Massive Source Downgrades (Maou Gakuin)

[Dog3352]

When several staff members are telling you this doesn't qualify for type 2 because it's not a concept that governs reality, only one that covers a specific individual, this whole "ignorant" card flies out the window because you're basically calling every staff member ignorant, which isn't a good look for you if you want to convince us this is type 2 or 1 concept.

First: I showed the last CM review thread where administrators and some users say it was agreed that it is not necessary to govern all of reality, but only the area that the concept influences, regardless of whether it is a universal level or a person, the concept only needs to be more fundamental and govern other basic fundaments.

Second: None of the admins who agreed were participating in the last CM review thread, which means they didn't even know this thread existed.

Third: I made further changes to make it so that concepts don't need to be universal in AoE anymore. I hope the formulation is ok.

These words were spoken by @DontTalkDT, who is not only one of the most trusted admins on the wiki, but someone who participated in the thread, confirmed that you don't need "universal" AoE to be CM type 1 or 2, was literally one of the most fundamental people on the thread, and he himself was one of the people who suggested this, and he was the person who made the changes to the CM.
There are several other information and statements that I posted in my comments that say that it is not necessary to govern reality on a universal scale to be CM type 1 or 2.
but you simply ignored it and said that words like "govern all reality" spoke of all reality on a "universal" scale (also ignoring the part where it says "in its area of influence"), and literally ignored my arguments is the link itself and words from @DontTalkDT that I sent, which not only says that it doesn't need to have a universal scale to be CM type 1 or 2, but also the words are linked to the changes he made, where he exchanges phrases like:

'Conceptual Manipulation involves the manipulation of universal concepts" to "Conceptual Manipulation involves the manipulation of concepts".

Also has the change:

"Each concept is linked with its respective "object". In this way, altering the concept will change every object in the same way the concept itself was changed, effectively altering reality on a universal, if not higher, scale ." to "Each concept is linked with its respective "object". In this way, altering the concept will change every object linked to it in the same way the concept itself was changed."

Obviously apart from statements where it is necessary to govern all of reality on a universal level.

 

[Theglassman12]

Just because they didn't participate in the thread doesn't mean their arguments and votes are invalid. That's not how shit works, by this logic none of your points or votes matter because you weren't a part of the discussion either.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Why is this still an argument? We have the staff acceptance we need. An admin just needs to unlock the pages.

 

[Dog3352]

Just because they didn't participate in the thread doesn't mean their arguments and votes are invalid. That's not how shit works, by this logic none of your points or votes matter because you weren't a part of the discussion either.

I'm not saying that their votes or points are worthless for not having participated in the topic, but that they don't know that it is no longer necessary to have universal AoE to be CM type 1 or 2, and I have more than enough evidence to say that, but none of them pay any attention to me.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Qawsedf234 can you open these pages so that the stuff that's accepted can be applied to the pages?

@Dog3352 Or maybe they don't really think your argument has any weight, especially when Qawsed did respond to your points when he came to the thread so saying they didn't pay attention is disengenous.

 

[Dog3352]

@Qawsedf234 can you open these pages so that the stuff that's accepted can be applied to the pages?

@Dog3352 Or maybe they don't really think your argument has any weight, especially when Qawsed did respond to your points when he came to the thread so saying they didn't pay attention is disengenous.

...See the answers:

I said that what you need is "fundamentality" or "governing on basic fundamentals/minor concepts", and I'm going to prove that what I was saying was right.

"The page itself states this"

Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon.

"And more importantly this"

These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself.

"A person's future being erased, but only that person and only in the present and not retroactively, is Type 3."

"The High-Godly Regen stuff even notes that you can get the rating with Type 3, it's just more difficult."

Just like you, he's assuming that universal AoE is needed from his own understanding of the words on the CM page, not a fact, it's not like all admins know everything about every skill, he didn't follow the thread, and is obviously assuming that it takes universal AoE to be CM type 1 or 2, even if not only the people who participated in the CRT and agreed with this say completely the opposite.

I have nothing against @Qawsedf234, in fact he is obviously a good person, but the fact that people who participated in the CRT say and agree with something completely contrary to what he believes, and the fact that one of the The most trusted admins (@DontTalkDT. Who was also one of the 3 most fundamental people on the CRT, he was the one who made the suggestion, confirmed it, and even made the change) not only said the complete opposite, but was also the person who made the changes.

