-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Issues with Void Manipulation and Nonexistence (Staff only)
- Thread starter Dargoo_Faust
- Start date
- Status
- 15,725
- 7,712
Except there is no such thing as not having any concept in conceptual framework. Nonexistence at a conceptual level is a thing if this argument and I am not against it, but the nonexistence beyond conceptual level or conceptual framework does not exist as again even 1-A have a conceptual framework.The Causality said:
- 6,011
- 2,117
Obviously yes, i just want to say that if a character (A) is conceptually Non existent against another (B) who can destroy Concept in the same dimensional scale, (A) is supposed to being not affected in an extend or at least resist against (B) since he can't conceptually destroy something who conceptually not exist, claiming that (B) can still affect him without feat by "destroying the concept of a destroyed concept" is false.
- 3,295
- 1,270
Sorry to comment, but Type 1 existence doesn't make sense. Philosphically speaking, something exists if it has a direct and indirect effect on reality. If a soul shows to have effect on the reality of a verse, then it would exist. An idea, doesn't exist as tangible thing made of matter (unless you're talking about the physical sequence of electrons buzzing through our synapses) but it exists because it effects the world whether directly or indirectly.
I feel as though Type 1 is conflating something that is concrete as something that exists and something that is abstract as something that is nonexistent.
Even in verses where certain characters and things are said to be non-existent in that verse, still effect the reality of that verse and therefore they exist. That's the paradox of it. Very few characters who are nonexistent would be actual nonexistent by the definition of existence.
Perhaps were making this way too complicated and complex. I always saw that if a character is nonexistent then that makes them either highly resistence or immune to existence erasure. I feel like making it more than just makes things too complicated and giving characters more power than is neccessary.
I feel as though Type 1 is conflating something that is concrete as something that exists and something that is abstract as something that is nonexistent.
Even in verses where certain characters and things are said to be non-existent in that verse, still effect the reality of that verse and therefore they exist. That's the paradox of it. Very few characters who are nonexistent would be actual nonexistent by the definition of existence.
Perhaps were making this way too complicated and complex. I always saw that if a character is nonexistent then that makes them either highly resistence or immune to existence erasure. I feel like making it more than just makes things too complicated and giving characters more power than is neccessary.
- 15,725
- 7,712
I agree it is feat dependent but average Concept Manipulator(Type 1 or 2; depending on the tier) by definition have the feats and should be able to destroy something that is conceptual nonexistent as "non-existence is a concept by definition". In some case, The concept of nonexistence is Type 3 concept depending on the fiction setting.The Causality said:
- 15,725
- 7,712
It is.DMB 1 said:
1. True Platonic Concept: Such concepts, or forms, are completely transcendent of reality in every aspect. These forms are 1-A in nature, as they are beyond all spatial and temporal dimensional constructs and all of reality merely "participate" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the form of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of reality. These concepts must exist prior to and after the existence of any object of the concept.
- 6,011
- 2,117
@Nedge if we understand the point of each other, i guess it's fine then 
- 9,249
- 2,710
Except that "True Nothingness", or better put the "Not Being" in Plato wasn't an Idea to being with.Nedge1000 said:
If something "wasn't" in any way, there was no way to interact with it, define it, think it, or imagine it.
Even ideas, the Good, and the "Being" itself according to Plato "were".
- 8,678
- 5,556
A 1-A being could feasibly transcend a platonic conceptual framework within its own verse.
- 3,295
- 1,270
How does one even trancend a platonic conceptual framework?
- 3,295
- 1,270
That's not a good answer and extremely arbitary. We can say a character is faster than light, by depicting said character moving faster than light. But how does one depict a being tranceding platonic conceptual framework? Other than "because I say so" which is just rewarding lazy writing.
- 3,295
- 1,270
Let me ask a question. When we say a 1-A trancends dimensions, that means they are not reliant on concept of dimensions in any form. You can get rid of everything that has to do with dimensions, and these characters remain unbothered and don't lose their identity or thier power.
If what I said is true, based on that definition of trancend then "the One" doesn't trancend platonic conceptual framework. Without that framework, the One wouldn't be the One. It's entire concept is being above "being". All platonic forms start with it and end with it. Get rid of platonic forms all together and what power does the "the one" have and what is it?
If what I said is true, based on that definition of trancend then "the One" doesn't trancend platonic conceptual framework. Without that framework, the One wouldn't be the One. It's entire concept is being above "being". All platonic forms start with it and end with it. Get rid of platonic forms all together and what power does the "the one" have and what is it?
- 21,783
- 4,826
Ok so the issue here is that we can't say something is conceptually non-existent because platonic concepts are the source of everything so to transcend them is the equivalent of being tier 0? Is that the issue here?
- 9,961
- 1,999
I feel like we just unnecessary complicated NEP, in fact I'm not sure what is being discussed right now; call me uneducated, but I have no idea of what a Platonic Concept (or whatever) is.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Human Resources
- 16,877
- 7,334
A platonic concept is the "Ideal, transcendent form" of something, proposed by Plato. It's basically an object at its most basal conceptual level, and we rank them as 1-A. Don't remember why, though.
