Abilities and Technologies: Speculation based on Science, Metaphysics, and Magic

[Doom_Paperclip]

Originally Posted by dniv

I understand your point and agree with you, but I want to clarify that even with the Limited version of Omnipotence which can do anything, it should still be able to improve... After all, if you can do anything within the bounds of reason, then you should be able to improve your method of executing anything within the bounds of reason. After all, what can be accomplished within the bounds of reason varies over time...

This is untrue. What is possible within the confines of logic is fixed and inalterable. The capability of mankind increases over time. That which is regarded as common sense is ever-changing. However, the three rules that define the foundation of logic have never changed:

1) The Law of Identity: For any proposition p, p=p. All entities are equal to themselves. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges and so on. An apple simply can't not be an apple, because it is an apple. If you make it so that it isn't an apple, for instance by eating and metabolizing it, then at that point it is not an apple and can't be an apple, because it isn't.

2) The Law of Non-Contradiction: For an proposition p, ¬(p v ¬p). A fact cannot be both true or false within the same context. If you haven't eaten breakfast this morning, then you can't have eaten your breakfast this morning, because you didn't. If you have eaten breakfast this morning, then you can't not have eaten your breakfast this morning, because you did.

3) The Law of Excluded Middle: For any proposition p, p ^ ¬p. You either killed someone this morning or you did not, you either planned to conquer the world or you did not. There is no weird third option where you neither killed someone, nor didn't not kill someone, you must have one or the other.

There are attempts at semi-legit alternate forms of logic that try to mess with the second or third laws, but they come under no small amounts of criticism. By and large these laws have remained unchanged since they were first discovered, though philosophers keep on arguing about the finer points of exact wording and interpretation.

So no, what is possible within the bounds of logic has never increased and cannot increase, because it is not logical for the foundations of logic to be mutable. There is a hard limit to what you can and cannot do within logic and once you reach it, via logical Omnipotence, then it is not logical to be able to go beyond that.

[dniv]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

This is untrue. What is possible within the confines of logic is fixed and inalterable. The capability of mankind increases over time. That which is regarded as common sense is ever-changing. However, the three rules that define the foundation of logic have never changed:

1) The Law of Identity: For any proposition p, p=p. All entities are equal to themselves. Apples are apples, oranges are oranges and so on. An apple simply can't not be an apple, because it is an apple. If you make it so that it isn't an apple, for instance by eating and metabolizing it, then at that point it is not an apple and can't be an apple, because it isn't.

2) The Law of Non-Contradiction: For an proposition p, ¬(p v ¬p). A fact cannot be both true or false within the same context. If you haven't eaten breakfast this morning, then you can't have eaten your breakfast this morning, because you didn't. If you have eaten breakfast this morning, then you can't not have eaten your breakfast this morning, because you did.

3) The Law of Excluded Middle: For any proposition p, p ^ ¬p. You either killed someone this morning or you did not, you either planned to conquer the world or you did not. There is no weird third option where you neither killed someone, nor didn't not kill someone, you must have one or the other.

There are attempts at semi-legit alternate forms of logic that try to mess with the second or third laws, but they come under no small amounts of criticism. By and large these laws have remained unchanged since they were first discovered, though philosophers keep on arguing about the finer points of exact wording and interpretation.

So no, what is possible within the bounds of logic has never increased and cannot increase, because it is not logical for the foundations of logic to be mutable. There is a hard limit to what you can and cannot do within logic and once you reach it, via logical Omnipotence, then it is not logical to be able to go beyond that.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by how what you can do within the bounds of logic varies over time. What can be done depends on the initial conditions of everything within existence at that point in time. Since the initial conditions change over time, what could be accomplished within reason should also change. That's all I meant.

I agree with your description of logic though. However, I do want to point out that for the third classical law of logic, it only works in the strictest context.

[Doom_Paperclip]

^I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Logical Omnipotence is limited by logic, not physics or even math. You can reverse entropy, make hydrogen the heaviest element and even create energy from nothing, all without violating logic. Heck, you can even make 1 + 1 = 3 as long as you can figure out how to rearrange the rest of mathematics in such a way that it is a logical result.

All this being the case, I don't understand how the current, past or future states of the universe can influence what can or can't be done with logical Omnipotence. If anything, with such power you should be able to completely disregard such factors. I'm afraid you'll have to make an example to illustrate your point.

[Hiss13]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

^I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Logical Omnipotence is limited by logic, not physics or even math. You can reverse entropy, make hydrogen the heaviest element and even create energy from nothing, all without violating logic. Heck, you can even make 1 + 1 = 3 as long as you can figure out how to rearrange the rest of mathematics in such a way that it is a logical result.

This. Mathematics is a set of rules and observations derived from arbitrary postulates and definitions which we as humans decided. That's why Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry exist, for example. One is based on the postulate that the other completely disregards. Change definitions or postulates and you change mathematics as we know it completely.

[dniv]

Originally Posted by Hiss13

This. Mathematics is a set of rules and observations derived from arbitrary postulates and definitions which we as humans decided. That's why Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry exist, for example. One is based on the postulate that the other completely disregards. Change definitions or postulates and you change mathematics as we know it completely.

No, the point is that I'm making Omnipotence do these things WITHOUT changing the definitions, because you DON'T have to be omnipotent to change a definition. You just need to be OMNIPOTENT to guarantee being able to enforce it, which is a stupid and redundant point. You should be able to provide a totally different sort of logical structure, without just redefining things. Here's an excellent source for reference:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Furthermore, the thing to keep in mind is that Mathematics DOESN'T change by changing the postulates. The structure for what is true and what is false remains the exact same. The only difference is that some things change their truth values, but how they go together in order to derive new ideas is still the same. The only way Omnipotence could reasonably supersede current schemes of logic is by creating a whole new structure for expressing/connecting/describing ideas. It can't just change things or else it can already be done by clever enough people, who just want to screw around.

[dragon1412]

Originally Posted by dniv

No, the point is that I'm making Omnipotence do these things WITHOUT changing the definitions, because you DON'T have to be omnipotent to change a definition. You just need to be OMNIPOTENT to guarantee being able to enforce it, which is a stupid and redundant point. You should be able to provide a totally different sort of logical structure, without just redefining things. Here's an excellent source for reference:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Furthermore, the thing to keep in mind is that Mathematics DOESN'T change by changing the postulates. The structure for what is true and what is false remains the exact same. The only difference is that some things change their truth values, but how they go together in order to derive new ideas is still the same. The only way Omnipotence could reasonably supersede current schemes of logic is by creating a whole new structure for expressing/connecting/describing ideas. It can't just change things or else it can already be done by clever enough people, who just want to screw around.

it is different, the thing is, what we human know do not encompass every single logic there are to it. The bounds of logic increase over time is actually what human found overtime, the logic itself never change. Let's say that about 30 years ago, scientific research believe that the sun is the highest temperature possible to achieve, but recently, far higher temperature was created, so was the limit of temperature in the universe increase, no, the temperature was always the same, it's just that human discover the method to produce greater heat. Even if you say that Logic = omnipotent, it's doesn't mean that you knew every single things there are to it.
Logic never change over time, it was and will always the same, it is just our knowledge that change how we perceive logic.

[Doom_Paperclip]

@dniv; Not to rush you, but I'm still waiting for a concrete example of how initial conditions can influence logical Omnipotence.

[LevelSeven]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

There are two types of Omnipotence. The first is logical, or limited, Omnipotence. This is defined as the ability to achieve anything within the confines of basic logic. Thus wiping out the Universe is fine, but making a stone so heavy you cannot lift it is not. This version cannot improve itself.

The second type is true, or absolute, Omnipotence. Here, you can do anything, including the things you can't. You can make a sandwich so big you cannot eat it, then eat it anyway. You can improve yourself more than infinitely. You can own more than everything and less than nothing at once. Logic no longer matters. Things need not be equal to themselves; you can have statements that are both true and false, neither true nor false or have a third value of smarmy. Indeed, the very rules by which logic operates can be twisted at will.

At this point, human brains just break. Our thought processes are founded on logic. It isn't always very good logic, but we do need logic of some form to understand a concept. Thus something superior to logic cannot be understood by man (unless, of course, an absolutely Omnipotent being chooses to make it understandable). Trust me when I say that the more you think of it, the more lost you become.

In any case, it doesn't matter in TAMNI, because Magic Gods are not Omnipotent, absolutely or otherwise. The text says they wield infinite possibilities, but it never uses the word "Omnipotent" to describe them. The distinction is important. Infinity is not necessarily all-encompassing. There are infinite natural numbers, but pi is not among them. Magic Gods are nigh-Omnipotent, but they still have things they cannot do, even within the confines of logic. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't need to hatch complicated plans to get what they want.

agree to 100.000.000% (while i can agree more than 100% )

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

There are two types of Omnipotence. The first is logical, or limited, Omnipotence. This is defined as the ability to achieve anything within the confines of basic logic. Thus wiping out the Universe is fine, but making a stone so heavy you cannot lift it is not. This version cannot improve itself.

The second type is true, or absolute, Omnipotence. Here, you can do anything, including the things you can't. You can make a sandwich so big you cannot eat it, then eat it anyway. You can improve yourself more than infinitely. You can own more than everything and less than nothing at once. Logic no longer matters. Things need not be equal to themselves; you can have statements that are both true and false, neither true nor false or have a third value of smarmy. Indeed, the very rules by which logic operates can be twisted at will.

At this point, human brains just break. Our thought processes are founded on logic. It isn't always very good logic, but we do need logic of some form to understand a concept. Thus something superior to logic cannot be understood by man (unless, of course, an absolutely Omnipotent being chooses to make it understandable). Trust me when I say that the more you think of it, the more lost you become.

In any case, it doesn't matter in TAMNI, because Magic Gods are not Omnipotent, absolutely or otherwise. The text says they wield infinite possibilities, but it never uses the word "Omnipotent" to describe them. The distinction is important. Infinity is not necessarily all-encompassing. There are infinite natural numbers, but pi is not among them. Magic Gods are nigh-Omnipotent, but they still have things they cannot do, even within the confines of logic. If that weren't the case, they wouldn't need to hatch complicated plans to get what they want.

