Devil May Cry: Information Manipulation

[Tanin_iver]

Nothing, both are seperate.

That thing shows information manipulation exists in the verse and isn't some afterthought with zero uses.

Surprisingly, we also got a supplementary evidence for it within Peak of Combat where the Kirk's family sacrificed their souls in order to trap countless demons in a virtual realm which can be manipulated by them afterwards.

Wait, the Virtual Realm was made from sacrificing Souls/Magic, and it was used to trap/seal Demons/Souls?

Hmmm, seems like Info 2 and Soul hax/Magic is even more intertwined.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Wait, the Virtual Realm was made from sacrificing Souls/Magic, and it was used to trap/seal Demons/Souls?

Hmmm, seems like Info 2 and Soul hax/Magic is even more intertwined.

Yeah lore wise, its obvious, but the OP definitely doesn't use it as crutch for one another. Both the names and Virtual realm can stand on their own, they are just mentioned in the OP.

 

[AlexSamDen]

I'm lost, genuinely what's the problem here again?

As far as I've understood, @Astral_Trinity439 and @RaikiKurohane99 are saying that since Names are being accepted as Information, the things that allowed them to get Concept aspect in the first place (things like "essence", "defining", etc) can easily be attributed to the IM2 and not Concept

Since Information can also take on those functions easily

Alike to how DDLC lost their CM for Files due to Information also being able to "define reality" and be the essence of beings


If there's no clear separation between CM and Info, you cannot have 2 at the same time, as Info can cover the role of CM

 

[Hecky2222]

As far as I've understood, @Astral_Trinity439 and @RaikiKurohane99 are saying that since Names are being accepted as Information, the things that allowed them to get Concept aspect in the first place (things like "essence", "defining", etc) can easily be attributed to the IM2 and not Concept

Since Information can also take on those functions easily

Alike to how DDLC lost their CM for Files due to Information also being able to "define reality" and be the essence of beings


If there's no clear separation between CM and Info, you cannot have 2 at the same time, as Info can cover the role of CM

Both information and concept can function same and define reality

In Metaphysical threads of DMC mods told whatever they were arguing can be done by concept too(since they proposed two at same time back then).

So ye if argument genuinely names = information

1. You cant have concept in name since information does exactly same things

or

2. It might be information via virtual argument whatever they have in OP but no correlation to names functioning and no AE for Information as well for NEP aspects

 

[SuperSonicTL]

it is not??
If you're gonna add the "information" label to what was treated as a concept before because no alternative was presented or Concept was just taken as a default rating, you need a damn good reason as to why we should label names as both Information and Concept at the same time.

Just because something was "accepted here" doesn't mean it absolutely cannot be brought up again. That's not how the wiki works. Sure you could say something if it was accepted like a month ago, but no, this is something from 2021 we're talking about (Edit: I'm talking about it being classified as a concept itself, not what type was accepted or debated)

If you're gonna use their currently accepted reasoning as concepts as this aspect being fundamental, then add a few more scans of them of that aspect being treated as "genes", which in context to a fundamental aspect would be information, then raising doubts against the base of the argument itself, the concept rating, is not "derailment" lol

Derailment would be if I come to your crt and start talking about a random topic unrelated to the OP, but this is not unrelated at all.

To answer your question, yes , I also had this thought too at first since it can destroy the conceptual establishment and gain the informational aspect in return. However, later I though this may turn into a false dichotomy.

My argument is not "Names are concepts because they are fundamental aspects" nor "Names are information because they resemble genes." Rather, the verse itself attributes separate characteristics associated with both.

On the conceptual side, names are repeatedly described as their "truth", "true nature" and something whose alteration changes the values of the world itself — those descriptions concern itself more with meaning, essence or definitions rather than merely encoded instructions. "To name and the world will change" alongside "changing all value is very easy" seems to extend beyond a simple informational template and instead ties names to the fundamental meanings reality operates under (although you can also take it as an example for how names can manipulate worlds comprised of information as already pointed above with virtual realm.)

On the informational side though, names are also compared to moulds — similar to genes — representing beings as they are and shaping them accordingly. Genes function as templates or instructions influencing expression and characteristics and names appear to perform a similar role for souls. Even if we disagree here, it's good that we have virtual realm as an additional evidence to argue for info 2 either way.