 

[Theglassman12]

So again you're not gonna bother addressing what I've argued for this entire thread, good to know. I'll just wait for what's accepted to be applied.

 

[Dog3352]

So again you're not gonna bother addressing what I've argued for this entire thread, good to know. I'll just wait for what's accepted to be applied.

Say EXACTLY what you brought up that I need to address.

Anyway, I doubt a little that it's not very different from your other comments.
Replacing the CM type 2 in MGK is not difficult, since the argument is based on something that has already been withdrawn at least 2 years ago, the problem is if they continue using the same argument of something that has already changed 2 years ago.

 

[Theglassman12]

Source of the individual do not govern reality, only the individual at best, which is what a type 3 concept is. Something we've all said, and you're arguing about the fact we got rid of "universal" comments as if that has any bearing on what we've said.

 

[Dog3352]

Source of the individual do not govern reality, only the individual at best, which is what a type 3 concept is. Something we've all said, and you're arguing about the fact we got rid of "universal" comments as if that has any bearing on what we've said.

I thought I'd already disproved that... anyway, that's not exactly how it works.

Provided that concept in question is the source of a property in itself then sure.

So that we're clear: We agree that changing an abstraction in a fashion that affects reality is not Type 1 or 2, unless said abstraction has demonstrated being the fundamental source of a property?

Yeah sure, I guess.

Alright... so where do we stand then?
The universal requirement gets removed, but otherwise Type 1 & 2 stays the same. I think everyone agrees with that much.

As I've said before several times, to be CM type 1 or 2, it takes fundamentalism, being a concept that is more fundamental than the things it governs, regardless of whether it governs only one person, if he goes more fundamental than the "objects"/"reality" he governs, he is type 2 or 1, just as the source governs the body, mind and soul, it is also more fundamental than all of them.
even if it is a "personal concept" (governing only one person), if it is more fundamental than the objects/reality (the concept has to govern at least more than one thing/object) it governs, it can be type 1 or 2.
An example I can say is the very explanation of CM type 2, in CM type 2, it is specified at various times that changing the type 2 concept will also change the objects it governs, or changing the concept directly would result in changing all the objects/reality it governs, which means the source can definitely be a type 2 or type 1 concept even if it's just a person.
Governs 3 objects (more than 1); It is more fundamental than all of them; It is described as the fundamental concept of existence, which exists deeper than the things it governs (body, soul and mind); Changing the concept directly will result in changing all the objects it governs.

 

[Theglassman12]

A concept by definition is more fundamental than a person or an object, that's like a no brainer for what a concept is. That doesn't remotely mean it's type 2 or 1. You're pushing for a ridiculous buff based on something that's like the bare minimum for what we already have for concepts.

 

[Dog3352]

A concept by definition is more fundamental than a person or an object, that's like a no brainer for what a concept is. That doesn't remotely mean it's type 2 or 1. You're pushing for a ridiculous buff based on something that's like the bare minimum for what we already have for concepts.

Read the rest of the comment, there is more than just one thing difference between type 2 and 3.

I'm not pushing one up, the font meets all the requirements of the type 12 concept, if it doesn't, it definitely would be type 3 (and more fundamental than it governs, governs more than 1 object, destroying it will result in the destruction of all objects it governs, and described as a fundamental concept).

2. Dependent Concepts: Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence. These concepts shape everything, and changing them would either require the alteration of every object of the concept or, if manipulated directly, change all objects of the concept alongside the concept itself.

basically a source description

"For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify."

This comment is used to say that it is necessary to govern reality (universal AoE), but apparently people did not understand the purpose of this example, considering that I already proved that I do not need universal AoE, I will tell you how exactly this example it is to be interpreted.
Taking into account that I already proved that I don't need universal AoE, and taking into account the existence of this line "govern all reality within their area of influence", and obviously this example is connected with the facts that I don't need Universal AoE and the statement where "govern all reality within their area of influence", and it's quite obvious that it's not really about AoE, that's why the explanation doesn't say "end the concept of humanity in the entire universe (or all of reality)", because it is connected to the things I said earlier, it is about the area that the concept influences (also related to the phrase "changing the concept will result in changing the objects it governs"), and the fact that everyone influenced (who are humans) by the concept of "humanity" in the given area, will change too, it's not about universal AoE.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Dude let it rest, it is done already.
Also Concepts no longer needing universal AOE or your source not having universal AOE is not reason why it was downgraded, it was downgraded because it is blatantly a personal concept and does not govern reality but an individual.

