Fallen London's Conceptual Manipulation

[The_Causality]

Well, i just want an explanation of their Conceptual Manipulation, i don't doubt of it being Conceptual but from what i see on their profile, the justification are only Type 3:

Can remove the concepts of Death, Life, Physics, and even Math from various locations if he wants to
	~ Salt's profile​

Demons have shown the capacity to remove concepts using their Law Removing abilities, including removing the concept of math in such a way that numerical logic ceases to functio
	~ Deviless's profile​

Not only these profile have a Type 3 justification for a Type 2 Conceptual manipulation

 

[Setsuna_tenma]

wouldn`t the concepts of maths and physics be type 2 ?

 

[The_Causality]

wouldn`t the concepts of maths and physics be type ?

I'm mixed between 3 and 4

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I am not as knowledgable on the demons (at least not as much as the other members), but I know that Salt and stuff like math definitely function more like type 2. Its more like they have removed the concept from the area, or make it so that it no longer applies.

 

[The_Causality]

I am not as knowledgable on the demons (at least not as much as the other members), but I know that Salt and stuff like math definitely function more like type 2. Its more like they have removed the concept from the area, or make it so that it no longer applies.

Type 2 need to be transcendant of the reality/not bound by it, for exemple Math existed when we created it (when existence has been created), he is bound by the reality he exist in, Type 2 is completly transcendant of it. Math isn't transcendant of the reality, it can't be type 2

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Ok? Doesn't mean you cannot remove the application of a type 2 concept from a portion of reality

 

[The_Causality]

Ok? Doesn't mean you cannot remove the application of a type 2 concept from a portion of reality

Yes you can (i guess) but my point is Math isn't a type 2 Concept, you can indeed erase a Concept in a area but what Fallen london's guys make is removing a Type 3 Concept

 

[Hykuu]

Agree with Iap.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Yes you can (i guess) but my point is Math isn't a type 2 Concept, you can indeed erase a Concept in a area but what Fallen london's guys make is removing a Type 3 Concept

What are you talking about lol? Math can be both a type 2 and type 1 concept depending upon the context. This is actually like a major debate irl on what the nature of Math actually is, so it isn't exactly straight forward. Fallen London points more towards a type 2 concept of math

 

[The_Causality]

Many Concept can be both Type 2 and 1 but need way way more evidence, My point is that usually, All Existing concepts are Type 3 without a specific cosmology, including Math since he has been created when the Universe has been creased, he is bound. So by definition this cannot à Type 2 but Type 3

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Just to back this up a bit more. Numbers themselves are counted in the math they manipulate. That is definitely at east a type 2 concept

 

[Udlmaster]

Okay, this depends on multiple factors.

Firstly, how are the concepts treated? Because, so far, they sound like type 3.

Then, Mathmatics isn't a Type 2 concept, Mathmatics is Mathmatics, it can me Mathmatics manipulation or it can be a Concept of any variety, 4, 3 or 2.

It all depends on how the Concepts are treated, which, so far, they aren't type 2.

You need to explain why they're a Type 2 concept.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I am aware. Math can vary from verse to verse, but if you include numbers in with the concept of math, then a type 2 concept is really the lowest you can go on the conceptual latter. When the concept of math is erased, logic along a numerical scale stops functioning. Even if you erased all of existence, you would still have zero things that exist.

 

[Udlmaster]

Not really, Math varies, as destroying the concepts of a Numerical system is purely Type 4, not 3 or 2, as a Numerical system is purely perceptive and not an innate concept of reality.

And naturally, Logic within a numerical system ceases, as the numerical system doesn't exist, but this is the same as all other concepts.

If I remove the concept of Darkness, then the logic with Darkness ceases to exist too.

You just have to prove the concept is Type 2.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I know math varies from verse to verse. I am saying that what Fallen London counts as math includes numbers. And no, a numerical system is not purely perceptive. The Number of planets was the same before humans were here to observe it. If all life ceased to exist, the number of corpses left over would still be quantifiable. The base 10 system we have may be a type 4 concept, but the numbers themselves are not. The fact that this is not meerly the system of numbers but the numbers themselves that cease to function proves it is at least type 2.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Also, Darkness is a bad example, since it depends on how you view absense. What you consider darkness to be is a can of worms in and of itself.

