Gods Unbound: Omnipotent Tier 0s

[Antvasima]

Perhaps we should focus the discussion on rewriting the conclusion section? It seems like a more constructive approach.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Except Kevyn's blog isn't outdated. The argument I used and you failed to respond to comes from there. And his opinion is also backed up by actual sources in the field.

Sorry, but I'm 100% against it in any shape or form. My opinion in this stance isn't budging.

What is your stance and what are you saying?

 

[Kepekley23]

Well, I personally think it's fine. This is all semantics, to be honest.

 

[Ryukama]

There is nothing wrong with Kevyn's blog. It's insanely well written and informative on what omnipotence is all about.

All we need to do is change our "Reasons Why We Don't Use It" to take out the paradoxical, contradictory reasons, and instead elaborate on the hiearchy and impossible to prove issues.

 

[Kepekley23]

The conclusion that omnipotence needs to contradict logic in order to work is outdated, and has been replaced and made to work with paraconsistent logic ever since. Which is the purpose of the blog to begin with.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

@Kep

But paraconsistent logic is a rationalistic approach to trying to get around the law of non-contradiction. The vast majority of philosphers accept the law of non-contradiction as valid, and just ignoring it spits in the face of all currently accepted logical frameworks and the vast amount of philosophical world views.

You're boarding a crazy train if you want to deny the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Kepekley23]

Violating the law of non-contradiction = \ = being illogical.

Paraconsistency is still a field of logic, and can still explain omnipotence in a logical basis. Thus it's sufficient.

 

[Antvasima]

Again, I would appreciate help with rewriting what is currently named the "conclusions" section, but should be renamed to "Reasons why we don't use the term", as Ryukama almost said.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

But the vast majority of people view paraconsistent logic as a shoddy (and objectively weaker) logical framework that shouldn't be applied. If you accept paraconsistent logic as valid then most people would think you outright insane. Someone could ask you "Do you think Pepsi is better than Coke?" And you could reply "yes" then someone ask you "Do you think Pepsi is worse than Coke?" And still reply "yes."

The logical theories present by paraconsistent logic are weak and it is a generally illogical framework made to try to incorporate and accept inconsistencies are logical, when all classical and applied logics believe they are illogical.

 

[Antvasima]

Sigh. I am trying to keep the discussion on a practical level here.

 

[Ryukama]

Another thing we have to keep in mind is that this is fiction. Fiction does not have to be a mirror to reality. Make believe, fantasy and nonsensical things can happen in fiction. I think to reject something that happens in fiction because it couldn't happen in real life is asinine.

Paradoxes, self contradictions and violations of necessary truth should still be accepted in fiction.

 

[Kepekley23]

But the vast majority of people view paraconsistent logic as a shoddy (and objectively weaker) logical framework that shouldn't be applied.

This is false, sorry. Paraconsistent logic is only heavily criticized by some philosophers. Most well-known philosophers acknowledge that it's a valid neutral view on logic.

Aristotelian and buddhist logic both endorse paraconsistent logic.

I agree with Ant, by the way.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is the current "conclusion" section text. Help to rewrite it is appreciated:

"Despite the many theological and philosophical perspectives regarding Omnipotence and its paradoxes, Omnipotence is something that is completely contradictory and impossible to demonstrate or understand on any conceivable level. By its very definition, it is something that cannot be used to measure a character, and claims of Omnipotence, no matter how complex or developed, should never be viewed as proof.

Thus, within this Wiki even characters with the highest "Tier 0" ranking are only described as having "Questionable Omnipotence"."

 

[Kepekley23]

Also, even if the idea that paraconsistent logic was largely rejected by philosophers (it isn't) was true, that wouldn't stop us. That'd mean we should drop our Tiering System altogether because it uses the bosonic string theory, which is largely criticized by the scientific community, and we obviously shouldn't do that.

We use the closest theories in our Tiering System. Likewise, our current Black Hole formula would also be bogus in real life, where Black Holes would be impossible to destroy, but what we have is the closest thing to a precise formula.