 

[Dog3352]

Dude let it rest, it is done already.
Also Concepts no longer needing universal AOE or your source not having universal AOE is not reason why it was downgraded, it was downgraded because it is blatantly a personal concept and does not govern reality but an individual.

You know they're both the same thing, right? Universal AoE and governing reality are exactly the same thing in the sense you are using, the sense of "reality" in the explanation on the page and another, that it is the area governed (not literally reality), and it being an "individual concept " doesn't put it right away, as everything else in the font follows 100% CM type 12 logic.

 

[PrinceofPein]

You know they're both the same thing, right? Universal AoE and governing reality are exactly the same thing in the sense you are using, the sense of "reality" in the explanation on the page and another, that it is the area governed (not literally reality), and it being an "individual concept " doesn't put it right away, as everything else in the font follows 100% CM type 12 logic.

I see where your confusion comes from, no they are not the same thing they are different, reality can be a planet or even a town, for example, governing all the concept of darkness in a town is either type 1 or 2. but governing a single person is type 3, it is simple as that, governing humanity of any reality (universe, planet or village) is type 1 or 2, but governing a single one of those humans and them alone is type 3.
I cannot find a way to make it simpler than this

 

[ImmortalDread]

I may ask one thread moderator to come here and gives his evaluation.

Done! He will give it till latest tomorrow

 

[PrinceofPein]

I may ask one thread moderator to come here and gives his evaluation.

Done! He will give it till latest tomorrow

i thought the thread was concluded already or is there something left to do?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Pain is actually saying truth, the scope ot potency of said CM is irrelevant, you can have type 1 for town level.

 

[ImmortalDread]

i thought the thread was concluded already or is there something left to do?

I am more seeking for one additional thread moderator since I don't feel there is sufficient or solid ratio to conclude it despite some admins that gave their input not interested on clarifying it.

 

[DarkGrath]

Alright. I will be basing my evaluation here primarily on the matters explored in the OP itself, as well as some key points of information discussed in the thread since then. I have tried my best to read through and properly process all of the comments made in the thread thus far, but I will be frank - so much of this thread has been an increasingly convoluted back-and-forth that it would easily take me upwards of hours to sieve through what particular points discussed so far are worth addressing and evaluating, so I would rather leave evaluations about specific points brought up throughout the thread to specific questions addressed to me. I will also address in passing that I am not involved with this verse, and so do not have context on the matters discussed beyond what has been contained with this thread.

To start:

Conceptual Manipulation

I concur with the OP that these quotes are not enough to qualify for Type 2 CM. Not even just for very specific reasons, like not acknowledging the "past" as a factor, but also just due to generally saying so little about the nature of the sources by themselves. There is just fundamentally so little information provided by those sources that I don't even know why they were used in the first place for something as specific as Type 2 CM. However, there is another quote that was added to the OP regarding this discussion, which says:

"However, if the Almighty's sword is not sheathed, the power of the divine sword will annihilate the source of the person who pulls it out, present, past, and future."

This was a huge back-and-forth topic earlier in the thread, with the two conflicting opinions being whether this is saying "the source being annihilated will annihilate the past, present, and future of the owner" or if it is saying "the source will be annihilated across the past, present, and future". Frankly, early discussion on this was completely unhelpful - the first page of this thread was almost entirely just people making those two claims over and over again, without anyone trying to substantiate their interpretation of the quote. This is a semantics issue, and the semantics lean towards the latter interpretation.

Note the sentence structure: using "will annihilate - the source", establishes that "the source" is the subject of this annihilation, and adding on "present, past, and future" establishes that the annihilation is occurring in the present, past, and future. Therefore, this sentence is saying "the source will be annihilated across the present, past, and future". The former interpretation would require that "the owner" was the subject of the annihilation (i.e.: it would have to say something along the lines of "will annihilate the person who pulls it out, present, past, and future") which the sentence does not show. This should not have been as big of a back-and-forth as it was; there is a single discernable answer available in the quote itself.