- 15,725
- 7,712
1. True Platonic Concept: Such concepts, or forms, are completely transcendent of reality in every aspect. These forms are 1-A in nature, as they are beyond all spatial and temporal dimensional constructs and all of reality merely "participate" in these concepts. For example, a circular object is circular because it is "participating" in the form of "circle-ness". In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept across all of reality. These concepts must exist prior to and after the existence of any object of the concept.Antoniofer said:
- 15,725
- 7,712
https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1686739Wokistan said:
- 3,295
- 1,270
I think what I said above bears repeating. Simplistically, if something can effect reality it exists. Even intangible and abstract things exist, because they effect reality. Not being able to physically touch or see something doesn't mean it's nonexistent. An idea is intangible and abstract but it can have an effect on reality. Ideas can be powerful enough to start wars or start religions. These ideas exist.
Even an imaginary friend exists. Although it may exist in the mind of a child, that imaginary friend has an effect on the child and we can see that effect on the child when they play with their imaginary friend.
Another example would be hallucinations. A hallucination may be fake, and exist within the head of the person hallucinating, but they exist and they effect that person. People die because they hallucinate that they can fly. If it effects the real world, whether directly or indirectly it exists.
Existence =/= realness
Existence =/= material
For a character to truly not exist, that character must have zero effect on reality at any level. Regardless of how weak or strong they are. A tier 0 or 1-A for all intents and purposes it's impossible to transcend existence. If you effect reality you exist. If you don't effect reality you don't exist. There is no in between or above or below it. It's just so.
Now I know fiction is fiction. It wouldn't be fair to just ignore nonexistent characters in works. But at the same time, we don't have to put everything in a hierarchy and force everything to fit that hierarchy. Sometimes things should be kept simple. I propose this system:
Type 1 (Pseudo-nonexistence): A character is nonexistent if the character is shown to be or stated to be nonexistent on a consistent basis and through reputable in-story sources. These characters are shown to be able to effect reality and therefore, can be affected by characters who exist unless shown otherwise. Characters whom are nonexistent are naturally have high resistance or immunity to existence erasure. To erase these characters, a character must show high levels of existence erasure or shown to be able to erase nonexistent characters previously.
Type 2 (True Nonexistence): A character is nonexistent if the character is shown to have zero effect on reality whether directly or indirectly. Existing characters cannot effect these characters in away. The moment a character that exists interacts with this character, the nonexistent character becomes existent.
Type 1 characters can be any tier. Type 2 characters cannot be any tier because it's impossible to gauge or verify their strength. Type 2 characters should be listed as Unknown.
Even an imaginary friend exists. Although it may exist in the mind of a child, that imaginary friend has an effect on the child and we can see that effect on the child when they play with their imaginary friend.
Another example would be hallucinations. A hallucination may be fake, and exist within the head of the person hallucinating, but they exist and they effect that person. People die because they hallucinate that they can fly. If it effects the real world, whether directly or indirectly it exists.
Existence =/= realness
Existence =/= material
For a character to truly not exist, that character must have zero effect on reality at any level. Regardless of how weak or strong they are. A tier 0 or 1-A for all intents and purposes it's impossible to transcend existence. If you effect reality you exist. If you don't effect reality you don't exist. There is no in between or above or below it. It's just so.
Now I know fiction is fiction. It wouldn't be fair to just ignore nonexistent characters in works. But at the same time, we don't have to put everything in a hierarchy and force everything to fit that hierarchy. Sometimes things should be kept simple. I propose this system:
Type 1 (Pseudo-nonexistence): A character is nonexistent if the character is shown to be or stated to be nonexistent on a consistent basis and through reputable in-story sources. These characters are shown to be able to effect reality and therefore, can be affected by characters who exist unless shown otherwise. Characters whom are nonexistent are naturally have high resistance or immunity to existence erasure. To erase these characters, a character must show high levels of existence erasure or shown to be able to erase nonexistent characters previously.
Type 2 (True Nonexistence): A character is nonexistent if the character is shown to have zero effect on reality whether directly or indirectly. Existing characters cannot effect these characters in away. The moment a character that exists interacts with this character, the nonexistent character becomes existent.
Type 1 characters can be any tier. Type 2 characters cannot be any tier because it's impossible to gauge or verify their strength. Type 2 characters should be listed as Unknown.
- 15,725
- 7,712
For Type 2 characters
My solution is changing this text: " The lack of absolutely everything, including presence on a conceptual framework of any degree" to The lack of absolutely everything to a state of nonexistence at a conceptual level "
I think it would fix the issue.
My solution is changing this text: " The lack of absolutely everything, including presence on a conceptual framework of any degree" to The lack of absolutely everything to a state of nonexistence at a conceptual level "
I think it would fix the issue.
- 10,748
- 6,476
@Iam I really think this is getting into semantics more than anything else. Just because you name the ability "nonexistent physiology" doesn't mean it has to follow the strictest definition of non-existence possible.
Things like imaginary friends while not truly non-existent in every sense of the word can still be considered non-existent in some fashion, so classifying them as such isn't really a big problem.
Tho tbf I could agree if imaginary friends were to be considered type 1 abstracts instead of non-existent characters.
