MHXX vs Arcueid (Original Tsukihime)

You're jumbling every single metaphysical system regarding abstract forms under OG Platonism it seems, considering you're implying that all abstracts are completely immutable and absolute.

There's only a handful of World Views of "Abstracts"--and the one you're proposing can be achieved by someone with universal Matter Manipulation--and Is contingent upon Time:

If you're claiming that is the absolute one and only truth, then you need to stop debating a lot of the shit you debate.

Platonism--in how it approaches Abstracts is more consistent in what it claims. Everything else that is subject to change can just be reduced to a Physical component in a more than usual contingent manner.

Even variants of Neoplatonism, which is generally a less stupid version of Platonism that evolved and has things such as mutable abstracts.

Sure--they wouldn't be Eternal, Perfect, or non-contigent then. and this opening critique:

All the user above posted is MHXX cutting space. Anyone manipulating the abstract laws that created space, act as the rules of how space even works, and is the foundation upon which space is contingent upon for its existence stomps her.

Would make little to no sense--as the only qualifiers would be things that existed before time, space--and matter (as all 3 would have to come into existence at once) and thus inside the Platonic Paradmine of Abstracts. but since they "Change" It's a contradiction. and doesn't actually have any merit or impressive "Umph" to it. in all honesty, this claim:

Even if Arcueid somehow attacked XX before she used her skill, she can passively reverse time to avoid any attack at any given time. XX ends Arcueid and returns to annihilating Sabers.

Would serve to be sufficient enough to shut down whatever hax or worldview you're putting out. but that's all i gotta say, I'll wait for him to contend you.

@chainchan: Oh Chain, you little rascal you.

There's quite a lot of views on them. There just so happens to be many that are incoherent, like thinking the source of all things is a physical void with literally nothing in it.

Sure.

I could attack your Aristotelian argument, but it's frankly a waste of time, as it was never brought up by me or Old Type-Moon.

Okay...? I'm just saying you cant use the Word "Before" or "Created" space--and as a result, time, and matter--and claim it's a different mode of abstracts--when it would naturally fall under Platnoism--and fail because it can change.

If you're saying that's the only abstract metaphysical system that has mutable concepts, that's blatantly wrong. There are countless of views out there that only God, The One, The Boundless Source, etc. are the only absolute and immutable things, with everything else, including the abstract forms being mutable and contingent upon it, as they flowed from and were actualized by The One:

The words "Flowing" and "Emanating" Neccestitate Either Space--or Cause and Effect--and to what point a thing loses it "Immutability" could just be used negatively against it--by questioning if it ever was in the first place. But I'm open to further Explanation on Neoplatnoism and whether or not the "One" Can have intellect to actively do such--or is just a useless placeholder god that only exists to create reality.

This is what The Root is based on in Old Type-Moon. It is blatantly called "The One" several times, with the proper descriptions and explanations applied to it:

This isn't a one-off naming of The Root/Akasha/whatever you may call it either. Sion yet again refers to it as "The One":

I mean that's fine--but I don't hold (From General Knowledge) that "The One" would be immutable--and it's constant relation with creation would require time--or constant change. Which begs the question--at one point did it lose it's immutability?

And in one of the quotes in my initial post on this thread, Kara no Kyoukai makes it very clear that physical space, even if infinite, is contingent upon the abstract for its existence. Ryougi operating at an abstract level is what allowed her to effortlessly destroy Araya's infinite reality.

I don't see how that's mutually exclusive to say--an Aristotelian Designation of contingency where the Universal being affected changes the Particulars--whilst likewise, the Particulars being changed can change/create a new Universal.

Yes... What is your point? I never said Old Type-Moon characters could manipulate immutable abstracts. That's a complete oxymoron. The only immutable absolute thing in Old Type-Moon is The One.

I just take Trouble in the wording of "Abstract laws" that Created space. when how you're describing them can be reduced to Aristotelian ones that are just Universal Descriptives--i could grant an Immutable Root, or " " but I'm not too keen on Emenation.

However, the potentials inside of it aren't immutable, otherwise they wouldn't flow from and return to The One. You can manipulate the abstract forms that flow from The One or even actualize the potentials within it, but you can't manipulate The One itself. And while there are characters that can manipulate aspects of the abstract and can mess with the potentials in The One, there is no one currently in Old Type-Moon that is The One itself, aka omnipotent.

"Inside" "Flow" "Return" arent problematic words for you? as I said above, I'm fine with an Immutable Root--but the idea of "The One" seems silly.

Incorrect. A physical being can have a connection to the abstract beyond their physical body. This isn't contradictory to Neoplatonism, but even if it was, Old Type-Moon doesn't exclusively use Neoplatonism and alters it in subtle ways for its story, but that in no way makes it magically invalid.

If you could--i'd like to see a Justification--because as it stands right now (Like I said before) the impressive "Umph" you're looking for doesn't really matter if all Hax demonstrated cannot stop the Reversal of said Change--i could give an example if you'd like.

It's best you sit this one out Chain. I took the bait because I knew it wouldn't matter, as it'd simply backfire on you.

?

Nothing backfired. I'm just seeing how far you could rhetorically defend such a point--but you've settled for change in your Abstract laws, and Hax--(whilst I also settled for an Abstract Under my Definition "The One" because it doesn't matter if you have it.) which would make passive Time Manipulation a viable counter.

Your mistake here is thinking that the time intertwined with space is the only form of time. The abstract also clearly has its own time if change occurs, just the most fundamental variant of it. For instance, God creating space and time really just means the timestream for space, not the fundamental concept of time period.

that's the thing--I dont hold there's a concept of time outside what it descriptive calls for--or a more "Fundamental" stacked time beyond the Physical to explain the abstract change. especially when it becomes Absurd when positions like theology assume Time (Change in any capacity), doesnt exist without things that can change (Matter), and Matter cant exist without Space--hence, they all need to come into being at the same time.

The true essence of The One is unchangeable.

What do you fancy the True Essensce of "The One" is? It's Unity? the Unity that would be indeitifable with multiple contradictory natures?

The potentialities in it are mutable, but not the unifying force of The One itself. Being able to preform actions and participate in time doesn't make it loses its immutableness. You can be an absolute even within time.

Again--i dont know about the wording of "in" but i can gather what you mean.

and yeah, you can be absolute in time--by being present throughout all of it, and before it, sure. But direct action--and cause and effect Relationship with Phyiscal Objects with immutitabtley--would require the type of abstract i proposed that cant actually do that--hence, the term, "useless god"

excuse me for any spelling errors, playing a game while periodically checking the thread.

@chainchan: Luckily found a small bit of free time, so let's continue.

alr.

It doesn't really matter what you believe in though. That's how several fictions and philosophies work. And it's not illogical, so you can't lean on that. You just don't really like it. That's fine, but it doesn't change the validity of it.

Fiction does a lot of stuff, and I know "I think" or believe, doesn't falsify a proposition. I'm just skeptical of the lack of justification at an inherent contradiction--that has abstract change--in "objects" that posit no change. they're two contending propositions of states--that are being affirmed to be true at the same time.

The One would be the singular fundamental necessary thing for existence to be. All things are unified within it as unactualized potentialities. This leaves no contradiction, since yes, there are different contradicting things in The One, as it contains all things. But they don't truly exist yet in the sense they are not actualized. They are only potentials in the same way one going left or right is not the same as one going both left and right at the same time. The former is potential, the latter is an actualized event.

If you're asking why The One is fundamental, it's just an axiom for these types of metaphysical systems to get off the ground. Axioms are fine, so long as they are internally consistent.

This goes back to my previous question--who and what realizes said Potentia? does "the one" have the intellect or free will from eternity before it's emanated forth?

especially when it becomes Absurd when positions like theology assume Time (Change in any capacity), doesnt exist without things that can change (Matter), and Matter cant exist without Space--hence, they all need to come into being at the sametime.

and yeah, you can be absolute in time--by being present throughout all of it, and before it, sure. But direct action--and cause and effect Relationship with Phyiscal Objects with immutitabtley--would require the type of abstract i proposed that cant actually do that--hence, the term, "useless god"

You're creating problems where there are none.

There is absolutely no universal truth proving that abstract things must be logically unchangeable.

The Universal Truth is found in their identity and Attributes--in that they are abstract (especially in the sense, of not coming into existence) and cannot change.

That generally isn't even the case in most philosophies or literally any fiction.

Most Philosophies have different paradigms--but can be internally consistent with one and another. Like Aristotelian and Platonic concepts...in theory--fiction, doesn't. It's not united and it differing doesn't mean it's a justifiable diffrence--for all we could no, it could be making a false claim off misunderstanding--a classical logic impossibility, etc.

The fact that reality changes from one state to another proves that abstracts are not necessarily beyond change and immutable.

I don't think physical reality changing--is indicative of abstract change (unless Aristotelian), and generalizing reality to say everything changes, presupposes said abstracts can change when their properties don't allow for such.

If abstracts were absolute, immutable, and incapable of changing from one state to another, that means everything that ever could be emanated from said abstract forms would always exist in an unchangeable state.

It'd just mean creation is Impossible. Which is the absurdism in Plato's view.

We would not be changing from one state to another. Nothing would be in motion. Everything would already be actualized since literally forever.

Could be Predeterminstic, if you wanted it to be--or the changing of participation.

You are suggesting that The One must be immutable in every capacity conceivable, when that is not the case. Its function as the source of all things is immutable, but that does not mean its functions in how it deals with certain things, such as actualizing potentiality and thus emanating creation, are also immutable and stagnate.

So it cannot help but Actualize Creation--from eternity?

One may say "But it's 'The One', meaning it can't be made up of different parts." That is in reference to it not being made up of lesser more fundamental things that combine to create it. It having different aspects/potentialities/functions is a totally different story and not contradictory to the idea that it is not made up of lesser parts, as none of these aspects of it can exist by themselves. They are all the same unifying unactualized actualizer. The only thing that is self-referenced.

