Question about a clear contradiction regarding NEP 1.

[Azertyhuuh]

I am considering opening a staff thread on this matter, and here are the reasons:

I simply reject the idea of layering within NEP 1, because it is contradictory and makes no sense.

First, what is nonexistence? Nonexistence is nothing. The word “nonexistence” is only a term we use for nothing. There cannot be something like “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” because this is a clear contradiction and even negates nonexistence itself.

There is only one case:
• Either something is nonexistence or it is something else entirely. There is no such thing as “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” because this is mathematically, logically, and philosophically incorrect. There is no logic that supports this idea, because it negates nonexistence itself. If there is “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” then that implies one nonexistence has a property the other lacks. But having a property already makes it something, meaning it becomes existence. This contradicts nonexistence, because nonexistence is the opposite of existence. So if you say there is “more nonexistence than another nonexistence,” you are making nonexistence into something, and the “more nonexistent” one is defined by lacking that property. This means the first was not nonexistence in the first place, but something, and “something” means existence. Thus, the concept collapses, because nonexistence is nothing.

The solution is simple: remove layering from NEP 1 entirely, because it is not correct, is not supported by any logical framework, and contradicts the concept of nonexistence itself.

After removing the layering, any character that is neither nonexistence nor existence—that is, that transcends this binary—should be assigned NEP 2. In other words, any character currently described with layers in NEP 1 should instead fall under NEP 2, because nonexistence is simply nonexistence. If something is not nonexistence, then it is neither 0 nor 1 and exists outside the existence/nonexistence binary. It is not “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” but simply outside this classification entirely.

 

[Cipher72]

I have actually wondered the same thing as well for a long time, with the way NEP-1 is described it's essentially lacking something that's necessary for existence, as in lacking a concept which everyone needs to survive that would be NEP-1 (aspect), NEP-1 for a being is '0' or nothing i.e privation of something essentially a void but I have seen that a lot of characters that are very much existing and participating in reality and even performing actions with aspects that have NEP-1 (I can provide examples if needed) like thinking with a NEP-1 mind which should be NEP-3 ?
So I am a bit confused on this matter as well, that aside on to the actual question of layers within NEP-1 I kind of understand both sides of the argument. Technically something can be NEP-1 i.e '0' but still become more 'non-existent' without becoming NEP-2 which is more fundamentally non-existent (Quality)
The way I understand it is like this

Spoiler: Headcanon

NEP-1 is straight up "You don't exist"
NEP-2 is being neither existent nor Non-existent. You are essentially*so non-existent* that non-existence can't be used to determine your non-existence.
NEP-3 is being NEP-1 but behaving like you are Existent or vice versa.

However the actual NEP Page says
The character doesn't exist in a sense further beyond conventional nonexistence." meaning that any NEP-1 layer is NEP-2 so either the page needs to be reworded or idk maybe my understanding is wrong, either way would appreciate it if any knowledgeable member/staff cleared up this issue.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

First, what is nonexistence? Nonexistence is nothing. The word “nonexistence” is only a term we use for nothing. There cannot be something like “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” because this is a clear contradiction and even negates nonexistence itself.

In fiction, mathematical or logical limitations do not always apply.

Strictly speaking, magic should not be able to defy entropy, and one should not be able to control “nonexistence” through Void Magic or anything similar. But because it is fiction, those ideas can still be written and treated as valid within the story.

So, within fiction, something can be nonexistent, and something else can be “even more nonexistent.”

Technically, R > F differences describe the gap between something real and something that is viewed as fictional or nonexistent by comparison. In a purely logical sense, that fiction should not be capable of being written about or interacting with reality, but within fiction, it can.

Likewise, fictional settings can contain hierarchies of beings who view one another as fiction. This creates a kind of layered nonexistence: one being views a lower being as fictional, while that same being is viewed as fictional by an even higher being.

Each layer is treated as more “real” than the one beneath it.

 

[Cipher72]

Snip

Bro came back from the grave as soon as he saw a Question about NEP, respect the dedication ngl
Is my headcanon correct btw ?

Technically something can be NEP-1 i.e '0' but still become more 'non-existent' without becoming NEP-2 which is more fundamentally non-existent (Quality)

I think the probelm is the wording on the NEP-2 page

However the actual NEP Page says
The character doesn't exist in a sense further beyond conventional nonexistence."

Which implies that anything beyond conventional Non-existence (NEP-1) is NEP-2 leaving no room for layers I.e "more conventionally Non-existent" without being NEP-2

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Bro came back from the grave as soon as he saw a Question about NEP, respect the dedication ngl
Is my headcanon correct btw ?