In conclusion, I think it is better if we treat it as separate evidences rather the derivation from each other.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

You can have a metaphysical container which has both conceptual and information aspect. There is no rule that forbids it.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

To answer your question, yes , I also had this thought too at first since it can destroy the conceptual establishment and gain the informational aspect in return. However, later I though this may turn into a false dichotomy.

My argument is not "Names are concepts because they are fundamental aspects" nor "Names are information because they resemble genes." Rather, the verse itself attributes separate characteristics associated with both.

On the conceptual side, names are repeatedly described as their "truth", "true nature" and something whose alteration changes the values of the world itself — those descriptions concern itself more with meaning, essence or definitions rather than merely encoded instructions. "To name and the world will change" alongside "changing all value is very easy" seems to extend beyond a simple informational template and instead ties names to the fundamental meanings reality operates under (although you can also take it as an example for how names can manipulate worlds comprised of information as already pointed above.)

On the informational side though, names are also compared to moulds — similar to genes — representing beings as they are and shaping them accordingly. Genes function as templates or instructions influencing expression and characteristics and names appear to perform a similar role for souls. Even if we disagree here, it's good that we have virtual realm as an additional evidence to argue for info 2 either way.

In conclusion, I think it is better if we treat it as separate evidences rather the derivation from each other.

Now, granted the evidence for information is nitpicky by nature but they reinforce each other directly based on similar functional properties. I hope this may answer something for you @Hecky2222

 

[Hecky2222]

Now, granted the evidence for information is nitpicky by nature but they reinforce each other directly based on similar functional properties. I hope this may answer something for you @Hecky2222

It would be better to ask mods also based on which evidence exactly they agree

Cuz Virtual World seems like no correlation to Naming which would mean argument of NEP and AE wont work here.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

It would be better to ask mods also based on which evidence exactly they agree

Cuz Virtual World seems like no correlation to Naming which would mean argument of NEP and AE wont work here.

Souls and basic energy do which relates to name as per established meta so it would work.

 

[AlexSamDen]

To answer your question, yes , I also had this thought too at first since it can destroy the conceptual establishment and gain the informational aspect in return. However, later I though this may turn into a false dichotomy.

My argument is not "Names are concepts because they are fundamental aspects" nor "Names are information because they resemble genes." Rather, the verse itself attributes separate characteristics associated with both.

On the conceptual side, names are repeatedly described as their "truth", "true nature" and something whose alteration changes the values of the world itself — those descriptions concern itself more with meaning, essence or definitions rather than merely encoded instructions. "To name and the world will change" alongside "changing all value is very easy" seems to extend beyond a simple informational template and instead ties names to the fundamental meanings reality operates under (although you can also take it as an example for how names can manipulate worlds comprised of information as already pointed above with virtual realm.)

On the informational side though, names are also compared to moulds — similar to genes — representing beings as they are and shaping them accordingly. Genes function as templates or instructions influencing expression and characteristics and names appear to perform a similar role for souls. Even if we disagree here, it's good that we have virtual realm as an additional evidence to argue for info 2 either way.

In conclusion, I think it is better if we treat it as separate evidences rather the derivation from each other.

This is separation of personally you though?

The things you refer to as "conceptual side" can also be done via IM2

There was even an extensive discussion on what IM2 can and can't do in the DDLC thread

DDLC Concept Manip Removal

(The world of "Doki Doki Literature Club!" is a simulated universe meant to mimic the real one, and is made of data that both shapes its information and governs its reality, something that Monika has learned to manipulate on a Kernel level and allows her to destroy, re-create and modify said...

vsbattles.com

The conclusion is that they can function exactly the same and shouldn't be present at the same time unless the verse very explicitly separates them


This far in the thread, I don't see a clear separation, is there anything that shows names doing something beyond the scope of IM2?

 

[Hecky2222]

Souls and basic energy do which relates to name as per established meta so it would work.

How? Via Sealing Soul sending them to Virtual World?

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

As far as I've understood, @Astral_Trinity439 and @RaikiKurohane99 are saying that since Names are being accepted as Information, the things that allowed them to get Concept aspect in the first place (things like "essence", "defining", etc) can easily be attributed to the IM2 and not Concept

Since Information can also take on those functions easily

Alike to how DDLC lost their CM for Files due to Information also being able to "define reality" and be the essence of beings


If there's no clear separation between CM and Info, you cannot have 2 at the same time, as Info can cover the role of CM

Thought this was just a simple information addition to the verse, I had no idea it already had history with conceptual stuff.