Things like imaginary friends while not truly non-existent in every sense of the word can still be considered non-existent in some fashion, so classifying them as such isn't really a big problem.
Tho tbf I could agree if imaginary friends were to be considered type 1 abstracts instead of non-existent characters.
- 3,295
- 1,270
Under my definition an imaginery friend could be listed as a type 1 if they are described as non-existant in the verse. We shouldn't assume all imaginary characters are non-existnat. In Foster's home for imaginary friends, the friends are visible, tangible, and physical things, despite being imaginary.
An imaginary friend could have a combination of imaginary physiology, nonexistant physiology, abstract physiology or just imaginary physiology. It's all a case by case basis.
I'm not necessarily using the strictest definition of non-existence, but rather using the widest definition of existence. If that makes sense.
An imaginary friend could have a combination of imaginary physiology, nonexistant physiology, abstract physiology or just imaginary physiology. It's all a case by case basis.
I'm not necessarily using the strictest definition of non-existence, but rather using the widest definition of existence. If that makes sense.
- 10,748
- 6,476
Only an imaginary friend that is portrayed as not actually being real would get Non existent physiology, otherwise they wouldn't for the same reason as why not every character who personifies a concept gets abstract existence.
- 3,295
- 1,270
I agree with that.
- 8,678
- 5,556
We're not going to clear out and change the definition like that. It's needlessly harsh and ends up not very well describing most characters anyways.
Fiction doesn't give a shit about your definitions, which are far too strict to be useful (the fact that one category can literally only be Unknown makes this clear), and Nonexistence Physiology isn't as simple as Resistance to Existence Erasure anyways.
Fiction doesn't give a shit about your definitions, which are far too strict to be useful (the fact that one category can literally only be Unknown makes this clear), and Nonexistence Physiology isn't as simple as Resistance to Existence Erasure anyways.
- 3,295
- 1,270
Fiction is meaningless if words don't mean what they mean. Or there are contradictions and plots are illogical. It's not my definition, it's the definition.
If someone wrote a story where a character was infinitly above omnipotence, we wouldn't be saying Fiction doesn't give a sh*t about your definitions and make a -1 tier or even make said character tier 0 or 1-A if that character was shown to not be boundless or didn't trancend dimensions.
If someone wrote a story where a character was infinitly above omnipotence, we wouldn't be saying Fiction doesn't give a sh*t about your definitions and make a -1 tier or even make said character tier 0 or 1-A if that character was shown to not be boundless or didn't trancend dimensions.
- 8,678
- 5,556
There's a difference between fiction using a word differently and fiction being incompatible with our tiering system in a big way, and it's not like words have absolutely strict definitions with no room for flexibility.
People use the same words to mean different things all the time and will continue to do so forever. Even if it's wrong. The fact that the page defines it differently makes this obvious.
We're not going to mangle a page and divide it into two categories, one of which is useless, because your very strict definition of the word doesn't match up with it.
People use the same words to mean different things all the time and will continue to do so forever. Even if it's wrong. The fact that the page defines it differently makes this obvious.
We're not going to mangle a page and divide it into two categories, one of which is useless, because your very strict definition of the word doesn't match up with it.
- 3,295
- 1,270
I'm not telling you do anything. I gave an suggestion that I hoped would help the conversation.
I was pointing out that based on the actual definition of nonexistent, very few things that are called nonexistent in fiction would actually be nonexistent.
You have to be specific in how you're using that word. If you're using the general connotation of nonexistent, which could be a combination of: abstraction, immaterialism, non-corporeal, imaginary, then you have to mention that and make note of that.
Right now the profile says, "any character that lacks conventional existence" which means what exactly? It then gives a soul as an example. In many series, souls aren't considered nonexistent. Does this mean that if a character can effect souls then they can effect non-existent characters?
The last thing you would want is battles with characters where a user says, "well my character is nonexistent, so you can't effect them in anyway unless your character has nonexistence interaction". That could be true for some characters, but a nonexistent character in one verse could very well be considered existent in another depending on the rules of those fictions.
All I'm hoping for is consistency and specificity. My suggestions maybe to harsh, but too vague can do way much more damage.
I was pointing out that based on the actual definition of nonexistent, very few things that are called nonexistent in fiction would actually be nonexistent.
You have to be specific in how you're using that word. If you're using the general connotation of nonexistent, which could be a combination of: abstraction, immaterialism, non-corporeal, imaginary, then you have to mention that and make note of that.
Right now the profile says, "any character that lacks conventional existence" which means what exactly? It then gives a soul as an example. In many series, souls aren't considered nonexistent. Does this mean that if a character can effect souls then they can effect non-existent characters?
The last thing you would want is battles with characters where a user says, "well my character is nonexistent, so you can't effect them in anyway unless your character has nonexistence interaction". That could be true for some characters, but a nonexistent character in one verse could very well be considered existent in another depending on the rules of those fictions.
All I'm hoping for is consistency and specificity. My suggestions maybe to harsh, but too vague can do way much more damage.
- 8,678
- 5,556
The page could use work, yes, but the issues you raise are more with the pages of characters with the ability, not the page itself.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
