- 15,332
- 7,559
I actually agree that it isn't fit for this thread.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Arceus' Questionable Nigh-Omniscience
- Thread starter Metafragmentation
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arceus intelligence pokémon uxie
- 18
- 7
- Thread starter
- #42
I think concepts in Pokemon == Platonic Forms is definitely a valid interpretation. And I'll go with it because it seems the strongest counter-position to concepts in Pokemon == Concepts.
Now, I don't have a Philosophical background, so please correct me if I make a mistake here:
We have a Platonic Form, *Chair (I'm going to mark every Platonic form I'm talking about like this or otherwise it's gonna get confusing). And every chair that exists and can exists gets its *Chair-ness from this *Chair. Meaning that every chair shares varying degrees of the same *Chair-ness.
However, a concrete chair has other aspects other than *Chair-ness. It can have *Red-ness or *Blue-ness. It can have *Four-legged-ness or *Three-legged-ness. Now, these aspects would be different Platonic Forms. There is a Platonic Form *Red, that is the ideal *Red that all reds are derived from. And that *Red-ness is derived from *Red and is not contained in *Chair.
Now, wouldn't that mean that, if Arceus created the Platonic Form *Knowledge, while all knowledge shares varying degrees of the same *Knowledge-ness, these knowledges also contain aspects from other Platonic Forms?
Even if you have a complete grasp of and access to the ideal of *Chair, and know about the perfect *Chair-ness, does that give you information about every object of chair that shares this *Chair-ness? I would argue no, you would only know about the ideal *Chair, but you lack information about how the objects of *Chair differ from that ideal. And it doesn't give you any information about the *Red-ness and *Three-legged-ness of concrete chairs.
You basically have an ideal blueprint of a chair, but how the actual chairs copied from that blueprint will turn out at the end of the production line cannot be discerned just from looking at the blueprint.
In the same way, I would argue that just because you have a full grasp of and access to the ideal *Knowledge, you could not know how the concrete objects derived from *Knowledge would differ from the ideal and what other properties not governed by *Knowledge they have.
You would have complete grasp and agency over the original *Knowledge but you would not have any way of knowing what the copies, the concrete bits of information in people's minds are going to turn out like.
Arceus creating the "concept" of *Knowledge as a Platonic Ideal amounts to creating an ideal original for others to copy from. It created the opportunity for knowledge, but it did not create all possible knowledge at once.
So, from that I would conclude that Arceus creating the 'concept' of Knowledge is not a sufficient argument for its Nigh-Omniscience.
Now, I don't have a Philosophical background, so please correct me if I make a mistake here:
We have a Platonic Form, *Chair (I'm going to mark every Platonic form I'm talking about like this or otherwise it's gonna get confusing). And every chair that exists and can exists gets its *Chair-ness from this *Chair. Meaning that every chair shares varying degrees of the same *Chair-ness.
However, a concrete chair has other aspects other than *Chair-ness. It can have *Red-ness or *Blue-ness. It can have *Four-legged-ness or *Three-legged-ness. Now, these aspects would be different Platonic Forms. There is a Platonic Form *Red, that is the ideal *Red that all reds are derived from. And that *Red-ness is derived from *Red and is not contained in *Chair.
Now, wouldn't that mean that, if Arceus created the Platonic Form *Knowledge, while all knowledge shares varying degrees of the same *Knowledge-ness, these knowledges also contain aspects from other Platonic Forms?
Even if you have a complete grasp of and access to the ideal of *Chair, and know about the perfect *Chair-ness, does that give you information about every object of chair that shares this *Chair-ness? I would argue no, you would only know about the ideal *Chair, but you lack information about how the objects of *Chair differ from that ideal. And it doesn't give you any information about the *Red-ness and *Three-legged-ness of concrete chairs.
You basically have an ideal blueprint of a chair, but how the actual chairs copied from that blueprint will turn out at the end of the production line cannot be discerned just from looking at the blueprint.
In the same way, I would argue that just because you have a full grasp of and access to the ideal *Knowledge, you could not know how the concrete objects derived from *Knowledge would differ from the ideal and what other properties not governed by *Knowledge they have.
You would have complete grasp and agency over the original *Knowledge but you would not have any way of knowing what the copies, the concrete bits of information in people's minds are going to turn out like.