That being said, I don't think it really matters here when both aspects (Concept and Info) are extremely similar to what's being presented in DMC. Sure, information can do all the stuff mentioned above, but the thing about concepts is that their existence itself becomes the very definition of something. So the genes encoded within Names would fall under Information, but the Names themselves would lean more toward Conceptual in nature, since their existence governs not just specific codes or genes, but reality as a whole as the very governor of it.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

To answer your question, yes , I also had this thought too at first since it can destroy the conceptual establishment and gain the informational aspect in return. However, later I though this may turn into a false dichotomy.

My argument is not "Names are concepts because they are fundamental aspects" nor "Names are information because they resemble genes." Rather, the verse itself attributes separate characteristics associated with both.

On the conceptual side, names are repeatedly described as their "truth", "true nature" and something whose alteration changes the values of the world itself — those descriptions concern itself more with meaning, essence or definitions rather than merely encoded instructions. "To name and the world will change" alongside "changing all value is very easy" seems to extend beyond a simple informational template and instead ties names to the fundamental meanings reality operates under (although you can also take it as an example for how names can manipulate worlds comprised of information as already pointed above with virtual realm.)

On the informational side though, names are also compared to moulds — similar to genes — representing beings as they are and shaping them accordingly. Genes function as templates or instructions influencing expression and characteristics and names appear to perform a similar role for souls. Even if we disagree here, it's good that we have virtual realm as an additional evidence to argue for info 2 either way.

In conclusion, I think it is better if we treat it as separate evidences rather the derivation from each other.

Everything on the concept side can easily be displayed by the information aspect too, there's nothing special that specifically makes them unique to concepts and not any other fundamental aspect a verse can have.

What makes me think that the concept label should be removed and replaced with information label is precisely cuz of the information side; it's defined as things that, while it can be either concept or information, due to it being called genes, it's more closer to the information side (I'm sure both of us understand what genes are and how close they are to something like info)

I'm neutral on the virtual realm's info part itself, seeing both ur and hecky's args. And I don't really have anything to say on it. I only have a problem with what we label names as, whether we label it as only info or both info and concept.

You can have a metaphysical container which has both conceptual and information aspect. There is no rule that forbids it.

you can, yes, but that needs heavily proof, as in the verse calling something both information and conceptual. That would be a valid reason to believe that can be plausible in a given case.

Here it's never called a concept directly, it shows properties that any fundamental aspect can easily uphold to, and its specifically call genes. There is not a single solid reason why concept label should remain instead of being replaced by info type 2 instead, as with DDLC example that @AlexSamDen brought up. Otherwise its redundant, and that very topic was discussed in the DDLC thread.

 

[AlexSamDen]

but the thing about concepts is that their existence itself becomes the very definition of something.

The problem here is that it's the same with Type 2 Information

Hell, it's the same for almost all Metaphysical Aspects

The only things that differentiates them are namedrops

 

[SuperSonicTL]

This is separation of personally you though?

The things you refer to as "conceptual side" can also be done via IM2

There was even an extensive discussion on what IM2 can and can't do in the DDLC thread

DDLC Concept Manip Removal

(The world of "Doki Doki Literature Club!" is a simulated universe meant to mimic the real one, and is made of data that both shapes its information and governs its reality, something that Monika has learned to manipulate on a Kernel level and allows her to destroy, re-create and modify said...

vsbattles.com

The conclusion is that they can function exactly the same and shouldn't be present at the same time unless the verse very explicitly separates them


This far in the thread, I don't see a clear separation, is there anything that shows names doing something beyond the scope of IM2?

I think the issue here is that you’re treating IM2 as a catch-all that automatically absorbs anything involving "definition/meaning/essence" but that’s not really how it’s being applied in practice usually.

I don't know the full context for DDLC discussion that you linked but the key point still remains which is that IM2 covers manipulation of data/reality at a structural level but it still has to be shown that the system is explicitly just "data representation" without additional ontological claims. In this case, the reason I’m not fully collapsing everything into IM2 is because names are not only described as "information templates" but also as things tied to "truth", "true nature" and the "value of the world" that goes beyond just structural data encoding and enters the layer of what defines "meaning" and not just state information.