What your OP suggests is akin to asking us to drop all the above, and, needless to say, I'm against it.

Omnipotence violates the law of non contradiction, but that merely makes it paraconsistent, and thus it doesn't violate logic itself, since paraconsistent logic is still logic.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Ant

It looks good.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, that is the old text. It needs to be rewritten to include mentions of our hierarchical approach.

 

[Aeyu]

The problem is that "Omnipotence" is always going to be compared to Cantor's idea of the Absolute Infinite (totally irreducible infinity not reducible to any set or theory of sets, compare inaccessibility which is a far more limited concept) and the "Absolute Infinite" always violates all logic. If we're going to change anything, for the sake of being honest I think that removing "Questionable" and changing "Omnipotence" to "Boundlessness" is far more preferrable. Even with axiom-violating cardinal sets in size (which violate basic axioms of logic and go into realms of paraconsistency due to exceeding the limitations of the Kunen inconsistency), further sets can be extrapolated with no end. "Infinite" is irrelevant when essentially a power set can always be made with any defined level of "power" or being. The "Absolute Infinite" is always illogical and unreachable, and furthermore as postulated by several others in criticism of Cantor, absolutely improvable for the reasons I listed above. Kevyn's article is exceedingly intelligent and I think that replacing his text is a bit disrespectful to him. This has nothing to do with "what is possible" in the realms of fiction; it has to do with the limitations of our own ability to quantify. The "Absolute Infinite", which is imo what we base "True Infinity" off of, is always going to be improvable beyond a very broad definition. Sure, you can violate physical laws; there has been postulated to be many other worlds/universes within the field of science (false vacua and the like, or that of a Type II multiverse where separate Hubble volumes may possess different physical constants) but violating basic logic and causality does not put one beyond the scope of what can be proven (Paraconsistency)

My point is that using "Omnipotence" at all will inevitably turn things into a theological/philosophical debate, which detracts from AP being categorized as further increasing realms of power. If we are going to consider higher dimensions as higher aleph cardinals, with 1-B and High 1-B being uncountable infinites, 1-A referring to the inaccessible and High 1-A referring to multiple higher degrees of cardinal like the Mahlo sets and rank-into-rank cardinals, 0 should simply be "Boundless", referring to axiom-violating cardinals, as the "Absolute Infinite" is fully improvable.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still completely stand by with Aeyu and Kep.

We're a VsDebating Website designed to rank fictional characters, not a Theology Debating Board. We cannot argue with belief and faith regarding the nature of God, and the like. From a purely fictional standpoint it is impossible to prove Omnipotence.

It is impossible to prove in theology either.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

Also agree with Kep and Aeyu.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, given that the original sugestion seems to have been rejected, I would still appreciate suggestions for how to expand the following text to include our hierarchy approach:

"Despite the many theological and philosophical perspectives regarding Omnipotence and its paradoxes, Omnipotence is something that is completely contradictory and impossible to demonstrate or understand on any conceivable level. By its very definition, it is something that cannot be used to measure a character, and claims of Omnipotence, no matter how complex or developed, should never be viewed as proof.

Thus, within this Wiki even characters with the highest "Tier 0" ranking are only described as having "Questionable Omnipotence"."

I can clean up the language and structure afterwards if necessary.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I personally prefer if we keep the "Questionable Omnipotence" rating, as we have no explanation page to link to for boundlessness, and given that the ACF wiki uses that system, which is what we base our own structure on.

 

[Aeyu]

That's very true (that we use ACF ratings) for the most part (minus a few tiers), although DarkLK himself said we should do what is appropriate for us, did he not? Furthermore, we could create a well-defined page for this too, as iirc even Omnipotence was not always such a well made page. My stance is primarily that as an indexing Wiki, distinctions should be made in order to avoid vagueness and the potentiality of the Tiering System itself being criticized as well as misunderstandings about High 1-A and 0 characters coming into play.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am not completely averse to the notion, but we would first need a reasonably high quality boundlessness page to link to.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, given my many tasks, I have a hard time to focus properly, so I would still appreciate help with expanding the text section that I quoted earlier.

