Conceptual Manipulation Type 1 for Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint should go

[Grabbing_dragon]

Conceptual Manipulation (Type 1) & Information Manipulation (Type 2) - Stories are the fundamental building blocks of reality. Stories define in a more abstract way an object, a dimension (defining its concepts such as taste, space, time or the axes of space and time), a person (being more abstract even than the soul, defining the memory as well as the life and death of a person), and reality in its entirety (defining all the space and time of reality as well as the laws that govern it). Stories are created outside of space and time, outside of the world, in the Snowfield where all space and time of reality is created.

Above is where the entire verse is; CM 1 is based on this page.

First scan discusses concepts as words/description etc rather than as inherent realities, that are fundamental, as shown by the example it gives, a world that has not been written about and illustrates that a concept needs to be described in order to be experienced properly, which aligns with the Nominalist view of concepts. All subsequent scans are based on this first one. For example, this scan treats time as a concept in the Nominalist sense, rather than as a fundamental whatness that defines all spatialtemporal things. The other scans mainly focus on manipulating things, so all of CM 1 should be removed due to the justification being Nominalist, it does not qualify as any CM.

---

Agree: ScrollerGNL, SuperNova55555, Bahaha, Thermor, Cipher72, Mr._East_Statement, BoastJr ,Vietthai96, Planck69, Random-Helper323, DarkDragonMedeus
Neutral:
Disagree:

 

[Voidnether]

Propose the CM1 to be Plot Manipulation instead imo

 

[ScrollerGNL]

I do agree with there being no CM T1.

First scan discusses concepts as words/description etc rather than as inherent realities, that are fundamental, as shown by the example it gives, a world that has not been written and illustrates that a concept needs to be described in order to be experienced, which aligns with the Nominalist view of concepts

Nominalism holds that there are no universals, the first scan quite literally shows that there are these things which objectively exist.

as shown by the example it gives, a world that has not been written and illustrates that a concept needs to be described in order to be experienced, which aligns with the Nominalist view of concepts

Um, no. 'A world not written' merely implies the paticulars are not actualized as of yet, rather the 'universals'. Not sure where these inferences are coming from.

All subsequent scans are based on this first one. For example, this scan treats time as a concept in the Nominalist sense, rather than as a fundamental whatness that defines all spatialtemporal things.

Time is structural and hence isn't something that can have a 'Universal', so, I'm not sure what this is going for.

 

[SuperNova55555]

Ye ts can go

 

[Bahaha]

I agree with the OP

 

[God_of_perversion]

I'll wait for the supporters (like pretty much every one should do always)

 

[Thermor]

From description, I think this ability is more related to plot manip rather than CM1 so agree.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

Am I missing something, or shouldn't both IM2 and CM1 be replaced by "plot"?

 

[Thermor]

Am I missing something, or shouldn't both IM2 and CM1 be replaced by "plot"?

I'm guessing IM2 can stay because it serves as a fundamental building block.

 

[Dark_Soul20189]

I'm guessing IM2 can stay because it serves as a fundamental building block.

Here is the thing, though... All metaphysical aspects are "fundamental building blocks", it feels like CM 1, and IM 2 are just given out for nothing, and are already covered fully by Plot... So it feels not only redundant, but has no real "showing".

 

[Thermor]

Here is the thing, though... All metaphysical aspects are "fundamental building blocks", it feels like CM 1, and IM 2 are just given out for nothing, and are already covered fully by Plot... So it feels not only redundant, but has no real "showing".

Not exactly as CM1 and Plot just governs, info2 is what actually acts as a fundamental building block like a code in the reality system. At times, you can get both CM and info2 for the same thing such as cases from GoH, Sailor Moon, Marvel and etc.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Am I missing something, or shouldn't both IM2 and CM1 be replaced by "plot"?

