Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-33246115-20180111151616/@comment-38665804-20190518104938

ANDROMADA wrote: AmIBread wrote:

Xenox Ilz&#039;ot wrote: -snip- Well I say that because it's said that Logical has boundaries like "can't be greater than Omnipotence" or "smarter than Omniscience", while Irrational's description says that it doesn't have this kind of limit Well then Idk why the power even exists then, unless that was just an oversight. The comments page on it seems to suggest that it's either equal to it or just not a power at all and just a property of omnipotence, and there was a debate whether it could win against metapotence and it seemed to have been concluded that metapotence would win, since the last post of the discussion was 2 years ago. Would you mind if I added my 2 cents? Maybe I could give some insight.

Indeterminacy does not innately define Omnipotence on its own. It only becomes “superior” if you try and compare the two. Even then, can you really make the paradoxical claim that something is greater than Omnipotence? I’ll leave that for you to decide.

Here’s my reason for the power; Indeterminacy represents the penultimate model breakdown in power/conceptual scaling. It is the inconclusive path that you are lead to should you try to pursue it.

Unlike Omnipotence, which is an ability that can be assigned to characters by an author, Indeterminacy is an author issue. It has nothing to do specifically with Omnipotence or Metapotence of the sort. It is simply what happens if the writer never assigns an upper bound limit to their totality. An Indeterminate being cannot be mentioned, talked about, argued about, or addressed in any way. As soon as you try to, you are no longer addressing the entity in question, rather a mere fabrication of them in your imagination. Irrationally Indeterminate characters cannot be added to a story as the author can only truly conceptualize and rationalize beings with addressable power like Omnipotence.

So technically speaking, Irrational Indeterminacy is beyond the possibility of use in comparison, because we would have to define it in some way. Therefore, Logical Indeterminacy is put in place to make it possible to conceptualize. If your next question is why Irrational Indeterminacy was written in the first place if it’s unusable because of its other nature, good job. You’re catching on.

''You are an aspiring god. You’ve imagined the biggest power. Imagine a bigger one. And then a bigger one after that. And repeat this loop endlessly until you eventually decide in axiomatic logic that there is a figure that represents all arguments of power. Then go beyond that infinitely. Maybe you will create a new scale or level to address the ineffable concepts along the way. But you will surpass them too. Somewhere at the impossible end, eternal damnation awaits. You’ve realized in your pursuit for Indeterminacy, you’ve never even started.''

So to some, this may be what Omnipotence is. Others might perceive it differently. Ultimately, it is up to the eye of the beholder to accept this something-power. I am aware that people have their own take on this, and I think that’s the beauty of it. At the end of the day, this thread is rather opinion-based. Well that's a very interesting idea. If people can have their own interpretation of this, then personally I'd say that it kind of sounds like the author's power themselves in their own mind. Since in your own mind, you're the one really in control. Even if you say a character is omnipotent, you can still create a character more powerful than them and negate all their powers. So it's like your imagination is "irrationally beyond" any power you could possibly imagine, even if you make Suggsverse-type characters. That's why I don't like having "true omnipotent" characters, because ultimately the "Creator" is me in my own head, and a character that's sufficiently aware of the fourth wall would know that and could somehow "surpass" any character I claim is omnipotent.