ok so, what i say is that hitpoints where any type of damage in any context of damage can steal mean all 4 subordinate concepts of damage are at play at the same time. all you have to do is say that if a character takes any damage regardless of source, regardless of context, that damage has a net effect where all 4 concepts of hitpoints are lowered.
your response is that i have created a situation where the properties of the original abstraction are different than the properties of my new abstraction. in the original abstraction the subordinate concepts don't all need to be equal or even present in any instance of losing hp. in mine they do.
Yep that's a recap.
can you explain how the abstraction where all subordinate properties of hitpoints being lowered evenly by damage whenever hitpoints are lowered by damage is a different abstraction than the abstraction for hitpoints in D&D?
Yes. The explanation is what I gave you in the post above. To summarize,
In the original abstraction the subordinate concepts don't all need to be equal or even present in any instance of losing hp. In yours they do. Essentially, that difference has a direct impact on narratives that can be established with each abstraction.
additionally can you explain where in the rules of the game that it implies that is not how the subordinate concepts of hitpoints are reduced by damage when hitpoints are reduced by damage?
Kind of. I shouldn't have to emphasize this fact but I guess I do. Game rules aren't typically written to tell you how things don't work. The most I can provide you are the rules for the abstraction 5e is using - which make no mention that all the subordinate concepts of the systems hp abstraction must be equal in every instance of hp loss. In fact we can find rules that suggest but never explicitly say the exact opposite - such that creatures normally show signs of battle when below half hp.
can you then explain how a character who is blind and deaf who is stabbed with a piercing weapon that hits them and deals piercing damage CAN NOT lower a character's physical durability?
Why would I need to explain that? Physical durability is included in the abstraction of hp. Characters most certainly can have their physical durability damaged as part of their hp loss.
can you then explain how a character who takes psychic damage that lowers their hitpoints can not have their mental durability reduced?
Same explanation as above.
can you then explain how it changes the abstraction of hitpoints if a character who takes piercing damage while deaf and blind has their mental durability, luck and will to live lowered at the same rate as their physical durability as a reaction to having their physical durability lowered?
That doesn't change the abstraction.. A single instance of hp loss can be narrated using any part of 5e's abstraction.
finally what use is hitpoints as an abstraction if as a gm or player we have no way of using hitpoints as an abstraction to describe how damage narrative effects our characters without changing the nature of the original abstraction because we decide the damage lowers all subordinate concepts evenly or not?
You are mixing up 2 concepts.
1. There is the concept of a specific abstraction, which has a specific structure and specific properties itself and includes specific subordinate concepts.
2. Then there is the concept of using one of those subordinate concpets to narratively explain an instance of the abstract hp mechanic.
You seem to be conflating these two things quite a bit. For example, the portion of your post I quoted right above this - you are asking why we can't 2 without changing 1. But no one is saying that 2 can't be done without changing 1. In fact, That's what's making this so hard to discuss, you keep bringing up examples of changing 2 as if it has anything to do with 1 at all.
can you tell me what the point of listing subordinate concepts to hitpoints is if we can not decide ourselves how it does then without changing the abstract into a new abstract?
We can decide that ourselves (in the context of the narrative, not in the context of the abstraction). What we cannot do is eliminate a unique subordinate concept from the abstraction without changing the abstraction. But that doesn't mean that in each narrative instance of hp loss that every subordinate concept must be present, only that they exist as possibilities that can explain any instance of hp loss.
In Conclusion,
I guess it might be best to explain it this way. The HP Abstraction includes all subordinate concepts and combinations of those concepts. Some subset of those concepts and combinations of them
can be used in narrative to explain the hp loss.
To remove subordinate concepts or combinations of concepts from the abstraction then changes the abstraction - essentially reducing the set of possible explanations that can be used to narrate hp loss. To remove them in a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction.
To add a subordinate concept to an abstraction still allows for the subordinate concepts (and combinations of them) that were available before but also new ones that weren't available before. To add a subordinate concept to a specific narrative explanation has no effect on the abstraction (unless it was a concept not originally included in the abstraction to begin with).