Arceus creating the "concept" of *Knowledge as a Platonic Ideal amounts to creating an ideal original for others to copy from. It created the opportunity for knowledge, but it did not create all possible knowledge at once.
So, from that I would conclude that Arceus creating the 'concept' of Knowledge is not a sufficient argument for its Nigh-Omniscience.
- 16,927
- 4,844
Again, this isn't the thread for that kind of argument.
That said, I'll say this. Not only do I see more false equivalency in this example, as clear as I can make it out, even if we took it at face value that still doesn't stop Nigh-Omniscience from being a thing. Again, NIGH. Which can literally be any finite level of knowledge you can think of that's under Infinity, aka full omniscience.
That said, I'll say this. Not only do I see more false equivalency in this example, as clear as I can make it out, even if we took it at face value that still doesn't stop Nigh-Omniscience from being a thing. Again, NIGH. Which can literally be any finite level of knowledge you can think of that's under Infinity, aka full omniscience.
- 15,332
- 7,559
What is the evidence for Arceus's nigh-omniscience?
- 4,178
- 1,471
NeoZex6399 said:
- 16,927
- 4,844
From what I know, the evidence for Arceus having nigh omniscience/omniscience is, with the exception of Dialga, creating the very concept of knowledge as a whole in the form of Uxie.
- 15,332
- 7,559
That is being ''heavily'' disputed.
- 16,927
- 4,844
"Nigh-Omniscience is being omniscient but with some limits".
>Some limits
With all due respect Kaltias, this little sentence here practically goes against you in my favor.
"With some limits" means nigh-omniscience is literally just a finite amount of any knowledge that's under infinity. If it's limited in any way, then its finite.
Technically speaking, all people are nigh-omniscient in a way. We have a certain level of knowledge that's greater than the other for some people and it isn't infinite. But we obviously don't just give anyone nigh-omniscience on this site, only those with significantly notable intelligence feats. Realistically, everyone is nigh-omniscient on some level but we prevent that so not just everyone and their mother gain the rating.
>Some limits
With all due respect Kaltias, this little sentence here practically goes against you in my favor.
"With some limits" means nigh-omniscience is literally just a finite amount of any knowledge that's under infinity. If it's limited in any way, then its finite.
Technically speaking, all people are nigh-omniscient in a way. We have a certain level of knowledge that's greater than the other for some people and it isn't infinite. But we obviously don't just give anyone nigh-omniscience on this site, only those with significantly notable intelligence feats. Realistically, everyone is nigh-omniscient on some level but we prevent that so not just everyone and their mother gain the rating.
- 15,332
- 7,559
Except that's untrue, since there are countless fields and topics humans know nothing about.
- 16,927
- 4,844
And that means what? That our intelligence is limited.
Which is what Nigh-Omniscience is.
Which is what Nigh-Omniscience is.
- 15,332
- 7,559
Not remotely. Nigh-Omniscience is knowing everything with certai limitations. Not knowing everything with an extremely large, untold amount of exceptions
- 19,117
- 6,333
@Kukui I'm telling you that it isn't what nigh-omniscience is, here, when listed on a wiki page.
Nigh-omniscience is Madoka knowing everything that was, is, and will be.
It's Elaine Belloc knowing absolutely everything except the thoughts of comparable beings.
It isn't "Any amount of knowledge". It's like saying that i'm nigh-omnipotent because my omnipotence is simply limited by a metric ton of things.
Nigh-omniscience is Madoka knowing everything that was, is, and will be.
It's Elaine Belloc knowing absolutely everything except the thoughts of comparable beings.
It isn't "Any amount of knowledge". It's like saying that i'm nigh-omnipotent because my omnipotence is simply limited by a metric ton of things.
- 16,927
- 4,844
So what im being told here is there has to be a certai limitation, and not just any limitation, to determine if someone has or doesnt have nigh-omniscience?
- 10,393
- 3,344
There are countless things humans don't know and thus don't fall under knowledge.
