- 1,436
- 859
@Dog3352 What do you think reality means? There's only one definition for reality when it comes to the context of conceptual hax.
What about this? Stop forcing your view of the meaning of reality into CM as if it were fact, Dark has already explained that reality is what the concept governs, not reality itself.I will try to explain this in simpler terms. Feel free to ask if there is anything confusing.
Think of "all of reality" (as in, literally everything, on any possible level) as a giant set. Now think of any particular element of reality (such as a person) as a small subset of that set. If reality is one massive circle, a person is a smaller circle contained inside that giant circle.
To qualify for Type 2, that concept must abstractly define that smaller circle such that, if the concept did not exist, the smaller circle would entirely ease to exist within the larger circle. The concept is so inexorably tied to everything related to the tangible existence of that person that, should the concept disappear, the tangible existence in all forms would too.
This is what "all reality within their area of influence" on the CM page refers to. Not necessarily the whole of reality, but the whole of that subset of reality - the "area of influence" for the concept.
In the case of sources, the "area of influence" is the person whom the source conceptualizes. So, if the source was a Type 2 Concept, removing the source would mean all elements of the subset that defines "the person" in all of reality would disappear with it. The subset of reality that contains all tangible aspects of their existence in all forms would disappear; the smaller circle would no longer exist within the larger circle.
The reason the provided evidence does not qualify for Type 2 is because it has not thoroughly proven this. It gets close enough to proving it that, as I've mentioned before, I'd be willing to hear out more quotes if they can be provided. But the exact influence the source has over the existence of the person is too vague within the given sources to prove that this truly applies to "all of reality within its area of influence" - for example, it hasn't been proven that the past existence of the person (which would be considered a part of "all of reality within its area of influence") is erased when the source is, meaning we do not know whether it has total precedence over the subset. Ergo, it only qualifies for Type 3 under the given evidence.
Last edited: