Must a conceptual being be singular?

[Sakimori889]

In a certain work of fiction, it is explained that there are multiple beings who become the “Embodiment of Concept.” They are described as “Nature itself,” and it is stated that they exist wherever their corresponding object exists (for example: they are conceptual beings of water, they define water, and they are present in all liquids within their verse).

Then someone rejects this by arguing that these conceptual beings are more than one — there are around hundreds of them — so the concept is not defined by a single conceptual being.

Does this refute their conceptual manipulation?

 

[Sakimori889]

Bump

 

[AyOgUyS]

yes, u can have multiple characters in a verse with the same powers

 

[Sakimori889]

yes, u can have multiple characters in a verse with the same powers

Not powers. I mean, the concept itself not a single entity, but many. And that's make the concept be harder to destroy because there is no singular concept that reliant to their objects.

 

[AyOgUyS]

Not powers. I mean, the concept itself not a single entity, but many. And that's make the concept be harder to destroy because there is no singular concept that reliant to their objects.

yes you can have several concepts in a verse

 

[I'm_here_to_teach]

Not powers. I mean, the concept itself not a single entity, but many. And that's make the concept be harder to destroy because there is no singular concept that reliant to their objects.

The answer is no a concept doesnt have to be singular and the only thing that should theoretically be a one and can only have a one is a unchanging omnipotent monad/god.
Verse im scaling has a fundamental law and countless beings of that very law.