That wouldn't be my contention. I've already granted it--but it doesn't seem coherent in the long run--of course, depending on how you answer the questions above.

@chainchan:

Well, there may be fictional settings that treat things like consciousness as non-physical, non-localizable, non-material things and consciousness clearly changes, so the idea that "Oh only physical changes" is not true in certain systems.

Especially fictional settings that utilize consciousness as bypassing distance to make changes like moving objects in a non-physical "non-touching" manner using consciousness. In these systems, and I am sure there are a lot, consciousness has properties that are indescribable in spatial terms and is immaterial, yet it does change.

And the same thing applies to many reality warping gods in fiction, they have consciousness properties that are clearly non-physical and clearly non-spatial since they bypass space indicating, yet this consciousness clearly changes.

So no, again, there are systems where changes occur outside space, corresponding to the time outside space, in this immaterial consciousness. This pretty much renders any theology that thinks only material entities are changeable as flawed frameworks that we shouldn't be beholden to, dogmatically.

I don't want to strawman, so let me summarize--the argument can be said to just be: "Because the Mind is Immaterial (Assumed Axiom) and changes, then it proves that immaterial things can change."correct me if I'm wrong.

We don't need to talk about the essence of a boundless source beyond stating that it's the foundation of everything you can do in a VSdebate, the purpose of "The One" in my view, is an explicit and formal method to ensure there is a foundation that unifies the metaphysical natural laws of all fictional settings, allowing the rules of all verses to be subject to change to accommodate interaction to another verse's laws for cross-combability, which allows us to debate any verse against another verse without limit.

Does it--or does it not Assume all Characteristics? Does "The One" Willfully actualize said Potentials--and if so--why is intellect an Attribute that's not actualized beforehand? if not, then does it forcefully and constantly emanate these potentials?

For example, Goku has no feats of being MFTL in a universe that doesn't support FTL travel without going infinity, without destroying yourself, but in a VSdebate we assume there is a secret unnamed Omnipotent that is warping reality that allows Goku to carry his MFTL properties without having to be infinite in another universe that doesn't abide by his FTL physics.

Goku wouldn't be able to go MFTL in a verse that dictates a necessary law--of a cap out in LS--with special conditionals needed for higher that Goku doesn't meet. no, "Unmaed Omnipotent" is assumed--but stated in an over-ruling by OP--In a Neutral Setting--this law isn't enforced--and thus not necessary--and doesn't need someone to justify Goku can do such.

and not only that, this Omnipotent makes sure that Goku can be MFTL in all fictional settings.

No. that's going beyond what can be assumed or charitably argued.

therefore his feats is applicable against any verse he is pitted against. And an Omnipotent ensures that only "The One" is the law that is unchangeable, minimizing as much unchangeable laws as possible allows for flexible VSdebating.

so, "The One" or the Root, needs an Unamed Omnipotent to ensure its unchangeability in the Face of a critique--? fine with me, don't know how it'd affect Seventh's argumentation, or my friend, but that doesn't concern me--but what does concern me is the number of points I'll have to address in text--something I'm not gonna do without need.

Yes, basically. I am the type of guy who prefers Aristotle to Plato because his view aligns with how reality warping works in fiction. Aristotle's Prime Mover is purely immaterial, and has no definable coordinate, yet the Prime Mover is thought thinking itself, since it is thought thinking itself and actively pulls all of physical reality's motions around its own Willpower, the Prime Mover is in fact, changing, but it is purely immaterial, you cannot touch it.

Some versions of Neoplatonism are more influenced by Aristotle in some areas, there are versions where The One is literally the Greek Titan Cronus, and Zeus is the embodiment of all the thoughts of Cronus, and Zeus goes on to generate the Soul of the material world, and so on, but this version of Cronus and Zeus are basically omnipotent and near-omnipotent respectively and may in fact, be the strongest versions of Greek Mythology.

This may not be relevant to you, but you have to understand that Aristotle didn't say you can't have things beyond space, he said you cannot have non-sentient abstracts being beyond space, Aristotle thinks that only the Prime Mover, a sentient consciousness of actualizing power, is the only thing beyond space.

is the Prime Mover Omniscient?

You have to distinguish Abstract Concepts from Consciousness, because Abstract Concepts are non-sentient, impersonal entities, they cannot think and cannot act. But Consciousness can think and can act, and Aristotle thinks only Consciousness is beyond the realm of Space.

I already recognized such.

Aristotle disagrees with Plato's notion that the Platonic Forms are beyond space, his version of the Forms are immaterial but bound to the physical world.

To give you some concrete analogy, can you touch the Laws of Thermodynamics? No, and yet the Laws of Thermodymanics are clearly bound to the physical world, even though it makes no sense to touch a natural law of the physical world. Aristotle thinks of his version of the Abstract Forms as being bound and immanent to the physical world, despite being immaterial.

I know--that's what I'm attributing as a defacto "Abstract Change" Classification.

Furthermore, in Aristotle's view, only the Prime Mover's Consciousness is beyond space, and is the one making the physical world having its own temporal order of cause and effect, as well as managing all its universals to boot.

That's fine.

I prefer Aristotle's view because all reality warping and hax in fiction is manipulating by Consciousness and Sentient immaterial entities and is highly similar to Aristotle's view, not non-sentient abstract forms of Plato.

That's fine--but I don't think that goes against the main over arching point I brought up.

It's not about charitability my friend, it's about the rules. The Mods would casually demand you to assume that a character who is MFTL in his own universe should be assumed to be MFTL in literally every other fictional universe, even if those fictional universes are explicitly stated to have laws that make it absolutely impossible for FTL movements to occur. Even though they have 0 evidence for this.

What Mod are you in contact with?

If you and I both wrote a fictional universe and axiomatically defined there are natural laws absolutely preventing FTL travel, if this verse was taken into consideration of Comicvine, they're not going to respect our rules. That's just how it is.

In fact, VSdebating is basically a version of those forms of Theism that thinks God necessarily exists in both reality and fiction, and all describable versions of reality and fiction. Because both are assuming there is no logical contradiction in almost any metaphysical universe.

Now, I don't like it, you don't like it, but if you want to complain, you take it to the house, don't take it to me. Comicvine essentially has an unnamed omnipotent as the background of all fictional debates that eradicates the absoluteness of any law that VSdebaters desire to change, such as whatever it is that prevents their fictional characters from carrying their abilities to another. Believe me, if I was in charge, this wouldn't be the case.

I've seen, SB, and CV account for DB Time Travel Mechanics in the "Invade Verse" Scenario...I'm pretty sure it's accounted for.

Well, I don't know about Seventh. But I think The Root is basically a non-sentient version of an Omnipotent, or at least, not a fully sentient version of it.

Then I don't see why it wouldn't just Eternally and fully Actualize everything within itself.

I think The One can be changed, I just don't think you can destroy it, it's the best compromise in my view, as any alternative just breaks our VSdebating models, unless you have an alternate proposition that works for me.

I already Granted that the Root would have qualities--even if I disagreed with actual real-life functionality.

Talk about an actual contradiction. Free will is inherently illogical, but I digress.

The One either has a will that decides to actualize potentials, or it's non-sentient and just emanates things passively. If you ask why The One passively emanates things, the answer is the same answer you'd get if you asked why existence is a thing: Because that's just how things are, to which there can be no other answer.

I mean--it's either what you consider illogical in free will--or another contradiction in which Passive Emenation means all Potentials are realized inside itself--as it'd eternally need to (As it cant just start Emenating--without a will, which would neccistate that this process of realization happen during eternity--and forever exist, along with said passive emenation)--which'd lead to contradictory propositions--within possibilties being realized within it's essensce, and denoting it being illogical.

There is no inherent attributes that demand that the abstract is immutable.

There is--(LOI) it's identity in a Platnoic sense neccistates it cant come into being--or change. Which is invalidated when said qualties are demonstrated--hence, a contradiction.

That's not what internal consistency is. Internal consistency is a system that doesn't contradict itself, even if it contradicts other systems outside of itself. For instance, there can be two different metaphysical philosophies that contradict each other, aka cannot both be true at the same time, but are internally consistent in of themselves.

that doesnt negate what i said. Sure, it can be consistent within of itself--but that doesnt bar being consistent with other things outside of itself.

Abstracts as a whole emanate the material world, including its time. The fact that time flows in the material world implies there is temporality in the abstract.

Which is a contradiction--or outright category Era. An abstract (Plato) by it's pre-existensce, and inability to change. To Ementate--or realize reality from all Eternity--like i said above, would mean you realize contradictory propositions within your essensce at the same time.

And again, there are no universal attributes to abstracts that demand them being immutable.

It's identity. You cant say "An apple Doesnt have to be Apple" when LOI neccistates within itself it is an Apple.

I don't get why you keep bringing up Plato when no one here is using OG Platonism. He is not the end-all-be-all of metaphysical philosophers. He believes in blatantly illogical shit like objective morality after all, which evolutions of his philosophy in Neoplatonism intelligently got rid of.

why'd objective morality be illogical? but asides from that, Plato--offers one of many (but small) abstract paradigme--that Abstract that'd natrualistically follow said paradigme would fall to. it's an either or--and not just a slight tweak.

Everything being determined doesn't change the fact that our consciousness goes from one state to another. It may be predestined, but it's change nonetheless.

predestintion doesnt disallow change. and the mind changing--and thinking can be used against it.

Yes, as that is its default state, with no one at the moment becoming its mind or having enough uncontested control over it to stop that function.

then it cannot help but Actualize everything passivley--c1: before time (and during time)--c2: which would include contradictory propositions off of contigency.

if A always Exists--and D is the process of all Collective Potentials being realised--and is contigent on C as conditonal--which is contigent on B to generate it--which B would be contigent on A existing to passivley do B--then A, B, C, and D would occour at once with and without a process before time--and A which is supposed to be the realization of the collective letters in full essensce--would bear the full blunt categorical denotion--which would neccistate a Dialethia--that you hold to be illogical. if that's the basis for the one, and the root--then it'd be no better than current nasu.

But even without such, the admission of abstact change:

Even if Arcueid somehow attacked XX before she used her skill, she can passively reverse time to avoid any attack at any given time. XX ends Arcueid and returns to annihilating Sabers.

Would mean this is a Viable Defense.

It always emanating things for eternity does not mean all potentials have been actualized. A limited amount are emanated and then return to The One randomly.

Except several variants of Neoplatonism explicitly do not abide by this axiom and instead claim that abstracts do indeed come into being via being emanated by The One like everything else. Again:

For Eternity =/= From Eternity. If the One doesnt have a mode of willing, and doesnt come into existensce, it has to passivley Ementate from Eternity--and since there's no sense of becoming in Eternity (As later put) it'd would logically follow all possibilties are followed.

that doesnt negate what i said. Sure, it can be consistent within of itself--but that doesnt bar being consistent with other things outside of itself.

Why would we care about completely different axiomatic systems not being compatible with each other? Yeah, that's kinda the point. That's irrelevant because Old Type-Moon picks one axiomatic position, with some tweaks and sticks to it. Internal consistency matters here, not external.

I just said there systems that can be compatible here. and if you dont care about it--skim past the point.

You keep bringing up OG Platonism when no one else did. I don't care about it and Old Type-Moon doesn't use it, so any point you make in regards to it is irrelevant.

New Type-Moon doesn't use it either btw.

What...? by proposing an uncaused cause (Non Contigent) you'd categorically go into Platnoism.

Because morality is a value judgement of certain actions and character traits. Those are inherently subjective, regardless of if some sentient omnipotent god exists or not. Its views on "good" would just be its own personal views. They aren't superior or inferior to others from a objective standpoint, as morality does not fall under objectivity.

the Value judgements themselves rely on moral objectivity in Oughts. if an Omnipotent God Exists--and is the basis for these Morals (Not in View, but in being) then they'd be conflated with his Objective Existensce.

but asides from that, Plato--offers

I.

Do.

Not.

Care.

What Plato thinks or offers.

He laid the groundwork for later metaphysical systems, but that groundwork, even if one respects it, is mostly outdated and illogical. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter because the verses here in this thread do not use OG Platonism. Plato doesn't have the absolute rights to metaphysics. You act as if anything he says is truth and overrides any other philosophy. That's not the case. So long as a metaphysical system is internally consistent, then it is logical and useable. You could argue that two fictions with VERY different metaphysical systems down to their core cannot be debated against each other, but that isn't too much of the case here. This is an altered variant of Neoplatonism with Taiji sprinkled in (Old Type-Moon) Vs. a failed Neoplatonism and Taiji attempt that instead resulted in void space bullshit (New Type-Moon), with the latter being directly subordinate to the shit actual Neoplatonism deals with.

An example of verses that couldn't be pitted against each other due to being too fundamentally different would be one that works off Platonism and one that works off Neoplatonism. Or one that is ontological and one that is anti-ontological. But there are no such extremities in this case here. New TM just deals in something that is directly subordinate to the abstract in Neoplatonism, while being incompetent enough to think it's actually Neoplatonism abstracts they're using. That's all.

If you're using a "Uncaused Object" with no Intellect--it falls Under Platnoic Views. sure it can differ, but the basis or logic needed for that "Uncaused Object" would categorically fit in Platnoic description of forms.

MHXX hits Arcueid.

It does nothing because she's attacking someone with control over highly superordinate principles directly subordinate to The One.

She then wills MHXX out of existence, returning her to the potentiality of The One, with time reversal being irrelevant, as she can simply alter the abstract laws that govern how the time of space works and stop it from being manipulated.

The end.

Other dude can Deal with this further--but subordinate Princples dont exist within the Paradmine of Neoplatonism, and "Laws" that govern Time--would be put into question of said "Governing" because you propose they come into being which requires Time (Change)--and would thus be Contigent upon such. so what really happens, is that Arcueid tries to change the laws before (doesnt exist) time, and her change get's reverted.

And that's ignoring the fact MHXX is sub-reality level and can't even alter the time flow of the true reality or anything in it.

"True Reality" "Sub Reality" The Paradime you propose without a mode of willing neccestitates that contradictory states exist as apart of the essensce in "The One"

Even ignoring that though, much weaker people are killing MHXX. You're pitting someone with low-tier void space hax against someone who embodies an origin rivaling Death/Nil, as Type-Moon's eyes are stated to be the "the ultimate mystic eyes" and the final rank of them, making them relative to Death Perception:

With Death Perception being an extremely superordinate concept directly beneath The One, as it can bring about the end of all things logically possible without exception:

We only see limitations from it because the people wielding it can't comprehend certain things to enact their end:

Though their mind/eyes evolve the more they use them, which is why Ryougi by the time of the Epilogue can kill anything.

So Type-Moon's eyes are operating on the general level of a highly superordinate concept (Death) that can end all things. We do not know the specific nature of Type-Moon's eyes, but being able to operate on that general level is already reaching nightmare tiers to face.

Furthermore, Type-Moon is heavily suggested to be able to alter one of the primary systems that The Root/One set forth for creation, which is the Sixth Law where all things must die:

All things are fated to end and return to The One. This is the Sixth Law. Nothing last forever. Even those that have eternal life die from external causes eventually. Even Types end, as Ado Edem has proven. Reality will always find a way to make sure everything ends.

Despite this, Wallachia believed obtaining Arcueid/Type-Moon's power would allow him to reach the Sixth and alter it:

This is backed up further by the fact that Wallachia made a deal with Altrouge (who is relative to Type-Moon) to become an abstract phenomena until the time the Crimson Moon rises again (the actual celestial body in its Crimson state).

Archetype taking over Arcueid's body briefly also reverted Wallachia from an abstract phenomena only back to his original form before becoming the Tatari:

So Type-Moon has mystic eyes on the level of MEoDP, on top of being able to rewrite highly fundamental abstract laws governing creation and is capable of creating and actualizing phenomena.

But if we go further than this, we know that True Ancestors beneath Type-Moon can already warp Gaia's reality beyond just the physical with Marble Phantasm:

Each and every True Ancestor is burdened with the desire to drink the blood of the very humans they were meant to rule. And, in order to suppress that impulse, they consume their own willpower. Those that can change the state of the world merely be thinking are instead forced to use almost all of those “thoughts” to restrain themselves. - Tsukihime Dokuhan Plus Period

③ The user directly connects and imposes their will on the world which creates an interference that transforms the world as they see fit (as they imagine). They make reality an illusion (something impossible in reality).

④ More specifically a marble phantasm is thought to be realized when a multitude of phenomena are interfered with probability-wise, forcibly invoking the impossible2.

⑤ What can be materialized is not limited to material objects, anything can be created as long as it’s a possible result of an interference in the probability of (natural) phenomena.

⑥ In the world of Tsukihime, a Marble Phantasm is the materialization of a part of an alien world that exists on top of the normal world, the fantasy world born from the imagination of elemental spirits. Therefore, it is possible for regular humans to wander into a Marble Phantasm.

The effects of world transformation are not directly applied to the target. - Colorful MOON Tsukihime

Of course, as it states, the limitations are that it can't produce anything that go beyond all the possibilities of the natural configuration of laws Gaia has, on top of not being able to directly target something distinct from nature with the reality warping itself and instead must manifest something that can used to kill the target. But it should be noted that this is standard True Ancestor reality warping unrelated to the power of Type-Moon's origin, such has his mystic eyes and his capabilities to rewrite universal functions across creation.

Furthermore, Gaia, which True Ancestors can manipulate, can mutually negate Enuma Elish's power of the Death and the Void via Enkidu channeling its power through him:

“ENUMA ELISH!!!”

Star of Genesis — Separate Heaven and Earth

The distortion ruptured.

The entire universe that had been compressed beyond limit focused around Ea, and was released by its wielder’s slash. The resulting pressure wave sundered the nearby space. The World itself was sucked up by the chasm of the Void, and turned inside out.

Who would believe that this scene was caused by the swing of a sword?

The Void emerged from the chasm, rupturing space further. The World eroded, giving way to countless fissures in reality. - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 114

Many Heroic Spirits would not even warrant the use of Ea.

Most Heroic Spirits whom the King deemed worthy to wield his sword against would be awed at its power, yet challenge the King anyway.

Heroes that witnessed the power of Genesis would feel a variety of emotions.

Resignation, determination, terror, fear, horror, hatred, or perhaps joy.

But there was only one Heroic Spirit who would smile with nostalgia in the face of hell on Earth, the amalgamation of Death and the Void. - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 116

As the King of Heroes had spoken to Ea, so too did Enkidu speak to the massive amount of mana engulfing the Void cracks in space. He spoke directly to the planet.

“I am a weapon. Wield me as you please.” - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 119

Besides, the energies of the two Noble Phantasms cancelled each other out, and dispersed into the surroundings. - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 123

And their original clash in life had Gaia recreate itself from scratch every time it was destroyed on a physical level:

I felt as if the World was born seven times, and destroyed seven times. - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 122

Reminder that being Gaia level is nothing to Type-Moon.

Type-Moon also only barely lost to Zelretch due to not being aware that there are outlier humans that can bring about phenomena that their race collectively cannot bring about through mundane means (aka True Magic):

Also note is that magic doesn’t follow the rules of magecraft, a big reason Crimson Moon lost to Zelretch is due to not fully grasping this. - Colorful MOON Tsukihime

This is backed up by the fact that Archetype-Earth, who is somewhat of a mixture of Arcueid and Type-Moon tends to play with her opponents for fun to the point of fighting like a brick:

And accidentally defeats Ciel too early by trying to take her time:

Why does this matter? Because Zelretch's Second Magic is the superordinate control over time, being able to do things from basic time travel and time reversal, to wiping out entire timelines with a mere gesture, retroactively making things true or false based on if he personally acknowledges them or not, and completely rewriting the events of history down to the traits, specialities, appearance, and abilities of people:

“Observer. Or, Character Creation”

The space was a completed world.

Jet black with points of light.

In the center of a room in the wide, perfect sphere dyed in the color of the night sky, there

floated a wooden chair.

Based on its appearance alone, it would be enough to call the chair extravagant, but its wood

gave it a refined hue, and one would not think it a repulsive gaud of the elite. Rather, just by

existing here, it imbued the space around it with a conspicuous gravity.

If an unrefined person sat in the chair, that person would likely be consumed by the weight

of the chair’s existence and hidden from surrounding view. Such was the significance of the chair.

The space had been prepared for the sole purpose of exhibiting the chair.

A man exuding a solemnity that outweighed that of the chair leaned back in it, emitting a

loud creak.

“Hm...”

If one were to draw a reduced map of the universe based on this room, the man sitting in the

chair would be at its center, emitting an air surely befitting its master.

His external appearance would probably place his age in the 50s or 60s.

One could sense the trials of his life in the wrinkles etched deeply on his face, but his eyes

remained brimming with brilliance, such as one might see in someone ten years his junior.

“This axis is wrong... these lines will be annihilated too...”

When the man slipped his finger into the sky, the heavenly bodies displayed on the sur-

rounding walls began to revolve.

“Oh, this cut-off isn’t so... no, it’s the worst. That damned giant spider will wake up. It’s a

century too early to face that.”

Then, as if to match his words, the pages in the book hovering in front of the man turned

with a flutter, inscribing multifarious information in real-time.

The thickness of the book was about that of a standard encyclopedia.

Regardless, as the man guided his finger through the air, thousands— tens of thousands of

pages were born and erased.

After continuing this activity again and again, the old man muttered as if in boredom.

“As I thought, no matter how this is resolved, it doesn’t result in a satisfactory outcome for

the Association. Having said that, there isn’t enough reason for my interventions.

- Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 98

As for the question of how long the telephone had been there, there shouldn’t have been

anything in that space until several minutes prior. But, the telephone was wonderfully integrated

with the harmony of the room, as if it had always existed there.

Indeed, addressing the phone had confirmed the fact of its existence, as if the history of the

room had been rewritten. - Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 99

At the same time, the heavenly bodies revolving around the room — and the book that the

old man was reading — began turning faster than they had been before.

Inscribed on the pages was the face of a human, and that person’s information.

At times, it was male. At times, it was female.

At times, it was elderly. At times, it was a child.

At times, it was musclebound. At times, it was obese.

At times, it was a saint. At times, it was a vicious murderer.

At times, it was a magus. At times, it was a priest.

Flipping between countless qualities such as race, gender, age, body type, clothing, personal-

ity, and occupation, the book’s pages turned with incredible momentum.

“You’re quite confident in the turning of the planets.”

“The trajectory to the future is like a labyrinth. It’s my specialty.”

Someone passing by the two at this moment would likely have found it a bizarre conversa-

tion.

“Of course, unlike my labyrinth, the destination one makes depends upon the person.”

The pages kept turning at a high speed, and the displayed faces smoothly blended into each

other.

As if he was watching a scene from times past, the old man sat back and watched as the tele-

phone continued to turn its own dial.

Then, after some time, the turning of the pages slowed.

Inscribed on one page was an Eastern person.

“Next is to... yes, she needs some glasses.”

The pages turned delicately. A thin-framed pair of glasses appeared on the person’s face.

“...Is that important?”

“Who knows? I’m just back-calculating from the result I arrived at. Whether or not it has

any meaning at all is something we can consider later.”

“Hmph.”

- Fate/Strange Fake: Volume 1 - Chapter 1, Page 100

And the worst part? All of this is a Post-Prime Zelretch that cannot use the Second Magic to the same level as he used to back when he fought Type-Moon:

However, he has aged considerably since then, and it seems he can no longer use his magic like he did in his prime. - Fate/Side Material

So Type-Moon would've been capable of defeating a Zelretch above the one I've just shown if he didn't mess around for the fun of it and get caught off guard by something he didn't know humans once in a blue moon were capable of.

Hell, the Moon Cell is stated to be the Extra equivalent of a non-sentient Type-Moon, lacking a mind/will governing it:

In the future, when looking back on this crystal device that just shows people dreams, Moon Cell will be called thus.

The Moon’s Eye.

A bottomless Klein Cube.

The observer of everything on our planet, and a Type-Moon whose master is no longer around. - Fate/Extra Materials

And despite only being partially merged with the Moon Cell, along with none of Type-Moon's higher level abilities, such as his mystic eyes and ability to manipulate universal laws extending across creation, she can still manipulate the abstract laws governing the realities of her celestial body:

So a discount Type-Moon with only a small fragment of his standard powers as a Type, let alone his origin powers, Real of the World, altering things like the Sixth Law, etc. can already manipulate the abstract laws governing one of the two overarching realities in the Moon (the Far Side).

Also, Type-Moon is above the Types in Angel Notes, including ORT, aka the OG version, not that new canon Mach 1 brick in Fate/GO.

As you saw, Zelretch earlier said humanity (ignoring outlier individuals of course) are 100 years too young to fight ORT, meaning 100 years from now they'd stand a chance. Yet the far older humans of Angel Notes that can fight Types cannot break the 78 magic doors in Type-Moon's castle, let alone the entire castle itself, but Type-Moon can indeed destroy the entire castle, as that is the level one needs to be operating at to even sit up from his throne:

Explanation 02: Witch Swift Umbrella

A castle built in the Great Rift.

Its name originates from its scaffolding, which looks similar to a large, upside-down, open umbrella.

The original form of the Millenium Castle Brunestud from Tsukihime. A prison resembling a castle, with many walls and layers of gates linked with thousands of chains.

Even standing up from the throne would require enough power to destroy the entire castle.

Additionally, it is said that in order to reach the throne, one must pass through 78 “magic doors” that a normal Ether Liner would be unable to destroy. - Character Material - Ado Edem, page 30-31

And considering the level these characters are operating at, breaking these doors or the castle wouldn't be a measly matter, such as using nothing but brute strength/raw power.

Hell, even servants/followers of Type-Moon like Gransurg Blackmore can swallow the entire universe:

A curtain of death wings covers the universe, swallowing up the moon and the stars. It is a “world of death” of absolute darkness. - Character Material - Gransurg Blackmore, page 54-55

So why do I keep bringing up Type-Moon? Because Arcueid and Altrouge both rival Type-Moon and have his powers, as they were made to be suitable hosts for him to reincarnate into with all of his powers:

Another name for the organism that was used as the template for the True Ancestors. Also known as the Crimson Moon Brunestud.

After he vanished, individuals close to him in power started being honored with the title of Brunestud.

However, in the long history of the True Ancestors, only two have ever received the name. - Melty Blood Act Cadenza PS2 Manual

For just a second, it is possible to catch a glimpse of the vampire princess Arcueid’s true power. The phantom that appears behind her back is her original form. Its appearance, abilities, and very thoughts could be called the Crimson Moon. - Melty Blood Act Cadenza PS2 Manual

Arcueid after she has succumbed to her vampiric impulse and lost her ability to reason.

Though regarded as equivalent to the Crimson Moon, she is a completely different entity. You could say she’s the materialized form of Arcueid’s overflowing vampiric impulse. - Melty Blood Act Cadenza PS2 Manual

Worst of all, Archetype-Earth actually exceeds the original Type-Moon for reasons I feel are too long to go into here. It's not really necessary.

Summary: Type-Moon being the will of his celestial body can alter its abstract laws, with his power extending beyond the normal limits of his celestial body even, unlike normal types, as he has an origin power rivaling Death and potentially Nil, with him being able to activate mystic eyes on the level of Death Perception, which is one of the most fundamental superordinate concepts that has flowed from The One, capable of ending all creation. Despite us not knowing the exact effects of his mystic eyes, them being on the level of Death Perception says enough.

He also has the capability to alter extremely fundamental universal laws of all creation, such as the Sixth Law of The One.

He is above Zelretch if not messing around, with even a weakened Zelretch having nigh-complete superordinate control over time, being able to do things from basic time travel and time reversal, to wiping out entire timelines with a mere gesture, retroactively making things true or false based on if he personally acknowledges them or not, and completely rewriting the events of history down to the traits, specialities, appearance, and abilities of people. And even with Type-Moon holding back, Prime Zelretch barely won to the point he became permanently weakened.

True Ancestors that are nothing compared to him are capable of manipulating Gaia's reality on an abstract level, with Gaia's power being channeled through Enkidu being capable of mutually negating Gilgamesh's Enuma Elish. And back when they were both alive, the part of Gaia that was destroyed on a physical level could recreate itself from the abstract.

And people with his power like Arcueid and Altrouge could create and mess with abstract phenomena, as they have all of Type-Moon's powers and are his equal, with Archetype-Earth actually surpassing him for TLDR reasons not relevant to this thread.

So what does MHXX do? She cuts space? Old TM Gilgamesh can completely wipe out space and consume it with the Void of The Root, yet Gaia's powers could counteract this. And neither of these entities are remotely relevant to Type-Moon and thus a non-restricted Normal Arcueid, let alone Archetype-Earth.

She reverses time to stop herself from being attacked? Type-Moon while holding back and messing around barely lost to someone who again, while in a much weaker state than the one he fought, did the following I already mentioned: Being able to do things from basic time travel and time reversal, to wiping out entire timelines with a mere gesture, retroactively making things true or false based on if he personally acknowledges them or not, and completely rewriting the events of history down to the traits, specialities, appearance, and abilities of people. What mere time reversal going to do here? Even if Arcueid underestimates her and holds back, MHXX has nothing on the level of Zelretch that could actually threaten Type-Moon or Arcueid in any capacity, let alone Archetype-Earth.

