Super Genius Doesn't Exist

[Vzearr]

What Is A Super Genius?​

The highest level of non-omniscient intellect, possessed by individuals with unfathomably superhuman intelligence who are capable of creating impossibly advanced physics-defying and reality-warping fantasy technology for enormously diverse purposes.

In order to qualify for a Supergenius rating based on technological prowess, a character should be able to essentially warp reality in virtually any way that they wish on an at least base level infinite (High 3-A) scale with their inventions, or even use them to overpower tier 1 entities for higher cases. Simply defying the laws of physics with futuristic technology is very common for Extraordinary Geniuses as well. Meaning that there should be an enormous amount of versatility combined with an infinite scale of power and preferably range.

Why Exactly Does This Not Work?​

I'll dissect each part distinctively.

In order to qualify for a Supergenius rating based on technological prowess, a character should be able to essentially warp reality in virtually any way that they wish on an at least base level infinite (High 3-A) scale with their inventions, or even use them to overpower tier 1 entities for higher cases.

Now I came across an epiphany whilst on the toilet, taking a dump.

Super Genius shouldn’t be defined by destructive scale or reality warping alone. Because results that rely on unknown systems don’t automatically imply intelligence. What do I mean by this? We can’t assume someone is a Super Genius just because their universe’s rules allow different outcomes otherworldly. Intelligence is measured by reasoning shown and proven, not by unexplained results like creating a portal to another realm.

Other ways to qualify through non-technological means are to be able to process and understand literally infinite amounts of information, or to design entire realities of infinite complexity through skill and comprehension, rather than just wishing them into existence

This is quite literally vastly superior to Nigh Omniscience.

I don't think we're understanding the impressiveness of this.

One is cognitive capabilities and the other is knowledge, but if we're talking about intelligence, cognitive capabilities are far superior to crystallised knowledge.

I.E: Fluid Reasoning, and Visual Spatial Index are far superior to Verbal Comprehension Index (Crystallised knowledge.)

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

One, It doesn't look like you were given permission from staff to make this thread unless you can show evidence.

Two, the proposal sounds far too overblown; there really isn't anything wrong with the rating. They don't possess natural cosmic awareness, but are capable of mentally comprehending and infinite number of scientific complications and/or linguistics/parameters. It's kind of like how being High 3-A, being High 1-B, and actually being omnipotent are all different things.

It's also not based on destructive capabilities via science, just based on various other parameters. And there are multiple ways to get it.

 

[Vzearr]

One, It doesn't look like you were given permission from staff to make this thread unless you can show evidence.

Yah, sorry about that, I posted it then asked for permission, I shouldn't have done that.

Two, the proposal sounds far too overblown; there really isn't anything wrong with the rating. They don't possess natural cosmic awareness, but are capable of mentally comprehending and infinite number of scientific complications and/or linguistics/parameters. It's kind of like how being High 3-A, being High 1-B, and actually being omnipotent are all different things.

This doesn't respond to the claims I've made.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This doesn't respond to the claims I've made.

But it still sounds like those are arguments against things that are pretty basic and easy to follow.

 

[FinePoint]

We added the 'infinite information' caveat for exactly this reason, so there is a non-destructive metric that can be used.

As for it being 'superior to nigh-omniscience', I think that's just categorically not true.

Even in real life, the amount of distinct information you could derive is uncountably infinite, but you need only process countably infinite things to qualify for Supergenius.

Night-Omniscience only has 'miniscule gaps in knowledge'. If this gap is finite in any capacity then this still puts them vastly above merely knowing 'infinite' things, and even if this gap is infinite, it pales in comparison to the uncountably infinite knowledge which could be derived.

 

[Vzearr]

Hey.

Even in real life, the amount of distinct information you could derive is uncountably infinite, but you need only process countably infinite things to qualify for Supergenius.

Where exactly does it say countably infinite in the definition? Anyways, there isn't such a thing as processing countably infinite amounts of information in a finite time. It's so out of this realm that someone who is nigh-omniscience wouldn't be able to do such a thing on the basis of cognitive power.

Night-Omniscience only has 'miniscule gaps in knowledge'. If this gap is finite in any capacity then this still puts them vastly above merely knowing 'infinite' things, and even if this gap is infinite, it pales in comparison to the uncountably infinite knowledge which could be derived.

If you know an almost infinite amount of things, and you compare that to someone who can process infinite amounts of information in a finite time, the latter is far superior in terms of cognitive prowess.

 

[Antvasima]

We are definitely not going to remove our Supergenius rating. It defines an important type of character. I agree with Medeus and FinePoint.

 

[FinePoint]

Hey.

Where exactly does it say countably infinite in the definition? Anyways, there isn't such a thing as processing countably infinite amounts of information in a finite time. It's so out of this realm that someone who is nigh-omniscience wouldn't be able to do such a thing on the basis of cognitive power.

It's implied by the lack of a qualifier. We typically mention it has to be uncountable if we mean that.

As for there being 'no such thing'- welcome to fiction. Or, if you want a theoretical way to do infinite things in finite time, look up what a "supertask" is.

If you know an almost infinite amount of things, and you compare that to someone who can process infinite amounts of information in a finite time, the latter is far superior in terms of cognitive prowess.

A nigh-omniscient character does not know 'almost infinite things', they know 'all things with some exceptions'.

The latter certainly includes many different infinities, such as, for example, every digit of pi.

 

[Vzearr]

As for there being 'no such thing'- welcome to fiction. Or, if you want a theoretical way to do infinite things in finite time, look up what a "supertask" is.

That wasn't my point. I'll explain this a bit better.

There is a reason why the processing index subtests have a higher g loading than the general knowledge subtest.

General knowledge alone is a good qualifier for intelligence, but PSI is superior than the general knowledge subtest, making processing infinite information more impressive, objectively, than having knowledge of things.

The G-loading of PSI, is superior to the G-loading of general knowledge. So why are we making the assumption that processing infinite things is less superior to knowing all things with exceptions.

 

[Antvasima]

It is a different type of character. An inventor with nearly unlimited versatility and scale rather than the all-knowing version. I would prefer if we close this thread.

 

[Vzearr]

We are definitely not going to remove our Supergenius rating.

With this I see no reason to continue the thread.

Thanks for listening to my toilet rambles.