I think the argument for it is that stories are 1s and 0s (information) and fundamental building blocks

Here is the thing, though... All metaphysical aspects are "fundamental building blocks", it feels like CM 1, and IM 2 are just given out for nothing, and are already covered fully by Plot... So it feels not only redundant, but has no real "showing".

Not all metaphysical aspects are “fundamental building blocks.”
CM 1 and CM 2, as far as I can see, are not building blocks, because they are meant to be qualities, not quantities.
You are supposed to have one singular governing concept that applies to the entire thing. You cannot form a universal application by summing multiple concepts that govern the same thing at once, because doing so would reduce them to Type 3 concepts.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Since a day has passed since I created this CRT, it’s time to call in some staff, along with my glowy, manipulative husbando

 

[Voidnether]

Since a day has passed since I created this CRT, it’s time to call in some staff, along with my glowy, manipulative husbando

Unironically the gayest thing I've seen this year

 

[SuperNova55555]

Since a day has passed since I created this CRT, it’s time to call in some staff, along with my glowy, manipulative husbando

W yaoi harem

 

[Cipher72]

W yaoi harem

Don't encourage his behaviour

Anyways I agree with removing CM-1, Info is valid imo and yea this sounds like Plot to me. I will still wait for verse supporters though.

 

[Orioreeem]

We should give some time for verse supporters to voice themselves

 

[Mr._East_Statement]

Hmm, it seems all things are fine for CM Type 1 removal.

Nominalism, to give a short explanation, is the philosophical position that universals do not exist independently of the mind or language. Only particular things exist. General terms (like redness, humanity, justice) are names we invent to group similar things. The word “universal” refers to language, not reality.

Spoiler: A example

For example, "what is redness?" This view far defers from views such as Realism (platonic) in answer to this (Redness is a real, abstract entity that exists independently, apples “participate” in it) or conceptualism in answer to this (Redness exists, but only as a concept in the mind). As it, in a way, believes Redness doesn’t exist at all—only red things exist.

In other words, "abstract objects do not actually exist other than being merely names or labels." Which is what Nominalism says.

So currently agree. Following, interested to hear if supporters have any counterarguments.

 

[BoastJr]

Thicc Klein solos ORV Man

Supernova is a happy man now

I agree

 

[Voidnether]

Thicc Klein solos ORV Man

Supernova is a happy man now

Nova when you ask him why the CM1's possible uses in LOTM is only applicable to the CM3 stuff in there

 

[SuperNova55555]

Nova when you ask him why the CM1's possible uses in LOTM is only applicable to the CM3 stuff in there

God forbid a verse doesn’t have mfs punch platonic forms for fun

 

[Digital_Franz]

This is interesting.

First scan discusses concepts as words/description etc rather than as inherent realities, that are fundamental,

You are missing something. These words aren't merely names used to label something, but stories are something that exist independently of mind. If you say that it's used like in the nominalism then you're implying that stories don't really exist but are just names/labels, when the opposite is shown.

as shown by the example it gives, a world that has not been written about and illustrates that a concept needs to be described in order to be experienced properly, which aligns with the Nominalist view of concepts.

Nah. For the nominalism, only particulars exist, and universals are just post re, while here they should that the stories already exist. This idea that history must be well-written stems from the fact that the creator of the world R>F world, and through his imagination, everything is instantiated by the Final Wall. So if his "model" is poorly described, the result will simply be bad. None of these words depend on the mind or thought of the living. Stories are the whatness of their particulars, and when the particular is detroyed it's just recorded that it's detroyed (exemple with death of characters being within the story and constellations being able to survive as stories).

All subsequent scans are based on this first one. For example, this scan treats time as a concept in the Nominalist sense, rather than as a fundamental whatness that defines all spatialtemporal things. The other scans mainly focus on manipulating things, so all of CM 1 should be removed due to the justification being Nominalist, it does not qualify as any CM.

I'm not sure what this is going for. I used that part just to show that the stories are independant of space and time and that they precede their particulars (by being instantiated within Final Wall).