So, it's clear that even if Arcueid plays around like Type-Moon did against Zelretch, MHXX isn't anywhere near a tier that can actually subdue people at this level, even if they let her pull off all of her abilities while they stand there. Put her against Remake Arcueid or some other fodder if you want a potential match. Old Type-Moon is nothing like New Type-Moon in virtually any capacity, either in power or narrative.

Did it take you all Day to write this? Anyways, what i gathered from this Bulk, is what you classify and seperate in reality in "Old TM" doesnt have neccesrary laws that must be obeyed (They Alter and Change), doesnt have Objectivity (or maybe, a scientific Objectivity) and Come into Being from an essensce that you seemingly didnt answer on whether or not it had a will (So i'll assume it doesnt)--and what did it get you? to admit that Time Manipultion was OP in the verse (And was neccesary for all these things)--and in the process--didnt provide a Valid Counter to reversing Time--which i shit you not, you said:

She reverses time to stop herself from being attacked? Type-Moon while holding back and messing around barely lost to someone who again, while in a much weaker state than the one he fought, did the following I already mentioned: Being able to do things from basic time travel and time reversal, to wiping out entire timelines with a mere gesture, retroactively making things true or false based on if he personally acknowledges them or not, and completely rewriting the events of history down to the traits, specialities, appearance, and abilities of people. What mere time reversal going to do here? Even if Arcueid underestimates her and holds back, MHXX has nothing on the level of Zelretch that could actually threaten Type-Moon or Arcueid in any capacity, let alone Archetype-Earth.

and didnt even prove--or give a negation as to why time reversing wouldnt work--nor the actual confirmation of all these capabilites being used.

I did bits and pieces of it off and on throughout the day when I could. Wasn't as long as you'd think since I have most of these scans saved and I can type quickly.

The rest of your post regarding metaphysics is repeating the same unfounded claims that you've failed to defend, along with some absurd appeal to OG Platonism, as if it's the gold standard and absolute truth of metaphysics. Since you keep delving into the same form of sophistry over and over, I'll take that as a concession.

"concession: a thing that is granted, especially in response to demands; a thing conceded."

Failure to actually Adress--or Contend a Claim/going over can be reduced to a Concession--but glossing over it (conceding) and saying your opponet did so is not valid.

You keep on trying to affirm Abstract change--and i initally said, sure. in a materialistic view, where abstracts dont exist outside of and/or greater than physical objects--they can change, and the actual impressive "Umph" is gone, and replaced with Universal Matter Manip, Cool, we move on, and i question The One, i ask if there's a mode of willing for ementating, and i dont think i got the answer--so i assumed it didnt (but i see, you did--so my bad), and had to eternally do such less it within itself change (likely, by another thing) and become mutuable, and thus, not absolute. Far from Omnipotent--but we digress, because actual affirming it eternally generates potential--leads to it having already eternally realized said potential within itself--which would include contradictory propositions; denoting, and reducing it to an illogical framework that old "TM" is built upon.

I did answer this. It depends on the verse, but in Old TM it does not have an actual sentient will.

Sheesh, Old TM's Root is Illogical.

Time is necessary for all things, including the abstract. It's just that the time intertwined with space is not the same time flow as the one for the abstract. Your point? Actually, scratch that, you have none. This is just more sophistry.

Time is neccessary for all things connected to the Physical. the abstracts you're proposing dont exist outside of it--and CANT be a backing behind it because they're all contigent on matter, space, and time:

You've just admitted that you've vaguely skimmed over my post instead of reading it, as I've sent all the scans and quotes needed in regards to Zelretch's capabilities. Someone with infinitely more versatile and superordinate time manipulation than MHXX barely defeated a character that was holding back and got caught off guard by it, meaning that if he wasn't underestimating Zelretch, he would've won. And unlike Zelretch, MHXX has no means to actually threaten Type-Moon or Arcueid if they were to mess around with her.

I'm quite frankly...not going to read every single detail when it's reduced to "1. Roots Law--that the verse has to pertain to (But some dont, and somehow still do) 2. Abstract Law Manipultion (Matter Manipultion, with a sprinkle of Fate Manip), 3. Time Manip" the very latter of which, doesnt actually change how impressive your verse is when you add "Superordinate" when it functions, and does the same thing other verses do--and even more telling, when time manipultion is viewed as a viable Counter. Hell, I could change the combatant to Yhwach, and you'd still have the same problems.

You also haven't countered how MHXX is sub-reality level, nor how her space cutting shit is irrelevant. You're falling back on MHXX simply trying to live now through time reversal alone. Clearly your argument has fallen apart and you're now grasping at straws.

"Grasping at straws" when did i bring up space-cutting as relevant--hell, in general? that's the other dudes job--mine? is that of an OP, so i cant really affirm a winner--but sure, i can question your methodologies of winning and mentioning other peoples argument.

This is assuming that all potentialities are probably, as opposed to simply possible. The One can logically just so happen to permanently exclude a set of potentials from being emanated.

You'd require a Mode of Will for it to pick and choose--and a mode of willing to adhere to logic, and a mode of willing to turn back on--negative propositons, and lastly, could you prove that? both in TM and NP.

Furthermore, even if it did emulate everything, the things it actualized eventually end, meaning not everything is being actualized at the same time and staying in creation permanently.

I didnt say everything couldnt end--i'm saying that there's a contradictory actualization of matter (that cant end) within a thing that changes/doesnt change.

Except there are variants and evolutions of Platonism, such as the various versions of Neoplatonism. The only non-contingent uncaused first cause is The One.

So you dont actually stray, you use Platnoism as a frame work to define the Uncaused--which would just make it's critque in said category, valid.

No, value judgements are simply what someone personally values. How one can achieve a certain moral status or goal will have an objective path, but the status/goal itself being good or bad is subjective.

How does one know upon what's good or not? what makes them feel Good? and can we punish someone for feeling good?

There are things in existence that logically cannot be objective. That's pretty self-evident. If there was an omnipotent that liked the color blue the most, that doesn't mean magically that liking the color blue the most is the objectively correct preference.

That analogy doesnt cut up. If an Omnipotent being is the basis (as in, IS) of Good--then said Goodness--the omnipotent underlines with his Being (Typical theistic laws) would be the basis for morality.

Uh, yes they can.

No they cant. Because everything is natrualistically stuck--and identical to eachother in essensce within The One.

In one of the context I've used it in for instance, the time reversal of MHXX is a subordinate fragment of the entirety of time manipulation. And again, Old TM's metaphysical system is primarily based of a variant of Neoplatonism, but it is not solely based off it, so this point falls apart regardless.

The Point...actually stands, higher than before due to the admission of the same problems in NP.

Already dealt with this here:

The One would be the singular fundamental necessary thing for existence to be. All things are unified within it as unactualized potentialities. This leaves no contradiction, since yes, there are different contradicting things in The One, as it contains all things. But they don't truly exist yet in the sense they are not actualized. They are only potentials in the same way one going left or right is not the same as one going both left and right at the same time. The former is potential, the latter is an actualized event.

And i already dealt with this contention here:

and i question The One, i ask if there's a mode of willing for ementating, and i dont think i got the answer--so i assumed it didnt (but i see, you did--so my bad), and had to eternally do such less it within itself change (likely, by another thing) and become mutuable, and thus, not absolute. Far from Omnipotent--but we digress, because actual affirming it eternally generates potential--leads to it having already eternally realized said potential within itself--which would include contradictory propositions; denoting, and reducing it to an illogical framework that old "TM" is built upon.

Your position is not salvable without a Mode of will--which you Directly admit--is emenated (Potential)

You fit this criteria.

I don't. but you? yeah.

You keep arbitrarily applying OG Platonism to every metaphysical framework and keep arguing that abstracts are immutable and not subject to change due to their inherent nature, then failed to provide reasonings as to why beyond citing OG Platonism, which Old TM doesn't use, nor was brought up by me.

I then showed that variants of Neoplatonism doesn't have immutable abstracts, as they are all subject to change and contingent upon The One. The only argument you made in regards to this is that everything should be actualized, to which I corrected you on with a logical explanation.

The rest of your responses aside from that were yet again citing OG Platonism and baselessly claiming that abstracts are inherently immutable.

I don't think you've noticed--but i've categorically crituqed the system in "The One" that doesn't stray from Platonic definition of a Form. not the "Abstracts" that come from it.

Let's go over your entire tactic in this thread actually:

In our first "debate" ever, I shot down a lot of your ideas by proving they are illogical. You then proceeded to admit that you're for illogical systems, and I then shot that down.

So now, you've been trying to read up on things and go my route of being logical, followed by you trying to use such logical analysis to dismantle my own views. But you've failed because in the end, you aren't trying to be logical. Not really. You have an agenda to disprove someone, as opposed to finding the truth.

if you want my motives, I'm trying to see if you're internally consistent--as opposed to the lies that the ordinary eye would dismiss as impressive in what you refer to as abstracts.

Already addressed this two times now, to which you aren't even providing an attempted counter for. Moving on.

You did--and I contended that, hence the argument. but I'll take this as a conclusion.

Time is necessary for anything that changes in any capacity period, including the operations preformed by The One. This is why the time of space isn't the sole and most fundamental form of time, as the abstract has its own time. Your entire argument on the abstract not having its own time was literally just "I don't hold to this view." Well I don't care if you hold to it or not. If you don't provide reasonings as to why it doesn't work, your feelings are irrelevant. All you're doing is repeating the same shit from your first post that was dealt with immediately that you haven't even attempted to counter. You generally haven't even brought counters. You've just repeated your same position after I dismantled it without anything new added to defend it most of the time.

