PDA

View Full Version : Delete please



dman11235
2008-09-21, 06:29 PM
Yeah. I was stupid.

Owrtho
2008-09-21, 06:36 PM
Gah.. Must restist ... Must vote on content.... But Cthulhu.. Gahh can't ...
I vote for Vua-Xuu q'R'lyeh
Nooooo

Owrtho

AstralFire
2008-09-21, 06:37 PM
Gah.. Must restist ... Must vote on content.... But Cthulhu.. Gahh can't ...
I vote for Vua-Xuu q'R'lyeh
Nooooo

Owrtho

...dman, what did you do to this poor man?

Owrtho
2008-09-21, 06:45 PM
‽‽‽

There is nothing there!! It doesn't exist... If only I'd realized it sooner. I now see. Not only does this not exist. Nothing else exists as well. Even this mesage does not exist. It is all just the delusions of my nonexistant mind. How could I have been so easily fooled.....

Owrtho

dman11235
2008-09-21, 11:48 PM
This was going to be the voting thread for the current PrC contest, but I was stupid, and though I started it on time. And so it ends on Tuesday, not last night. And because of this I have two new entries...

thegurullamen
2008-09-21, 11:54 PM
‽‽‽

There is nothing there!! It doesn't exist... If only I'd realized it sooner. I now see. Not only does this not exist. Nothing else exists as well. Even this mesage does not exist. It is all just the delusions of my nonexistant mind. How could I have been so easily fooled.....

Owrtho

Frigging solipsists. Somebody get the hose!!

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 12:20 AM
Frigging solipsists. Somebody get the hose!!

That statement is inacurate, for solipisists believe that their mind exists, while I clearly stated in my mad ramblings that I did not think my mind exists.

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 12:28 AM
That statement is inacurate, for solipisists believe that their mind exists, while I clearly stated in my mad ramblings that I did not think my mind exists.

Owrtho

A good point, but you're making yourself sound more irrational than solipsists. If anything, I should get two hoses. You're not making things any better for yourself, you know.

Also, I don't know about "clearly" stated, what with the "mad ramblings" and all.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 12:56 AM
A good point, but you're making yourself sound more irrational than solipsists. If anything, I should get two hoses. You're not making things any better for yourself, you know.

But it works for them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4860058&postcount=5). I see no reason why it isn't valid.


Also, I don't know about "clearly" stated, what with the "mad ramblings" and all.

A valid point, too bad neither you nor it exist for me to take note of it. And for that matter neither do I.

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 01:00 AM
But it works for them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4860058&postcount=5). I see no reason why it isn't valid.

VVVVV Look down VVVVV


A valid point, too bad neither you nor it exist for me to take note of it. And for that matter neither do I.

Owrtho

Validity doesn't exist in a world that doesn't exist but why bother talking about what doesn't exist; it matters little, not existing and all.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 01:12 AM
Ah, but as the world doesn't exist it matters not what validity one of the nonexistant denezins choose to accept and go by. Thus no restrictions to validity can be placed upon one who does not choose them as none of it (the restrictions the validity the people etc.) exist to begin with. As such only what one wishes to be affected by can effect them (as much as a nonexistant thing can effect a nonexistant thing).

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 01:16 AM
Ah, but as the world doesn't exist it matters not what validity one of the nonexistant denezins choose to accept and go by. Thus no restrictions to validity can be placed upon one who does not choose them as none of it (the restrictions the validity the people etc.) exist to begin with. As such only what one wishes to be affected by can effect them (as much as a nonexistant thing can effect a nonexistant thing).

Owrtho

I believe it is of the utmost importance that we establish a few baselines here. You've already begun with your wish-to-be-true treatise, but I think we should push the point forward and lay out an ontology of sorts for the laws of non-being (since a normal ontology would fall flat in a non-existent universe.)

I) First and foremost, non-existent things shall behave in all ways like their existent (pseudo-)counterparts except when they do not.
II) The same holds true for all non-existent forces and laws of non-existence.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 01:25 AM
I believe it is of the utmost importance that we establish a few baselines here. You've already begun with your wish-to-be-true treatise, but I think we should push the point forward and lay out an ontology of sorts for the laws of non-being (since a normal ontology would fall flat in a non-existent universe.)

