Featherine Augustus Aurora VS Mother of Existence VS Goddess of the Manifold
Don't know Mother of Existence. It's not Man of Miracles from spawn is it? But Goddess of the manifold should win due to massive, absolutely insanely huge cosmological difference. There's just no way umineko cosmology comes close to the size of the manifold cosmology. Even maximum fan blinded wank is insignificant in size in comparison. Even scp if we assume it has multiverses with the the first singular cardinal and it's successors is an unimaginably tiny speck to the size of the manifold multiverse.
Manifold? featherine gets blinked.
Manifold
first singular cardinal and it's successors is an unimaginably tiny speck to the size of the manifold multiverse.
The only reason I could think of that you would say this is because of this quote from the Proxima series:
She walked to the window. Her severed arm seemed to ache, dully, but maybe that was her imagination. The floating buildings were a hallucinogenic dream. Some of them were connected, by bridges and staircases that arced across the gulf below. 'Why the city in the sky?'
'Ah, my Laputas. What you see is a representation of a logical structure called the Ultimate L.'
'Logical?'
'Mathematical. A constructible universe, if you like, or multiverse. The buildings out there represent a type of entity known as Woodin cardinals. An expression of the axioms of set theory. Officer Philmus, this is a kind of mathematical superspace, which may, or may not, be an expression of all the variants of mathematics that can logically exist. Nobody knows for sure; not even I, and certainly not that arrogant brute the Archangel. Certainly one may prove profound mathematical theorems merely by exploring such a space – by looking for the edges, or internal boundaries. It is a jungle where hierarchies of infinities tower like prehistoric beasts. And it is a jungle where I hide away.'
But I have some problems with using this quote to scale the Manifold verse from it, namely - did Baxter himself confirm that Proxima and Manifold series are connected ? I don't remember any connection to the Manifold (aside from some similarities in cosmology, those being that the mathematical structures are the underlying reality of the verse).
Aside from that, it's also kinda ambiguous what do Woodin cardinals actually represent here and whether there is actually Woodin-many things physically existing in the cosmology (because the cosmology is defined as an abstract mathematical space).
What's with British and Japanese author being obsessed with having bigger D's
Huh ? What do you mean by this ? Neither Umineko nor Manifold were written for battleboarding purposes. One is a murder mystery and other is a sci-fi that explores interesting hard-science ideas.
@not_exactly: ok. I understand if that quote might be non canon to the scale of the mainline manifold multiverse. That it doesn't mean the manifold multiverse contains as many things as a Woodin class cardinal is an interesting take. But if we don't assume this is referring to the amount of things in the cosmology. Then SCP would lose singular cardinals and even aleph cardinals as it's use of them is just as ambiguous as proximas. Maybe ops can clear up ambiguity by stating composite manifold cosmology. As even if proxima is non canon it could still be used. I'm not familiar with manifold myself. But tell me. Did Baxter give any indication as to how many universes are in the manifold multiverse himself?
But if we don't assume this is referring to the amount of things in the cosmology. Then SCP would lose singular cardinals and even aleph cardinals as it's use of them is just as ambiguous as proximas.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. SCP has an article that explicitly states there are uncountably many universes in it, but there isn't an exact cardinal number specified on how many there are. Proxima's problem is the complete opposite, it explicitly states the existence of a Woodin cardinal, but we don't know if there are actually that many physical objects in the verse.
Maybe ops can clear up ambiguity by stating composite manifold cosmology.
I would rather not. This would give the Goddess too much advantage and would make this into a mismatch for the reason you also noticed:
As even if proxima is non canon it could still be used.
.
I'm not familiar with manifold myself. But tell me. Did Baxter give any indication as to how many universes are in the manifold multiverse himself?
There are [countably] infinitely many of them, which is augmented by the infinite recursion of the 'Manifold of Manifolds' and the God(dess) embodies all of it (though this is still nowhere close to being uncountable):
And, suddenly, Nemoto began to talk.
“They made the manifold.”
“Who did?”
“The Old Ones. They constructed a manifold of universes—an infinite number of universes. They made it all.” Nemoto shook her head. “Even framing the thought, conceiving of such ambition, is overwhelming. But they did it.”
Manekato was watching them, her large eyes thoughtful. Emma said carefully, “How did they do this, Nemoto?”
“The branching of universes, deep into the hyperpast,” Manekato murmured.
Emma shook her head, irritated. “What does that mean?”
Nemoto said, “Universes are born. They die. We know two ways a universe can be born. The most primitive cosmos can give birth to another through a Big Crunch, the mirror-image of a Big Bang suffered by a collapsing universe at the end of its history. Or else a new universe can be budded from the singularity at the heart of a black hole. Black holes are the key, Emma, you see. A universe which cannot make black holes can have only one daughter, produced by a Crunch. But a universe which is complex enough to make black holes, like ours, can have many daughters, baby universes connected to the mother by space-time umbilicals through the singularities.”
“And so when the Old Ones tinkered with the machinery—”
“We don’t know how they did it. But they changed the rules,” Nemoto said.
Emma said hesitantly, “So they found a way to create a lot more universes.”
Manekato said, “We believe the Old Ones created, not just a multiplicity of daughter universes, but an infinite number.” The bulky Daemon studied Emma’s face, seeking understanding.
“Infinity is significant, you see,” Nemoto said, too rapidly. “There is, umm, a qualitative difference between a mere large number, however large, and infinity. In the infinite manifold, in that infinite ensemble, all logically possible universes must exist. And therefore all logically possible destinies must unfold. Everything that is possible will happen, somewhere out there. They created a grand stage, you see, Emma: a stage for endless possibilities of life and mind.”
.
The Gaijin had a somewhat mathematical philosophy. Malenfant thought it sounded suspiciously like a religion.
The Gaijin believed that the universe was fundamentally comprehensible by creatures like themselves — like humans, like Malenfant. That is, they believed it possible that an entity could exist that could comprehend the entire universe, arbitrarily well.
And they had a further principle that mandated that if such a being could exist, it must exist.
The catch was that they believed there was a manifold of possible universes, of which this was only one. So She may not exist in this universe.