Dont know what you're going on about with "Dismantling" (You haven't even disproved a single position, let alone contended that what you call abstracts are not what you claim them to be--as pre-existent to physical matter, space, and time.), but yeah, Time is necessary for anything that changes, sure, 100% agree, but anything that changes is imperfect or connected to Physical matter.

Your friend did, which you'd logically agree with, as this is a bait thread planned for the reasons I've mentioned prior.

Why'd i'd have to hold a burden that I haven't affirmed? i could believe such (If I did)--but until I use it in an argument in a debate, it's irrelevant.

Again, I took it because baits working requires you to actually trap the opponent in some argument that dismantles their overarching view at the very least, which is quite literally impossible for you to do against me and thus would instead backfire and it did. Though your friend seems to have done the right thing and not participate further after seeing how things went between us.

The Debate was actually originally made for Chaldeas, and Hyperion--but let's make it about you, okay--did you dismantle points as you're claiming? no, far from it. you've admitted certain categories--but have said they don't apply to the abstracts you're talking about--which is more than fine, since I already offered to a new category for "Abstracts" emanated by the one in the Aristotelian category.

Again, you make a claim and refuse to explain why it must be this way.

This type of thinking leads into "existence itself requires a sentient Prime Mover, so god must exist" type of crap. Or are you actually one of those people? Please tell me you aren't.

Sorry--i assumed you'd be smart enough to know that you actively choose between propositions in a way that isn't Programmed--would require a will. or else, as before, you'd passively be emanating these propositions from all eternity--and from all eternity, they'd be realized and in the one.

Furthermore, you seem to believe that the reason for existence... existing requires specific explanations down to letter, but you will get the same final answer to the final question of "Why does anything exist?" Example:

Scenario 1:

"Has creation always existed?"

"Yes."

"Why though?"

"Because that's just how things are."

Scenario 2:

"Has creation always existed?"

"No, God made it."

"Has God always existed?"

"Yes."

"Why and how though?"

"Because that's just the way things are."

"Why did he decide to create this specific universe only?"

"Because that's just how he is."

In your case here, you have a problem with The One actualizing some potentials and not all. In this case?

"Has creation always existed?"

"No. The One generated it."

"Has The One always existed?"

"Yes."

"Why and how though?"

"Because that's just how things are."

"Why did it create only a certain set of universes, instead of actualizing all possible things in itself?"

"Because even though all potentials exist in it, that doesn't mean they have a probability of flowing out of it. And since things that flow from it return to it, that means not all of the potentials will exist at the same time, meaning not everything will be actualized at once."

"But why does it operate like this passively?"

"Because that's just how things are."

You will always get this same final answer in regards to questions asking to the most core level "Why is reality the way it is and why does it exist?" There cannot be any other answer than this.

The Critique isn't why reality is what it is--it's the critique of the mode that reality in the case of being generated is. something you've tried to explain with a limited amount of consideration. but I'll go over what we've really been doing:

"Has creation always existed?"

"No. The One generated it."

"Has The One always existed?"

"Yes."

"Why and how though?"

"Because that's just how things are."

"Why did it create only a certain set of universes, instead of actualizing all possible things in itself?"

"Because even though all potentials exist in it, that doesn't mean they have a probability of flowing out of it. And since things that flow from it return to it, that means not all of the potentials will exist at the same time, meaning not everything will be actualized at once."

"What's the criteria to be able to actualize and return?"

"Passive Emenation it's had from All Eternity (in TM) and a Law that necessitates these objects eventually return in due time to potential"

"Is Eternity "before" time?"

"Yes."

"So why wouldn't all possibilities be realized in eternity before they can return in Due Time as potential"

"No."

"Why?"

"Because The One picks and chooses which possibility to Realize"

"So does The one have a Will?"

"No."

"So how does it pick and choose?"

"Why can't it pick and choose without a Will?" (Answering a Question with a Question)

"Because a Will is needed to choose between propositions. Unless the One is programmed."

"Why do you need a will to choose between propositions?"

"Because that's just how things are"

The Worst about this whole process--is that you put yourself in a situation to either bite the pill of, 1. it cant choose between propositions (Potential) to actualize and thus does it all inside itself/is the cause of illogical propositions, or 2. it doesn't have will, but can choose between propositions because it's programmed to be that way.

Either one is bad for you.

What specifically are you asking me to prove here?

"The One can logically just so happen to permanently exclude a set of potentials from being emanated."

You saying matter cannot be destroyed is a product of the laws of physics of our real life universe, that may or may not be absolute and the only possible system of laws for any reality.

you gathered wrong. I'm not using the laws of physics, I'm saying matter can't end when it's always been actualized from eternity (as always existing) before time.

But for fictions like Old TM, we know that nothing physical is necessary and truly indestructible. If matter cannot be destroyed, that is only from a physical standpoint due to the laws of that reality, which are in of themselves mutable and contingent upon The One.

that's why I'm saying matter realized from all eternity (that doesn't change, and thus cant end, but also changes, and can end) only leads to contradictions--which your position cant logically bar--and you cant logically stop, from producing it's illogical conclusions.

It's using a completely evolved framework of Platonism to the point it is extremely different, then Old TM specifically alters it further. Again, you keep vomiting OG Platonism in frameworks that clearly reject most of it.

"Evolved" and "Based on--but changed" these words spilling from your metamorphic lips here--only prove my point. yes, TM has a different view on abstracts--and YES they also hold the same abstract form notion that'd categorically put into platonism with "The One"

How does one know upon what's good or not?

Varies from person to person.

That's up to your subjective morals and standards. I have my own framework of morality that I can entirely explain, but it's not anymore objective due to this.

Go ahead, personally, do you think it's morally correct--to bar or apprehend someone from choosing from what they perceive as Good?

There is nothing in the bare bones definition of omnipotence that requires it to be "good".

not arguing that, but if you have an Ontological "Goodness" that the depravity or lack of is "Bad" (in the sense, evil has no substance outside of Good--in other words, effectively non-existent) an Omnipotent in the way as defined as the greatest possible thing--would need to be Good, as the status of Existing--is greater than the status of not existing.

I do not care about specific religious nonsense that they add in about "Muh good." The gods they worship are blatantly not omnipotent anyways and don't fit any of the requirements for the metaphysical systems they created for them to be omnipotent.

Doesnt really matter what you care about--in a theistic paradigm where God is the Good--and his existence objective--then there's an Objective Good--and thus, by way of lack of said Good--would be an Objective Evil.

You didn't. You just repeated the same shit I addressed.

I will say it one last time: First of all, just because all potentials exist in The One doesn't mean they have a probability for being actualized. Second of all, even if they were all probable, they are not emanated at the same time, as a certain set of things flow from and return to The One, meaning that even if it emanated all things from eternity,

Eternity = before/barred from change--all things that are existent always exist--so by way of contingency--everything wouldn't have a state of existing as a potential--but will always exist as realized with a thing that had always realized them.

it is not emanating those things all at once and the things it does emanate return to it eventually.

The second you said from Eternity--is the second you conceded--with the underlined not being a thing in eternity--and the status of returning (time), would be after eternity, but I could grant it doesn't mean time--just for the added layer of contradiction of things existing outside, and in the one--and nonexistent, and existent at the same time.

And lastly, all potentialities in it are not truly contradictory in the same sense that the potential for me going both left or right is not contradictory, as it's not the same as me actually going left and right at the same time.

Contradiction 1: All Potentials--in your world view--exist in eternity--in the one, whilst also being realized because from all eternity--it emanated them.

Contradiction 2: All Potentials--in your world view--exist in eternity--as both unchanging (From Eternity)--and changing (Because some potentials will change)

in fact? let me fall into your expectations, and ask: can you do the Honors? and say it's Illogical and thus Fodder?

You have done both.

I havent put the thing you call abstracts under a Platnoic framework. I've only compared it to one as to underline expectations--that it doesn't met.

You've provided no reasoning as to why. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I already did--you said it categorically affects abstracts--and I in turn specified what framework those abstracts would need to be under for that to happen--which is, connected to physical matter, not disconnected or independent.

Don't bother. I already know your intent with this thread. But clearly our debate isn't about MHXX Vs. Arcueid directly, so whatever.

Okay?

I literally do not give a shit about what category you're offering. I care about what the verse in question uses and you've failed to point out any internal inconsistency.

The verse uses a Category--i critique said category; which right now, you've posited abstracts can change (Denoting them into the Aristotelian Flavor)--and an origin abstract that doesn't change (Denoting them in a Platnoic Flavor)

Oh, so you're religious then it seems, since you believe that existence requires a sentient unactualized actualizer. That explains a lot. So you have another agenda here to prove. You literally cannot acknowledge I'm right because it'd crush your worldview.

Uh huh.

A genuinely dumb and obvious oversight on my part.

No wonder you're engaging me on shit like free will, objective morality, and God's goodness. It all makes sense now. You're too compromised to debate this subject, as it extends to affecting your views beyond mere battle boarding.

And not saying you will, but in case you intend to go off on a tangent about how I'm bringing up your religion, we're talking about metaphysical systems made specifically for religion, even though they ironically don't fit them. But it's bound to come up, given the nature of this debate. And it is important to point out that you are compromised on this specific subject.

Honestly should've stopped there, not every one of your thought processes needs to be written down.

Granted, I still stand by the intentions of yours that I initially mentioned, just with yet another much more important one.

With that being said though, I'll continue on with the discussion itself now for a little bit.

Okay?

The Worst about this whole process--is that you put yourself in a situation to either bite the pill of, 1. it cant choose between propositions (Potential)

The One is not choosing though in this case. It's default mode of functioning just so happens to be actualizing either a limited about of potentialities, or actualizing all of them randomly over an infinite period of time, with ones that end up being actualized eventually ending and returning to potentiality. Both of these interpretations mean that not all things are actualized at the same time. There is no will deciding this. That's just it's default mode of functioning.

