Issues with Void Manipulation and Nonexistence (Staff only)

[FateAlbane]

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?

I had unfollowed the thread for the sake of "staff only", but seeing how you directly asked, sure.

That's not a terrible comparison, it just seems that you legitimately didn't make proper sense of what I said. Having Void Manipulation as a buzzword in a profile doesn't insta-translate to freely manipulating nothingness in every manner possible. Sometimes the characters can shape nothing into something. Other times they can erase nothingness itself. Other times they can make "constructs" of nothingness and use them as weapons against targets, sometimes with an added effect of existence erasure, other times they create out of some primordial void, others they summon non-existent beings and so on.

Not all of these examples mean someone with Void Manip can look at a non-existent being and say "You know what, I'll shape YOU into a weapon."

The same way, we don't say something like "just about anyone with matter manipulation who has shown the ability to make weapons out of thin air by using matter around them can also use said ability to decompose someone's body into a weapon, thus killing them. Unless they have shown to directly use their opponent's body to do so."

Or why we don't say Yukari can use every single application of Boundary Manipulation just because she has an statement but never used them.

Or how someone who manipulates space-time can sometimes only be able to tear holes in it, or slow it instead of stopping it altogether or making it go faster instead of making someone insta-age to death or be broken down to atoms just because they are within the confines of said space-time which they manipulate in one way or another.

What I said goes very much hand in hand with the treatment every other ability in the site gets, it just seems to me like you sort of distorted what I meant somewhere along the way.

Sorry for quoting big, but being a few days old reply I had to for this particular case.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I don't see the necessity for so many types of nonexistent physiology in our wiki.

At the very least, I don't see the need for type 1, as that's literally just being non-corporeal or intangible.

Also Type 4 being "impossible" really shouldn't really matter when we're dealing with fiction.

 

[Lightbuster30]

Type 2 should go too. Sounds more like memory manipulation. Just give the people who qualify as type 3 straight nonexistent physiology, if they have memory manipulation or lack a body, just give them those powers, and state that those two powers can be associated with NEP. G

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

So I would propose it like this:

1. Conventional Nonexistence: The lack of any conventional existence. Such a character will exist as something beyond the normal scope of the physical and metaphysical worlds, instead existing as an idea or other unconventional state. Such entities can be conceptualized by individuals, but have never existed in a physical or normal metaphysical form, such as a soul.

2. Unconventional Nonexistence: The lack of anything except a presence on a universal abstract conceptual framework, such as Types 1, 2, and 3 as outlined by the Conceptual Manipulation page. If one imagines a metaphysical conceptual "list" of everything that is both existent and nonexistent, such a character would reside on the "nonexistent" section of the list. Such a character is bound only by conception, and has never existed as a possibility, idea, or any lower form.

3. Complete Nonexistence: The lack of absolutely everything, including presence on a conceptual framework of any degree. Such a state defies even the most basic logical principles and is unknowable in the truest form, as it is not a state at all. Such entities are typically presented as primordial voids or pure emptiness, or any abstract state which precedes or opposes the state of existence on all levels.

Though I can see why Type 2 might be unecessary. But I agree that a distinction between "nonexistent in relation to what we typically conceive as existence" and "completely nonexistent on all levels" is necessary.

 

[Kaltias]

Type 4 is legit as impossible to prove as omnipotence, but in that case the simplest solution is simply not making a type for it.

If anything, it can be used to explain better the fact that there is no such thing as a "character who doesn't exist in any way, shape or form" because there are varying degrees of nonexistence.

Using EE as an example, Beerus reduces you to nothing, the Emperor of Mankind also reduces you to nothing, but obviously those "nothings" are not on the same scale

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Matt

Yeah what I listed is basically just a framework for how one can interpret NE physiology. I'm perfectly fine with listing the current Type 1 as just something that doesn't apply.

As for complete, omnipotence shouldn't matter in fiction as well, but you know what we think about that. For something that is unprovable, we don't really like. Also if you say that complete no existence is different than omnipotence since complete NE has a functional definition I'd like to say that omnipotence does as well in "able to do literally anything."

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Considering I can point out to multiple exemples of things that would constitute as Type 4 in The Elder Scrolls, I don't think it's nearly on the same level as unprovable Omnipotence in fiction.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

It's always Elder Scrolls...

