a Simple Analogy of Conceptual Manipulation

[Frxwins]

QUESTION ABOUT A SIMPLE ANALOGY OF CONCEPTUAL MANIPULATION

I want to ask what analogy is suitable regarding concept manipulation, I can understand the explanation a little, but if I want to apply it I can't, because you definitely know that not all fiction will explain whether a concept is independent reality or dependent.

1. Conceptual Manipulation Type 1

What kind of analogy is suitable to describe it? The explanation of having to be Independent of Reality is not something I can think of with my mind if it is applied to fiction,like what if the fiction doesn't explicitly explain that it is independent?, are there any Examples of Feats regarding this matter.​

2. Conceptual Manipulation Type 2

What kind of analogy is appropriate about this? Would things like Fundamental Concepts fall into this type? Does the Space-Time Concept of the Universe without other explanations fall into this type?​

"Such concepts are abstract and govern all reality within their area of influence."​

From this explanation, isn't the concept of space-time a type 2 concept? Because isn't Spacetime on a universal scale?​

​

3. Conceptual Manipulation Type 3

What analogy fits this type? does the explanation that it is a concept without any further context enter into this?​

Like a character who says he can manipulate concepts without any elaboration? Doesn't that mean that the Space-Time Concept without further elaboration will be of this type even though it works universally?​

 

[Rikimarox2]

I'll focus on type 1 for now;

Basically, if the concepts are either stated to predate reality as a whole, or are the source of all existence, or still remain even when the entirety of the universe/timeline is destroyed, those are considered type 1 without the need of explicit statements of independence.

 

[Frxwins]

I will pay attention to this part, because there are several things I want to ask

or are the source of all existence

couldn't the "something" that creates reality can be called a fundamental aspect of reality(source of everything)? That is, if there is a "concept" that creates a reality, does it fall into type 1 or type 2?

 

[Frxwins]

Bump

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

I'll focus on type 1 for now;

Basically, if the concepts are either stated to predate reality as a whole, or are the source of all existence, or still remain even when the entirety of the universe/timeline is destroyed, those are considered type 1 without the need of explicit statements of independence.

If a concept governs "Reality" in a cosmology that is 2-A, than does simply surviving the destruction of a Universe [L2-C] be enough for Type 1, or do they have to survive the destruction of the whole 2-A ?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

That is, if there is a "concept" that creates a reality, does it fall into type 1 or type 2?

If it "creates reality" than by that logic it must exist before that Reality which it created, which would be Type 1

 

[Tatsumi504]

If it "creates reality" than by that logic it must exist before that Reality which it created, which would be Type 1

Not really. It's possible for the concept to become dependent on what it created later on

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Not really. It's possible for the concept to become dependent on what it created later on

Valid reasoning, but I was assuming it was simply the "it created reality" part, and that it had no other anti-feat [Since the threat starter didn't mention any]