Quote the tiering system saying that anywhere
Yes exactly. This wiki allows NLFs to some extent which is kinda arbitrary and I disagree with it.
A verse can use omnipotence and copy paste it's definition word to word but we don't just assume they can do absolutely anything. It's the same situation here
The definition of Omnipotence isn't invalid. Also mathematics isn't a rigorously defined thing so it doesn't have any kind of rigorous logical limit. It's quite literally a similar idea to Omnipotence. Omnipotent beings can do anything definable via language and type 4 multiverses contain anything definable via mathematics. And mathematics is pretty much the same thing as a language.
If only their ap is tier 0 then obviously they won't get irrelevant speed if they can't travel through 1-A sized realms. Moreover this is a super weird non sequitur and I don't see how it relates to what I said at all.
Because most Characters that have AP on that level also have feats of travelling through realms of that size, obviously. What you said was uncontextual because it had no relation to physicality and it's place in the tiering.
The 0=1 axiom is literally equivalent to Omnipotence. It's the limit because it can be used to prove absolutely any statement as true. It explodes into triviality. It's quite literally the same as saying omnipotence is the limit of language.
Exactly. That is why I only use the logical notion of Omnipotence, as in statements that are illogical are not statements at all. Logical omnipotence would still be the maximum possible limit of any cosmology. And type 4 multiverses by definition can't be surpassed by any other structure since they encompass everything. Yet you are somehow fine with WoD's type 4 multiverse not being the end all be all of the cosmology
What rules limit mathematics? Aside from the 0=1 you mentioned which is literally just triviality
From what I heard there's literally a void outside it, so
No there is no limit to Omnipotence in this case since illogical statements don't define "things" at all. It can still do anything that isn't logically inconsistent.
You can probably just construct some weird system where division by 0 is possible. I don't think it's a limit of Omnipotence. Plus the same thing can be applied to language: any statements that are self Contradictory are not statements at all and don't define or explain or pertain to anything
And what's stopping me from writing 0=1 in maths? Oh yeah, it would explode into triviality. Same with language.
In this interpretation logic isn't a limit, but rather things outside logic aren't things at all. Illogical statements don't define or explain anything, hence they don't define any upper limits. "If a character can't make 1+1=blue they aren't omnipotent" is an inherently nonsensical question asking someone to do an inherently nonsensical thing that has no meaning and doesn't define any limit to the ability to do anything.
Elaborate please. If you mean that no character in fiction can be truly above all forms of space time then I agree since most characters in fiction are shown to participate in change.
There's no rule stopping me from writing 0=1(literally just did). It would just be a Contradictory equation. The same way you can make Contradictory statements in English. It's literally the same thing. Laws of logic make Contradictory statements invalid. But you can still write them in english. Same with maths.
They don't need to actualise that action, because it's not even an "action". There is nothing for them to do. It's the same as asking omnipotence to actualise "(32992?$/$!$!". Literally a meaningless incoherent statement. But it's clear to me that you aren't actually reading anything I am typing, and this is just going circular. Unless you have anything new to say aside from repeating the same thing please don't consider responding
Never mind I literally just re-read your message and you invalidated your premise, you said omnipotence is having the ability to do anything that's expressible in language, but you just said that non logical statements cannot be valid and don't correlate with omnipotence. Therefore, omnipotence is limited to logic which invalidates your follow-up definition of it being restrictionless. Thanks for making my time easier.
Think of omnipotence as the possibility of performing all acts that can be expressed by words that assume consistent meaning in potency, and to carry them out, it is enough for that power in act. This could explain some paradoxes such as the paradox of stone, so that God has in himself both the act of creating the stone and the act of lift it.
Tbh, Tegmark’s multiverse theories isn’t what has been accepted nor approved a lot of since not all fictional works will actually portray reality as being mathematical itself as I honestly think reality is reality itself that consist of philosophy, mathematics, and science along the way.
Oh well I guess it was my fault for being incomplete. Should have been clear though that by "statements" I meant actual coherent statements and not self contradictory ones.
can i ask how this is possible out of curiosity?
Honestly, you should expect a complicated answer relating to mathematics and other things.
That's what I would like to hear lol
From the wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels
He argues that this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be, say, a Level V."[19]
So, here's the problem with that. Writing 1=0 means nothing to math, for it to work you'd have to be able to prove said statement, or make at least make it consistent across all of math. Essentially, by writing 1=0 you change the entire structure and rules for mathematics or, if you don't, you merely wrote something nonsensical. Language is malleable enough to accommodate contradiction and a lack of logic, because each individual word has a meaning that can be understood even if the total statement is meaningless, and even then expressing meaninglessness is still within the purview of language. Math has to be consistent, language doesn't. I mean, just look at the word "literally" which now has an official definition that can be used to express something not literal but figurative. The symbols of math mean things that you cannot change without fundamentally changing math as a whole, like the = sign. These symbols, including numbers, have a defined meaning like letters in words but are far more rigid in meaning. There's a reason math is the "universal language."
Again its not similar to omnipotence at all, the whole point of this discussion was if that's the case and obviously you're jumping to an invalid conclusion. I am not saying everything is possible within mathematics unlike with omnipotence, this has been the entire argument from the beginning so I don't see how you're making this conclusion at all especially with everything that's been said
I mean you can probably just make a different formal system where they all mean different things, but I am not as knowledgeable on that stuff so I will refrain from saying something incorrect. Anyhow, statements in language that are inconsistent wouldn't really count in any kind of philosophical or technical discussion in the first place as they need consistency.
Maybe not, but a subset of humor is dedicated to absurdist use of language. And hell, philosophy argues over contradictions in thought all the time, see the debates on omnipotence vs almighty (seriously, omnipotent can mean so many things because language doesn't operate on the purely literal). But, yes, if you tried to support an argument in a debate with something inherently nonsensical it would be ignored or derided as meaningless, much like saying 1=0.
Probably similar to how some branches of logic allow contradictions(like paraconsistency) to construct weird systems despite still being rigorous. But yes ultimately incoherent statements don't have a place in any normal discussions
Not sure about that one chief.
It is outside the Cosmology entirely.
No, it does mean it's not a part of everything.
So things beyond it don't count as part of "everything"?
