Should Dimensional Scale be applied to Omniscience and Omnipresence?

[ExerciseDancefloors]

A lot of fictional characters seem to be "Omniscient" or "Omnipresent", but both abilities can only go so far if said characters are not Infinite or Beyond Dimensional. It's impossible to be truly Omnipresent or Omniscient if you only exist on a definite dimensional scale.

Can anyone elaborate?


Thanks!


~EX~

 

[Ultima_Reality]

i'm pretty sure you already answered your own question tho...

Stuff like Omnipresence and Omniscience is all relative to one's verse setting, someone that is Omnipresent across and knows absolutely everything about a 2-A setting won't be fully omnipresent or omniscient in... a 1-C or 1-B setting, since that is far beyond what they are capable of encompassing or comprehending

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

A good question

 

[Antvasima]

Ultima Reality is correct.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

I was already out of here, but I needed to reappear to answer that question (I was agonized, and since it's a holiday today I'll have time). The answer is simple: It depends.

It depends on whether you will treat omnipresence and omniscience in their original meanings, or the false omnipresence and omniscience shown in fiction. In their original concepts, omnipresence and omniscience are placed side by side with omnipotence itself, and they are not limited to dimensionality. "Omni-" is a prefix that doesn't allow exceptions in the divine attributes. If an entity is in everything, it is both in dimensionality and in the very "ontological nothingness" (here called "true void") that, although many here don't agree, is automatically beyond dimensionality; if there is something where the omnipresent isn't, then what he has isn't omnipresence but pseudo-omnipresence. Omniscience also works the same way, if there is something he doesn't know then he isn't omniscient. It doesn't matter if it is of a higher dimension.

In other words, just as dimensionality doesn't apply to omnipotence, it doesn't apply to omnipresence and omniscience either. If one of them is conditioned, then it isn't the real attribute. The example I most like to cite as "true" omnipresence is math. Mathematics is in all dimensions (remember that the very concept of dimensionality arose in mathematics with Euclidean geometry), and at the same time is in nothingness (mathematically nothing is the number 0; the empty set can also express this). Idk how the wiki here deals (I believe it isn't so, based on what Ultima said), but in any case, omnipresence and omniscience "true" should necessarily be so.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the analysis. However, I do not think that we can initiate major revisions by treating the concepts as absolute.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

If we treat omnipotence as being absolute and independent of dimensionality because of the omni- prefix, I don't see why we should not treat omniscience and omnipresence in the same way, since they have both the same origin and the same prefix omni-.

After all, I understand that it would take a lot of work to change this (not really so much), so I will not even suggest a revision for it (even because I don't have the time), although I would like this revision to occur.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, if I have understood you correctly, you want only tier 0 characters to get the rating, whereas everybody else would be changed to nigh-omnipresent and nigh-omniscient instead?

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

For now I'd say yes. I think even a 1-A being (for example) can't be omnipresent (it isn't present in tier 0; nor was it present before tier 0 created it). This treating omnipresence not as being in all places and times, but in being in "everything" (which is the original definition of omnipresence). And if there were any exceptions, or something in which he is not present, this should be called "nigh-omnipresence".

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I am afraid that it isn't practically feasible to apply for the moment. Maybe later, when we do not have several important projects lined up already.

 

[Crzer07]

For the record, true omnipotence and omniversal on here is regarded as "questionable omnipotence" and "questionable omniversal" (questionable to emphasize its non-provability) but it is essentially the same, at least colloquially. So it would be more consistent to attach "questionable" to omniscience and omnipresence as well, if we do not use omnipotent and omniversal alone.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

VSBW considers the configurations at the verse limit. Omnipotence IIRC posed as questionable because of paradoxes and can't be proved. However, the same doesn't apply to omniscience and omnipresence (there is no paradox that defies omniscience and omnipresence, nor is there improbability). I could prove that Azathoth, for example, is omnipresent, for absolutely everything is his dream.

