Existence erasure and concepts

[elhermanopadre]

So in the existence erase the page , there is the line which says "Powerful enough uses of this ability can even erase the mind and soul, if not more fundamental aspects of one's existence, such as concepts". So how is erasing someone's existence be on a conceptual level? Thank you.

 

[Eganergo]

All of that need context of doing so actually.

The default assumption for EE is erasing something physically. The erasing mind, soul, and concept part need extra feats.

Hence the "powerful enough".

 

[elhermanopadre]

All of that need context of doing so actually.

The default assumption for EE is erasing something physically. The erasing mind, soul, and concept part need extra feats.

Hence the "powerful enough".

Ok it the EE is stated to destroy someone's existence specifically, including body and soul and mind obviously, would that be on a conceptual level ?

 

[Eganergo]

Ok it the EE is stated to destroy someone's existence specifically, including body and soul and mind obviously, would that be on a conceptual level ?

No. Just the specified above.

 

[QuasiYuri]

You would need something more fundamental than body/mind/soul

 

[elhermanopadre]

You would need something more fundamental than body/mind/soul

If the stated says , it destroys your existence itself (would obviously include ,body , soul etc..), would that count for conceptual erasure ?

 

[Daddybrawl]

It would have to have evidence of destroying Concepts. Concepts are a higher-up form of existence, so not all EE erases it. For example, when Zenō erases multiple universes in DBS, they’re gone, completely destroyed. But people still know the Universes existed, and the Universes could still come back from Super Shenron- the concept of those Universes weren’t fully destroyed.
Now, say Character A has Immortality Type 8 (Reliant on something to live), and let’s say that Immortality means he lives as long as the concept of... Dogs exists. Character B erases Character A with his EE, permanently. This would obviously mean Character B can erase Concepts, as he just erased someone who lived as long as the concept of Dogs exists.
If Character A was reliant on Dogs living, however, then Character B’s feat wouldn’t mean Concept Erasure. It means he erased every Dog that was Alive, which is just some good Range.

I hope I explained that well.

 

[WHYNAUT]

I'd like to correct one part of @Daddybrawl's post. Permanently erasing someone, who has Type 8 reliant on a concept, does not equal conceptual erasure. It could also simply be Type 8 negation.

For EE to be conceptual there's needs to be some very clear evidence. It literally being stated that something erases thigns on a conceptual level would be the most simple example.

 

[elhermanopadre]

I'd like to correct one part of @Daddybrawl's post. Permanently erasing someone, who has Type 8 reliant on a concept, does not equal conceptual erasure. It could also simply be Type 8 negation.

For EE to be conceptual there's needs to be some very clear evidence. It literally being stated that something erases thigns on a conceptual level would be the most simple example.

ok, if the statement says, it destroys your existence itself, meaning the concept of your existence itself is destroyed, wouldn't that count for conceptual erasure?

 

[elhermanopadre]

It would have to have evidence of destroying Concepts. Concepts are a higher-up form of existence, so not all EE erases it. For example, when Zenō erases multiple universes in DBS, they’re gone, completely destroyed. But people still know the Universes existed, and the Universes could still come back from Super Shenron- the concept of those Universes weren’t fully destroyed.
Now, say Character A has Immortality Type 8 (Reliant on something to live), and let’s say that Immortality means he lives as long as the concept of... Dogs exists. Character B erases Character A with his EE, permanently. This would obviously mean Character B can erase Concepts, as he just erased someone who lived as long as the concept of Dogs exists.
If Character A was reliant on Dogs living, however, then Character B’s feat wouldn’t mean Concept Erasure. It means he erased every Dog that was Alive, which is just some good Range.

I hope I explained that well.

It was well explained but I already know what concepts are , it's just what would quantify for erasing someone existence itself , the very concept of that person is destroyed , so that it doesn't exist.

 

[WHYNAUT]

No, because existence =/= concept.

 

[elhermanopadre]

No, because existence =/= concept.

I just said , the concept of your existence itself , not just existence like soul body etc...

 

[Daddybrawl]

I'd like to correct one part of @Daddybrawl's post. Permanently erasing someone, who has Type 8 reliant on a concept, does not equal conceptual erasure. It could also simply be Type 8 negation.

Yeah, that’s true, but i feel like it’d be easier to understand as erasing a Concept.
A better example probably would’ve been erasing someone who was the Concept of Dogs, rather than someone reliant on it. My bad.

 

[elhermanopadre]

Yeah, that’s true, but i feel like it’d be easier to understand as erasing a Concept.
A better example probably would’ve been erasing someone who was the Concept of Dogs, rather than someone reliant on it. My bad.

Embody the concepts of dogs or the concept of dogs itself ?