 

[Kaltias]

Considering I can point out to multiple exemples of things that would constitute as Type 4 in The Elder Scrolls, I don't think it's nearly on the same level as unprovable Omnipotence in fiction.

Are they nonexistent to the point where the Godhead can't affect them?

Because that's what "nonexistent on literally every conceivable level" would entail

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The Numidium's Nonexistent Physiology and Void Manipulation / Existence Erasure would both be Type 3 in my list, given that the Numidium refuted itself from existence, completely erasing itself from the Dream of the Amaranth (A Tier 0 which dreams and defines the whole TES Setting), and its World-Refusals do the same to those that are hit with it.

If we think of all things as existing within the minds of God in a Monotheistic sense, The Numidium is erasing individual things from the mind of God.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

Meanwhile I am kinda lost here.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Are they nonexistent to the point where the Godhead can't affect them?

Because that's what "nonexistent on literally every conceivable level" would entail

It's not quite on that level because it doesn't work like that in the setting.

But what I'm defining Type 3 as in my list is something that doesn't exist even in a dimensionless, non-dual sense.

 

[Kaltias]

Like, having a type of nonexistence for literal living voids is fine by me, but saying that they are nonexistent on literally every possible level isn't because you can't prove it

 

[Antoniofer]

There's few characters that are "made of" nothing and yet are tangible (conditional tangible), such Nobodies, Noth or Black Hole (Valkyrie Crusade) (I think is just a conventional black hole); it just that their bodies aren't made of energy or matter.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

That's not a terrible comparison, it just seems that you legitimately didn't make proper sense of what I said. Having Void Manipulation as a buzzword in a profile doesn't insta-translate to freely manipulating nothingness in every manner possible. Sometimes the characters can shape nothing into something. Other times they can erase nothingness itself. Other times they can make "constructs" of nothingness and use them as weapons against targets, sometimes with an added effect of existence erasure, other times they create out of some primordial void, others they summon non-existent beings and so on.

Hardly any of the examples you gave count as Voidhax.

Shaping nothing into something still requires you to be able to shape "nothing", or nonexistence. Which nonexistent characters are made of. You'd at least be capable of bypassing the nonexistence since you can already touch things that don't exist.

Erasing nothingness itself isn't voidhax as much as it is very potent Existence Erasure, which by itself doesn't allow you to "manipulate nothingness". Even then I have issues with that concept in general as it's an oxymoron.

Making contructs of nothing and still being able to interact with them involves Nonexistent Interaction from the getgo. You can still touch, move around, and break the weapons that don't exist.

Already went over how EE by itself is not Voidhax.

Summoning something that doesn't exist doesn't allow you to manipulate nothingness. No clue where you wanted to go with that one.

Although I'm interested to see what your "and so on" is.

It's not rocket science. "Manipulating" is a form of interaction with nothingness/nonexistence. By the very generously vague and simple definition we have now it's blindingly obvious.

Also while matter comes in various shapes and forms, there is no 'variety' of nothingness. It's a binary concept, you either exist or you do not. Heck, nothingness is even more generalized than matter as a concept. So I fail to understand why you consistently imply there is 'flavors' of Nothingness Manipulation and how when a character is made of nothingness suddenly they can't be affected by someone who, by definition, 'manipulates nothingness'.

When we actually define what nothingness is, sure, there might be some forms that are 'more nonexistent' than the other. However for now any Void Manipulation involves interacting with stuff that doesn't exist.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Valkyrie Crusade isn't a good example as those profiles are terrible.

 

[FateAlbane]

Meanwhile I am kinda lost here.

This isn't supposed to sound against the thread itself since I'm neutral on the result of the revision proper, but personally speaking I always thought both the abilities adressed here worked mostly fine since forever (unlike say, the infamous Acausality which was a general mess before the revisions).

I'm somewhat surprised that these two out of all abilities needed this to begin with...

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

How the hell doesn't that thing have tier 0 erasure for that?

Amaranth = Painter

Dream = Canvas filled with admixture of colors

Numidium = Small blot of color that became self-aware of its own nature and as a result erased itself and all colors around it off the canvas.

It doesn't affect the Amaranth in no way, and there's still the possibility for new Dreams, new colors to fill the canvas, but the colors it erases are gone for good.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

There's few characters that are "made of" nothing and yet are tangible (conditional tangible), such Nobodies, Noth or Black Hole (Valkyrie Crusade) (I think is just a conventional black hole); it just that their bodies aren't made of energy or matter.