I am open to the possibility that there may be more quotes on this topic that could substantiate more specific information about the type of concept that sources can be considered. If they are truly as important to this verse as they seem, I don't doubt there is information missing from this thread and the discussion so far. But I concur with the OP that these quotes do not specify anything clearly enough to justify Type 2 CM, and that I would have to agree with a downgrade to Type 3 CM on this basis. To be convinced of Type 2, within the standards outlined on the Conceptual Manipulation page, I will need a clear quote showing that the "source" of a person governs the concept of that person's existence in any and all tangible forms, such that the erasure of the source equates to the removal of any and all instances of the person's existence within the boundaries of reality set in the verse. What has been provided is close, but it is not enough - what has been shown is too specific in its nature to quality for anything beyond Type 3 in its current state, because nothing has proven that the source "governs all reality within its area of influence (the 'area of influence' in this case being the person whom the source conceptualizes)". I am open to more proof being presented, but for full clarity, I agree with the OP.

Information Manipulation

Information Manipulation is a bit more difficult to pin down here. To reference the quote used to justify Type 2 IM:

"Even if the body disappears, it can be restored using Resuscitation Ingal because the root remembers the outline of the body."

The main problem I have with evaluating this is a lack of context; how literal is the word "remember" here? I do not know a great deal about "the root" mentioned in this quote, beyond what has been stated in this thread, so I do not know if it is an entity with a literal "memory" that it can refer to when Resuscitation Ingal is used, or if this is a metaphor for the process the root uses in more 'human' terms. In either circumstance, I'm not sure exactly how it qualifies for Type 2 IM without further context. I suppose I'd consider myself neutral on this, but leaning towards agreeing with the OP - not necessarily because it can't be Type 2 IM, but because it shouldn't be on the profile without more thorough evidence and clarification in the first place. Elaboration on the way the root and the Resuscitation Ingal ability works would be greatly appreciated.

High-Godly/NEP

To my knowledge, this all inherently passes as a consequence of the two prior points.

TL;DR

The evidence provided regarding the nature of sources has not been substantial enough to support the idea that the source "governs all reality within its area of influence (the 'area of influence' being the individual whom the source conceptualizes)". Consequentially, there is not enough basis for Type 2 CM. However, I am open to more evidence being provided to support this - what I will state is that no amount of analysis of what has already been provided is enough. As such, I agree with changing the profiles to reflect Type 3 CM until further notice.

The evidence provided for information manipulation is too vague without further context. I imagine further context may help with evaluating this, but assuming the context provided is all, then this does not meet the standards to provide an ability as specific as Type 2 IM. I would like further elaboration if possible.

If both of the two prior points pass, matters related to High-Godly and NEP can likely be removed.

And that is all. Now let me finish my aspirin.

Done! He will give it till latest tomorrow

Also, side-comment, it is "she".

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Huh, ****** up that this was posted right as I woke up.

Anyways, thanks for the evaluation. I'm just waiting on an admin to unlock the remaining profiles that need to be edited.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, side-comment, it is "she".

I have the worst habit and I still use “he” as neutral gender, apologies

 

[DarkGrath]

ImmortalDread pointed out something of interest to me off-site, which I feel I'd be remiss to not mention in relation to my previous reply.

The definition for High-Godly Regeneration states:

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying information (Type 2) or concept(s) (Type 1 or 2, but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them) needed for them to exist."

The specifics of this definition show that, even if Type 2 CM is replaced with Type 3, there is still a condition in which High-Godly Regeneration can remain. This may be worthy of further discussion.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Not only that part, he has actually been hostile towards Glass previously in the course of the thread, that was the third time so I had to call him out on that

Expressing exasperation or frustration is not being hostile. It's expressing those concepts. Saying "You're an admin, you should know this" is at worst a demeaning comment, but nothing that goes into rule infraction.

@Qawsedf234 can you open these pages so that the stuff that's accepted can be applied to the pages?

I can open them if the thread is conclusive vote wise. What's the current tally.