Nominalism, to give a short explanation, is the philosophical position that universals do not exist independently of the mind or language. Only particular things exist. General terms (like redness, humanity, justice) are names we invent to group similar things. The word “universal” refers to language, not reality.

And so by that logic Stories do not exist and are just mere names/labels, when all the plot is all about stories existing.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

You are missing something. These words aren't merely names used to label something, but stories are something that exist independently of mind. If you say that it's used like in the nominalism then you're implying that stories don't really exist but are just names/labels, when the opposite is shown.

Stories, being descriptions of the world independent of the mind, would merely be plot.

Nah. For the nominalism, only particulars exist, and universals are just post re, while here they should that the stories already exist. This idea that history must be well-written stems from the fact that the creator of the world R>F world, and through his imagination, everything is instantiated by the Final Wall. So if his "model" is poorly described, the result will simply be bad. None of these words depend on the mind or thought of the living.

Same as above.

Stories are the whatness of their particulars, and when the particular is detroyed it's just recorded that it's detroyed (exemple with death of characters being within the story and constellations being able to survive as stories).

That scan does not mean that the story is what makes the world what it is; rather, it means that the world itself is the story, in the sense that it is fictional in essence/nature/what it is

I'm not sure what this is going for. I used that part just to show that the stories are independant of space and time and that they precede their particulars (by being instantiated within Final Wall).

Independent plot.

And so by that logic Stories do not exist and are just mere names/labels, when all the plot is all about stories existing.

Stories have proof of being independent of the mind, but this is not the case when it was discussing concepts. When it comes to concepts, it is referring to the things themselves rather than a fundamental essence. For example, when discussing the concept of taste, it is talking about taste itself, rather than a fundamental concept that defines all taste.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Stories, being descriptions of the world independent of the mind, would merely be plot.

Here we're clinging to the name of the thing. The plot is merely a description of what will happens, not a description of what it is.

That scan does not mean that the story is what makes the world what it is; rather, it means that the world itself is the story, in the sense that it is fictional.

When was that ever implied that it's in the sense that it is fictional? The world is real, not just as real as the Oldest Dream. And where is it coming that the essence of something is the thing itself? And if you read the page carefully, it is shown here that something is not a story, but the story is what makes something what it is, it is a set of properties.

Edit: they don't even know that the world is just a "novel" for their creator at that point, so the argument of them saying "the world itself is the story, in the sense that it is fictional" doesn't stand.

Independent plot.

Again, a plot isn't something that makes a thing what it is, but merely a scenario.

Stories have proof of being independent of the mind, but this is not the case when it was discussing concepts. When it comes to concepts, it is referring to the things themselves rather than a fundamental essence. For example, when discussing the concept of taste, it is talking about taste itself, rather than a fundamental concept that defines the all taste.

Maybe you want them to be Platonic concepts? Sorry but Type 1 concepts aren't only about that. When Ultima revises the conceptual manipulation page yeah it'll be nuked but as the standard is now, it's just fine. And again, the concept of taste there isn't mind dependant in the scan, it's shown that the characters talk about something that do not even exits. Whereas with the nominalist approach, the concept of taste would have existed simply because he had the impression to taste of paper.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

Here we're clinging to the name of the thing. The plot is merely a description of what will happens, not a description of what it is.

Ok.

When was that ever implied that it's in the sense that it is fictional? The world is real, not just as real as the Oldest Dream. And where is it coming that the essence of something is the thing itself?

If we go by that scan, it said 'the story' was the essence of the world, not 'a story' or 'stories' as the essence of the world, so that the idea of essence could apply to stories in general.

And if you read the page carefully, it is shown here that something is not a story, but the story is what makes something what it is, it is a set of properties.

Nothing in the scans said that a story is what makes something what it is or gives things their properties; all I see is plot manipulation.

Again, a plot isn't something that makes a thing what it is, but merely a scenario.