That... isn't nonexistent.

If I'm being especially generous it's just Non-Corporeal.

I don't even know what to say about the second one as you can't "not exist" and "be a black hole" at the same time.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

So then how high into 1-A is this things Erasure?

Why the flying breadsticks are we discussing Elder Scrolls on a power revision thread.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

My only issue with NP is that we treated it as some super state of being. I personally always assumed it was just another form of being non-corporeal. (Although my expertise in this stuff is limited)

 

[Lightbuster30]

My bad. I'll delete my off topic comments.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But what would you classify something that doesn't exist in:

• The physical world of infinite spatial and temporal dimensions
• Metaphysical states such as souls or conceptual existences
• Non-dual primordial dimensionless state
• The very embodiments of all existence and nonexistence. Literally IS and IS-NOT
• The Mind of God which dreamt all of the above into being.

It seems Type 3 / 4 to me.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Assalt

Also, where would you describe erasing something in both phenomena and noumena as?

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

• The physical world of infinite spatial and temporal dimensions
• Metaphysical states such as souls or conceptual existences
• Non-dual primordial dimensionless state
• The very embodiments of all existence and nonexistence. Literally IS and IS-NOT
• The Mind of God which dreamt all of the above into being.

I feel like "existing outside of the scope of X" and "does not exist" are two mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

The hell is a noumena?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

phenomena = Thing as perceived

noumena = the thing itself

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

By definition we can only describe stuff that happens in fiction in terms of phenomena, as to accurately describe noumena you have to do so through your perception of something.

Therefore "describing a noumenon" is an oxymoron as we are only describing what our senses interpret. You cannot prove something is "erased in noumenon" logically speaking.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Except that's literally what happened in Elder Scrolls with Numidium? They use the word itself and it makes perfect sense looking into the metaphysics of the universe.

There's a very good metaphor for it... But this is derailing the thread. I'd love to discuss it on Discord with you, Dargoo.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I can discuss on discord, yeah. I'm pretty sure this thread doesn't need a philosophical discussion taking up a lot of space, and philosophy is fun in general.

 

[FateAlbane]

snip

They do, though? It's like you're contradicting your own point from before now. At that time you said "If they interact with Nothingness, then they interact with Non-Existent beings", but now you say that several powers which interact with said Nothingness or apply it aren't Void Manip.

"Erasing Nothingness isn't void Manipulation"

How is erasing literal Nothing *not* void manipulation? Sounds like you're arguing semantics when you say erasing it doesn't count for the power. Either that or you're taking the term Manipulation and applying it more or less the same way SP Wiki does, where Manipulation = Using and freely shaping it in every manner possible otherwise it doesn't count.

"Already went over how EE by itself is not Voidhax."

I utterly disagree with this notion to be honest. Removing actual parts of existence and reducing them to nothing is usually treated as power over nothing in 90% of the pieces of fiction that exist out there, yet somehow we're going to disqualify that? Though re-reading the OP I now realize where this view is coming from:

"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."

...Well, yeah. Because Existence Erasure IS ONE out of the many possible applications of Void Manipulation. Expanding the page with other uses is one thing but claiming that the most common use of the power isn't Void Manipulation disregarding all showings and associations in fiction because "it isn't philosophical enough" sounds extremely pointless and overcomplication of an ability's aspect that ultimately doesn't serve much of a purpose. Sounds pretty counter-productive in fact, but if that's the direction you guys want to go, sure.

"Making contructs of nothing and still being able to interact with them involves Nonexistent Interaction from the getgo. You can still touch, move around, and break the weapons that don't exist."

I never questioned that? You might have missed the part where I mentioned "Not all of these examples mean someone with Void Manip can look at a non-existent being and say "You know what, I'll shape YOU into a weapon."

This is why I told you you're not understanding my point. What I'm saying is that Void Manipulators can't always _directly_ manipulate non-existent beings. Again, from my first reply:

compared to manipulating an actual non-existent being directly feel like different applications of the same power.

I never debated Void Manipulation applications being capable of Interaction with Non-Existent beings. I argued that they shouldn't be able to directly manipulate them the same way one would manipulate nothingness itself. Hence someone who makes "constructs" of nothing wouldn't make a "construct" out of a non-existent being killing them in the process. I have nothing against them using said construct to make a non-existent hole through them or something of the like.