The specifics of this definition show that, even if Type 2 CM is replaced with Type 3, there is still a condition in which High-Godly Regeneration can remain. This may be worthy of further discussion.

A person coming from them being conceptually destroyed would still be High Godly. Since the broadness of the power doesn't effect them, just how the concept itself effects the person.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Currently, @Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara, I am okay with you using CM type 3 on the appropriate profiles, including information type 2. However, please refrain from using it on the HGR profile since I believe it requires more attention and expertise.

Additionally, there is a thread for upgrade thread for the source, and I am reaching out to a translator who does not engage in power scaling within this particular verse to obtain accurate information.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

I can open them if the thread is conclusive vote wise. What's the current tally.

Agree: @Theglassman12, @Planck69, @Qawsedf234, @DarkGrath

Disagree: @Dereck03, @DarkDragonMedeus

Neutral: @Maverick_Zero_X (leaning agree)

ImmortalDread pointed out something of interest to me off-site, which I feel I'd be remiss to not mention in relation to my previous reply.

The definition for High-Godly Regeneration states:

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying information (Type 2) or concept(s) (Type 1 or 2, but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them) needed for them to exist."

The specifics of this definition show that, even if Type 2 CM is replaced with Type 3, there is still a condition in which High-Godly Regeneration can remain. This may be worthy of further discussion.

I will be making a new thread on that sometime soon, hopefully.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

ImmortalDread pointed out something of interest to me off-site, which I feel I'd be remiss to not mention in relation to my previous reply.

The definition for High-Godly Regeneration states:

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying information (Type 2) or concept(s) (Type 1 or 2, but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them) needed for them to exist."

The specifics of this definition show that, even if Type 2 CM is replaced with Type 3, there is still a condition in which High-Godly Regeneration can remain. This may be worthy of further discussion.

Regenerating from destruction of Source still counts as High Godly Regeneration. It's an fundamental aspects which exists deeper than soul and spirits character can just think and act with source alone as abstact existence. Also even if you erased them on spiritual level they can come back with source which already gives mid godly regeneration.

It was the truth, but Leorg didn’t seem inclined to believe it. After all, magic is born from each individual’s source. These sources reside within our bodies, beyond our souls, beyond our spirits—deep within the abyss. It’s what makes us who we are. When sources of different classes face each other, fear of the greater source can make one’s magic go berserk.

Anyway. I would like your input in this thread which has different arguments and proof which are argued for type 1 source.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/maou-gakuin-source-root-type-1-concept-round-2.150801/post-5574298

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Regenerating from destruction of Source still counts as High Godly Regeneration. It's am fundamental aspects which exists deeper than soul and spirits character can just think and act with source alone as abstact existence.

Anyway. I would like your input in this thread which has different arguments and proof which are argued for type 1 source.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/maou-gakuin-source-root-type-1-concept-round-2.150801/post-5574298

That's not really why type 3 concepts can qualify for HGR, Elde. It's about whether or not they are as difficult to regenerate from the destruction of as type 1/2 concepts, information, history, etc.

 

[Dog3352]

because nothing has proven that the source "governs all reality within its area of influence (the 'area of influence' in this case being the person whom the source conceptualizes)

o be convinced of Type 2, within the standards outlined on the Conceptual Manipulation page, I will need a clear quote showing that the "source" of a person governs the concept of that person's existence in any and all tangible forms, such that the erasure of the source equates to the removal of any and all instances of the person's existence within the boundaries of reality set in the verse.

I don't understand, if the source governs only one person puts him as CM type 3, what's the point of these quotes?

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

That's not really why type 3 concepts can qualify for HGR, Elde. It's about whether or not they are as difficult to regenerate from the destruction of as type 1/2 concepts, information, history, etc.

Revise CM and Regeneration page then. Nowhere states whatever you claimed in Regeneration page.

"The ability to regenerate after the erasure of body, mind, and soul, along with at least one even more fundamental aspect of a character's existence, such as their place in the narrative, their entire history, or the underlying information (Type 2) or concept(s) (Type 1 or 2, but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them) needed for them to exist

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

I don't understand, if the source governs only one person puts him as CM type 3, what's the point of these quotes?

Dude stop arguing jn this thread. It's not worth it.

