• 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.

Massive Source Downgrades (Maou Gakuin)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara said:
Can you please link me to the post where "the future is a separate reality" was ever accepted? I'm going to bed now, so take as long as you want, but I won't accept sussy sounding bullshit on the basis of "bro trust me".
Click to expand...
Refer to below threads which are already accepted. only one who is using trust me bro is you. I have been asking on a examples for both CM type 3 affecting character at different point in time and Information type 1 being able to regenerate from fundamental concepts. You are just ducking with trust me bro that's how it works.


 
Uh oh, another clarify, CM3 can well affect all of time, past, present and future, which just make CM3 in question is 4D in potency, nothing stop CM3 having higher dimensionality in its power. What determine CM being type 3 or not is the scale of its area of influence
 
A simpler example using the concept of time:
CM type 2: The whole concept of time in general, all basic characteristics and fundamentals being governed by CM type 2 (the concept of time in general).
CM type 3: A basic feature or foundation, being something more specific (just one of the characteristics/basic fundamentals of the concept of time).

At least, I know that's how it usually works, as Type 2 CM clearly uses abstract concepts (which is basically what I explained); while CM type 3 is more like a basic foundation, ruling/governing only a specific scale of one object.
 
Vietthai96 said:
Uh oh, another clarify, CM3 can well affect all of time, past, present and future, which just make CM3 in question is 4D in potency, nothing stop CM3 having higher dimensionality in its power. What determine CM being type 3 or not is the scale of its area of influence
Click to expand...
Can I get the examples ?

Source is influencing ones Existence throughout the future reality which is clear cut type 2 atleast. Type 3 don't do that Unless you tell me an example.

If Source affecting the incarnation of characters isn't considered as area of influence I don't know what you mean by are of influence we are talking about.
 
EldemadeDityjon said:
Can I get the examples ?

Source is influencing ones Existence throughout the future reality which is clear cut type 2 atleast. Type 3 don't do that Unless you tell me an example.

If Source affecting the incarnation of characters isn't considered as area of influence I don't know what you mean by are of influence we are talking about.
Click to expand...
They are talking about the scope and quantity of objects that the concept governs, Example:
If the concept of tree applies to two trees that exist side by side, if the concept of tree is changed, then it will be type 2 or type 1, already which has a greater reach on a specific plane, and affects more than one thing/object; If the tree concept only applies to one tree (both in quantity and scope), and the tree concept is changed, this would be a type 3 concept, because the scope affects only one tree.
 
Last edited:
... what is being argued to this length? Source affects the concept of person throughout reality, take it their self, reincarnations, one, more or thousands of them, they all will be. It's not single "object" no, they are reincarnations and different persons bound by the same concept that is source. We don't go to say "humanity" is not a concept type 2 because it only governs "humans", no, what's there is is that "how many objects falls under this word human?", Is that single person? Or that all of them related to the concept? If "all of them, then it's not specific to single object within single moment", seems to be so many misunderstandings here to me.
 
If you destroy all the planets in the universe except 1 and then it doesn't mean that concept itself has been reduced to type 3 from type 1. Concept doesn't depends on amount of number of objects but that they can always been there regardless and made to exist, one or more and many times, as long as concept exist.
 
Literally the difference between type 3 and type 2 is how they affect the object they govern and how they are fundamental and lesser fundamental

You guys keep arguing pedantic and semantic meanings missing the entire point of those explanation and description

Type 3 is mostly reserved for those who are stated as concept but wasn't properly explained or elaborated upon. They are treated as lesser fundamental because they may not be fundamental to the object they govern as a concept.

Now type 2 as it states governs all object within its scope of influence in all of reality. That does not mean it must govern reality as a whole but just all of the object the concept governs within the reality. We have source that is literally the concept of destruction or the concept of creation that is cool and all. While it is also true there are concept that is specific such as the concept of a sword that breaks sword. That does sound like it is type 3 correct?

Yes it does but due to such concept existing alongside and equal to other type 2 concept would qualify them on the same level as type 2 because although it is personal concept of specific things. We have its qualification for type 2 for being stated to existing on the same level as a fundamental concepts.

Because listing a specific concept of source such as the concept of Destruction that is specifically about a single object that can destroy the entire cosmological structure which does sound specific and likely only governs a single object and personal as it sounds making it type 3 yet since its a concept that is tied deeply into how fundamental it is and how it is capable of rejecting and resisting a fundamental concept that is necessary to reality and governs all object within that reality. It would be dumb to list it as a type 3 that is superior to a type 2.


