Issues with Void Manipulation and Nonexistence (Staff only)

[Dargoo_Faust]

NOTE: STAFF ONLY

This has been a long time coming, but our definition of 'Void Manipulation' seems redundant and makes little sense.

For one, the only listed subpower of it is Existence Erasure, where the idea of "Void Manipulation" encapsulates much more than that, and also ignores the controversy behind defining what a "void" is in the first place, as several philosophies greatly disagree on this. For example, something that doesn't exist in regards to Materialism is simply something that doesn't have a form of energy and is subject to laws that govern it, but something that doesn't exist in Idealism would be something that is outside the range and scope of philosophical/human thought. I can go on.

I personally recommend defining 'nonexistence' as possessing no physical or nonphysical traits besides "not existing", a sort of weird combination of Idealism and Materialism that IMO fits best with how we treat things already.

And no, I don't think "physical nonexistence" is anything other than being Non-Corporeal. We should only have complete nonexistence fall under the power, as existing in any other form is a paradox to the concept in the first place.

"Void" as a concept is also subject to widely different interpretation depending on what culture or philosophy you ask. For example, certain Japanese philosophies see 'void' as a fifth element that encapsulates the supernatural, Buddism might see 'void' as a state of being that one can achieve, and classic Greek philosophy might relate the word 'void' to its concept of aether, what some of them believed to be the stuff that surrounded celestial bodies. I therefore think classical interpretations of 'void' should not qualify for what we consider to be void manipulation.

Out of philosophy, though, we should rework Void Manipulation to include the ability of interacting with a nonexistence as if it is an element (as it is in many cases), in some cases also granting the user resistance to existence erasure. Alongisde EE, Creation from nothingness should also be a subpower of Voidhax as the inverse of EE, as some might be able to cause something that is nonexistent to become something that exists. Finally, branching away from EE, Nonphysical Interaction should be part of Voidhax, as while EE deals with removing something's existence, it has nothing (at a base level) to do with interacting with things that don't exist to begin with, which falls under Voidhax.

I also made a very rough draft here.

TL; DR by MrKing

• Our current definition for Void Manip is weak.
• Our qualifications for Nonexistence are poorly defined.
• Void Manipulation should entail far more than what is currently suggested on the ability's page.
• Void Manipulation should allow you to affect a nonexistent being.

NOTE: STAFF ONLY

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Schnee

Triforce commented before I moved this to Staff and Highlighted it, if that's what you're commenting on.

 

[ProfessorLord]

I know this is staff only but I have a problem with this. Why is void only referring to the absolute definition of nothingness or nonexistence?

If I sent you into an empty dimension devoid of large pockets of matter such as planets or stars, would that not be considered a void? The definition of void is literally "empty space" after all.

An example of this would be Vanilla Ice who already has VM. He sends characters into an unknown dimension where any life that enters will die.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Empty space contains energy.

Space is considered to be "existing" by nearly every philosophy unless you're talking about the Classical Greeks (And even then some like Aristotle would disagree with that) and a few more contemporary theists/philosophers.

We also have a power for manipulating space.

 

[ProfessorLord]

Last time I'll post: I know but this isn't PhilosphyBattles. We're not arguing about the why of fictional characters and their interactions, we're arguing about the who and what.

Like the literal definition of void is "completely empty". Depending on how general or specific you want to get, even nonexistant planes can be considered not truly empty. If nothing exists in them then by philosophy logic, that is still technically something.

All I'm asking is why empty space or dimensions can't be considered a void? Spatial manipulation is about space in general, what if my power is only sending them to said space or something like that? And why do we even have void manipulation if existance erasure is essentially the same thing?

 

[Andytrenom]

I'm okay with NP interaction being Void manipulation, creating from nothing...i'm not as sure about. Tho assuming the latter is indeed void manip, would that mean a vast multitude of low 2-C creator deities would get void manip?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

@Prof

Void Manipulation is different from Existence Erasure and that is what I was trying to establish with the OP. EE is just moving something from a state of existence to nonexistence, Voidhax would be being able to manipulate nonexistence or a "nonexistent element" in general.

There is no such thing as "empty space", though. Even if you theoretically removed all traces of matter from space it still has an innate energy and produces particles and antiparticles constantly. Space exists even in the physical sense, is what I'm saying.