PS: @SimoHalo; Gungnir did indeed destroy the Universe.

Well first of all Omnipotence is a concept rather then a substantive characteristic so the logic applied to the concept can be fairly maleable, you can consider the scenario that omnipotence exists but absolute omnipotence does not as a possibility.

On what basis do you claim a human mind will break due to twisted logic done by the concept of an absolute omnipotent, why cannot human mind adapt or evolve or made to adapt to the new logic? Pretty sure a early childhood kid has, which can be considered, from a psychological point of view be omnipotent(early freud) and for adults Megalomania, and thier concept of logic could be very narrow.With an overarching logic in existence which remains unknown or ignored by them.

Also can't omnipotence potentially be found within infinite possibilities? as those concept are not mutually exclusive to each other.

[Doom_Paperclip]

Originally Posted by sasoras

Well first of all Omnipotence is a concept rather then a substantive characteristic so the logic applied to the concept can be fairly maleable, you can consider the scenario that omnipotence exists but absolute omnipotence does not as a possibility.

On what basis do you claim a human mind will break due to twisted logic done by the concept of an absolute omnipotent, why cannot human mind adapt or evolve or made to adapt to the new logic? Pretty sure a early childhood kid has, which can be considered, from a psychological point of view be omnipotent(early freud) and for adults Megalomania, and thier concept of logic could be very narrow.With an overarching logic in existence which remains unknown or ignored by them.

Because there is no logic to adapt to. By definition, True, 120% Absolute Omnipotence is not bounded or confined by any form of logic, otherwise it would not be absolute.

Now, let me bring up one example of a head scratcher brought about by the concept of Absolute Omnipotence. An Absolutely Omnipotent being should be able to do everything, even if they don't exist. Their Omnipotence is Absolute, so existing or not existing should not influence it, because otherwise it wouldn't really be absolute, now would it?

Second example, try imagining the viewpoint of a truly Omnipotent being. The three laws I had outlined cannot confine you, thus they have no meaning. Things needn’t be equal to themselves, everything can be equal to anything else. True and False can mix anywhere in any combination or be absent altogether. Such a state is a Hell that is not a Hell that is a Heaven that is not a Heaven that is a Hell. An apple is equal to an orange is equal to the essay you have to hand in next Monday is equal to the law of universal gravitation is equal to True is equal to your childhood memories is equal to the sound of the color yellow is equal to the son you never had is equal to all cows throughout history is equal is equal IS EQUAL! Indeed in such a position you could achieve anything, for what you can’t do can be one and the same with what you can. However, even if you did anything, then what? After all, even if you change everything, things will be no different than if everything had stayed the same. Even if you keep everything the same, things will be the same as if everything had changed. More importantly, to begin with, who are you? Because you see, without logic, even the statement “I am” is meaningless.

Nevertheless, an Absolutely Omnipotent being can operate under the above circumstances. How is that done? What sort of thought processes, if they can be called that, are required to wield that power? Purpose without meaning? Wills without minds? Abstraction transcending experience? If you can truly imagine all these things, then kudos to you. Like the paradox of having one concentric circle (not two circles in each other, one circle inside itself), I can only imagine the words and what they might imply, but I cannot truly picture the things they describe in my head.

That's just a few examples. The more you delve into it, the more of these problems crop up, infinitely and without end. The concept is at once utterly absurd and more meaningful than anything in existence. If there were any logic to it, we could, as you suggested, wrap our minds around it, but there is no logic to it.

Also can't omnipotence potentially be found within infinite possibilities? as those concept are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Of course. What I'm saying is that all Omnipotent beings wield infinite possibilities (except, possibly or impossibly Absolutely Omnipotent beings, who can do everything whilst wielding 1, -1 or 0 possibilities, possibly all at the same time), but not all beings with infinite possibilities are Omnipotent.

[dniv]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

Because there is no logic to adapt to. By definition, True, 120% Absolute Omnipotence is not bounded or confined by any form of logic, otherwise it would not be absolute.

That's just a few examples. The more you delve into it, the more of these problems crop up, infinitely and without end. The concept is at once utterly absurd and more meaningful than anything in existence. If there were any logic to it, we could, as you suggested, wrap our minds around it, but there is no logic to it.

I'm going to call you out onto a possibility you aren't considering. I mean you call it utterly absurd and more meaningful than anything in existence. The easy answer to argue why this is a moot point is that what you are talking about could just as well be meaningless, which is the real reason why it sounds so absurd. What you are talking about, just doesn't mean anything at all. No omnipotent being could do that sort of thing, because those ideas/meanings/actions literally just don't make sense.

I'll concede that you can argue that you can assume that an omnipotent being exists which isn't limited by logic, and that I can't prove your assumption wrong.

I can equally argue back that I can assume that any sort of omnipotent being or being at all would necessarily be limited by logic, and that you can't prove my assumption wrong either.

I'll concede that your position doesn't have any inconsistencies, but I still consider it absurd and rather useless... at least for me. I don't see the point in believing in an omnipotence that surpasses logic, when you can just improve logic in order to surpass what it was before anyway.