"Summoning something that doesn't exist doesn't allow you to manipulate nothingness. No clue where you wanted to go with that one."

I guess that means we should remove every ability used through summons from the summoners profiles then. RIP Seriously now, at this point you're making the ability ridiculously overspecific so by this definition you're making? I see you're ultimately just bumping the recquirements to extreme levels as compared to before. It seems like cherrypicking or needless overanalysis of the ability while simultaneously disregarding actual applications that don't fit to this view, but sure.

"It's not rocket science. "Manipulating" is a form of interaction with nothingness/nonexistence. By the very generously vague and simple definition we have now it's blindingly obvious."

And acting condescending helps your point how? Thanks for the lesson in elitism. If that's how you want to discuss the matter, go back to two points above and notice again that you've been putting words in my mouth, distorting a bit of what I said at every turn, then acting like you have superior intellect or something of the like over a thread. Is that the example of attitude a staff member should be showing?

" Heck, nothingness is even more generalized than matter as a concept. So I fail to understand why you consistently imply there is 'flavors' of Nothingness Manipulation and how when a character is made of nothingness suddenly they can't be affected by someone who, by definition, 'manipulates nothingness'."

More words in my mouth. There aren't flavors of Nothingness Manipulation. There are different applications of the power. And there are levels to it. Like every other single ability out there. And for the last time, I never said interaction is impossible. I said *direct manipulation should be shown* as it's a different application, from the very beginning in my very first reply. I'm pretty sure everyone else understood that's what I meant which is why they actually agreed.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I have been agreeing with Fate since his first post.

 

[FateAlbane]

Regardless and as I said before, I'm neutral on the results here.

My sole purpose is to clear that whole misunderstanding with what I meant in the applications/interaction bit. From that point onwards I'll fully trust the staff's judgement with the ability, as always.

If that's the direction where the ability's definition is headed now, I'll naturally go along with it.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with Fate here.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

How is erasing literal Nothing *not* void manipulation? Sounds like you're arguing semantics when you say erasing it doesn't count for the power.

I moreso disagree with that point on precedent. "Erasing something that doesn't exist" makes no sense, as said thing doesn't exist. All that might be happening is that you're erasing more abstract characteristics of the thing in question that do exist, you're not interacting with any aspects of the character that do not.

Removing actual parts of existence and reducing them to nothing is usually treated as power over nothing in 90% of the pieces of fiction that exist out there, yet somehow we're going to disqualify that?

If it's treated like it's a power over nothing than it is, although I find it perplexing when people make broad statements about "all of fiction" to prove points as if they have an idea of what general trends in fiction are. "Manipulating Nothingness" and "turning something into nothingness" are two different things, one is much more broad and the other only pertains to things that exist. If "fiction portrays them as being paired' most of the time, cool, but if there is no hint of Void manipulation in regards to a character and just EE let's not assume they can start playing around with things that don't exist. No way in heck is Richard Spender interacting with nothingness by just erasing a character from physical existence.

...Well, yeah. Because Existence Erasure IS ONE out of the many possible applications of Void Manipulation. Expanding the page with other uses is one thing but claiming that the most common use of the power isn't Void Manipulation disregarding all showings and associations in fiction because "it isn't philosophical enough" sounds extremely pointless and overcomplication of an ability's aspect that ultimately doesn't serve much of a purpose. Sounds pretty counter-productive in fact, but if that's the direction you guys want to go, sure.

There you go again with generalizing all of fiction. I'm just trying to elaborate on an existing definition by contemplating its applications. Please try to attack my logic instead of saying "you're contradicting all of fiction" to deflect actual critiques of your points.

I don't know what to say to the second part of this. "Existence" is a term that's debated in all walks of logic and philosophy, and describing it requires going into said topics. If trying to define a power properly is pointless we should just leave the description blank as there is no use in actually discussing what anything constitutes.

I never questioned that? You might have missed the part where I mentioned "Not all of these examples mean someone with Void Manip can look at a non-existent being and say "You know what, I'll shape YOU into a weapon."'

What's even more ridiculous is assuming that a character who can touch a nonexistent dagger they shape from nothingness can't touch a character who doesn't exist. I never implied people can "shape the character into a weapon", I'm only implying they can touch said character like they can touch the proverbial daggers of nothingnes.