 

[Udlmaster]

No, a numerical system is type 4, as there are 8 Planets in the Solar system but If I removed the concept of a Numerical system, the number of Planets is the solar system would be in a new numerical system, like 7e or seque, instead of 8.

If the concept of Numbers ceased then the amount of bodies would cease to be, there would be a trans-finite amount of bodies, the number of planets would become a trans-finite amount, as there are no finite numbers (as the concept of Numbers is gone), so there'd only be an expression of them, which would be algebraic in nature, not numerical.

 

[The_Causality]

I know math varies from verse to verse. I am saying that what Fallen London counts as math includes numbers. And no, a numerical system is not purely perceptive. The Number of planets was the same before humans were here to observe it. If all life ceased to exist, the number of corpses left over would still be quantifiable. The base 10 system we have may be a type 4 concept, but the numbers themselves are not. The fact that this is not meerly the system of numbers but the numbers themselves that cease to function proves it is at least type 2.

This definition is Type 3.

Anyway, i've asked other people to found if it's type 3 or not. I will not be available for a moment

 

[Udlmaster]

So, it's up to those saying it's Type 2 to prove that it's Type 2 by the way the concepts work, not the concept it can affect.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

No, a numerical system is type 4, as there are 8 Planets in the Solar system but If I removed the concept of a Numerical system, the number of Planets is the solar system would be in a new numerical system, like 7e or seque, instead of 8.
If the concept of Numbers ceased then the amount of bodies would cease to be, there would be a trans-finite amount of bodies, the number of planets would become a trans-finite amount, as there are no finite numbers (as the concept of Numbers is gone), so there'd only be an expression of them, which would be algebraic in nature, not numerical.

It seems we have missunderstood eachother. When I am talking about the numbers, I mean something like raw tally marks (I use these because regardless of what numerical system is being used by a given culture, it is still compatable). A Decimal or D'ni number system is for sure a type 4 concepts. I do not dispute that. But I am not talking about are not the way we describe the numbers. I am talking about amounts themselves.

I'm not sure I see your point here. This would be the case regardless of what level the concept of math was 3 and up. Also, not quite true about the algebraic thing. Algebra and the fundimental theorems of it require numbers to exist.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

This definition is Type 3.

Anyway, i've asked other people to found if it's type 3 or not. I will not be available for a moment

Things participate in numbers. Even if there was nothing in reality, that would still merely be participating in zero. My main point of that was merely to prove it was note a type 4 concept, not to define it properly

 

[Udlmaster]

The Concept of Math can be type 4 under a subjectivist verse, where all things are nothing more than made up by the mind.

That's why you have to prove that they're type 2, so if you have scans of the concepts, then do show, otherwise, all of this is based on baseless claims, which can be dismissed and put to 3 or 4 without context.

As for Algebraic part, it requires Numerical system to be determinate, but it doesn't require it to function, such as ( Y x Z ) = YZ, it just doesn't have a determined value without a numerical system to give it meaning.

 

[Udlmaster]

The reason why we're asking is because it sounds like a type 3 Concept:

"These concepts, however, exist simultaneously with and are bound by the object of the concept. In this way, an abstract Aristotelian Concept can be destroyed by destroying all objects of the concept, restored by re-making an object of a previously existent concept, or changed by changing all objects of the concept across reality. This, however, does not qualify for this form of conceptual manipulation, and is rather treated as a byproduct of another action akin to a "domino effect". This type of conceptual manipulation can only be obtained if the abstract concept itself is changed directly, and not by indirect methods. For example, destroying humanity and thus "ending the concept of humanity" would not qualify, while directly "ending the concept of humanity" and thus destroying humanity would qualify."

It fits the description perfectly.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I think this sounds awfully vague and if anything needs more context to it.

 

[RotofBots]

I do agree they sound more like type 3 opposed to type 2 Conceptual Manipulation.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

@Udl

Yes, I already acknoledged that. But, if a verse were to include numbers in what they call math then it would have to be at least a type 2 concept. Actually, an exception to that would be a verse like Touhou, where perception or naming a concept differentiates it. If a verse has reality as inherently subjective then the concept of math including numbers could be a type 4 concept. However, that is not something that can be assumed without precedent

By this I am proving it is a type 2 concept. Numbers, unless the verse has reality as inherently subjective, is a type 2 concept. Placing math (as including numbers) at type 4 would take more proof then merely 2. Numbers (as in tally marks and such) cannot be a type 3 concept (Unless a verse has a special case, but that would not be the default) because even if everything only existed in a finite number of things, you could still count beyond the number of things that exist. If there was only one universe, of finite size, with a finite number of atoms and matter, so that no quantity beyond a certain extremely high number exists, thus nothing participating in the concept of some number beyond that extremely high quantity, you could still count past that highest quantity.