It — She — was the final goal of the Gaijin’s quest.
But until the God of the Manifold shows up, there’s only us, Malenfant thought. And there is work to do. We have to fix the bugs in this universe we’re all stuck in. Hence, we throw a net around a star.
Hence, my sacrifice.
But, almost from the beginning, we fought back. We barely understood a damn thing, and nothing we did alone was going to make a difference, and the whole time we were swept along by historical forces that we could barely understand, let alone control, much as it had always been. We didn’t even know who the bad guys were. But, by God, we tried.
At whatever cost to ourselves.
.
Babo shrugged massively, as Manekato groomed him. “It may yet be possible to use the world engine, if only in a limited way …”
“To do what?”
“We can explore the manifold. We can Map to other realities. Other possibilities. You don’t have to send a whole Moon to do that.”
Mane pondered. “But what is there to look for?” “In fact there is a valid goal,” Babo said carefully.
The Astrologers, he told Manekato, believed that the universe—any given universe—was a fundamentally comprehensible system. If a system was comprehensible, then an entity must exist that could comprehend it. Therefore an entity must exist that could comprehend the entire universe, arbitrarily well—or ratherShemust exist, as Babo put it.
“The God of the Manifold,” Manekato said dryly.
The catch was that there was a manifold of possible universes, of which this was only one. So She may not exist in this universe.
Anyhow, it—She—was to be the ultimate goal of the Daemons’ quest.
“Of course,” Babo said, “She may actually be an expression of the manifold itself—or perhaps the manifold itself, the greater structure of reality strands,is itself self-referential, in some sense conscious. Or perhaps the manifold is itself merely one thread in a greater tapestry —”
“A manifold of manifolds.”
“And perhaps there is a further recursion of structure, no end to the hierarchies of life and mind, which—”
Mane held up her hands. “If we find Her: what will we ask Her?”
Babo picked his nose thoughtfully. “I asked Em-ma that. She said, ‘Ask Her if She knows what the hell is going on.’ ”
Mane touched her brother’s head. “Then that is what we will ask. Come, brother; we have much to do.”
Hand in hand, the two of them loped toward the forest, seeking shade and food.
Also, some other people that might be interested: @ovy7@kilgpmktra@lmaolmaolmao@nwname
@not_exactly: I honestly didn't realize you made this thread. I'll back up the scp stuff when I get the chance.
Cannot talk about the internal framework of the Manifold cosmology as I do not know anything about it. I also know next to nothing about MOE, but if the limited information that was given to me (her being omnipotent) is true, then she should take this. But I could be wrong on this so pardon me if that is the case.
@not_exactly: Worry not! I don't do the vsbw style "infinity stacking" thing! I know better than THAT at least! The only reason I brought up alephs and the first singular cardinal is that both are explicitly stated in scp.
>Unfortunately, the world is not dynamic. Everything's already over, I've already read it. All of this? It's just going through the motions. This is just a tiny subset of the world at large. I'd call it the 'real' word, but it's just as real as we are in here. The larger space that we're in… much larger, in fact, uncountably infinite expanses in uncountably infinite dimensions… we fill that space. And yet, here, we're discretised. Collapsed into words and nothing more, even if we're something so much greater.
>See, sometimes the infinite can be reduced to something simpler. Look here: ℵ0 and ℵ1 and ℵ2 and so on. Simple, yes, but they can each contain the world. You can glimpse it, if you look hard enough. Just breathe in, breathe out. Think about infinity. Not just countable, but uncountable, and the dimension of it goes up into uncountability too. If you think you've really understood it, you aren't thinking hard enough. Sure, zoom past the pitstops. 5, 23, 3333. They're all beautiful, but so horrendously finite. Fly past it all and keep going and going. Minds have died wishing for a fraction of what I can see. So breathe slowly, and think about it.
>Really think about it, and the world seems like nothing.
Where I got my information is here itt under the cosmology header.
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/scp-feats-cosmology-etc-2093988/#js-message-32
The first singular cardinal is mentioned as well. But then it goes to countable ordinals. Which doesn't make any sense. So I only use up to the first singular cardinal.
But since you are the op. It doesn't matter if the woodin cardinal refers to the amount of universes in the proxima multiverse. Since you aren't using proxima itt.
The construction of Baxter's manifold verse sounds countable to me. Unless I'm wrong. But it doesn't sound like the union of all countable sets below aleph0.
But can you tell me? Is MoE Man of miracles from McFarlane's Spawn verse?
I had been wanting to ask you about your thoughts on umineko's cosmology. I guess this thread would be a perfect time. I'll post my thoughts on umineko's cosmology when I get the chance.
but if the limited information that was given to me (her being omnipotent) is true, then she should take this. But I could be wrong on this so pardon me if that is the case.
Well, she is stated to 'embody all of existence' of her verse so take that as you will. Though, disclaimer - I don't really agree that we should use omnipotence as an argument (nor any other 'all-encompassing' notions like absolute infinity, Tegmark's type 4 multiverse, modal realism, etc...) since you can't prove such claims in a cross-verse battle (due to obvious restrictions) so, in my opinion, the debate would be more engaging if we compare the scopes on which characters like these operate since they are infinitely powerful and very versatile reality warpers that don't have any notable anti-feats.
Worry not! I don't do the vsbw style "infinity stacking" thing! I know better than THAT at least!
Don't worry, I didn't assume you will be using their notion of greater infinities 🙂
The only reason I brought up alephs and the first singular cardinal is that both are explicitly stated in scp.
Uhh... I don't see the first singular cardinal stated anywhere in the quotes you posted though... It's just reaffirming that there are uncountably many dimensions, it doesn't explicitly say which uncountable cardinal is it anywhere.
Where I got my information is here itt under the cosmology header.
There is a lot of extremely inaccurate mathematical claims made there (which I believe I addressed in another thread) so I highly question the reliability of the user that made it regarding set theory explanations.
The first singular cardinal is mentioned as well.
The person who made the thread mentioned it, not the source material (the SCP article).
The construction of Baxter's manifold verse sounds countable to me. Unless I'm wrong.