Hence someone who makes "constructs" of nothing wouldn't make a "construct" out of a non-existent being killing them in the process. I have nothing against them using said construct to make a non-existent hole through them or something of the like.

That's... nonexistant interaction, though. That's what I'm trying to say; they can touch the dagger, why can't they touch the nonexistent person?

I guess that means we should remove every ability used through summons from the summoners profiles then.

Want to know what's even more ridiculous? Assuming the summoner is the one doing the voidhax, and not the summon. All they're doing is bringing forth something with a set of traits and abilities, they do not posses the traits and abilities themselves. It's like saying Ash Katchum has electricity manipulation because he can tell a Pikachu to use lightning bolt, or Yugi can do whatever his cards can do because he can call forth what lies within them. The summoner does not have voidhax, the summon does. If they can shape a void into a summon that's nonphysical interaction.

And acting condescending helps your point how? Thanks for the lesson in elitism. If that's how you want to discuss the matter, go back to two points above and notice again that you've been putting words in my mouth, distorting a bit of what I said at every turn, then acting like you have superior intellect or something of the like over a thread. Is that the example of attitude a staff member should be showing?

Calling an idea simple isn't calling you simple, I feel like you're honestly grasping at straws at this point to try and make a stawman out of my argument. Funny enough you're the first person in this conversation to directly call the user, not their arguments, something, so if anything you're the one who's starting to throw around the insults.

I suppose I should stop trying to disprove your points now, though, if doing so somehow makes me someone with some sort of elitist complex.

There are different applications of the power. And there are levels to it. Like every other single ability out there.

None of the actual applications you have shown me lack nonphysical interaction.

 

[FateAlbane]

Calling an idea simple isn't calling you simple, I feel like you're honestly grasping at straws at this point to try and make a stawman out of my argument. Funny enough you're the first person in this conversation to directly call the user, not their arguments, something, so if anything you're the one who's starting to throw around the insults.

The fact that I repeated time and again in the above reply (while simultaneously bolding it to make sure that was the point) that I never questioned Interaction yet you keep saying that's what I'm doing and putting words in my mouth to simultaneously distort the whole point I made makes this particular quote feel oddly amusing.

And no. I didn't insult you. It's just that the point I adressed in the previous reply did sound quite condescending. If it wasn't your intention at the time then, sure. My apologies.

I'll answer this now even though, again, the strawman is definitely on my side.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I never said that you didn't question interaction in some aspects; my entire argument was that to have voidhax Nonexistent Interaction is needed, which is why I was confused when you started bringing up broad fictional trends.

Saying I'm an elitist or acting like one is insulting to me. However since I can see that wasn't your intent I apologize for seeing it like that.

I disagree, however I think there was misunderstandings on both sides.

 

[FateAlbane]

snip

"Erasing something that doesn't exist" makes no sense, as said thing doesn't exist. All that might be happening is that you're erasing more abstract characteristics of the thing in question that do exist, you're not interacting with any aspects of the character that do not.

1. To be fair, something of the nature of Tier 1-As "doesn't make much sense" by general human standards (and none by dimensional ones either, which is what we apply for pretty much everything), but we still acknowledge them. Erasing something that doesn't exist sounds like more or less the same case of "situations that don't make sense but still happen in fiction". I'm not sure if it's safe to go the route of "it can't be so because it doesn't make sense" in this particular case when we have actual examples. It sounds to me like by a similar line of reasoning we could do something like taking Void Manipulation as a whole at that point and delete the ability in itself because it consists of characters claiming to have "power over nothing" and that doesn't make much sense either. Usually Void Manipulation produces an effect by directly interacting with Nothingness, yes. This very nothingness (or the non-existent beings) are portrayed sometimes as having some sort of analogues of their own to aspects of existence. Hence what was being erased would be a non-existent analogue to a mind, soul and so on. And there have been cases where characters don't erase non-existent beings, but actual non-existent planes that wouldn't have any "aspect that still exists". I recall series such as SMT (and perhaps TES by what was said above?) doing so.