 

[Aeyu]

I could potentially create one along with the help of others if allowed; it would explain how our tiering system essentially uses Alephs to define its higher tiers (high tier 2 and above) and how "Boundlessness" relates to increasing infinite sizes, but is not necessarily directly equatable with Omnipotence/Absolute Infinity as defined by Georg Cantor. This would further reinforce what has already been echoed by yourself and other prominent administrators in that High 1-As and 0s could potentially be relative, but are not evaluated in such a way, as it is hard or subjective to properly quantify the scope of power encompassed. In making a further case, Tier 0 is already referred to as "Boundless", other than the direct name of Tier 0, so it's not too far-fetched that this could be an option.

Additionally, were such a page to be created, it would be necessary to modify the Omnipotence page anyway to reflect why it is unused in favor of better specificity (Like the Omniverse page). I will try and think of an appropriate suggestion.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, to avoid misunderstandings, you would have to first assemble information by discussing the issue with DarkLK and DontTalkDT, as they have been instrumental in developing our system.

 

[Antvasima]

You cannot define your own interpretation of things at this point, strictly go by the previous standards.

 

[Aeyu]

I could leave messages on their wall to bring them into this discussion, or we could perhaps open up a string of dialogue with them in a new thread. I, too, wish to avoid misunderstandings and only wish to prevent them.

 

[Antvasima]

@All

Is something like this an acceptable replacement text for the soon to be renamed conclusion section?

"Despite the many theological and philosophical perspectives regarding omnipotence and its paradoxes, the term is something that is completely impossible to prove or demonstrate on any conceivable level.

By its very definition, it is something that cannot be used to measure a character, and claims of omnipotence, no matter how complex or developed, should never be viewed as proof.

In addition, our system is built on hierarchies, with tier 0 defined as possessing absolute transcendence above all other beings within the system, but raw power and stature do not necessarily carry over to the complete versatility of omnipotence.

Thus, within this Wiki even characters with the highest "Tier 0" ranking are only described as having "Questionable Omnipotence"."

 

[Antvasima]

@Aeyu

It is probably better to start a discussion on DarkLK's message wall, and then invite DontTalkDT to participate.

 

[Antvasima]

Alternately you could ask DarkLK about tier 1-A and above via his message wall, and DontTalkDT about tier High 2-A to High 1-B via his message wall. That might be a better approach, in order to avoid conflicting viewpoints.

 

[Aeyu]

@Ant

I do like the implementation of this disclaimer.

Furthermore, I suppose I can do so, if it is known on here so that Matt and Kep can contribute as well if they would wish.

Conflicting viewpoints? It was of my understanding that we already view the higher tiers under such parameters, but if you would like me to discuss making this well-defined to each of them, I suppose I can do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, both of them are extremely intelligent, so there might be conflicts of opinion that keep the discussion off track, and might be better to focus on their specialisations, i.e. geometrical dimensions for DontTalkDT, and metaphysics for DarkLK.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, are other staff members fine with if I replace the "Conclusions" section in the Omnipotence page?

 

[Aeyu]

Well, in general, well-defining tiers as being increasing sizes a la Cantor sets would all be better handled under one fell swoop, but I suppose I can ask them each individually.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Perhaps you are right, and it would be better to maintain one discussion with both of them involved.

 

[Aeyu]

I agree. Should I post a thread or simply post on DarkLK's wall and invite DontTalk?

 

[Antvasima]

The latter. However, it might be better to keep our current practice with questionable omnipotence, so when you are finished, begin by posting your draft in a blog post.

 

[Aeyu]

Okay. I will do so.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you.

Also, I have updated the Omnipotence page. Is this acceptable?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Omnipotence&diff=2421404&oldid=2313786