You aren't wrong, it's just performing countable operations on a countable set, and as I said, that's nowhere close enough to be uncountable.
But it doesn't sound like the union of all countable sets below aleph0.
No, definitely not, there aren't any uncountable unions performed in it.
But can you tell me? Is MoE Man of miracles from McFarlane's Spawn verse?
Yes.
I had been wanting to ask you about your thoughts on umineko's cosmology. I guess this thread would be a perfect time.
Well I can't give a 100% accurate answer since there has been some time since I read it + a lot of cosmology stuff in Umineko is ambiguous (and coupled with the fact the series is very long I don't have enough motivation to re-read it in it's entirety to fact check the context for every "feat" or cosmology explanation).
But anyway, most of the time when terms such as infinite, endless, countless, etc... are mentioned in the work it's either used metaphorically (like the infinite ladder in witch domain) or or not in a literal sense and is usually referring to something really large or numerous (like the amount of worlds in the Beatrice's catbox). It's sometimes referred to as infinite even though it has some technical limitations. Other then that, supporters of the verse often rely on the "R>F" layers to argue for the characters which are irrelevant in a neutral scenario (plus they heavily overestimate the total amount of them in the cosmology).
The reason I put Featherine in this match is because I've already seen her pit against characters of similar power (and I thought she would be a nice addition to represent the manga team in this scifi-comic-manga three way). Though, everyone in the thread seems to agree she doesn't stand a chance here...
@not_exactly: Damn. I was willing to forgive the silly set theory stuff since I thought it was SCP authors making the mistakes. So the cardinals weren't even mentioned and the guy was just making it all up? That's a low blow. I won't use singular cardinals with scp from now on. But yes. Even without it SCP does have uncountably many universes.
OT: With Baxter's manifold being countable. I think this matchup is fair. MoM is a multiversal reality warper. But idk her feats.
it was SCP authors making the mistakes
No, no, the only thing SCP authors wrote was this:
Unfortunately, the world is not dynamic. Everything's already over, I've already read it. All of this? It's just going through the motions. This is just a tiny subset of the world at large. I'd call it the 'real' word, but it's just as real as we are in here. The larger space that we're in… much larger, in fact, uncountably infinite expanses in uncountably infinite dimensions… we fill that space. And yet, here, we're discretised. Collapsed into words and nothing more, even if we're something so much greater.
See, sometimes the infinite can be reduced to something simpler. Look here: ℵ0 and ℵ1 and ℵ2 and so on. Simple, yes, but they can each contain the world. You can glimpse it, if you look hard enough. Just breathe in, breathe out. Think about infinity. Not just countable, but uncountable, and the dimension of it goes up into uncountability too. If you think you've really understood it, you aren't thinking hard enough. Sure, zoom past the pitstops. 5, 23, 3333. They're all beautiful, but so horrendously finite. Fly past it all and keep going and going. Minds have died wishing for a fraction of what I can see. So breathe slowly, and think about it.
Really think about it, and the world seems like nothing.
Everything else is commentary and conclusions from the user that made the thread.
Even without it SCP does have uncountably many universes.
Yes.
But idk her feats.
There aren't any notable feats from her (at least those that are comparable to her embodying the entirety of her verse's cosmology).
Well, she is stated to 'embody all of existence' of her verse so take that as you will.
Not sufficient enough for me, as ''Embodying all of existence'' is not akin to ''Being able to do anything''. It would be a redefinition or a non-sequitar (It's a non-sequitar depending on whetever this is an inference rather than an alternative description.)
I don't really agree that we should useomnipotenceas an argument (nor any other 'all-encompassing' notions like absolute infinity, Tegmark's type 4 multiverse, modal realism, etc...) since you can't prove such claims in a cross-verse battle (due to obvious restrictions)
I guess an appropiate question would be this then: What is your standard of evidence that is sufficient enough to establish something as true (And thus prove it). I guess this is a debate we need to have. I guess in your case, it would be that an entity needs to display ability x for it to be considered in a battle and I think that it is not necesarry depending on how credible the character is (Since that increases the likelyhood of a statement being accurate). I guess it is then important to qualify ''credibility'' and it is actually a broad spectrum. It can refer to the wisdom of a character, the standing in the cosmology, etc. (I guess ''Wisdom'' is a stereotypical quality of an omnipotent being.). But you also made an rather independent practical argument:
so, in my opinion, the debate would be more engaging if we compare the scopes on which characters like these operate since they are infinitely powerful and very versatile reality warpers that don't have any notable anti-feats.
I think that is a question of priorities. I would say that accuracy is fairly important and just as important as the productivity of the debate or it's engagement (These qualities can also go hand in hand so I do not see the issue here). I would also say that it depends on how you define ''engaging''. You could say that the debate of whetever omnipotence is valid or not is engaging since it drastically affects the outcome of this battle. @not_exactly
Sorry for my rather late responses. Always good to have a discussion with you.
Not sufficient enough for me, as ''Embodying all of existence'' is not akin to ''Being able to do anything''.
Well, the 'Embodying all of existence' description is very similar to Spinoza's idea of omnipotence (God) which might be what some use as a blueprint for their own idea of omnipotence so I thought it was worth to mention.
Though I do actually think it should necessarily follow that an entity should be able to do anything if he embodies everything. Think about it like this - if it embodies everything then it should also embody every imaginable property you can think of in maximum possible quantity and quality. Supposing there is something he can't do would mean there is a property you can think of with which you can't describe him, contradicting the original premise.
Disclamer: By "Being able to do anything" I assume you were naturally "limiting" this to non-self contradiction, which is what I was presupposing in the previous paragraphs (since talking about such things is the same as talking about nothing at all, that is - pointless, and I assume you probably agree with me).
It would be a redefinition or a non-sequitar
Well I elaborated more on what I meant above, you can now judge if it's still a non-sequitur.
What is your standard of evidence that is sufficient enough to establish something as true (And thus prove it).
Well, first of all, I am assuming this is a question in regard to the system of a debate, ie some sort of meta-model that follows the rules of classical logic to determine the winner by evaluating showings from respective works of fiction and is outside of every singular instance of some fictional work.