- 18
- 7
- Thread starter
- #56
I disagree. The previous discussion has shown that we have no unified view on what a concept even is. In order to discuss whether "Created the very concept of knowledge" is a valid proof for Arceus' Nigh-Omniscience, investigation of the word "concept" is mandatory. Otherwise we'll just all be talking about different things each and it won't lead to anything. For that purpose I have taken a point of view that I personally did not disagree with and that was brought up to support your position, seriously engaged with it and have shown why it doesn't work. Don't just gloss over it.ProfessorKukui4Life said:
That said, I'll say this. Not only do I see more false equivalency in this example, as clear as I can make it out, even if we took it at face value that still doesn't stop Nigh-Omniscience from being a thing. Again, NIGH. Which can literally be any finite level of knowledge you can think of that's under Infinity, aka full omniscience.
You misunderstand my position here. I don't disagree that it's possible for Arceus to have Nigh-Omniscience, I think that the proof given in its Intelligence section is insufficient to give it Nigh-Omniscience. Of course that leaves the option whether it does or does not have Nigh-Omniscience open.
- 4,178
- 1,471
It is stated that Arceus literally molded all things, not only created them, but gave them "shape".
"This Pokémon emerged from an egg and shaped all there is in this world."
I think this qualifies as Nigh-Omniscience.
"This Pokémon emerged from an egg and shaped all there is in this world."
I think this qualifies as Nigh-Omniscience.
- 33,405
- 8,416
So we are having this huge talk on philosophy and concepts and such. Yet, we still have not seen a conclusion. All we are getting are these philosophical (albeit interesting) massive walls of text, yet we have no decision made....
- 8,675
- 5,556
Because people aren't engaging with the arguments.
Actual arguments are being made here. It's not just philosophical rambling.
Actual arguments are being made here. It's not just philosophical rambling.
- 33,405
- 8,416
What is the general gist of why it should be removed?
What is the general gist of why it should stay?
What is the general gist of why it should stay?
- 8,675
- 5,556
People want it to stay because Arceus created Uxie and the concept of Knowledge.
Metafragmentation wants it to get better justification, and removed if there is none, because
"Arceus creating the "concept" of *Knowledge as a Platonic Ideal amounts to creating an ideal original for others to copy from. It created the opportunity for knowledge, but it did not create all possible knowledge at once."
Regardless of whether or not concepts in Pokemon are Platonic ideals or whatever I feel it still has basis. I'm not going to try and reword her post because I'm not personally very acquainted with these philosophies and I don't want to bastardize her argument. If you want it in more depth, just read her post. It's perfectly legible.
Metafragmentation wants it to get better justification, and removed if there is none, because
"Arceus creating the "concept" of *Knowledge as a Platonic Ideal amounts to creating an ideal original for others to copy from. It created the opportunity for knowledge, but it did not create all possible knowledge at once."
Regardless of whether or not concepts in Pokemon are Platonic ideals or whatever I feel it still has basis. I'm not going to try and reword her post because I'm not personally very acquainted with these philosophies and I don't want to bastardize her argument. If you want it in more depth, just read her post. It's perfectly legible.
- 16,927
- 4,844
About the Platonic stuff, that's where concepts are taken from something original that came before yes? Just want to clear this bit up for myself.
- 8,438
- 3,292
Your question regards the Problem with Universals. Basically there are two options about what the Pokemon conceptuals are (although there are more than two, the others aren't applicable). Platonic Realism and Aristotelian Realism. Platonic Realism presents the Theory of Forms, which states that all forms (or concepts) are transcendent embodiments in which everything of the concept participates in. For example, everything that is a circle is not a circle on its own, but merely participates in the form of circle-ness. Circle-ness as a form shares its essence and allows objects in reality to participate in it, becoming circular, but it independent and transcendent of all circles. Circle-ness would always exist, regardless of whether or not circles did. If Circle-ness was somehow destroyed, all circles would instantly cease to be, and the idea of circle-ness itself would leave reality.ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Opposing this idea of the Aristotelian Realism. For Aristotle, concepts are not transcendent and independent forms, but rather dependent ideas. For example, circle-ness (although not called such under Aristotelian terms) is not independent of all circles. If all circles were to be eliminated, circle-ness would cease to be until another circle arose. In this sense, any conceptual entity following an Aristotelian principle would be reliantly immortal on their concept, and is not independent of what defines that concept in reality.
If you want to go deeper some philosophical answers regarding the Problem of Universals even hold that even Aristotle reaches too far, and that concepts are defined exclusively by how the sentient population defines them, and would be changed, altered, or destroyed based on how they are perceived.
So yeah, that's the long and short of it.
Similar threads