The only Contention and interpretation that could save your argument here would be actualizing a limited amount of potentialities (Since the other's fall apart, because of self-admission to these processes being done without time by denoting "from eternity")--which begs the question, why? over what time? and why cant said limited amount of potential be contradictory?

Of course there could be a will in control of The One or one that eventually gains full control, leading to a sentient omnipotent. However, Old TM doesn't have a sentient will in control of it, and New TM's Root isn't The One at all.

So you're admitting a created aspect--below it, could fully hijack it.

Ah, good then. Not a new argument. Just one I've already dealt with. So moving on.

You can never accept too many concessions.

Yes, because if what they consider good I consider evil, then naturally my own moral system takes precedence for me. If I find it vile and evil, I do not care what their feelings are on the matter if they can't convince me of its goodness within my own moral system.

so--what one guy considers evil, and another good--and another evil--would be the basis of a judgment that could potentially jail or kill someone? or do you have a collective means to ensure fairness?

Too bad "good" and "evil" are subjective. And it's pretty self-evident from my point of view that any IRL omnipotent god is malevolent and thus evil. But again, I'm not using that as an argument because my moral system isn't objective. Though he definitely doesn't have anyone's best intentions in mind. That's objectively the case if he did exist.

"good" and "evil" are subjective in a world where the no overarching enforcer--or code of official conduct. that immediately changes when we posit a reality that objectively defines said things.

Either you subscribe to an entirely different context of the word "good" here that is unrelated to morality, or you are talking about morality and thus this statement is inherently subjective. My statement? God is evil (if he existed).

I could default to either--but I don't think a "subjective" view on evil--would define an Objective--unless you used said Objective's basis for such to judge (which would be itself in the second assumption).

Even this is subjective, as you could say that the lack of good is simply neutrality, with evil being the outright opposite of good. But one could subjectively think simply the lack of goodness itself is evil. Then you combine that with the fact that good and evil are inherently subjective.

or you could simply posit there's no neutrality within an Objective Morality--and it'd simply fall under the category of Good.

No it doesn't. You could have something that has existed eternally end or be altered such as the laws set forth by The One (if they so happened to have existed eternally up to this point).

It'd just be another contradiction:

that--or you'd need to find some Uber--unused definition to justify that being the case.

And need I remind you that the unifying force and core essence of The One cannot change or be destroyed, but parts of it can be changed, such as its passive mode of function, it gaining sentience or someone becoming its mind willingly if they have the knowledge and capabilities, etc.

You can't say--yes passive mode of function, that's eternal because of contingency on the eternal essence--but it also isnt.

It's amusing that one arguing for things like objective morality, free will, and existence requiring a sentient unactualized actualizer thinks he has the capacity to evaluate the logical consistency of literally anything.

You're the one who used "Abstract laws before space-time" and admitted they were needed, along with using Eternity--like what? several times, and tried to go back on its meaning. whilst a critique I'm receiving is...questioning your morality? positing that to choose--needs someone/something with the ability to choose. but eh, doesn't really matter now that you've admitted to change--and contingency to change in your view of abstracts, and my initial reasoning as to challenge your claim, is fulfilled.

No you didn't. You cited Aristotelianism as a framework, then provided no reasoning as to why this must be the only framework with mutable abstracts.

uh huh, and what's stopping me from just affirming it's the simplest and most probable explanation?

That was literally one of the two primary arguments I've repeated multiple times now. So you admit this validates my position then.

Read on...

Universal overarching potentials that are contradictory can't be actualized at the same time because they are... contradictory. That is literally the explanation.

they'd have to if they're emenated from eternity--which would come natrually because of it's passivity in doing so--a quality it had from eternity

Something connected to it, like all things, could theoretically gain the knowledge of how to become its mind/will, as it currently has none. This isn't an anti-feat.

Though the potentiality of it just randomly generating a will for itself could happen eventually.

a connection can only be soo loose before the qualities it bring about arent transcended by it. additonally, the potential of it happening--are certain, along with every proposition in eterenity.

This entire argument is just a form of "might makes right".

so we propose a Creator that puts into place neccesarcy Objective physical laws--but draw the line on...moral law?

Yes, this is literally how the world works. A bunch of societies have arbitrary legal rules on what is considered good and bad and deal out punishments accordingly.

i didnt mean societies, i meant individuals each having there own moral code--and whether or not it'd be liable, or fine with you--to jail them on a potential arbitary position that this theoritcal society--would hold.

This isn't really an argument against my point. You're just giving another interpretation of morality that can't be proven logically wrong (outside of you mentioning its objectivity), among several, proving its subjectivity even more.

cool, specify what "Logically wrong" is too.

You're supposed to provide a logical explanation as to why, not send definitions of eternity without further argument.

if the defintion of the word eternity already leads into showing a contradiction in your argument--then i dont need to.

The function has seemingly existed for eternity, but that doesn't mean it cannot be changed by an external force if the opportunity arises. Only the actual core overarching essence of The One is both eternal and unchangeable.

"Yes, as that is its default state, with no one at the moment becoming its mind or having enough uncontested control over it to stop that function."

" I did answer this. It depends on the verse, but in Old TM it does not have an actual sentient will."

so nothing is stopping my proposition from coming about, thanks.

Strawman. I said abstracts are beyond space-time and clarified that the "time" I'm referring to is the time intertwined with space, aka the time axis of space, with the abstract having its own form of time that is more fundamental. You denied this because you personally didn't like the idea emotionally, which isn't an argument.

why would the time existing in abstracts--and the time existing in physical things be different when they have the same defintion--and seemingly come into being as something is changed from non-existent--to existent?

but anyways, i'll lowkey go back to binging my game so u see in another 2 day or sum.

One: You'd have to explain why it is.

Lack of another alternative Metaphysic. (Unless, you could show one)

Two: Even if it was the most probable, that doesn't mean it's the only possible one.

The Most Probable and Simplest Explanation can be affirmed to be the only sufficient explanation with occam's razor.

Three: Old TM doesn't have its roots solely in Aristotelianism, so it doesn't matter regardless.

Anything bar a complete Negation of Aristotelianism is Free game to critique here.

I'm just going to shoot this idea down that something emanating things from eternity doesn't necessitate that all things are actualized.

One: The One may just passively only emanate a certain set of things, with it permanently ignoring some others because that's just its default state. This doesn't need to be proven. It's just an axiomatic position.

you want to posit a world that ignores any negative proposition?

Two: In Old TM's case specifically, even if all things are being targeted for actualization all the time, all actualized things eventually end and return to The One, meaning not all things can be actualized at the same time.

There is no "Time" and there is no "Return" there is only contingency that leads to eternal actualization without creation hence no switch between Not Existing, to Existing.

Three: Even if all things have been actualized since eternity and stay actualized permanently, that only means that an infinite amount of things have been actualized, as opposed to all things. The fact there is an eternity ahead of us means there are an infinite amount of unactualized things still. You can actualize infinite things without actualizing all things.

"Even if all things have been actualized since eternity and stay actualized permanently, that only means that an infinite amount of things have been actualized, as opposed to all things." self defeater, "The Fact there is an eternity ahead of us means there an infinite amount of actualized things still." there is no eternity ahead. because we're not talking about potential eternity as in forever going on, but things that have always existed before any change.

You have no counters for any of these, let alone all of them. Your entire argument here is a misuse of the Grim Reaper Paradox.

I...dont need counters. i admittedly binged on some video games the past few weeks of free time...but you've made it easier for me, by just refuting yourself...and hell? i'm all but left here, wondering how this started really. maybe i'll read back after this response. since..things do escape you after a while.

This is a word salad, or you're not explaining yourself properly.

"I'm beyond Time and Space--However i'm Connected to Time and Space" was probably the thought put into this at the time. would need a refresher anyways.

This isn't even a reply to my counterargument, on top of making no sense.

Yes, we draw the line on moral laws because the laws of reality are clearly defined and necessary. Morality is a value judgement, which by definition, is subjective.

In a World without Objective Ethics--or someone to ground said ethics? yeah.

You're doing that thing that happened in the first thread we debated in where you start structuring your sentences worse and worse to where it starts becoming hard to understand you, perhaps due to laziness.

A Few spelling mistakes at the time, but the message can still be understood.

I gave you my answer on how I consider others personally if their moral systems are in conflict with my own to any big degree. If you're talking about a society that can jail people freely based on whatever they personally think, that'd cause an immediate collapse of said society. Society needs a set of laws to deter certain actions to maintain order. That has nothing to do with objective morality though.

At least you recognize the application is horrible.

Also, why did you even push for this topic in this thread?

Don't think i did? from what i remember it was you who stated such and explained it as "Objective Morality or Ethics are Illogical" and i disagreed so i engaged.

What? lmao

Pretty sure it was consistency trap here...? cant recall since i never asked why free will would be impossible, nor did i see the specifications within ( ).

Because any system where the abstract came before space and time necessarily requires it to have its own form of time.

The only abstracts (To my knowledge) that come before time (or any change) are things that don't exhibit change afterwards.

That's self-evident. There is a difference here between abstract time and physical time.

Totally agree! one exists, the other doesn't.

@chainchan: Thought you silently gave up. Boy wouldn't that be the day...

Nope, just addicted to a Dying Game:

But i'm ready to agree to disagree to end it (but then again, comic-vine has no good active threads), i've already had my fair share of dancing on discord with this topic.

Literally this entire thread.

Something...something, Neo-Platonism? with a splash of Aristotelian concepts with light sprinkle of....?

You're misusing Occam's Razor, just like you misused the Grim Reaper Paradox.

The Latter isn't applicable to my Argument from the little i know, but shoot.

Occam's Razor is merely a suggestion that if there are two explanations and one is more simple, it is best to go with that one. That's not the issue here though. You keep making up invalid logical necessities while arbitrarily claiming that that your weird takes on metaphysics are the only logical one, all while ignoring the counters.