One viewpoint is that Omnipotence goes beyond logic and that logic is absolute.

Contemporary viewpoints of cognition disagree and state that any actions would be constrained by logic and that logic is neither permanent nor absolute. Logic isn't some existing system with potential that people are discovering. Rather, logic is a system CREATED by the increase of entropy over time and the emergent properties forming from this increase in entropy as the universe changes. This view assumes that the concept of logic already existing is absurd because there would be no source of information (not even the universe itself ) that could calculate out what the potential for logic would be ahead of time. If things are created as opposed to discovered, then... well... the idea that logic is permanent and absolute would also be considered silly, since logic changes over time dependent on what is observed or what happens. So this is my viewpoint and it is also valid.

Also, all I meant before about how different situations can affect what limited omnipotence could do was the following:

Being able to do anything that can be done, means that what can be done in any situation depends on the initial conditions/ states of the world. If you are trying to solve a problem, and you have all possible ways that exist to try to solve the problem, but in one situation the universe lacks all of those resources, and in another situation it doesn't lack those resources, then what you can accomplish/what could be possible would be different in those two situations. That is all I meant. Limited Omnipotence means being able to do what can be done, but it doesn't mean that any crisis could be solved if it were logically impossible to solve such a crisis, and if you assumed that logic had pre-existing limits (which I don't).

[Doom_Paperclip]

Originally Posted by dniv

I'm going to call you out onto a possibility you aren't considering. I mean you call it utterly absurd and more meaningful than anything in existence. The easy answer to argue why this is a moot point is that what you are talking about could just as well be meaningless, which is the real reason why it sounds so absurd. What you are talking about, just doesn't mean anything at all. No omnipotent being could do that sort of thing, because those ideas/meanings/actions literally just don't make sense.

You're the one who doesn't understand. Of course what I say is meaningless. Of course it's absurd. That's the very definition of what it means to go beyond logic. So what? It just goes to show our limits as human beings.

Contemporary viewpoints of cognition disagree and state that any actions would be constrained by logic and that logic is neither permanent nor absolute. Logic isn't some existing system with potential that people are discovering. Rather, logic is a system CREATED by the increase of entropy over time and the emergent properties forming from this increase in entropy as the universe changes. This view assumes that the concept of logic already existing is absurd because there would be no source of information (not even the universe itself ) that could calculate out what the potential for logic would be ahead of time. If things are created as opposed to discovered, then... well... the idea that logic is permanent and absolute would also be considered silly, since logic changes over time dependent on what is observed or what happens. So this is my viewpoint and it is also valid.

I don't think logic means what you think it means. Logic is the principle behind valid reasoning. Entropy, the universe ect... have nothing to do with it. Assuming a world we cannot imagine, one where all the things we know do not exist, whereas other things divorced from matter, energy or forces do, the principles of logic could still stand.

Being able to do anything that can be done, means that what can be done in any situation depends on the initial conditions/ states of the world. If you are trying to solve a problem, and you have all possible ways that exist to try to solve the problem, but in one situation the universe lacks all of those resources, and in another situation it doesn't lack those resources, then what you can accomplish/what could be possible would be different in those two situations. That is all I meant. Limited Omnipotence means being able to do what can be done, but it doesn't mean that any crisis could be solved if it were logically impossible to solve such a crisis, and if you assumed that logic had pre-existing limits (which I don't).

This is not an example.

Also, a logically Omnipotent beings should be able to disregard resources. That doesn't violate logic, just physics.

[dniv]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

You're the one who doesn't understand. Of course what I say is meaningless. Of course it's absurd. That's the very definition of what it means to go beyond logic. So what? It just goes to show our limits as human beings.



I don't think logic means what you think it means. Logic is the principle behind valid reasoning. Entropy, the universe ect... have nothing to do with it. Assuming a world we cannot imagine, one where all the things we know do not exist, whereas other things divorced from matter, energy or forces do, the principles of logic could still stand.



This is not an example.

Also, a logically Omnipotent beings should be able to disregard resources. That doesn't violate logic, just physics.

Um... for your third criticism, you're assuming that the limited form of omnipotence which IS limited by logic and which can do ALL THAT CAN BE LOGICALLY DONE, can violate physics. Physics IS logic. Observation isn't a thing. Observation is quarks interacting with each other in certain ways and changing states within people's bodies in order to induce a change of information, which we treat as observation, and falsely assume that we initiated the process ourselves. What I said certainly WAS an example. It was a perfect example. If you assume that Logic is independent of physics, then you are assuming that reasoning is independent of matter. And if you assume that reasoning is independent of matter, then you are assuming that reasoning is TOTALLY mind-dependent and that the mind is TOTALLY NOT dependent on matter which is completely unscientific. You can make this assumption, but you can't tell me that I can't make the opposite assumption. I am certainly allowed to assume the scientific principle that the mind works based on physical laws and that all logic and understanding are created by and are subject to those physical laws, and that anything which could be done are wholly contained by those physical laws--and then my example would make perfect sense.