The funamental theorem of algebra is as follows: " Any polynomial of degree has roots." Polynomials aren't a thing without numbers.

 

[Udlmaster]

Yes, but you haven't shown any evidence to have us think anything so far, there's no evidence what so ever, and I know that even with Evidence, you can still be denied.

Even when you have more people agreeing with you, you can be denied even with them.

So, you need overwhelming evidence for everything.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Yes, but you haven't shown any evidence to have us think anything so far, there's no evidence what so ever, and I know that even with Evidence, you can still be denied.
Even when you have more people agreeing with you, you can be denied even with them.

So, you need overwhelming evidence for everything.

This is evidence. Let's start with something we know. They count numbers in with the concept of math. From this, we know that it would either be a type 2 or a type 4 depending on if reality is subjective or not. Fallen London's cosmology is defined by hierarchies and beuracracy, not by perception.

That doesnt have anything to do with what I said at all. What are you talking about?

The fundamental theorem of algebra is self defining and proven over and over. That's not something we need to worry about.

 

[Udlmaster]

You need more than statements, Iapitus.

I had over 5 statements and scans, Word of God and all, about WoD and I was denied, even though I had the majority vote and was still denied because reasons.

You need many statements and scans.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

You need more than statements, Iapitus.
I had over 5 statements, Word of God and all, about WoD and I was denied, even though I had the majority vote and was still denied because reasons.

You need many statements and scans.

Case by case basis exist. Sunless Sea is essentially a choose your own Adventure novel but with gameplay in between parts of it, and Fallen London (the game, not the verse) is basically just a choose your own Adventure novel but with stats and luck checks. Its basically all statements.

Cool. What kind of verse is it?

All I have been talking about so far is things that are true of all verses, and broad sweeping facts about the cosmology. The fact that concepts manip is already a undeniable and we are just determining what kind they are, means that this is what we are doing. Figuring out what kind of concept they are. I'm working by process of elimination

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Oh, and just to be clear. I dont think it is cool that your upgrade for WoD got rejected, just wanted to be clear

 

[Udlmaster]

Oh, and just to be clear. I dont think it is cool that your upgrade for WoD got rejected, just wanted to be clear

I know, it really sux.

But yeah, basically, do you have any scans for these too?

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

The scans for most of the stuff about Salt is floating around in other Fallen London threads. I dont have anything on the demon's concept manip beyond the stuff that has to do with The Iron Republic. That's the other Fallen London debaters area of expertise

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I think this sounds awfully vague and if anything needs more context to it.

This right here. These statements are nice, but they don't give much context. Without proof of either Type 4, 2, or 1, we usually default to Type 3.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I explained above why it would either have to be 2 or 4, but because of how the cosmology works it couldn't be 4.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Can you quote what specifically makes it type 2? Type 4 & 2 are pretty different so I'm not sure how there's an "either or" situation with them.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I am on mobile, so I cannot quote it and keep good formatting, but I can summarise the best I can. I basically worked by process of elimination. It isnt type 1, since it isnt 1-A obviously. It isn't a type 3 concept, because numbers are not confined to the objects that partake in them. I went into a long explanation or example of why this is the case.

Basically: we know it isn't a type 3. We know it isnt a type 1. Therefore it is either a type 4 or a type 2. That is how it is an either or. I'll explain why it isnt a type 4 once I get on a computer. Cuz I just realised that I dont wanna retype the old Testament on my phone lol

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I think you're misinterpreting what an "object" is. The "object" of a concept isn't a physical hard item, but anything that partakes in the conceptual. A thought or idea, such as math, would be the object of the concept of math. All the universals are abstract and can have metaphysical things partaking in them, and that doesn't prove Type 2. Type 2 must be transcendent of the reality it governs.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Math isn't something that existed "after" a period in time. It's something that always has and always will exist.


So destroying math as a whole is Type 2.

 

[The_Causality]

From now i'm on Assalt, Ultima and Udl's side

I'll just wait Kalt's opinion about it, if no one disagree, it seem that a small downgrade is coming.