Tbh I came back because I saw bad scaling, and couldn't let it go

 

[Cipher72]

Tbh I came back because I saw bad scaling, and couldn't let it go

Not complaining, hope everything's fine now. Take your time.

 

[Hecky2222]

Spaceman bro debunk ur own chinamen pls

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Spaceman bro debunk ur own chinamen pls

Damn... you are really not going to like the CRT I just posted.

 

[Noobish2006]

Paraconistent logic exists in some works

 

[Azertyhuuh]

In fiction, mathematical or logical limitations do not always apply.

Strictly speaking, magic should not be able to defy entropy, and one should not be able to control “nonexistence” through Void Magic or anything similar. But because it is fiction, those ideas can still be written and treated as valid within the story.

So, within fiction, something can be nonexistent, and something else can be “even more nonexistent.”

Technically, R > F differences describe the gap between something real and something that is viewed as fictional or nonexistent by comparison. In a purely logical sense, that fiction should not be capable of being written about or interacting with reality, but within fiction, it can.

Likewise, fictional settings can contain hierarchies of beings who view one another as fiction. This creates a kind of layered nonexistence: one being views a lower being as fictional, while that same being is viewed as fictional by an even higher being.

Each layer is treated as more “real” than the one beneath it.

This is a problem with NEP 1 itself, not a problem with fictional works. Even in fiction, there are contradictions that cannot be taken into account. If we follow the logic you are suggesting, then it would also be fine for a character to have HDE, AC1, and BDE without issue. This has already been rejected, discussed, and considered a contradiction in previous cases. If we followed your reasoning, we would simply allow such tiers freely because “it’s fiction and contradictions are fine,” since that would supposedly be the principle of storytelling. So why was that rejected and corrected instead of being accepted?

The issue is with the concept itself and with NEP 1 itself, not with fiction. There cannot be “more nonexistence than nonexistence,” because that negates the concept of nonexistence itself. It turns the first instance of nonexistence into “something,” and something is a property of existence because it is a defined entity. This is because you are implying that one nonexistence lacks something that another nonexistence has, which turns the first into something rather than nothing, thereby contradicting nonexistence itself. This is a logical impossibility. Not everything that can be expressed linguistically is valid; otherwise, discussions would become completely inconsistent. Even authors can make mistakes or contradict their own systems within a story. For example, an author might attempt to explain modal logic or possible worlds but contradict it elsewhere in the narrative. In such cases, it would still be rejected rather than accepted under the excuse of “it’s fiction.”
The problem lies in the definition of NEP 1 itself, and the idea of layering should be removed entirely. Any character currently assigned layers within NEP 1 should be upgraded to NEP 2. This does not contradict fiction, because nonexistence remains nonexistence. If something is neither existence nor nonexistence, then it is already outside this binary. It is still nonexistence, but one that transcends the conventional understanding of it in a binary framework.

NEP 2 still requires nonexistence, but it goes beyond the existence/nonexistence duality. Nonexistence remains nonexistence, and if a work describes a nonexistence as “more non-existent than another,” this should simply be interpreted as exceeding the conventional concept of nonexistence, which places it under NEP 2.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

This is a problem with NEP 1 itself, not a problem with fictional works. Even in fiction, there are contradictions that cannot be taken into account. If we follow the logic you are suggesting, then it would also be fine for a character to have HDE, AC1, and BDE without issue. This has already been rejected, discussed, and considered a contradiction in previous cases. If we followed your reasoning, we would simply allow such tiers freely because “it’s fiction and contradictions are fine,” since that would supposedly be the principle of storytelling. So why was that rejected and corrected instead of being accepted?

Ah, but there is a major difference between those two cases.

Something having dimensions while also being dimensionless is a direct contradiction because “dimension” is a concept with a defined logical and mathematical basis.

If a character is described as possessing dimensional extension, structure, or coordinates, and then is simultaneously treated as literally dimensionless in the same respect, those claims clash. There is already a framework for what dimensions are, so the contradiction is identifiable.

But “being more nonexistent” is not the same kind of contradiction.

Nonexistence, especially in the context of NEP, is already a fictional/metaphysical idea rather than something researchable.

In real life, something either exists or it does not, but fiction often treats nonexistence as a state, layer, quality, resistance, or condition that can vary depending on the setting. Since “nonexistence” in this context is not bound by a hard real-world framework, it does not automatically become contradictory for a verse to portray different depths, layers, or degrees of nonexistence.

That is the distinction.