Your first argument completely misses the point to a ridiculous extent. What I said in response to what you said was that an alternative explanation to what you said having no sense, wasn't that it was infinitely meaningful, but rather that there was nothing else there which COULD be fathomed. You're really making an inherent mistake in all of this. You're arguing this as if an omnipotent being already exists in the first place. We shouldn't be making such an assumption when debating this idea. As it is, when you argue that omnipotence surpasses logic and give an example of something meaningless to me and then say that anything I say doesn't prove you wrong because I can't grasp what is actually happening in your description, all you are doing is saying I can't negate your viewpoint. You still can't prove my viewpoint wrong either. This is obviously true. I can assume that omnipotence can't surpass logic--that such an idea is ludicrous BS. I can assume that therefore the concepts you were talking about don't have any meaning in them, and under that assumption I am right. Under your assumption you are also right, but I don't have to agree that anything exists which goes beyond the realm of logic. So even if I concede that I can't argue against omnipotence >> logic, I think that the idea you have in mind of what logic is, is so different from my own idea, that it means something different to both of us.

Last of all, your second argument also doesn't even attempt to answer my question. You say that logic is the principle behind valid reasoning. This statement doesn't make much sense: (And I'm allowed to provide my own definition of logic before you bash it. It isn't like there is an objective view of logic (unless you're already making a biased assumption that an objective view of logic already exists, which is basically already assuming that your hypothesis of pre-existing objective categories such as logic is true.)

1. You assume that reasoning exists and is a thing-in-itself. (Many philosophers wouldn't agree that reasoning exists outside of what we like to call reasoning--because we do it and we like praising ourselves.)

2. You assume that one can absolutely tell when reasoning is valid and when it isn't. (This is something that can be easily highly contended.)

Even beyond these two assumptions you make, I'm going to call you out immediately here. Logic and reasoning are activities that humans do in response to certain stimuli. The mind is a set of physical processes with inner special properties and unimaginable complexity. It also has other properties, which are still accounted for by the properties of matter. If you want to assume otherwise, you can. I'm not doing that, because I'm going to be as rigorous as I can about this. Assuming nothing about consciousness/thinking/logic/reasoning being special, and just treating them as usual physical interactions between particles and so on, then reasoning is a construct which means nothing outside of the realm of human society. Furthermore, reasoning is essentially defined as figuring out "the truth" about things using "logic." Or in new terms, reasoning is basically getting to the right conclusion without making any mistakes. Computer science would argue that you can't make algorithmic mistakes in general and that reasoning is a rather flawed term, even if it makes some sense as to why it exists.

I'm being very abstract and unhelpful here. I understand that. All I'm trying to point out though is that what I'm saying here is that you say that I don't understand what logic is because logic is the human faculty of reasoning. I'm telling you back that you really don't understand why I understand what you are talking about. My definition of logic is consistent with reality. It is indeed different from yours, but it isn't contradicting the type of logic employed in omnipotence discussions. Math argues that logic & reasoning are empty terms. They don't mean squat. It's just that under assumptions and definitions that we make, ONLY THEN are logic and reasoning meaningful. Under my assumption, my argument is still true, and you really don't contradict it. You can't use your principles to attack a construction using different assumptions. It's why I can't prove your omnipotent >> logic idea wrong either.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

Because there is no logic to adapt to. By definition, True, 120% Absolute Omnipotence is not bounded or confined by any form of logic, otherwise it would not be absolute.

Now, let me bring up one example of a head scratcher brought about by the concept of Absolute Omnipotence. An Absolutely Omnipotent being should be able to do everything, even if they don't exist. Their Omnipotence is Absolute, so existing or not existing should not influence it, because otherwise it wouldn't really be absolute, now would it?

Second example, try imagining the viewpoint of a truly Omnipotent being. The three laws I had outlined cannot confine you, thus they have no meaning. Things needn’t be equal to themselves, everything can be equal to anything else. True and False can mix anywhere in any combination or be absent altogether. Such a state is a Hell that is not a Hell that is a Heaven that is not a Heaven that is a Hell. An apple is equal to an orange is equal to the essay you have to hand in next Monday is equal to the law of universal gravitation is equal to True is equal to your childhood memories is equal to the sound of the color yellow is equal to the son you never had is equal to all cows throughout history is equal is equal IS EQUAL! Indeed in such a position you could achieve anything, for what you can’t do can be one and the same with what you can. However, even if you did anything, then what? After all, even if you change everything, things will be no different than if everything had stayed the same. Even if you keep everything the same, things will be the same as if everything had changed. More importantly, to begin with, who are you? Because you see, without logic, even the statement “I am” is meaningless.

Nevertheless, an Absolutely Omnipotent being can operate under the above circumstances. How is that done? What sort of thought processes, if they can be called that, are required to wield that power? Purpose without meaning? Wills without minds? Abstraction transcending experience? If you can truly imagine all these things, then kudos to you. Like the paradox of having one concentric circle (not two circles in each other, one circle inside itself), I can only imagine the words and what they might imply, but I cannot truly picture the things they describe in my head.

That's just a few examples. The more you delve into it, the more of these problems crop up, infinitely and without end. The concept is at once utterly absurd and more meaningful than anything in existence. If there were any logic to it, we could, as you suggested, wrap our minds around it, but there is no logic to it.



