Talk:Metapotence/@comment-31686069-20170407015547/@comment-29564364-20171121150533

Oh, hey, I finally found this thread again! I could have sworn it was in Author Authority's comment section... Anyway. My poor performance in this discussion has been hunting me for ages, which is why my past self has returned as my present self to right my wrongs by offering a proper argument for my position and proper rebuttal to yours. I am aware that this is (somewhat) necroposting, so know that I will not further the discussion beyond this final reply.

@ANDROMADA «So then by your argument, Omnipotence Embodiment is the strongest power, not Author Authority. Since you just compared Author Authority to something you talk up as a higher power.» Back then, I considered Omnipotence Embodiment to be a higher power than Omnipotence and Author Authority's equal, but I now consider Author Authority even more powerful than Omnipotence Embodiment because the former offers a mechanism by which the power works that prevents any attempt of a fictional entity to transcend it by drawing a connection to reality ("[...] controlling [reality] like an author controls a work of fiction, with the same absolute power and overwhelming authority.") as opposed to the latter.

«So you are errantly making the assumption, without looking into the context of the powers themselves, that one is more powerful than the other just because it relates to a different power?» Yes, I was, and I now see how stupid that was of me.

«Absolute Omnipotents have two types: In-Universe and Transfictional. Outside of the author, he has no power. If someone were to have Metapotence in the author's world, they would be infinitely stronger than the mere human that is the author of an irrelevant story.» And in the context of Superpower Wiki, only the In-Universe type is relevant because it doesn't deal with reality.

«You cannot tell me that Metapotence doesn't exist in the real world if you cannot disprove it according to the Principle of Explosion. In other words, you cannot prove to me that there isn't a being greater than the author because it is impossible to disprove that concept.» You're right, but that does nothing to prove that there is one. Since it is an unfalsifiable claim, it's validity can be dismissed just as easily as it was asserted by virtue of Hitchen's Razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

«So you accept as an axiom that a certain point will define a number so great that nothing could get to it- an Inaccessible Cardinal. VSauce made a great video on this. Let's apply the same axiom to my argument now, shall we?» Sure, you can't count up to an inaccessible cardinal from below, but that does nothing to solve the problem because anyone could axiomatically declare a greater one to be.

«Then let's say there is a supreme being of the transfictional world.» This sentence, right here, is where your entire argument falls apart. Like I said above, reality is outside the Superpower Wiki's scope of validity, so a transfictional writer cannot be counted as a user of Author Authority as they don't even fit the power's capabilities in the first place. If anything, the situation you presented would be Metapotence vs Human Physiology, not Metapotence vs Author Authority.

«You are saying that I cannot use certain concepts and theories because we haven't proven them...» You can use them in a hypothetical situation as long as the setting is not a representation of reality because they are unfalsifiable, which by definition cannot be proven nor disproven in reality.

«but the entire argument about Omnipotence in the first place is unprovable.» Which is why it belongs in fiction and attempting to put it in a real setting, automatically invalidates the argument made.