I had to mention this, since if we talking about what is enough evidence from inside each of authors works, then you would have to accept everything those respective authors dictate is the truth inside their work even though it might break logic entirely.
I guess in your case, it would be that an entity needs to display ability x for it to be considered in a battle
No, not necessarily. I do actually agree that some statements actually must be taken as true, but then, and you also notice this, we need to see what's the credibility of the entity that made such a statement and whether there is some contradiction to it later in the work (I'll bring this up again later in the post).
For example, let's actually take two very similar, but also very different notions - infinity and omnipotence. Obviously, it is impossible to visually represent both infinity and omnipotence and no amount of visual feats is enough to prove either. Then, there is the problem of both infinity and omnipotence having different definitions (in math and philosophy respectively).
However, the difference is that you can construct an acceptable and consistent model for the debating framework where you can talk about infinity from inside that model in an exact manner and this goes for the notion of infinity in any branch of mathematics of your choosing (whether it's the infinity from calculus in the extended real number line where you treat +∞ and -∞ as actual numbers, or inductive sets that have infinitely many elements in them in some set theoretic axiomatic system that can be defaulted as your system of choosing for the debate), which is impossible to reproduce for the notion omnipotence.
This is because of two reasons - first is that for any model of debate you construct you would have to talk about everything in that model to describe an omnipotent entity and this is simply impossible without running into some sort of a paradox. Though, the solution would be to just go more 'meta' and talk about it from outside that model. But then, you would again run into a problem - you aren't actually making statements about an entity from the framework of your choosing (ie, the debate in our example) but outside it, and so you can't actually use any tool available from that model (which are logical arguments in our case) to prove any statement you make about it as it simply wouldn't be applicable.
The other problem ties into the first one where we limit the models to be specific works of fiction. In that case, the debate about those works of fiction would actually be a 'meta-model' as it would be possible to talk about the entirety of that fictional work, and so, we could actually make a statement about some character being omnipotent. But again, we run into a problem. What if the 'everything' inside that one fictional work isn't 'everything' from inside the other fictional work that is present in the debate ? Or even worse, if the battle location they are supposed to be fighting in is some completely neutral reality that those two fictional works are actually subsets of ?
I would also like to point out something very important that ties into the above differences between infinity and omnipotence that you mentioned:
I would say that accuracy is fairly important and just as important as the productivity of the debate or it's engagement
Yes, of course, I highly agree with this. In fact, accuracy is actually one of (if not) the most important factor in these scenarios. This is also why you might see me as one of the very rare people having high standards on infinity and going in threads and questioning the validity of whether someone is actually infinitely powerful or something is infinitely large or not.
Before we even begin to argue about what I said above (differences between infinity and omnipotence) we first have to verify:
- What's the context behind such statements
- How credible was the source of that statement
- Is the statement contradicted somewhere
- Does it match the standard of our definition for it that's defined in the generally agreed upon rules of our logical framework (debate)
You could say that the debate of whetever omnipotence is valid or not is engaging since it drastically affects the outcome of this battle.
I definitely consider the notion of whether omnipotence is valid or not as an argument in a debate engaging, but the problem is that this kinda derails from this thread purpose and we end up having a debate about some much more general notion, instead of talking about the characters themselves.
Well, the 'Embodying all of existence' description is very similar to Spinoza's idea of omnipotence (God) which might be what some use as a blueprint for their own idea of omnipotence so I thought it was worth to mention.
This might be a pantheistic notion of god. Maybe it is a correlative property of omnipotence.
Though I do actually think it should necessarily follow that an entity shouldbe able to do anythingif heembodies everything. Think about it like this - if it embodieseverythingthen it should also embody every imaginable property you can think of in maximum possible quantity and quality
''Every imaginable'' property would also include things like finitude which is contradictory to omnipotence if you emphazize on properties that are consistent in themselfes rather than inconsistent to other external properties. It also depends on how existence is defined.
Supposing there is somethinghe can't dowould mean there is a property you can think of with which youcan'tdescribe him, contradicting the original premise.
Omnipotence implies the abscence of many properties, like for example limiation and finitude so there are properties with which you cannot describe him with.
Disclamer: By "Being able to do anything" I assume you were naturally "limiting" this to non-self contradiction, which is what I was presupposing in the previous paragraphs (since talking about such things is the same as talking about nothing at all, that is -pointless, and I assume you probably agree with me).
Yep, I agree.
Well, first of all, I am assuming this is a question in regard to thesystem of a debate, ie some sort of meta-model that follows the rules of classical logic to determine the winner by evaluating showings from respective works of fiction and isoutside of every singular instance of some fictional work.
That depends on how exactly you define universal (Since your comment suggests that there is an external standard that applies to all fiction). If you mean universal as in establishing a specific ability as true, then I think the standard should be the same across all fiction. If you refer to multiple distinct abilities although, then of course there should be different mythodologies.
I had to mention this, since if we talking about what isenough evidencefrom inside each of authors works, then you would have to accept everything those respective authors dictate is the truth inside their work even though it might break logic entirely.
''Is enogh evidence inside the authors work'' as in them defining the standard of evidence, right? This would suggest that the standard is entirely subjective so I would say that this proposal is rather radical as it would cause absurdities you mentioned (Like breaking the laws of logic).
However, the difference is that you can construct an acceptable andconsistentmodel for the debating framework where you can talk about infinity frominsidethat model in anexactmanner and this goes for the notion of infinity in any branch of mathematics of your choosing (whether it's the infinity from calculus in theextended real number linewhere you treat +∞ and -∞ as actual numbers, orinductive setsthat have infinitely many elements in them in some set theoretic axiomatic system that can be defaulted as your system of choosing for the debate), which is impossible to reproduce for the notionomnipotence.
This relates to an internal standard to establish such terms as true so there is no problem there. Also, the semantics in your post may lead to the resolution of said issue to get to a mutually shared conclusion: You said ''exact'' manner. What would exact mean for you? Is it a relative or a very concrete notion? I think of exact in the sense that it has to be ''exact enough'' which is to say that a property needs to have sufficient clearity and consequences.