Of course. What I'm saying is that all Omnipotent beings wield infinite possibilities (except, possibly or impossibly Absolutely Omnipotent beings, who can do everything whilst wielding 1, -1 or 0 possibilities, possibly all at the same time), but not all beings with infinite possibilities are Omnipotent.

Well since you have a long debate with dniv I'll just keep what i want to say short, and out of the way.

Rather then consider what i said an argument just read it as alternative view.

Once omnipotence has been assigned as a topic, infinite possibilities come into play both against and for said omnipotence. Due to the nature of the topic, it's a numerous what ifs dialog.Rather then call this an argument, I'm gonna label it as incredible amount of what if alternatives, what you said merely being one of them, in infinite possibilities.

AS for the Magic god thing, even if none of them are Omnipotent, the characteristic of a magic god as described, will always house the possibility of an omnipotent one being produced or obtaining the characteristic.

As for Mind break, your description is one of the scenarios in infinite possibilities, however i think, the humans would have accepted what was changed as an immediate truth due to the changed variables by said omnipotent, and will not notice the deviation, or try and conform to new rules. The thing is you can actually apply pretty much fantasy and sci-fi situations to this.

For example the moment omnipotent being meddles in reality, the being subject itself and ties themselves down to this reality and conforms to the rules and lgoic of it, or they become a paradox the moment the become a reality and thus die or disapear, or that the moment logic changes, everything else including the humans perception changes along with it, or an absolute omnipotent merely become omnipotent the moment it interferes with the logic of this reality i becomes a apart of it, Another scenario would be an absolute being does not exist and that it's merely an omnipotent being masking certain perception we hold in order to give it a disguise of absolute.

Another possibility is that if an absolute being is outside of logic, logic cannot be applied to it, then is the definition of absolute omnipotent even correct to apply it's own logical definition of something outside of logic, the definition we have of it cannot be correct then, or at least mistaken. Etc etc etc. Anyways what i listed i sjust one of many possibilities in association with omnipotence,.For a moment their i felt i was writing a fanfic.

It's also possible for human to be made impaired in some form to perceive the new logic in a way that conforms with the desired outcome, an example would be Misaki in Touma's memory, without actually changing the variables properties.

In short I won't refute what you said, I merely calling what you said as a what if scenario among many.

Well anyways aside form that, I really have nothing I care to say, so carry on guys.

[Doom_Paperclip]

@dniv; @sasoras; Both of you misunderstand me. In part, this is my fault. OK, lets try this again.

The very moment we started discussing Omnipotence, we gave up on true and false. Nobody can prove or disprove the nature or existence of Omnipotence in any form or conception. We can no more test the nature or existence of Omnipotence than we can that of God. No experiment anyone can design can do that. Though Richard Dawkins would like to argue otherwise, matters of Faith are simply outside of Science's domain. Thus when I say anything about Omnipotence, I am not insisting that any of the things are true scenarios and that others are false, I am discussing the consequences that would follow if said scenarios were true.

Logical and Absolute Omnipotence are the two broad categories encompassing all the main scenarios of Omnipotence. I do not purport to say that either of them is true or false and frankly, I do not care either way, because I am agnostic. However, assuming Absolute Omnipotence existed, we wouldn't be able to understand it, due to the reasons I outlined. You say you don't believe in Absolute Omnipotence? Fine! Nobody's stopping you. That would be illegal in most countries. Your deeply held belief has no bearing on my argument.

@dniv; whether reasoning exists in itself doesn't really matter. Even if logic arose from interaction with the universe, the moment it arose, its principles could theoretically be applied even in another completely different universe, much like a skyscraper needs scaffolding while it's being built, but can stand on its own once it has been completed.

Physics may have been important in developing logic, but now that logic has been developed, it doesn't need physics anymore. Reversing entropy, which is physically impossible, doesn't violate logic. Creating matter ex nihilo, which is physically impossible, doesn't violate logic.

Case in point, Birdway was able to create biscuits with a simple charm in SP. More generally, all Espers and Magicians violate conservation of energy and momentum on a regular basis. Accelerator gives Newton's laws of motion the middle finger. Even if you claim they aren't really creating anything, but are borrowing energy from phases, where did the energy for the phases come from? People. Where did those people get that energy from? Nowhere, apparently. Are you telling me that everyone in TAMNI Absolutely Omnipotent? Wow, I never could have told.

Again, if you want me to understand you, you're going to have to make an example. It's clear by now that abstraction isn't going to cut it. You could fill entire pages and pages with your arguments until you qualify for a Guinness World Record and still come no closer to bringing your point across, so if it's all the same for you, I'd rather you didn't even attempt it.

All I need is one clear, concrete example that can fit in one or two paragraphs. If you cannot provide that, then maybe you should consider that there is a flaw in your argument.