I) First and foremost, non-existent things shall behave in all ways like their existent (pseudo-)counterparts except when they do not.
II) The same holds true for all non-existent forces and laws of non-existence.

Befor coming to the "laws of non-being" I'll point out I was not making wish-to-be-true treatise, but rather deny-to-be-true treatise.
As for you points, the first has the issue of that there are no existent counterparts, only the non-existant ones which we percieve in our non-existant minds.
The second is fine ignoring the descrepency in the first law.

As for others, if it is indead true that everything is false, then one with the knowledge and will not to care about a fellow nonexistant fact or entity can ignor it as if it had never been (which indead it hadn't).

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 01:39 AM
Befor coming to the "laws of non-being" I'll point out I was not making wish-to-be-true treatise, but rather deny-to-be-true treatise.
As for you points, the first has the issue of that there are no existent counterparts, only the non-existant ones which we percieve in our non-existant minds.
The second is fine ignoring the descrepency in the first law.

As for others, if it is indead true that everything is false, then one with the knowledge and will not to care about a fellow nonexistant fact or entity can ignor it as if it had never been (which indead it hadn't).

Owrtho

Ah yes, but can we be absolutely certain without any margin for error that there are in fact no existing things, forces or ideas? This first law seeks to establish the mere possibility of such a notion. And the second follows suit.

Ah, but we must be careful here for he (or she or non-he and non-she or eir and non-eir respectively) who, being (or not-being) of the will and knowledge enough to simply ignore a fellow non-existent out of non-existence should be careful of two important things.

A) He can only ignore that which allows itself to be ignored or cannot match the will and knowledge necessary to prevent from being ignored and subsequently fades from non-existence which brings up point
B) That which is ignore and ceases to non-exist may, for lack of a proper ontology (as we have yet to establish it) spontaneously come to exist. This of course assumes a dichotomous existence/non-existence nature of reality/non-reality but, as we have yet to establish an ontology, there is no reason to assume that tjis is not the case and, as a matter of our discussions thusfar, has come to be the case by virtue of our knowledge of it and our subconscious willing of it to occur! In essence, the jump from non-existence to existence may not be as one-way as we previously thought.

Fri
2008-09-22, 01:47 AM
this is the most amusing thread I've read this week.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 01:48 AM
A valid point, however, there is an issue with A, which assumes that is one does ignore a non-existant entity or non entity out of its non existance, that they are completely gone from the non existant state they previously did not exist in as opposed to the possibility that it be but a subjective removal of what was not there to begin with that those with a lesser knowledge or will (be it that they exist or not), will still note it as being there to the full extent that its lack of existance allows it.

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 02:02 AM
A valid point, however, there is an issue with A, which assumes that is one does ignore a non-existant entity or non entity out of its non existance, that they are completely gone from the non existant state they previously did not exist in as opposed to the possibility that it be but a subjective removal of what was not there to begin with that those with a lesser knowledge or will (be it that they exist or not), will still note it as being there to the full extent that its lack of existance allows it.

Owrtho

Ah, but here we have another qualm:

As the willful and ingenious ignorer may well ignore a great many things, having both the will and the knowledge to do so, is it not possible that said knowledge extends to things far beyond the ken of most fellow non-existent beings and therefore, is it not only possible but probable that our dear Willful Ignorer has begun to ignore that which did not non-exist by any other standards other than his own? Has he not cause the non-existences of those which did not already non-exist? If so, has he not caused the possibility of their existence by allowing the concession that there once non-existed some non-entity which needed to be ignored and in doing so, culled it from non-existence in a manner which disqualified it from the non-existences of those around him--indeed, the entirety of the non-existent world? What becomes of such a specimen? I hold that my second series of laws on non-existent entities holds true for such an object.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 02:16 AM
Ah, but that is under the assumption that they actualy have any terms of existance themselves. One cannot use that which does not exist to show what does exist. Similarly, they could simply be ignoring their own non-existance as opposed to that of the other nonentities. Also, their ignoring of nonexistant reality could become so ingrained that they do it naturaly with no attempted thought. One could also view their subjective ignoring of non reality as enforcment of its non existant state. And if reality is all but the figment of a non existant imagination, then all is moot as the imagination would have to exist befor the figments it imagines could even be considerd as existing. Ignoting that however, the ignoring of non reality could be but an acceptance of its lack of reality as opposed to a willful attempt to remove it from their path.