Ok

Maybe you want them to be Platonic concepts? Sorry but Type 1 concepts aren't only about that. When Ultima revises the conceptual manipulation page yeah it'll be nuked but as the standard is now, it's just fine. And again, the concept of taste there isn't mind dependant in the scan, it's shown that the characters talk about something that do not even exits. Whereas with the nominalist approach, the concept of taste would have existed simply because he had the impression to taste of paper.

It is not about being the 'whatness' of something; it is about the mention of the concept of taste talking about taste itself, as stated above, and you can see this in other translations, so still nominalist as far as i see.

 

[Digital_Franz]

If we go by that scan, it said 'the story' was the essence of the world, not 'a story' or 'stories' as the essence of the world, so that the idea of essence could apply to stories in general.

You have the other scan that says "her story is becoming not her", implying that it isn't only restricted to worlds.

Nothing in the scans said that a story is what makes something what it is or gives things their properties; all I see is plot manipulation.

Bro... a plot isn't about what you are, but about what you do or will do.

It is not about being the 'whatness' of something; it is about the mention of the concept of taste talking about taste itself, as stated above, and you can see this in other translations.

I don't see what is the issue? The taste was not created by the creator of the world so there there was "no taste".

 

[Robo432343]

hmm this wank can be defended it seems

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

You have the other scan that says "her story is becoming not her", implying that it isn't only restricted to worlds.

Now that is weird. We have a situation where some stories are Type 3 concepts. I would say, though, that the single story that governs all of reality would be the only Type 1 concept. There needs to be evidence that all stories govern things universally, rather than just a sum total of stories governing everything.

Bro... a plot isn't about what you are, but about what you do or will do.

All is possible in fiction.

I don't see what is the issue? The taste was not created by the creator of the world so there there was "no taste".

Taste does not equal the concept of taste; taste would be the particular.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

@Digital_Franz You can use scans about stories being essences , which you just showed, to propose another CM Type 1. Since, I disagree with the current scans and the justification of CM type 1 on the pages

 

[Digital_Franz]

Now that is weird. We have a situation where some stories are Type 3 concepts. I would say, though, that the single story that governs all of reality would be the only Type 1 concept.

Why are they even supposed to be Type 3 concepts to begin with?

There needs to be evidence that all stories govern things universally, rather than just a sum total of stories governing everything.

Hmm.

All is possible in fiction.

Not against that but you just can't suppose it's the case everywhere.

Taste does not equal the concept of taste; taste would be the particular.

For a concept like taste, depending of the context both can be used interchangeably.

hmm this wank can be defended it seems

A good wank is only a good wank when it can be defended.

@Digital_Franz You can use scans about stories being essences , which you just showed, to propose another CM Type 1. Since, I disagree with the current scans and the justification of CM type 1 on the pages

Maybe another justification should just be proposed here.

 

[Planck69]

This seems to just be extremely blatant Plot Manipulation, so yeah, agree with the removals. It should be replaced by that, assuming it isn't already labelled as such.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Doesn't plot manipulation already exist for the story manipulation?

 

[Random-Helper323]

The references to concepts do sound notable, but yes, this sounds like Plot Manipulation. I agree with Planck.

 

[Vietthai96]

Yeah, just change this to Plot hax

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This seems to just be extremely blatant Plot Manipulation, so yeah, agree with the removals. It should be replaced by that, assuming it isn't already labelled as such.

Agreed.

 

[God_of_perversion]

Who is gonna tell them that plot manipulation is already acepted

 

[Planck69]

Well then, even simpler. CM should just be removed.

 

[Vietthai96]

Actually if Plot is already there then both IM2 and CM1 should be removed, unless there is something indicated IM2 out there idk

 

[Cipher72]

IM2

unless there is something indicated IM2 out there idk

Wait wait

I think the argument for it is that stories are 1s and 0s (information) and fundamental building blocks

 

[Digital_Franz]

Doesn't plot manipulation already exist for the story manipulation?

That's the case, yeah.

Wait wait

Who gonna even tell them what's really the plot.