Talk:Metapotence/@comment-31686069-20170407015547/@comment-29564364-20170407235556

"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? A different power in which the scale of which is stronger is still measured in infinities?"

I did extrapolate in my previous reply, but my browser crashed like it always does on mobile and I didn't have the time to rewrite the edit before you answered because I had to get back to class. And I never said anything about infinities.

"An author of a work of fiction is omnipotent in this work of fiction. He/she is not omnipotent outside of their own works."

Arguable. If you and your classmate have both written a story in a book, that makes both of you the author of two different works of fiction. Now what keeps you from taking his book and modifying his/her story to your heart's content?

"You cannot tell me that Metapotence doesn't exist in the real world if you cannot disprove it according to the Principle of Explosion."

I never claimed it doesn't exist, but we can assume it doesn't because we have no evidence for it, even if it does. I don't go around assuming everything exists just because it cannot be disproven. I assume things exist once they are proven to exist.

"If you want to think using Suggsverse theories [...]"

I never intended to because I don't even know what Suggsverse is.

"VSauce made a great video on this."

And I saw it, so the next paragraph was pretty much useless.

"Then let's say there is a supreme being of the transfictional world. For all we know, the transfictional realm (real life) could be fiction on its own. You cannot prove that it is not, can you? Which following this theory, there could be a countably infinite amount of upscaling omnipotents of transfictional authors one above the other. "

Thing is, we don't "say there is a supreme being of the transfictional world" because it hasn't been proven to be one. That's why I assume there isn't until proof of the contrary.