@sasoras; I just wanted to make a point that humans cannot understand the concept of Absolute Omnipotence, whether it exists or not. Heck, as you pointed out, even defining it is an exercise in futility. After all, though I said it transcends logic, it should still be able to lie within logic, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Though I just said that defining it is an exercise in futility, it should be possible for it to define itself, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Finally, though I said and insisted that humans cannot understand it, it should be able to make itself understandable, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. After finally, no matter how much I throw around the word absolute, it should be able to make itself limited, because otherwise it would not be absolute. After after finally, even when limited, it should still be able to do everything, because otherwise it would not be absolute. Now my brain is starting to hurt.

Honestly though, I don't see what you mean about Magic Gods. A set with infinite elements doesn't need to contain every element, much like there are infinite even numbers but there are no odd numbers amongst them. Given this fact, I don't see how you can prove that the infinite possibilities of Magic Gods have Omnipotence amongst them. If anything, the fact that Aleister didn't join them and the fact that IB is important to their plans indicates that Omnipotence is outside their grasp without external help beyond their own inherent possibilities.

[dniv]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

@dniv; @sasoras; Both of you misunderstand me. In part, this is my fault. OK, lets try this again.

The very moment we started discussing Omnipotence, we gave up on true and false. Nobody can prove or disprove the nature or existence of Omnipotence in any form or conception. We can no more test the nature or existence of Omnipotence than we can that of God. No experiment anyone can design can do that. Though Richard Dawkins would like to argue otherwise, matters of Faith are simply outside of Science's domain. Thus when I say anything about Omnipotence, I am not insisting that any of the things are true scenarios and that others are false, I am discussing the consequences that would follow if said scenarios were true.

Logical and Absolute Omnipotence are the two broad categories encompassing all the main scenarios of Omnipotence. I do not purport to say that either of them is true or false and frankly, I do not care either way, because I am agnostic. However, assuming Absolute Omnipotence existed, we wouldn't be able to understand it, due to the reasons I outlined. You say you don't believe in Absolute Omnipotence? Fine! Nobody's stopping you. That would be illegal in most countries. Your deeply held belief has no bearing on my argument.

@dniv; whether reasoning exists in itself doesn't really matter. Even if logic arose from interaction with the universe, the moment it arose, its principles could theoretically be applied even in another completely different universe, much like a skyscraper needs scaffolding while it's being built, but can stand on its own once it has been completed.

Physics may have been important in developing logic, but now that logic has been developed, it doesn't need physics anymore. Reversing entropy, which is physically impossible, doesn't violate logic. Creating matter ex nihilo, which is physically impossible, doesn't violate logic.

Case in point, Birdway was able to create biscuits with a simple charm in SP. More generally, all Espers and Magicians violate conservation of energy and momentum on a regular basis. Accelerator gives Newton's laws of motion the middle finger. Even if you claim they aren't really creating anything, but are borrowing energy from phases, where did the energy for the phases come from? People. Where did those people get that energy from? Nowhere, apparently. Are you telling me that everyone in TAMNI Absolutely Omnipotent? Wow, I never could have told.

Again, if you want me to understand you, you're going to have to make an example. It's clear by now that abstraction isn't going to cut it. You could fill entire pages and pages with your arguments until you qualify for a Guinness World Record and still come no closer to bringing your point across, so if it's all the same for you, I'd rather you didn't even attempt it.

All I need is one clear, concrete example that can fit in one or two paragraphs. If you cannot provide that, then maybe you should consider that there is a flaw in your argument.

@sasoras; I just wanted to make a point that humans cannot understand the concept of Absolute Omnipotence, whether it exists or not. Heck, as you pointed out, even defining it is an exercise in futility. After all, though I said it transcends logic, it should still be able to lie within logic, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Though I just said that defining it is an exercise in futility, it should be possible for it to define itself, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Finally, though I said and insisted that humans cannot understand it, it should be able to make itself understandable, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. After finally, no matter how much I throw around the word absolute, it should be able to make itself limited, because otherwise it would not be absolute. After after finally, even when limited, it should still be able to do everything, because otherwise it would not be absolute. Now my brain is starting to hurt.

Honestly though, I don't see what you mean about Magic Gods. A set with infinite elements doesn't need to contain every element, much like there are infinite even numbers but there are no odd numbers amongst them. Given this fact, I don't see how you can prove that the infinite possibilities of Magic Gods have Omnipotence amongst them. If anything, the fact that Aleister didn't join them and the fact that IB is important to their plans indicates that Omnipotence is outside their grasp without external help beyond their own inherent possibilities.

After your clarification, I see that we're both in agreement so there's no reason for me to continue the argument. Once you said you were agnostic I realized I was reading into this totally backwards. Sorry about that.

Okay then... lol. If you're talking about what-if scenarios, then I agree with what you have said so far. About the physics/logic argument though, I might add more about it later.

Finally, about the example dealing with limited omnipotence, we'd probably have to redefine terms, because I feel like we're still misunderstanding each other there, but it doesn't really matter, so it's all good now.

[sasoras]

Originally Posted by Doom_Paperclip

@sasoras; I just wanted to make a point that humans cannot understand the concept of Absolute Omnipotence, whether it exists or not. Heck, as you pointed out, even defining it is an exercise in futility. After all, though I said it transcends logic, it should still be able to lie within logic, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Though I just said that defining it is an exercise in futility, it should be possible for it to define itself, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. Finally, though I said and insisted that humans cannot understand it, it should be able to make itself understandable, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. After finally, no matter how much I throw around the word absolute, it should be able to make itself limited, because otherwise it would not be absolute. After after finally, even when limited, it should still be able to do everything, because otherwise it would not be absolute. Now my brain is starting to hurt.

