• 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.
But i will be frank i do not think these two contradict, type 1 NEP still has a concept while AE is embodying a concept, maybe i am not making sense but that is what i think.
 
M has both, his existence is something that's there but not there, nothingness, yet at the same time he is the concept of jet black with control over all areas of darkness, his jet black being something that transcends time, space and causality.

Type 1 NEP is lack of anything material, but can still be conceptualized, so i don't think it's contradictory or anything.
 
Pretty sure there are characters with AE1, and NEP2. How that would work is beyond me.
Yea that i don't get, NEP2 is nonexistence at a conceptual level, if they don't exist as a concept, how could they be an abstract of a concept or anything else really.

tenor.gif
 
I feel like people relies too much in subjectivity, taking metaphors too literal, when trying to determinate x type of NEP or AE...

The reality is that, at least in few types, they pretty much the same; in one verse an being with conceptual physiology may be called nonexistent due having no body and being imperceptible, existing only as it's own will, but in other verse is not considered as such, as it's existance and influence are pretty much real. In some way, both interpretations are right.
 
Back
Top