Another qualification it has that although it sounds personal specific. It governs all possible incarnation of such concept it expands through the future. The past does not matter here since a concept can be created as a fundamental concept in the present to to the future without it existing in the past. Existing in the past present and future is just one possible qualification but that does not meant it is an important requirement.



Key points that the concept is fundamental or lesser fundamental.

Eitherway regardless if you want to treat it as type 2 or type 3 it will not affect HGR or its capability to affect other concept that is type 2 due to how well elaborated source is and how it exist deeper than souls,spirit,body, power and such that it can affect fundamental concepts of reality without being fundamental themselves

As for information type 2

I have no idea not familiar with that power
 
TheGreatJedi13 said:
Literally the difference between type 3 and type 2 is how they affect the object they govern and how they are fundamental and lesser fundamental

You guys keep arguing pedantic and semantic meanings missing the entire point of those explanation and description

Type 3 is mostly reserved for those who are stated as concept but wasn't properly explained or elaborated upon. They are treated as lesser fundamental because they may not be fundamental to the object they govern as a concept.

Now type 2 as it states governs all object within its scope of influence in all of reality. That does not mean it must govern reality as a whole but just all of the object the concept governs within the reality. We have source that is literally the concept of destruction or the concept of creation that is cool and all. While it is also true there are concept that is specific such as the concept of a sword that breaks sword. That does sound like it is type 3 correct?

Yes it does but due to such concept existing alongside and equal to other type 2 concept would qualify them on the same level as type 2 because although it is personal concept of specific things. We have its qualification for type 2 for being stated to existing on the same level as a fundamental concepts.

Because listing a specific concept of source such as the concept of Destruction that is specifically about a single object that can destroy the entire cosmological structure which does sound specific and likely only governs a single object and personal as it sounds making it type 3 yet since its a concept that is tied deeply into how fundamental it is and how it is capable of rejecting and resisting a fundamental concept that is necessary to reality and governs all object within that reality. It would be dumb to list it as a type 3 that is superior to a type 2.


Another qualification it has that although it sounds personal specific. It governs all possible incarnation of such concept it expands through the future. The past does not matter here since a concept can be created as a fundamental concept in the present to to the future without it existing in the past. Existing in the past present and future is just one possible qualification but that does not meant it is an important requirement.
Click to expand...
This is just... straight up wrong. Type 3 concepts can still be fundamental, I could go and find like 4 examples of that on the wiki right now. In fact:
Alucard: Blood in Hellsing is fundamental information and a person's "essence" which is separate from the mind and soul. Still type 3.
Kratos: Souls in GoW are the metaphysical nature of a being and their mind itself. Still type 3.
Shipgirls: Wisdom Cubes in Azure Lane contain the fundamental information of a Shipgirl's existence as well as their memories, mind, and emotions. Still type 3.
Electricity Manipulation in Twin Peaks literally the binding force of all of reality and exists deeper than the mind. Still type 3.

The fact that all of these exist just proves you do not understand what type 3 is and why we give it to characters. These examples are all "fundamental" aspects, but are still type 3, because they only govern a single person's existence (except for electricity manipulation, idk what's up with that). And yes, you can bring up how people die when their sources are destroyed or how their bodies dying won't affect the source, but none of that really qualifies for type 2. It'd just be slightly better type 3 than the examples above, and even that's generous.

Also the point about future lives is ******* stupid. The source is still only governing a single thing; Unless these future lives are completely detached from their present incarnation, they would just be the same person in a different point in time.
 
Anyways, to reiterate before I have to go do cringe work at my fail job again, the "all reality" bit is referring to governing all things under the same conceptual umbrella, while type 3 is more limited in scope. Type 2 sources would have to govern everyone's existence all at once to qualify, while there being many sources that govern many individual source is what makes them type 3.
 
@Dog3352 congratulations on proving to me more that the fire dew is completely different from someone’s source. Are you even trying at this point or are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks for type 2 source? Because other threads basically confirm what type of concept type 3 and 2 and 1 is supposed to be.

@EldemadeDityjon ever heard of a time paradox? Where you affecting the past affects the future? It’s a simple idea to grasp. Nothing about affecting all future incarnations remotely proves it’s a type 2 concept.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Dog3352 congratulations on proving to me more that the fire dew is completely different from someone’s source. Are you even trying at this point or are you just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks for type 2 source? Because other threads basically confirm what type of concept type 3 and 2 and 1 is supposed to be.