 

[WHYNAUT]

@elhermanopadre

If you have a specific example in mind please post it, because you've been saying multiple different things.

@Daddybrawl

Indeed.

 

[Daddybrawl]

Both would probably do good Honestly, but the latter is the best way to put it and best evidence of Concept Erasure.

 

[MagiSinbad]

The is simply yes or no question
Does the attack specifically described that it can destroys concepts ? If the answer is yes then the EE work on conceptual level, if no then it's not

 

[QuasiYuri]

just "erase your existence" is too vague to be anything above physical erasure (without context).

 

[elhermanopadre]

@elhermanopadre

If you have a specific example in mind please post it, because you've been saying multiple different things.

@Daddybrawl

Indeed.

"the very concept of that person is destroyed"
"I just said , the concept of your existence itself"

They aren't that different, they both refer to that person's concept of existence being destroyed.

The is simply yes or no question
Does the attack specifically described that it can destroys concepts ? If the answer is yes then the EE work on conceptual level, if no then it's not

If they say, that it destroys/erases the concept of your existence itself. So the answer is yes then.

just "erase your existence" is too vague to be anything above physical erasure (without context).

I just said later in the replies, destroys the very concept of your existence itself.

 

[QuasiYuri]

It's still kind of vague. Ik some verses who uses this to refers to very basic erasure.

 

[elhermanopadre]

It's still kind of vague. Ik some verses who uses this to refers to very basic erasure.

It's just an example , and Idk why that isn't specific enough, the concept of your existence is destroyed, pretty self-explanatory here, don't you think?

 

[QuasiYuri]

I don't think so. Just like how "there's nothing in the universe I can't destroy" and similar statements can be multiples things.

Context is kind of important for very "simple" statement like this.

 

[elhermanopadre]

I don't think so. Just like how "there's nothing in the universe I can't destroy" and similar statements can be multiples things.

Context is kind of important for very "simple" statement like this.

Those statements are not relevant, they do not talk about the concepts of those things.

The context is, character one says, I will destroy the concept of existence of character two, you do not need more context than that.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Which is vague af for a word which isn't just "fundamental stuff of reality half of the world don't even talk that way". Context is important because it can be not litteral and suchlike (feats with similar statement were just hyperboles, so it can happen).

 

[Eganergo]

Then you simply don't get conceptual manipulation of any type. You need more contexts than that.

 

[elhermanopadre]

Which is vague af for a word which isn't just "fundamental stuff of reality half of the world don't even talk that way". Context is important because it can be not litteral and suchlike (feats with similar statement were just hyperboles, so it can happen).

It isn't you have to prove that it cannot be possible in a fictional world , the context needed is talking about the actual concept itself.

 

[QuasiYuri]

You need to prove that the context make it logical to be the actual concept, it's how the burden of proof works. Otherwise it's just vague af.

Also "you have to prove that it cannot be possible in a fictional world" isn't really an argument. Not all fictionnal words have the same authors, cosmology, etc...

 

[elhermanopadre]

Then you simply don't get conceptual manipulation of any type. You need more contexts than that.

No , the "context" argument is invalid , "you need context" , it's stated that it destroy the concept of that persons existence, assuming otherwise is headcanon, you have to prove that it cannot work in a fictional world which is wrong.

 

[elhermanopadre]

You need to prove that the context make it logical to be the actual concept, it's how the burden of proof works. Otherwise it's just vague af.

Also "you have to prove that it cannot be possible in a fictional world" isn't really an argument. Not all fictionnal words have the same authors, cosmology, etc.

The context, says, it destroys the concept of your existence, "its how the burden of proof works" not relevant since I proved that they are talking about that person concept and not it isn't, and you are assuming that it isn't when it's stated that they actually destroy the concept of that person's existence.

Yes, it is, you have to prove that it cannot be possible for that fictional world to have that statement work. It doesn't matter about having different authors, fiction can do whatever it wants to do.

 

[Eganergo]

No , the "context" argument is invalid , "you need context" , it's stated that it destroy the concept of that persons existence, assuming otherwise is headcanon, you have to prove that it cannot work in a fictional world which is wrong.

You still need to prove the "concept of existance" is conceptual in nature as stated in our Conceptual Manipulation page.

If it fits the criteria then it's fine, if not then no.

Sure, you can argue it is conceptual type 1 that transcends blablabla outside this wiki. But here, you need to fulfill the requirements first. Otherwise no.

 

[QuasiYuri]

No , the "context" argument is invalid , "you need context" , it's stated that it destroy the concept of that persons existence, assuming otherwise is headcanon, you have to prove that it cannot work in a fictional world which is wrong.

