- 18,393
- 14,323
SureThen ask for the profile to be deleted, then reupload it after it's made so threads like these don't end up being made again.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SureThen ask for the profile to be deleted, then reupload it after it's made so threads like these don't end up being made again.
Sure
Dread just edit it already .Spend, what, a minute max loading the profile, loading it into source, copy/pasting the explanation of Order Gods into the concept Manipulation section, and hit 2 buttons to make the edit, easy 1-2 minute process and 3 minutes max if your computer is garbage
They're not changing the spell, they're changing the formula. A spell formula is a blueprint for the spell itself. Destroying the blueprint destroys the spell, changing the blueprint changes the spell. Skilled casters can even interfere with their opponents spells by editing that blueprint.That doesn't make it type 2, changing the parameters of a spell is not the same as changing reality itself, you are changing what the spell that will then go on to change reality does, not actually changing reality, using the comparison I said before, upcasting/using metamagic in dnd isn't the same as changing the magic system itself, one changes the behavior of a spell, which wouldn't be type 2, the other changes the logic and workings of all magical abilities altogether (not that dnd, has info manip based off this to my knowledge, but the comparison still holds water)
The way it's described doesn't fit in with what you're saying though. One describes it as a part of mundane magical abilities, the other is referring to directly changing reality by changing information. What you're saying fits into the latter. Editing information to produce magic effect =/= editing the core information of magic to change it's function.That isn't what the intent there is, it is referring to verses where the magic system is based upon editing the underlying information of reality to produce magical effects, which is not the case here.
Yes, it "negates his immortality" in the sense that it pierces his source, which is the thing that makes him immortal. That is just an inherent weakness of type 8 immortality, not "negation" of any kind.Try to read it next time? Evansmana is a weapon forged specifically tonegate Anos powers.
Despite this, Anos was perfectly capable of reviving abd regenerating his source even when Evansmana had already negated Jerga's regeneration
So where is the evidence that, if a copy of a person is made, that their source would continue governing all duplicates of that person? Because you have yet to prove that, and that's what DT is using as the basis for what is and isn't a personal concept.A downgrade done by manipulating the vagueness of the CM description, nice.
And now you're trying to manipulate what DT said.
In the usual sense, a concept of x is expected to govern all x in the world.
A concept of fire governs all fire in the world at once.
A concept of water governs all water in the world at once.
And a concept of Naruto Uzumaki would govern all Naruto Uzumaki in the world at once, even if there is at the moment only one. If there were more, it would govern all.
In contrast, a personal concept doesn't govern all of something, but just one thing in particular.
If you point a weapon that destroys personal concepts at fire and destroy the fire concept with it, only that one fire will be erased. All other fire in existence is fine.
DontTalkDT once again;
A type 1 / 2 concept can only have a single object participate in it, but it would still be the universal concept. (As in, if a duplicate of the object were to be created, it would then participate in that same concept.)What DT said is a concept that doesn't govern a set of things even if that set is only 1 thing but rather governs something very specific, then that concept is type 3.Personal concepts are concepts which, by definition, only govern specific aspects about your personal existence, it doesn’t reference “scope” to mean a singular person, it’s referencing “scope” in the sphere of influence it defines, for an example; the personal conceptualization of emotions would be a considered as a Type 3 Concept since it only defines the emotions of someone, it wouldn’t define that person’s existence, ability of thought etc, nor define the personal emotions of everyone else. It’s by its sheer existence unable to be anything above Type 3 since it doesn’t define anything else within that “sphere of influence” of emotions.
The Source governs all aspects of the individual, its sphere of influence is the individual, the set it governs is the individual. It defines everything about the individual not something specific about it so it isn't type 3.
The source also fits the description for type 1 which alone proves it's not type 3.
No, my point was that the source isn't governing a type 1 concept, since gods don't have type 1 AE. They're only said to embody order, and are not literally order itself.Yeah but Elde said gods themselves, who are order/concepts, still have their own sources. Then Mokou said they dont (?)
I can't fathom what you're insinuating in the first part and i didn't say you were being spiteful.I am not being spiteful here, it's interesting how you suddenly consider this a downgrade now when you where saying type 1 isn't better then type 3.
All I am asking for is a sufficient explanation for type 1 which doesn't exist in the section where you mention it like its not hard to understand.
When Anos turned the god of destruction into a weapon and limited its power, the order/concept of destruction got distorted across the world, and when Anos destroyed Nousgalia the whole world would have been destroyed as well if Anos didn't quickly resurrect him back. This seems to imply that the gods are the orders themselves. Then there is Jerga who became a concept after turning himself into order, which is then stated to be something lesser than the divine order of the gods.No, my point was that the source isn't governing a type 1 concept, since gods don't have type 1 AE. They're only said to embody order, and are not literally order itself.
Gods can sustain order without literally being order. Just think of all the feats where a person dies, and a pocket dimension collapses as a result; We don't typically treat that as the person literally being the dimension itself, so I'm not sure why it would suddenly apply to gods. Also, Jerga turning himself into order seems like it wouldn't scale to anyone, even if the order he turns into is "lesser" than that of the gods.When Anos turned the god of destruction into a weapon and limited its power, the order/concept of destruction got distorted across the world, and when Anos destroyed Nousgalia the whole world would have been destroyed as well if Anos didn't quickly resurrect him back. This seems to imply that the gods are the orders themselves. Then there is Jerga who became a concept after turning himself into order, which is then stated to be something lesser than the divine order of the gods.
"Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it."And why did embodiment statements stop being Type 1?
No, it negates his immortality that he shouldn't be able to be revived/ resurrected by any means once he's pierced by it not just because it destroyed his source.Yes, it "negates his immortality" in the sense that it pierces his source, which is the thing that makes him immortal. That is just an inherent weakness of type 8 immortality, not "negation" of any kind.
I don't have to prove that. The point is a concept that governs only 1 thing isn't automatically a personal concept.o where is the evidence that, if a copy of a person is made, that their source would continue governing all duplicates of that person? Because you have yet to prove that, and that's what DT is using as the basis for what is and isn't a personal concept.
The concept of a single apple will be type 3 if it governs only a specific thing about that apple and not the entire apple. A type 3 concept can govern many things but is only type 3 because it doesn't govern everything in it's sphere of influence. I never said governing multiple aspects makes it type 1/2, I said it defines all aspects of that single thing which is what makes it type 1/2.The fact that the source governs multiple things about a person is meaningless, since that applies to all type 3 concepts. The concept of a single apple governs the skin, stem, core, and so on, but just because it governs multiple things doesn't mean it's type 2 or 1. And on that note, what exactly would make sources type 1 and not just type 2 even if this logic did apply to them?
Sure, but Eugo calls himself the providence of the world (and anos does the same) instead of him being just a manifestation or a representation of the real thing, with him going as far as saying "the providence is crumbling" after his "body" is harmed. And this is in reference to this statement about order, which tells me they are actually the things they embody.Gods can sustain order without literally being order. Just think of all the feats where a person dies, and a pocket dimension collapses as a result; We don't typically treat that as the person literally being the dimension itself, so I'm not sure why it would suddenly apply to gods. Also, Jerga turning himself into order seems like it wouldn't scale to anyone, even if the order he turns into is "lesser" than that of the gods.
Yeah, which isn't info type 2, it's like turning 2*3=6 onto 2+3=5, what would be information type 2 would be more along the lines of changing 2*3=6 into 2*3=8They're not changing the spell, they're changing the formula. A spell formula is a blueprint for the spell itself. Destroying the blueprint destroys the spell, changing the blueprint changes the spell. Skilled casters can even interfere with their opponents spells by editing that blueprint.
I guess the most apt example of the magic system the quote would be talking about is that of a verse where magic is like coding, where the mages edit the underlying code of reality to produce fireballs and stuff, which isn't exactly the case here, with this being more like someone editing an equation, such as 2+2=4 into 3^3=27The way it's described doesn't fit in with what you're saying though. One describes it as a part of mundane magical abilities, the other is referring to directly changing reality by changing information. What you're saying fits into the latter. Editing information to produce magic effect =/= editing the core information of magic to change it's function.
Not what it says, it just says that it will kill someone and prevent resurrection by piercing the source.No, it negates his immortality that he shouldn't be able to be revived/ resurrected by any means once he's pierced by it not just because it destroyed his source.
We literally have DT saying otherwise but aightI don't have to prove that. The point is a concept that governs only 1 thing isn't automatically a personal concept.
Which is, again, saying that governing multiple aspects is type 1/2.The concept of a single apple will be type 3 if it governs only a specific thing about that apple and not the entire apple. A type 3 concept can govern many things but is only type 3 because it doesn't govern everything in it's sphere of influence. I never said governing multiple aspects makes it type 1/2, I said it defines all aspects of that single thing which is what makes it type 1/2.
The source is independent of the individual it governs and the individual is dependent on it. The source remains even after the death or erasure of the individual but the individual cannot exist without the source.
Providence is in reference to divine protection/control, so any god would be providence just by virtue of, yknow, doing god stuff. I don't think it means they are literally the control they exert over reality or anything. The second quote is interesting, but it still says gods are an embodiment of providence, which I think contextualizes the latter half into meaning that they're just what controls law and order, sort of like a cop or judge saying they are the law; It's not literal, just meant to represent what they have control over.Sure, but both Anos and Eugo calls himself the providence of the world instead of him being just a manifestation or a representation of the real thing, with him going as far as saying "the providence is crumbling" after his "body" is harmed. And this is in reference to this statement about order, which tells me they are actually the things they embody.
Very good logic manThanks for confirming it is spite.
Did you remember when you shut down Elde''s thread because it was spite? Oh ya, we can call staff members to do the same here.
Or should we be silent?
I'm using the providence example because that's one of the things they are stated to embody due to being order, so them being providence itself would give credence to him also being the other embodiments. And it doesn't make much sense to me that they would say providence is crumbling right after he was damaged if it was the kind of providence you are saying it is. And from what the wording from Type 2 AE implies, simply damaging them wouldn't really affect the concept they are supposed to embody (since they wouldn't be the concepts themselves) but the god of destruction and nousgalia examples goes against this logic.Providence is in reference to divine protection/control, so any god would be providence just by virtue of, yknow, doing god stuff. I don't think it means they are literally the control they exert over reality or anything. The second quote is interesting, but it still says gods are an embodiment of providence, which I think contextualizes the latter half into meaning that they're just what controls law and order, sort of like a cop or judge saying they are the law; It's not literal, just meant to represent what they have control over.
Yeah you think that not the standards nice way to appealing to incredulity and embodying a concept and being a embodiment of a concept both has different meaning.Providence is in reference to divine protection/control, so any god would be providence just by virtue of, yknow, doing god stuff. I don't think it means they are literally the control they exert over reality or anything. The second quote is interesting, but it still says gods are an embodiment of providence, which I think contextualizes the latter half into meaning that they're just what controls law and order, sort of like a cop or judge saying they are the law; It's not literal, just meant to represent what they have control over.
Excellent.
heavenly embodiments of divine order and the natural law of the world.Gods can sustain order without literally being order. Just think of all the feats where a person dies, and a pocket dimension collapses as a result; We don't typically treat that as the person literally being the dimension itself, so I'm not sure why it would suddenly apply to gods. Also, Jerga turning himself into order seems like it wouldn't scale to anyone, even if the order he turns into is "lesser" than that of the gods.
"Type 2: Embodies an abstraction, and can be resurrected or regenerate indefinitely thanks to it. Destroying the abstraction is required to permanently kill those characters, but they can still be affected without directly altering it."
The main quotes relating to gods being order says they are embodiments of such, which we do consider to be type 2.
Evansmana makes it so that Anos cannot regenerate his source. It even negated Jerga's regeneration. Anos still regenerated his source. Try againNot what it says, it just says that it will kill someone and prevent resurrection by piercing the source.