This is because of two reasons - first is that for any model of debate you construct you would have to talk abouteverythingin that model to describe an omnipotent entity and this is simply impossible without running into some sort of a paradox
This is why we have practical language-You can simply utter a word, observe it and then associate it with elements that are in quantity not equal to the term itself. Going through any element in a model (I assume you are saying this because there are infinite elements tied to omnipotence you need to describe) is thus unnecesarry.
you aren't actually making statements about an entity from the framework of your choosing (ie, the debate in our example) but outside it, and so you can't actually use any tool available from that model (which are logical arguments in our case) to prove any statement you make about it as it simply wouldn't be applicable.
I would agree since making statements outside the notion of logical arguments is untennable.
The other problem ties into the first one where we limit themodelsto be specific works of fiction. In that case, thedebateabout those works of fiction would actually be a 'meta-model' as it would be possible to talk about the entirety of that fictional work, and so, we could actually make a statement about some character being omnipotent. Butagain, we run into a problem. What if the 'everything' inside that one fictional work isn't 'everything' from inside the other fictional work that is present in the debate ? Or even worse, if the battle location they are supposed to be fighting in is some completely neutral reality that those two fictional works are actually subsets of ?
I guess this is the argument of ''An omnipotent is not omipotent outside it's setting'' with a few extra steps. You mentioned a metal-model that was universal and in this case I have to ask: What if we make this meta-model so that ''everything'' means all works of fiction? I think this is a possibility you haven't gone through yet. ''What if the ''everything'' inside that one fictional work isn't ''everything'' from inside the other fiction work that is present in the debate'' Does that relate to the actual existing things within a fictional verse? Because in this case, I would say that it does not depend on the elements of a fictional verse, but what impact a specific element has. Omnipotence has the biggest impact on it all so the quantity doesn't matter. Rather, the quality does.
''If the battle location they are supposed to be fightin is in some completely neutral reality that those two fictional works are actually subsets of''. Then it would get into a debate of what neutral means I think. Would you say that it is neutral to take a beings omnipotence aways in order for the other opponents to have a chance? I think the problem of ''That thoise fictional works are actually subsets of'' is not that explicit but rather very implicit because I think the problem would be that this omnipotent would be contained by this model or enviroment. But it would then depend on whetever this model or enviroment emphazizes on a limiation of the omnipotent.
What's the context behind such statements
How credible was the source of that statement
Is the statement contradicted somewhere
Does it match the standard of our definition for it that's defined in the generally agreed upon rules of our logical framework (debate)
I agree with all of these things.
I definitely consider the notion of whether omnipotence is valid or not as an argument in a debate engaging, but the problem is that this kinda derails from this thread purpose and we end up having a debate about some much more general notion, instead of talking about the characters themselves.
Yeah that is a fair point.
Sorry for the late response and sorry for apologizing a lot. @not_exactly
This might be a pantheistic notion of god.
More or less, yeah.
''Every imaginable'' property would also include things like finitude which is contradictory to omnipotence
You are right, I didn't express myself well enough. I think this can be fixed by modifying my previous statement to always pick the property that's an superset or has higher (or more desirable) quality then the other one should we come to a situation of having two (or more) conflicting properties at hand.
It also depends on how existence is defined.
Uhh... you brought up one more very general topic of discussion into a thread that's already very much derailed from it's original topic. Though I will answer it - for the purposes of debate, I think we could define existence as everything from our domain of discourse, that is, all things you want to consider in a situation that has been shown (or implied) to be present (of course, ignoring contradictory notions).
Omnipotence implies the abscence of many properties, like for example limiation and finitude so there are properties with which you cannot describe him with.
Addressed this above.
That depends on how exactly you define universal (Since your comment suggests that there is an external standard that applies to all fiction).
Well yes, from my experience, we apply the standard of the general notions of measure and analysis theory to quantify feats and calculate characters stats as well as some mutually agreed upon mathematical bedrock which seems to be ZFC alongside classical logic which is used to evaluate characters from every fiction to determine a winner in a battle (and apply some additional rules that are stipulated by the forum we are debating on).
This is the reason we directly ignore illogical nonsense (like being "more powerful then an omnipotent", 4-sided triangles, etc...) as well as don't take into consideration mutually contradictory statements (like characters being called "pure nothingness" (or similar) but still physically existing and affecting other physical things) but just dismiss them.
The only problem I could think of with the standards are about specific character abilities which are very subjective and relative since they differ extremely from a fictional work to another. But, in our case, this isn't really a problem as we are discussing reality warpers operating on an infinite scale.
If you mean universal as in establishing a specific ability as true, then I think the standard should be the same across all fiction. If you refer to multiple distinct abilities although, then of course there should be different mythodologies.
Yes, agreed to both.
''Is enogh evidence inside the authors work'' as in them defining the standard of evidence, right? This would suggest that the standard is entirely subjective so I would say that this proposal is rather radical as it would cause absurdities you mentioned (Like breaking the laws of logic).
Well yeah, this is the problem when you allow authors to dictate how should battles play out in a neutral scenario that is outside their singular contained works of fiction. This is the reason I'm heavily against allowing specific authors to dictate how should their own cosmological structure or ideas about some philosophical concepts (which is an inherent arbitrary rule that every fiction is allowed to have) impact the macro of the debates (especially the "R>F" layers, those arguments are very annoying to deal with).
Of course, if we are purely inside that specific work of fiction and not talking about it (ie, we constrained our model's domain of discourse to be everything inside that fiction's cosmology) it's of course purely to the authors to determine how will they explain their cosmological structure, characters intrinsic properties and how will the battles play out in their own works. The more important part is how will we rationalize these instances when we are outside that model and inside a larger model, that is also a logical framework, that is, a debate about it.
Is it a relative or a very concrete notion?
The notions I've written about in the paragraph you replied to are extremely precise and concrete.
I think of exact in the sense that it has to be ''exact enough'' which is to say that a property needs to have sufficient clearity and consequences.