 

[Antvasima]

As I mentioned, you do have a point, and I can place a note of this thread in my VS Battles to-do-list, but this is definitely not the right time to apply such a change. I am very tired, overworked, and stressed out, there are some very important projects that we need to get done, and there are other important events happening behind the scenes.

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

As I said, I fully understand that, so I had not even touched on the subject of the revision. I just answered the young man over there.

And you should rest Ant. Even I couldn't stand to work uninterruptedly like you.

 

[The_Everlasting]

I'm pretty sure we've always treated Omnipresence as relative to dimensional level, though.

I have no idea how Omniscience relates to it.

 

[ProspectX]

I'm sorry to hear that Ant, i hope it all truly turns out to be good for you.

Now i fully agree with Souza, that was splendid. I strongly agree that true omnipresence/omniscience should only be specifically towards the boundless, with everyone that is not boundless are therefore in sub-categories of this term (pseudo-omnipresence). The term "encompassing Everything" is somber, even those like Yog-soth (ALL in One), and other high 1-A's in that reality are explictily said to be just a will of Azathoth, his dream, (he is both everything and nothing ) Honestly it doesnt matter much if he is dreaming or not since he is boundless, the symbolism can be interepeted in many ways.

And as the everlasting said, omnipresence is relatively in many verses. One can be omnipresent in every spatio-temporal dimension, but there is another who exceeds your omnipresence by surpassing all infinite layers on a higher level . And tier 1-A's are the same, like dies irae where one is locally omnipresent in a territory.

And yes just like ant said, it would be a immense task since alot of verses have a couple of "omnipresents".

 

[Kevyn_S._de_Andrade]

Not really. What would work most would be to convince the members to accept the change. If they accept, a bot can change all the pages quietly, and it would not give almost any work. I often do this myself on my wiki, which currently has almost 2,000 pages.

 

[ProspectX]

Is that so? Well, i'm in agreement on that.

 

[ProspectX]

Wait, that would be necessary to implement a staff thread regarding how important it is.

 

[Antvasima]

How would such a script work?

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I would still much prefer to wait with this until more important projects are done.

 

[ProspectX]

I wonder so myself, but yeah best to leave it for later.

 

[ProspectX]

For the record, true omnipotence and omniversal on here is regarded as "questionable omnipotence" and "questionable omniversal" (questionable to emphasize its non-provability) but it is essentially the same, at least colloquially. So it would be more consistent to attach "questionable" to omniscience and omnipresence as well, if we do not use omnipotent and omniversal alone.

Omniverse is not a term used in this wiki, just "True Infinity". Since a boundless is already beyond those definitons, including omniverse.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Well we don't use Omniverse because so many different verses have different versions of what an omniverse is. Some of them, like Marvel, are absolutely ridiculous, and try to say that our REAL world is part of their omniverse. Of course we could never be part of any fictional verse, unless you then believe that what that verse says is not fiction, but is instead reality.

I hope we can agree that this is nonsense. But yeah that is why we don't use Omniverse.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Also this discussion seems to be drawing to a close. Does anyone want this to stay open, or is it OK to close?

 

[ProspectX]

Well we don't use Omniverse because so many different verses have different versions of what an omniverse is. Some of them, like Marvel, are absolutely ridiculous, and try to say that our REAL world is part of their omniverse. Of course we could never be part of any fictional verse, unless you then believe that what that verse says is not fiction, but is instead reality.
I hope we can agree that this is nonsense. But yeah that is why we don't use Omniverse.

But of course not, no reality/verse connects or is a part of anything that is off-world. This world is no exception.

So I agree, but which author made that claim?

 

[Assaltwaffle]

Marvel lol. I know it is a joke but yeah, that is the big reason we laugh at the term Omniverse. That said if no one has anything else to say I will close this.

 

[ProspectX]

I take it they were a bit semi-serious when stating that irrationality. At least they havent been screaming it off in public.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

I assume. Either way it looks like Ant has said this can be brought up after some other projects, but for now I am closing.