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 02:18 AM
Ah, but that is under the assumption that they actualy have any terms of existance themselves. One cannot use that which does not exist to show what does exist. Similarly, they could simply be ignoring their own non-existance as opposed to that of the other nonentities. Also, their ignoring of nonexistant reality could become so ingrained that they do it naturaly with no attempted thought. One could also view their subjective ignoring of non reality as enforcment of its non existant state. And if reality is all but the figment of a non existant imagination, then all is moot as the imagination would have to exist befor the figments it imagines could even be considerd as existing. Ignoting that however, the ignoring of non reality could be but an acceptance of its lack of reality as opposed to a willful attempt to remove it from their path.

Owrtho

Well, I may not agree with you sir, but I'll fight to the death to see that you have the right to say it. And I bid you a good night. What's left of it anyway. ("Twilight Zone Theme" plays...fade to black)

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 02:26 AM
Lol, What matters boundries of night and day, when neither they nor those they effect exist?

Anyways, discusion of non existantce aside, we truely hijacked and derailed this thread from its original,and now humorously enough nonexistant, purpose. The conversation however has given me the idea that it might indeed be entertaining to design a campaign (or perhapse a templet for already existing ones) around the idea that all reality is in fact non existant (including yourself) with rules for disbelieving reality and the like.
But as you said this semblence of reality shows it to be early. Let any further discussion of the matter be done later.

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 12:43 PM
Lol, What matters boundries of night and day, when neither they nor those they effect exist?

Anyways, discusion of non existantce aside, we truely hijacked and derailed this thread from its original,and now humorously enough nonexistant, purpose. The conversation however has given me the idea that it might indeed be entertaining to design a campaign (or perhapse a templet for already existing ones) around the idea that all reality is in fact non existant (including yourself) with rules for disbelieving reality and the like.
But as you said this semblence of reality shows it to be early. Let any further discussion of the matter be done later.

Owrtho

I smell a homebrew rehash of an Entropomancer coming up. Actually, I wouldn't mind undertaking that myself. Damn the one entry per contest rule! Hey, we just rerailed the thread!

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 01:15 PM
Wait, how did we rerail a thread that's original topic nolonger exists (if it ever did)? As for the Entropomancer, I take from the context that they would be similar to the Believers of the Void, but from the name that they would focus on reducing complexity in things (as in changing them to a simpler state).
However, I suggest that we start (in this thread) making rules to govern nonexistant settings (perhapse add some skills for awareness of nonexistance and the like with checks to go with it). For the most part it would behave like normal settings, but would require some rules for disbelieving things other than illusions and possibly for believing into nonbeing things that weren't there already (mind you these would be for all things, not just individual classes, though some might excel in it).

Owrtho

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 01:53 PM
The Plane of Nothingness

"I have had it with these mother****ing snakes on this--hey, where'd they go?"
"Where did what go?"

The Plane of Nothingness functions just like the Material Plane in all ways except for one notable difference. Nothing on it exists. Anyone of sufficient will who knows that they are on the Plane of Nothingness may make a Will save to disbelieve anything on the Plane, including those things which would normally exist were they not on the Plane.

Many who find themselves on the Plane of Nothingness rarely discover the truth of their locale as its similarities to the material are prefect in every way. Even when an entity of exceptional willpower negates the existence of a (non-)being, any not immediately affected by the change to the Plane may still percieve the entity as if its (non-)existence had not been invalidated.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 02:16 PM
In addition upon entering the plane of nothingness, one is turned into a non being. The plane of nothingness can not be left as all attempts to do so instead take one to the plane of nothingness's non-existant counterpart plane.