Yes, both notions I've brought up are perfectly clear and have very important consequences in their respective fields of math that produce many other important statements about well defined structures.
This is why we have practical language-You can simply utter a word, observe it and then associate it with elements that are in quantity not equal to the term itself. Going through any element in a model (I assume you are saying this because there are infinite elements tied to omnipotence you need to describe) is thus unnecesarry.
Excuse me, but I am not sure what you are trying to say here. To prevent further miscommunication here, let me just clarify my argument for this by a simple example - you can talk about every specific set by itself, but you can't talk about all of them at once. Just replace 'set' with 'thing' in our scenario to get the full picture.
This is because you can't define something as the collection of all things which exist, and then expect it to also exist without running into things like the paradox of it containing itself (similar to Russel's paradox, just in the context of this debate).
What if we make this meta-model so that ''everything'' means all works of fiction?
Well yes, this was the whole purpose of what I talked about above. If you define your model to be "all works of fiction" then you can't make any statement about "all works of fiction" from inside that model as you either run into a paradox or you don't have the necessary tools to prove any statement about it.
I think this is a possibility you haven't gone through yet
I did, but I actually thought one step ahead of that, and came into the conclusion we will run into a paradox if we try to talk about something (in our case, omnipotence) that we necessarily need to make a statement about everything in that model to be able to describe it.
Does that relate to the actual existing things within a fictional verse? Because in this case, I would say that it does not depend on the elements of a fictional verse, but what impact a specific element has.
I'm not sure I understand this part 100%, so could you please elaborate more on what you mean by this so we don't talk over each other.
Omnipotence has the biggest impact on it all so the quantity doesn't matter. Rather, the quality does.
Sure it does. You mentioned it yourself. An omnipotent being necessarily has to have infinitely many properties as well as have them in infinite quantities, since supposing it has anything in finite quantities would be a contradiction to it's limitlessness.
I do agree that quality matters though. But quantity is also a very important factor here.
the problem would be that this omnipotent would be contained by this model.
This is actually the most important part of our discussion. From this part I think that we both seem to agree that for an omnipotent to be correctly expressed in a work of fiction, the model itself (ie, the entire cosmological structure of that particular fiction) needs to be large enough to not be subsumed or be a subset of any other model.
However, for such a model to exist, we would (in a very few short steps) arrive back into discussing about the model of "all works of fiction" itself, which we can't make any statement about (as we are "from inside" of that model) and then back it up with proof (or run into a contradiction as I've said multiple times).
I guess this is the argument of ''An omnipotent is not omipotent outside it's setting'' with a few extra steps.
It kinda is, but it's specifically like that because of everything I mentioned above, ie - even assuming our model (domain of discourse) is "all works of fiction" we would need to make a statement about it to describe an omnipotent which would be impossible and that is why I purposely limited my statements about it.
To summarize, we seem to run into a problem of either:
- Our model being "too big" that prevents an omnipotent entity from consistently existing to be argued about
- Our model being too small to satisfy the notion of omnipotence being argued about here
Sorry for the late response and sorry for apologizing a lot. @not_exactly
Don't worry about it, take your time. I do enjoy having discussions about this with you, as it is one of the rare occurrences I'm having an engaging and productive talk on this forum with someone, so it's not a problem at all.
You are right, I didn't express myself well enough. I think this can be fixed by modifying my previous statement to always pick the property that's an superset or has higher (or more desirable) quality then the other one should we come to a situation of having two (or more) conflicting properties at hand.
That depends on whetever one property cancel each other out. If an omnipotent (For example) has shown to have limitations (Which is a lower quality) then I think that these limitations cancel the omnipotence of said character out. Though it depends on what certain degree you can prove a statement and it's negative aka contradiction.
Uhh... you brought up one more very general topic of discussion into a thread that's already very much derailed from it's original topic. Though I will answer it - for the purposes of debate, I think we could define existence as everything from our domain of discourse, that is, all things you want to consider in a situation that has been shown (or implied) to be present (of course, ignoring contradictory notions).
I think these debates will at some point always lead to metaphysical issuses. The only problem we could resolve this is if we would ignore that such problems do exist which can eleminate accurary.
Well yes, from my experience, we apply the standard of the general notions of measure and analysis theory to quantify feats and calculate characters stats as well as some mutually agreed upon mathematical bedrock which seems to be ZFC alongside classical logic which is used to evaluate characters from every fiction to determine a winner in a battle (and apply some additional rules that are stipulated by the forum we are debating on).
Agree.
This is the reason we directly ignore illogical nonsense (like being "more powerful then an omnipotent", 4-sided triangles, etc...) as well as don't take into consideration mutually contradictory statements (like characters being called "pure nothingness" (or similar) but still physically existing and affecting other physical things) but just dismiss them.
Agreed here.
The only problem I could think of with the standards are about specific character abilities which are very subjective and relative since they differ extremely from a fictional work to another. But, in our case, this isn't really a problem as we are discussing reality warpers operating on an infinite scale.
''Since they differ extremely from a fictional work to another'' Then I think it is important to assess the accuracy of a concept that is included within a specific fictional verse. Of course the usage varies, but not every usage is correct. And btw, why would ''Reality warpers operating on an infinite scale'' be any less subjective than it's opposite aka finite abilities?
Excuse me, but I am not sure what you are trying to say here. To prevent further miscommunication here, let me just clarify my argument for this by a simple example - youcantalk about everyspecific setby itself, but youcan'ttalk aboutall of themat once. Just replace 'set' with 'thing' in our scenario to get the full picture.
Why would you need to talk about every specific set (At the same time) to accurately define omnipotence? I guess this would make the assumption is that these elements are composite parts of an omnipotent that need to be accessed in order to define it (Which was also not properly elaborated on imo) and I say that this may not be necesarry as we can define properties of an omnipotent solely by conceiving of it's consequences (Accessing sets is the necesarry pre-condition for talking about these sets all at once so that is good enough I would say). Also, I would like to know what ''every'' would mean here since that also seems to be a key factor and what relevance this holds to omnipotence. Going by your prior comment, I think it means everything that is contained in a model and in this case, this model may have qualities that are itself distinct from omnipotence depending on how broad it is.
