• 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.

Abstract Existence vs The World

PaChi2

PaChi2

VS Battles
Retired
20,729
3,679
What does Abstract Existence protect from? Do you need feats of conceptual manipulation to affect an Abstract? Or anyone can affect them? Is their non-corporeality different from the usual non-corporeality?

Thoughts?
 
Assuming you talk about real abstracts and not just physical beings related to a concept that we somehow call "Abstracts"...

It should protect you against hax that affects one's physical body, such as low-level EE, matter manip, etc. But it shouldn't grant you resistance to stuff like Soul Manip or Mind Manip on its own.

You do need feats of conceptual manipulation or at least feats of hurting abstracts in order to harm them or affect them in any physical way.

It is technically a sub-ability of Non-Corporeality, but it's certainly higher than your usual non-corporeality, given that a concept is far harder to affect than a ghost or something.
 
"Abstracts" who are just people with glorified Type 8 or just induces the destruction of a concept by their death shouldn't have any of the characteristics mentioned above, given that, again, they're just regular beings with an OP immortality. They don't get resistance, non-corporeality or anything.
 
I'll probably remake the thread at some point.

Although, if we are talking about type 1 abstracts, I think that they'd have some defenses against soul manip (more in the sense that they wouldn't die).

Less sure about mind hax, but it seems weird that we don't ask feats for that when we ask feats even for something as mundane as mind haxing an AI
 
@Kaltas We ask for feats of mindhaxxing an AI in cases where mindhax might be brain-based. But most fiction seems to have mindhax as affecting some kind of ethereal thing instead of the physical brain. In which case, it should probably work on a sentient abstract.
 
@Saik

Actually, pretty sure that we usually treat robots as immune to mind hax unless it specifically affected robots.

About mind haxing an abstract, it honestly depends from the series. The "you literally can't interact with me without conceptual stuff" kind of abstracts exist in fiction, but that's not the general rule
 
Don't think we do. Unless it's something dependent on the brain or any biological functions, pretty sure we assume it would work on a robot.

Well unless they have been shown/stated to have immunity/resistance to mindhax, I think we should just assume they are able to be affected, as long as the mindhax in question doesn't depend on biological functions.
 
If there's no one to comprehend, sustain, or otherwise create the abstract idea behind an Abstract's existence, do they exist?

Like, yeah, the thing we call time exists in a "real and tangible way (as far as we know, maybe)", but abstracts embody concepts and concepts only exist in the minds of sentient or Sapient creatures. Without them, concepts don't exist. So, IMO, a more apt definition is that these things embody physical aspects of "reality", rather than concepts themselves.

But keep it how you guys want it.
 
Personally I wouldn't say that only because you mindhaxed a person, you can mind hax something like a platonic/false platonic form.

It's simply something so different, given that one is a normal being, while the latter is basically a rule of reality.

Of course again, that's a rather extreme case.
 
That only applies to type 3 and 4 concepts.

In Platonism (1 and 2) concepts predate existence, are not bound by it, and define/shape it.
 
I mean, I always assumed that we assumed that mind hax affecting things that do not have a physical mind means affecting an incorporeal idea of "mind" (like how certain character can keep thinking without a physical body). Otherwise, anything lacking a brain (such as ghosts or nonexistent beings) would be immune to mind hax.
 
Plato was wrong, imo. Guy doesn't understand where a concept comes from. Lol but i'm just giving my opinion.
 
I see it more as a matter of "range", in a way. This concept (in the case of type 1,2,3 comcepts) exists beyond things like the physical universe, in a different plane of existence.

You'd mostly need feats in order to reach it, at least in my opinion
 
I think Saik makes sense to an extent, we generally do seem to assume mind manip works by affecting what we would consider the incorperal side of a mind, but I think when it comes to abstract existance it gets a bit more complex. Like a ghost getting mind haxxed makes sense in one verse, but in another, it wouldn't work, and be considered an immunity (like a lack of soul would when dealing with soul manip). Basically what I'm saying is that most fiction assumes it works on the idea of consciencess, but as a sorta lowball measure, it should probably be assumed to be biological /based on the mind normally with generous exceptions.

Btw, we do not assume mind manip works on robots unless shown to do so.
 
That's a weakness of the mindhax to not work on said abstracts, not a strength of the abstracts resistance to mindhax.

Abstract existence isn't non-existent physiology where the mind straight up doesn't exist even in a non-corporal manner.
 
I would agree with you on lower levels of abstract existence, but those that use, for example avatars due to just how abstract their true form is, or those who really take no real form, it gets more complex.

Its also assuming the incorporeal idea of a mind, which again, isn't a universal thing.
 
If those Avatar's do not carry the level of Abstract as the true form I fail to see how that's different.
 
Honestly, saying that someone doesn't need feats to mind hax a literal concept doesn't make sense. I totally get it for those that aren't high end abstracts, those that aren't purely concepts/ideas etc.

It's like saying that Luke Skywalker can mind hax the gravitational constant because the latter doesn't have showings of mind resistance. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Except that the gravitational constant isn't sentient and doesn't have a mind to mindhax.

I get the idea, but that's just a bad example.
 
K. Then we go back to the previous example of the platonic form. How do you mind hax something that you cannot reach?
 
What you say would imply that this being's mind exists in the same "place" as the conceptual being's body, ergo that the mind is also abstract in nature. Which is quite a lot of assumptions I'm not sure I can accept out of the blues.

Doesn't help that most fiction hardly deals with the concept of a "mind" outside of the brain at all. We're just expected to assume that an idea can have a mind and roll with it.
 
I'm not really sure why an abstract's mind should be somewhere else compared to their real self?
 
@Gar well the avatar's mind is still technically the true form's mind, which would be usually unreachable (unless its an idea, in which case it becomes a whole other can of worms that idk) unless its like, a pawn or something.
 
I mean, the idea of a mind existing on the same level as the concept of minds seems kinda silly to me, but still.

There are no real reasons to assume so either imo, if we're going to treat a mind as some ethereal thing that exists for everything equally. Either way, we're going by assumptions, because an idea having a mind is a silly idea already that we need to roll with.
 
Someone mind having a concept could be even easier if they were the only non-abstract being with a mind that existed. I know we treat concepts as the exact and extreme opposite of what their name says, but i'm just saying that if it's the literal definition, then these beings are on some SMT shit. If humans in SMT never believed in demons or gods, they wouldn't exist, right?
 
@Saik

It's weird but hey, that's what happens when you put conceptual manipulators into philosophy and try to see what happens.

The point is, if the concept has a mind, why it would be in a completely separated plane of existence? The mind should be with them. Otherwise, how is it even relevant to them if it isn't even an actual part of their being, but just a random thing left somewhere.

@Amexin

Just to be sure, have you read the Conceptual Manipulation page? What you are saying only applies to type 3 and 4 concepts.

If humans never built or conceived any sword, the platonic concept would exist, the Aristotelian one wouldn't
 
For the same reasons why a mind exists in a separate plane than one's physical body (assuming that ethereal = another plane): It just works. Also because every mind of every other being exists there, so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
12
Views
1K
Hixkaryana
Hixkaryana
LightSoul8
Dreamworks Death Downgrade
Replies
2
Views
402
Thelastmlg
Thelastmlg
TinYareYare
About the invisibility in abstract existence
Replies
0
Views
872
TinYareYare
TinYareYare
God243
Abstract existence type 2 removal
Replies
32
Views
3K
Mr. Bambu
Mr. Bambu
Quintessence_PE
  • Locked
YanSen ae type 1
Replies
19
Views
1K
Quintessence_PE
Quintessence_PE
Back
Top