Honestly though, I don't see what you mean about Magic Gods. A set with infinite elements doesn't need to contain every element, much like there are infinite even numbers but there are no odd numbers amongst them. Given this fact, I don't see how you can prove that the infinite possibilities of Magic Gods have Omnipotence amongst them. If anything, the fact that Aleister didn't join them and the fact that IB is important to their plans indicates that Omnipotence is outside their grasp without external help beyond their own inherent possibilities.

"After all, though I said it transcends logic, it should still be able to lie within logic, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute. "

Heres absolute from a physics standpoint independent of arbitrary standards or of particular properties of substances or systems: It can be absolute even without following or able to be within logic. Just consider systems as human system for logic.

" Finally, though I said and insisted that humans cannot understand it, it should be able to make itself understandable, otherwise it wouldn't be absolute."

Thing is, we understand absolute the concept, but the moment you paired it with omnipotent being outside of logic, our understanding of it could very well be made incorrect with that label. The variables change completely and the description you can draw off it can possibly no longer be accurate. Therefore what it can and cannot do is no longer possible to predict and is outside our logic, even with the moniker absolute.

"even when limited, it should still be able to do everything, because otherwise it would not be absolute."

But since it outside of logic, and our definition cannot possibly label it correctly an absolute being can possibly not be absolute by our definitions, while we understand what absolute the concept is, we may not understand what absolute the omnipotent being is and what cosmic rules they follow. It's simply a what if variable to decide the outcome. Even if it can do everything it may only be able to do it temporarily until it negates itself because of its paradox existence, or another absolute being balances the issue and the action was negated as a form of keeping the neutral existence of the universe, and as a result nothing happens.

"A set with infinite elements doesn't need to contain every element, much like there are infinite even numbers but there are no odd numbers amongst them."

The moment restrictions are introduced in the form of odd or even it no longer become infinite possibilities, but binary choices. So another question would be can their be a limit to infinite?

Well first off infinite is not a number but an idea

anyways, We can test this through math to try and limit infinite.

And since i don't want to go to the trouble to copy an image and my keyobard can't show fractions I won't bother, just know the limit function for infinite in "limit" language is actually defined as limitless, when x(variable) tries to reach infinite.(but never will). Shamelessly copied from some math site .

"I don't see how you can prove that the infinite possibilities of Magic Gods have Omnipotence amongst them. If anything, the fact that Aleister didn't join them and the fact that IB is important to their plans indicates that Omnipotence is outside their grasp"

I meant sooner or later a new magic god or current one can possibly obtain it, maybe the plans are to obtain it, who knows.



Well anyway this topic itself is so vague and broad as long as you have some imagination it will be a topic filled with endless what ifs. Their will be endless things to support and go against you as i previously mentioned(foresaw).

Since we really having nothing to actually talk about aside from offering our own variable Scenario, it'll just be drawn out, if you have something to respond feel free, i will read it but i probably wont respond,as i feel the topic has been settled previosuly and feel redoing what ifs over and over possibly tiring

[Inept Forum User]

Regarding the incident at Himegami's village - the Knights were dispatched because of an abnormality regarding the magical power in the area. Would people say that the abnormal rise was due to the process of creating new vampires rather than the presence of new vampires, or not?

Regarding the Dvergr, who are capable of altering living bodies with their tools - do people reckon they are capable of replicating the qualities possessed by certain 'gifted' individuals?

Regarding Saints, I was thinking about the powers displayed by Saints thus far and what means have been or could be used to counter them. Powers possessed by Saints include an affinity for Christianity and special power relating to the Son of God, some unique powers like blood with healing properties, the ability to go beyond normal human limits temporarily, enhanced strength/speed/senses/endurance/luck/magical proficiency. Methods used to counter them include exploiting their inherent weaknesses relating to their nature (stabbing/crown of thorns/cross etc), boosting one's parameters to match them through spells or spiritual items, lowering their parameters, using their over-limiting against them (leading to self-destruction), overwhelming with numbers (Slappar's tactic), having similar and higher powered beings face them etc. Are there any things that are missing from this list?

Also, there is something minor I wasn't sure about and I thought I'd better ask about - are people generally uncomfortable with low data speculation?

[Hiss13]

Originally Posted by Inept Forum User

Regarding the incident at Himegami's village - the Knights were dispatched because of an abnormality regarding the magical power in the area. Would people say that the abnormal rise was due to the process of creating new vampires rather than the presence of new vampires, or not?

Yes, the mana spike was likely due to the cascading of the birth new vampires and the process of new vampires being born rather than the existence of the vampires themselves at the site.

[Inept Forum User]

Couple more questions:

• Do you reckon it would be likely that Goetic spells would work in a somewhat ceremonial fashion (similar to that of certain Golden-style magic)?
• Supposing that other Outsiders were to be constructed, what sort of mechanisms do you reckon might be used?