If IM2 is being used to cover both then the question becomes whether IM2 in this verse is explicitly defined as including ontological value assignment and not just activity in relation to typical information manipulation.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Snip

Brother discord

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I don't know the full context for DDLC discussion that you linked but the key point still remains which is that IM2 covers manipulation of data/reality at a structural level but it still has to be shown that the system is explicitly just "data representation" without additional ontological claims. In this case, the reason I’m not fully collapsing everything into IM2 is because names are not only described as "information templates" but also as things tied to "truth", "true nature" and the "value of the world." That goes beyond just structural data encoding and enters the layer of what defines "meaning" and not just state information.

uh, no...
What's stopping info from being the "true nature" or "truth" of a world where information or data defines things?

I'll even give an example; in a game, the true nature of characters can be their character code/information in the source code (info type 2). The 'value of the world' is vague asf, it doesn't even have to relate to concepts.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

I think the issue here is that you’re treating IM2 as a catch-all that automatically absorbs anything involving "definition/meaning/essence" but that’s not really how it’s being applied in practice usually.

I don't know the full context for DDLC discussion that you linked but the key point still remains which is that IM2 covers manipulation of data/reality at a structural level but it still has to be shown that the system is explicitly just "data representation" without additional ontological claims. In this case, the reason I’m not fully collapsing everything into IM2 is because names are not only described as "information templates" but also as things tied to "truth", "true nature" and the "value of the world." That goes beyond just structural data encoding and enters the layer of what defines "meaning" and not just state information.

If IM2 is being used to cover both then the question becomes whether IM2 in this verse is explicitly defined as including ontological value assignment and not just activity in relation to typical information manipulation.

He's not treating IM2 as the be-all and end-all here. What he's basically saying is that most Metaphysical Aspects tend to function similarly, so the distinction only really becomes relevant once a fiction explicitly namesdrops the term itself.

I mean, that's a fair way to look at it, but it's still flawed nonetheless. A verse can clearly contain conceptual elements even without constantly throwing around the word “concept” on the table. What matters more is whether the defining traits and functions associated with conceptual existence are actually explained or demonstrated within the setting itself.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

uh, no...
What's stopping info from being the "true nature" or "truth" of a world where information or data defines things?

I'll even give an example; in a game, the true nature of characters can be their character code/information in the source code (info type 2). The 'value of the world' is vague asf, it doesn't even have to relate to concepts.

Yes but here's the kicker; it is NOT a game.

The issue is that this is treating "information = true nature" as automatically interchangeable in every context where information exists but that doesn’t follow. A game/source code example works because the system is explicitly defined as a computational layer where all properties reduce to code-level data. In that case, "true nature = code" is structurally stated.

Here, however, you still need to demonstrate that names being called "truth/true nature/value of the world" is explicitly meant in a data-structural sense rather than a metaphysical one. Those terms alone don’t automatically default to IM2 unless the verse clearly frames reality as fully reducible to information like a simulation model and trust me, DMC is more philosophical then you understand.

 

[Hecky2222]

Yeah you have to pick one either concept or information if you are arguing "Both of them can change reality" icl

Granted you can argue there are verses which can do have information and concept at same like Marvel, GoW does, but they outlined other parts

What I am seeing now: Both information and Concepts are Names and both of them change reality

I remember literally in your old thread it was argued about "All things you are arguing can be done by concept or information".

I dont see reason for now Names are Information, just argue Virtual World manipulation.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

I'm updating the OP with more detail to address these issues here. Give me some time.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

The fact that each of the people in here having different take honestly tells me that, in the context of DMC, they're basically functioning as the same thing. I mean, @Astral_Trinity439 argues that it's information rather than concept, while @Hecky2222 argues the exact opposite.

Really, no matter which side you look at, both interpretations are technically correct. Because Names could embody both of the aspects.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

The fact that each of the people in here having different take honestly tells me that, in the context of DMC, they're basically functioning as the same thing. I mean, @Astral_Trinity439 argues that it's information rather than concept, while @Hecky2222 argues the exact opposite.

Really, no matter which side you look at, both interpretations are technically correct. Because Names could embody both of the aspects.

People when they realise fiction have their own systems and logic without caring for wikis like us, We can't dictate fiction what it is or isn't after all, but wiki does get arrogant sometimes.

 

[SuperSonicTL]

The fact that each of the people in here having different take honestly tells me that, in the context of DMC, they're basically functioning as the same thing. I mean, @Astral_Trinity439 argues that it's information rather than concept, while @Hecky2222 argues the exact opposite.