This is because you can't define something as thecollection of all things which exist, and then expect it to also exist without running into things like the paradox of it containing itself (similar to Russel's paradox, just in the context of this debate).
The problem is is that existence in this case qualifies a natural property. Instead of defining an omnipotent as the ''collection of all things which exists'' you could say that an omnipotent is the ''collection of all other external elements''.
Well yes, this was the whole purpose of what I talked about above. If you define your model to be "all works of fiction" then you can't make any statement about "all works of fiction" frominsidethat model as you either run into a paradox or you don't have the necessary tools to prove any statement about it.
Instead of saying that the omnipotent ''affects the set that contains all elements'' (I use omnipotence as an example as it is pragmatic and relevant to our discussion), couldn't you refine the statement to ''Omnipotence affects all the elements of the set that contains them'')? I agree with ''You would not have necesarry toold to prove any statement about it'' as it would be basically circular if I attempted to try to prove a model with something that is contained within the model.
I did, but I actually thought one step ahead of that, and came into the conclusion we will run into a paradox if we try to talk about something (in our case, omnipotence) that we necessarily need to make a statement about everything in that model to be able to describe it.
I think you only talked about a scenario where 1 (That was the quantifier) fictional verse would have a different notion or quantity that makes up their individual verse (Aka everything that is contained in each individual verse) and I said that we may be able to generalize the notion of ''everything'' and not distinguish them in each individual verse. But anyway, since you clearified it now, I think I elaborated on that in one of my previous paragraphs where you said that you cannot talk about every element at the same time.
I'm not sure I understand this part 100%, so could you please elaborate more on what you mean by this so we don't talk over each other.
What I mean by that is that one property that is very powerful (Like omnipotence) may overpower a set ofmultiple properties that are less powerful.
Sure it does. You mentioned it yourself. An omnipotent being necessarily has to have infinitely many properties as well as have them in infinite quantities, since supposing it has anything in finite quantities would be a contradiction to it'slimitlessness.
I think this relates to a topic we are currently discussing now but it is ultimately a distinct issue. Because in this example right here, I talked about an omnipotent being (Or some other property) overpowering other external properties while in the other example (That it would be a contradiction to state that an omnipotent has a limit), I rather refered to it's essential composite parts. I did not emphazize on the same things in these paragraphs.
This is actuallythe most importantpart of our discussion. From this part I think that we both seem to agree that for an omnipotent to be correctly expressed in a work of fiction, themodelitself (ie, the entire cosmological structure of that particular fiction) needs to be large enough to not be subsumed or be a subset of any other model.
I think a problem I have here is with the word ''cosmological'' as it assumes that an omnipotents power is contingent on size. I guess it depends on how you define ''large'' in relation to omnipotece which is kind of blurry as things like sets are very abstract.
''However, for such a model to exist, we would (in a very few short steps) arrive back into discussing about the model of "all works of fiction" itself, which we can't make any statement about (as we are "from inside" of that model) and then back it up with proof (or run into a contradiction as I've said multiple times).''
I evaluated on that in my previous paragraphs but I add this: Whetever we would run into said contradiction would depend on how broad the model is and what principles this model holds internally.
''It kinda is, but it's specifically like that because of everything I mentioned above, ie - even assuming our model (domain of discourse) is "all works of fiction" we would need to make a statement about it to describe an omnipotent which would be impossible and that is why I purposely limited my statements about it.''
I am interested into why you are thinking that you would need to make a statement about all works of fiction in order to describe an omnipotent: As you would have to argue that an omnipotent is more powerful than all of fiction for the idea of omnipotence to hold which leads to said paradox? (Just ask to be as concrete as possible and to be sure). I think this is what we have not talked about properly yet so this may help. I would personally say that it depends on whetever you say that ''All of fiction'' would mean the set that contains all fiction or simply every individual instance of fiction (Or element). My poins is is that there are lots of ways to think about such a notion and that it depends on formulation of said sets.
@not_exactly: NVM about umineko's cosmology friend. I went back to vsbw where I had seen some of the things I wanted to ask you about. And found all the diagram's were fan made and not scans from the manga or vn. I had thought it was a manga specific scan not in the vn. But it's not in it. It proved to be just the same as the scp cosmology thread I was using. But now I feel even safer in saying. I think umineko's multiverse is countable.
If an omnipotent (For example) has shown to have limitations (Which is a lower quality) then I think that these limitations cancel the omnipotence of said character out.
Yes, of course. This is the part of "looking at whether there is a contradiction to such claims" I mentioned in a previous post.
Though it depends on what certain degree you can prove a statement and it's negative aka contradiction.
Yes, this is the final problem you run to with statements like these (all encompassing notions like omnipotence, absolute infinity, etc...). If all the above criteria are checked out (source of statement is credible, there isn't a contradiction to it, model is large enough, etc...) you still run into a problem of not being able to completely prove it (as no amount of evidence is enough for such claims), which is why I think such notions should be dismissed in favor of presenting feats from both sides, analyzing their abilities or comparing the scope in which they operate, since otherwise, you would be forced to shift the burden of proof when making a claim that any character is omnipotent or that any cosmology contains everything.
I think these debates will at some point always lead to metaphysical issuses. The only problem we could resolve this is if we would ignore that such problems do exist which can eleminate accurary.
Well, I think that even if you try to resolve such problems, you still won't be perfectly accurate since you are dealing with metaphysics where you will have to resort to some logical fallacy in your argument, like shifting the burden of proof, or having unaccepted enthyrnemes with the person you are debating with (unless, of course, the other person is also using arguments involing metaphysics).
Then I think it is important to assess the accuracy of a concept that is included within a specific fictional verse. Of course the usage varies, but not every usage is correct.
Well this depends, if you are talking about metaphysics, it's quite possible that no usage is correct, for the purposes of the debate, due to metaphysics itself being differently understood under different branches of philosophy, so the usage of it in one fictional work can vastly differ from it's usage in another one, even if both of them accurately follow the description of metaphysics under a specific philosophical branch.