It's just not how the burden of proof work. Nobody would agree with a single sentence taken out of its context.

 

[elhermanopadre]

It's just not how the burden of proof work. Nobody would agree with a single sentence taken out of its context.

How is that out of context don't you understand? , they are talking about the concept of that person's very existence that's going to be destroyed. Dude, I proved that the state is referring to the actual concept of that person nothing else. You keep saying context, but the context is the concept of that person being destroyed, saying otherwise is headcanon.

 

[WHYNAUT]

It is the other way around. Since there's no context, it would be headcanon to simply claim it's conceptual EE. Reasons were given for why more context is needed, but you haven't explained your own reasoning beyond "Because I say so".

You have given no context other than the word concept being used, which as already explained is just extremely vague. "Concept" does not inherently mean "fundamental part of reality". That's why more context is needed.

Yes fiction can do whatever it wants, but that's a dumb argument. You're basically saying that rules are unneeded when it comes to fiction. By that logic Saitama can one shot Goku because: "Well it's made clear he can defeat anything with a single punch if he wants. He's a gag character so he wins."

You have gotten your answer. Your example would not be accepted as conceptual EE. Give more context and then there can be a discussion.

 

[elhermanopadre]

You still need to prove the "concept of existance" is conceptual in nature as stated in our Conceptual Manipulation page.

If it fits the criteria then it's fine, if not then no.

Sure, you can argue it is conceptual type 1 that transcends blablabla outside this wiki. But here, you need to fulfill the requirements first. Otherwise no

It is the other way around. Since there's no context, it would be headcanon to simply claim it's conceptual EE. Reasons were given for why more context is needed, but you haven't explained your own reasoning beyond "Because I say so".

You have given no context other than the word concept being used, which as already explained is just extremely vague. "Concept" does not inherently mean "fundamental part of reality". That's why more context is needed.

Yes fiction can do whatever it wants, but that's a dumb argument. You're basically saying that rules are unneeded when it comes to fiction. By that logic Saitama can one shot Goku because: "Well it's made clear he can defeat anything with a single punch if he wants. He's a gag character so he wins."

You have gotten your answer. Your example would not be accepted as conceptual EE. Give more context and then there can be a discussion.

It isn't, you claim that it,s headcanon when the example states that it is. The reasons are not all valid. It isn' about I say so.

It isn't vague if it wasn't that person's concept it wouldn't be used , you would need to prove that they aren't referring to concept when they are using that word which is headcanon. The Saitama example is not relevant, there is nothing conceptual about that.

 

[Daddybrawl]

This may need to be closed if people are just going to have a ‘No I’m Right’ argument, and people are refusing to give more information. The question was answered anyways, so unless points are brought up this is basically becoming the equivalent of kids arguing on the playground because they don’t want to be wrong.

 

[Eganergo]

Because what you're saying can be applied not just to concept lol. Anyway, I'm out from this discussion since there is nothing to discuss.

You could try making or doing revision for a character with your proof and it will be deleted anyway.

 

[elhermanopadre]

This may need to be closed if people are just going to have a ‘No I’m Right’ argument, and people are refusing to give more information. The question was answered anyways, so unless points are brought up this is basically becoming the equivalent of kids arguing on the playground because they don’t want to be wrong.

Once again , thet statement is refering to concepts , how is not "No I'm right" , they couldn't prove that they weren't talking about nothing else than concepts , that's wrong.

 

[WHYNAUT]

It is. You literally haven't given any reason. You just say: "No you're wrong. I am right.", and don't elaborate beyond that. Meanwhile we have given actual reasons for why it needs more context.

As @Daddybrawl said, this is going nowhere. Elhermano is basically refusing to have a debate and doesn't want to hear anything that goes against what he thinks. There's no point to this thread.

 

[elhermanopadre]

As @Daddybrawl said, this is going nowhere. Elhermano is basically refusing to have a debate and doesn't want to hear anything that goes against what he thinks. There's no point to this thread.

That's wrong, I never said that, my reasons are that the statement is specifically talking about that person concept of existence being destroyed, how is that not a reason, all you said is context needed, or others saying it may be hyperbolic. How is that refusing? you can't prove that it's hyperbolic, and out of context when the statement is referring to is very specific to a concept, if it wasn't that word wouldn't be used. I definitely won that part (failed to prove why it's hyperbolic or not contextual in a fictional world), but idc anymore, it can be closed so whatever I guess.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Some of your previous threads already were based on others hyperbole/figure of speech/callithowyouwant and got refused for pretty much similar reasons.

Your refusal of seeing what's the problem in your arguments doesn't help much either. You can say that you "won" if it helps you to somehow make a better reasonning or whatever tho.