superposition works. It's not a particle existing in multiple distinct states, but a single indeterminate state. The particle effectively doesn't exist at all until the wave function collapses, at which point it appears in a single, determinate state. Something existing in multiple distinct, determinate, and opposing states at once is a blatant logical contradiction, and thus blatant Logic Manipulation.
• Sword Logic: A lot of the stuff presented is not good evidence, but I say Sword Logic qualifies primarily because of this. Taking a true statement and making it false seems like blatant Logic Manipulation to me, especially since there isn't additional context that would allow us to attribute this to, say, Law Manipulation for example. There is the Subjective Reality angle, but I don't think that's right considering the way it was described. Additionally, here's some supporting evidence, although I admit it wouldn't be enough to qualify on its own.

Unsure/Maybe:

• @Vesxpura's Proposal: I need more context to reach a clear verdict here. Like, I see statements about a world "not allowing contradictory laws" and "forces that try to make things make sense" which sounds like Logic Manipulation on paper, but I'd need a feat of someone actually manipulating these "forces" in order to come to a decision.
• Beelzebub: It's... really difficult to tell with this one. The two main feats are creating entities that are both biological and inorganic and making night and day exist simultaneously. The first thing could just be a cyborg, but the way it's talked about really doesn't feel like that's the case (Again, we have to consider author intent). The second thing specifically says that "the sun and the moon share the sky simultaneously", which obviously isn't a logical contradiction as that happens all the time in real life, but it goes on to say that it "blurs the line between night and day" which again, considering author intent, implies a logical contradiction. I can't really make a clear verdict here one way or the other. @TheGreatJedi13 if you can provide additional context please do so.
• @Le'garde273's Proposal: You can argue for or against Logic Manipulation based on the context given here. A lot of the statements present "Reason" as the ground for laws, which, while a necessary condition for Logic Manipulation, is not a sufficient one. Are there any examples of characters actually interfering with deductive reasoning, such as manifesting logical contradictions or making true statements false or vice versa? If not, I'd probably just list it as high level Law Manipulation.

Probably not:

• Xeno A: The scan presented seems to provide a single instance of Mathematics Manipulation, and two instances of Probability Manipulation. No Logic Manipulation to be found.

The Witness also claims that with the Final Shape, it becomes unbound and gains the ability to define logic.

 

[Jin2188]

This should be sufficient, context is given below the scans.

I'm not sure really, seems pretty tenuous. I'd say make a CRT.

 

[Vietthai96]

Kim Dokja: A square circle is one of the archetypical examples of a logical contradiction. There is the Mathematics Manipulation angle, but we have to consider author intent here too, and the author clearly intended for this to be Logic Manipulation. I say it qualifies.

I think this is just Mathematical with Spatial hax, of course you can stretch it to Logic hax, but at best you could only get a possibly Logic hax

 

[Jin2188]

I think this is just Mathematical with Spatial hax, of course you can stretch it to Logic hax, but at best you could only get a possibly Logic hax

You're missing the point of what I said there. With additional context, you could say it's Mathematics Manipulation, sure, but all we get is "square circle", which is a clear logical contradiction. Therefore it qualifies.

Logic Manipulation isn't supposed to be a "cool kid's club" which requires hyper-specific terminology in order to qualify. It's an ability like any other. If you create a logical contradiction in the absence of further context, you qualify. Maybe when it was still being scaled to High 1-A+ bullshit there would have been a justification for being this pedantic, but now that we've agreed to scale it by feats, there's no reason to treat it this way.

 

[Vietthai96]

But would that just make every contradiction feats in fiction Logic hax??

 

[Jin2188]

But would that just make every contradiction feats in fiction Logic hax??

If a character manifests a logical contradiction, with it being explicitly pointed out as such, then yes, it qualifies.

 

[SuperNova55555]

But would that just make every contradiction feats in fiction Logic hax??

Isn’t that what the hax is…? We’re already pretty strict on what qualifies as contradiction (as we see with PP), so what would the holdup be

 

[Fixxed]

You're missing the point of what I said there. With additional context, you could say it's Mathematics Manipulation, sure, but all we get is "square circle", which is a clear logical contradiction. Therefore it qualifies.

Logic Manipulation isn't supposed to be a "cool kid's club" which requires hyper-specific terminology in order to qualify. It's an ability like any other. If you create a logical contradiction in the absence of further context, you qualify. Maybe when it was still being scaled to High 1-A+ bullshit there would have been a justification for being this pedantic, but now that we've agreed to scale it by feats, there's no reason to treat it this way.

Well... the thing is we "seperate" logic and it effect (i dont know what word is good to describe that), thats why making 1+1 equal 3 are just math manip to begin with, unless you affect the logic that "behind" it

In other word, verse must explicitly stated/mean to stated logic or it law, not just provide some contradiction feats

 

[Vesxpura]

I'm not sure really, seems pretty tenuous. I'd say make a CRT.

A crt is going to happen, and i disagree. i argue its quite blatant. i even gave reasoning as to why it would qualify as a p and not p within the verse. the already accepted example reflects what ive given.