Really, no matter which side you look at, both interpretations are technically correct. Because Names could embody both of the aspects.

Metaphysics is a diverse topic that can have multiple interpretations and god knows which one is correct. Hence, why I didn't focused on it much here because we should just take the most likely interpretation at hand and move on with it. However, based on the discussion that unfolded here by blue names, I do wish to now make some changes in respect to it. Again, I respect your open-ness to it. @Astral_Trinity439 @Hecky2222

It did gave me more insight over the situation now.

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

People when they realise fiction have their own systems and logic without caring for wikis like us, We can't dictate fiction what it is or isn't after all, but wiki does get arrogant sometimes.

Daddy chill.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

bro i am chill lol

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Daddy never chillz

 

[Hecky2222]

The fact that each of the people in here having different take honestly tells me that, in the context of DMC, they're basically functioning as the same thing. I mean, @Astral_Trinity439 argues that it's information rather than concept, while @Hecky2222 argues the exact opposite.

Really, no matter which side you look at, both interpretations are technically correct. Because Names could embody both of the aspects.

I dont disagree with Astral's interpretation if we accept names are information(But again argument solely on genes ehhh). I just don't see how it works as names = information

 

[Reiner04]

I am wondering if the ongoing discussion regarding the "validity" of it being information and even concepts would change your opinions?

Spoiler

Also, regarding my personal opinion, I am having a hard time seeing where the "fundamental information" about names is coming from?

Them being equated to genetic codes essentially describes them as information, as well as fundamental information.

Regarding the CM aspect, their existence prior to the universe, along with being referred to as the “true nature” or “truth” of reality, and the fact that altering them changes the universe, aligns with the definition of a concept.

It’s not just that they function similarly and it can be only one of them per nature of it, but that they independently follow the definition of concepts quite closely while also being described as information (genetic codes). So it’s reasonable to consider them as both, imo.

 

[SYPHe5D]

bro i am chill lol

Very chill

 

[SuperSonicTL]

Spoiler

Them being equated to genetic codes essentially describes them as information, as well as fundamental information.

Regarding the CM aspect, their existence prior to the universe, along with being referred to as the “true nature” or “truth” of reality, and the fact that altering them changes the universe, aligns with the definition of a concept.

It’s not just that they function similarly and it can be only one of them per nature of it, but that they independently follow the definition of concepts quite closely while also being described as information (genetic codes). So it’s reasonable to consider them as both, imo.

Finally someone made sense here

 

[Vietthai96]

someone asked me to come here, anyway

Them being equated to genetic codes essentially describes them as information, as well as fundamental information.

idk where people getting genetic code as fundamental information; that is is biological thing, just because it have the word "code" in it doesn't make it literal information

Names act as like genes to a soul.

This is literally just a metaphorical comparison that simply describes the soul acting like a gene. Idk where you get the idea that the soul is a literal gene; if that were the case, it would completely destroy the whole argument about Name being anything metaphysical because gene is biological thing. The whole genetic code is simply a link to wikipedia page without the verse actually spell it out

Surprisingly, we also got a supplementary evidence for it within Peak of Combat where the Kirk's family sacrificed their souls in order to trap countless demons in a virtual realm which can be manipulated by them afterwards

Virtual Realm has nothing to do with Info 2, unless you can prove that this Virtual Realm is actually real and not "virtual", comprise of purely data/information, i had this whole talk about virtual realm in Ninjaro thread

And lastly yeah, either you have to pick name being info 2 or concept, it can't be both, either info 2 define concept or concept define info 2, not both having equal stance

So all and all, i disagree with the thread,

 

[SuperSonicTL]

someone asked me to come here, anyway

idk where people getting genetic code as fundamental information; that is is biological thing, just because it have the word "code" in it doesn't make it literal information

This is literally just a metaphorical comparison that simply describes the soul acting like a gene. Idk where you get the idea that the soul is a literal gene; if that were the case, it would completely destroy the whole argument about Name being anything metaphysical because gene is biological thing. The whole genetic code is simply a link to wikipedia page without the verse actually spell it out

It literally says names act like genes and genes by definition are hereditary structures that carry and transfer defining information across generations. My point is not that names are literal "biological genes" as you are putting it here but that the comparison highlights a similar function: acting as a template that preserves and passes defining characteristics.