@EldemadeDityjon ever heard of a time paradox? Where you affecting the past affects the future? It’s a simple idea to grasp. Nothing about affecting all future incarnations remotely proves it’s a type 2 concept.
Click to expand...
Time paradox? Wow now give me a type 3 concepts with time paradox bullshit you mentioned I will Concede may be If both has same type of affects.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Literally any concept that’s affected in the past gets their future affected by default, it’s a simple idea to understand if you ever watched any time travel story ever. Plus it never has been an argument for a concept to be beyond type 3
Click to expand...
Time paradox is only counted when character mentions thats happening by time manipulation or something similar. Nowhere in hell here stated it was done by a time manipulation. No i asked for an accepted Source in VSWIKI. not some thing which doesn't exists in our wiki. If there is none I am not gonna count your OPINION as valid.
 
Theglassman12 said:
ever heard of a time paradox? Where you affecting the past affects the future? It’s a simple idea to grasp. Nothing about affecting all future incarnations remotely proves it’s a type 2 concept.
Click to expand...
This is funny because the scan literally prove the root is directly affect the person future, not just a effect of destroying the past. Yeah how could you feel the pain of death in future if it just product by affect the past, logically the death is not happen
 
Because it’s their own concept being affected? Also prove their source governs reality. I’m still waiting for that
 
Theglassman12 said:
Literally where did I say it’s done by time manipulation? Stop taking what I said out of context. Also don’t ignore this thread here, not addressing this thread where it’s agreed what type 3 and 2 and 1 concepts are doesn’t help your argument
Click to expand...
EldemadeDityjon said:

Click to expand...
No one ignoring anything. Future are already accepted as Seperate realities on Universal scale by standards. Anyway If you still Disagree fine. Other thread already has enough evidence for type 1 concept for source. There are enough staff who are knowledgeable on the Conceptual Manipulation. They will evaluate.
 
No it’s not, a Bleach thread about fate hax has absolutely nothing to do with concepts that govern reality. You can say it’s a type 1 concept as much as you like, if it doesn’t get accepted then it’s all for nothing.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Because it’s their own concept being affected? Also prove their source governs reality. I’m still waiting for that
Click to expand...
Wow you literally talking about time paradox when you say that, that mean you say the future is just product of affect the past. That it false because the root is encompassing all the future at once. Not because it affect the past that affect the future or indirect effect, but directly effect the future

Root govern their own reality
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Fixxed Root doesn’t govern their reality. Root only governs the person. You have yet to prove it governs the reality they exist in and control the world they’re in. Plus this thread already explains the type of concept type 3 is. So ignoring it isn’t helping your case.
Click to expand...
Bruh....... first, i glad you stop talking about your time paradox argument for not make this more long

And yeah of course, give thread that not concluded yet for explain something
 
For a thread that’s not concluded the argument sure did carry over to the actual page so the point still stands.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Because other threads basically confirm what type of concept type 3 and 2 and 1 is supposed to be.
Click to expand...
"While current type 3 is supposed to fits this, a lot of said concepts don't fall into it (Ichibe's ink and some others kudodama stuff) because they don't have this mental thing, despite not being proven to be universal in scale and clearly applying to a specific object/individual/etc...
Or you have pages who just have no types because they don't fall under the ones we have, such as Medea's."

"-One of the attributs would be that if said concept gets destroyed, it doesn't destroy the objects linked to it. Think of all these weapons, attacks, characters with the concept of victory, shield, unbreakability, etc... into them, whose destruction doesn't affect anything outside of themselves."

"-However, said concepts are still subject to change from the reality in return. Just like type 2, if there's no shield in the world, the concept of a shield doesn't exist anymore. They also are subjects to change from a higher scale version of said concept, just like an object would."

What you gave is not even the full explanation... as the accepted comment itself says, it is a concept that is linked to a specific thing, and destroying that concept would not affect the specific thing linked to this concept, and one of the reasons why the name in DMC are type 1 concepts, they are the concept of existence, they are abstract, and destroying the name would destroy the concept of existence, and basically the source.
 
Concept manip was explained to me recently and this is what I got from it.

For a concept that governs one single object/being to be type 1 it has to be both independent of reality and have an effect on reality besides the one it has over the object or being it governs.

If the concept doesn't have any effect on reality besides the object it governs then it drops to type 3.

