Talk:Meta-Existence/@comment-4839446-20181007222833/@comment-29564364-20181030174735

«Because conceptual overreaching ends up nullifying the power's core [identity], which then defeats the purpose of its creation in the first place.» What even is "conceptual overreaching" in the first place? Because by the way you used it in relation to Nonexistence, it seems to mean a power achieving a result outside of or contrary to its nature, which is exactly what Meta Addition would also be doing by inducing erasure.

«What stops this power from "adding" a supernatural phenomenon that can freely manipulates or erase anything?» That's not the question I asked. Read again.

«So at the end of the day, what stops users from indirectly granting their every wish with a mere thought? Nothing. Fundamentally nothing.» I'm not arguing against that either.

«While NE can be conceptually contained by its substractive nature,» Its subtractive nature is in no way conceptually limiting because it can indirectly achieve the same results as Meta Addition can directly (e.i. addition or creation) by erasing the nonexistence of the desired effect, just as Meta Addition can indirectly achieve the same result as Nonexistence can directly (e.i. subtraction or erasure) by inducing the nonexistence of the undesired effect.

«I am confident in this standpoint because it is quite clearly accurate. No more, no less.» Basically, your position is that 1+(-1)=0, but we can't do 0-(-1)=1 because it "doesn't make much sense" and something about "conceptual overreaching". That is a blatant double standard on your part and it's not what I would qualify as "quite clearly accurate".