And btw, why would ''Reality warpers operating on an infinite scale'' be any less subjective than it's opposite aka finite abilities?
I should have expressed myself better here. By 'Reality warpers operating on an infinite scale' I was thinking about entities that completely encompass their cosmology with not many (if at all) feats to speak of (however, they do check out the above criteria of also having credible sources and not having contradictions, etc..). What I meant to say was less subjective, is the fact that both are infinite by the standards I mentioned above so this should be more of a question to compare the complexity and size of the scope they are operating on so we could determine the winner as we have no other choices left, unless we want to shift into the realm of metaphysics.
I guess the exception to this rule, would be Featherine since she isn't quite the same as others (by criteria mentioned above), but I was hoping for someone to argue for her as I've seen her pit against characters of similar power whose threads lasted for multiple pages (though it seems like this one won't be the case, as everyone seems to unanimously agree she won't stand a chance here).
Why would you need to talk about every specific set (At the same time) to accurately define omnipotence? I guess this would make the assumption is that these elements are composite parts of an omnipotent that need to be accessed in order to define it (Which was also not properly elaborated on imo) and I say that this may not be necesarry as we can define properties of an omnipotent solely by conceiving of it's consequences (Accessing sets is the necesarry pre-condition for talking about these sets all at once so that is good enough I would say). Also, I would like to know what ''every'' would mean here since that also seems to be a key factor and what relevance this holds to omnipotence. Going by your prior comment, I think it means everything that is contained in a model and in this case,
Okay, so by "every" I was talking about an example like this - "an omnipotent entity is capable of affecting everything inside our model" (with everything being defined by what I said in my previous post). This statement is true, as it is something an omnipotent entity can do, but it's impossible to prove it, due to not having tools necessary to do it.
this model may have qualities that are itself distinct from omnipotence depending on how broad it is.
I don't think this is the case. I am naturally assuming we are limiting our models purely to fiction as well as "constraining" it to logical statements, so, omnipotence should encompass all maximal qualities of it.
The problem is is that existence in this case qualifies a natural property. Instead of defining an omnipotent as the ''collection of all things which exists'' you could say that an omnipotent is the ''collection of all other external elements''.
I am not sure what this means.
Instead of saying that the omnipotent ''affects the set that contains all elements'' (I use omnipotence as an example as it is pragmatic and relevant to our discussion)
This is a slight strawman, as you actually went one step further then what I was saying when you wrote ''affects the set that contains all elements'', since now, not only do you affect all the elements of something, you are also affecting that something that contains "every element". It is important to draw the distinction between those two.
couldn't you refine the statement to ''Omnipotence affects all the elements of the set that contains them'')?
This is how I have been saying it in the first place, and this is where we run into a problem as you are making a statement about "all of the elements" of something while still being inside that something.
What I mean by that is that one property that is very powerful (Like omnipotence) may overpower a set ofmultiple properties that are less powerful.
Ah ok, I agree with this.
I think this relates to a topic we are currently discussing now but it is ultimately a distinct issue. Because in this example right here, I talked about an omnipotent being (Or some other property) overpowering other external properties while in the other example (That it would be a contradiction to state that an omnipotent has a limit), I rather refered to it's essential composite parts. I did not emphazize on the same things in these paragraphs.
I see, my mistake then.
I think a problem I have here is with the word ''cosmological'' as it assumes that an omnipotents power is contingent on size.
Well, when I talk about the largeness of the cosmology, I am usually referring to both it's complexity and size. I guess you could draw a correlation between complexity and quality, and also between size and quantity which is a notion general enough for our conversation.
Whetever we would run into said contradiction would depend on how broad the model is and what principles this model holds internally.
I have already elaborated on this, but I will explain it again - the thing is, you would always run into a contradiction should you try to talk about "everything" inside any model. You can resolve the issue, by going "outside" the model into a "larger" model, where you can talk about the smaller model itself, and everything inside it, but again, the problem in our scenario is that we have gone as "large as possible" for the purposes of the debate about fictional characters where our model's domain of discourse is "all of fiction".
I am interested into why you are thinking that you would need to make a statement about all works of fiction in order to describe an omnipotent: As you would have to argue that an omnipotent is more powerful than all of fiction for the idea of omnipotence to hold which leads to said paradox? (Just ask to be as concrete as possible and to be sure).
Yes. Beside that, I also gave more elaboration on that in my previous paragraphs.
'All of fiction'' would mean the set that contains all fiction or simply every individual instance of fiction (Or element).
Can you precise on what you mean when you say
- contains all fiction
- every individual instance of fiction
since both notions can have many meanings and it's quite possible our definitions of these two notions differ.
My poins is is that there are lots of ways to think about such a notion and that it depends on formulation of said sets.
Yes I agree, it would be good to resolve this part to help the conclusion of the rest of the debate.
And found all the diagram's were fan made and not scans from the manga or vn
LOL yes, you noticed. Also, if you take a look at some of the threads including her on other forums where people make claims of Umineko "having higher infinities" or "having uncountably many universes" or any other such exaggerated claim, you would very often see that the "proof" they present (if they even present any) are exactly those fan made charts and diagrams.
I had thought it was a manga specific scan not in the vn.
No, it doesn't exist in source material.
I think umineko's multiverse is countable.
Yeah, and even that is somewhat questionable (assuming you meant countably infinite).
It's amazing how many people that "debate" Umineko don't even know that the fan made charts aren't scans from the verse.
Goddess from the manifold
Claps all of umineko
With mere presence.....
She's from the manifold Trilogy
By Stephen Baxter look it up
I'm most certainly umineko is extremely fodder here....
@trulyabsolute0 said:
Goddess from the manifold
Claps all of umineko
With mere presence.....
She's from the manifold Trilogy
By Stephen Baxter look it up
I'm most certainly umineko is extremely fodder here....
How exactly? What makes Manifold so powerful?
@kh0rn3 said:
Manifold
What's with British and Japanese author being obsessed with having bigger D's
It's like legit like a D comparison between these authors
Do you realize how sus that sounds out of context?
Yeah lmao
Manifold
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment