Does this count as Abstract Existence ?

[Steve1775]

Basically this;

"Dimensional layers, too, are a type of barrier; the barriers that shape the boundaries of possibility."

"Barriers, including dimensional boundaries, have no thickness.
As such, they have no mass either."

"Since they have no mass, they can be said to not exist in this world.
As such, they are unreal... does this make sense?"

"Well, back on topic,
but "barriers" do not actually exist as physical objects."

"No, they really don't exist.
All that does exist are the differing phenomena on each side."

"There's nothing between "front" and "back", basically"

Would this count as Abstract Existence?

 

[Secimatar]

Doesn't seem like AE at all. Seems more like NEP Type 3 or Incorporeality tbh.

 

[Steve1775]

Doesn't seem like AE at all. Seems more like NEP Type 3 or Incorporeality tbh.

Hmm, okay. Will take note

 

[Steve1775]

Doesn't seem like AE at all. Seems more like NEP Type 3 or Incorporeality tbh.

Okay, also which aspect would it fit under as?

 

[Steve1775]

Bump

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

This would be NEP Type 1, since they are unreal and don't exist. They would be Aspect Type 5.

 

[Steve1775]

Bump

 

[Steve1775]

Bump

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Basically this;

"Dimensional layers, too, are a type of barrier; the barriers that shape the boundaries of possibility."

"Barriers, including dimensional boundaries, have no thickness.
As such, they have no mass either."

"Since they have no mass, they can be said to not exist in this world.
As such, they are unreal... does this make sense?"

"Well, back on topic,
but "barriers" do not actually exist as physical objects."

"No, they really don't exist.
All that does exist are the differing phenomena on each side."

"There's nothing between "front" and "back", basically"

Would this count as Abstract Existence?

Seems like NEP, as Spaceman said.

 

[Steve1775]

Seems like NEP, as Spaceman said.

Ok but what if someone were to have a shield made of this stuff around them, what power would be needed to interact with them?

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Ok but what if someone were to have a shield made of this stuff around them, what power would be needed to interact with them?

I mean, if they can create a "shield" out of it, that puts me into questioning; in what sense do these walls "not exist"?
In a sense, a space time boundary is also not something "normal" beings can perceive. Them being "unreal" seems to be based on the fact that they lack mass since it's worded as "AS SUCH, they're unreal". A space time boundary itself (the continuum body) technically does not have mass either. It's instead the framework inside which mass is measured.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

This would be NEP Type 1, since they are unreal and don't exist. They would be Aspect Type 5.

Seems like NEP, as Spaceman said.

No, it is too vague. From the context of the text, when it says they don’t exist, here it means they don’t exist as physical things or exist in the material world. And the same for unreal, in this context, they don’t have a reality in the physical reality, thus unreal, not in the sense of being non-existence.

 

[Steve1775]

I mean, if they can create a "shield" out of it, that puts me into questioning; in what sense do these walls "not exist"?
In a sense, a space time boundary is also not something "normal" beings can perceive. Them being "unreal" seems to be based on the fact that they lack mass since it's worded as "AS SUCH, they're unreal". A space time boundary itself (the continuum body) technically does not have mass either. It's instead the framework inside which mass is measured.

Sure, these things don't exist in our normal physics, but in the verse or setting, they're treated as real forces or properties. So a shield made of this stuff isn’t material, but still interacts by its own rules — like ignoring physical attacks or bypassing reality-based effects

 

[Steve1775]

No, it is too vague. From the context of the text, when it says they don’t exist, here it means they don’t exist as physical things or exist in the material world. And the same for unreal, in this context, they don’t have a reality in the physical reality, thus unreal, not in the sense of being non-existence.

While your interpretation that "they don’t exist physically" is plausible, the original passage goes far beyond mere physical nonexistence. It states that these barriers:

. Have no thickness

. Have no mass

. Do not exist in this world

. Are unreal

. And most importantly, that “there is nothing between the front and back”

That final point especially emphasizes an ontological void, not just material absence. The claim isn’t “we can’t perceive it,” it’s “there is nothing there.” If something functions despite having no reality or presence in a given world, that’s the very essence of NEP...at least to my understanding

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

No, it is too vague. From the context of the text, when it says they don’t exist, here it means they don’t exist as physical things or exist in the material world. And the same for unreal, in this context, they don’t have a reality in the physical reality, thus unreal, not in the sense of being non-existence.

Not having physical reality is the same as having NEP.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

While your interpretation that "they don’t exist physically" is plausible, the original passage goes far beyond mere physical nonexistence. It states that these barriers:

. Have no thickness

. Have no mass

. Do not exist in this world

. Are unreal

. And most importantly, that “there is nothing between the front and back”

That final point especially emphasizes an ontological void, not just material absence. The claim isn’t “we can’t perceive it,” it’s “there is nothing there.” If something functions despite having no reality or presence in a given world, that’s the very essence of NEP...at least to my understanding

It does not work like that, and the last part is not about nonexistence, more so that there is no space between front and back, and also having no reality or presence in a given world part . Would you say we humans have no reality on Jupiter are nonexistent with that logic?

Not having physical reality is the same as having NEP.

So concepts are nonexistence, or all metaphysical aspects, since they lack physical reality with that logic.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So concepts are nonexistence, or all metaphysical aspects, since they lack physical reality with that logic.

We have aspects for this very reason. The most basic NEP is MATERIAL Nonexistence, as in, not existing in the material world.

 

[Steve1775]

It does not work like that, and the last part is not about nonexistence, more so that there is no space between front and back, and also having no reality or presence in a given world part . Would you say we humans have no reality on Jupiter are nonexistent with that logic?

Your Jupiter analogy doesn’t hold, because humans do exist materially and conceptually within the same reality as Jupiter — we're simply not physically present there. That’s not the same as something being called unreal and explicitly stated to have no presence in this world at all. The analogy conflates absence of location with absence of being.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

We have aspects for this very reason. The most basic NEP is MATERIAL Nonexistence, as in, not existing in the material world.

VSBW moment , also it is stated on the nonexistence page that being incorporeal alone is not enough without a statement of being nonexistence.

Your Jupiter analogy doesn’t hold, because humans do exist materially and conceptually within the same reality as Jupiter — we're simply not physically present there. That’s not the same as something being called unreal and explicitly stated to have no presence in this world at all. The analogy conflates absence of location with absence of being.

It is still not enough, since it is still about having no presence in the world, the same way concepts have no presence in the physical world or 1A has no presence in lower reality.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

VSBW moment , also it is stated on the nonexistence page that being incorporeal alone is not enough without a statement of being nonexistence.

If something is incorporeal, that means it exists as something else. What the OP is talking about doesn't exist as something else; it doesn't exist, and is stated to be unreal.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

If something is incorporeal, that means it exists as something else. What the OP is talking about doesn't exist as something else; it doesn't exist, and is stated to be unreal.

Ok.

 

[Steve1775]

It is still not enough, since it is still about having no presence in the world, the same way concepts have no presence in the physical world or 1A has no presence in lower reality.

The comparison to concepts or 1-A beings doesn’t hold because those entities still exist, just not within the physical world — they transcend it. In contrast, the text explicitly states that these barriers have no mass, no thickness, are unreal, and do not exist in this world, concluding that “there is nothing”*between front and back. This isn’t transcendence — it’s literal absence of being. If something has no presence, no substance, and is described as not existing at all — yet still exerts influence — that fits the criteria for Nonexistent Physiology, not just intangibility or higher-dimensional presence. Unless it’s shown to exist in some other form or layer, we must take the claim of nonexistence at face value.

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

Basically this;

"Dimensional layers, too, are a type of barrier; the barriers that shape the boundaries of possibility."

"Barriers, including dimensional boundaries, have no thickness.
As such, they have no mass either."

"Since they have no mass, they can be said to not exist in this world.
As such, they are unreal... does this make sense?"

"Well, back on topic,
but "barriers" do not actually exist as physical objects."

"No, they really don't exist.
All that does exist are the differing phenomena on each side."

"There's nothing between "front" and "back", basically"

Would this count as Abstract Existence?

Len’en Project I see.

This is about the Mugenri Barrier right?

 

[Steve1775]

Len’en Project I see.

This is about the Mugenri Barrier right?

Not only that, It's just Barriers in general as Tenkai states they all have the same properties, which can bring some pretty cool hax as everyone would technically have them as a sort of shield as stated here

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Sure, these things don't exist in our normal physics, but in the verse or setting, they're treated as real forces or properties. So a shield made of this stuff isn’t material, but still interacts by its own rules — like ignoring physical attacks or bypassing reality-based effects

In that case, yeah, that means there's enough context to treat it as actual NEP.

And in that case, interacting with the shield would mean interacting with NEP (Aspect 5 as what Spaceman said).

No, it is too vague. From the context of the text, when it says they don’t exist, here it means they don’t exist as physical things or exist in the material world. And the same for unreal, in this context, they don’t have a reality in the physical reality, thus unreal, not in the sense of being non-existence.

Read my post just above you. I did point that out (though im a different way).
Though it seems now that the OP has provided more context, NEP it is.

 

[Steve1775]

Bump

 

[Wonder_of_Fantasy]

The Mugenri barrier is indeed NEP Nature Type 1. And the characters who maintain/repair the barrier should also get something for interacting with it.

I'm also 99% certain that the Barrier has the kanji 无 / "mu" [nothing] superimposed on it. Like you see it twice in EE and RMI.