Concept Manip Type 1's Misaligned Definition

[Agnaa]

Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation is defined as:

1. Independent Universal Concepts: Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern. These concepts shape all of reality within their area of influence and at whatever level that area exists in, and everything in it "participates" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the concept of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept.

However, it includes two different definitions, which would imply different things for series that involve this type.

The first definition is "Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern." It requires that these concepts are independent from the part of reality they govern, necessitating that these concepts can't govern other concepts or themselves.

The second definition is "In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept." This merely requires that an alteration of the objects which participate in the concept does not alter the concept; that only alteration of the concept itself will alter the concept.

These definitions are different as the first one requires that concepts can't govern themselves or other concepts, while the second one doesn't.

This ends up being relevant for matches once series with type 1 concepts invoke concepts such as "time", "space", and "causality". The first definition would imply that no concepts participate in any concepts, including themselves, making interacting with them a more impressive feat. While the second definition does not imply that.

 

[Jinsye]

I'm not sure if it's just me being stupid or if the page isn't worded clearly, but if its the latter then it probably should be fixed.

The idea that I got from the page was that in for example, something like time, a type 1 concept would not function on time due to it's independence. The page implies that time participates in the concept, and not the other way round.

However, after doing more thorough research on past threads this interpretation may not actually work. It might simply be that the concept still functions on time, but does not need it to survive. Which is wholly different.

 

[Jinsye]

Bump

 

[ElixirBlue]

Following but not well verse on this.

 

[Vietthai96]

Back when DT and me (actually it is mostly DT work) "revising" CM, CM1 diffferent from CM2 is about dependent and indepedent part, independent here is not about it transcend or beyond reality, it is just not tied to it so when reality is altered, the concept remain unaffected, while CM2 still be affected indirectly when the reality its govern altered.

But yeah look like the first of part of CM's definition need to be altered or it can cause confusion

 

[Jinsye]

If that's the case then it should be altered yes.

 

[Agnaa]

Hm, could that first sentence just be changed to something like "Such concepts aren't affected by changes to the objects they govern."?

 

[Vietthai96]

Should we ping DontTalkDT????

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah that's probably for the best.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

Type 1 Conceptual Manipulation is defined as:

However, it includes two different definitions, which would imply different things for series that involve this type.

The first definition is "Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern." It requires that these concepts are independent from the part of reality they govern, necessitating that these concepts can't govern other concepts or themselves.

The second definition is "In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of their area of influence, while the opposite wouldn't affect the concept." This merely requires that an alteration of the objects which participate in the concept does not alter the concept; that only alteration of the concept itself will alter the concept.

These definitions are different as the first one requires that concepts can't govern themselves or other concepts, while the second one doesn't.

This ends up being relevant for matches once series with type 1 concepts invoke concepts such as "time", "space", and "causality". The first definition would imply that no concepts participate in any concepts, including themselves, making interacting with them a more impressive feat. While the second definition does not imply that.

Those aren't two separate definitions. It's two parts of the same definition. A Type 1 Concept has to be independent of reality and be a source of a property to those things that participate in them.

I'm not sure why you assume concepts can't participate in other concepts due to this definition. They don't have to be independent of other concepts, but from the governed reality i.e. the actual world. See this in contrast to Type 2 where alteration of every object governed can cause alteration of the concept.

Also, just in case, will point out that time, space and causality aren't concepts in themselves. They are actual non-abstract things. There are separate concepts of time, space and causality.

 

[Agnaa]

I'm not sure why you assume concepts can't participate in other concepts due to this definition. They don't have to be independent of other concepts, but from the governed reality i.e. the actual world.

Because simple logic would imply that something cannot simultaneously be completely independent from the reality it governs, and be a part of the reality it governs.

Concepts participating in concepts implies that the "reality of concepts" is governed by concepts.

This subject's hard to talk about, but is what I say there clear enough?

 

[DontTalkDT]

I'm not sure why you assume concepts can't participate in other concepts due to this definition. They don't have to be independent of other concepts, but from the governed reality i.e. the actual world.

Because simple logic would imply that something cannot simultaneously be completely independent from the reality it governs, and be a part of the reality it governs.

Concepts participating in concepts implies that the "reality of concepts" is governed by concepts.

This subject's hard to talk about, but is what I say there clear enough?

Well, the answer here is that concepts, being abstract, are not part of reality in general and hence, in particular, not part of any governed reality.
If the statement isn't explicit enough I suppose one could add "except of other such concepts".

 

[Agnaa]

If the statement isn't explicit enough I suppose one could add "except of other such concepts".

Do you mean after the first sentence?

I guess that could work, but it does seem a tad confusing.

Not like I can think of a better way to change it instead of just reworking it entirely.

 

[DontTalkDT]

If the statement isn't explicit enough I suppose one could add "except of other such concepts".

Do you mean after the first sentence?

I guess that could work, but it does seem a tad confusing.

Not like I can think of a better way to change it instead of just reworking it entirely.

Yeah, after the first sentence.

The "object" part in your version is in so far unlucky that concepts can govern non-objects that are also not concepts, like space, time, causality, logic etc. and those would need to be included as well.
I think while staying as general and specific as the statement is the formulation with the addition is about as good as it gets.

 

[Agnaa]

Rats, I thought "object" could refer to anything that participates in a concept.

I guess your addition will have to do then.

 

[Jinsye]

I don't think it was clear enough to me, does a concept participate in itself?

So is the concept of time still bound by the flow of time, or does it exist outside of the flow of time.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Why was the definitions for type 1 and 2 changed? It went from concepts that govern all of reality to "area of influence". types 1 and 2 seem significantly weaker now. What is "area of influence" supposed to imply?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Why was the definitions for type 1 and 2 changed? It went from concepts that govern all of reality to "area of influence". types 1 and 2 seem significantly weaker now. What is "area of influence" supposed to imply?

All of reality was an impossible definition, as that would imply that every concept would need to be Tier 0. Hence the definitions were changed, so that concepts can, for example, only govern reality up to a certain scale. E.g. A concept may only govern a single universe. Since there hence is no particular size requirement associated with the concepts anymore we speak of the area under a concept's influence, instead of naming a particular structure.

I don't think it was clear enough to me, does a concept participate in itself?

So is the concept of time still bound by the flow of time, or does it exist outside of the flow of time.

A type 1 concept of time is independent of the flow of time. A type 2 is maybe not.

Concepts don't participate in themselves, as much as a concept may participate in another concept. E.g. Every concept participates in the concept of concepts.

Rats, I thought "object" could refer to anything that participates in a concept.

I guess your addition will have to do then.

I will add it sometime soon then, as it seems reasonably minor.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

All of reality was an impossible definition, as that would imply that every concept would need to be Tier 0. Hence the definitions were changed, so that concepts can, for example, only govern reality up to a certain scale. E.g. A concept may only govern a single universe. Since there hence is no particular size requirement associated with the concepts anymore we speak of the area under a concept's influence, instead of naming a particular structure.

Yes but that should be dealt with verse by verse. If a verse has only 1 universe, than a concept encompassing all of reality within that verse would be just that singular universe, while a concept encompassing all of reality for an infinite multiverse would be just that. This seems to create a loophole with concepts that would normally be type 3 for not governing reality at all to be type 2 or 1 simply because they govern their own personal reality.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

The first definition is "Such concepts are completely independent from the part of reality they govern." It requires that these concepts are independent from the part of reality they govern, necessitating that these concepts can't govern other concepts or themselves.

They can govern the "lower-tiered" concepts if the world is in need of another set of concepts within it but isn't this solved by just cutting that middle man out? Or do you mean an order to the transcendental concepts themselves? I'm a little confused

 

[Alexander]

I think the best explanation I can give is:
type 1: these concepts exist beyond all reality
type 2:govern all reality,and if the concept is destroy,everything will be destroy

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yes but that should be dealt with verse by verse. If a verse has only 1 universe, than a concept encompassing all of reality within that verse would be just that singular universe, while a concept encompassing all of reality for an infinite multiverse would be just that. This seems to create a loophole with concepts that would normally be type 3 for not governing reality at all to be type 2 or 1 simply because they govern their own personal reality.

That would make the distinction irrelevant in a cross fictional setting. It would mean Type 1 Concepts are just Type 2 Concepts in other, larger, verses.

So a character with Type 1 in a small verse could fight a character with Type 2 in a larger verse and both could have the exact same abilities and feats. Which means we would, of course, have to treat them as actually being the same. For a wiki that focuses on comparing different fictions featuring such a distinction makes no sense. It would just make things more complicated since suddenly you can't rely on your type 1 character being different from another verse's type 2 character.

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

That would make the distinction irrelevant in a cross fictional setting. It would mean Type 1 Concepts are just Type 2 Concepts in other, larger, verses.

So a character with Type 1 in a small verse could fight a character with Type 2 in a larger verse and both could have the exact same abilities and feats. Which means we would, of course, have to treat them as actually being the same. For a wiki that focuses on comparing different fictions featuring such a distinction makes no sense. It would just make things more complicated since suddenly you can't rely on your type 1 character being different from another verse's type 2 character.

I.... fail to see the logic here. A type 1 concept in a smaller verse is still a type 1. It's just a type 1 of a smaller cosmology. A type 1 of a smaller cosmology going against a type 2 of a larger cosmology is irrelevant because this site considers characters who scale to larger cosmologies to be invincible to characters that scale to smaller ones. Also, I need clarification on the type 2 and 1 concepts now. Can personal concepts be type 2 and 1 now due to their own "personal reality" with the loophole presented?

 

[Agnaa]

Concepts don't participate in themselves

Why do you say that? I guess some verses could operate in that way, but I wouldn't expect it to be a default assumption.

They can govern the "lower-tiered" concepts if the world is in need of another set of concepts within it but isn't this solved by just cutting that middle man out? Or do you mean an order to the transcendental concepts themselves? I'm a little confused

I don't understand what you're saying. I don't even understand which part of the text you quoted you got any of those ideas from, so I can't give you a meaningful response.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

What is reality? Is something you live in?
Is it a house? Or is it your body for the microbes? Or is it something that has space-time? Or it something that has stars and planet?

What is reality for a microbe? What is reality for a human? What is reality of a sentient universal space-time continuum who has the name Johnny and has really jolly personality and likes to sing cosmic saxophone, or that individual concept, is it functionally different from a concept of normal universe ?

What if a human is so fat that his girth extends throughout the universe..... is that a concept which governs reality or something individual?

What is personal reality? What is individual reality? Greater reality? Lesser reality? How do you even define such stuff which is so perspective dependent and subjective?

And can anyone even give me examples of concept that governs reality?? As far as I know there's only one concept with governs ""reality"", which is.... Concept of Reality.. unironically... the scope of which is so dependent on each different verse and perception. I see concept of gravity and space or time being called concepts of reality... which makes me wonder if Gravity = Reality or Space = Reality etc. I can genuinely understand understand how on a casual view it can seem gravity or forces etc can affect reality when altered... but that doesn't make their concepts "govern reality".. because it's chain reaction. Something that we don't allow for conceptual manip.

What about population? Does concept governing one star lesser than concept governing all stars in a universe? Does number of objects under a concept's government affect the concepts type?

All of this makes me realise its the most arbitrary factor to apply to concepts... it throws away actual nuance in favour of made up overcomplexity.

Type 1 and Type 2 concepts can be defined without all of this hassle with a simple factor.... dependency.

Is/are the object/s and/or phenomenon/s intertwined with concept which governs it/them? Or are the concepts independent of object/s and/or phenomenon/s under their purview? Literally that's all you have to look out for.
No range, no size, no population etc, nothing bogging down the classification of concepts.

While I understand concepts often overlap and intertwine with each other for even governing a single object... but damnit we don't need to make it anymore complicated than it already is.

As for Type 3... i never understood why it even exists... afaik Information Manipulation already co-incides with this. It's redundant.
Type1 and 2 is all we need.

 

[Agnaa]

Is/are the object/s and/or phenomenon/s intertwined with concept which governs it/them? Or are the concepts independent of object/s and/or phenomenon/s under their purview? Literally that's all you have to look out for. No range, no size, no population etc, nothing bogging down the classification of concepts.

That's exactly what we're trying to do here....

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Hopefully.

Because I am seeing comments above discuss reality and stuff.. personal reality... cosmological reality etc.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah I have no clue what that person's talking about.

@Aetheric Pariah If you want to massively revise concept manip, please do that in another thread.

 

[Alexander]

numbers are not bound by reality,numbers are practically entities,that dictated the existence of everything in reality,and are not bound by other concepts

 

[Delta333]

As for Type 3... i never understood why it even exists... afaik Information Manipulation already co-incides with this. It's redundant.

This tbh. The existence of type 3 serves no actual purpose except to raise questions like what is the type of concept that's unbound by reality but is personal.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

What even is a personal concept?

 

[Agnaa]

Stop derailing. This thread is about a very specific concern with Type 1's definition. Talk about other concept types somewhere else.

 

[Delta333]

I brought to his wall

 

[Aetheric Pariah]

Yeah I have no clue what that person's talking about.

@Aetheric Pariah If you want to massively revise concept manip, please do that in another thread.

I simply asked for clarification. If someone has showcased 0 ability to govern reality can they be type 2 and 1. Isn't that the major prerequisite for getting to type 2 and 1, to be a concept that governs reality with everything in reality participating in the concept and if the concept was removed it would be detrimental/massively effect reality?

 

[Agnaa]

Responded on your wall since this is off-topic.

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

I don't understand what you're saying. I don't even understand which part of the text you quoted you got any of those ideas from, so I can't give you a meaningful response.

Were you saying that as long as a transcendental concept governs a part of reality it isn't "independent", if it is independent, it can't "interact" with reality. I must have misunderstood. I mentioned "lower-tier concepts" because you mentioned "concepts governing other concepts or themselves". Did you mean by that that a transcendental concept would be completely independent from everything else including other concepts?

But for transcendental concepts even if you didn't want to say "independent" in the sense of utter isolation because there is some sort of relationship between the concept and reality, it is still independent of reality in other senses, being outside of the governed reality for one, the destruction of the reality having not effect on the concept for another and so on.

 

[Agnaa]

Were you saying that as long as a transcendental concept governs a part of reality it isn't "independent", if it is independent, it can't "interact" with reality.

Not quite.

I must have misunderstood. I mentioned "lower-tier concepts" because you mentioned "concepts governing other concepts or themselves". Did you mean by that that a transcendental concept would be completely independent from everything else including other concepts?

Yes.

But for transcendental concepts even if you didn't want to say "independent" in the sense of utter isolation because there is some sort of relationship between the concept and reality, it is still independent of reality in other senses, being outside of the governed reality for one, the destruction of the reality having not effect on the concept for another and so on.

But that's where the issue for concepts governing other concepts comes in. If concepts can govern other concepts, they'd reside in the same governed reality, the destruction of the reality would have an effect on them, and so on.

That's why I took issue with the "complete independence" stuff.