If it's treated like it's a power over nothing than it is... (...) ...interacting with nothingness by just erasing a character from physical existence

2. I didn't make the statement with fiction to invalidate other points. I made the point with Fiction to further exemplify how the same kind of power can be used in different and more limited ways by multiple characters across different works and media. For the Manipulating Nothingness part, I didn't say someone with EE should be able to fully manipulate Non-Existence. This is where the thing I said about levels and applications comes along: Erasing things from existence is usually taken as the most basic aspect of Void Manipulation. In fact, the part about "not assuming a character who uses EE can start playing around with non-existence" shows again that each manipulator has their own applications and levels. Which is the point I was making - there are EE users that can indeed erase not just existence but also non-existence. Off the top of my mind I recall a similar feat from high level SMT demons with the plane of the White. The GEOM also has EE far superior in potency than your everyday user which could do such a feat. Hence it depends on potency and application of each user (which is why I point "Fiction does so" - to exemplify it).

There you go again with generalizing all of fiction. I'm just trying to elaborate on an existing definition by contemplating its applications. Please try to attack my logic instead of saying "you're contradicting all of fiction" to deflect actual critiques of your points.

3. But that's the main gist of it, Dargoo. This is in regards to an ability seen in fiction, that is being used for fictional purposes and the page itself will be used in profiles for a bunch of fictional characters that may possess it. Under this situation, I *have* to bring up how fiction treats it. No way around it. Like I said in my previous reply: It sounds a lot like going against the way the ability is usually portrayed and overcomplicating it without an actual need to, but *if staff/the community thinks otherwise and feels this is for the best*, I'll go along with it. I also said before: I'm neutral on this.

"I don't know what to say to the second part of this. "Existence" is a term that's debated in all walks of logic and philosophy, and describing it requires going into said topics. If trying to define a power properly is pointless we should just leave the description blank as there is no use in actually discussing what anything constitutes."

4. Refer to the point above. The ability always seemed to work fine so far prior to this discussion. Someone mentioned above "isn't PhilosophyBattlesWiki". While that depends a lot on situation , I actually agree with that viewpoint on this case on the sense that if we are too strict on this based on philosophical ideas, we could end up disregarding actual and valid applications of the power because they don't fit with a very narrow definition, arbitrarily made. I also mentioned that if it's about expanding the page with other applications to the power, that's fine. My one and main worry is that this doesn't turn the same as the aforementioned case with Acausality, which indeed turned into a complete mess due to one or another revision on it, until we got to the current one.

What's even more ridiculous is assuming that a character who can touch a nonexistent dagger they shape from nothingness can't touch a character who doesn't exist. I never implied people can "shape the character into a weapon", I'm only implying they can touch said character like they can touch the proverbial daggers of nothingnes.

5. Already explained. I never questioned interaction being possible so this is a misunderstanding on your (or both of our ends, I dunno. Just that there was a misunderstanding here is a certainty).

That's... nonexistant interaction, though. That's what I'm trying to say; they can touch the dagger, why can't they touch the nonexistent person?

6. Same as point 5.

Want to know what's even more ridiculous? Assuming the summoner is the one doing the voidhax, and not the summon. All they're doing is bringing forth something with a set of traits and abilities, they do not posses the traits and abilities themselves. It's like saying Ash Katchum has electricity manipulation because he can tell a Pikachu to use lightning bolt, or Yugi can do whatever his cards can do because he can call forth what lies within them. The summoner does not have voidhax, the summon does. If they can shape a void into a summon that's nonphysical interaction.

7. ...Oddly enough, a bunch of Pokemon trainers do get the abilities listed on their profiles as being used through their pokemons, like Brock or Lusamine. Same for summoners who also get them listed in their profiles under their abilities like Yuna from FFX. I never implied the summoner get the ability from whatever the summon uses but if they can summon something out of nothing itself that is a manner of interaction with nothingness, however basic. Not much to say on this one, though. It falls under the principle of what I said before: "Not all examples would be capable of directly manipulating the being..." and so on.

None of the actual applications you have shown me lack nonphysical interaction.

8. Which is why, again, I didn't really ever question interaction being possible. Same as point 5.

 

[ProspectX]

The insight of Nonexistence tells one should be already familiar with Schrödinger's cat.

Complete non-existence is for example :

>In contrary to the principle of uncertainty, There is only one acceptable and possible truthvalue within the cat box. Basically, the "cat" within the box is with 100% certainty a non-existent being. The essence of this cat negates every impossibility or possibility caused by a external observer, it will not ever exist regardless if you open the box or not.