My only example of type 1 that governs one single object is DMC but imma avoid derailing.
Edit: since someone mentioned DMC I can explain that one. Names are the concepts of demons, basic principles that predate reality and to change a name is to change the world, the value of everything (scans are in the demon physiology)

So you guys would need to prove Sources to have an effect on reality that doesn't involve the character/object it governs
 
@Dog3352 good job not understanding what DMC concepts are. They’re type 1 because they’re governing reality plus have a very blatant statement of predating the reality they exist in. That’s as type 1 of a concept you can get. Source doesn’t have any of that with the scans provided in the blogs, pages and this thread.
 
Tony_di_bugalu said:
Concept manip was explained to me recently and this is what I got from it.

For a concept that governs one single object/being to be type 1 it has to be both independent of reality and have an effect on reality besides the one it has over the object or being it governs.

If the concept doesn't have any effect on reality besides the object it governs then it drops to type 3.

My only example of type 1 that governs one single object is DMC but imma avoid derailing.
Edit: since someone mentioned DMC I can explain that one. Names are the concepts of demons, basic principles that predate reality and to change a name is to change the world, the value of everything (scans are in the demon physiology)

So you guys would need to prove Sources to have an effect on reality that doesn't involve the character/object it governs
Click to expand...
And why does the accepted explanation itself say that a type 3 concept would be a type 3 concept because even if it is linked to an object, destroying this concept would not destroy the object to which it is linked? In addition to also saying that they are subject to a higher scale.
 
@Dog3352 what part of the concept page remotely says that for type 3? Can you quote that because I’m not seeing it.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Dog3352 what part of the concept page remotely says that for type 3? Can you quote that because I’m not seeing it.
Click to expand...
How about... is that literally the accepted explanation? In the same way that you linked a link to the topic where I accept changes in the concept, I am using the accepted explanation in the topic.
The explanation itself says that the object attached to a type 3 concept would not be destroyed even if the type 3 concept were destroyed, and even says that the concept could still have a larger scale.
 
Dog3352 said:
How about... is that literally the accepted explanation? In the same way that you linked a link to the topic where I accept changes in the concept, I am using the accepted explanation in the topic.
The explanation itself says that the object attached to a type 3 concept would not be destroyed even if the type 3 concept were destroyed, and even says that the concept could still have a larger scale.
Click to expand...
Glassman is talking about the concept page: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Conceptual_Manipulation

3. Lesser Fundamental Concepts: Concepts that don't meet the same standards as Type 1 or Type 2, such as personal concepts that continue to govern the object in question, merely on a more specific scale, or concepts whose nature is not elaborated upon. Case-by-case specifications and explanations are necessary for such concepts and examples, and they are likely not going to meet the same standards for abilities such as High-Godly regeneration that other concepts may. Conceptual manipulation of this type can be resisted by those who resist sufficiently similar abilities, even if the exact mechanics may differ.
Click to expand...

Nowhere here it is stated what you mentioned. Maybe it was accepted but it wasn't implemented, in that case you would need to ask those that did the concept changes.
 
@Dog3352 the accepted explanation is what was linked. Type 1 is an independent universal concept, type 2 is a dependent universal concept, and type 3 being a specific concept. You’re not really making any sense here
 
Dereck03 said:
The main argument is based on the fact that erase the source does not imply erasing it in the past as well..... Which is highly incorrect

Taking into account the almighty sword, it proves that destroying the source will erase the past, present and future.
Click to expand...
I don't have much of an opinion on the thread, but I saw this and

No, that's not what it does at all. All the almighty sword proves is that it specifically, erases the source across the past present and future, the quote being that said sword specifically will annihilate the source, present, past and future, not just that anything else destroying it in any way destroys it across the entirety of time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dog3352
  • Locked
Updating Source to CM type 1
Replies
9
Views
2K
EldemadeDityjon
EldemadeDityjon
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
  • Locked
Additions for Anos Voldigoad
Replies
7
Views
3K
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
AnosVoldigoadDemonKing
Guileal
Anos Voldigoad Immortality Type 6 removal
Replies
29
Views
4K
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
Rakih_Elyan
  • Locked
Deleting Misunderstood Information Manipulation Type 2 From Genshin UES Fundamental Mechanism
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
Rakih_Elyan
Rakih_Elyan
Tatsumi504
  • Locked
Maou Gakuin: Anos and Cosmology Additions
2 3
Replies
85
Views
11K
Tatsumi504
Tatsumi504
Back
Top