Owrtho

Zeta Kai
2008-09-22, 02:18 PM
In addition upon entering the plane of nothingness, one is turned into a non being. The plane of nothingness can not be left as all attempts to do so instead take one to the plane of nothingness's non-existant counterpart plane.

Wait, what? :smallconfused:

arguskos
2008-09-22, 02:19 PM
This thread makes the universe cry. Also, it wins at non-life. :smallcool:

-argus

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 02:24 PM
In addition upon entering the plane of nothingness, one is turned into a non being. The plane of nothingness can not be left as all attempts to do so instead take one to the plane of nothingness's non-existant counterpart plane.

Owrtho

True. Indeed, the only true way to leave the Plane of Nothingness is to be disbelieved by a being of exceptional will and knowledge and even then, one must aver one's own existence to be invalidated by such an act, thus rendering their non-existent portions just that and allowing for what may have once existed to reformulate, complete with all of the memories of what had transpired, except these, of course, do not exist.

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 05:02 PM
True, but in doing so there would be the risk of only conferming your nonexistance and thus cease to (non) exist without reforming at all.

Aside from that is the issue of entering the plane of nothingness, for as we know, it doesn't exist, thus neither do means of accessing it. It would require first an act of nonexistance to enter it.

Owrtho

Lappy9000
2008-09-22, 06:45 PM
What in the name of Pelor's left testicle is all this madness???

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 06:53 PM
nothing?

Owrtho

Zeta Kai
2008-09-22, 09:06 PM
What in the name of Pelor's left testicle is all this madness???

Bus-tid!!! :eek:

thegurullamen
2008-09-22, 09:10 PM
True, but in doing so there would be the risk of only conferming your nonexistance and thus cease to (non) exist without reforming at all.

Aside from that is the issue of entering the plane of nothingness, for as we know, it doesn't exist, thus neither do means of accessing it. It would require first an act of nonexistance to enter it.

Owrtho

Let me first point out that there is indeed the possibility that your first point is correct and that a non-entity that ceases to exist and/or non-exist may very well cease both simultaneously resulting in a non-entity for all intents and purposes.

That said, I see no reason why an act of non-existence would not cause the opposite to occur. The two (existence and non-existence) are dichotomous as my pseudo-ontological demonstrated. And the laws of polarity clearly state that inverting something will always cause the opposite to occur no matter what. The chances are quite high that a non-existent that ceases to non-exist would thus come to exist.

Eighth_Seraph
2008-09-22, 09:27 PM
Somewhere in this thread there is (or is not) something that will go in my signature (if it does not currently reside outside the range of my quasi-existence). I just have to decide what...

Owrtho
2008-09-22, 10:02 PM
Let me first point out that there is indeed the possibility that your first point is correct and that a non-entity that ceases to exist and/or non-exist may very well cease both simultaneously resulting in a non-entity for all intents and purposes.

That said, I see no reason why an act of non-existence would not cause the opposite to occur. The two (existence and non-existence) are dichotomous as my pseudo-ontological demonstrated. And the laws of polarity clearly state that inverting something will always cause the opposite to occur no matter what. The chances are quite high that a non-existent that ceases to non-exist would thus come to exist.

The issue here is that you are treating it as all things that don't exist are not in the plane of nothingness emulating existance to the fullest extent possible in a non existant area. However, when one does succesfulf refute the existance of a non existant force or entity on the plane of nothingness, it does not necasarily invert it, merely it comes to stop emulating its existance (which does not exist) on the plane of nothingness with no effect on any possible exiting planes if such a thing does indeed exist. Thus there would always be the risk in refuting your existance (and proving you don't exist) that you would not manage to leave the plane of nothingness, but just cease to be represented therein forever condeming yourself to not existing without even the aleviation of your non existant boredom that nonexistance offers (not that you'll care since you don't exist).

Also, I cannot tell if you made any mention of actualy entering the plane of nothingness asuming that such a place as is not in it exists.

Owrtho

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-22, 10:09 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked by OP request. Please feel free to continue your epistemological discussion elsewhere.