I've been presented an explanation...(again, murky on memory) about...a new package Aristotelian concepts--with said concepts being created, and being able to change--surely, you can see you're not giving much leeway for me to be imaginative of a different type of metaphysics--and what's worse is that these concepts are created by a thing...that well, cant create. Honestly, when you said passive, and no will--creation became impossible.

Everything is free game to critique (if possible) period.

Like the thought process.

But there haven't been any valid criticisms on your end.

Beg to differ. it's more like...they're not many valid defenses that you could well, say, on your end. Not a fault on you as a Debater--just a terrible position to argue for.

What? lol

Nothing to laugh about, just give the clarification, or fall into the question with a yes; do you want to posit a world with no negative proposition to align with the claim of permanently ignoring "certain things" so as to counteract contradictory realities?

Blatantly not the case in Old TM and you've given no argument as to why your position is the only logical possibility.

I'm basing it off the Metaphysics framework provided, TM already seemingly strays when it got past Creation--but doesn't really change in it's framework, just some wishy washy--oh well, it'll happen anyways despite, well, no Will, and Emanation being a quality that so happens to align well with contingency (wouldn't have guessed) which is...really good at having things always be in these sort of arguments. anywhere else, you'd be alright, but TM has a Trash Cosmology like the rest of the stuff coming out these days. Best to stick with sub galaxy tiers honestly, does wonders to the mind.

Minor miswording and you know it.

I know, i know, and i also know i cant talk about matters like this, but we can be comical no? and say it's one Hell of a Miswording though dont you think? but on a serious note, you were on the right note by saying all things would be actualized.

Even if an infinite amount of things have been actualized since eternity and stay actualized permanently, that only means that an infinite amount of things have been actualized, as opposed to all things.

Weird View, but nothing's stopping it from actualizing all possibilities (or more than infinite...in the thing you're trying to propose? but eh) as a contingency, since well, no time and all.

There's no such thing as time in its totality not existing. If time/change doesn't exist, it couldn't come into existence, as that'd require time/change to already exist. It's a paradox. Your views are illogical.

Isn't illogical, you're just having a hard time..no, maybe it's on my part for not explaining it, but ill say this! Time/Change only begins to exist when something move's from non existence, to existence. outside of that? things can always exist as is without change.

The rest is you spinning around confused at what our arguments were even about, to which I ask why you even bothered to reply without a refresher?

Idk about "Rest of the Argument" seemed like just...one thing you addressed fully, but hey? a restart can be good. i'm not entirely sure why, i skimmed yeah? but i have better things to do...than well, read the thing you sent earlier.

Yeah, but somehow existence without time/change can somehow cause a change that births the possibility for change to occur, because that makes sense.

No, no, no! an existence without time (and importantly will and conscious) Can not cause a change that births possibility--i totally agree. that's why the Metaphysics for TM is not only illogical, inconsistent, but unjustifiable, you cant move to creation from emanation because it's a quality of the immutable! and because it's a quality that always existed it can bring about realities without change since again, it's always been emanating, and these realities can be contradictory, in the sense of well, negative and positive propositions being true at the same time--both in actualized possibility AND unactualized possibility.

Our metaphysical discussions, or specifically the match in this thread?

Metaphysical discussions, i don't do In-verse or Cross Verse (In general nowadays) with Fate.

I think you're making one fatal error here.

Metaphysics isn't really a science. The whole thing is that any metaphysical framework can be valid, so long as it is internally consistent.

This also means that fictions do not have to abide by pre-existing frameworks 100%. So long as their altered version or completely new framework seems internally consistent, it is fine.

Old TM clearly uses Neoplatonism though primarily, and by "clearly", I mean it outright references it several times correctly. It's alterations to it are minor, such as no sentient omnipotent currently.

Variations would've helped alot here.

I don't know what this has to do with anything in regards to our discussion, considering abstracts aren't really part of any physical cosmology, but alright.

We dont define cosmology in the same way, but anyways I'm just saying it's abstract assumptions aren't good to defend.

Old TM's abstracts are only hard to grasp if you keep clinging to an illogical Abrahamic world view that keeps insisting there must be a sentient Prime Mover for > insert literally no actual reason at all. <

I already gave a reason. Anything that cannot choose to create, but does, is either programmed to do so, or it's part of it's being. we're going with the latter, so we reach problems (That Abrahamic Religions can fall into, even with a Will.) like eternal creation which invalidates change.

and honestly? when stuff like this happens? we can honestly just dub this thing "worthy" of being called god--useless.

Nothing is stopping The One from doing anything period. It doesn't actualize all possibilities at once because it just so happens to not passively operate like that.

it cant just so happen "Not to passively do that" because it's a necessary end Result of emanation from eternity.

The abstract has its own time stream. Not humoring this further.

Abstracts can have a sense of causation--and a numerical order of causation--but don't ever exhibit change because the thing they're contingent upon either always causes it as a result of it's being--or cant help but occur. but if you're so steadfast on that? we can agree to disagree.

Again, this is paradoxical. A change of potentiality to actuality creates time/change. Makes no sense. Complete oxymoron.

Yup! and i'm not complaining since for one (i'm pretty sure) i pointed that out as another contradiction in emanation from eternity, part of the absurdism Old TM brings.

Possibilities always exist. Whether they are actualized is another question.

The intention was that it cant actually actualize them.

As for The One, it has always logically passively actualized and de-actualized things.

That's just how it works. It's like an automated machine. You don't need sentience for this.

I was about to show the contradictory nature of such--with the only explanation being another horrible explanation--which you just provided for me--a design.

If you're going to try and dismantle one side of TM for being incoherent nonsense, I direct you to the other character in this thread from Modern TM. You'd be better off attacking that incoherent mess of a canon, as you'd be much more successful in dismantling it.

They can both be incoherent. doesn't really matter to me to point it out since i already said what my intention was:

But if you want less of examination debate--ask a friend or something to make a battle thread with a character of mine.

And I already dismantled this 80 times already. Not bothering to go any further.

By likening it to the only thing that needs programming to function?

Comparing it to a machine to get the point across better is not an argument to say it must've been designed. The intelligent design argument has been dead in the water since forever at this point.

You can go ahead and provide a contention, but you've blatantly likened it to something that's programmed and isn't just is.

No, I've proven that one isn't.

No you haven't.

Your views on these things are simply skewed due to your religious views mainly, so no logical argument can ever get through to you.

Everyone has a world view they liken/want the world to liken to. Me using what you presume to be a "Theological basis" is just me using one of the many, yet finite arguments humans have access to that i'd naturally default to. but that doesn't blind me to a coherent logical argument. you're just lacking with justifications for TM to meet the standard.

Is there anything else here to say? I think we're basically done at this point, unless the last thing you decide to do is go all in on some intelligent design argument, which isn't going to work.

Nope, we're pretty much done.

It's not a one to one comparison. It was just used to describe how it's automated.

What Automated system is necessary? and we've underlined the application of "Returning" (Being De-Actualized) needing time in TM.

If your world view is based off what you want to be true/prefer, then you've already lost due to bias.

A world view doesn't effect a debate other than motivation. and ignoring how people take positions they prefer--what bias do you think i have for/against what?

We've already agreed The One is necessary.

in TM? yeah.

In regards to it automatically doing things passively, I wouldn't argue that it's necessary for it to do that, but it just simply does

if it's not a necessary component of the metaphysic old TM is following--you'd have to prove such functionality of sorting exists within said Framework

We agree on this too. The disagreement comes from you thinking that the abstract logically doesn't have any form of time. No need for us to go in circles on that one again.

abstracts being able to change or not doesn't change what eternity (Not Potential Eternity) is.

Earlier on, you heavily implied that our real life reality logically needs a sentient prime mover,

for our morality? logic? laws?

and your very strange inflexible metaphysical position seems to be related to whatever your idea of your "real" god is and must be.

i endorse that there's only a certain amount of things you can do to get the right equation for creation, and i'm using common critiques of what that equation can and not be.

The fact it actualizes things and that not all things are actualized at once is self-evident just from seeing the basics of The One's lore in Old TM.

you literally can not know that by using a framework after creation as opposed from one for eternity.

Things over time are passively created by it. Things over time are passively ended and return to mere potentiality. Therefore, not all things exist at the same time.

You need to stop making lazy non-arguments like this. Elaborate.

Eternity doesn't have time. The One exists from all Eternity, and Has always Emanated/generated things, from Eternity. since there's no time in eternity (again), the things that the one generates are either always actualized--or in a dualistic contradictory state of actualization and potentia in the One. "But oh, it will fully de-actualize those things" in due time? where time doesn't exist? no, even if we granted it could in general for TM, the contradiction would predate the "Fix." and the worse part is that it wouldn't matter if abstracts have a form of time or not, the act of emanation frometernity that's instinctual leads to contradiction, Simple as that.

Obviously you'd be referring to creation.

and you glanced that...from the bit on morality?

They're not common, but even if they were, they're wrong.

You haven't debated much theological topics then. "And Wrong" for a critique that's working is insane.

That's such an incoherent and nonsensical statement.

You cant assume coherent mechanics (the conclusion) as a way to support your view of logicality within the system that provides said mechanics--when we're questioning the thing behind said mechanics and whether or not said things can exist with the nature given.

Everything that changes or causes change has time.

Not a contention to what i said.

Yes, but it isn't beyond all forms of time, as it creates change.

Yeah when? after it's passively existed with contradictions? or (insert nothing)

Eternity just means you have existed forever, nothing more. Just give up dude.

"Give up Dude" can i please get a contention? all you've done in this post is verifying the starting point of contradiction.

@chainchan: You cant assume coherent mechanics (the conclusion) as a way to support your view of logicality within the system that provides said mechanics--when we're questioning the thing behind said mechanics and whether or not said things can exist with the nature given.

My stance is that it's logical for now, as there are no contradictions to be seen so far.

The rest of your post is rambling. You have nothing left. I think we're done here.