 

[Dog3352]

Dude stop arguing jn this thread. It's not worth it.

Is genuine curiosity.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Agree: @Theglassman12, @Planck69, @Qawsedf234, @DarkGrath

Disagree: @Dereck03, @DarkDragonMedeus

Neutral: @Maverick_Zero_X (leaning agree)


I will be making a new thread on that sometime soon, hopefully.

May I ask why it is worth to add the changes while there is an open thread for exact same premise (but upgrade instead)

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Anyways I do have to go to work now, so I won't be able to apply the edits.

May I ask why it is worth to add the changes while there is an open thread for exact same premise (but upgrade instead)

Because there is a clear staff majority in my favor.

Revise CM and Regeneration page then. Nowhere states whatever you claimed in Regeneration page.

You highlighted the exact bit of text that says what I claimed

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

Anyways I do have to go to work now, so I won't be able to apply the edits.


Because there is a clear staff majority in my favor.


You highlighted the exact bit of text that says what I claimed

The strong evidence is only one Source exists for a character if you Destroy there won't be any coming back. Even from future incarnations. Its still high godly regeneration nonetheless. Also there is no higher degree of mid godly regeneration. It's a Regeneration of fundamental concepts not soul and spirits.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Anyways I do have to go to work now, so I won't be able to apply the edits.


Because there is a clear staff majority in my favor.

The other thread is still ongoing and hasn't been concluded yet, so there's still a chance that their arguments could be accepted. However, I'm not sure if it's worth investing time into it since it may ultimately prove to be pointless.

 

[DarkGrath]

I don't understand, if the source governs only one person puts him as CM type 3, what's the point of these quotes?

I will try to explain this in simpler terms. Feel free to ask if there is anything confusing.

Think of "all of reality" (as in, literally everything, on any possible level) as a giant set. Now think of any particular element of reality (such as a person) as a small subset of that set. If reality is one massive circle, a person is a smaller circle contained inside that giant circle.

To qualify for Type 2, that concept must abstractly define that smaller circle such that, if the concept did not exist, the smaller circle would entirely ease to exist within the larger circle. The concept is so inexorably tied to everything related to the tangible existence of that person that, should the concept disappear, the tangible existence in all forms would too.

This is what "all reality within their area of influence" on the CM page refers to. Not necessarily the whole of reality, but the whole of that subset of reality - the "area of influence" for the concept.

In the case of sources, the "area of influence" is the person whom the source conceptualizes. So, if the source was a Type 2 Concept, removing the source would mean all elements of the subset that defines "the person" in all of reality would disappear with it. The subset of reality that contains all tangible aspects of their existence in all forms would disappear; the smaller circle would no longer exist within the larger circle.

The reason the provided evidence does not qualify for Type 2 is because it has not thoroughly proven this. It gets close enough to proving it that, as I've mentioned before, I'd be willing to hear out more quotes if they can be provided. But the exact influence the source has over the existence of the person is too vague within the given sources to prove that this truly applies to "all of reality within its area of influence" - for example, it hasn't been proven that the past existence of the person (which would be considered a part of "all of reality within its area of influence") is erased when the source is, meaning we do not know whether it has total precedence over the subset. Ergo, it only qualifies for Type 3 under the given evidence.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is what "all reality within their area of influence" on the CM page refers to. Not necessarily the whole of reality, but the whole of that subset of reality - the "area of influence" for the concept.

In the case of sources, the "area of influence" is the person whom the source conceptualizes. So, if the source was a Type 2 Concept, removing the source would mean all elements of the subset that defines "the person" in all of reality would disappear with it. The subset of reality that contains all tangible aspects of their existence in all forms would disappear; the smaller circle would no longer exist within the larger circle.

@EldemadeDityjon I have been explaining this to you over days, this is what I am trying to say.

 

[EldemadeDityjon]

@EldemadeDityjon I have been explaining this to you over days, this is what I am trying to say.

I literally didn't cared about this thread. Come back to that.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am not insinuating that you are indifferent to the matter, but in general, there has been a significant misunderstanding regarding this issue. Despite my attempts to explain it privately, you continued to use it in Bleach and on the first two pages without any indication of changing your perspective.

This is the fundamental point I have been attempting to convey.