Issues with Void Manipulation and Nonexistence (Staff only)

[The_Causality]

But here, we talk about characters who Conceptually not exist aKa peoples who are in the non existent of their Concepts on their dimensional scale

Most of Tier 2 Conceptually Nothing characters lacks of Type 2 Concept in their scale and like kalt said, you can't affect them with Type 2 concept stuff on the same scale.

that what i want to say

 

[Reppuzan]

I haven't been saying a whole lot mainly because I'm having trouble following all of the philosophical and technical jargon being thrown around.

Is there any way we can cut down on the prose so it's readable and understandable to the average user who hasn't taken philosophy or quantum mechanics courses?

 

[Elizhaa]

But here, we talk about characters who Conceptually not exist aKa peoples who are in the non existent of their Concepts on their dimensional scale
Most of Tier 2 Conceptually Nothing characters lacks of Type 2 Concept in their scale and like kalt said, you can't affect them with Type 2 concept stuff on the same scale.

that what i want to say

Again, Kalt said:

Someone lacking a type 2 concept on their dimensional level would be immune to conceptual manip up to said dimensional level, DMB is correct

It is not the same topic. Someone lacking a type 2 concept is not = Conceptual NE as Conceptual NE is still a concept.

 

[Elizhaa]

Yes, and naturally, if you are nonexistent within the concepts of your own dimensional tiering, such concepts wouldn't be able to affect you. That's what Dodo's trying to say.

Yes, Conceptual NE however needs to proven that it is higher dimensional concept in setting fro feats. We can't say it is just because it is a different conceptual of existence. The judgment should be a case by case basis.

 

[The_Causality]

But People who lacks of type 2 Concepts are in most case Conceptually Nothing, and yes, it's still a concept but Type 2 can't affect them if both are in the same Dimensional scale. it's the same topic

 

[DMB_1]

You are overcomplicating this.

A being who lacks a type 2 concept wouldn't even be able to be understood, known or even imagined by normal means by people on his own dimensional scale or lower.

Even "being Tier 0" is a concept, if that's the case.

 

[The_Causality]

Well, i'm done about this, Kalt and DMB already proved my points.I no longer need to discuss more.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Now you've gone and complicated things even more DMB. I'm lost now. How can a tier 0 exist conceptually but another tier 0 doesn't exist conceptually?

 

[Elizhaa]

But People who lacks of type 2 Concepts are in most case Conceptually Nothing, and yes, it's still a concept but Type 2 can't affect them if both are in the same Dimensional scale. it's the same topic

People who lacks of type 2 Concepts - the list is near z

Type 2 can't affect them if both are in the same Dimensional scale.

True, only, if has the concept is proven trancendent of dimensional scale, if not proven same dimenional Conceptual Manipulation affect still can affect them. Also, transcend of reality if you are using as evidences doen't mean higher dimenisional in Conceptual Manipulaton Type 2.


2. False Platonic Concept: Such concepts, or forms, are mostly transcendent of reality. These concepts shape all of reality and whatever level that reality exists in, and everything in reality "participates" in these concepts. These concepts interact with their objects in the same manner as listed above. In this way, the alteration of these concepts will change every object of the concept on whatever scale has been shown.

 

[DMB_1]

Now you've gone and complicated things even more DMB. I'm lost now. How can a tier 0 exist conceptually but another tier 0 doesn't exist conceptually?

I never said such thing.

 

[Elizhaa]

Now you've gone and complicated things even more DMB. I'm lost now. How can a tier 0 exist conceptually but another tier 0 doesn't exist conceptually?

Limitation and Tier 0 definition change as I have stated here: https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2455230#308

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

You said being tier 0 is a concept. But theretically you can have a nonexistant tier 0 in fiction.

Unless you ment concept in the general term? And not in reference to our conceptual page?

 

[Kaltias]

He said that "tier 0" is a concept (which it is). The tier itself

 

[DMB_1]

Yes... By the logic Nedge is using.

I was just pointing out how many problems would be raised if we were to use his logic.

 

[The_Causality]

Before leaving a last things

@Iamunanimousinthat Basically, Type 2 Conceptual manipulation can'tb affect conceptually non existent or lacks of concept, both have no concept in their dimensionality but Higher Dimensional peoples can affect them (4D lacks of Concept/NE < 5D Concep manipulation)

@Nedge1000 Type 2 Concept are already transcendant of reality (you already linked the definition), if peoples lack of it, yes, it's impossible to Type 2 User to affect them if both are in the same dimensional scale. And normally, it's peoples with their concept manip which need proof to affect them, it's a NLF to assume that NE who already lacks of type 2 concepts can be affected by Type 2 Concept stuff without feats and without extrapolate their concept manip (you know the destruction of a concept of a concept of a concept.....)

You are free to ask kalt again or other members, i'm out now.

 

[Elizhaa]

You said being tier 0 is a concept. But theretically you can have a nonexistant tier 0 in fiction.
Unless you ment concept in the general term? And not in reference to our conceptual page?

That was when Type 2 Nonexistence Physiology was: The lack of absolutely everything, including presence on a conceptual framework of any degree" which now has change to this The lack of absolutely everything to a state of nonexistence at a conceptual level ".

So, the discussion is different now.

nonexistence in conceptual framework of any degree = transcendence of conceptual framework to any degree is Tier 0 territory which only a few characters like The Creator (Umineko no Naku Koro ni) qualify

nonexistence at a conceptual level = different conceptual state of existence.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Okay. I see my misunderstanding.

 

[Elizhaa]

Okay. I see my misunderstanding.

It happen and is not a big deal, @Iamunanimousinthat.

 

[Antvasima]

@Kaltias

So what, if anything needs to be changed or clarified within the page?

 

[Crzer07]

If a character with Type 2 NEP can communicate with Tier 3-10 characters then that could be a self-evident ability of having concept manip.

 

[Udlmaster]

Also, while we're here.

What makes Platonic concept 1-A again?

I've read up on them, there's wikipedia saying they're Aspatial and Atemporal based on:

" "the pattern of the unchangeable," which is "that which is eternal." — paragraph 29. Therefore "eternal" ― to a├»dio, "the everlasting" "

However, this is an example of Something never dying of age, Type 1 Immortality.

And the Aspatial part:

"Space answers to matter, the place-holder of form: "... and there is a third nature (besides Form and form), which is space (chōros), and is eternal (aei "always", certainly not atemporal), and admits not of destruction and provides a home for all created things ... we say of all existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy space ...." — Timaeus, paragraph 52"

But what has space being eternal and is indestructable proving of Aspatial?

 

[Antvasima]

Does anybody remember which staff members that developed the Abstract Existence page? They might be able to answer Udlmaster's question.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I believe Kaltias.

 

[Andytrenom]

The best person to answer Udl's question is Assalt. Tho if they are going to discuss it, it should be somewhere else, since here it would be derailing.

 

[Udlmaster]

Well, the conversation seems to be over, there's really no coversation to derail really.

 

[Antvasima]

You can probably ask Kaltias and Assaltwaffle to comment here then.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Uld

Since the thread is basically over I feel like I can comment here to explain a bit of Plato's concepts.

You are right in saying that they are indestructible and eternal and that such a thing doesn't prove aspatiality. What does is what the Forms fundamentally are. Every aspect of reality, including ideas such as love, are traceable to a base Form. As universals, everything that can be known or understood, including "spatial existence", is a participant in a transcendent Form. Since the Form of "space" is above the object, being all spatial dimensions, as all spatial dimensions are subject to conception, the forms must be 1-A because of the "space" Form's superiority to space.

And that's just indirect logic. Plato directly states that there is a realm of the Forms which is above the world and in which all things in the world participate in.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Greg4581]

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?

"Nothing" is not "something."

"Nothing" literally means "not anything." If something exists, you can't say there's nothing there, because there IS something there. In the real world, we don't have any examples of "nothing." Even empty space is still something, because there was once a time (according to modern cosmology) where time and space didn't yet exist.

One of the greatest philisophical questions is "why is there something rather than nothing?"

Because of this, we use "nothing" in relative terms. If I go to a section of forest and I say "there is nothing here", it's obvious that what I really mean is there's nothing of interest here. So I think it's fine to define "void" in these broad terms, where it could mean just an empty space, or true void where matter and energy cannot even exist, so essentially holes in the frabric of space and time.