I honestly think we should chance the name to "Nothingness Manipulation" or "Nonexistence Manipulation" as 'Void Manipulation' can be very misleading.

You can message me on my wall if you want to discuss further though.

 

[Andytrenom]

Erasing something from existence is not the same thing as manipulating non-existence itself.

Edit:Ninja'd

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Tho assuming the latter is indeed void manip, would that mean a vast multitude of low 2-C creator deities would get void manip?

Not really.

Void Manip has it because being able to manipulate nonexistence may allow you to make nonexistent things exist. For example, Fate from Incarnations of Immortality draws from the primordial and nonexistent Void to create souls.

However creating from nothing doesn't mean you can manipulate nothingness itself. It would be like the difference between Energy Projection and Energy Manipulation.

 

[Hykuu]

Why is this staff only

 

[Andytrenom]

Would it be accurate to say that in one case, the nothingness functions as a machinery that produces an object and in the other it is the foundation for someone to create the object?

 

[Antoniofer]

Nothingness/Voi Manipulation has several applications and sub-powers, the most simple of them is vacuum (and get characters that use Air Manipulation could potentially do this). Void do not have energy if I recall correctly, what "energy in an empty space" refer is the energy in the vacuum, Void Manipulation could be more complexe than that.

Nonphysical Interaction do not necessary have to do with Void Manipulation, its better to expand of how the power works and what type of beings it can damage. And Creation and Void Manipulation are different powers (quite the opposite I would say), several power can create stuff from nothing, and beings that control nothingness do not necessary can create.

 

[Antvasima]

Why is this staff only

Policy discussions recurrently get chaotic and unmanageable when highlighted unless they are kept as staff only.

 

[SchroKatze]

I'm sorry for commenting buuut

Should Void Manipulation really give the user the power to interact with non-existent beings by default? I can recall only a few cases where this is true. Most fictions depict NE beings as "immune" to VoidM unless it can erase things beyond the conventional level of non-existence.

 

[Reppuzan]

If you make something out of literal nothingness, that's void manipulation.

@Schro

They're usually immune to being erased from existence because they're already nonexistent. That doesn't mean they're immune to having their nonexistence manipulated.

 

[FateAlbane]

Sorry for replying since this is staff only (this will be my one and only reply), but that feels like an odd leap in logic.

It would be akin to saying that if I could manipulate, say, earth I should also be able to manipulate someone else's body because both are made of matter.

Or making the example less generic, having one shown application of matter manipulation doesn't grant the user every variation or possible use of it. Same should go for Void Manip - manipulating literal nothingness without a will of its own that is ultimately more like a... I'll use "total lack of substance" compared to manipulating an actual non-existent being directly feel like different applications of the same power.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I agree with Fate, really. A lot of this thread seems very... weird?

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. So should we keep things as they are then?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We define erasing something into void as erasing something from existence, at least material and spiritual. The specifics vary from verse to verse, profile to profile. The power itself is broad and all-encompassing, it's up for individual profiles to clarify how a particular character's feat works.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with Fate and Matt.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I don't see why we should have a page for Void Manipulation in the first place if it isn't going to at least state some common trends among the ability. After all, the page "as it is" already states that it has to do with manipulating "non existence".

All I've laid out here just explains what and how "manipulating nonexistence" would act most of the time.

It seems much better than just having Existence Erasure in the page on leaving the rest to people's imaginations.

And honestly the "mechanics could be better explained on the pages" schtick can be applied to any power. It doesn't mean we should make our power and abilities pages intentionally incomplete and vague.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Or making the example less generic, having one shown application of matter manipulation doesn't grant the user every variation or possible use of it. Same should go for Void Manip - manipulating literal nothingness without a will of its own that is ultimately more like a... I'll use "total lack of substance" compared to manipulating an actual non-existent being directly feel like different applications of the same power.

That is a pretty terrible comparison and honestly I could hardly make sense of this.

It's like stating non-physical interaction wouldn't work on an intangible person if it's only been shown to work on an intangible wall. If you can negate the intangibility of one, why can you suddenly not negate the other?

Let me turn your example on its head. What you're saying is actually more like saying someone with matter manip who only used it on an Apple can only use it on apples.