Virtual Realm has nothing to do with Info 2, unless you can prove that this Virtual Realm is actually real and not "virtual", comprise of purely data/information, i had this whole talk about virtual realm in Ninjaro thread

Virtual realm is where "abstract" entities like Demons are sealed by sacrificing souls and is manipulated on top of it. What else is there to add here?

And lastly yeah, either you have to pick name being info 2 or concept, it can't be both, either info 2 define concept or concept define info 2, not both having equal stance

Sure, like fiction can't describe both characteristics at once.

So all and all, i disagree with the thread,

Dully noted.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Snip

Btw, can you ping some other staff knowledgeable on these things too?
Like @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Planck69 @SomebodyData @Mr. Bambu @Theglassman12
I'll promise to not slander you for a whole week in exchange

 

[Jepilstiltskin]

This is literally just a metaphorical comparison that simply describes the soul acting like a gene. Idk where you get the idea that the soul is a literal gene; if that were the case, it would completely destroy the whole argument about Name being anything metaphysical because gene is biological thing. The whole genetic code is simply a link to wikipedia page without the verse actually spell it out

I'm 99.999999% sure the OP doesn't actually think it's literally a gene. The scan itself already says they merely act “similar” to genes, not that they actually are genes or biological parts of one. It simply can't be, because Names are heavily implied to be an abstract and metaphysical thing.

 

[Hecky2222]

Btw, can you ping some other staff knowledgeable on these things too?
Like @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Planck69 @SomebodyData @Mr. Bambu
I'll promise to not slander you for a whole week in exchange

it would be better if Glassman was tagged also since he rejected idea of information and concept being same in previous thread

 

[Planck69]

I am leaning towards agreeing, mostly due to the gene analogy and how Naming is treated, but I would prefer some elaboration on how the virtual realm relates to Naming specifically.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I am leaning towards agreeing, mostly due to the gene analogy and how Naming is treated, but I would prefer some elaboration on how the virtual realm relates to Naming specifically.

May I ask your thoughts on this part too?

This is separation of personally you though?

The things you refer to as "conceptual side" can also be done via IM2

There was even an extensive discussion on what IM2 can and can't do in the DDLC thread

DDLC Concept Manip Removal

(The world of "Doki Doki Literature Club!" is a simulated universe meant to mimic the real one, and is made of data that both shapes its information and governs its reality, something that Monika has learned to manipulate on a Kernel level and allows her to destroy, re-create and modify said...

vsbattles.com

The conclusion is that they can function exactly the same and shouldn't be present at the same time unless the verse very explicitly separates them


This far in the thread, I don't see a clear separation, is there anything that shows names doing something beyond the scope of IM2?

And lastly yeah, either you have to pick name being info 2 or concept, it can't be both, either info 2 define concept or concept define info 2, not both having equal stance

As to if the concept rating can also stay or if it should be replaced with info, now that they have an actual term closer to information to label names in-verse?

 

[Planck69]

May I ask your thoughts on this part too?



As to if the concept rating can also stay or if it should be replaced with info, now that they have an actual term closer to information to label names in-verse?

Several settings have a metaphysical aspect encompass multiple component aspects, this isn't anything new. It's just a matter of how well supported that greater aspect actually is, which is why I'd like more elaboration on how Naming applies to all of this.

I will say that the way naming acts is very close to one or the other, so I'd like some differentiation between the conceptual and informational traits for it, if possible.

 

[Vietthai96]

Btw, can you ping some other staff knowledgeable on these things too?
Like @ActuallySpaceMan42 @Planck69 @SomebodyData @Mr. Bambu @Theglassman12
I'll promise to not slander you for a whole week in exchange

Planck already here so i will call others

@DontTalkDT @ActuallySpaceMan42 @SomebodyData @Mr. Bambu @Theglassman12

It literally says names act like genes and genes by definition are hereditary structures that carry and transfer defining information across generations. My point is not that names are literal "biological genes" as you are putting it here but that the comparison highlights a similar function: acting as a template that preserves and passes defining characteristics.

Gene has nothing to do with information

Virtual realm is where "abstract" entities like Demons are sealed by sacrificing souls and is manipulated on top of it. What else is there to add here?

I had this whole talk about the "virtual realm" in Ninjaro thread, it doesn't qualify as long as it is simply a "virtual realm", as virtual realm is a fake thing, Info 2 is fundamental information that defines real thing in reality, simply speaking. And idk where you even get "abstract" from it