Specific concepts

[Ikelaggan]

Would specific concepts like creation self-evendently be a type 1 since nothing in reality can really just predate the concept by principle.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Are you referring to personal concepts?

 

[Ikelaggan]

Are you referring to personal concepts?

No just abstract concept of creation itself.

 

[Ikelaggan]

It's just when I think about it nothing in reality can exist without the concept of creation making in the first place.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

It's just when I think about it nothing in reality can exist without the concept of creation making in the first place.

The Greek Mythology book in my hands begs to differ.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Would specific concepts like creation self-evendently be a type 1 since nothing in reality can really just predate the concept by principle.

Different franchises, different rules. Certain works make Creation a T2 that disappears if everything comes to an end (concept included), you know? But even those may leave a void or something abstract enough to be beyond the bounds of Creation. A story that I have in the works also functions that way, because I took my inspiration from metastability and false vacuum decays. From our experience in everyday life there's rational basis to believe, but we can't default Creation to be T1 without lore fundamentals of the verse supporting the rating.

In conclusion: No. Creation could be type 2. Any work can also have some concept that predates Creation. Often things like the Void, Chaos or abstraction that Creation's concept fails to capture.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Different franchises, different rules.

I won't detest to that, but if has to be very specific verse related thing what if the abstraction embodies two oppositional concepts like creation and destruction as a duality. Would destruction be dependent on anything coexisting in reality.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

I won't detest to that, but if has to be very specific verse related thing what if the abstraction embodies two oppositional concepts like creation and destruction as a duality. Would destruction be dependent on anything coexisting in reality.

Still up to lore, answering that question. Type 1 concepts are self-reliant. A T1 for creation and destruction could have all that it represents warped or gone and remain as is. A T2 would not. Henceforth, independent and dependent.

Imagine a set. Let's call it C = {1, 2, 3}.
In a type 2 situation, “t2C” defines but is also defined by the totality of {1, 2, 3}. Destroy or warp all of {1, 2, 3} and the concept suffers the same consequences. If that set is now {4, 5, 6} or empty, so is type2C.
In a type 1 situation, “t1C” is self-reliant. All partakes in what it means but it does not need anything to partake in. Anything imaginable could be done to {1, 2, 3} and it would still not matter. The concept that “t1C = {1, 2, 3}” would remain outside reach.

From that, what we conclude is that the definition of conceptual type doesn't come from presupposed nature, but in how It is shown to interact with reality by each franchise.

Friendly tldr: Yes if type 2. No if type 1.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Still up to lore, answering that question. Type 1 concepts are self-reliant. A T1 for creation and destruction could have all that it represents warped or gone and remain as is. A T2 would not. Henceforth, independent and dependent.

Imagine a set. Let's call it C = {1, 2, 3}.
In a type 2 situation, “t2C” defines but is also defined by the totality of {1, 2, 3}. Destroy or warp all of {1, 2, 3} and the concept suffers the same consequences. If that set is now {4, 5, 6} or empty, so is type2C.
In a type 1 situation, “t1C” is self-reliant. All partakes in what it means but it does not need anything to partake in. Anything imaginable could be done to {1, 2, 3} and it would still not matter. The concept that “t1C = {1, 2, 3}” would remain outside reach.

From that, what we conclude is that the definition of conceptual type doesn't come from presupposed nature, but in how It is shown to interact with reality by each franchise.

So at most I just need evidence to prove the concepts aren't reliant on the aspects they embody to be a type 1.