If a person can interact with and perceive a nonexistent void, why does it suddenly matter when it's a nonexistent character?

 

[Andytrenom]

Was the proposal to make all void users able to interact with NE characters by default?

Cause I was under the impression that it was to list affecting NE characters as Void Manipulation instead of Non physical interaction.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Voidhax should have non physical interaction by default.

I mean, come on. The description, even the short and incomplete one we have right now says "manipulating a void, nothingness, or nonexistence".

Seriously? That isn't interaction with something Non-physical?

 

[Andytrenom]

Actually have the power added to their profiles? If so, I disagree

If it's just about acknowledging that void users can interact with NE characters then i don't have much of an issue.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

It's acknowledging that Void Manip users, who explicitly manipulate things that do not exist, can interact with things that do not exist. I have no clue where the confusion comes from.

Can I get more reasons for opposing adding more explainations on the Void and Nonexistence pages? The only one people have sort of bandwagoned on makes a false association with matter manipulation, of which the inverse is actually true here.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Also people should pay more attention to the bit where I got over how "Void" is inconsistent across philosophy and theology, and also fiction.

Oftentimes something that is called a Void is not something that doesn't truly exist.

I don't know. I feel like that warrants more than the one sentence that's on the page right now; and I'm not including the copy+paste from the EE page.

 

[Reppuzan]

@Dargoo

I think adding more explanations should be fine.

But I don't think we need to rename and rework the entire page.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Reworking the page is absolutely necessary as all that is on there now is one vague line and an explaination of Existence Erasure.

I'm fine with leaving the name the same but as I've said 'Void' has a large number of inconsistent meanings, many of which don't fit our definition of it.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

We don't need to change the name. The page does need to be better but there's no need to add types of anything like that.

 

[Antoniofer]

Why not just put other names into the page rather than changing its name? It would save us some work.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Yeah, I don't think types are necessary nor are they needed, I was just giving an in-depth explaination of what constitutes nonexistence according to what I see we treat it as. I actually think types should be removed from the Nonexistent Physiology page as physical and mental nonexistence doesn't constitute not existing in general and are their own abilities.

I'm also fine with keeping the name the same as long as we establish on the page that 'Void' is specifically refering to nonexistence.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

The draft I made on my blog keeps the name the same and just adds explanations, it's linked at the bottom of the OP.

Is there anything that particularly needs fixing on it?

 

[SchroKatze]

We should require the feats of the Void user affecting non-existent beings. As I said, most fictions depict them as being "beyond" the conventional level of what a void can affect. But, in some cases, the users are depicted as being able to interact with non-existent stuff through that (SCP-239 turning a Neverwere into something by manipulating its void, or Madoka interacting with UKG via the same way she erased her.)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We should require the feats of the Void user affecting non-existent beings. As I said, most fictions depict them as being "beyond" the conventional level of what a void can affect. But, in some cases, the users are depicted as being able to interact with non-existent stuff through that (SCP-239 turning a Neverwere into something by manipulating its void, or Madoka interacting with UKG via the same way she erased her.)

I actually feel it should be the other way around.

The default assumption should be "a character who can interact with something that does not exist can interact with a character who does not exist", and if someone is 'even more nonexistent' (which doesn't make logical sense in the slightest but, eh, fiction) they need to demonstrate that first.

I have no clue what you mean by "beyond the conventional level of what a void can affect". If we're defining a void as something that is nonexistent, and they can manipulate it, they should be able to interact with nonexistent characters. If a character is somehow 'beyond that' that itself needs to be proven, not assumed.

 

[Kaltias]

@Schro

I think that you are mixing up affecting nonexistent beings via EE and via manipulation of nonexistence.

No one is saying that you don't need feats/better erasure than their nonexistence to kill them with EE, but if you can manipulate nonexistence it's logical to assume that you can also affect someone who doesn't exist

 

[Promestein]

We shouldn't group everything that can be called void manipulation under the same ability, especially when it has quite a lot of potential applications and users generally just get one. Non-Physical Interaction, for example.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think FateAlbine makes sense here, and the OP also does make sense to me as well. I don't think we should get rid of the page, but adding some elaborations to it would be a good idea.

 

[PaChi2]

I agree with the Dolhr emperor.