Fair although name to a individual being a concept does seem weird as since you can make a argument that individual may not necessarily been or have a true name per se.
Elaborate, also.
Digital = technical
Yeah, so whenever you have time your thoughts on specfic changes to concept manip and the info manip types would be greatly appreciated.
I'm sorry what? Why wouldn't we just consider information manipulation just broadly dealing with the underlying substance/properties of a thing? That thing can either be something physical or metaphysical. There's nothing else it could really be, besides Data which is a bit weird in of itself.
Information doesn't necessarily refer to some fundamental component of reality, though. In fact, it has multiple common definitions, and none of them treat it as some important ontological thing, meaning this interpretation of the term is largely a fictional creation. Yes, I know fiction is what we're all about, but my point is that "information = fundamental thing" isn't an association that most people, including writers, are likely to make. Besides, we wouldn't treat data as the exact same thing (even though it kind of is), more so just a different level/type of information (and there are a fair few verses where data intersects with ontological stuff, anyway). If it helps, you can think of it in terms of these three types:
Thing is, that's just like freezing water by supernatural means and saying that changed its properties and therefore it's concept manipulation.
I'm fine with the types, but still think Type 1 should just remain as data manipulation. Yeah, some people might call computer data information, but I think there is a relevant distinction to be made between manipulating something that is manifested in the form of magnetic charges on a harddrive and manipulating some abstract thing like the other two types are.
It's not like that at all. Freezing water is different from explicitly changing something's "name" and through doing such changing its nature. You can be reductive about it but it's not the same. Some applications are better than others; that doesn't mean we need to arbitrarily split the power. That's just confusing! It's the character page's responsibility to specify what an ability does and how; not our responsibility to account for every minute variation and limitation with a million different power pages based on increasingly arbitrary, confusing criteria.
While changing somethings name is a unique mechanism the outcome of the power, i.e. changing the state of the thing to another state, is still basically the same.
I'm not denying that but you essentially throw this out yourself by acknowledging we're changing the standards. Some concepts are better than other concepts and some forms of manipulating them are better than others.
Completely different mechanics. Altering the idea of something is altering the idea of something. It's just a different scale of something in Ichibe's case. I'm fine with the idea of divding it into types.
As usual, I strongly agree with DontTalk. He makes very good sense above.
We're not mixing them up, you're just actively assuming that they're gonna be mashed together when they're not.
He was fine with it.
I mean, is Ichibei altering the idea of something? He alters names and by that properties. I don't think it was ever suggested he alters ideas. And then we're not talking about any idea but one were altering it "change the universe's fundamental principles" (according to the current page, at least. Unless we're changing that too)
So I take it you would be fine with rewriting type 3 to be for alteration of properties without affecting their abstraction? (Or however we want to put it)