He/She (don't know) never said that needs to be proven, only said if there was an exact copy of that individual then the concept will govern both of them.We literally have DT saying otherwise but aight
It's not. Governing everything in your sphere of influence is type 1/2 meaning if you govern 3/5 of the objects in your sphere of influence you're type 3.Which is, again, saying that governing multiple aspects is type 1/2.
You do know just because the word "embody" is used doesn't make it type 2 right? Oh and volume 4 pt 2 is literally prepping to bitchslap you once nosgalia manifests so...Providence is in reference to divine protection/control, so any god would be providence just by virtue of, yknow, doing god stuff. I don't think it means they are literally the control they exert over reality or anything. The second quote is interesting, but it still says gods are an embodiment of providence, which I think contextualizes the latter half into meaning that they're just what controls law and order, sort of like a cop or judge saying they are the law; It's not literal, just meant to represent what they have control over.
This is the entire threadVery good logic man
X did bad thing, so.. that means i have the rigth to do bad thing
What? No.Providence is in reference to divine protection/control, so any god would be providence just by virtue of, yknow, doing god stuff.
Mhmh.... misha and sasha?? Body and soul is being double but still a one same rootI don't have to prove that. The point is a concept that governs only 1 thing isn't automatically a personal concept.
I don't get this analogy. This isn't type 1. If it were type 1, changing the formula wouldn't change the spell, infact, the formula would only be an instruction manual on how to cast a spell but in this case it's what determines, creates the spell.Yeah, which isn't info type 2, it's like turning 2*3=6 onto 2+3=5, what would be information type 2 would be more along the lines of changing 2*3=6 into 2*3=8
It's actually the same if you put it that way.I guess the most apt example of the magic system the quote would be talking about is that of a verse where magic is like coding, where the mages edit the underlying code of reality to produce fireballs and stuff, which isn't exactly the case here, with this being more like someone editing an equation, such as 2+2=4 into 3^3=27
Are you sure you quoted the right response? Because tatsumi is referring to DT point.Mhmh.... misha and sasha?? Body and soul is being double but still a one same root
Well i just mean for "i don't have to prove that"Are you sure you quoted the right response? Because tatsumi is referring to DT point.
All of it was translation errors and web novel stuff got nukedWasn't Anos 2-A/Low 1-C? What happened?
heavenly embodiments of divine order and the natural law of the world.
That scan literally says they are the embodiment of order though :vI'm using the providence example because that's one of the things they are stated to embody due to being order, so them being providence itself would give credence to him also being the other embodiments. And it doesn't make much sense to me that they would say providence is crumbling right after he was damaged if it was the kind of providence you are saying it is. And from what the wording from Type 2 AE implies, simply damaging them wouldn't really affect the concept they are supposed to embody (since they wouldn't be the concepts themselves) but the god of destruction and nousgalia examples goes against this logic.
And...we have this statement that says they are Order itself, and due to being that they can't deviate from what their nature represents, which is what to be expected if you are literally the thing itself.
Why is WB nuked?All of it was translation errors and web novel stuff got nuked
Tier 2 is from later volumes, they are coming back but it will take some time. The current Anos page only covers Vol. 1-4.Wasn't Anos 2-A/Low 1-C? What happened?
Not right place, there is a whole thread about it.Why is WB nuked?
The source is the concept of an individual that makes people what they're (the individual is what it governs, that's it's sphere of influence).What are the pieces of evidence that's being used to argue for Sources being Type 1 Concepts?
I'd like to give an expert () opinion on if they're or aren't applicable for Type 1.
Since when does being the embodiment of something make you not that thing. They're embodiments not in the sense they contain Order but they're Order.That is literally my entire point, they're embodiments of something, not literally that thing.
Because the standard for type 2 AE is quite literally anything that embodies a concept. This isn't very complicated.Since when does being the embodiment of something make you not that thing. They're embodiments not in the sense they contain Order but they're Order.
Because they're Order, God's can only behave according to that Order and cannot deviate from it.